1226:
resolution to the ancient conflict between faith and sceptical reason, nor between teleological understandings of nature and modern science. Can one be a
Christian without faith and without a teleological understanding of nature? Can modern science still be modern science if it accepts faith, stops being sceptical and starts being teleological? I put it to you that Wikipedian editors would be over-stepping the mark if they would openly claim that these issues are resolved somewhere, but in effect that is what is happening with the Intelligent Design talkpage. --
1402:
You can look through the talk page history to see that editors with access to the pay-per-view editions of the best encyclopedias and dictionaries have posted. I live in a non
English speaking country and have no access to a good academic library. It would be interesting to compare what the premium editions of the EB and OED say about the term. BTW, I am wondering still about your last sentence. What is the position which you think I hold which you think no one else holds? That seems important to clear up!--
1796:
1343:, and presented not as a fine point but as a very important black and white thing. If you look at the talk page histories, defenders of the current approach do not deny that they make a big thing out of this "fine point". Currently, ID (simply) has an article which is (according to different explanations) either about the creationism or the strategy of the creationism; ID movement has its own article; and the ID argument,
848:
536:
309:
676:? And later waxed schoolmarmish myself with Cmguy, poor soul. He means well but doesn't research or write at an acceptable level. My forbears in upstate NY arrived from England during the Puritan migration. I was looking at the other side of the family for a book I dream of writing about the grandmother I so resemble. Of mixed English, Scottish, and Dutch ancestry, they arrived later.
2665:@Biscuittin:, please go to the section I opened on the article talk page and notice the question isn't about whether or not your sources are reliable, but if your text belongs in the article. Since we have various pages on the topic, I myself was thinking for a moment your text was pertinent, but it's not. Editor Dmcq politely and succinctly explained the matter on the talk page:
745:(and demanding that the bot gain consensus for its changes on the talkpage)? The bot lacks the AI to argue its argue its case on the talkpage, and in any case its changes appear to be along the lines of uncontroversial cleanup. I'm assuming you had the bot confused with someone else, but please consider easing up on the "undo" button a bit, and reading before reverting.
2036:
1114:
270:
options have failed. You have at least two options open right now, a content oriented noticeboard and an article RFC. I can help you file one if you like, but you may want to learn how to do it yourself. Keep it simple and brief, such as "Should
Charles R. Burton be described as an explorer in the lead section?" Follow the instructions at this link.
806:
1110:. I've been interested in the presidents since elementary school, when I read the whole set of presidential bios from Washington to Eisenhower in the school library. (JFK and then LBJ were in office but not in the series.) My degree is in history. I actually try to stay away from WP, but continually get drawn back by its siren song.
657:
contributing. Got in touch with a younger cousin who has become interested in his family history in NY, which includes 17th c. French
Huguenots, Dutch and Mohawk in the Mohawk Valley. Was glad to share some of my research and in the process got interested all over again in that area, and have come across new studies. Good working!
2176:
2441:
Yes, I see; thanks. To echo your "I'm not really dedicated to deleting," I'm not really dedicated about keeping. You and
Collect are right that it's unfair to Woodcock to characterize his whole life by one interview in his old age. Denis would like to add more about his career, and so would I, but we
1682:
was given the the editor in their welcome and is not a long or complex read. I find it improbable that WP is the only culture you know in which insulting others will cause problems. Neither I nor anyone else expects a newbie to "master" WP immediately (I haven't yet), but that is a straw man since no
1362:
The EB sources you mention are strong obviously, but they have long been mentioned on the talk page (not by me) as sources which are in CONFLICT with WP. Defenders of the current approach have admitted this, and so you should really consider this. EB says that ID refers to the historical teleological
1358:
Concerning the history of the movement, which is an interest of you and many editors who defend the current approach, a lot of what you say here and in the past is apparently based on personal experience, not published sources, and many of the sources you mention are low quality sources in one way or
1354:
You know, I am sure, that one of the most frequent concerns expressed over many years by many editors is this last point about deliberately de-emphasizing the link between the "teleological argument" and the term "intelligent design", Knowledge (XXG) editors are denying that the term can even be used
956:
I accept responsibility for causing confusion by not stating I came to realize inserting a photo to illustrate hair color was a bad idea. But I don't see that we came close to "repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of
Knowledge (XXG), any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal
2669:
Putting in those violates WP:WEIGHT. The rest of the article is based on scientific society statements and surveys not individual views. The article would have to be absolutely huge to include all individuals who have stated their views. We are able to cover the scientific controversy side better in
1763:
Everything you did is fully justifiable by policy, but in my view still comes down to biting newbies. (This is assuming Cali is a newbie.) My own experience as a newbie with unwelcoming veteran editors was enough to make me an advocate for helping them rather than pouncing on them. When they persist
1656:
It took me awhile to learn the rules of engagement here and I appreciated the editor who taught them to me, but resented the ones who were hateful to me. I figure other newbies may feel the same. If Cali turns out to be a bad apple, he's easily dealt with later. WP culture is distinct from any other
1401:
I must admit a mistake! The version of EB you posted is not the one I thought it was, but apparently a new online essay. Like most articles it insists ID is based on an old religious argument, but it does not call that argument ID, as do many sources. So it is not that interesting to our discussion.
1167:
article. Also, in many cases, it is clearly and specifically used to refer to both old and new forms of that argument, which (the sources themselves insist) are all pretty similar. (And note that we have no sources which say the term applies only to new versions.) So making any of these subjects the
1013:
I didn't say you did anything wrong, I hatted the entire section because there were problematic comments there - not necessarily yours. You're free to suggest the image for the reasons you describe, but if anyone takes it back down the path of unsourced race identifying, I'll sanction them based on
998:
Bottom line: I think I engaged in appropriate talk page discussion but you think I disregarded the well-being of Sen. Warren, her friends and family, and the very essence of
Knowledge (XXG). I think you have over-reacted but you think your draconian measures were the most appropriate reaction. So be
508:
I certainly appreciate your efforts here to convert the heathen, but you're swimming against the tide. For certain I have the Wiki editor as a YAWE—yet another wonky editor—that I'm not going to learn other than superficially. I'm impressed that you seem to know the nuances. In depth knowledge of
238:
I'm not against STEM at all. I think you misunderstood my point. It's not an either or situation. The arts and the humanities, including music, are all severely threatened in the US now, because certain people think they are no longer important. Perhaps you aren't aware of how dire the situation
180:
as human beings. Art historians have the unique ability to see what humanity shares in common across cultures in cooperation with each other, rather than the ability to focus on our differences and prepare us for war. That's why they are such a threat to the corporate power structure. The more art
81:
enemy, however, and have no desire to antagonize him or make his experience at WP or anywhere else unpleasant. He improved the opening sentence structure by joining two short sentences and inserting the words "best known for," so I was happy to let that stand. I just wasn't willing to let him remove
53:
are problematic, but he seems to think you are following him around to annoy him. Now, it's possible he doesn't have as many good interactions with you that Dave and I do, so maybe he doesn't know how wonderful you are. :) But if you see it from his POV, he probably feels like he is being stalked.
2564:
Nikkimaria, thank you so much for facilitating this privilege for me and doing the digital "paperwork" to help me get started. I regret to say I find myself overloaded in real life and am presently unable to use JSTOR to help the project. I hope that when things slow down (When???) I may be able to
2366:
Following up, I'd really prefer that you not speculate on what I think or what my motivations are. I know you don't mean it offensively, but it's a bit offputting and I'd like to ask that you think a little more carefully about such comments. If you want to know my opinion or reasoning just ask and
1436:
I don't really have time for a fruitless discussion. And there you have it--in your wall of words I got your point exactly backwards. I do understand why WP has to make those distinctions; right now at the U.S. Grant BLP there's been discussion about what belongs in that article and what belongs in
1209:
You mentioned how "fine points" can lead to many confusions. I agree, and the argument defending the demands that the article called "intelligent design" needs to be about something new and innovative are just such a case. An enormous number of silly discussions seem to hang on this obviously silly
1153:
Just in case you are interested, the following seems uncontroversial to me, and it always seems important in any complicated discussion to try to find points that are not controversial. Maybe it helps develop better understanding, so please do read it through if you have a second and let me know if
782:
Hi
Yopienso, I found much merit in the point you made about over-use of primary sources in the Inhofe article: Inhofe's record of his 2003 speech differs from the Congressional Record. Have been in the process of bringing it into line with academic sources, arguably putting in too much detail while
428:
2. Click on the radio button to the left of that line, and then on the bar at the top that says, "Compare selected revisions." That opens up what are called "diffs." Now, there's probably a better way to do this, but the only way I know is that once you're on the diff page, you click the hyperlink,
2392:
I felt it best to give background to the episode. Nonetheless, I've made you feel uncomfortable, and for that I apologize. Earlier, you'd told me, "I'm probably not going to nominate it myself but my guess is that the article would stand maybe a 50/50 chance of surviving AFD." It seemed to me you
1213:
As a closing paragraph, I just write to you as one person interested in the history of ideas, writing to another. The talk page makes it clear that many or most editors insisting on these confusing fine points want to separate intelligent design creationism so strongly from its ancestry because of
1195:
uncontroversially innovative in "intelligent design creationism" is that it uses a new STRATEGY of presenting the old intelligent design argument as consistent with the normal practice of modern experimental science. Several editors have repeatedly, and apparently quite thoughtfully, insisted that
208:
STEM at all, just sorry the social sciences are being excluded from the government's thrust of a more highly-educated populace. I disapprove of the unequal opportunities for students today and the unfairly low remuneration for educators, but we do need the STEM courses. It's interesting to me that
1751:
What I said on his talk page was, "Even though I think if VQuakr had approached you more diplomatically you may have responded better, you are nonetheless responsible for your own behavior." The last phrase is the main point of the sentence. Nonetheless, I stand by the first part. Please notice I
1359:
another, for example primary sources from inside the movement itself, or user-edited websites. I have stuck to discussing top quality sources, including all the ones already being used in the article. So when you talk about what "can't be incorporated into the WP article" please keep that in mind.
1225:
These connect to very big subjects, discussed in many good sources. These are subjects an encyclopedia should cover. And what we can see in those sources is that, like it or not, there is a link between respectable old philosophers and creationism, and like it or not, there is no clear and simple
269:
I realize you are learning, and that's good, but the dispute resolution process requires one to attempt to generate consensus in an RFC or content-oriented noticeboard before escalating things to ANI. That's why I recommended the RFC on the talk page. ANI is generally where you go when all other
2411:
What actually happened is that I thought about the article a bit, and in the end felt that this poor old guy shouldn't have his cockamamie remarks be the first thing someone saw when they did a search on his name. It doesn't seem fair that someone who has had a solid if (AFAICT) not particularly
994:
So here you are over-reacting again! Can't we talk like two adults? Can't we simply share our dissimilar perspectives on the incident without you making a mountain out of a molehill and huffing that if I disagree with you I should open a case about it? I'm neither litigious nor a black-and-white
656:
Hi, Happy New Year! Thanks for your comments; I couldn't believe an editor decided to spend all that effort to tell me small errors rather than just making the changes. I too have made many
Wikignome improvements to many, many articles. Well, have returned to focus on the rewards of learning and
1374:
is NOT new, but old. The only sources who disagree are the
Discovery Institute themselves and, frighteningly, Knowledge (XXG) editors. This is clearly not a concern I introduced to the Intelligent Design talk page either, as it has been discussed for many years without me being aware of it. Try
1704:
WP is very inconsistent about handling insulting comments; I've watched many cases in which foul-mouthed or snarky editors are supported. Many editors are routinely rude and never are reprimanded for it, but often praised. The only place I saw Cali curse was in the edit summary. Yet you have
1722:
No worries; I wasn't trying to nitpick just making sure I was not missing a discussion of which I should have been aware. Wiki is indeed inconsistent in enforcing its policy on civility. That is not a valid reason to race to the lowest common denominator. Escalating warnings in response to
465:
I appreciate your efforts to lead me though this process, but it's way too convoluted for me to retain. I cannot see what was there, & what evidently I undid/deleted. You have my permission to revert. If I have to figure out what to revert, it's likely to take a looooooong time.
216:
In the social science courses, it seems to me students are not so much opened up and taught to think critically, but indoctrinated into liberalism. The "liberalism" to which I refer is a defined, boxed-in, leftist political opinion, not the freedom and fruit of unfettered, wide-ranging,
1441:
No, I haven't talked much at all about my own experience. Primary sources from the movement are good for what the proponents teach/believe. User-edited websites aren't great sources, and I don't think we should use NCSE because they are anti-ID activists. They have a lot of good stuff,
761:
I saw when I made a hasty edit before rushing off to work, but I see I was mistaken. Maybe I had an old window open? I really don't know, but then I arrived at work without a folder I needed, too, and now find it here on my desk at home. One of those mornings. Sorry to cause confusion.
1171:
According to you, it is already clear that the article is about the intelligent design creationism of the intelligent design movement. If so then there is a problem in the innovative way in which Knowledge (XXG) treats "intelligent design" as having had a recent "virgin birth" which
2565:
request JSTOR access again without prejudice, making sure I will have the time to make good use of it before applying. My apologies for wasting your time; please pass the account along to an applicant who can use it more productively than I can for the next several (many?) months.
1204:
one of the things referred to as "intelligent design". Again this is not a fine point, and it is not confusing. Reliable sources go out of their way to insist that for the most part Intelligent Design creationism is not new. Only Knowledge (XXG) and the creationists argue against
203:
This is ironic--you're the S in STEM, right? I'm the history in social sciences. (Art history is a field I've dabbled in and appreciate but am no expert in. I'm no expert historian, either, but history is my field.) Yet you seem more adamant against STEM than I. Actually, I'm not
2393:
decided to nominate the BLP for deletion because I templated WMC for edit-warring (probably an ill-advised move, even though he was), but I didn't speculate on that at the AfD. I'd be willing to hear what your motivation for opening the AfD was if you care to share it.
897:. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
1179:
Looking at the sources, Knowledge (XXG) currently actually follows those creationists, who occasionally pretend that they developed the term and concept of "intelligent design" in the late 20th century, and Knowledge (XXG) disagrees with all the other sources, who
1640:
The newbie in question was greeted with a welcome, and got slowly escalating feedback (and a block) regarding their behavior. The fact that they are at lvl 4 warnings is their fault, not mine; they have had ample opportunity to incorporate feedback at this point.
2445:
I'm an inclusionist, though, and I want WP to answer all my 1,000,001 questions: if I see somebody/something in the news, I want to find out more in WP. This isn't a newspaper, I know, but the only articles I generally support deleting are false or promotional.
1657:
I know, and I don't believe it's fair to expect a newbie to master all the rules and customs immediately. I wish no one were allowed to edit before passing a quiz on a basic tutorial, but Jimbo doesn't want to put any limits on the encyclopedia anyone can edit.
181:
historians we have, the more peaceful our culture becomes, and the less demand for war and destruction. I was just talking about this with someone who graduated from Stanford after WWII on the G.I. Bill. Back then, they went to university to become informed
243:, for example). But to demean them as unimportant and unnecessary as Obama and others continue to do? I'm sorry, but I can't go along with it. The arts and humanities represent the highest pinnacles of human culture and the best of what we have to offer.
1511:
Actually I do not think there is any debate relevant to anything I am saying concerning what the movement says about itself, and concerning the fact that secondary sources say they are religious, despite what they claim. Not sure why you keep focusing on
1259:. The principal was also a Bible-believing minister. He never mentioned ancient philosophers or teleology. No, he saw ID as a way our school could confirm the Genesis story of Creation while still believing we were teaching our students real science.
1158:
Intelligent design is a term that can refer to the "intelligent design creationism" of the "intelligent design movement", but even in published articles purely about this movement it is also consistently used as a term for the intelligent design
1199:
There is no source at all for the term "intelligent design" referring to such a strategy of deception, nor to anything new and innovative. Note: I am not denying that the intelligent design movement is innovative, only that their innovation is
1523:
at least have numerous sources showing the term often being used to refer to past and present versions of the teleological argument. (We also have sources from before the movement existed, using the term that way.) So we just should not hide
82:"explorer" in the face of RSs that used that word. Seemed to me he was discrediting Burton and harming rather than building the encyclopedia. I generally make a point of not engaging with him since that prevents disputes; this one time I did.
439:
OK, another point: whenever you add a comment to a talk page or edit an article page, you should leave what's called an "edit summary" so changes are easier to track. It's a white blank at the bottom of the page you are editing. There are
863:
2142:
In response to the question you recently posed in your edit summary: in all likelihood, someone delinked "Mentasta" because it points to a disambiguation page, without realizing or caring that the proper link in this case would be to
1459:, "Increased philosophical and scientific sophistication, however, is not alone in separating my approach to design from Paley's. Paley's approach was closely linked to his prior religious and metaphysical commitments. Mine is not."
1467:
If you can't see the relevance of my links to your arguments, we're both wasting our time. They clearly show the generally-understood present-day meaning of "intelligent design" is that formulated by Johnson, Behe, Dembski, et al.
2084:. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the
1854:
Well, thank you, I guess--I appreciate the thought. Sadly, that most recent newbie turned out to be a sockpuppet. But it's still better, by my lights, to assume the best and be kind; bad traits reveal themselves soon enough.
171:
Yes, considering it's part of the overarching STEM vs. social sciences debate which favors the subversion of the educational system as a fabrication plant for constructing collectivist, conformist worker bees who obey and
373:
Unclear what "check the history" means. I clicked on "view history" at top of page & found a list of edits, but couldn't grok what was being done/undone. How about a before & after to help me see what happened.
861:
to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is
2407:
OK, thanks for the explanation. I can see how you would get that impression. My comments at WMC's talk were meant in the sense of "OK, let's stop the arguing and put this up for discussion so we can decide once and for
1832:
801:
Hi! I've been very busy at work. You may have noticed my flurry of activity was over the Christmas-New Year's break. I realize I've left some issues and edits hanging but really shouldn't take the time to engage.
2601:. 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
2095:
As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please
1363:
argument! Please do read that, and consider how stunningly different the approach is on Knowledge (XXG). I understand looking at past discussions that most encyclopedias and dictionaries take the same approach.
2423:
there will be very few editors watching out for mischief on those articles. Woodcock's remarks serve "our side" in the sense of "look what crazy bullshit those deniers are spouting." But it just doesn't seem
1450:
The WP article presently mentions Aquinas and has multiple links to teleology; the very hatnote sends interested readers there. EB does not! It goes back only to Paley. You must not have read what I linked
213:
much formal education. Most people, though, aren't geniuses and have to earn credentials in order to secure employment. Obama did make a point of apologizing and explaining that he appreciates art history.
409:
I see that, but I do not see whatever it was I'm alleged to have deleted. If I did delete something it was not deliberately. Since I cannot see what I deleted, you have my permission to put it back.
1543:
any new version of the teleological argument, but their politics and strategies. No normal reader is going to get be able to track all this down from our way of presenting it, and that is deliberate.
2388:
think carefully, not posting my comment until after another editor digressed into motivations. Also, I didn't speculate, but linked to your own comment, saying it "appears to show his motivation."
2494:
Hi, Yopienso, good to know you're working there. Not sure if I can get embroiled there again but appreciate the notice. Will have to see after house guests and some other time eaters. Enjoy fall!
919:
Dreadstar, you're over-reacting. You should assume good faith and explain your stance in a collegial manner. You're acting as if I had willfully added a photo into the article against consensus.
1221:
The other is that they do not want the idea running around that there might be difficulties still between modern science and Christianity as a whole (as opposed to a small group of extremists).
1581:
858:
824:
Hi Yopienso, no problem, hope the work goes well. I've taken a break from it myself, have found some more sources and will return to it when it suits me. All the best with the gnomery, .
787:. Reinstating broken links, original research and all. What do you think? Will probably take it to the talk page and consider a condensed version, but would appreciate your thoughts. . .
953:
the addition of a photo. User Aladdin Sane spent time making very helpful comments, and you came charging through like a bull in a china shop hatting everything and threatening to block.
2070:. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page,
1531:, emphasizing the newness of the movement, and therefore following the movement's own propaganda rather than emphasizing what the secondary sources say, which is that they use an
1366:
Anyway I think your citation of sources has no clear point relevant to what I said. I already agree with you that the IDC of the IDM is innovative and new in some ways. But what
2334:
121:. I manage to stay away for awhile but seem to have a homing instinct for it. Right now I'm examining Russia from 1917-22, not necessarily, but also, at WP. Reading a couple of
2071:
2549:
if you did not receive it? Note that, because there are more applicants than available accounts, not responding could result in your slot being passed to a waiting editor.
1527:
You mention that the links to the teleological argument article are not all perfectly hidden, but the talkpage discussions do not hide at all that they are deliberately
1446:
ID is highly controversial; people can't agree if it's religious or not, if it's creationism or not, if it's old or new. So WP has to go with what the best sources say.
1080:
Thanks for adding your voice to the discussions on the U.S. Grant talk page. It's been nice to work with someone who keeps a cool head and brings a fresh perspective. --
2523:
Thanks so much for the barnstar, your compliments, and your guidance on Harvard commas. I am now doing the "comma audit" I promised the GA reviewer I would do earlier!
1103:
1107:
995:
dualist. Believing you are over-reacting doesn't oblige me to run tattle on you. It doesn't mean one of us is completely wrong and the other completely right, either.
1870:
Wise, thank you. It doesn't hurt to be nice to new people and assume the best. I nominated a sad fact for DYK which appears right now, but love the collaboration on
1339:
It is not me at all that is making a fine distinction between "ID creationism, ID movement, ID argument, and ID strategy". The fine distinction you criticize is now
402:
It will be easy to spot because the (-587) will be in red. That shows you deleted 587 characters. When you add something, the number of characters added is in green.
1030:
OK, thanks for that. I think we're probably at a good closure here unless you want me to elaborate on the what the problem is/was. It's probably best to move on.
1288:
1519:
common or correct is difficult or impossible. It is quite a difficult case because the movement itself is accused of trying to hide its real origins. But we
2263:
2218:
1909:
2089:
189:
become educated to become better consumers or to learn to sell products that people didn't need or want. The entire system has been turned on its head.
239:
is now. Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics should be integrated into the arts and humanities curriculum, of that I have no qualms (see
2641:
2085:
1241:
Well, to me, distinguishing among ID creationism, ID movement, ID argument, and ID strategy is overly fine. It's too complex for me to think about.
2432:
2372:
2342:
1620:
Good point! I think he used Zuck as an example instead. How is the weather up there? I heard there was some issue with flies. ;) Happy Easter!
1014:
the blp notification. I do not believe you did anything wrong and you have not been sanctioned in any way, so I'm not sure what the problem is.
2081:
217:
deeply-probing thought. I think the "informed citizens" of yesteryear were likewise indoctrinated into conservatism. Have you read Allan Bloom's
317:
Message added 10:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can
1188:
religious and philosophical idea. This is not a "fine point" and it is not confusing. The fine points come from attempts to wiggle out of this.
1191:
Knowledge (XXG) is very innovative in strongly emphasizing the newness of "intelligent design creationism", but what is so new about it? What
878:
2259:
2214:
1905:
1546:
Common Parlance is specifically not the standard we need to follow in cases like this, according to Knowledge (XXG) policy on article titles.
429:"Previous revision." Highlighted in a cream color on the left is what I wrote; on the right is the blank that shows you deleted that portion.
2626:
715:
710:
1316:
AFAIK, you are the only person who holds your particular views, which is fine. They just can't be incorporated into the WP article on ID.
395:
06:44, 23 February 2014 DEddy (talk | contribs) . . (64,006 bytes) (-587) . . (Schrecker published before Haunted Wood) (undo | thank)
1744:
I do think escalating warnings by pasting in templates with no attempt to explain or help is inhospitable. Not uncivil, but unwelcoming.
719:
2059:
490:
Please do click on the link above to learn how to make edit summaries. Doing so is all part of the process of being a good Wikipedian.
2428:
2415:
This is partly influenced by my broader opinion that Knowledge (XXG) has way too many BLPs on marginally notable people. Unlike, say,
2368:
2338:
1483:
I'm glad to see you checked out the EB articles. They're entirely pertinent to our discussion--they call the Discovery Institute's ID
1370:
was the "argument" they use, which basically all sources call "intelligent design". All better sources emphasize, over and over, that
73:
The friendly overture I made by private email to him several years ago was rebuffed. Later, he sent me an email accusing me of malice
1249:
702:
587:
185:
who would eventually contribute to the betterment of society by improving their knowledge and understanding of the world. They did
886:
2464:, who didn't have a BLP until his controversial assertion in his old age that there must be an intelligence behind the universe.
2321:
2128:
2067:
2622:
2164:
2148:
1601:
Thanks; nice to hear from you! Jack Ma's comment is interesting. Funny the article doesn't mention Bill Gates' and Steve Jobs'
1515:
I still think you misunderstand me. Actually, I think that arguing about which meaning of the term "intelligent design" is the
869:
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means
1805:
Thank you, editor with the "annoying habit of thinking" in English and Spanish, for quality contributions to articles such as
957:
editorial process." Au contraire; the other editors helped me figure out how to better adhere to the normal editorial process.
2256:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.
2211:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.
2175:
Thanks. After living in the Copper River Valley for 22 years, I never knew Mentasta was really Mentasta Lake. But! There's a
1902:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.
1487:
ID. That's the position I think you hold that I referred to in that last line--you won't agree that "ID" in common parlance
810:
Will try to go by there and take a look. Right now I'm just going to do some gnomish work on articles I'm using in Spanish.
77:, where there was none. I would gladly "make nice with him" but he prefers to consider me his enemy. I do not consider him
999:
it. It's good to realize that what one does in the best of faith can seem grossly off-base to someone else. Best wishes,
882:
2546:
2613:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
894:
2618:
2509:
Oh, I'm not really. Just trying to salvage it from the worst errors. Thanks for your pat. I'm really busy, too. Best,
1306:
434:
3. If you keep clicking through "Next edit" you can see I had trouble restoring it; undoing also deleted your comment.
933:
This is a standard notice that implies no wrongdoing; I'm notifying all editors editing that article, not just you.
890:
2248:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
2203:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
1894:
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited
1556:
1407:
1384:
1347:, is basically a forbidden term on Knowledge (XXG)! That's not a fine point. It is covered under an article called
1231:
2024:
1996:
1947:
327:
1874:, of people who never interacted before but joined forces in improving, - Knowledge (XXG) dreams coming true, --
874:
224:
I don't really see where this would fit in the encyclopedia; what is the title of the article you have in mind?
2112:
2097:
1491:
Aquinas's teleology but this new idea the Discovery Institute propounds. That's what you really should accept.
126:
2545:
You should have received an email with a link to a Google form to complete - could you please either do so or
974:
I'm not going to continue arguing this, but I did not overreact. If you believe so, then take the matter to
591:
1879:
1843:
1825:, even in edit summaries, for welcoming with friendly advice and being an advocate of the "newbies", for "
1285:
32:
2614:
1300:
2144:
1552:
1403:
1380:
1348:
1227:
1164:
1099:, the only POTUS on whom I've done formal research. Likewise, I appreciate your smarts and collegiality.
706:
509:
this specific editor is just not on my todo list. Too many other equally wonky editors ahead of Wiki.
26:
1355:
to refer to the teleological argument when it is clearly the most common term for it in recent decades.
870:
578:
THANKS FOR THE R.S. OBITUARY OF F.D., CAN YOU POST THE LINKS FOR GEORGE AND HORACE PLEASE? 'J. PARSLOW'
899:
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
2649:
2554:
2020:
1992:
1943:
1723:
uncorrected bad behavior is not inhospitable. Blaming me for the Cali's troubles on Cali's talk page
1437:
daughter articles. Any broad subject has to be split up like that here so no one article is too long.
829:
792:
2590:
2581:
1724:
287:
Oh, thanks. I'll try it myself. Check the Burton page in a few minutes to see if I've got it right.
2499:
2158:
2104:
1976:
1708:"Master" was an overstatement--I meant "proficiently and compliantly engage in correct procedure."
1625:
1592:
1136:
1131:
Jefferson. Just looking at that talk page makes me want to take a long vacation from this place. --
1085:
1049:
1019:
983:
938:
907:
662:
277:
248:
240:
194:
158:
108:
63:
2610:
2594:
2687:
2570:
2514:
2469:
2451:
2398:
2357:
2301:
2294:
2249:
2188:
2010:
1962:
1860:
1810:
1769:
1713:
1665:
1610:
1496:
1473:
1431:
1321:
1248:
separate from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Thomas of Aquinas, etc. and the teleological argument.
1122:
1035:
1004:
965:
924:
815:
767:
757:
No, I didn't; thanks for the heads-up. (Although I wouldn't call it edit-warring.) I know what I
681:
641:
626:
606:
563:
495:
454:
292:
229:
134:
122:
100:
90:
17:
1795:
960:
Please think about this incident before over-reacting to a future one. Thanks, and best wishes,
355:
1456:
1255:
When I was first introduced to ID by the principal of the school I taught in, it was presented
2279:
2234:
2124:
1925:
1875:
1839:
873:
administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the
351:
2606:
2598:
2412:
distinguished academic career should be mostly known for talking tosh in a one-off interview.
176:
like robots, rather than as free, critically thinking individuals who question authority and
2528:
2313:
1895:
1806:
1732:
1688:
1646:
1218:
One is that they do not want readers connecting creationism to respectable old philosophers.
1096:
698:
546:
118:
54:
Any chance you can clear this up with him? I mean, I'm on your side, his edits are somewhat
2609:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
2602:
1675:
949:
I appreciate your kind reply. But look at what you did--you templated numerous editors for
2645:
2550:
1376:
1294:
825:
788:
514:
471:
415:
379:
1957:
Thanks. I've been avoiding the issue, but have just now chimed in on the mediation page.
1679:
975:
2080:
this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its
2495:
2152:
1972:
1621:
1588:
1132:
1081:
1045:
1015:
979:
934:
903:
658:
273:
244:
190:
154:
104:
59:
847:
621:
Probably the domain name registration expired, but the link wasn't originally spam...
535:
271:
2683:
2566:
2510:
2465:
2447:
2394:
2381:
Thanks for your civil tone and for AGF both here and at the AfD; greatly appreciated.
2353:
2270:
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
2225:
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
2204:
2184:
2006:
1958:
1916:
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these
1856:
1765:
1709:
1661:
1606:
1492:
1469:
1317:
1176:
it (not just distinguishes it) from the tradition of the intelligent design argument.
1118:
1031:
1000:
961:
920:
811:
763:
747:
677:
637:
622:
602:
559:
491:
485:
and you'll see that you deleted the shaded part on the left when you added a comment.
450:
288:
225:
130:
86:
85:
In any case, it's nice seeing you again, and I appreciate your continued cordiality.
2691:
2653:
2630:
2574:
2558:
2532:
2518:
2503:
2473:
2455:
2436:
2420:
2416:
2402:
2376:
2361:
2346:
2283:
2275:
2271:
2253:
2238:
2230:
2226:
2192:
2169:
2118:
2028:
2014:
2000:
1980:
1971:
Thanks, I wasn't sure if you wanted to get involved, but we're glad to have you. --
1966:
1951:
1929:
1921:
1917:
1883:
1871:
1864:
1847:
1773:
1736:
1717:
1692:
1669:
1650:
1629:
1614:
1596:
1560:
1500:
1477:
1411:
1388:
1325:
1235:
1140:
1126:
1089:
1055:
1039:
1025:
1008:
989:
969:
944:
928:
913:
832:
819:
795:
771:
751:
685:
666:
645:
630:
610:
595:
567:
550:
518:
499:
475:
458:
419:
383:
347:
337:
296:
281:
252:
233:
198:
162:
138:
112:
94:
67:
736:
2333:
There's probably a template for this but damned if I can find it. Anyway it's at
2062:
of the dispute concerning Ulysses S. Grant, in which you were listed as a party,
2524:
2461:
1939:
Pinging has been spotty for me, but I wanted you to know, I mentioned you here:
1899:
1728:
1684:
1642:
1256:
542:
153:
Any interest in writing about the Obama/Rubio et al. art historian controversy?
1551:
Anyway, I can see you don't want to think about it, and who could blame you? --
1535:
religious argument that is sometimes itself called Intelligent Design. What is
1764:
in misbehavior, as Cali has, I leave them to their fates. Best wishes to you,
510:
467:
411:
375:
117:
I haven't looked at him for ages. The article I keep trying to leave alone is
1168:
main subject of the article called "intelligent design" could be considered.
1275:
2208:
2180:
481:
As I said just above, I already restored what you accidentally reverted.
369:
Check the history. I'll gladly accept your apology should you tender one.
2329:
A page you started (Leslie V. Woodcock) has been nominated for deletion!
1747:
Although, for the sake of the project, I wish you were more hospitable,
2597:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)
2670:
Global warming controversy. Dmcq (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
1270:
2644:
but it doesn't seem to have come out. Would you care to try again?
1351:, which is a very uncommon term most readers will never search for.
1265:
1262:
Here are links to ID proponents' explanations of their "theory":
783:
showing Inhofe's views, an editor disagrees and has reverted my
672:
Happy New Year to you, too! Just call me Buttinsky. Did you see
168:
Do you think that's encyclopedic? 04:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
2183:
the place in question is Mentasta Lake, so have linked to it.
2088:. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal
1095:
You're welcome; I've been around the block with those guys at
441:
1741:
I hope you and I are working toward convergence of viewpoint.
558:
Thanks; coffee happens to be my favorite beverage/addiction.
392:
1. Click on "view history." Scan down the list till you see:
2460:
Also, Woodcock piques my curiosity because he reminds me of
307:
314:
Hello, Yopienso. Please check your email; you've got mail!
99:
I understand. BTW, are you still interested in working on
2289:
A page you started (Leslie V. Woodcock) has been reviewed!
1660:
See the AN/I for my opinion of how you're handling this.
2335:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Leslie V. Woodcock
1674:
I assume you meant the AN3; if there is a discussion at
1582:
Why America’s obsession with STEM education is dangerous
1044:
I agree and think we're fine, now get back to editing.
2659:
2252:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
2207:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
2076:
2072:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for mediation/Ulysses S. Grant
1940:
1898:, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page
1827:
1821:
1815:
1698:
784:
742:
732:
728:
724:
673:
482:
319:
209:
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs accomplished so much in STEM
74:
50:
46:
2304:
just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
2147:. This exact same thing happened with another page,
2352:This note works just fine. Thanks for posting it.
2589:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
2244:Disambiguation link notification for September 20
2199:Disambiguation link notification for September 3
885:. Administrators may impose sanctions such as
541:Thnx for the helping hand at the Gore effect
2676:YoPienso (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
1890:Disambiguation link notification for April 20
1282:This is what popular neutral references say:
8:
2642:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources/Noticeboard
2636:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources/Noticeboard
2005:I'd rather just leave that comment for now.
58:, but maybe you could make nice with him?
1252:didn't connect his ideas to theirs, AFAIK.
1184:that intelligent design creationism is an
2442:couldn't find anything. Which means . . .
1802:"Knowledge (XXG) editors are people, too"
857:The Arbitration Committee has authorised
1822:understanding and wording with precision
1587:As you know, I agree with this article.
1276:http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/
2640:I think you tried to make a comment at
2312:To reply, leave a comment on Samtar's
1828:Knowledge (XXG) editors are people, too
854:Please carefully read this information:
389:OK, we'll do this is a couple of steps.
2337:if you want to make your views known.
2019:Ahh well, we will keep the lights on.
1749:I don't blame you for Cali's behavior.
1705:consistently been inhospitable to him.
601:I haven't found them. Are you Serten?
103:? How is your Italian these days? :)
1678:that mentions me please post a link.
1336:Yopienso, I think you misunderstand.
1163:which Knowledge (XXG) handles in the
7:
2033:
1683:one has presented that expectation.
1111:
1106:, but the formatting's wrong on the
318:
1991:Thanks, may I add you as a party?
1196:the article is about a "strategy".
841:BLP Discretionary Sanctions notice
24:
2615:review the candidates' statements
1271:http://www.discovery.org/id/faqs/
125:books and indignant writers from
2427:And I did say "probably." ;-)
2034:
1794:
1573:There's an opinion piece in the
1112:
846:
804:
803:
584:Here or on CD Talk page please?
534:
219:The Closing of the American Mind
2149:List of Yukon Quest competitors
1266:http://www.discovery.org/a/1329
2621:. For the Election committee,
2591:Arbitration Committee election
2582:ArbCom elections are now open!
2519:15:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
2504:13:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
2474:01:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
2456:01:40, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
2437:01:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
2403:00:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
2377:00:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
2362:01:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
2347:01:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
2284:12:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
2052:Request for mediation accepted
221:? He would be a case in point.
1:
2692:19:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
2654:19:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
2631:13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
2575:05:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
2533:03:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
2429:Short Brigade Harvester Boris
2369:Short Brigade Harvester Boris
2367:I'll give a straight answer.
2339:Short Brigade Harvester Boris
2239:09:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
2103:For the Mediation Committee,
1056:05:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
1040:02:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
1026:14:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
1009:09:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
990:04:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
970:03:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
945:02:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
929:02:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
914:02:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
646:17:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
631:16:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
611:08:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
596:19:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
519:16:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
500:15:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
476:12:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
459:21:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
442:guidelines for edit summaries
420:03:22, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
384:20:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
356:10:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
297:21:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
282:20:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
253:05:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
234:04:38, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
199:02:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
163:00:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
139:17:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
113:08:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
95:06:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
68:03:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
2559:18:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
2060:request for formal mediation
1605:of formal higher education.
1577:you might find interesting:
833:13:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
820:05:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
796:20:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
785:work to the second paragraph
323:at any time by removing the
2617:and submit your choices on
2179:between Tok and Tanacross.
2090:Procedures of the Committee
1455:Wrt your 2nd bullet point,
772:02:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
752:17:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
686:22:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
667:22:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
2708:
2662:; here it is w/o mark-up:
2623:MediaWiki message delivery
1930:09:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
1884:06:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
1865:01:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
1848:07:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
1561:08:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
1501:09:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
1478:09:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
1412:09:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
1389:08:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
1326:03:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
1236:10:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
1141:19:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
1127:18:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
1090:12:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
875:purpose of Knowledge (XXG)
636:I see. Sorry for my goof.
302:
2193:22:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
2170:20:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
2131:the Mediation Committee.)
2086:Guide to formal mediation
1774:18:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
1737:17:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
1725:is not going to help Cali
1718:17:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
1693:16:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
1670:08:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
1651:06:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
1630:20:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
1615:14:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
1597:05:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
1214:two connected concerns.
449:Hope that helps. Cheers!
149:Art historian controversy
45:I admit that WMC's edits
2119:14:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
2100:if anything is unclear.
2029:22:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
2015:22:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
2001:21:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
1981:21:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
1967:20:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
1952:09:18, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
1375:looking up old posts of
568:20:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
551:21:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
527:A cup of coffee for you!
2300:Knowledge (XXG) editor
1701:, whatever it's called.
1286:Encyclopedia Britannica
859:discretionary sanctions
743:edit-warring with a bot
696:You do realize that on
127:St. Vladimir's Seminary
2310:
1756:, he just as well may
1569:STEM discussion update
1102:I added myself to the
312:
2595:Arbitration Committee
2306:
2145:Mentasta Lake, Alaska
2098:contact the Committee
1349:teleological argument
1165:teleological argument
1154:you spot any errors:
879:standards of behavior
692:Take it easy on Yobot
311:
174:do what they are told
41:Re: Charles R. Burton
2293:Thanks for creating
2272:opt-out instructions
2227:opt-out instructions
1918:opt-out instructions
887:editing restrictions
2599:arbitration process
2068:Mediation Committee
1575:The Washington Post
1539:in the movement is
1307:National Geographic
241:mathematics and art
2611:arbitration policy
2295:Leslie V. Woodcock
2262:• Join us at the
2250:Leslie V. Woodcock
2217:• Join us at the
2160:Talk to me, Billy
1908:• Join us at the
1833:awesome Wikipedian
1811:Intelligent design
1341:in Knowledge (XXG)
1149:Intelligent Design
1104:Presidents project
778:References unfixed
617:Cornerstone Speech
320:remove this notice
313:
123:Sheila Fitzpatrick
101:Tommaso Campanella
18:User talk:Yopienso
2325:
2320:Learn more about
2267:
2222:
2132:
2064:has been accepted
1913:
1435:
1054:
1024:
988:
943:
912:
674:I pinged you here
556:
555:
364:Hiss history edit
2699:
2490:Thomas Jefferson
2319:
2257:
2212:
2167:
2161:
2155:
2122:
2115:
2109:
2079:
2039:
2038:
2037:
1903:
1896:Ulysses S. Grant
1830:
1824:
1818:
1807:Thomas Jefferson
1798:
1553:Andrew Lancaster
1429:
1404:Andrew Lancaster
1381:Andrew Lancaster
1228:Andrew Lancaster
1117:
1116:
1115:
1097:Thomas Jefferson
1052:
1048:
1022:
1018:
986:
982:
941:
937:
910:
906:
850:
809:
808:
807:
740:
722:
699:Elizabeth Warren
538:
531:
530:
483:Click right here
344:
342:
336:
332:
326:
322:
310:
303:You've got mail!
178:do what is right
119:Thomas Jefferson
2707:
2706:
2702:
2701:
2700:
2698:
2697:
2696:
2638:
2619:the voting page
2585:
2543:
2492:
2331:
2308:Looking good :)
2291:
2264:DPL WikiProject
2246:
2219:DPL WikiProject
2201:
2165:
2159:
2153:
2140:
2135:
2134:
2113:
2105:
2093:
2075:
2054:
2035:
2021:Alanscottwalker
1993:Alanscottwalker
1944:Alanscottwalker
1937:
1910:DPL WikiProject
1892:
1852:
1851:
1831:" - you are an
1826:
1820:
1814:
1799:
1790:
1638:
1571:
1377:User:Atethnekos
1295:How Stuff Works
1250:Phillip Johnson
1151:
1113:
1108:list of members
1078:
1050:
1020:
984:
939:
908:
901:
900:
851:
843:
805:
780:
713:
697:
694:
654:
619:
575:
529:
366:
345:
340:
334:
330:
328:You've got mail
324:
316:
308:
305:
267:
151:
43:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2705:
2703:
2695:
2694:
2681:
2680:
2679:
2674:
2673:
2672:
2637:
2634:
2588:
2584:
2579:
2578:
2577:
2542:
2539:
2538:
2537:
2536:
2535:
2491:
2488:
2487:
2486:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2477:
2476:
2443:
2425:
2413:
2409:
2382:
2330:
2327:
2290:
2287:
2245:
2242:
2200:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2166:Transmissions
2139:
2136:
2123:(Delivered by
2121:
2107:TransporterMan
2057:
2056:
2055:
2053:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2040:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1936:
1933:
1891:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1804:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1789:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1761:
1745:
1742:
1706:
1702:
1658:
1637:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1585:
1584:
1570:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1544:
1525:
1513:
1504:
1503:
1464:
1452:
1447:
1443:
1438:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1392:
1391:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1329:
1328:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1304:
1298:
1292:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1273:
1268:
1260:
1253:
1242:
1223:
1222:
1219:
1207:
1206:
1197:
1189:
1177:
1169:
1150:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1100:
1077:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
996:
958:
954:
881:, or relevant
852:
845:
844:
842:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
779:
776:
775:
774:
693:
690:
689:
688:
653:
652:Happy New Year
650:
649:
648:
618:
615:
614:
613:
574:
571:
554:
553:
539:
528:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
503:
502:
487:
486:
464:
462:
461:
446:
445:
436:
435:
431:
430:
425:
424:
423:
422:
404:
403:
399:
398:
397:
396:
390:
365:
362:
360:
315:
306:
304:
301:
300:
299:
266:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
255:
222:
214:
150:
147:
146:
145:
144:
143:
142:
141:
83:
42:
39:
37:
29:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2704:
2693:
2689:
2685:
2682:
2678:
2675:
2671:
2667:
2666:
2664:
2663:
2661:
2658:
2657:
2656:
2655:
2651:
2647:
2643:
2635:
2633:
2632:
2628:
2624:
2620:
2616:
2612:
2608:
2604:
2600:
2596:
2592:
2583:
2580:
2576:
2572:
2568:
2563:
2562:
2561:
2560:
2556:
2552:
2548:
2540:
2534:
2530:
2526:
2522:
2521:
2520:
2516:
2512:
2508:
2507:
2506:
2505:
2501:
2497:
2489:
2475:
2471:
2467:
2463:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2453:
2449:
2444:
2440:
2439:
2438:
2434:
2430:
2426:
2422:
2418:
2414:
2410:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2400:
2396:
2391:
2387:
2383:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2374:
2370:
2365:
2364:
2363:
2359:
2355:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2348:
2344:
2340:
2336:
2328:
2326:
2323:
2322:page curation
2317:
2315:
2309:
2305:
2303:
2298:
2297:, Yopienso!
2296:
2288:
2286:
2285:
2281:
2277:
2273:
2268:
2265:
2261:
2255:
2251:
2243:
2241:
2240:
2236:
2232:
2228:
2223:
2220:
2216:
2210:
2206:
2205:Song of Moses
2198:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2182:
2181:I'm convinced
2178:
2177:tiny Mentasta
2174:
2173:
2172:
2171:
2168:
2162:
2156:
2150:
2146:
2137:
2133:
2130:
2126:
2120:
2116:
2110:
2108:
2101:
2099:
2091:
2087:
2083:
2078:
2073:
2069:
2065:
2061:
2051:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2012:
2008:
2004:
2003:
2002:
1998:
1994:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1987:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1934:
1932:
1931:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1914:
1911:
1907:
1901:
1897:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1850:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1836:
1834:
1829:
1823:
1817:
1812:
1808:
1803:
1797:
1787:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1762:
1759:
1755:
1750:
1746:
1743:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1700:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1681:
1677:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1599:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1583:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1576:
1568:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1545:
1542:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1529:de-emphasized
1526:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1465:
1462:
1458:
1453:
1448:
1444:
1439:
1433:
1432:edit conflict
1413:
1409:
1405:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1337:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1314:
1308:
1305:
1302:
1299:
1296:
1293:
1290:
1287:
1284:
1283:
1281:
1277:
1274:
1272:
1269:
1267:
1264:
1263:
1261:
1258:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1220:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1211:
1203:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1187:
1183:
1178:
1175:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1148:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1098:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1075:
1057:
1053:
1047:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1023:
1017:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1006:
1002:
997:
993:
992:
991:
987:
981:
977:
973:
972:
971:
967:
963:
959:
955:
952:
948:
947:
946:
942:
936:
932:
931:
930:
926:
922:
918:
917:
916:
915:
911:
905:
898:
896:
892:
888:
884:
880:
876:
872:
867:
865:
860:
855:
849:
840:
834:
831:
827:
823:
822:
821:
817:
813:
800:
799:
798:
797:
794:
790:
786:
777:
773:
769:
765:
760:
756:
755:
754:
753:
750:
749:
744:
741:, you're now
738:
734:
730:
726:
721:
717:
712:
708:
704:
700:
691:
687:
683:
679:
675:
671:
670:
669:
668:
664:
660:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
634:
633:
632:
628:
624:
616:
612:
608:
604:
600:
599:
598:
597:
593:
589:
585:
582:
581:
579:
572:
570:
569:
565:
561:
552:
548:
544:
540:
537:
533:
532:
526:
520:
516:
512:
507:
506:
505:
504:
501:
497:
493:
489:
488:
484:
480:
479:
478:
477:
473:
469:
460:
456:
452:
448:
447:
443:
438:
437:
433:
432:
427:
426:
421:
417:
413:
408:
407:
406:
405:
401:
400:
394:
393:
391:
388:
387:
386:
385:
381:
377:
371:
370:
363:
361:
358:
357:
353:
349:
339:
329:
321:
298:
294:
290:
286:
285:
284:
283:
279:
275:
272:
264:
254:
250:
246:
242:
237:
236:
235:
231:
227:
223:
220:
215:
212:
207:
202:
201:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
179:
175:
170:
169:
167:
166:
165:
164:
160:
156:
148:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
115:
114:
110:
106:
102:
98:
97:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
70:
69:
65:
61:
57:
52:
48:
40:
38:
35:
34:
30:
28:
19:
2677:
2668:
2639:
2586:
2544:
2493:
2421:Elizabeth II
2417:Barack Obama
2389:
2385:
2332:
2318:
2311:
2307:
2299:
2292:
2269:
2254:Mother Jones
2247:
2224:
2202:
2141:
2129:on behalf of
2125:MediationBot
2106:
2102:
2094:
2074:, so please
2063:
1938:
1915:
1893:
1876:Gerda Arendt
1872:that article
1853:
1840:Gerda Arendt
1837:
1813:, sometimes
1801:
1800:
1757:
1753:
1748:
1639:
1602:
1600:
1586:
1574:
1572:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1520:
1516:
1488:
1484:
1466:
1460:
1457:Dembski says
1454:
1449:
1445:
1442:nonetheless.
1440:
1428:
1371:
1367:
1344:
1340:
1245:
1224:
1212:
1208:
1201:
1192:
1185:
1181:
1173:
1160:
1152:
1079:
950:
902:
868:
856:
853:
781:
758:
746:
695:
655:
620:
586:
583:
580:
577:
576:
557:
463:
372:
368:
367:
359:
346:
268:
218:
210:
205:
186:
182:
177:
173:
152:
78:
55:
44:
36:
31:
25:
2462:Antony Flew
2390:Appears to.
1900:Ocean Grove
1461:Separating,
1368:was not new
1244:I think ID
1210:position.
588:2.30.207.97
2660:It's there
2646:Biscuittin
2607:topic bans
2551:Nikkimaria
2274:. Thanks,
2229:. Thanks,
2154:RadioKAOS
2151:. Cheers.
1920:. Thanks,
1345:strikingly
1301:Infoplease
951:discussing
871:uninvolved
826:dave souza
789:dave souza
265:DR process
2603:site bans
2496:Parkwells
2314:talk page
2258:Read the
2213:Read the
1973:Coemgenus
1904:Read the
1622:Viriditas
1589:Viriditas
1463:mind you.
1257:like this
1174:separates
1133:Coemgenus
1119:Yo Pienso
1082:Coemgenus
1046:Dreadstar
1016:Dreadstar
980:Dreadstar
935:Dreadstar
904:Dreadstar
659:Parkwells
343:template.
274:Viriditas
245:Viriditas
191:Viriditas
155:Viriditas
105:Viriditas
60:Viriditas
56:eccentric
2684:YoPienso
2567:YoPienso
2547:email me
2511:YoPienso
2466:YoPienso
2448:YoPienso
2395:YoPienso
2354:YoPienso
2209:Exordium
2185:YoPienso
2138:Mentasta
2007:YoPienso
1959:YoPienso
1857:YoPienso
1788:Precious
1766:YoPienso
1754:may have
1710:YoPienso
1697:I meant
1662:YoPienso
1607:YoPienso
1493:YoPienso
1470:YoPienso
1318:YoPienso
1161:argument
1032:Yopienso
1001:Yopienso
962:Yopienso
921:Yopienso
883:policies
812:Yopienso
764:Yopienso
748:MastCell
678:Yopienso
638:Yopienso
623:AnonMoos
603:Yopienso
560:Yopienso
492:Yopienso
451:Yopienso
289:Yopienso
226:Yopienso
183:citizens
131:Yopienso
87:Yopienso
33:Sandbox2
2276:DPL bot
2231:DPL bot
2066:by the
1922:DPL bot
1816:pruning
1636:WP:BITE
759:thought
716:protect
711:history
573:Darwins
348:Peridon
211:without
206:against
27:Sandbox
2593:. The
2525:Hoppyh
2424:right.
2302:Samtar
2082:Policy
1819:, for
1729:VQuakr
1685:VQuakr
1676:WP:ANI
1643:VQuakr
1182:insist
895:blocks
877:, our
720:delete
543:Serten
2541:JSTOR
2408:all."
1935:Grant
1760:have.
1752:said
1680:WP:5P
1524:this.
1512:that.
1489:isn't
1205:this.
1202:never
1076:Grant
976:WP:AE
893:, or
737:views
729:watch
725:links
511:DEddy
468:DEddy
412:DEddy
376:DEddy
16:<
2688:talk
2650:talk
2627:talk
2571:talk
2555:talk
2529:talk
2515:talk
2500:talk
2470:talk
2452:talk
2433:talk
2399:talk
2373:talk
2358:talk
2343:talk
2280:talk
2235:talk
2189:talk
2114:TALK
2058:The
2025:talk
2011:talk
1997:talk
1977:talk
1963:talk
1948:talk
1926:talk
1880:talk
1861:talk
1844:talk
1809:and
1770:talk
1733:talk
1714:talk
1699:here
1689:talk
1666:talk
1647:talk
1626:talk
1611:talk
1603:lack
1593:talk
1557:talk
1517:most
1497:talk
1474:talk
1408:talk
1385:talk
1372:this
1322:talk
1289:Also
1232:talk
1137:talk
1123:talk
1086:talk
1036:talk
1005:talk
966:talk
925:talk
891:bans
864:here
830:talk
816:talk
793:talk
768:talk
733:logs
707:talk
703:edit
682:talk
663:talk
642:talk
627:talk
607:talk
592:talk
564:talk
547:talk
515:talk
496:talk
472:talk
455:talk
416:talk
380:talk
352:talk
293:talk
278:talk
249:talk
230:talk
195:talk
159:talk
135:talk
109:talk
91:talk
75:here
64:talk
51:here
49:and
47:here
2587:Hi,
2419:or
2386:did
2260:FAQ
2215:FAQ
2077:add
1906:FAQ
1758:not
1541:not
1537:new
1533:old
1485:the
1451:to.
1379:.--
1186:old
978:.
338:ygm
333:or
187:not
2690:)
2652:)
2629:)
2605:,
2573:)
2557:)
2531:)
2517:)
2502:)
2472:)
2454:)
2435:)
2401:)
2384:I
2375:)
2360:)
2345:)
2316:.
2282:)
2237:)
2191:)
2127:,
2117:)
2092:.
2027:)
2013:)
1999:)
1979:)
1965:)
1950:)
1942:.
1928:)
1882:)
1863:)
1846:)
1838:--
1835:!
1772:)
1735:)
1727:.
1716:)
1691:)
1668:)
1649:)
1628:)
1613:)
1595:)
1559:)
1521:do
1499:)
1476:)
1410:)
1387:)
1324:)
1246:is
1234:)
1193:is
1139:)
1125:)
1088:)
1038:)
1007:)
968:)
927:)
889:,
866:.
828:,
818:)
791:,
770:)
735:|
731:|
727:|
723:|
718:|
714:|
709:|
705:|
684:)
665:)
644:)
629:)
609:)
594:)
566:)
549:)
517:)
498:)
474:)
457:)
418:)
382:)
354:)
341:}}
335:{{
331:}}
325:{{
295:)
280:)
251:)
232:)
197:)
161:)
137:)
129:.
111:)
93:)
79:my
66:)
2686:(
2648:(
2625:(
2569:(
2553:(
2527:(
2513:(
2498:(
2468:(
2450:(
2431:(
2397:(
2371:(
2356:(
2341:(
2324:.
2278:(
2266:.
2233:(
2221:.
2187:(
2163:/
2157:/
2111:(
2023:(
2009:(
1995:(
1975:(
1961:(
1946:(
1924:(
1912:.
1878:(
1859:(
1842:(
1768:(
1731:(
1712:(
1687:(
1664:(
1645:(
1624:(
1609:(
1591:(
1555:(
1495:(
1472:(
1434:)
1430:(
1406:(
1383:(
1320:(
1309:.
1303:.
1297:.
1291:.
1230:(
1135:(
1121:(
1084:(
1051:☥
1034:(
1021:☥
1003:(
985:☥
964:(
940:☥
923:(
909:☥
814:(
766:(
739:)
701:(
680:(
661:(
640:(
625:(
605:(
590:(
562:(
545:(
513:(
494:(
470:(
453:(
444:.
414:(
378:(
350:(
291:(
276:(
247:(
228:(
193:(
157:(
133:(
107:(
89:(
62:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.