972:. That commission put the Framework Programme in place. Individual projects are evaluated by commissions of specialists and the funding decision is taken by the Framework organisation. What you are saying is akin to saying that some NIH or NSF-funded project has been "selected by President Obama". It is equally incorrect to say that the commission monitors or evaluates these project, they really have something better to do. Again, it's the Framework organisation that does these things, just as in the US it would be NSF or NIH, not Obama. The statement that all these projects are notable just because they have been selected from among many more applications is untenable either. NIH funding rates are below 10% at this moment and nobody is arguing that each and every one of their funded projects is notable. Just as individual NIH/NSF projects are very rarely notable, EU-funded projects will be rarely notable, too. PARSIFAL is no exception, as becomes obvious when one looks through the references in the article. --
285:
publications are on their way, I just started collecting additional information. I am open for suggestions how this information could be merged to the more general aspects of CIP in general or
Financial CIP in particular. My first language is not English, and I am more familiar with music than with CI, also I was careful not to paraphrase the sources too closely, which explains the (admittedly too) general character of the writing. I would like to see you, Crusio, to read the French paper from Annecy, a language which is even more unfamiliar to me. Thanks for your attention, --
490:
security, identity and privacy requirements. R&D work directed at securing the financial infrastructure is key following the 'toxic' debt meltdown and black swan events. Without Wiki entries the wider audience will not have exposure to these extremely important but often poorly published influencing projects. There is a case for Wiki to actual create a premier category for these and any other high value entry. Separating them from the trivia like what color eyes Robbie
Williams has would enhance Knowledge immeasurably.
411:
of saying things. Anyone here can understand it if they want to bother. This way of attacking the article is pure abuse, a version of "give the dog a bad name and hang it." It does not discuss whether the subject is notable, and whether the article can be improved. Saying IDONTLIKETHEWAYITSWRITTEN is just as irrelevant an argument as IDONTLIKEIT. I could find similar epithets to describe the style of most
Knowledge articles: the terms primitive and simplistic come to mind as a general characteristic of prose here.
1066:
Similarly with these research projects. Some (or perhaps even most, who knows) commissioners will know about the
Framework programs, some will even be familiar with them. None will actually go into the fine detail of individual grants (unless perhaps if there's a significant problem). As all those other projects are just as non-notable as this one, I suggest neither of us loses time creating even more deletable articles. --
947:. On a more general note: I believe that every European Commission project has a certain notability, because every one was chosen (among many more applications) by the commission, monitored and finally evaluated by the commission. Perhaps an article on that subject would be a good idea? Also: every such project is a collaboration of organizations from several European countries, I hope that has room in Knowledge. --
197:. Article was de-PRODded by anonymous IP with reason: "Proposed deletion deleted as this is one of the few articles in Knowledge introducing the European viewpoint on critical infrastructure protection". There are what looks like an impressive number of "references" and external links, however most are not independent sources and the others are not about this project (several don't even mention "PARSIFAL").
793:-whilst the style of writing could be improved it is fairly easy to understand and conveys the essence of the work. In any case if this criteria is applied to these pages for deletion then 99% of Knowledge pages are at risk. The entry is without doubt important as it will influence major R&D requirements/funding for at least five years. Hopefully the authors will appropriately reference it.
304:(what seems to be a rather small) meeting, which mentioned PARSIFAL. I don't see how that conveys notability. (Note that we use "notability" here in the WP sense, this is by no means a quality judgement, just a judgement about the available sources; however, you've been around here long enough to know that, so this is perhaps too much pontificating... :-). --
633:. The text is too vague and too unspecific to be improved by editing. About all most readers are going to take home from this article is that some people in the EU held some meetings about the security of financial institutions, and published some equally vague papers about the subject, with "ontologies" and other unhelpful jargon. -
435:
I am not an author of the page just a member of the
Parsifal project. So, of course I am biased. But what kind of legitimacy bears Mr Crusio as the other 700 re. any article. This is not only obscure to me but to many potential or actual authors. Please do not respond with the usual preach, try to think a little bit further ahead.
434:
Thanks gerda. Anyway shame on me I do not understand how this editor is working. To me
Knowledge seems to be cancer-prone: this is called bureaucracy. Too bad. A trap from competitors?.. Could be. Furthermore Mr Crusio serait davantage connu, il meriterait la carpette anglaise but why bother? JYG NB
410:
but I think calling this "deliberately uninformative" is not correct. It's just written in PR-speak, which, although a debased dialect, can be translated into
English, That term used up above actually links to WP:Patent nonsense, which is simply not correct--it's just a wordy and unencyclopedic way
489:
I can see no case having been made that justifies deleting
Parsifal. It is extremely important that Knowledge keep Parsifal and similar pages. The direction this and a couple of similar projects give drives hundreds of millions of euros of R&D funding in the EU. This funding is key to delivering
1031:
If we follow that reasoning, then each federal employee in the US is a direct representative of
President Obama. The oversight of EU projects is not different at all from the oversight that NIH or NSF projects get, nor is the selection process any different. Should we now start creating articles on
1012:
It is incorrect to say,"It is equally incorrect to say that the commission monitors or evaluates these project, they really have something better to do." EU FP7 projects are both monitored and evaluated by an EU commission representative and appointed independent evaluators who have been chosen for
668:
in the philosophical sense: an account of basic categories, and what sort of things can or can't exist. I also know "ontology" as computer science jargon; somebody was apparently looking for something lofty and metaphysical to call a data file structure. I don't know "ontology" in this new sense,
465:
In the meantime I marked the original description of the project as a quote, and I wonder if someone familiar with the topic could shorten that, now that we are dealing with results and no longer need to know details of the process. The abstract of the eight recommendations is of course also on the
248:
PARSIFAL is aiming to bring together critical financial infrastructure stakeholders in the public and private sphere to provide a platform of communication for the research community, the
European Commission and the industry, and to build a large consensus in the financial, security, industrial and
1080:
You are not actually addressing the point I made and therefore made comments that are not relevant. The European Commission is not just composed of commissioners. I was not making a reference to commissioners but the commission. Your input has stimulated the author into producing a better article.
1046:
Not a logical conclusion. If you are detained by a contract security officer at Heathrow are you going to argue they have no right as they are not a direct representative of the queen? The commission is a body not an individual with employees and experts it contracts to undertake specific tasks on
1065:
Sorry, but your comparisons/arguments are getting rather silly. If you're detained by a security officer, then that is what has happened and what you would say. Nobody would say: The queen decided to detain me and sent a representative, because she'll be blissfully unaware of your very existence.
303:
I had already read the "Annecy paper". It seems to be a presentation at a meeting. It's a bit strange, because the pagination doesn't match the table of contents. It looks like all other presentations were cut out of this file. In any case, yes, there was a presentation (among several others) at
284:
from the author: The above doesn't reflect that Parsifal was (!) a project of the European Cmmission, terminated as scheduled and evaluated. I am sorry for the deletion of the tag, a good faith edit. The findings of Parsifal keep being cited, I added University of Savoie and CEPS yesterday. More
260:
Materials, such as position papers, are prepared and confidentially circulated among the partners in order to stimulate discussion and opinion exchange. Personal meeting is encouraged at workshops, enabling a structured and strategic dialogue between stakeholders from the financial industry and
860:
Inaccurate attribution. I did not say this article is it not adequately sourced. It is important for the integrity of Knowledge that posted comments are not distorted by misrepresentation. I actually do not have an issue with the sourcing. I hope that it can be appropriately sourced to further
618:: ("Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.") This is "content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it," and as such is indeed
265:
I think all they agreed to do is have a meeting later, sometime, maybe, as soon as their minds recover enough from the PowerPoint presentation at the last one. That could take years. Even if notability could be shown, this text says nothing at great length and has still got to go. -
249:
scientific community. Small and medium enterprises in this field are contacted and involved, as well as European Academia and research organisations, and brought together with relevant national or regional actors in the critical infrastructure protection and financial sector.
1047:
it's behalf. As you were incorrect in your assertion about EU monitoring I reserve my judgement on the comparison with monitoring other projects. If you have the time it would add significant value to Knowledge if you did start creating articles on the other projects.
374:, where the subject itself is perhaps not relevant, but is in its relation to a relevant other subject. Differently, the broader subject to which the Parsifal project is related, tentatively called Financal Critical Infrastructure Protection, doesn's exist yet. --
1296:
If you had actually read the article when your vote was canvassed you would see the reference link in the first line! I would go further than your comment on academic articles. Get rid of all the pointless and dull as dishwater academic journals that are
252:
PARSIFAL works towards its long term vision by setting short-term project objectives, to be fulfilled during the project lifetime, as well as coordinating actions and research road mapping that contribute to an effective and faster fulfillment of the
1194:
3. It is not unusual for obscure academic papers to refer to other obscure academic papers. In order to be notable IMHO something more is required such as mention is the popular media or winning an notable (in the Knowledge sense) academic prize. —
1106:- The global financial system is as volatile now as it has ever been. The last thing we need are unstable infrastructures underpinning uncertain markets. We need projects like PARSIFAL to help us keep ahead of potential attacks, & disruptions.
990:
Taken, I should have said "a commission" or - better - the Framework Programme. Not taken: I didn't say "that all these projects are notable", I said a EU project has "a certain notability", - which doesn't equal WP notability, obviously.
256:
PARSIFAL is focussed on CFI and the involvement of stakeholders from the financial sector and will dedicate special attention to the relation between the protection of CII and CFI and trust, the key business requirement in the financial
1013:
their globally acknowledged expertise in the area of research prior to acceptance of the project by the EU. EU projects like Parsifal will have passed a far higher level of scrutiny than the vast majority of published academic research.
1239:
has been met. We are in a financial crisis and a secure critical infrastructure is an absolute requirement. Interesting to see some people in the EU had the vision to look at this. Topical, relevant, important and notable IMHO.
1235:- The project must be one of the only articles that has a reference that is as notable as the European Central Bank. All it is missing is the White House weblink to gain a higher rating! Seriously there is no doubt that
1081:
You should be satisfied as it is a positive outcome rather than the negative one of deletion. Is it not time to move on and address the millions of other articles that could do with input or is there is another agenda?
158:
527:, which is what we mean by notability. Discussing the high purposes of the group is irrelevant. If you can find two such good references, the article will be kept, or, at worst, can be rewritten.
1210:
Is this copied from another project? Parsifal is not academic, not in popular media, not winning a prize. Hardly to the point. Parsifal is in scientific media and is referenced by
371:
152:
1156:
Please not that "important", "good, "bad", etc. are not criteria entering into the equation determining whether something is notable or not. Plase familiarize yourself with
119:
214:
871:
I'd rather prefer to keep the article as I consider it acceptable at least. It might still be a worthy text if you need information about the EU Project.
92:
87:
1279:
Yet another obviously canvassed vote. Strange that an editor whose only ever edit to Knowledge is to this deletion discussion should know what
96:
843:
99% of Knowledge articles are adequately sourced and as you say yourself, this one isn't. "Important" is not the same thing as "notable". --
79:
936:
825:
809:
509:
442:
523:
Knowledge does not contain articles about organizations or other things that may be important, but on those that are important,
944:
1353:
940:
173:
1266:
1142:
1138:
1122:
829:
758:
754:
614:. Yes, the writing style justifies deletion all by itself. Uninformative style is indeed a criterion for deletion, and in fact
1191:
2. That a project is funded/supported/commissioned by the European Commission is neutral as far as it's notability is concerned.
140:
1318:
I'm completely failing to see independent references. Materials generated by project participants or at project events are not
17:
683:
1262:
261:
researchers who can directly exchange their views and discuss future scenarios and challenges from different perspectives.
356:(no surprise from the author :-) ) for now until a broader, more general article about Financial CIP may be available, --
134:
394:
this is really a far-out comparison, to a totally different sort of relationship on a totally different subject.
52:
there is very little Knowledge-policy-based argument for keeping this article, and many valid reasons to delete it.
650:
Ontologies are supposed to enable people to understand each other, interesting that you consider that unhelpful. --
1371:
1331:
1306:
1287:
1249:
1223:
1199:
1169:
1090:
1075:
1056:
1041:
1022:
1000:
981:
956:
919:
901:
880:
852:
781:
741:
724:
695:
677:
659:
641:
602:
578:
562:
538:
513:
475:
450:
422:
405:
383:
365:
344:
313:
294:
274:
229:
206:
61:
1388:
36:
130:
1387:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
968:
It is incorrect to say that this is a project "chosen ... by the commission" if with "commission" you mean the
715:
a EU-sponsored effort. On the other hand, it petered out after 18 months, so that tilts me towards Delete. --
225:
83:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
446:
1302:
1284:
1196:
1086:
1052:
1018:
821:
805:
505:
180:
1367:
1327:
1219:
1134:
1118:
996:
952:
691:
655:
574:
493:
So the proposal I make is do not delete but give Parsifal an enhanced listing because of it's importance.
471:
379:
361:
290:
732:- although the project is over, recommendations are useful for future research in several key IT areas --
1346:
1298:
1082:
1048:
1014:
817:
801:
501:
340:
876:
550:
Still written in PR-speak, and the required substantial third party coverage is not readily apparent.
1110:
797:
750:
737:
497:
438:
57:
969:
720:
221:
166:
75:
67:
1254:
1241:
872:
619:
241:
146:
1363:
1323:
1258:
1245:
1215:
992:
948:
687:
651:
570:
467:
375:
357:
286:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1165:
1071:
1037:
977:
915:
897:
848:
777:
674:
638:
588:
336:
325:
309:
271:
202:
1130:
1114:
746:
733:
53:
716:
630:
626:
553:
1188:
1. I don't think academic research projects in themselves qualify as notable subjects.
48:. Once we cut away all the claims about how important this project is and the obvious
1280:
1236:
889:
625:
Let's face it, the PR style this is written in is vague, uneditable handwaving. Its
615:
534:
418:
401:
194:
599:
113:
711:- This is borderline. There are quite a few minor references on the web, and it
686:. - I removed the (by now historic) project description, trying to be helpful, --
1161:
1157:
1067:
1033:
973:
911:
893:
844:
773:
670:
634:
305:
267:
198:
591:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
328:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
665:
529:
413:
396:
629:, while probably "appropriate" for a grant application, break our core
1032:
all of the thousands of projects these entities fund each year? --
772:
Please note that "useful" has nothing to do with "notability". --
1381:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1342:
932:
1357:
1211:
193:
the project, no indication of notability. Does not meet
888:. References are improved significantly and seems that
109:
105:
101:
910:
Reading those references, I don't think GNG is met. --
165:
598:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
372:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Johann Georg Mozart
335:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
1362:more to come, but this is not yet encyclopedic, --
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1391:). No further edits should be made to this page.
669:or what they have to do with bank security. -
525:and can be shown to be so by 3rd party sources
179:
8:
213:Note: This debate has been included in the
215:list of Europe-related deletion discussions
1214:, German Institute for Standardization. --
212:
189:Ephemeral project. No independent sources
861:enhance the article and also satisfy you.
664:Apparently they don't work. I know of
7:
1322:no matter who they're published by.
675:killing the human spirit since 2003!
639:killing the human spirit since 2003!
272:killing the human spirit since 2003!
937:Association for Computing Machinery
569:Topic ontology and 3 refs added, --
24:
1354:Springer Science+Business Media
941:Springer Science+Business Media
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
945:Deutsches Institut für Normung
684:Ontology (information science)
1:
1372:09:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
1332:23:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
1307:09:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
1091:12:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
1076:09:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
1057:09:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
1042:04:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
62:18:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
1408:
1288:23:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
1250:22:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
1224:18:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
1200:17:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
1170:15:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
1023:23:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
1001:10:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
982:09:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
957:09:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
920:19:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
902:18:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
881:13:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
853:08:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
782:08:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
742:21:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
725:18:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
696:16:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
678:16:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
660:15:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
642:15:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
603:10:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
579:08:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
563:07:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
539:13:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
514:10:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
476:13:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
451:12:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
423:07:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
406:03:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
242:Deliberately uninformative
384:09:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
366:12:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
345:00:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
314:07:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
295:06:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
275:19:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
230:18:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
207:16:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
1384:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
622:in our technical sense.
627:optimistic predictions
370:Comment: I compare to
1347:European Central Bank
1267:few or no other edits
1143:few or no other edits
830:few or no other edits
759:few or no other edits
1341:during the project:
1269:outside this topic.
1145:outside this topic.
832:outside this topic.
761:outside this topic.
1352:after the project:
970:European Commission
76:PARSIFAL Project EU
68:PARSIFAL Project EU
1285:Blue-Haired Lawyer
1197:Blue-Haired Lawyer
44:The result was
1270:
1146:
1127:
1113:comment added by
833:
814:
800:comment added by
762:
631:neutrality policy
605:
561:
517:
500:comment added by
441:comment added by
347:
232:
218:
1399:
1386:
1252:
1128:
1126:
1107:
815:
813:
794:
744:
597:
593:
560:
558:
551:
516:
494:
466:general side. --
453:
334:
330:
219:
184:
183:
169:
117:
99:
34:
1407:
1406:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1389:deletion review
1382:
1338:May I help you
1181:Several points:
1108:
795:
671:Smerdis of Tlön
635:Smerdis of Tlön
620:patent nonsense
616:speedy deletion
586:
554:
552:
495:
436:
323:
268:Smerdis of Tlön
126:
90:
74:
71:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1405:
1403:
1394:
1393:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1360:
1350:
1335:
1334:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1272:
1271:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1192:
1189:
1183:
1182:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1148:
1147:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1078:
1060:
1059:
1044:
1026:
1025:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
985:
984:
960:
959:
931:. I added the
925:
924:
923:
922:
905:
904:
883:
865:
864:
863:
862:
855:
835:
834:
787:
786:
785:
784:
764:
763:
727:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
645:
644:
624:
623:
608:
607:
606:
595:
594:
583:
582:
581:
566:
565:
544:
543:
542:
541:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
387:
386:
368:
350:
349:
348:
332:
331:
320:
319:
318:
317:
316:
298:
297:
278:
277:
264:
263:
259:
258:
255:
254:
251:
250:
246:
245:
234:
233:
222:Reaper Eternal
187:
186:
123:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1404:
1392:
1390:
1385:
1379:
1378:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1339:
1337:
1336:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1314:
1313:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1299:Windsurfer777
1295:
1294:
1289:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1238:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1201:
1198:
1193:
1190:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1180:
1177:
1176:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1105:
1102:
1101:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1083:Windsurfer777
1079:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1049:Windsurfer777
1045:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1015:Windsurfer777
1011:
1008:
1007:
1002:
998:
994:
989:
988:
987:
986:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
964:
963:
962:
961:
958:
954:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
930:
927:
926:
921:
917:
913:
909:
908:
907:
906:
903:
899:
895:
891:
887:
884:
882:
878:
874:
870:
867:
866:
859:
856:
854:
850:
846:
842:
839:
838:
837:
836:
831:
827:
823:
819:
818:Windsurfer777
811:
807:
803:
802:Windsurfer777
799:
792:
789:
788:
783:
779:
775:
771:
768:
767:
766:
765:
760:
756:
752:
748:
743:
739:
735:
731:
728:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
707:
706:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
680:
679:
676:
672:
667:
663:
662:
661:
657:
653:
649:
648:
647:
646:
643:
640:
636:
632:
628:
621:
617:
613:
610:
609:
604:
601:
596:
592:
590:
585:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
567:
564:
559:
557:
549:
546:
545:
540:
536:
532:
531:
526:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
515:
511:
507:
503:
502:Windsurfer777
499:
491:
477:
473:
469:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
452:
448:
444:
443:91.88.250.175
440:
424:
420:
416:
415:
409:
408:
407:
403:
399:
398:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
367:
363:
359:
355:
352:
351:
346:
342:
338:
333:
329:
327:
322:
321:
315:
311:
307:
302:
301:
300:
299:
296:
292:
288:
283:
280:
279:
276:
273:
269:
262:
243:
239:
236:
235:
231:
227:
223:
216:
211:
210:
209:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
182:
178:
175:
172:
168:
164:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
132:
129:
128:Find sources:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
50:vote stacking
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1383:
1380:
1364:Gerda Arendt
1324:Stuartyeates
1319:
1315:
1232:
1216:Gerda Arendt
1178:
1160:. Thanks. --
1153:
1109:— Preceding
1103:
1009:
993:Gerda Arendt
965:
949:Gerda Arendt
928:
885:
868:
857:
840:
796:— Preceding
790:
769:
729:
712:
708:
688:Gerda Arendt
652:Gerda Arendt
611:
587:
571:Gerda Arendt
555:
547:
528:
524:
496:— Preceding
492:
488:
468:Gerda Arendt
437:— Preceding
433:
412:
395:
376:Gerda Arendt
358:Gerda Arendt
353:
324:
287:Gerda Arendt
281:
247:
237:
190:
188:
176:
170:
162:
155:
149:
143:
137:
127:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1320:independent
1297:referenced.
1265:) has made
1141:) has made
828:) has made
757:) has made
709:Weak delete
337:Ron Ritzman
153:free images
1131:Ksullivan1
1115:Ksullivan1
747:Honorcreek
734:Honorcreek
556:Sandstein
54:Beeblebrox
717:Noleander
1263:contribs
1139:contribs
1123:contribs
1111:unsigned
943:and the
892:is met.
826:contribs
810:contribs
798:unsigned
755:contribs
666:ontology
589:Relisted
510:contribs
498:unsigned
439:unsigned
326:Relisted
120:View log
1283:is!! —
1255:Ashtune
1242:Ashtune
1154:Comment
1010:Comment
966:Comment
858:Comment
841:Comment
770:Comment
612:Comment
600:Spartaz
548:Delete.
282:Comment
253:vision.
159:WP refs
147:scholar
93:protect
88:history
1316:Delete
1281:WP:GNG
1237:WP:GNG
1179:Delete
1162:Crusio
1068:Crusio
1034:Crusio
974:Crusio
912:Crusio
894:Beagel
890:WP:GNG
873:CHfish
845:Crusio
774:Crusio
306:Crusio
257:world.
238:Delete
199:Crusio
195:WP:GNG
131:Google
97:delete
46:delete
1349:(ECB)
535:talk
419:talk
402:talk
244:text:
191:about
174:JSTOR
135:books
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1368:talk
1343:IEEE
1328:talk
1303:talk
1259:talk
1246:talk
1233:Keep
1220:talk
1166:talk
1158:WP:N
1135:talk
1119:talk
1104:Keep
1087:talk
1072:talk
1053:talk
1038:talk
1019:talk
997:talk
978:talk
953:talk
933:IEEE
929:Keep
916:talk
898:talk
886:Keep
877:talk
869:Keep
849:talk
822:talk
806:talk
791:Keep
778:talk
751:talk
738:talk
730:Keep
721:talk
692:talk
682:Try
656:talk
575:talk
506:talk
472:talk
447:talk
380:talk
362:talk
354:Keep
341:talk
310:talk
291:talk
226:talk
203:talk
167:FENS
141:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
1358:DIN
1212:DIN
935:to
713:was
530:DGG
414:DGG
397:DGG
240:.
181:TWL
118:– (
1370:)
1356:,
1345:,
1330:)
1305:)
1261:•
1253:—
1248:)
1222:)
1168:)
1137:•
1129:—
1125:)
1121:•
1089:)
1074:)
1055:)
1040:)
1021:)
999:)
991:--
980:)
955:)
939:,
918:)
900:)
879:)
851:)
824:•
816:—
812:)
808:•
780:)
753:•
745:—
740:)
723:)
694:)
673:-
658:)
637:-
577:)
537:)
512:)
508:•
474:)
449:)
421:)
404:)
382:)
364:)
343:)
312:)
293:)
270:-
228:)
220:—
217:.
205:)
161:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
1366:(
1326:(
1301:(
1257:(
1244:(
1218:(
1164:(
1133:(
1117:(
1085:(
1070:(
1051:(
1036:(
1017:(
995:(
976:(
951:(
914:(
896:(
875:(
847:(
820:(
804:(
776:(
749:(
736:(
719:(
690:(
654:(
573:(
533:(
504:(
470:(
445:(
417:(
400:(
378:(
360:(
339:(
308:(
289:(
224:(
201:(
185:)
177:·
171:·
163:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
138:·
133:(
125:(
122:)
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.