Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2

2155:. In my observations of, and experiences with, William M. Connolley, he showed himself the exact opposite of what is described in his nomination. I have observed him, and/or interacted with him, in connection with several entries in non-mainstream science - a category of endeavour that he has a strong bias against. He has treated with contempt and extreme rudeness any contributor who did not share his bias. He reverted their edits without explanation, repeatedly deleted their posts in Talk pages (yes, he does this a lot) because he didn't like what they said, and generally treated them as if they were non-persons and the Knowledge (XXG) rules of conduct did not have to be followed in dealing with them. I do not believe that working in - or knowing something about, or not being hostile to, or having an interest in - a non-mainstream science, is sufficient reason for being treated with this kind of contempt, and I think that it is outrageous that Connolley permits himself to act in this manner. It is all right for Connolley to have a bias, and it is all right if he doesn't want to inform himself about areas that he considers abhorrent. But if he has such a bias, he should excuse himself from working on entries that he is strongly biased against. Instead, he parades his bias as if it was a badge of merit, and his ignorance of those areas as if it was a virtue. Sorry, folks, that's not honorable behaviour. 3614:, requested that we both stop the revert war at 02:27, 5 September 2004. William M. Connolley then ignored this request and reverted a fifth time at 09:40, 5 September 2004. Rather than defend his view in talk thereafter, as would be appropriate under the circumstances, he simply stopped responding on the talk page after a web reference to the original source was found and quoted on the archived discussion page at 16:56, 8 September 2004. Both the page and the talk page were dormant after my post to the talk page from 9 September to 12 October 2004, in spite of the assurance that the dispute would be resolved in discussion- much to my frustration. As (unlike him) I honored the cease reversion request, the page was to his liking and so he felt no need to justify his actions on the talk page. He violated the 3RR rule, then he violated a cease reversion request, and he didn't even bother to respond on talk about the subject. -- 2628:'Scuse me? The def of the category "pseudoscience" says: "This category comprises articles pertaining to fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that are both claimed by their proponents to be supported by scientific principles and the scientific method, and alleged by their critics or the mainstream scientific community to be inconsistent with such principles and method." I would like to see a cogent argument from you as to why Aetherometry, in your view, is inconsistent with scientific principles and method. And don't give me this crap about scientific consensus; the scientific method does not require any such consensus. One can be on a desert island and still do science that follows the scientific method and the scientific principles. So git! gimme your arguments. 2947:

who haven't captured the 'accepted' understanding on par with his own 'unparalleled' clarity. I strongly oppose him, because I do not trust him. I do not trust him to allow much, let alone fair, space for scientific theory (which merely conflicts with his own) to appear in the 'grand new experiment' of free knowledge. A damn encyclopedia they call it, of all things. There is no shortage of space here, space enough to capture ALL theory and exploration.... no matter how cooky it may sound to differing groups. Using such a collection, a genuine free thinker will be able to run the gamete through this playground, and BUILD there own conclusions. William does not trust you to do this. His lack of trust about you, is very different than mine about him.

2905:

advancement, demonstrates a dogmatic commitment to your deeply internalized 'understandings' as the 'one and only proper position to have'. What you appear to do, habitually or by intention, is to disparage those who have chosen alternative veins (A particular turn of mind, from an initial point) of scientific endeavor, and to simultaneously retard both your work and theirs. A pinnacle of egocentrism, that you act this way towards sciences which, like yours, strive to benefit Mother Earth, while you use your own involvement with her as a banner of righteousness. This is simply not right (and turns the stomachs of many).

2194:

who don't have the slightest idea what these endeavours are about, and yet see fit to disparage them. You're right, I don't have any respect for this kind of "consensus", just like I don't have respect for the "consensus" of a lynch mob. And no, I have no interest in your so-called "community". Why would I, and why should I? I am interested in science, not "community" . I thought we were here to evaluate Connolley's courtesy, transparency, accountability, competence, hospitality, etc. What do my "communal" inclinations or disinclinations have to do with it?

76:, its related fields and physics. He is resilient and willing to explain at length, knows how to gauge consensus, works and colloborates well with other users, has good humour and character and overall, a virtuous person who I think we can trust administrator priveleges with. He contributes significantly to the project and is very much dedicated with it that I think he would be extremely valuable as a sysop. He is very good at maintaining a neutral point of view in articles; he remains cool and patient in any dispute. He is someone the community can trust. 2807:). The vote started on Dec 27th, and was kicked off by the claim on the part of User Noren that, as a result of copious edits by the proponents of "the fringe view that the phenomenon actually exists", the article's quality had degraded. The vote was to decide whether to keep the article as "featured" in its then current form, revert it to the form it was in when it was declared "featured", or "un-feature" it. On Jan 3rd, in the middle of the voting process, Connolley first cast this vote, referring to those who don't share his bias as "loonies": 2909:

mainstream, a PAID agent for approved government science, a man deeply steeped in the ways and means of acceptable (accepted) school-book learning and academia.... That you are a contemptible, lowly man enraptured by your own self-image and ego.... in short, be honest, and I'll even change my vote to support you as a very prolific wikipedian administrator advancing the very best that mainstream science has to offer. Which is horrifically 'not much' considering the stratospheric levels of funding your ranks receive.

2231:

evidence, the methodologies, the claimed results, the conclusions drawn. It pains me to see that the Knowledge (XXG) "community" permits and encourages the rise of scientific bigots to positions of authority, and permits them virtually a free hand when it comes to anything having to do with science. Believe me, you will not get any real scientists contributing to Knowledge (XXG) for as long as you appoint "administrators" such as Connolley. What you will get is other bigots like Connolley. This is what I am

4304:

and admin level: I expect this to have to be bridged/changed someway well before 2010. I very much hope more experts - from my area of interests, particularly scientists - will contribute: at the moment all too few do. To make this work, we will have to find some way to welcome and encourage them and their contributions without damaging the wiki ethos. This isn't working terribly well at the moment. I predict that wiki will still be a benevolent dictatorship in 2010 - the problems of transition to full user

2951:

developments. Simply, William sees electrical phenomenon as a by-product of cyclonic action, where others postulate cyclonic action as a by-product of electrical phenomenon. Serious Big Bang questions ensue, and Willy is off and running. He has disturbingly little tolerance for those who do not see it his way, and has done a smashing job of driving such people away from this 'encyclopedia' simply trying to point out 'impossible' conflicts with his world view.

2804:. Describing Connolley as someone who "is resilient and willing to explain at length, knows how to gauge consensus, works and colloborates well with other users, has good humour and character and overall, a virtuous person who I think we can trust administrator priveleges with" is just plain silly. If you want an easy example to the contrary, just look at his most recent unilateral short-circuiting of the vote to remove Cold Fusion from the Featured Articles ( 2330:

seek the encyclopedia's best interest - whether it actually is the subject of much RFC and arbitration election deliberation. Yet, this is unlike Zappo in question, who doesn't actually seek the encyclopedia's best interests and wishes to sabotage it in every way. Furthermore, to accuse Connolley of being a bigot on the issue is to similarly label Theresa knott and many other members of the community all of which have particularly good reputations.

818: 1886: 1652:

allowed , no argument with that; the issue is voting privately). A la Kant, do we want most everyone to start to use hidden account names for voting? It's a community issue. I am not saying Philosophus is a sockpuppet of anyone, or is a new user, or is trying to vote twice. The admins can checkuser. The only issue is whether these private votes should be allowed. Without a policy saying otherwise, (a general secret ballot), I say no.

2971:. Connolley is biased and rude. He refuses to read original sources, which is a cardinal sin in academic science. He unilaterally reverted the article on cold fusion, wiping out days of work by me and others, including 40 footnotes that I inserted with considerable effort. He will not allow any point of view but his own, whereas I and others who disagree with him were careful to preserve his statements. -- 2042:, because I feel that subject-matter experts such as Connolley should be spending even more of their time improving articles instead of diddling with vandals like the rest of us, and I hope he won't use too much of his Knowledge (XXG) time doing admin tasks. Adminship isn't some kind of reward for being a great editor. That said, if he wants to help out with admin tasks, he's certainly well-qualified. — 3716:"1) Art Carlson (talk \u2022 contribs) and William M. Connolley (talk \u2022 contribs) shall appoint a third user competent in basic science. These three users shall have the power to ban any user who disrupts the editing of articles which relate to science from those articles which they are disrupting. Should either of them decline to serve, the other shall make two appointments...." 2541:

Physics (which Aetherometry does not violate) and received scientific wisdom? Care to resolve a spacetime singularity while you're at it? Your crap filter is an excuse for lazy thinking, I'm afraid. And note, the mobile would be no more perpetual than any other; it is the understanding of the nature, place and quantity of accessible energy in the universe that is different.

388:. The ArbCom having removed the revert limitation as "unnecessary" and the reopened case having reached a better conclusion than the original, concerns in that regard are dispelled. I'd stress, hopefully without need, that William M. Connolley should be ultra-very-extremely-cautious in any use he might consider making of admin powers on anything related to climate change. - 3326:. Simply put, anyone who sits down to write a multi-page character assasination like that one makes me seriously concerned about NPOV issues. I will temper this by noting that he did it out of the wiki, a good sign, but if he takes his own writings even partially seriously, then I can't understand why he's even here -- does he like to hang around in "toilets"? 1564:. The nom appears entirely correct, especially with the ensuing discussion in the oppose section. Some may find him too "controversial" to support, but that would be a shame. One will get dirtied when combatting factions of POV-pushers who have a lot of time on their hands. This is not a reson to oppose, but to support, else who will take on the job? -- 2582:. The Correas' analysis of scientific history is entirely irrelevant, although I'd like to point out that they don't seem to be uninvolved enough for a neutral analysis. What I've read of the "primary record" so far is bunk. But maybe you can point me to some coherent collection? I've reasonable access to several large scientific libraries. -- 2423:

appropriate qualifier. The thing is, it is not supported by large-scale peer review. It also hasn't been disapproved by large-scale peer review. Then there's the entire conflict over the definition of what aetherometry is. So, I wasn't "tired" of anything, I just didn't want to violate the three revert rule. I don't like taking sides. Cheers.

2505:. That's just incredibly petty and downright dishonest. I have no confidence WMC will use admin powers any better than that. And all this on a subject he refuses to actually read or understand! Let me put this in Wikpedia terms: WMC calling Aetherometry pseudoscience without actually reading the source material is like a guy who's never seen 2895:

ab initio (by right, from the beginning). Oppose any man failing to have learned such a basic tenet of humanity, and oppose still more, placing him in a position to arbitrate science. An arbiter whose contempt for dissident science is well known, and who, in his new position, will most assuredly permit it to color his rulings.

2354:

factual accuracy of an article he was interested in the face of know-nothings. That's what I've been doing too. And suggesting that WMC and Theresa Knott and other well-respected members of the community should be given a pass for bigotry on this subject means, I guess, that Knowledge (XXG) should value and reward bigotry.

2860:

the vote was not completed. And the fact that the reverted version is "largely what is there now" is no proof of anything, given that the "opposition" ultimately mostly gets reverted by the Knowledge (XXG) "watchdogs" or otherwise discouraged from making a real effort. Virtuous and highly "communal" tactics indeed.

2901:

Your dedication, and probably great passion for what you do, is a good and just thing. However, I strongly fear that you have been carried away with the heroic image you have projected upon yourself. It is not an uncommon pitfall for those who have become aware of their surroundings and placement in time.

3837:

and i have declined to remove attacks agaisnt myself that compared me unfavoably with those who aided the Nazis in Concentration camps. (That was also over a pseudoscience issue, BTW.) The diffs cited seemd to include removing a good deal more than just "attack" conent, includign removing a compalint

2900:

Dr. Connolley: Please accept my sincere admiration for your apparent (based upon what one can see of you through the internet, whatever that's worth, right?) affection for the environment. Clearly, one would be literally suicidal if one did not face the need for caring stewardship of Mother Earth.

2540:

Nice, dude. Your first comment on the matter is to -- rush to judgement. What literature in Aetherometry did you actually review to determine that the experimental evidence is negligible? Care to comment on the mechanisms covered by the Correas' patents? Care to actually differentiate between laws of

2249:

Bigotry does not include being favoured towards mainstream science. Aetherometry, AFAIK has not been peer-reviewed by the scientific community, only by small numbers. That is not a qualification of a scientific method. The Galileo-complex should be discarded; it isn't fear the new, but rather the way

2054:

I have avoided injecting myself in the various disputes to which this editor has been a party, and make no judgment on those matters; however, the editor is clearly experienced and professional. I trust him to use admin powers fairly, and to refrain from using them in matters where he is an involved

3600:

is not infallable and does not react well when he is mistaken. While his editing contributions may be very valuable, I nevertheless do not think he's a good choice for an admin role. Some time ago, I had the unpleasant experience of being involved in a reversion war with him on what would normally

3136:

by reverting to a version which was more than a year old and not taking the time to copy the sources over. (Btw later on we engaged in constructive dialogue and more or less arrived at a consensus version of that page). Bottom line: he is not a bad editor, and I bear him no ill will, but I fear he

2950:

William wants very much to craft and bend the information that appears in pages presenting concepts hinting at very fundamental understandings of how we perceive our world. For example, the corollary, and thus questions about the causal order of electrical phenomenon in the behavior of atmospheric

2942:

Yes Natalinasmpf, this wiki and its predominant users are young, combined, this is a particularly malleable forum for crafting a 'company line' by the very army who will be controlled by it, especially if they think its their OWN line. I'm not besmirching you Natalinasmpf by saying this... you too

2894:

to another. Oppose any man who considers " the problems of transition to full user sovereignty" "not worth solving at this stage." (So ironic, to then wistfully wonder why knowledgeable people do not contribute more). Oppose any man harboring such foolish contempt, for people are sovereign de jure

2637:

By the way, as someone had previously observed, it is pretty silly of Knowledge (XXG) to commit to the view that any endeavour that is "alleged by its critics" to be unscientific, belongs in the "pseudoscience" category. There are very few major scientific frameworks or endeavours that have not, at

2329:

The sheer stereotyping of the community into nerds, and FrankZappo's utter disdain for the community, or the encyclopedia in itself. There have been some administrators who have been acting unilaterally, whose names I will not mention at this moment for the very sake of maintaining harmony, but they

4340:

Having read PiI, I agree in principle, process is indeed important; without it we have anarchy. Which is why we have RFA rather than special creation... the balance between process and boldness is the difficult part. I think that document overstates the "emergency" needed to override process; there

4168:

A. Except in extreme cases I've come to see AFD as not worth the trouble. So for someonething who was merely not notable I would be unlikely to bother. I really don't see the problem with articles about non-notable things. Where I do object is non-notable things made to seem important - this is the

2828:

Disdain for other contributors, disregard for the "community" and for "consensus" (when it is anything other than a "consensus" of people who share his own biases), contemptuous uncooperativeness, and acting as if he was the salt of the earth and the ruling authority on science. These are supposed

2591:

Nobody's disputing that you won't find aetherometry in peer-reviewed journals that you, personally, would accept. But saying their analysis of scientific history is irrelevant? How can you possibly know that? I'd say your objection to their neutrality because the actually practice science is pretty

2193:

This is unsubstantiated nonsense. I am not a member of any "group", and have not had anything to do with the web page you quote. If you are referring to the "consensus" that keeps putting various non-mainstream scientific endeavours in the "pseudoscience" category, this is a "consensus" of people

4303:

OK, for what its worth, here is the rest: I see wikipedia continuing its growth and influence. The problems of scaling will continue: how to smoothly adapt current practices to a larger community. At the moment this appears to be working mostly OK. Problems exist with the gap between arbcomm level

3725:

This is a rather stunning reversal of wiki customs, I think obviously, in the concentration of power. Art Carlson declined. Dr. Connolley loves the idea however. I am skeptical. But as a suggestion of a way to reassure me and others, I suggested that Dr. Connolley pretend he already had this power

3669:

he is pondering running for ArbCom . So he is interested in power. Sometimes he doesn't explain his edits very well. Consider the Reddi case, currently under arbitration. Reddi is accused of being insufficiently qualified to add to science articles, which he adds what is deemed pseudoscience. When

2946:

My opposition to William IS NOT because he effectively, diligently, and with admirable dedication, presents mainstream understandings. He is very well suited for such a task, I'd even go so far as to acknowledge that admin tools might very well stream-line his ability to do this in place of those

2859:

don't ring up your friends? You even try to convince people who voted against you to change their minds. See Kefalonia's Talk page, for example. As for the CF article, anybody who reads the vote can see that there was support for reverting. But there was also support for the other options, and

2315:

My dear Connolley, I am not talking about isolated instances of rudeness on your part. The whole history of the Aetherometry entry at at Knowledge (XXG) is one long and consistent example of your bigotry, bias, and contempt both for those who know anything about the topic of the entry and for the

2273:

Well I do appreciate the compliment, Natalinasmpf, as casting the article in Knowledge (XXG) style was exactly my intention, but I have to disagree about Helicoid and "other users." Insisting repeatedly that editors actually understand the subject and produce references rather than insinuations is

4144:

A. I strongly support enforcement of the 3RR (including against myself should it be necessary). In fact I should have added "patrol 3rr page to help enforcing violations where needed" to my what-tasks-would-you-do, above. First time violators get a warning. Experienced people who may be acting in

3704:

He is handling his actions rather clumsily, and leaves it to others in the WikiProject to explain his reasoning. He's been to grad school, he's presumably literate, yet doesn't explain his actions in a civil manner to someone he disagrees with. Now concerning the Reddi arbitration, as he mentions

3609:

by readding the word "orbiting" to a figure on the Roche Limit page four times in one 24-hour period, at 21:53, 2 September 2004, 22:10, 2 September 2004, 08:46, 3 September 2004, and 16:50, 3 September 2004. I followed the 3RR and waited, posting to discussion, before reverting a fourth time at

2383:

Oh Calton, you grumpy gus. Looking at the edit history, it seems Natalinasmpf would like to keep the compromise she fostered, so I don't think you can say she's grown tired of my nonsense, whatever you might mean by that. I have certainly grown tired of "your" refusal to produce any evidence that

2353:

Hey Natalinasmpf, nice job changing your tag there, very pretty. Almost didn't realize you'd done the nomination. Everyone passing by should know she's embroiled in this Aetherometry conflict as well. I think you're totally off-base calling FZ a saboteur. All I've seen him do is try to ensure the

3490:

obviously pushing a right-wing anti-science agenda, you were an asshole, and I had no patience with your rubbish on the day that my country's capital city was subject to a random bombing that blew people's limbs off, at a time when those people I care about could easily have been there. But, it

2422:

Hold on. First, let me thank Pgio for the compliment on my signature. Secondly, I wish to clarify I wasn't "assisting" anyone in an edit war. As much as I disapprove of aetherometry, I felt it was much more constructive for the article's development to fall under "aether theories", which was an

1651:

Philosophus on his/her userpage says this is a second account created for privacy reasons. Is that kosher for voting purposes? Everyone else is forced to use the login they are known by; reputations are all we have as Wikiegos. (A second account for privacy for editing controversial articles is

3815:

This user seems to be a very good contributor, and we need more editors who know science well enough to provide reasoned responses to pesudo science. Howver I am concerned with the removal of other people's comments from talk pags, for any reason, and with reversions of edits that provided (or

3017:

about separate calculation errors Mann and McKitrick had made, I would have said his behaviour was less civil than would be expected from an administrator (the anon was as bad but has not been nominated here), too prone to quick reverts for an administrator, and too unwilling to consider other

2838:

The cold fusion RFC had strong support for going back to the featured version (if not, it was going to lose its FA status as people were concerned about the psuedo-science that had been inserted). It seemed a good idea to test if there was indeed support for that, so I found the FA version and

2230:

What I am a supporter of is the scientific method. I am a supporter of the notion that dissident scientific proposals should be evaluated not by the measuring stick of bigotry and fear of the new, but by an open-minded, careful approach that aims at an impartial evaluation of the experimental

2908:

State here unequivocally that you understand the very important role, and yes, even the great advancements historically achieved through dissident sciences, and how they, more than any other, have been the greatest 'cash crop' for humanity.... Acknowledge that you are merely a shill for the

2567:

literature, Schulz -- the direct record of the Correas' experiments and reasoning. The same place one has to start with any protoscience. You could gain insight into the accretion of the scientific ideas our society has received through the Correas' analysis of scientific history, if you were

2526:

pseudoscience is gentle. It violates some of the strongest, most validated scientific theories out there (among others, thermodynamics and relativity). Support for it is non-existant among serious physicists. Experimental evidence is negligible. It's very easy to come up with crap. That's why

4128:

A. Trick questions, eh? On the user page of a new contributor; in the first case one who has made an apparent test edit; in the second one who has made what looks like (repeated?) vandalism. But although I guess these are things that experienced users would do, they are not exclusively admin

2904:

Much of dissident science carries within itself, as a fundamental, the same desire to understand and protect the very same Mother Earth you and I both ride upon. Failing to offer this basic understanding to your technical 'opponents' in science, while using your position to gain combative

465:

We need good knowledgeable editors who are willing to tackle controversial topics. The consequence of tackling such controversial topics seems to be some oppose votes. For willingness to take on such topics, I believe it would be fair if the percentage required to be appointed was reduced.

3726:

and explicitly tell us where he would have excercised it, say in the Reddi edits, or others of the past half a year or so. Surely he must have a good idea of what he would do. That way we could all see the wisdom of his decisions. However, he has not taken up the suggestion, (yet). --

1906:

I disagree. What you need is an honest policy that unequivocally rejects from Knowledge (XXG) articles on topics about which there is no mainstream literature and that the Knowledge (XXG) "consensus" thinks are crackpot or is unable to evaluate on truly scientific grounds. You do

2918:

The community is young - we don't need to redistribute power until the second generation of users arrive, or until it gets much larger. Oh, please move some of your comments voluntarily to the talk page, leaving a link. I do not wish to antagonise you by doing it myself. Cheers.

1455:

article are exemplary. Because William has been involved in so many controversial subjects, I suggest that votes against him should count as votes in favor if those votes come from people who have repeatedly promoted the "POV" pseudoscientific viewpoint as if it is the "NPOV"

2750:

WMC, a climate modeler, cut two paragraphs about problems with computer simulations with an edit comment "Climate models- (potentially controversial) remove two paras, on the grounds that solar and clouds are already mentioned, and detail is not needed here - should be in GCM

3505:

A good starting point for our story seemed to be a critical article in Science by the German scientist Hans von Storch on Mann’s hockey stick. When I asked him how difficult it was to get it accepted, he said: “This time it was easy, because for once we didn’t have Mann as a

3407:); he attacks people that he disagrees with and, attimes, impatient in disputes. He is someone the community cannot trust (especially with npov vs spov). From my earliest interactions with William, he has repeatedly been uncivil. He also has made mischaraterization of me. 4341:

are occaisions when overriding process will be more trouble than its worth; there are occaisions when it will save a deal of time and trouble. Its telling them apart thats tricky. As a new admin, I'd tend to err on the process side. The arbcomm has to be somewhat freer.

3655:

I do not have any crank scientific theories I am pushing, and I more-or-less agree with him on global warming. Nonetheless, he reminds me of the recent discussion on wikien-l about the "scientific point of view". I think the opposition posters make some good points.

3978:. From a scientific viewpoint, many of these are now good. There are, sadly, still flow-of-prose problems with them, though - I think I have to recognise that while I'm happy adding science, beautiful prose is not my forte. Less controversially, I'm proud of my three 2167:). As this user has shown very little interest in actually contributing or participating in the community other than furthering his own cause, treating consensus with contempt, I move the vote be discounted. This of course, is left up to the closing bureaucrat. 4026:

for one possible solution). But I've learnt from this that an endless revert war doesn't help; that its necessary to involve other editors and to negotiate. I can certainly claim a familiarity with the mechanism of RFC/RFA which, who knows, might prove useful

2250:

the article was previously written in such an arrogant tone, rather than stating it is aetherometry's view, one stated the model of aetherometry as fact. Pgio did a good job of cleaning that up, while Helicoid and the rest only continued pushing their POV.

3774:

Just so there will be no doubt: I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere: I support NPOV. The proto/pseudo dispute belongs elsewhere. And I'm pleased to see that Reddi accepts that the members of the PS proj don't want him in - as I said, its not just me.

3737:

However, I think this would be a major policy step. For the record, I'll accept if its enacted, but other less drastic proposals come to mind: ... then this proposal would give the Troika unprecedented powers and I suspect might well lead to community

3957:, let me re-emphasise that I have no intention of using admin powers to settle content disputes on these pages). Other than that, I'm not expecting to be particularly active, though as time progresses I expect to ease my way into other admin chores. 2316:

policies of Knowledge (XXG). And make no mistake - although I did not contribute to "Knowledge (XXG), a Techno-Cult of Ignorance", I have to agree with much of the picture it paints. And I also agree with much of what the sequel to that piece,

3476:

when you (Guettarda) called me an "asshole", having a "right-wing agenda" and out to "screw everyone else" after I had reverted an article back to one of your edits? Strangely enough WMC did not delete that personal attack from the talk page.

2577:

So there is no peer-reviewed publication around? I found none...Google Scholar has nothing, further search brought only an unreviewed monograph and articles in "Infinite Energy", which has no standing at all. This is about as "scientific" as

3765:. WikiProject Pseudoscience is not a open NPOV project ... it is to push a SPOV (William doesn't seem to adhere to NPOV, just SPOV). My attempt to "join" was deliberate to keep balance in the project ... but the "members" do not want that. 3255:

decided to edit on Knowledge (XXG), made a bunch of POV edits to Microsoft, and disparaged Linux, then proceeded to get involved in a bunch of edit wars, I suppose if other editors treat him with hostility in kind, is that "butchery"?

2079:. I'll break my personal vow not to vote on this page again to support him. Connolley is a good, long-term supporter of Knowledge (XXG) - how many times does he need to prove this? I'm 100% sure he would use admin powers in that vein, 4022:, etc). Wiki has some difficulty dealing with these problems (i.e., when people have a very strong and essentially erroneous POV they wish to push, but only a small number of editors are prepared/available to resist; see 1325:. Good, hardworking user; he'll make a good administrator. Outstanding patience and energy in dealing with fringe science and pseudoscience, as mentioned below. Keep up your fine editing once you're an administrator! — 3469:

The citation evidence is in the page history, the deleted links and the talk pages. The criticisms of Michael Mann included direct quotes in a serious Dutch scientific magazine from a respected scientist and a link to

2815:, as per Taxman. In addition: I don't see why leaving this one to the loonies is acceptable: reverting to sanity should be no problem in a well-conducted encyclopedia. William M. Connolley 19:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC). 2239:

a supporter of the recurring Knowledge (XXG) "community" tactic of opportunistically redirecting the discussion towards insinuation and trying to cast vague aspersions on the good faith of inconvenient contributors.

4283:

Calm down, awright?! That was only a funny question with intention to cheer this serious atmosphere here. I am in full support of William's adminship and this won't change in 2010. Be cheerful and spread WikiLove. -

3193:

of the arbitration committee, which did not get a very favorable response. Am I saying the person who came up with the original idea shouldn't be an admin or on arbcom? Yes, absolutely. I have voted accordingly.

2724:(which he deleted in preceding "lack of time" example) or because there is no material which uses the citations because he already deleted related material which goes against his POV instead of fixing a dead URL 3132:

the reasons for which were amply explained on the talk page. Turns out he didn't actually taken the time to read the explanation on the talk page. Earlier, he had deleted most of the sources for that article

1911:

need people who, after the article has been accepted into Knowledge (XXG), make it a target of endless harassment to vent their bias against what they consider "crackpot". This is simply not right, you know.

3281:

I am not here to give you moral guidance as to how you should proceed in the future. You present a horrifically skewed perspective (your perspective) of the Aetherometry debate by analogy to the hypothetical

3674:, Dr. Connolley repeatedly removed his name without explanation but with only snide comments. It was left to others to explain in a civil manner why Reddi's move was provocative to project members. See also 183:. I'm taking the unusual step of supporting before the candidate has accepted and answered the questions, because (a) it will encourage him to say yes, and (b) I am satisfied with his answers from last time. 3634:

13:24, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Hello Theresa. Yes we are having an unseemly war over the article you improved so nicely. I won't edit it further until you have had a chance to look at it and comment substantively

1938:

He's a little controversial and has opinions, but who doesn't? I've seen him revert a little more than I would, but I see no reason for him not to be an admin. In fact, I'm surprised he's not already one.

3636:. Sixthly, I probably broke the 3RR then, for which I apologise. I wouldn't do it now. Note that it was not policy in those far-off days. Sevently, this seems like an awfully long time to hold a grudge. 2531:. We do science. Arguing with propellerheads is typically not productive, and not part of the job description of a scientist. Come when your perpetuum mobile has earned you the first million dollars. -- 3491:

would appear, that you would rather insult people...on a day like that I called a spade a spade. That you dig up that sort of stuff, well, I suppose it says a lot about the kind of person you are.

4043: 4011: 3517:

with a link to the article. You could have inserted "because for" before "once" if you thought it made a difference; I didn't think it did. But the meaning is clearly similar, not the opposite. --

2784: 3983: 2513:

be about tentacle rape because it's animated, Japanese, and takes place underwater -- or so he's heard. Why would you people trust a guy that won't even admit he doesn't know what he doesn't know?

4149:). Repeat offenders get blocks. If you obey the letter of the law... then its not really my business as an admin. If the behaviour is repeated, then others need to raise it as a user RFC I guess. 4007: 2984: 2396:

A perfectly apt description of that farrago of faux-regret, projection, falsehoods, and distortions that constitute your last post. I can see why actual scientific journals don't publish you. --

3827:

If you are talking about FZ's comments higher up the page, the "removal of comments" as far as I can tell, either refers to removal of personal attacks or archiving rambling arguments, over at

2320:

has to say about Knowledge (XXG)'s nature, hype, philosophy, and scientific bigotry. And, of course, about the ludicrous "Nature" 'study' concerning Knowledge (XXG)'s "scientific accuracy".

3816:

claimed to provide) references for alleged facts. I am not really worried about this user's admin actions, however, and I am not at all bothered by the likelyhood of this user's RfA passing.

2274:

hardly outrageous or POV, unless, apparently, your view is mainstream. Even Helicoid offered first to rework the article in Knowledge (XXG) style before the onslaught of the know-nothings.

3118:

I believe he is basically a good guy but unfortnately I have no confidence he will use admin powers in an even-handed way. On the plus side, he assumed good faith when I had a 3RR vio

3954: 3068:

As an example of our strained communication: William M Connnolley read one my sources superficially, took a single sentence out of context, gave it a wrong interpretation, and wrote: "

69: 3100: 4023: 3999: 3706: 3421: 3995:

Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

3751:: he is fully aware that he is regarded as a pusher of pseudoscience. And as you'll notice, his removal was enforced by others. Reddi's attempt to "join" was deliberate mockery. 3744:& at pseudophysics, because I wanted to get reaction from others who would probably be interested but not otherwise have seen it. To avoid xs here: see my talk page for more. 3740:. In other words, I was cautious. I haven't answered your question there, because I don't know what my answer would be. Note, BTW, that it was me that advertsied the proposal at 3099:

Both the accusations are false; the explanation for this vote is that I (and many other editors) opposed James S's pushing his pet graph into global warming and elsewhere; see

2091:

per opposers. Words don't say as much as the meaning around them, and the meaning around this rfa screams that William is qualified for the job. Karmafist 14 January 2006 (UTC)

4036:

To deal with an issue that came up at my previous RFA: at that time, I was under 1RR parole on climate change articles. That parole irked me, though I pretty well stuck to it

3701: 3340:(see the oppose comments above), and I believe William posted it to the CF talk page to point out what he considered to be a humorous section that they had written on CF. 3150:

be held to a higher standard that regular users; editors engaged in controversy have no business being admins; therefore, I would decline if I was nominated, for example ;)

3915:

usage: 99% for major edits and 100% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and and 150 minor edits outside the Knowledge (XXG), User, Image, and Talk namespaces.

2384:

you've even investigated the literature of Aetherometry, coupled with your insistent judgement, as if ignorance is a badge of pride for you. That is truly nonsensical.

3623:

Note - I belive this vote to be after the closing period. However, I'll answer anyway. Firstly, Noren is mistaken: I was *removing* the word orbiting, not adding it

2207:; Helicoid's comments were also seen there. The whole point of an RFA is to evaluate the candidate's trust by the community. For example, sockpuppets may not vote. 4003: 3931:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge (XXG) even more. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:

3417: 3953:

A. The climate change pages are often controversial and suffer vandalism: being an admin would ease the task of keeping this in check (and because it came up

3632:. Quite why I got bored with Noren I forget. Try reading all the discussion there and see if you get bored too :-). Fifthly, Noren has somehow failed to read 3231:

page, it's a Knowledge (XXG) page. It should be NPOV, which in particular requires that the mainstream scientific opinion should be adequately represented.--

2991:

that Jed's edits had deteriorated the quality of the article. And since this has been advertized among the aetherists and CF people, expect more to come. -

1897:

I opposed previous RfA due to the arbcom problems. We need people like him- Knowledge (XXG) has a bit too much tolerance for crackpot scientific theories.

2890:

any man aspiring to ride upon a "benevolent dictatorship". Oppose any man who implies that sovereignty is something that one is ever capable of granting

4376: 211:- first valid vote ;-) (Relax, guys, I'm sure your votes will be counted by the 'crat as well. I think the protocol is to wait until the bell rings.). -- 65: 3947: 3294:

as "Advertising, pseudoscience, and a hoax" on 20 Jun 2005, or an "extensive fraud" on 21 June 2005 without providing any evidence of actually studying

1276: 2496:

And WMC removed that comment from the Aetherometry Talk page three times, and then changed the article's category to Pseudoscience, with this comment:

1237:

until the claim that he deleted materials from talkpages(excluding personal attacks and stuff unrelated to the article) for POV reasons is documented.

3014: 4362:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.

4293:

I was going to say some of that in my answer, but I did have some other things to say too. I will say them in a bit, too. Don't delete the question!

3833:

I was refering to diffs proviced in FZ's comments, yes. I don't really approve of removing even personal attacks (as I have said on the talk page of

2411:

Ooh, Calton has moved up rhetorically from the rasberry to 'I am rubber, you are glue!' I guess we should expect 'my dad can beat up your dad' next?

2638:

one time or another, been "alleged by their critics" to be unscientific. You will have to put most everything into the "pseudoscience" bag, guys.

3121:(actually my first 3RR ever). On the minus side that 3RR was due to him repeatedly removing a disputed tag in the presence of a bona-fide dispute 2980:

Not sure if it matters because anyone can see these votes for what they are, but Jed has made his views on improving Knowledge (XXG) pretty clear.

3486:

For one, you were alleging that the paper said the opposite of what it said, so your use of the citation was dishonest. As to the second - you

3452:

Given the fact that this editor uses citations that say exactly the opposite of what he claims they say, we should probably interpret this as a

3358:

Especially since it accuses William specifically. And it accuses me. Can we strike out this oppose vote, considering it seems to be by mistake?

1472:. But the aetherometrist Oppose votes below have done a great job of convincing me that the user will use adminship tools responsibly and well. 4091:

questions. There are no correct answers to these questions and I simply want to know your opinions rather than see a correct answer. Thanks! --

3748: 3671: 2305:. I think I was distinctly measured and polite in my replies, and I'll note that FZ doesn't actually provide any examples for his assertions. 3898: 761: 4169:

pseudoscience stuff again. But there I would tend to support a redirect to the appropriate bit of real science rather than trouble with afd.

3741: 3400: 2943:

seem very well intentioned, but I'm perfectly just of stating the obvious, that malleability is the choicest clay of "benevolent dictators".

3515:

An author of a paper raising comments about his work noted that it became easy to publish "once we did not have Michael Mann as a referee".

3399:: Not that this vote will seem to turn the tide ... but I feel it is a sad day when WMC get his appointment. WMC is very good at pushing a 2370:

tag -- until she got tired of your nonsense. Also, the more you keep misusung the word "bigotry", the less sympathy you're going to get. --

3979: 2740: 2738: 2711: 2878:. I support NPOV, not SPOV, and I'm not convinced this user a/ shares that view or b/ would use admin powers to pursue the end of NPOV. 32: 17: 4204: 3626:. Second, the Roche limit exists independently of whether the body was orbiting or not. Thirdly, Noren broke good faith by reverting 3302:, of which you seem to advocate here: "if other editors treat him with hostility in kind is that "butchery"?" is a logical fallacy.-- 1718: 4326: 4188:? Socks tend to edit one article alone. Quite why they don't have the sense to make a pile of token edits elsewhere I don't know... 2164:

FrankZappo is a member of a group that has accused us all of being a "neo-maoist cabal" (or actually, a "techno-cult of ignorance"

4262:. Might I ask the questioner to retract the question? Or is the questioner attempting to size up the prospects of the bet between 3157:

immediately and unequivocally opposed to it is sufficient to disqualify him (or any other candidate for admin) in my mind. YMMV.

4258:

of an editor? Either way, the answer to questions of this ilk is fraught with expectations that possible future admins possess a

2845:. Interestingly, this is her first contrib since June last year so I rather suspect someone has been ringing up their friends... 1075: 2742:, although nobody noticed the violations during his previous vote for Administrator status nor during months more of violations. 3251:

Are we supposed to be more sensitive because they edited the article, rather than someone else writing about their work? So if

4044:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute_2#Removal_of_the_revert_parole_imposed_on_William_M._Connolley

3675: 3666: 1723: 59: 4037: 3838:

about a previous removal. I can understand that some editors are VERY vexing to deal with, but this is not a good idea IMO.

3606: 2611:

Agree with SS. Basically you complaining that guy put pseudoscience tag on pseudoscience article. And article itself state:

1845:

William M. Connolley is a responsible user, who has greatly contributed to several articles, and in does so in good nature.

1271: 3887: 3069: 2805: 2746: 3939: 3072:" I then showed how William M Connolley had fudged to suit his wishes, and William M Connolley did not reply to that. -- 1798: 357: 167:. William is a very experienced, even-handed, and valuabe contributor. His patience is sometimes limited, but that is a 4345: 4335: 4312: 4297: 4288: 4278: 4234: 4108: 4076: 3967:

Of your articles or contributions to Knowledge (XXG), are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

3919: 3900: 3881: 3866: 3844: 3822: 3810: 3779: 3769: 3755: 3730: 3660: 3640: 3618: 3588: 3565: 3541: 3521: 3495: 3481: 3464: 3447: 3428: 3411: 3385: 3376: 3353: 3344: 3330: 3306: 3274: 3246: 3235: 3220: 3216:

page when Askanas was active was butchery. I do not think this candidate will act responsibly with new admin powers.--

3198: 3184: 3161: 3141: 3107: 3094: 3080: 3060: 3048: 3033: 3022: 2995: 2975: 2955: 2937: 2913: 2882: 2864: 2849: 2833: 2791: 2777: 2698: 2686: 2669: 2651: 2642: 2632: 2623: 2596: 2586: 2572: 2558: 2545: 2535: 2517: 2481: 2469: 2441: 2415: 2404: 2388: 2378: 2358: 2348: 2324: 2309: 2278: 2268: 2244: 2225: 2198: 2188: 2159: 2140: 2128: 2117: 2106: 2083: 2071: 2059: 2046: 2034: 2022: 2003: 1977: 1965: 1954: 1943: 1930: 1916: 1901: 1889: 1861: 1849: 1814: 1802: 1781: 1769: 1755: 1738: 1726: 1704: 1665: 1656: 1640: 1623: 1611: 1599: 1584: 1571: 1556: 1544: 1533: 1524: 1513: 1501: 1480: 1460: 1443: 1420: 1400: 1382: 1366: 1354: 1332: 1317: 1301: 1290: 1279: 1246: 1229: 1205: 1189: 1177: 1165: 1153: 1140: 1119: 1107: 1095: 1080: 1053: 1041: 1029: 1012: 998: 982: 966: 955: 938: 921: 909: 897: 884: 873: 862: 846: 821: 801: 789: 775: 763: 748: 733: 721: 709: 697: 676: 664: 652: 640: 625: 613: 597: 585: 573: 565: 556: 544: 527: 515: 499: 487: 470: 457: 441: 429: 394: 380: 360: 345: 329: 317: 299: 284: 270: 258: 246: 228: 215: 203: 191: 175: 159: 147: 110: 97: 4137:

What would you do if a user reverts an article four times in slightly more than 24 hours? (Thus obeying the letter of

4271: 3943: 3975: 1416: 1329: 1224: 829:. Good contributor who will likely make good use of the admin tools. Decent responses to the optional questions. -- 772: 2823:

There being no obvious reason not to, I've done the said revert. William M. Connolley 20:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC).

2704: 4342: 4309: 4294: 4073: 4019: 3896: 3776: 3752: 3637: 3597: 3425: 3104: 2846: 2788: 2306: 1810:, good user, and I must thank SEWilco for bringing this RFA to my attention, I might have missed it otherwise. -- 759: 107: 55: 44: 3137:

might be a bad admin, particularly since he gets into fights on articles about controversial science topics.

3006: 2829:

to be the qualities of "a virtuous person" who can be trusted with administratoir privileges? Gimme a break.

2527:

scientists use a simple crap filter. If it is unsupported, but in blatant conflict with known laws of physics,

1713: 946:, but of course. Anyone with that much patience... (PS: Is anyone else surprised at the lack of oppose votes?) 649: 2682: 3735:

To answer the troika first: Art was unenthusiastic, but hasn't actually declined. I didn't "love" it: I said

3688:

Please don't be silly. You are the psuedoscience problem. William M. Connolley 22:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC).

2839:

reverted to it. Lo and behold, there *was* support for that version, because thats largely what is there now.

1661:

As GangofOne makes a valid point here, and there is considerable support already, I am removing this vote. --

68:) – An editor whom I shall declare is well respected by much of the community. For those unfamiliar with his 4146: 3299: 1874: 1690: 1608: 1255: 415: 354: 4229: 4103: 3372: 3270: 3180: 2933: 2437: 2367: 2344: 2264: 2221: 2184: 841: 637: 483: 143: 93: 4221: 4095: 3166:

That was a proposal by the arbitration comittee. Are you saying those on it shouldn't be admins as well?

3057: 2952: 2910: 2678: 1973:

Knowledgeable and wise. Scientifically minded. Accountable and authoritative. What's there not to like?--

1674: 1213: 1134: 833: 539: 399: 372: 2554:

there? I found only non-peer reviewed fantasy (and bad fantasy, at that). "Infinite Energy" indeed....--

2102: 2043: 1347: 1326: 1314: 964: 769: 706: 239: 3878: 3828: 3500:

The only reason continuing to debate this is that WMC invited you to help him in his battle against me

2983:

And of course the revert to the FA version was far from unilateral. There was strong consensus on the

1287: 4041:

The one revert parole placed upon William M. Connolley was an unnecessary move, and is hereby revoked

3891: 3802: 3596:

I am in agreement with him much of the time, and feel somewhat out of place in this oppose list, but

3382: 3349:

Yeah, I was totally baffled at how you could connect that attack piece by the Correas with William.

3327: 3153:

Additional P.S. I just read William's response to the question about the Troika. The fact that he is

2718:, deletes citations which disagree with his POV because he can't figure out what text refers to them 2613:

The term ... is not in use by mainstream physicists, and ... is not supported by scientific consensus

2016: 1962: 1104: 1071: 1066: 1010: 934: 787: 754: 634: 510: 342: 225: 156: 3422:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_William_M._Connolley

4056: 3341: 3232: 3045: 3030: 2648: 2583: 2555: 2532: 2098: 1940: 1494: 1468:. I actually came here with some concerns about the way WMC has handled the Great Footnote War and 1392: 1150: 1062: 1024: 961: 859: 718: 582: 377: 369: 315: 296: 172: 4015: 3337: 3295: 3291: 3213: 2523: 2204: 4333: 3842: 3820: 3584: 3195: 3158: 3138: 2114: 1683: 1510: 1477: 995: 951: 870: 673: 408: 326: 1830: 450: 3665:

I have not yet decided how to vote. Dr. Connolley is quite active on Knowledge (XXG). I see on

3242:

Carelessness on my part by using a pronoun instead of the definite article. I've amended it.--

2666: 2477:

Connolley stirkes me as the type of editor who will abuse his admin status to enforce his pov.

730: 4226: 4218: 4100: 4092: 3518: 3478: 3444: 3359: 3257: 3167: 3077: 2920: 2424: 2331: 2251: 2208: 2168: 2000: 1596: 1541: 838: 830: 687: 479: 127: 77: 4197: 4178: 3287: 4275: 3560: 3547: 3538: 3503:, showing something about his judgement. Here is the quote from the magazine linked above: 3319: 2972: 2855:

Yeah, yeah, the usual "virtuous" Connolley techniques - fudging and insinuation. And what,

2401: 2375: 1794: 1750: 1735: 1662: 1637: 1521: 1457: 1379: 1341: 1310: 1201: 1174: 817: 745: 562: 496: 282: 212: 72:, he is a climate modeller who is very knowledgeable in the areas of his expertise, such as 4162: 4158: 4138: 3834: 1634:: Has shown considerable diligence and patience in keeping pseudoscience articles in check. 221: 3998:

A. I've been heavily involved with conflicts, in two main areas: global warming (see-also

3797: 3286:

example you gave. But you have shown yourself capable of making assumptions and breaking

3089: 3019: 2879: 2639: 2629: 2321: 2241: 2195: 2156: 2012: 1913: 1879: 1243: 1007: 979: 930: 810: 785: 338: 2745:

There will be fewer limits on his behavior, as a minimum on his shown reversion behavior.

2592:

bizzarre. And please, what bit of the "primary record" have you read that you call bunk?

3414:(ps., he'll probably attack this post and me too and not address the points about him ) 3018:

people's opinions and external evidence to enable a NPOV position to develop easily. --

2489:

Let's look at Connolley's behavior when he's miffed. In WMC's link number 4 from above

4185: 4118: 3971: 3727: 3657: 3576: 3492: 3471: 3461: 3350: 3042: 3010: 2617: 2466: 1898: 1822:

with some reservations due to Oppose comments about removing others' Talk discussion.

1653: 1593: 1490: 1452: 1412: 1388: 1298: 1220: 1089: 1050: 1021: 855: 798: 570: 467: 309: 293: 200: 188: 73: 2843: 2364:

Everyone passing by should know she's embroiled in this Aetherometry conflict as well.

4370: 4330: 4285: 4251: 4214: 3839: 3817: 3580: 2861: 2830: 1858: 1581: 1568: 1553: 1473: 1363: 1186: 991: 947: 918: 881: 661: 4247: 3860:

I thought the answer to the 3RR question could have been a bit better, personally. -

1885: 4267: 4259: 3916: 3762: 3611: 3501: 3303: 3290:

about things which you know not a jot about. It was you I believe who denigrated

3243: 3217: 3073: 2774: 2695: 2031: 1986: 1811: 1765: 1746:

of contributors for core subjects the public expects Knowledge (XXG) to do well. -

1530: 1469: 1129: 1116: 1038: 906: 894: 693: 622: 524: 3418:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2#Statement_by_William_M._Connolley

1734:: he was asked eleven(!) questions and he answered them well, so he gets my vote. 1697: 854:. I opposed last time, but I now feel confident that WMC would make a good admin. 422: 4305: 4263: 4255: 4122: 3872:

This vote was moved to comments section because it is from a non-logged in user:

3861: 3685:

Please DO NOT remove my name again. J. D. Redding 21:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

3629:

with "revert vandalism". Fourthly, I discussed all this extensively at the time

3602: 3551: 3381:

Yes please, strike my vote. As people have pointed out, I have confused myself!

3316: 2992: 2988: 2760: 2397: 2371: 1951: 1927: 1846: 1790: 1747: 1439: 1375: 1197: 742: 594: 536: 454: 389: 279: 267: 255: 220:

We could always re-vote, but then we'd be meatpuppets... oh dear, which rule to

3938:

What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out

3630: 3766: 3615: 3408: 3323: 3283: 3252: 2317: 2137: 2125: 2056: 1974: 1869: 1826: 1778: 1620: 1429: 1238: 1162: 975: 553: 438: 292:, as I did in July. Superb contributor and likely to be an excellent admin. 3088:

numerous concerns, including dishonesty and a lack of explanation of edits. —

2165: 2593: 2579: 2569: 2542: 2514: 2412: 2385: 2355: 2275: 2080: 1408: 1210: 606: 184: 753:

Why do we always write "support" anyway? Well I'm not doing it, dammit. -

2785:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute_2#Remedies

3336:

Ummmm, Maury, William didn't write that. It was written by advocates of

3005:: having watched his battle with an anonymous editor and later others at 2478: 2068: 1834: 1565: 1161:

very knowledgeable and good to work with even when he disagrees with you

266:, but can I vote oppose so you don't waste much time on janitor tasks? - 4161:(unremarkable people or groups) and when would you nominate it for an 3508:

Now compare it with what I wrote and you and WMC insisted on deleting

3315:- he's basically called everyone involved in the extremely productive 1340:.Valued contributor, sysop tools should be safe enough in his hands.-- 660:. I like all his 9 answers but I'm gonna give him a 10th question. - 353:, mature and committed user. Unlikely to abuse administrative tools. 4356:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.

3212:- Treatment of Askanas (aka Helicoid) was bluff, his editing on the 2502:. Then he edited FZ's complaint about THAT action off the Talk page 2842:

Helcoid is another aetherometrist, as you'll see from her contribs

2767: 2647:

I've fixed the category description, thanks for pointing it out. --

2465:

per Frank. (Too controversial at the moment, may support later). --

4039:. But I'm pleased to say that (a) the arbcomm have now revoked it 4012:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute_2

3702:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pseudoscience#WMC's removal of my name

4024:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2/Workshop#Troika

3707:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests_for_arbitration/Reddi_2/Workshop#Troika

3439:

Dishonest and impossible to work with if he disagrees with you.

2721:

either because in he opposes having text connected to citations

1173:

Nothing I have seen would lead me to expect abuse of powers. --

917:

For atmospheric civility in RFArs and reversion edit summaries.

4072:

A. They are fair enough... hold on a bit and I'll answer them.

4008:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute

1061:. Have had very good experiences with him on the talk page for 2763:) in which he participates, and has removed critical material 2703:

WMC deletes citation information and violates official policy

1489:

Oppose votes are poorly reasoned, WMC is a great contributor.

705:

Certainly, old mate of mine from down the years in Cambridge.

104:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

1926:, per above, and per most of the oppose arguments too. ;-) 4203:

A. With caution. People tend to cite it to their own ends.

3070:

BTW, note that CT's favourite ref - Persson - supports this

684:

Seems like this candidate would make a briliant admin. ---

3443:. I am the anonymous user Audiovideo was talking about. -- 2729:(he is willing to fix dead URLs with ones to his own site 4000:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for comment/William M. Connolley

2366:

Yeah, she was helping you in your edit war to remove the

28:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

4157:

In your opinion, when would you delete an article under

2820:

and 13 minutes later unilaterally reverted the article:

2754:

but he failed to move the paragraphs to the GCM article.

1065:

and related-topic articles, with resolving disputes. —--

3698: 3627: 3624: 3511: 3509: 3474: 3440: 3134: 3130: 3128: 3126: 3124: 3122: 3119: 3101:

Talk:Global_warming/extreme_weather_extrapolation_graph

2981: 2764: 2755: 2752: 2732: 2730: 2727: 2725: 2722: 2719: 2716: 2714: 2708: 2503: 2500: 2490: 2303: 2300: 2297: 2294: 813: 552:

checked you over earlier and your edits look sound.--

495:- he probably should have been sysopped last time. 51:

final (129/23/4) ending 15:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

2615:! I truly think we should promote such a nice guy. 1789:good user that deals with a lot of the dirty work. 974:, proud to support a fellow atmospheric scientist. 4205:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight 4004:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/JonGwynne 3601:be a relatively dry, non-controversial topic: the 4217:(just in case someone thinks it's one of mine) -- 4057:Talk:Global_warming#Another_phase_of_tuning....3F 1643:(Please see my user page if this vote is needed.) 1387:"Aetherometry", huh? give the man a mop already. 4046:(b) the time limit on it has now expired anyway. 2694:. He allows his POV to damage Knowledge (XXG). 2318:Anti-Knowledge (XXG) 2: The Rise of the Latrines 4145:good faith get chance to re-revert themselves ( 648:I liked the answers to the questions below. -- 3705:below, Fred Bauder launched a "trial balloon" 1451:. WIlliams edits to the highly controversial 199:- obvious, since I nominated him last time. 8: 4325:I would like to ask the candidate's view on 4200:when writing or editing a disputed article? 4177:How would you tell the difference between a 4270:? Or is this a question better put to the 2550:What scientific literature on Aetherometry 3676:User_talk:William_M._Connolley#Wikiproject 4243:How do you see Knowledge (XXG) in 2010 ? 3749:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Pseudoscience 3672:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Pseudoscience 3610:02:04, 5 September 2004. A third party, 3473:- dismissed by WMC as gossip. Remember 3015:Temperature record of the past 1000 years 2293:FZ's rudness towards me is easily found: 2203:You are a supporter of the Correas under 3742:Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Physics 3667:User_talk:William_M._Connolley#adminship 2783:If you're wondering about SEW's oppose, 2509:anime insisting that Blue Submarine #6 4069:What do you think of these questions? 18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for adminship 4308:are not worth solving at this stage. 3103:for just one part of the discussion. 2759:WMC created an article about a blog ( 2529:it does not deserve detailed analysis 7: 4327:Knowledge (XXG):Process is Important 4055:If you'd like a recent example, try 2737:WMC violated his parole many times. 2766:which seems to have been supported. 535:, seconding Splash's advice above. 453:after response to number 8 below. 2097:the materialist-scientific cabal. 797:Highly knowledgeable contributor-- 252:Supported before and still support 24: 4377:Successful requests for adminship 3607:Knowledge (XXG):Three-revert_rule 3940:Category:Knowledge (XXG) backlog 1884: 816: 449:, with an encouragement to read 4213:The following question is from 3970:A. I've contributed heavily to 2235:a supporter of. And I am also 1576:Will he abuse tools? No. Ergo, 1466:Mop, bucket and cookies for WMC 768:Er...I think you just did... — 4272:Knowledge (XXG):Reference Desk 3546:Note to closing 'crat - seems 2011:. As before, and as above. -- 1592:, same reasons as last time.-- 1: 4121:}}, and when would you use {{ 3888:Special:Contributions/SEWilco 2705:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability 4346:21:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 3948:administrators' reading list 3901:07:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 3845:22:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 3823:22:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 3811:23:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 3780:18:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3770:15:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3756:17:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 3731:14:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 3661:07:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 3641:20:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC) 3619:16:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC) 3589:04:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC) 3566:03:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC) 3542:02:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC) 3522:06:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC) 3496:04:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC) 3482:04:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC) 3465:02:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC) 3448:01:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC) 3429:17:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3412:15:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3386:18:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3377:14:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3354:13:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3345:13:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3331:13:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3307:15:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3275:14:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3247:13:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3236:12:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3221:12:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3199:09:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3185:09:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3162:08:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3142:05:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3108:00:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3095:00:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 3081:21:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 3061:14:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 3049:02:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 3034:01:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 3023:23:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 2996:19:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 2976:16:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 2956:16:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 2938:14:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 2914:14:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 2883:08:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 2865:21:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 2850:20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 2834:19:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 2792:20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 2778:07:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 2699:07:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 2687:04:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 2670:02:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 2665:per reasoning stated above. 2652:22:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 2643:03:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 2633:03:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 2597:10:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 2587:09:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 2573:08:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 2559:22:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 2546:01:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 2494:I just don't like Connolley. 2442:14:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 2416:00:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 2405:13:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 2389:08:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 2379:07:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 2279:08:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 2269:09:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 2141:05:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC) 2129:03:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC) 2118:02:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC) 2107:00:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC) 2084:22:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 2072:20:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 2060:16:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 2047:16:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 2035:13:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 2023:11:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 2004:03:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 1978:03:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 1966:02:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 1955:01:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 1944:21:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 1931:21:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 1917:21:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 1902:21:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 1890:20:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 1862:18:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 1850:14:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 1815:11:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 1803:10:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 1782:09:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 1770:07:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 1756:06:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 1739:02:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 1727:22:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1705:20:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1666:17:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1657:12:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1641:07:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1624:21:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1612:18:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1600:21:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1585:17:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1572:16:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1557:16:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1545:15:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1534:14:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1525:14:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1514:14:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1502:13:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1481:13:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1461:13:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1444:12:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1421:09:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1401:09:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1383:07:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1367:07:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1355:07:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1333:07:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1318:06:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1302:05:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 1291:23:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 1280:19:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 1247:19:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 1230:09:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 1206:08:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 1190:07:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 1178:03:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 1166:01:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 809:- Should be a good admin -- 776:07:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 155:outstanding decision, Elle. 4336:23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 4313:20:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 4298:17:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 4289:22:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 4279:16:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 4235:17:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 4184:A. Ha! Are you thinking of 4109:18:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 4077:15:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 3928:Questions for the candidate 3920:16:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 3882:03:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 3867:00:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 3041:- too much controversy. -- 2624:23:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 2536:23:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 2518:23:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 2498:(reinsert PS, thanks to FZ) 2482:19:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 2470:11:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 2359:23:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 2349:21:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 2325:16:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 2310:15:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 2245:16:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 2226:11:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 2199:06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 2189:05:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 2160:03:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 1154:22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 1141:22:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 1120:22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 1108:22:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 1096:21:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 1081:19:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 1054:15:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 1042:14:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 1030:08:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 1013:06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 999:06:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 983:05:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 967:02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 956:23:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 939:21:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 922:19:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 910:19:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 898:19:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 885:19:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 874:18:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 863:17:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 847:17:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 822:16:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 802:15:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 790:14:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 764:14:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 749:13:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 734:13:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 722:12:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 710:11:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 698:11:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 677:10:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 665:09:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 653:08:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 641:07:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 626:06:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 614:06:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 598:02:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 586:02:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 574:02:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 566:02:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 557:01:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 545:00:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 528:00:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 516:00:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 500:22:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 488:22:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 471:22:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 458:21:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 442:20:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 430:20:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 395:20:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 381:19:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 361:18:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 346:18:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 330:18:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 318:18:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 300:18:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 285:17:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 271:17:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 259:17:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 247:16:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 229:16:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 216:16:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 204:14:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 192:13:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 176:13:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 160:13:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 148:13:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 126:. Naturally, as nominator. 111:15:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 98:13:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 4393: 4246:Bonk. This question is an 4207:is particularly important. 3942:, and read the page about 2394:That is truly nonsensical. 1710:Support science and reason 1145:Looks like a runaway, but 4020:dynamic theory of gravity 3984:Computer-generated images 3761:Wrong WMC ... I write on 3700:and the discussion page: 2813:Revert and keep or remove 4359:Please do not modify it. 3670:Reddi attempted to join 3401:scientific point of view 3322:an idiot in his longish 3007:Michael Mann (scientist) 593:Good admin candidate. -- 37:Please do not modify it. 4087:The following are some 3300:Two wrongs make a right 3189:That was a proposal by 2713:or without explanation 1037:. But keep on editing! 561:This one's a cinch. -- 106:I'm honoured to accept 2368:Category:Pseudoscience 563:King of All the Franks 4117:When would you use {{ 4014:) and pseudoscience ( 2677:per Frank and DTC. -- 1127:, just remembered to 980:(Leave me a message!) 523:, same as last time.- 33:request for adminship 4343:William M. Connolley 4310:William M. Connolley 4295:William M. Connolley 4074:William M. Connolley 3877:enthusiastically. -- 3777:William M. Connolley 3753:William M. Connolley 3697:Here is the history 3638:William M. Connolley 3598:William M. Connolley 3426:William M. Connolley 3105:William M. Connolley 2985:FARC discussion page 2847:William M. Connolley 2789:William M. Connolley 2707:due to lack of time 2307:William M. Connolley 1714:Jeffrey O. Gustafson 905:Hooray for weather! 507:. Good grief. --Jay 108:William M. Connolley 56:William M. Connolley 45:William M. Connolley 3678:to see a response: 3605:. He violated the 3550:is the new Boothy. 3324:anti-wikipedia rant 2178:toujours dorénavant 478:, as last time. -- 137:toujours dorénavant 87:toujours dorénavant 4196:How would you use 3980:feautured pictures 2172:vécut heureusement 1859:Neigel von Teighen 1635: 1609:Christopher Thomas 1285:Yes, yes, yes, yes 355:Christopher Parham 131:vécut heureusement 81:vécut heureusement 3886:What the heck is 3865: 3829:talk:aetherometry 3809: 3369: 3367: 3267: 3265: 3177: 3175: 2930: 2928: 2568:inclined to read. 2434: 2432: 2341: 2339: 2261: 2259: 2218: 2216: 2181: 2174: 2105: 2044:Cleared as filed. 1837: 1630: 1498: 1399: 1352: 1079: 1027: 889:Enthusiastically 688:Chazz's talk page 393: 140: 133: 90: 83: 4384: 4361: 4181:and a new user? 3982:and a number of 3976:related articles 3894: 3873: 3864: 3806: 3800: 3747:As to Reddi and 3558: 3368: 3365: 3361: 3266: 3263: 3259: 3176: 3173: 3169: 2929: 2926: 2922: 2787:is informative. 2620: 2433: 2430: 2426: 2340: 2337: 2333: 2260: 2257: 2253: 2217: 2214: 2210: 2180: 2175: 2173: 2170: 2101: 2019: 1996: 1993: 1990: 1888: 1882: 1877: 1872: 1839: 1829: 1702: 1695: 1688: 1681: 1496: 1391: 1348: 1346: 1327:Knowledge Seeker 1274: 1268: 1265: 1262: 1259: 1216: 1137: 1132: 1092: 1069: 1025: 929:as per above. -- 820: 770:Knowledge Seeker 757: 707:Charles Matthews 611: 542: 427: 420: 413: 406: 392: 375: 312: 244: 139: 134: 132: 129: 89: 84: 82: 79: 4392: 4391: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4367: 4366: 4357: 3892: 3871: 3804: 3552: 3366: 3363: 3264: 3261: 3174: 3171: 2927: 2924: 2710:or being 'icky' 2618: 2431: 2428: 2338: 2335: 2258: 2255: 2215: 2212: 2179: 2176: 2171: 2067:. I trust him. 2017: 1994: 1991: 1988: 1880: 1875: 1870: 1823: 1698: 1691: 1684: 1675: 1344: 1272: 1266: 1263: 1260: 1257: 1228: 1214: 1135: 1130: 1105:Pavel Vozenilek 1090: 755: 672:, of course. - 607: 540: 423: 416: 409: 400: 373: 310: 240: 238:good editor. -- 226:KillerChihuahua 157:KillerChihuahua 138: 135: 130: 88: 85: 80: 48: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4390: 4388: 4380: 4379: 4369: 4368: 4365: 4364: 4352: 4351: 4350: 4349: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4301: 4291: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4186:Talk:John Lott 4172: 4171: 4170: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4028: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3986: 3972:global warming 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3944:administrators 3930: 3925: 3924: 3922: 3904: 3903: 3884: 3869: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3813: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3745: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3689: 3663: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3591: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3388: 3373:Be eudaimonic! 3364:vécut heureuse 3362: 3347: 3342:Dragons flight 3334: 3309: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3271:Be eudaimonic! 3262:vécut heureuse 3260: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3233:Stephan Schulz 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3181:Be eudaimonic! 3172:vécut heureuse 3170: 3151: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3083: 3063: 3058:badlydrawnjeff 3056:per above. -- 3051: 3036: 3025: 3011:Ross McKitrick 3000: 2999: 2998: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2953:TTLightningRod 2948: 2944: 2934:Be eudaimonic! 2923: 2911:TTLightningRod 2906: 2902: 2885: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2840: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2770: 2769: 2757: 2748: 2743: 2735: 2689: 2679:Idont Havaname 2672: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2649:Stephan Schulz 2635: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2584:Stephan Schulz 2556:Stephan Schulz 2533:Stephan Schulz 2484: 2472: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2438:Be eudaimonic! 2427: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2345:Be eudaimonic! 2334: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2265:Be eudaimonic! 2254: 2222:Be eudaimonic! 2211: 2185:Be eudaimonic! 2177: 2144: 2143: 2131: 2120: 2109: 2092: 2086: 2074: 2062: 2049: 2037: 2025: 2006: 1980: 1968: 1957: 1946: 1933: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1892: 1864: 1852: 1840: 1817: 1805: 1784: 1772: 1758: 1744:Strong Support 1741: 1729: 1707: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1659: 1649:Point of Order 1645: 1644: 1614: 1602: 1587: 1574: 1559: 1547: 1536: 1527: 1516: 1504: 1484: 1463: 1453:global warming 1446: 1432: 1423: 1403: 1385: 1369: 1357: 1335: 1320: 1304: 1293: 1282: 1249: 1232: 1218: 1208: 1192: 1180: 1168: 1156: 1151:Colin Kimbrell 1143: 1122: 1110: 1098: 1083: 1063:Global warming 1056: 1044: 1032: 1015: 1001: 985: 969: 958: 941: 924: 912: 900: 887: 876: 865: 849: 824: 804: 792: 780: 779: 778: 751: 736: 724: 712: 700: 679: 667: 655: 643: 628: 616: 600: 588: 583:Dragons flight 576: 568: 559: 547: 530: 518: 502: 490: 473: 460: 444: 432: 397: 383: 363: 348: 332: 320: 302: 287: 273: 261: 249: 233: 232: 231: 206: 194: 178: 173:Stephan Schulz 171:large limit.-- 162: 150: 144:Be eudaimonic! 136: 115: 114: 94:Be eudaimonic! 86: 74:climate change 47: 42: 41: 40: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4389: 4378: 4375: 4374: 4372: 4363: 4360: 4354: 4353: 4347: 4344: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4334: 4332: 4328: 4324: 4321: 4314: 4311: 4307: 4302: 4299: 4296: 4292: 4290: 4287: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4277: 4273: 4269: 4265: 4261: 4257: 4253: 4249: 4248:imponderable 4245: 4244: 4242: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4233: 4232: 4228: 4225: 4224: 4220: 4216: 4206: 4202: 4201: 4199: 4195: 4192: 4187: 4183: 4182: 4180: 4176: 4173: 4167: 4166: 4164: 4160: 4156: 4153: 4148: 4143: 4142: 4140: 4136: 4133: 4127: 4126: 4124: 4120: 4116: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4107: 4106: 4102: 4099: 4098: 4094: 4090: 4085: 4078: 4075: 4071: 4070: 4068: 4065: 4064: 4058: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4045: 4042: 4038: 4035: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4025: 4021: 4017: 4013: 4009: 4005: 4001: 3997: 3996: 3994: 3991: 3990: 3985: 3981: 3977: 3973: 3969: 3968: 3966: 3963: 3962: 3956: 3952: 3951: 3949: 3945: 3941: 3937: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3929: 3923: 3921: 3918: 3914: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907:Editcount box 3902: 3899: 3897: 3895: 3889: 3885: 3883: 3880: 3876: 3870: 3868: 3863: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3846: 3843: 3841: 3836: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3821: 3819: 3814: 3812: 3807: 3799: 3795: 3792: 3781: 3778: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3768: 3767:J. D. Redding 3764: 3760: 3759: 3757: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3743: 3739: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3729: 3724: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3708: 3703: 3699: 3696: 3687: 3686: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3677: 3673: 3668: 3664: 3662: 3659: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3642: 3639: 3635: 3631: 3628: 3625: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3617: 3613: 3608: 3604: 3599: 3595: 3592: 3590: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3571: 3567: 3564: 3563: 3559: 3557: 3556: 3549: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3540: 3536: 3533: 3523: 3520: 3516: 3512: 3510: 3507: 3502: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3494: 3489: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3480: 3475: 3472: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3463: 3459: 3455: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3446: 3442: 3438: 3435: 3430: 3427: 3424:suffice here 3423: 3419: 3416: 3415: 3413: 3410: 3409:J. D. Redding 3406: 3403:in articles ( 3402: 3398: 3395: 3387: 3384: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3352: 3348: 3346: 3343: 3339: 3335: 3333: 3332: 3329: 3325: 3321: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3308: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3280: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3254: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3219: 3215: 3211: 3208: 3200: 3197: 3196:ObsidianOrder 3192: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3160: 3159:ObsidianOrder 3156: 3152: 3149: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3140: 3139:ObsidianOrder 3135: 3131: 3129: 3127: 3125: 3123: 3120: 3117: 3114: 3109: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3093: 3092: 3087: 3084: 3082: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3064: 3062: 3059: 3055: 3052: 3050: 3047: 3044: 3040: 3037: 3035: 3032: 3029: 3026: 3024: 3021: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3004: 3001: 2997: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2974: 2970: 2967: 2957: 2954: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2925:vécu heureuse 2917: 2916: 2915: 2912: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2893: 2889: 2886: 2884: 2881: 2877: 2874: 2866: 2863: 2858: 2854: 2853: 2851: 2848: 2844: 2841: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2832: 2827: 2822: 2821: 2819: 2814: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2806: 2803: 2800: 2793: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2781: 2779: 2776: 2772: 2771: 2768: 2765: 2762: 2758: 2756: 2753: 2749: 2747: 2744: 2741: 2739: 2736: 2733: 2731: 2728: 2726: 2723: 2720: 2717: 2715: 2712: 2709: 2706: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2697: 2693: 2690: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2673: 2671: 2668: 2664: 2661: 2653: 2650: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2641: 2636: 2634: 2631: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2622: 2621: 2614: 2610: 2598: 2595: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2585: 2581: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2571: 2566: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2548: 2547: 2544: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2534: 2530: 2525: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2501: 2499: 2495: 2492:FZ only says 2491: 2488: 2485: 2483: 2480: 2476: 2473: 2471: 2468: 2464: 2461: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2429:vécu heureuse 2421: 2417: 2414: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2387: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2357: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2336:vécu heureuse 2328: 2327: 2326: 2323: 2319: 2314: 2313: 2311: 2308: 2304: 2301: 2298: 2295: 2292: 2280: 2277: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2256:vécu heureuse 2248: 2247: 2246: 2243: 2238: 2234: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2213:vécu heureuse 2206: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2197: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2186: 2182: 2166: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2158: 2154: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2142: 2139: 2135: 2132: 2130: 2127: 2124: 2121: 2119: 2116: 2113: 2110: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2093: 2090: 2087: 2085: 2082: 2078: 2075: 2073: 2070: 2066: 2063: 2061: 2058: 2053: 2050: 2048: 2045: 2041: 2038: 2036: 2033: 2029: 2026: 2024: 2020: 2014: 2010: 2007: 2005: 2002: 2001: 1998: 1997: 1984: 1981: 1979: 1976: 1972: 1969: 1967: 1964: 1961: 1958: 1956: 1953: 1950: 1947: 1945: 1942: 1937: 1934: 1932: 1929: 1925: 1922: 1918: 1915: 1910: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1900: 1896: 1893: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1878: 1873: 1868: 1865: 1863: 1860: 1856: 1853: 1851: 1848: 1844: 1841: 1838: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1821: 1818: 1816: 1813: 1809: 1806: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1785: 1783: 1780: 1776: 1773: 1771: 1768: 1767: 1762: 1759: 1757: 1754: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1742: 1740: 1737: 1733: 1730: 1728: 1725: 1721: 1720: 1715: 1711: 1708: 1706: 1703: 1701: 1696: 1694: 1689: 1687: 1682: 1680: 1679: 1673: 1667: 1664: 1660: 1658: 1655: 1650: 1647: 1646: 1642: 1639: 1633: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1622: 1618: 1615: 1613: 1610: 1606: 1603: 1601: 1598: 1595: 1591: 1588: 1586: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1573: 1570: 1567: 1563: 1560: 1558: 1555: 1551: 1548: 1546: 1543: 1540: 1537: 1535: 1532: 1528: 1526: 1523: 1520: 1517: 1515: 1512: 1511:JK the unwise 1508: 1505: 1503: 1500: 1492: 1488: 1485: 1482: 1479: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1464: 1462: 1459: 1454: 1450: 1447: 1445: 1442: 1441: 1436: 1433: 1431: 1427: 1424: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1407: 1404: 1402: 1398: 1396: 1390: 1386: 1384: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1370: 1368: 1365: 1361: 1358: 1356: 1353: 1351: 1343: 1339: 1336: 1334: 1331: 1328: 1324: 1321: 1319: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1305: 1303: 1300: 1297: 1294: 1292: 1289: 1288:Phil Sandifer 1286: 1283: 1281: 1278: 1275: 1270: 1269: 1253: 1250: 1248: 1245: 1242: 1241: 1236: 1233: 1231: 1226: 1222: 1217: 1212: 1209: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1196: 1193: 1191: 1188: 1184: 1181: 1179: 1176: 1172: 1169: 1167: 1164: 1160: 1157: 1155: 1152: 1149:regardless. - 1148: 1144: 1142: 1139: 1138: 1133: 1126: 1123: 1121: 1118: 1114: 1111: 1109: 1106: 1102: 1099: 1097: 1094: 1093: 1087: 1084: 1082: 1077: 1073: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1057: 1055: 1052: 1048: 1045: 1043: 1040: 1036: 1033: 1031: 1028: 1023: 1019: 1016: 1014: 1011: 1009: 1005: 1002: 1000: 997: 993: 989: 986: 984: 981: 977: 973: 970: 968: 965: 963: 959: 957: 953: 949: 945: 942: 940: 936: 932: 928: 925: 923: 920: 916: 913: 911: 908: 904: 901: 899: 896: 892: 888: 886: 883: 880: 877: 875: 872: 869: 866: 864: 861: 857: 853: 850: 848: 845: 844: 840: 837: 836: 832: 828: 825: 823: 819: 815: 812: 808: 805: 803: 800: 796: 793: 791: 788: 786: 784: 781: 777: 774: 771: 767: 766: 765: 762: 760: 758: 752: 750: 747: 744: 740: 737: 735: 732: 728: 725: 723: 720: 716: 713: 711: 708: 704: 701: 699: 695: 691: 689: 686:Responses to 683: 680: 678: 675: 674:Mailer Diablo 671: 668: 666: 663: 659: 656: 654: 651: 647: 644: 642: 639: 636: 632: 629: 627: 624: 620: 617: 615: 612: 610: 604: 601: 599: 596: 592: 589: 587: 584: 580: 577: 575: 572: 569: 567: 564: 560: 558: 555: 551: 548: 546: 543: 538: 534: 531: 529: 526: 522: 519: 517: 514: 512: 506: 503: 501: 498: 494: 491: 489: 485: 481: 477: 474: 472: 469: 464: 461: 459: 456: 452: 448: 445: 443: 440: 436: 433: 431: 428: 426: 421: 419: 414: 412: 407: 405: 404: 398: 396: 391: 387: 384: 382: 379: 376: 371: 367: 364: 362: 359: 356: 352: 349: 347: 344: 340: 336: 333: 331: 328: 327:Ian Pitchford 324: 321: 319: 316: 314: 313: 306: 303: 301: 298: 295: 291: 288: 286: 283: 281: 277: 274: 272: 269: 265: 262: 260: 257: 253: 250: 248: 245: 243: 237: 234: 230: 227: 223: 219: 218: 217: 214: 210: 207: 205: 202: 198: 195: 193: 190: 186: 182: 179: 177: 174: 170: 166: 163: 161: 158: 154: 151: 149: 145: 141: 125: 122: 121: 120: 119: 112: 109: 105: 102: 101: 100: 99: 95: 91: 75: 71: 67: 64: 61: 57: 53: 52: 46: 43: 39: 38: 34: 31: 26: 25: 19: 4358: 4355: 4322: 4268:Eric Goldman 4260:crystal ball 4256:super-powers 4240: 4230: 4222: 4212: 4193: 4174: 4154: 4134: 4114: 4104: 4096: 4088: 4086: 4084: 4066: 4040: 4016:aetherometry 3992: 3964: 3935: 3927: 3926: 3913:Edit summary 3912: 3906: 3905: 3879:24.12.29.115 3874: 3854: 3853: 3793: 3763:protoscience 3736: 3649: 3648: 3633: 3593: 3572: 3561: 3554: 3553: 3534: 3519:Facethefacts 3514: 3504: 3487: 3479:Facethefacts 3457: 3456:vote for an 3453: 3445:Facethefacts 3436: 3404: 3396: 3338:Aetherometry 3312: 3311: 3296:aetherometry 3292:Aetherometry 3228: 3214:Aetherometry 3209: 3190: 3154: 3147: 3146:P.S. Admins 3115: 3090: 3085: 3065: 3053: 3038: 3027: 3002: 2968: 2891: 2887: 2875: 2856: 2812: 2801: 2691: 2674: 2662: 2616: 2612: 2564: 2551: 2528: 2524:Aetherometry 2510: 2506: 2497: 2493: 2486: 2474: 2462: 2393: 2363: 2236: 2232: 2205:aetherometry 2152: 2146: 2145: 2133: 2122: 2111: 2094: 2088: 2076: 2064: 2051: 2040:Weak support 2039: 2027: 2008: 1999: 1987: 1985:Good editor 1982: 1970: 1959: 1948: 1935: 1923: 1908: 1894: 1866: 1854: 1842: 1824: 1819: 1807: 1786: 1774: 1764: 1760: 1751: 1743: 1731: 1717: 1709: 1699: 1692: 1685: 1677: 1676: 1648: 1631: 1616: 1604: 1589: 1577: 1561: 1549: 1542:Secretlondon 1538: 1518: 1506: 1486: 1470:User:SEWilco 1465: 1448: 1438: 1434: 1425: 1405: 1394: 1371: 1359: 1349: 1337: 1322: 1306: 1295: 1284: 1256: 1251: 1239: 1234: 1194: 1187:Abe Dashiell 1182: 1170: 1158: 1146: 1128: 1124: 1112: 1100: 1088: 1085: 1058: 1046: 1034: 1017: 1003: 987: 971: 943: 926: 914: 902: 890: 878: 867: 851: 842: 834: 826: 806: 794: 782: 738: 729:A pleasure. 726: 714: 702: 685: 681: 669: 657: 645: 630: 618: 608: 602: 590: 578: 549: 532: 520: 508: 504: 492: 480:Jitse Niesen 475: 462: 446: 434: 424: 417: 410: 402: 401: 385: 365: 350: 334: 322: 308: 304: 289: 275: 263: 251: 241: 235: 208: 196: 180: 168: 164: 152: 123: 117: 116: 103: 62: 54: 50: 49: 36: 29: 27: 4306:sovereignty 4276:Ancheta Wis 4264:Mike Godwin 3603:Roche Limit 3548:Masssiveego 3539:Masssiveego 3317:Cold fusion 2989:cold fusion 2973:JedRothwell 2761:RealClimate 2463:Weak Oppose 2115:Sarah Ewart 1963:Ben Aveling 1736:Jonathunder 1663:Philosophus 1638:Philosophus 1522:Fred Bauder 1458:Count Iblis 1456:mainstream. 1175:SusanLarson 719:Terence Ong 603:OMG Support 497:Chick Bowen 242:a.n.o.n.y.m 213:Ancheta Wis 4254:expecting 4179:sockpuppet 4027:elsewhere. 3798:Flcelloguy 3738:resistance 3284:Bill Gates 3253:Bill Gates 3191:one member 3020:Audiovideo 2880:Grace Note 2640:FrankZappo 2630:FrankZappo 2322:FrankZappo 2242:FrankZappo 2196:FrankZappo 2157:FrankZappo 2018:Μελ Ετητης 2013:Mel Etitis 1914:FrankZappo 1831:2006-01-12 1724:<*: --> 1008:SlimVirgin 931:PS2pcGAMER 692:Signed by 571:Rob Church 370:Kirill Lok 294:Antandrus 30:successful 4165:instead? 4079:... Done. 3955:last time 3893:brenneman 3890:about? - 3796:for now. 3728:GangofOne 3658:Ruy Lopez 3577:Kefalonia 3575:, as per 3506:referee.” 3493:Guettarda 3462:Guettarda 3460:editor. 3351:Guettarda 3320:talk page 3227:It's not 3043:Netoholic 2751:article." 2619:TestPilot 2580:Dianetics 2467:Kefalonia 1899:Borisblue 1654:GangofOne 1594:Eloquence 1531:JuntungWu 1491:Hipocrite 1307:Certainly 1299:Jacoplane 1091:TestPilot 1051:Viriditas 1022:Sjakkalle 856:Carbonite 799:Confuzion 756:brenneman 335:Support'# 201:Guettarda 70:first RFA 4371:Category 4286:Darwinek 4215:Darwinek 4089:optional 3946:and the 3855:Comments 3581:enochlau 3441:See talk 3405:not NPOV 3091:James S. 2862:Helicoid 2831:Helicoid 2522:Calling 2099:Ashibaka 2055:editor. 1941:DanielCD 1799:contribs 1719:Shazaam! 1529:Fine. -- 1474:Bishonen 1449:Support' 1417:contribs 1364:Carnildo 1076:contribs 1026:(Check!) 992:utcursch 948:Shimgray 919:Smmurphy 882:Jim62sch 727:Support. 662:Darwinek 650:Chris S. 468:crandles 451:WP:BEANS 311:Phædriel 66:contribs 4231:phoenix 4198:WP:NPOV 4105:phoenix 3917:Mathbot 3875:Support 3794:Neutral 3650:Neutral 3612:Doradus 3304:Knucmo2 3288:WP:NPOV 3244:Knucmo2 3218:Knucmo2 3074:Cleonis 2775:SEWilco 2696:SEWilco 2565:primary 2134:Support 2123:Support 2112:Support 2095:Support 2089:Support 2077:Support 2065:Support 2052:Support 2032:Swirlix 2028:Support 2009:Support 1983:Support 1971:Support 1960:Support 1949:Support 1936:Support 1924:Support 1895:Support 1867:Support 1855:Support 1843:Support 1820:Support 1812:Stormie 1808:Support 1787:Support 1775:Support 1766:Samsara 1761:Support 1732:Support 1686:γκυκλοπ 1632:Support 1617:Support 1605:Support 1590:Support 1578:support 1562:Support 1550:Support 1539:Support 1519:Support 1507:Support 1487:Support 1435:Support 1426:Support 1406:Support 1372:Support 1360:Support 1338:Support 1323:Support 1296:Support 1252:Support 1235:Support 1195:Support 1183:Support 1171:Support 1159:Support 1147:Support 1125:Support 1113:Support 1101:Support 1086:Support 1059:Support 1047:Support 1039:Thincat 1035:Support 1018:Support 1004:Support 988:Support 972:Support 962:Jaranda 944:Support 927:Support 915:Support 907:adamsan 903:Support 895:Pjacobi 891:support 879:Support 868:Support 852:Support 843:phoenix 827:Support 807:Support 795:Support 783:Support 739:Support 715:Support 703:Support 682:Support 670:Support 658:Support 646:Support 631:Support 623:Bhadani 619:Support 591:Support 579:Support 550:Support 533:Support 525:gadfium 521:Support 505:Support 493:Support 476:Support 463:Support 447:Support 435:Support 411:γκυκλοπ 386:Support 366:Support 351:Support 323:Support 305:Support 290:Support 276:Support 264:Support 236:Support 209:Support 197:Support 181:Support 165:Support 153:Support 124:Support 118:Support 4250:. Are 4159:CSD A7 4139:WP:3RR 4129:tasks. 3862:Splash 3835:WP:RPA 3594:Oppose 3573:Oppose 3555:BD2412 3535:Oppose 3458:honest 3454:Suppor 3437:Oppose 3420:& 3397:OPPOSE 3313:Oppose 3210:Oppose 3148:should 3116:Oppose 3086:Oppose 3066:Oppose 3054:Oppose 3039:Oppose 3028:Oppose 3013:, and 3003:Oppose 2993:Taxman 2969:Oppose 2888:Oppose 2876:Oppose 2802:Oppose 2692:Oppose 2675:Oppose 2663:Oppose 2487:Oppose 2475:Oppose 2398:Calton 2372:Calton 2153:Oppose 2147:Oppose 1952:Simesa 1928:SCZenz 1847:Avador 1791:Quaque 1693:αίδεια 1621:Jayjg 1569:(Talk) 1376:Calton 1267:Uidhir 1198:Dan100 1131:Sceptr 871:Izehar 811:Francs 746:(talk) 743:sannse 635:Banyan 595:rogerd 455:Jkelly 418:αίδεια 390:Splash 358:(talk) 297:(talk) 280:DS1953 268:Taxman 256:Vsmith 222:ignore 4119:test1 3805:note? 3616:Noren 3383:Maury 3360:Elle 3328:Maury 3258:Elle 3229:their 3168:Elle 2921:Elle 2425:Elle 2332:Elle 2252:Elle 2209:Elle 2169:Elle 2138:Bobet 2126:Jossi 2057:Xoloz 1995:Gizza 1975:Fangz 1833:13:10 1827:Quarl 1779:Junes 1430:Rd232 1342:cjllw 1163:Salsb 976:EWS23 694:Chazz 609:Grue 554:MONGO 511:Reply 439:KHM03 307:. -- 278:. -- 185:David 128:Elle 78:Elle 16:< 4274:? -- 4266:and 4147:e.g. 4125:}}? 4010:and 3974:and 3585:talk 3078:Talk 2987:for 2892:down 2683:Talk 2667:JSIN 2594:Pgio 2570:Pgio 2563:The 2543:Pgio 2515:Pgio 2511:must 2413:Pgio 2402:Talk 2386:Pgio 2376:Talk 2356:Pgio 2276:Pgio 2103:tock 2081:jguk 1795:talk 1497:Talk 1478:talk 1440:Ruud 1413:talk 1409:Axon 1380:Talk 1362:. -- 1350:TALK 1315:talk 1244:(ix) 1202:Talk 1117:Joke 1072:talk 1067:Aude 1049:. -- 996:talk 952:talk 935:talk 893:. -- 860:Talk 814:2000 731:Ambi 638:Tree 621:: -- 537:Tito 484:talk 339:Dunc 325:. -- 189:Talk 169:very 60:talk 4331:DES 4252:you 4241:10. 4227:ath 4163:AFD 4141:.) 4101:ath 3840:DES 3818:DES 3488:are 3298:. 3155:not 3031:Ben 2857:you 2507:any 2479:DTC 2237:not 2233:not 2069:Dmn 1909:not 1871:Job 1752:Boy 1748:Roy 1566:C S 1554:Duk 1509:.-- 1437:. — 1389:dab 1277:(c) 1273:(t) 1264:Mac 1240:Fad 1211:NSL 839:ath 741:-- 437:. 378:hin 368:. — 4373:: 4329:? 4323:11 4194:9. 4175:8. 4155:7. 4135:6. 4123:bv 4115:5. 4067:4. 4018:, 4006:, 4002:, 3993:3. 3965:2. 3950:. 3936:1. 3803:A 3758:. 3709:: 3587:) 3579:. 3537:-- 3513:: 3477:-- 3375:) 3273:) 3183:) 3076:| 3009:, 2936:) 2852:. 2780:) 2734:). 2685:) 2552:is 2440:) 2400:| 2374:| 2347:) 2312:. 2302:, 2299:, 2296:, 2267:) 2224:) 2187:) 2136:- 2030:. 2021:) 1939:-- 1857:-- 1801:) 1797:• 1777:. 1763:. 1722:- 1716:- 1712:-- 1636:-- 1619:. 1607:-- 1580:. 1552:-- 1493:- 1476:| 1428:. 1419:) 1378:| 1374:-- 1345:| 1313:| 1311:cj 1309:-- 1254:→ 1204:) 1103:, 1074:| 1020:. 1006:. 994:| 990:. 978:| 960:-- 954:| 950:| 937:) 858:| 717:-- 696:@ 633:- 605:. 581:. 541:xd 486:) 337:— 254:- 224:? 187:| 146:) 96:) 35:. 4348:. 4315:. 4300:. 4223:e 4219:D 4097:e 4093:D 4059:. 3808:) 3801:( 3782:. 3643:. 3583:( 3562:T 3431:. 3371:( 3269:( 3179:( 3110:. 3046:@ 2932:( 2794:. 2773:( 2681:( 2436:( 2343:( 2263:( 2220:( 2183:( 2015:( 1992:a 1989:D 1881:6 1876:e 1835:Z 1825:— 1793:( 1700:* 1678:ε 1597:* 1582:] 1499:» 1495:« 1483:. 1415:| 1411:( 1397:) 1395:ᛏ 1393:( 1330:দ 1261:. 1258:P 1227:) 1225:C 1223:+ 1221:T 1219:( 1215:E 1200:( 1185:– 1136:e 1115:– 1078:) 1070:( 933:( 835:e 831:D 773:দ 690:. 513:) 509:( 482:( 425:* 403:ε 374:s 343:☺ 341:| 142:( 113:. 92:( 63:· 58:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Requests for adminship/William M. Connolley 2 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index