User talk:FloNight/archive 12

2087: 2003: 5557: 5501: 5448: 5727: 4093: 3053: 1776: 858: 786: 714: 642: 573: 456: 374: 257: 185: 113: 4411:

legitimate though inopportune use of a lack of clarity in the way that you have been doing. Your actions on WMC's talk page would have been acceptable if they had happened before Beeblebrox's bad block or if that block had already been reverted. But that's not the situation we are in, and the fact that you have reacted to the second admin !vote for overturning the block with a call for closing the appeal only makes it appear a lot worse.

2500: 2463: 5195:- whom I assume will do any needed mainspace edits). This is a good bit outside the norm for someone who's indef-blocked, but there's nothing about it on his talk page, and I don't know if this is a legitimate deal he struck with you, an advanced case of meat-puppetry, some odd technical thing in popups on my end that shows him as blocked when he isn't, or some other form of weirdness. Do you know what the deal is? -- 1893:(as you may know, I am the instructor who supervises this student assignment). I am curious - why did you remove it, and where to? I was leaving the existing material, letting the students try to incorporate / rewrite it... perhaps it might be moved to the talk with an explanation for why you carry out that change (I am asking, because I know the students are going to ask me that soon :D). Thanks for your interest, -- 2283:. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. 2209: 5227: 5519:, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Knowledge, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page 5466:, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Knowledge, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page 5550: 5011: 4890: 3923: 3251: 2880: 2576: 4257:

change articles, because of the lengthy history of discord, I appreciate your insight on the matter and will remember that in the future. It was certainly not my intent to upset the climate change applecart, either with my block or my AN notice (which was largely unrelated to Climate change, although I think it confused some folks).

4321:, example of recent edits to CC related articles) As a general rule, if a page comes up on your watch list because you edited it then you don't act as an admin about anything related to it. For situations in this topic area you are like a regular editor and need to find someone else to handle anything that needs admin attention. 1831: 5295:, we have 15 active members, 6 semi-active ones and 45 inactive. Out of those, 4 active, 3 semi-active and 1 inactive members have added themselves to corresponding categories since the mini-census. The next one is planned, roughly, for sometime next year. The membership list has been kept since 2004. 4277:

routine, and very much in the line of ordinary administrative action. Was that the "editorial dispute" you were thinking of (if not, I would be very interested to know what you're seeing). I'm happy to abide by such a prohibition (particularly since I visit climate articles only incidentally), but if

5660:

that has been updated on their site that apparently wiki takes as a published source. You deleted that also. Can you help me understand this?? I do not have a personal interest in this nor is any of this out of spite. I do not even know this person personally, so I am confused with the accusation!

3713:

Hi Flo, I saw you on the list of users with oversite rights and would like you to help out. I chose you from the list as the other people who I have interacted with before on the list appear to be busy with the CC arbcom case, hopefully you are not too busy. If you are not busy would you mind looking

3181:

I have answered your accusations against me on the proposed decision talkpage and I am telling you here as a courtesy. It would have been good if you could have informed me of the presentation of new evidence against myself so that I might have had an opportunity to explain my side of the argument or

1939:

Thanks for letting me know about the copyright violation in the text. I saw who added it and didn't think it was a student but instead a blocked user who is editing logged out. I'll highlight those lines on the subpage as being material directly lifted from the source and note the ways that it can be

1427:

I would like my old en:wp accounts unblocked. This is distinct from the remaining restriction that I only use this account. I would like that dropped, too, but believe it would have to be an explicit motion (which I'm thinking of seeking, too). I believe that the past few years has shown that I'm not

989:

I am relatively new to Knowledge. I am having trouble with a couple of editors applying the "notability" guidelines. It is uneven. I have an earned PhD in a historical area and yet the way things are applied do not seem to be fair or fairly applied to all articles. Could you look at these two and

4484:

Hi, I note that you edited the above page in June. I wonder if you could revisit it. There is an editor who is intent on putting in material that is poorly written, badly sourced and spammy. The editor seems to have an uncanny knowledge of the subject. If I revert the changes again I will breach

4260:

Regarding my editing history, I appreciate the information in your links. Very occasionally, when I feel like the question is sufficiently obvious given my non-expertise, I try to address it on the talk page. But most of what I have done is focus on clear, unequivocal vandalism (as is my custom on

2441:

to GA status earlier this year. That might be an article you target for FA and possible main page treatment for WHM 2011. I know it's early, but that gives you plenty of time, and I'll try to pitch in where I can if you decide to go this route. I think I've picked all the low-hanging fruit as far as

2395:

Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning

2381:

The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should

1519:

Of course. I expect to quibble them all. But there should be no hurry on this - the rather indecent haste on closing this is wrong; at least AGK has said so. Do you really want this closed before I have a chance to reply to your diffs? That seems quite unjust and a violation of due process. I invite

1491:

Hi. I'm trying to answer your diffs but keep getting e/c with you, which is a pain. I feel some urgency anout responding to your diffs, as several editors (Bozmo, LHVU, Lar) seem to think its a good idea to close up this request before troubling themselves with the "due process" of letting me reply.

5103:

has been fully edit protected for over a month now and I rather think the controversy that provoked the edits has died down. It's difficult for me to review the full history but it looks like the only users to make the controversial additions (others amended and corrected them) were Bocktrompet and

4544:

Hi, does your addition to the block log there ..Contact ArbCom prior to editing for follow up to SPI .. have any weight as to the length of the block? I am asking this as the thread is still open on ANI as to a possible reduction back from the present indef to the previous two weeks, regarding your

4276:

Thanks for getting back to me, I appreciate the clarification. I'm fairly familiar with administrative policy and guidelines, but I appreciate the reminder. I'm not sure, however, so let me as if you disagree with any of my administrative actions. My interactions with Off2riorob seemed perfectly

4241:

Thanks for the note; Climate change has not been much in my purview so I am rapidly trying to get myself up to speed. As an experienced editor, I am curious as to your view of my actions. I feel quite comfortable with them on any other part of the project, but am (as I note) new to climate change

2125:

Thank you for joining our task force. I'm glad to hear that you are willing to pay more attention to the Eastern Mountain Coal Fields region because most wikipedians in Kentucky seem to ignore it. Also if you do find the images you mentioned, that would be great. This area could definately use some

2063:

Thank you for the invitation. I have a strong interest in seeing more content added about this area of Kentucky. I'm originally from Huntington, and have been living in the Lexington area since 1983. I've edited about this area some, and will try to give it more attention since you all are focusing

5659:

I read the BLP page. It asks that with regard to someones birth date you only list the year. Which is what I did. I left out the actual birth date. I listed his name... what would be considered a reliable source?? A birth cert?? A marriage cert?? A drivers Lic?? Also I listed other info

4296:

Yes, any edits to the CC area and participation in discussions cause an admin to be involved so you definitely should not act as an administrator in the area. You had direct interaction with Off2riorob on the article when you reverted him, and then blocked him for his further edits to the article.

1913:

I spent some time looking a sources today and I removed it because I thought that the article needed a complete rewrite. I was glad to see the students doing it. I didn't want the students to feel that they needed to use was already there in the article. The content is still in the history so they

4410:

Arbcom left a grey area with the topic bans. There is no way that comments on a user's own talk page can count as "process". It is not wise of WMC to continue pointing out problems on his talk page and I have warned him against it. But it is completely unacceptable to obsess over another editor's

4256:

tag (it was also technically a BLP violation, but that's less important here). I have no opinion (and expressed none) on the edit once a source was found, only that it became an edit war. As I say, outside of climate change this sort of thing is routine. If you see it as problematic in climate

3832:

2. The words "topic ban" are just stuttering and have no place here. What Finley intends is to refer to the wording “adhere to the purpose of Knowledge, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum” that appears in the remedy Blackburne cited, and Finley has just

1471:

where I have noted your previous preferred option and included it in the poll. I have done this action because you have noted that you were time constrained because of RL matters, and you may not have time to place your option before the poll closes. If you wish to certify (by subbing my sig with

4827:

In this situation, the main issue that needs follow up is whether the content needs to be suppressed or not. I did it out of caution because of the wording of the content and because of the type of reference (an issue blog) used to source the content. I did a quick check online but didn't see it

2374:

All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very

5210:

Ludwigs, I blocked him after discussion with him and arbcom found that was the best approach to resolve the immediate situation. Since then MN has been in contact with arbcom and he is awaiting the seating of the new arbcom to proceed with working out possible details of an unblock with editing

4823:

I make my decision based on the particulars of each situation. For example, I'm reluctant to semi-protect when an ip or new account is reverting BLP violations. But in this instance, imo, it would not most likely prevent future additions of the content in the near future to block either the one

3836:

My concern is that editors will use this admonition to support intervention in any editing of math articles on the basis that WGFinley has warned me off editing math altogether. I think any such use of this admonition exceeds its authority, nevermind being simply incorrect. What is your advice?

4330:

I feel that being an active article writer AND and active admin is much more difficult to carry out than most people realize because quite easily admins get drawn into situations where they act as an admin when they are involved because the pages are on your watchlist and beckon you to get

4261:

most areas of Knowledge). But I very much appreciate the heads up to be mindful of such things. I'll be more careful, if you see talk page discussions as something of a bright line sort of issue. I would appreciate any additional insights you might have regarding this. Thanks again, --

3213:. Since you are interested in women's articles,I thought you may want to help improve them. The "Allegations of witchcraft" section in the Sherwood article could especially use a copyedit. She had ridiculous accusations of witchcraft made against her. Thanks for all prior and future help. 1415:

Hi. I'd like to have a chat about my old accounts. I was accused of being a sock today, and this gets old; it happens regularly. I still have access to some of them, although they're all blocked. I'm thinking of doing something along the lines of what I did with my old commons accounts,

4523:

Doing ok. Mainly just been doing maintenance edits lately, nothing substantive. I have loads of pics on my camera, but am having trouble transferring them to the comp. Perhaps when I figure out what's wrong I can upload some more flower pics 'n such. I've got quite a few new ones.

4828:

anywhere else. But if the material is found in a good source then I would unsuppress the material. We are lucky to have that option now with the revdel tool. Any way, thanks for your question. I don't mind explaining my reasoning for handling a situation in a particular way.

1208:(or min-census, if you prefer). More then five years down the road, we have over 50 members, but we don't know how many of them are still active in the sociology area. If you are or want to become once again an active contributor to the sociology content on Knowledge, please 1468: 1431:

Before I get too many ideas, I figured I should talk and as you led on this, here I am. I'd certainly not edit with the old accounts absent explicit leave of the current AC, and would be sure to keep everything legit. Hope you're enjoying your post-AC time. Cheers,

1147:! I see you deleted some revisions and edit summaries recently. As a regular contributor to the article I would be interested in what happened that this measure had to be taken - also in order to know what to do in case something similar happens again. Best regards 3437:

P.S. You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or

1321:

You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or

3559:

election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your

3822:

I will not take your opinion as an official statement, but simply as a possibility for interpretation. I have already asked WGFinley to explain this matter during the procedure, and he has not done so. I have just now asked him again, on his Talk page.

4061: 3389: 1552:

Ok. I was under the impression that this matter was time sensitive and that was the reason that I reviewed your contributions right away. As I stated, I barely scratched the surface of reviewing diffs. If there is going to delay then I will add more.

5104:

217.171.129.77. These may be the same user. The Bocktrompet account now looks abandoned and the IP has not attempted to reinsert anything so I don't think this is likely to reappear. Would you now consider lifting the protection? Many thanks. --

1696:

If you write up the proposal on the Strategic Planning wiki, I'll help you by promoting it on the Strategic Planning wiki Village Pump and other wiki's VPs. Once we have an interested group of people to help, then we can move forward with it.

3787:

Thanks for the update. :) I thought I'd remembered seeing a variation on that same theme the other day; if this is a bigger problem than it appears, I'll simply supress any future attempts I might find rather than tagging them as socks.

1683:. Now that the general goals and recommendations have been made, the Strategic Planning process is looking to move forward with concrete well defined proposals that have support of a base of people that are interested in making it happen. 4281:

edits to climate change articles taints admins from enforcing climate change sanctions (including routine and uncontroversial reverts), I would guess there will never be an admin when you need one. Thanks again for getting back to me.

5076: 4955: 2151:

of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank

3490:

and we're off. FAC constructive comments, help, review, etc would be greatly appreciated. Last night and this I add a lot, especially the "personal life" section, so review and copyedit of those edits would be greatly appreciated.

4146: 3106: 4824:

account who reverted OR the one additional ip address who did. I did not have time to do a CU at the same time, but when I did later, I saw nothing that reassured me that blocking one account or ip would fix the situation.

4591:

Thanks - I was guessing that was the case, but wasn't sure. With MN a bit ticked off about the SPI, I wanted to make sure. Appreciate the reply! (and good luck getting this straightened out, which doesn't seem simple)

556:

Ahh, lack of coffee and blurry eyes, do I know that feeling! Thanks for the encouragement. It all started off with frustration about how long my DYKs were taking to get confirmed, and then the ball started rolling. Happy

4578:

Yes, I'm speaking as a checkuser who has been in contact with Marknutley and ArbCom about the best way to handle the situation. He should not be unblocked with out contacting ArbCom in relation to the SPI findings.

2280: 5785: 2391:

Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best

5780: 4156: 4151: 3111: 2339:

The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other

5211:

restrictions. I'm not monitoring his editing of his talk page, so don't know if it is problematic or not. If you have concerns and want a second opinion, then you could ask ArbCom or take it to AN or AN/I.

3101: 2332: 5775: 5754: 4120: 3080: 2040: 5759: 4130: 5800: 4172: 3127: 2346:

Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a

2116: 4125: 3085: 1645:

Yes, I've been working with the WMF strategic planning process and addressing cross wiki issues and ideas. I'll take a look at the idea and weigh in this discussion and also add a link to it on the

3909: 2347: 1079:

Shall we go ahead and create it? I can - over the next coupe of weeks / months - take care of implementing a (talk page) assessment scheme. Not sure what else I could do alone, unfortunately :( --

3990: 3951: 3237: 5030: 2866: 2112: 2108: 2092: 2026: 2008: 5354:, beating Criminal Minds, that moved from close to 30th position in August/September, to 9th in October and 2nd in November. If you'd like to discuss this or any other trends, please visit 4909: 4046: 3963: 3947: 2562: 349:

Interesting discussion. At least one of the articles that I created this month was in EB but not on WP. When I get done I'll make an effort to see how many of them had EB articles already.

5054: 4385: 3318: 3279: 2064:

on it now. I'm pretty sure that I have some more images that I could add but right now I'm crazy busy and don't have loads of time to look for them now. But will put it on my to do list.

1537:

Done for the night. Is still haven't worked through all your diffs but the super-close-fast brigade seems to be backed off for a bit, so I hope you can wait until the morrow for the rest

5856: 4933: 4204: 4008: 3955: 3144: 2140: 1462: 5324:

And as long as I am talking about professional issues, if any of you is going to any sociological conferences, do post that to our project - perhaps other members are going there too?

5038: 4028: 3959: 3561: 3374: 3291: 3275: 2946: 2908: 2643: 2604: 2369:

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

1110:

Maybe a social movement taskforce within WikiProject Sociology would be better...? I'll see about forming one. If it grows, we can always split it into an independent wikiproject. --

5046: 4917: 1311: 4925: 3336: 3283: 3004: 2920: 2904: 2699: 2616: 2600: 5335:, and comparing the numbers to the April report, we have identified about 350 more sociology-related articles (from 1,800 to 2,150) and assessed about 100 (from 1,300 to 1,400). 4306:

Additionally, I looked through your edits and saw that recently you've made a number of edits in articles related to the CC topic and participated in talk page discussions, too.

3356: 3287: 2147: 3818:“that you are topic banned from physics and such behaviors should not be carried over to mathematics and this AE serves as formal warning to him for the topic of mathematics.” 2966: 2912: 2661: 2608: 5248: 4073: 3487: 2986: 2916: 2681: 2612: 2115:. We encourage every member to find their niche and work on the parts of the project they most enjoy. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask on our 1577:

and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

1481: 5896: 1615:

Sydney, someone mentioned that you have been working on interwiki matters. The lack of communication between the WPs is of great concern to me—the great opportunity lost.

3647: 3401: 3625: 3622: 3619: 3617: 3614: 3036: 5369: 2848:. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an 2730: 2325: 2321: 1755:

Hello, xeno :-) I've been away from home most of May so I'm really far behind on my emails. But back home now, so I'll take a look for your email and will reply today.

1605: 2453: 2309: 2164: 1566: 1177: 1787: 1025: 2485: 2427: 1350: 3745:

I deleted the page and semi-protected it to stop further edits. I'll look into it further to see if suppression is needed. Thanks for your help by following up.

2827: 2238: 5596:

There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring

5411: 3681:

Hi Flo, hope you're well. If you have a moment, please see my latest post to the ongoing Brews Ohare AE thread, which you commented on a few days ago. Regards,

1520:

you to remove LHVU's addition of your vote, pending my responses (unless you really have made up your mind and are immune to any reply I could make, of course)

5491: 1768: 1803:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

5427: 5119:

131.111.128.77, the page history and log show that the page was protected for one month and expired December 10th. So far so good and no need to re-protect.

4439:

Further clarification: While a few other people have mistakenly posted in the uninvolved admin section, only one admin had suggested overturning the block.

4340:

Since the CC case spells out when an admin is involved, I thought it was important to remind you not to participate as an involved admin in the topic area.

1799:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 1619: 1260: 314: 5852: 5438: 4200: 3140: 1275: 5539: 5342:. It is updated on the 1st of every month, starting with August, and reports which of our sociology-tagged articles are most frequently read. Of course, 5072: 4951: 4398: 4392: 4057: 3556: 3385: 3016: 2710: 1866: 1560: 1529: 1514: 5520: 5467: 5848: 5486: 5346:

holds true, so after looking at it right now and trying to determine what is our most popular article, my first action was to shake my head and remove

4196: 3136: 2317: 2310: 2204: 1396:

Your name has come up many times in this discussion. I was looking to comment, but would like your input on this proposed policy beforehand. Thanks. -

1156: 93: 81: 4867: 3439: 1323: 4415: 3478: 2841: 2262: 1457: 4774:

Sometimes, geek humor and wiki humor mesh perfectly - I just about fell out of my chair laughing this morning! Thanks for a badly needed chuckle.

5126: 4769: 3774: 3752: 3510: 2521: 2513: 1469:

Knowledge:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Straw Poll of uninvolved admins regarding consensus for action re WMC

1171: 1138: 994: 513: 5419: 4246:

was pretty evidently problematic. I thought it uncontroversial to revert it, as I would any newly added content where the editor himself added a

2840:

Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about

915: 5328: 4720: 4573: 4525: 4509: 4291: 3575: 1383: 1216: 1006: 247: 5365:. Bookmark that page so you can keep track of sociology related deletion debates, move debates, good and feature article discussions, and more. 5088: 4989: 4740: 1709:

Thank you very much for this helpful suggestion. I will link the discussion at the Signpost talk page to it, to see whether others will assist.

5362: 4787: 4631: 4617: 4605: 4586: 4434: 4369: 4347: 2470: 1098:

I'm still interested but not sure if the two of us is enough to do it. I'll let you decide. Either way, thanks for your interest and help. :-)

975: 771: 4967: 4752: 5648: 5339: 5298:

On that note, nobody has ever studied WikiProjects from the sociological perspective... if you are interesting in researching Knowledge, see

5240: 5218: 5113: 4533: 4446: 1981: 1960: 1934: 1739:

I sent you an email on Tue, May 18, 2010 at about 13:36 UTC. I wonder wondering if you have had a chance to review it and had any thoughts? –

843: 170: 2476:

May I ask you for your help in educating people about the purpose of the template? We're about to lose a useful tool for BLP improvement.--

2071: 1921: 1879: 1405: 1305: 1124: 1105: 1093: 1074: 242: 5587: 5571: 5321:

have been created recently. I have experience with that, having taught several undergad classes, so feel free to ask me questions on that!

5292: 5166:

on the third of this month. I discovered this because he seems to be writing an article in userspace (collaborating with another editor -

4994: 3903: 3849: 2437:

Looks like you were pretty active in getting some articles recognized for Women's History Month. Just thought I'd point out that I brought

2350:

of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:

2304: 1205: 1062: 551: 441: 63: 4835: 1722: 1704: 1674: 1656: 359: 5738: 5010: 4889: 4379: 4104: 3739: 3064: 2700:

LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour

1762: 1546: 1501: 3702: 1914:

have access to it if they want to incorporate in in some way. But I suppose that I could move it to the talk page or a subpage instead.

1581: 1567: 343: 5423: 5332: 5261: 5204: 4873: 2192: 1441: 1220: 1190: 699: 4460: 3588:. He is notable enough for an article, but it seems his article was created for the sole purpose of discrediting and smearing him. 2557: 2538:

Since you're into women's articles, new article and DYK if you care to help improve. Up on July 6th, anniversary of the court ruling!

5544: 4310: 3550: 5885: 3636: 3170: 319: 5679: 5310: 2785: 2331:

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please

4681: 4230: 1292: 4973: 3854: 2274: 4307: 3797: 3473: 2861: 2448: 5350:(which, perhaps not too surprisingly, outranks all sociology articles in period tested). Second item I noticed it this month's 5331:

reported in the April issue went down shortly afterwards, but seems to be on the path to reactivation. We still have an active

5018: 4897: 3937: 3664: 3265: 2894: 2644:

Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank

2590: 881:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 809:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 737:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 665:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 596:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 479:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 446: 397:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 280:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 208:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 136:, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page 1574: 1239: 953:

Thanks for the heads up -- that was very kind of you to let me know. I clarified who I was agreeing with on my moved comment.

3829:

1. Finley is confused about what a topic ban is, and somehow thinks a physics topic ban should be applicable to mathematics.

3452: 1436: 897: