User talk:Heyitspeter

1790: 2863:, there are serious NPOV and BLP problems with your recent edits. Can you please revise or revert your edits to ensure that policies are properly and fully complied with? As it's getting rather late I may consider it necessary to undo your changes, and under BLP policy would not consider this to be counted in terms of the 1RR probation. To avoid any unpleasantness, I'll be most grateful if you can first attend to the matter yourself. Thanks, 264: 2283:

the general populace. Is it possible that the billions (no exaggeration) of dollars these industries stand to lose in the event of carbon trading have prompted them not only to pay for disinformation campaigns, like the ones we have documented on the article page, but also for the diligent and tireless efforts of a group of wikipedia editors? I don't know, but it's not outside the realm of the possible, is it?

844:? That is at least one example in the article that does not fit into the "interpretation functions" framework. It is true that, at that level of generality, one cannot say too much, so the article goes on to discuss more common systems. But the article is also just missing content about other sorts of interpretations (for example, interpretations of scientific theories should probably be discussed). — Carl 4873: 1347: 899:

we are dealing with ideas, not marks on paper. Logicians use the marks on paper as a tool to help understand the ideas. Unfortunately, this practice can lead to paradox if the distinction is not made explicit. That's why "metalanguage" and the "type-token distinction" is important. This is the way responsible analytic philosophers and logicians deal with these things.-GB

2112:. I plan on filing an independent request against you and Ratel should this (currently ancillary) point not be addressed by yourself or admins in the current section. Apologies for not responding in German, but this diff would become an example of a warning in said future request for enforcement and so should be comprehensible to English-speakers (subjunctive tense). -- 435:... Of course book titles 'normally' have all important words capitalized. We have an abnormality on our hands. It's likely that he actively chose to lowercase each word, for the same reason he actively (and explicitly) chose to lowercase the word truth to demarcate it from Truth, which he discussed in this very same book. Please reconsider making the deletion. -- 328:

sect member. I also appreciated your comments on whether or not Dawkins' criticism of postmodern work is relevant, and the witty idea to include his comments in the "postmodernism is boring" section :) His empty remarks had no place in that article. Feel free to send me more funny youtubes on R. Dawkins' crusade for science. Take care

1401:. I appreciate you support, and think everyone who has signed does. While I understand that everyone is frustrated with the current situation would you please consider refactoring your comment to put your best foot forward? Things are likely tentative at best so every little bit will help. Thanks. -- 3549:

Not sure who you think is baiting whom. I assure you I wrote in good faith and am baiting no one. So, Computer World got moved to the documents article; it should be easy to simply delete that from your 2nd suggested paragraph and go ahead with it. I'll put in two more cents' worth on the article

2563:

violation, which I would bring to the attention of the RfE page. You can find the disputations yourself. Go to the talkpage. There are numerous NPOV contentions being made against the title. The section titled "Requested Move" contains many of them. One way of finding some of them is by searching for

1949:

by another user). I don't disagree with your close at all, I just disagree with the reasoning stated there (namely, "FAQ#5"). It doesn't seem worth closing on those pretences as FAQ#5 doesn't satisfactorily address the concerns raised and is highly out of date. tl;dr: HeyitsPeter has liked all of the

1202:

Oh, I get it - you think that saying "he assertion in the edit summary was a mistake on my part, and I apologize for that," is the same as saying "You know, Hipocrite, it wasn't right for me to have accused you of misrepresenting sources. I'm going to stop accusing you of malfeasance now, because you

1144:

Your added source dosen't say what you say it says. Please revert to the version supported by sources - I'm not going to argue with you about it further, rather, I'm going to take your false edit summaries (which accused me, wrongly, of misrepresenting sources which you didn't check) to the probation

4740:

myself, but as we discussed before my exposure to biologists has shown me that biologists tend not to believe Darwin was a teleologist.) Concerning my second concern, the main point is that when you quote someone you should choose words that can be understood without you saying what the words mean.--

3859:

Apologies - I saw this earlier and I thought you were just being funny (you were!). To be honest, most of it seems like just explaining the reasoning behind your question, which seems straightforward enough. You could contribute evidence toward one or both or many sides of the issue and then later

3770:

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

3756:

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

2544:

I asked you a very simple question about why you added a POV tag; Your non-answer was "Search the talkpage for "UNDUE" or "WP:DUE". I don't consider that an answer to my question, so I'll consider this discussion closed with the conclusion "Heyitspeter cannot justify his rationale for adding a POV

2282:

suspect an element of bad faith in editors trying to insert FUD into climate-related article though, so I did not inform them. Guilty as charged. Is my assumption of bad faith a crime? I would contend not, given that the whole topic is about how industry is paying people to create similar FUD in

913:

Carl, it is not essential for the existence of a formula that there be any actual token instances of it. This is the only way it makes any sense to talk about a language with uncountably many formulas in the first place. There just is no such thing as an object language that floats out there with no

487:

My phrasing was poor but I stand by my statement. You're thinking of interpretation as hermeneutic. This is interpretation as logical function. You're proposed header should go on another page called "What does formal logic signify?" or something. Please read the section above the one you just voted

177:

during Lucretius' time. The author of the above text is claiming that, because Lucretius never explicitly referred to himself as a "scientist", his works cannot be treated as scientific. I agree with you that he made "scientific" (if that word means anything) evaluations of his surroundings. I think

4890:

Hello Heyitspeter. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Knowledge, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The

3502:

1. I don't see a consensus. By my count, Hipocrite, Guettarda, and Viriditas disapprove Peter's suggestion. Arthur, Tony, and I tend to agree with it but fall short of endorsing it. For my part, it's absolutely fine for him to go ahead, but also absolutely fine for it to be subsequently edited.

898:

Carl, this is a wild presumption that just everything is an idea so there is no point in identifying ideas. The point here is that the things we are dealing with are the type of idea that does not appear to the mind as an image, and therefore the only precise way to define them is to recognize that

342:

I might get an account but I prefer if the material speaks for itself. On looking at your above comments I presume you are referring to the postmodernism addition I made. The stuff I added was all referenced, the article had given the impression that PM began in architecture of all things, one of

4848:

I saw your comment on my talk page about my last comment on the modal logic talk page. The point is just that the Tarskian definition of logical necessity are necessary truths for all interpretations of the symbols, whilst regular necessity is just necessity for the interpretation that happens to

4769:

So do you see my concern about that? Any reader coming to this is going to have to trust your words about what Mayr means, and what your words say is that Mayr was contrasting himself to Darwin. This is not only bad practice in quoting (because you are at least potentially distorting your source),

4739:

Well, up to you as I can not see what Mayr really said. I would for the record actually be interested anyway. Just so it is clear: my first paragraph above is the most important, not my second. I do not say that we can mention arguments that Darwin was a teleologist. (I have some sympathy for them

4701:

that he in opposition to Darwin on this point, and how does he actually explain this as being a contrast? You have to realize that "adaptedness ... is a posteriori result rather than an a priori goal-seeking" is so cut up that it no longer means anything. The reader will only be able to trust what

923:

The claim "The formal languages used in mathematical logic and theoretical computer science are defined in solely syntactic terms, " is false. For example, the set of sentences in the language of arithmetic that are true in the standard model of the natural numbers is a formal language, but is not

463:

The formulation that you reverted is strictly more correct than yours. No it is not a function in an object language, it is an expression in a metalanguage talking about an object language (i.e. saying what the symbols of it mean). Most significantly to observe is that ontologically, it is an idea

327:

Thank you for the "public service announcement" from Richard Dawkins :) I'm sorry about the late reply (this is the first time I've actually logged in before viewing wiki pages since the end of October). I think Dawkins means well (at least in his mind) but comes off just as fundamentalist as any

4689:

article in your preferred direction. I know we've been through this before but it is still a minority position to call Darwin a teleogist and that is what the article in Knowledge should allow people to understand. Please make sure that all normal understandings are properly and fairly explained.

2990:

No biggie, but I don't get why you archived my comment about a third report on the CRU scientists in the offing. I was pointing out that there's no need to worry too much about editing right now since the article will have to be updated when the Russell report comes out shortly. As it turned out

1266:

Since you "believe that anthropogenic global warming is occuring" you should have no problem in providing an example where you have argued this point in global-warming related articles. It is my assumption that the editors who argue for a name change to the hacking incident article oppose global

1031:

Now the article does spend some time on interpretations of propositional and first-order logic. It probably spends too long on those, as they are covered in depth in other articles, and so can be just summarized. But the article does not spend long enough on interpretations of modal logic, nor on

148:

I maintain that when Lucretius claims that we can't know the reasons for eclipses and the phases of the moon, when his predecessors had already made good scientific demonstrations of those reasons, he is making a scientific claim. Any article about his work should evaluate that claim, within the

3910:

Yes. The Committee will analyze the questions as a way to focus their eventual decisions, and they will also help to focus further evidence and the eventual workshop proposals - sort of like having an early framework. Speaking of which, can you please reformat your recent questions into single

3749:

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

3609:

LHvU has recently shown that he is confusing the rules on this issue. In a way I don't really mind my stuff on the talkpage being collapsed it is just on the main page of the sanctions where I feel it had some relevence. If Cla, who started the discussion, requested that it was collapsed I would

3382:

I have never made such a claim. As I clearly wrote above, "Threatening to make edits against consensus which will result in automatic reverts is a threat to engage in edit warring." Multiple editors have rejected your proposed edits. Please stop turning Knowledge into a battlefield. You have

3175:

You can sign up somewhere in the top right of the page. I would recommend it, because you would then be able to add pages that interest you to a watchlist where you can find them easily, because it lends you social credibility on this website, and because as is your IP address may shift which is

2172:

I still fail to see how the bullet point you cite applies, as there is, to my knowledge, no question of socks here at all. But no, I will not remove any of my comments. I have a strong history of watching the probation page and commenting on it. Ratel's message had no significant influence on my

4798:

Well that just shows that people CAN misunderstand it that way. And misunderstandings are not good. So I am just asking if you can keep that POTENTIAL misunderstanding (if you prefer it that way) in mind and try to tweak wording when editing to avoid misunderstandings. I am suggesting that when

3142:

I need to know if a person can copy and paste tables from Microsoft Word 2007 or not since the tables do not come out correctly. I haven't signed up for a user name yet. Not sure if it takes a person to a page where they send you something by email or not--did not get that far. It said I wasn't

966:

A formal language is any fixed set of sentences over a fixed alphabet. Therefore the set of sentences that are true in the standard model of the natural numbers is a formal language. Hunter is somewhat idiosyncratic on this point, which is why it is important to consult more than one reference.

929:

I think you have unintentionally mish-mashed syntax and semantics inappropriately for two languages. A formal language must be capable of being defined entirely in terms of its syntax and without regard to any interpretation of it otherwise it is not a formal language. This is also from Hunter.

543:

It sounds trivial but this ambiguity affects the entire article. The section on truth-functional connectives that I just altered originally claimed that the connectives are interpreted. This only makes sense if you take interpretation other than in the technical sense. Again, sorry I was overly

3958:

Arbcom have said they're going to supervise this case fairly closely (though there's little evidence so far that they're actually doing this). Safer to point out the error on the editor's talk. You could also do it on the Evidence talk page although that might engender more drama and pointless

3176:

disorientating from the reader's perspective. You could then also use your talkpage as a stable platform with which to draft your ideas about history. That would be best, as everything you post to the Fomenko page will be deleted within minutes and will not reach the audience you're hoping for.

3587:

That page is consistently derailed by tangential discussions. Collapses seem to me to be a good way of cutting the page down to the bare relevancies. I stand by the decision to collapse, though I won't edit war over it. Do you have another idea? As an alternative, could you perhaps move the

4332:

to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the

2277:

heyitspeter: Well, the current proceeding is not a consensus-seeking exercise, but an examination of events by admins. It's not the same thing as trying to influence the encyclopaedia's content by stacking the votes on a Talk page — not as I interpret it anyway. If I wanted to recruit

1074:

Cool I like that. It seems like a usage of interpretation that doesn't fit my understanding of the term as it relates to logic. Let's include it. How do you want to handle that? Should we make a clear distinction between the two types of interpretation, in separate sections? You seem more

524:

I agree with you that "extension" should be included (in place of "meaning" is just fine and appropriate clarification), however I don't think anyone else in the group cares about that kind of stuff -- at all. I also would love to see a section on interpretations of modal logic as well.

2441:

Only if you want to continue down this avenue of false sock puppetry accusations. I'm willing to stake my editorial reputation that I am not a sockpuppet of Heyitspeter as we have very different editing histories. Are you willing to stake your editorial reputation that I'm wrong?

1429:

OK, thanks. You are likely correct. Sorry I didn't understand the jp. I tend to run into the same problem when I make jokes where the tone I am using in my head doesn't make it through the keyboard. Anyway I removed our comments just to avoid any additional confusion by others.

365:

Hey, whatever works. At the very least it'll be a good experiment. Maybe I'm the first to demonstrate unconscious bias against unregistered users! In any case, the Postmodernism article definitely does need work, and hopefully we'll get more like you (or even from you) as we go on.

1875:

Actually no. Nigelj rewrote a section. Nsaa reverted it. Nigelj restored his rewritten section and then you reverted it. That's a continuation of an edit war started by Nsaa, not Nigelj. Either way, you have perpetuated an edit war and should be blocked for it, in my opinion. --

1462:. The deal is IMHO that there is no known continuity between the classical and modern element systems. However, the article profits from the comparison of classical and modern elements. Take a look, and if something should be improved, drop a post on the Talk, if you'd like to. 1681:

Also, note that you have in the same sentence defended what in my view was an unambiguously negative comment, branded my expression of that opinion "irrelevant sniping," all while referring to me in the third person. If you want your input to be appreciated, use tact. It works

1075:

mathematically inclined, so maybe you'd be able to translate the general mathematical definition of interpretation from that article you linked into layman's terms and then use the rest of the article to discuss the broader senes of "interpretation"? Have fun on your trip.--

3610:

agree with him but I wouldn't be so presumptive to collapse his comments or my reply to them without his agreement. I would always follow wider consensus but it seems as though your collapse did not have consensus therefore as you rightly say best not to edit war on it. :)

3013:

I was archiving what I konsidered to be komments not direktly koncerned with the konstruction of a kompromise wording for the lead, because I wanted to make that section straightforward and approachable, and thought these 'extraneous' comments would make the process more

144:

My spin on Lucretius is that of a historian of science. If we go by the definition that no one before Whewell was a scientist, we rule out Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, Ptolemy, and Aristotle, all of whom occupy major places in the literature of the history of science.

2485:

I already resolved it in the above response. If you missed it again, I'll repeat it: "Asking questions isn't remotely similar to a false accusation." Now, if your name is not Heyitspeter, the next time I ask him a question, I'll expect a response from him. Thanks.

892:

The "idea" sentence in particular is misguided; we could start every article on mathematics with "XXX is an idea,..." but that would not help anything. An interpretation, in many cases of interest, is a function; I have no idea what a physical token of a function

978:

a token, as it is a syntactic object. Again, you cannot look only at one reference. It is telling that most books on mathematical logic manage to describe formulas perfectly well without using the word "token". It would be silly to claim such books are not by

166:"Actually, Lucretius was a philosopher. As a poet he was competent. But as a scientist, he never claimed to be one, nor did his work claim to be scientific. "De Rerum Natura" is an epistemological foundation for what should be studied, not a study itself." 3042:

While I am concerned that Lar has a particular bias regarding the content of the articles covered under the probation, I am more worried about his pattern of judgements against WMC. I do not believe that an individual holding biases against a particular

2177:. I don't see how Ratel's actions can limit my right to comment. I strongly discourage you from opening a misguided enforcement request on this issue - it will be a complete waste of time. However, if you are set to do it, you may as well start ASAP. -- 4770:

but I think your personal interpretation of Mayr presupposes that your preferred understanding of Darwin being a teleologist is the only reasonable and commonly held one, and is also the one Mayr holds. I think we can't do that, for better or worse.--

3197:

I think I'm going to disagree with you here. Editors shouldn't be using any pages for developing original research. This editor is new and doesn't understand how we work yet, her tables, her ideas, all belong elsewhere, perhaps on a personal website.

343:

our more conservative arts-- though for that reason a good indicator of entrenchment! It also left out the fact that the word was used as early at 1870 and a number of other uses, eg Pannwitz from Nietzsche in 1917, and others that the OED showed.

471:

in dealing with ideas is well known and used to clarify this very thing (see Carnap Quine, Putnam etc). On a brighter note, I am glad to see your contributions in general. I think there are some things we may agree on that others do not. Be well

1026:

Another interpretation of the same language assigns each word to a location on the Cartesian plane. You start at the origin facing North. Then, working from left to right: each "A" means go forward one unit, each "B" means turn 90 degrees to the

4702:

you say that Mayr meant, which was that this was in contrast to Darwin. That's not a good way to do quotes, so please consider if you can put a few more words in. By the way, I presume some more words are missing than are indicated because "is

1584:

I'm suggesting that your comment there is not constructive at all. It is unlikely to further the discussion. In general, if you have a comment that is only relevant for a single user, I suggest you talk to that user in an appropriate venue.

732:

You still haven't realized that you're dealing with two uses of the word interpretation. First reread the comment you just now responded to. Then read the now-edited section on logical connectives in the disputed article. This is explained

4200:

forbids removing anything other than obvious vandalism. If they really get up your nose, I suppose we could archive the page but that seems pretty silly. Just put a sheet of A4 over the top of the screen next time you visit that page, ok?

4259:

Clean slate though, I hope. I honestly look forward to working with you. Although I'd take Stalnaker over Kripke any day, you knowing enough about Kripke to call yourself a fan is enough to put us on the same page in many respects. Happy

3114:

Says the editor whose allegation that Lar is operating on the basis of a grudge prompted the comment under discussion here. I'm sure you can find the diffs yourself. Since we're both talking about the same set, it'd help your own case as

4754:

Ah I see, and sorry to have misread. To clarify: Ernst Mayr never explicitly placed himself in opposition to Darwin, so far as I'm aware. "In opposition to Darwin..." was just a connector phrase between the two paragraphs meant to ease

1094:

which had existed previously with a lot more sections, more complete sections, etcetera. It was filled with overly complex material however I admit, but the current version is still lacking some of the material covered in it. Be well,

3456: 1807:

prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the

1508:

article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name

1950:

contributions of yours he's come across these past days, but in this specific case, he didn't think that the stated reason for the close was going to satisfy people. (It hasn't in fact, as discussion is continuing below it.) --

3130: 1114:

I have challenged your most recent revert on the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident on the talk page. Please respond as soon as possible - it appears you were mistaken about who was "misrepresenting" what sources said.

2083:

For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee has decided that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one

4891:

survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

4215:

I could argue that what I did is covered under "Refactoring for relevance". But I'm not worried about it, and leaving the comments in is fine with me. If I'd thought it was a big deal I would have mentioned it in the edit

505:

A) an interpretation is an idea, and the written marks on a page are tokens of the idea. (I understand that people commonly don't make this distinction in casual language, however the idea here is to be as precise as the

2947:

FWIW, it wasn't a revert (see my comments on the article talk page) and it was inadvertent anyway - I had the editing window open while I was trying to find the right template and inadvertently overwrote your edit. --

4784:

You misunderstand. "In opposition to Darwin..." wasn't added to explain what Mayr intended, but as a connector between the two paragraphs written with deference to their content in order to facilitate comprehension.--

3403:, so I expect no reverts from them. You are the only person who continues to object to the proposed addition, and given that you have failed to provide any justification for your objection it is fair to ignore you 1890:

Then please take this up at the request for enforcement page, or perhaps with LhVU, the administrator who blocked Nigelj. I'd appreciate the outside opinion, as it really did seem to me that all I had done was RV

3367:

You are telling me you will 'automatically' revert the proposed edit without providing any rationale on the talkpage, despite repeated requests? I can't imagine your request for enforcement will go very well for

4955:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose 2153: 2109: 3308:"To insist that an editor be sanctioned for an isolated, minor offense, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated." 918:. It make no sense to me to talk about object langauge without talking about metalanguage. If there are further distinctions to make as you claim, then they should be elucidated (perhaps in its own section).-GB 3766:

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

3896:

I did after seeing it linked on your talkpage when I was previewing my talkback post. I don't quite understand it though. I suppose these issues, if accepted, will be discussed at a later stage? Thank you!--

3714:

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

2456:

Asking questions isn't remotely similar to a false accusation. If I'm interested in your answer to a question, I'll let you know, but I'm asking Heyitspeter why he added a POV tag, not you. Is that clear?

3707: 1548: 1514: 3017:

On an only superficially related note, I do not see 'there will be more information later' as a reason to avoid ameliorating the article 'now'. There are problems with the article 'now'. That the article

3139:(if you are interested). I'm new to Editing anything on Knowledge so my tables don't come out to what they should. I don't have a table icon on my edit on the user page (or at least I did not see one). 3721:

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

3077:... Could you be more specific about what you mean? Perhaps you could make it more clear at the enforcement page as well. Thanks! (To abate your curiousity: I imagine Lar would, for obvious reasons.)-- 3099:

That's not the way I remember it at all. I may be wrong. But if you're going to accuse me of dishonesty and "fanaticism", you really need to supply diffs. Those are mighty serious accusation to make.

666:"or", while admitting that the symbol is uninterpreted. Remember that a logic has multiple interpretations (2^n where n = the number of sentence letters), but the logical connectives remain constant. 2564:

the strings "WP:DUE" or "UNDUE" following the instructions I've given you. You can also read the posts by Jimbo, who has commented several times that the current title violates WP:NPOV. Please stop

1841:

is a clear example of edit warring. Not a "technical" violation of 1RR, but since are clearly aware of the issue from your edit summary, your actions are also a violation. Recommend you self-revert.

3722: 2471:

No, I'm concerned about your thinly veiled accusations that I am a sockpuppet of Heyitspeter. You can easily resolve the situation by explicitly stating that your are making no such accusation.

2126:

Ummm....have you read the bullet point in question? Do you claim there is any uncertainty about the the possibility that Ratel and I (and, presumably, others) are "one user with sock puppets"? --

4608:. I think arbitration needs to be completed before any constructive editing can be done on those pages and plan to await its end. I don't feel the need to formally 'restrict' myself in any way.-- 3135:

If I don't get booted off of Knowledge for my researched ideas, I will be writing many of the things I recently placed on the Discussion page of Anatoly Komenko (with additional information) at:

3050:

Consequently, I must decline your invitation to withdraw my statements. Out of curiosity, could you be more specific when you state that "it'd probably be appreciated" if I removed my comment?

2010:

talkpage, fine. Just be conscious of the fact that where you ignore requests for improvement you're aiming straight for a request for enforcement. Be more careful with your edits in the future.--

312:

Thanks for bringing it to my attention! There's so much hate directed towards the post-modernists, it seems. It's nice to read an article by someone who can understand them, and is empathetic.--

1481:

Thanks you! That wasn't on my watchlist. I won't be able to add much to the article itself right now because I've misplaced my Presocratic collections, but I'll get that under control I hope.--

2718:

title of all is probably "Climategate" (or perhaps "Climategate scandal"). The fact that you keep asking this question implies to me that you haven't paid attention to what other editors (or

1678:

My own comment pointed this out and apparently led to its removal. That's constructive in my book, though I agree with Stephan Schulz that WMC's talkpage would have been a better place for it.

4629: 3812:

I have removed the portion that was not a question, as the Committee has requested only simple questions in that section. You are welcome to contribute your thoughts elsewhere, though. ~

2582:

Asking for an explanation of why you added a POV tag is not disruption; It's a legitimate question based on neutrality template usage. You're supposed to place the tag on the article and

1379:

and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them

3572:

Peter. It's Julian here. Aka Polargeo. Don't collapse my comments without consensus please. I don't care about admins in this situation, they should have no more power than you or I do.

3278:

I've looked, and still do not see unaddressed concerns. If you have any to add I'd be happy to hear them. Anything to get a better product. Barring that, we're still on that 24h clock.--

464:(or concept or abstraction depending on your POV). I am puzzled by your apparent confidence given that this isn't a difference of formulation, you are saying it is something it isn't. 3161: 2108:

My understanding of the bullet point is that one is guilty of meatpuppetry in acting as a meatpuppet, as you are currently. I respectfully request that you withdraw your comments from

1415:

Sure. It was just one of those cases where tone doesn't translate when put into plain text. I tried to indicate that it was a joke. I've responded there, and thanks for the heads up.--

4182:

If you wish. It is my opinion that they would be better off excluded for the sake of the reader, being 3 years old and not formatted to WP standard. You sure you want them to stay?--

3744:

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.

3595:(I agree that admins should have no more power than you or I do, though LHVU, for example, seems to disagree. In any case, one's status as 'uninvolved' might count for something.) -- 2385:

Sorry, but if you won't answer a simple question about why you added a tag, I'll consider removing it. Due to this exchange, however, I must ask, are you and AQFK the same editor?

586:

to define meanings for them. That does not mean that they are not interpreted. The article is not only about first-order interpretations; it also includes interpretations in which

4001:. As you can see from the adjacent edits ZP5 was in the process of gnoming his comment while I was busy calling him out on typos. If you can read this right now, ZP5, I'm sorry!-- 2530:

Seriously, though. You can search webpages for specific words (on Firefox or Safari) by pressing Command+F on a mac or Ctrl+F on a PC. You can find the POV contentions that way.--

1914: 1383:. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. -- 908:, which is a collection of sets. There are uncountably many interpretations, and thus most of them cannot be "expressed" in any reasonable (i.e. finitely definable) metalanguage. 2278:

meatpuppets, I could have sent private emails, not so? I was being open about what I was doing, and merely chose the editors from an edit history of the page. However, yes, I

3236:

Just adding to the request of two other editors that you refrain from your proposed edit. Some severe flaws have been noted and to my knowledge they have not been addressed.

3956: 1332:

I'd also like to see an example of your support for your alleged belief that AGW is occurring. Or was that claim simply a rhetorical device on your part, to phrase it kindly?

3047:

ought to represent themselves as 'uninvolved' for the purposes of enforcing probation. He is fully entitled to comment in the other sections of the request for enforcement.

2302:

BATTLEGROUND does not apply here, and you have failed to show how I have GAMED the system. And collapsing my comments after directing admins here to read them is a bit rich.

1652: 1537: 1016:

I completely understand what an interpretation of propositional logic, predicate logic, or modal logic is. And the books you have cited use the usual terminology for that.

226:, the article focuses almost entirely on the ethical side of L's writing. From reading it, one would scarcely know that most of his book was about the physical world. -- 2630:(ec)No, no, no. If an editor is going to remove a long standing POV tag, the burden of proof is up to them to prove that consensus to remove the tag has been achieved. 1023:

For the language consisting of words on the two symbols "A" and "B", one interpretation assigns each word an integer by subtracting the number of Bs from the number of As

4321: 3700: 3696: 2860: 2357:

AQFK, unlesss "Heyitspeter" is your alternate account, please treat people as individuals, not as clonal bodies. I am asking Heyitspeter a question, not you or Jimbo.

1965: 713: 4045:

is a good idea. This is clearly an article that we have some problems with, so the more fresh eyes we can get looking at it, the more likely we are to resolve them.

3684: 715:, even if we have a truth value for A and for B. Whenever we assign semantics to a symbol, that is an "interpretation" in the sense of the article in question. — Carl 624: 4080: 687: 661: 604: 580: 3383:

already been the subject of at least two enforcement requests. If a third one is filed, I will ask for a block and/or topic ban based on your previous two cases.

747:

Yes, I do realize that. I am saying that the article is about the broader concept of assignment of semantic meaning to symbols, not about the narrower concept of

4043: 1675:

constructive, it is only rude, and if you believe it adds to the discussion, reflect on it for a moment. I request in advance that you not make similar comments.

1921: 1637: 4907:

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated

4374:

If you edit my talk page again, at all, I will seek to have you prohibited from doing so. No, never, for no reason, should you ever edit my talk page, period.

3861: 2422: 1861:. Care to explain how you see it as an edit war? An editor reverted an edit, which was then reverted in violation of 1RR. I restored the original reversion. -- 1159:

I agree the assertion in the edit summary was a mistake on my part, and I apologize for that. I've admitted this in the section you created on the talkpage. --

1035:

By the way, interpretations of intuitionistic logic are one place where the connective are not given the same meaning as in classical logic. For example, the

3983: 2698:

Because I'm trying to figure out why you keep asking this question. This issue has been discussed to death on the talk page. The current title is far from

4799:

adding connecting words to a direct quote it is important keep those connecting words neutral. Try not to let them tell more than the chosen quoted words.--

4289: 4118: 3991: 3989: 3807: 4586: 2850: 2784:

It was sarcasm of the 'this is actually inconvenient' kind, and not of the 'you are being dishonest' kind. Best to avoid entirely when online, I suppose.--

1838: 179: 3802: 1939: 4479: 3692: 3685: 2953: 1915: 3624:

If you look back, you'll see that Cla did not start the discussion I collapsed. You did. I cannot imagine he would be opposed to its move or collapse.

4440: 4069: 3010:

Okay. Unarchiving is alright with me, but here's my reasoning since you asked (with Cs and CHs occasionally exchanged for Ks for no apparent reason).

2828: 774:

we use a given interpretation function, and this would broach a lot of the subjects that you seem to want to address. For example, why assign "1" to

4984: 4314: 2793: 2427:

Is your name Heyitspeter? I have asked Heyitspeter a question twice, and twice you have responded in his place. Should I be concerned about this?

4269: 4239: 4230:

You can argue it all you like but you'd be completely and totally wrong. Just don't remove other users comments. The policy is pretty unambiguous.

4225: 4210: 4191: 2731: 2693: 2675: 2661: 2639: 2495: 2480: 2466: 2451: 2436: 2408: 2366: 2352: 3459:. Your fanatical harassment is growing tiresome. I have now put your talkpage on my watchlist. If you want to discuss something with me, bring it 2871: 1945:

Hey 2over0, thanks. I considered closing it again with a different heading (and upon rescanning the talkpage I'm going to, as it seems yours was

1713: 223: 4808: 4793: 4779: 4764: 4749: 4734: 4337:." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ 4329: 3179:

I registered for an account several years ago. The only email I have ever received was a request to verify that I was not a bot at the outset.--

2058: 182: 4833: 4715: 3188: 2804:

Did you just file a request against Dave? For some reason, it's in the middle of the page, and not the bottom where new ones should be file.

1303: 35:

to Knowledge! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

4455: 3086: 2856: 2813: 2186: 2167: 2135: 2121: 1745: 1731: 1610: 1594: 1579: 247: 230: 191: 4659: 4623: 3273: 2949: 1946: 1629: 1366: 414: 375: 316: 4674: 4570: 4556: 4524: 3938: 3905: 3891: 3854: 3292:

No, we are on no such clock. If you make the edit after more than three editors have asked you not to, I will file an enforcement request.

904:

The "expressed in a metalanguage" claim is also off, for the same reason. In the specific case of first-order logic, an interpretation is a

4054: 4010: 3725:

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

3287: 2842: 1510: 209:

As to keeping track of replies, I prefer to keep replies in one place and usually put pages where I've posted on my watch list for a while.

4106: 3532: 3353:

Threatening to make edits against consensus which will result in automatic reverts is a threat to engage in edit warring. Is this clear?

3221: 3207: 2890: 1691: 1664: 1249: 4680: 4402: 4364: 4149: 4060:

Thanks! I may not be able to comment much more than I already have, but I imagine the RfC can sort itself out just fine without me. :) --

4024: 3472: 3392: 3377: 3333: 3319: 3301: 3124: 2625: 2599: 2577: 2554: 2539: 2525: 2394: 2380: 1190: 1168: 1154: 1139: 1039:

is an "interpretation" in some sense, but does not assign the same meanings to the connectives that classical interpretations do. — Carl

444: 187:

p.s. I made those edits while logged out; accidentally. I've copied these comments and pasted them to my talkpage. This is my username.--

140:

Accusing Lucretius of not claiming to be a scientist - a word coined by William Whewell in 1833 - doesn't help to contextualise his work.

3968: 3636: 3619: 3604: 3559: 3544: 3031: 2019: 1904: 1885: 1870: 1617:

It's blatantly obvious that WMC's comment was a positive contribution to the discussion, stating his agreement with another editor, and

1392: 1231: 553: 534: 497: 4908: 4122: 3362: 2666:

Which just goes back to my original comment. Are you serious? Did you not read Jimbo's comments? Or anyone else's for that matter?

1439: 1424: 4414: 2971: 1976: 1959: 1490: 1459: 4617: 4320: 2308: 2289: 2272: 2250: 770:

But none of the article is about that, even just as a fact of the matter. I was thinking about this, though. I suppose you could ask

2957: 4580: 4425: 3706:

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

3678: 1410: 1084: 856: 799: 763: 742: 638: 4604:

Thanks for the head's up. I've done extremely little editing on those articles for some time now and haven't even been monitoring

222:

needs work; I see the problem as one of putting some balance in the article's presentation. As I've mentioned in the past on its

153: 4924: 4598: 4416:

I don't think that it's a 1RR violation. The first diff doesn't restore the article to a previous state. Only the second one.

3964: 2325: 1800: 1601:

Will do. That would have been better, I just hadn't thought of it for whatever reason. Thank you for explaining what you meant.--

1505: 1372: 75: 961: 947: 358: 4934: 3955:

Just wanted to suggest that editing other people's evidence probably isn't a good idea, even to correct obvious factual errors.

1475: 1355: 751:. The point of logical constants is not that they are uninterpreted, but that they are always interpreted the same way. — Carl 1375:

and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review

3974:

I'll refrain if edits of the brand I made aren't wikidecorous. Wikimanners are a work in progress. Thanks for the heads up.--

3153: 2799: 1449: 582:

to denote conjunction. But, because these are usually treated as logical constants in first-order logic, we do not require a

4140:

No, it was the content of the removed comments, which would not be visible on his talkpage presently as they were removed.--

4082:@I have edited your statement here, stephan being german can as you imagine does not appreciate the SS, hope you don`t mind 2877:

Neither NPOV nor BLP problematize any of my edits. I have continued the discussion on the talkpage. Please do not engage in

78:

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

4980: 3839: 3306:

Please attempt to follow the thread of the conversation at that page. The concerns raised have been addressed. Also, note:

2778: 996: 727: 4896: 4176: 1104: 3252: 1560: 350: 301: 4515:

Cool. Thanks for letting me know! When you say "ask the arbs"... should I go to one of their talk pages? Thanks again.--

3763:

Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Knowledge.

4967:

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

4651: 4548: 4501: 4356: 4034: 3960: 3930: 3883: 3831: 3794: 2140:

I do not think you understand my statement. I mean that, as per precendent (and as per the rest of WP:MEAT as well) a

2043: 410: 4509: 3004: 2819:

Yeah. I put it there because there was already a thread opened. Do you think I should move it to the bottom? Thanks.--

1648: 306: 280: 4863: 3771:

will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

3455:

Neither of the requests for enforcement brought against me resulted in sanctions. Not all requests are warranted, as

1068: 1051: 4390: 3753:

Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.

3651:...and your endorsement turned into a placeholder, at your request. Please review, you may no longer agree. Best. ++ 1777: 243:

Indeed. I'll try to help add as I have time. The article is on my watchlist as well, now. We'll see where it goes!--

159:

If you look at what I took out, I think you'll see that our views aren't particularly opposed. I deleted this chunk-

4467: 4299: 1566:

If you're suggesting that my comment wasn't constructive beause WMC won't listen, perhaps so. If otherwise, please

790:

as shorthand for "Peter is on Knowledge" and 1 as shorthand for "Truth." That isn't irrelevant to this article. --

332: 128: 3663: 1399: 432: 4976: 4421: 4050: 2809: 2727: 2671: 2635: 2608:

disputes plastered all across the talkpage that AQFK and I have repeatedly pointed you towards would be a direct

2476: 2447: 2418: 2404: 2348: 2144:

is as guilty of meatpuppetry as the user who recruits him/her/it. That is to say: you are currently in violation

2102: 2076: 1851: 1526: 1276: 481: 337: 2337: 2148:. I will request enforcement against yourself and Ratel should you refrain from removing the relevant comments ( 1760:

Saw your edit comment on the RFE page, to strike through all you need do is edit your post and do the following

1455: 1212: 1124: 889:

a section in the article on nonclassical logics, although it is short. As for particular issues with your text:

4295: 4134: 3760:

All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:

2774: 1895:. I note that most people who break 1RR or 3RR self-revert, but this didn't happen before Nigelj was blocked.-- 1813: 1008: 905: 748: 583: 3509:. Viriditas, do you spot more? If so, let's take this to the article talk page and discuss it like adults. 3063: 2413:

BTW, your question betrays a gross absurdity in your understanding of my and Heyitspeter's editing patterns.

2228: 1203:

aren't being dishonest. I'm really sorry I accused you of being dishonest." Not "I'm sorry I made a mistake!"

4858: 4235: 4206: 4172: 4091: 3256: 1636:

I want to point out that you (Dave Souza) have exemplified what you here refer to as "irrelevant sniping" in

426: 178:

the article discusses this adequately, but it could be expanded, of course! Thoughts, concerns, criticisms?--

59: 4722: 4694: 4408: 3399:

Viriditas. You do not understand what is going on at that page. The concerns of the other editors have been

2399:

Viriditas, knock it off. Heyitspeter is on my Watchlist. That's why I responded to your absurd question.

2244:. How do you apply this to the current situation, or are you simply extrapolating as you see fit, HeyPeter? 2918: 1934: 44: 32: 3108: 120: 4972: 4383: 3646: 2604:

The explanation is written on the tag. Removing the tag on the basis of an unwillingness to look for the

1809: 1804: 4482:. As requested, you can ask the arbs to make sure you aren't wasting your time or confusing theirs. ~ 3518: 4829: 4804: 4775: 4745: 4711: 4417: 4046: 3581: 2985: 2805: 2723: 2667: 2631: 2472: 2443: 2414: 2400: 2344: 2039: 1338: 841: 399:

is actually only for article space, not talk pages. The correct way to flag a redirect for deletion is

136:

You used the following remark to your recent edit note to your recent edit of On the Nature of Things:

3737:"Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?" 1996: 509:

B) an interpretation is expressed in a metalanguage whose expressions talk about some object language.

4291: 3660: 3157: 2770: 1831: 1272: 64: 4231: 4202: 4168: 3710:. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics: 3505:

2. The only thing I can find in his proposal that I can't find in the main body is a reference to

3463:. This is a formal request for you to cease from discussing this particular topic on my talkpage.-- 3059: 2513: 2182: 2131: 2098: 1741: 1709: 1590: 1556: 1513:. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known 1496: 1091: 689:

was uninterpreted, then we would have no semantics (no extension, no truth value, no meaning) for

4463: 4164: 3950: 3248: 2878: 1543: 1504:

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the

1019:

My concern is that the article is intended to cover interpretations more generally. For example:

354: 322: 298: 4197: 1013:

I think the conversation there is getting somewhat frustrating, so perhaps we can start fresh.

971:

set of sentences forms a formal language; thus most of them will not be syntactically definable.

102: 4918: 4645: 4542: 4495: 4473: 4350: 3924: 3877: 3825: 3788: 3757:

preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.

2212: 468: 457: 413:

is actually the correct title as book titles normally have all important words capitalized per

113: 39: 86:

on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

4825: 4800: 4771: 4741: 4707: 3845:

Where do you think would be an appropriate venue? I'll accept the answer 'nowhere'. Thanks!--

3022:

be better is not a reason to stop working towards that ideal future version in the present.--

2035: 1783: 1755: 1671:

WMC's statement was, in its entirety: "Lar is wrong, obviously. Stephan is correct." This is

450: 285: 71: 3212:'*sigh* That's true. Irresponsible of me, but I just wanted to read more of her stuff. :) -- 2616:, as would your repetition of an answered question here. I will not be responding further.-- 692: 4963:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 4087: 3240: 3203: 3149: 2868: 2613: 2240:

My reading of MEAT is that it refers to attempts to recruit editors to influence consensus

1626: 1287: 1268: 1228: 609: 346: 257: 3695:. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, 1294:

as well. Pointing out a personal attack is not an example of an accusation of bad faith.--

1240:. Seems more pertinent to explicating my comments (or their absence near the end there).-- 672: 646: 589: 565: 8: 4968: 4838: 4379: 4158: 4130: 4036: 4020: 3407: 3388: 3358: 3339: 3329: 3297: 3104: 3055: 2914: 2761: 2689: 2657: 2595: 2550: 2491: 2462: 2432: 2390: 2362: 2333: 2319: 2178: 2127: 2094: 2025: 1817: 1737: 1705: 1651:. (You continue to participate in "irrelevant snip" even after commenting on this thread 1586: 1552: 1208: 1186: 1150: 1120: 1109: 422: 277: 227: 150: 79: 3324:

Disruptive editing against consensus in order to fuel edit wars is not a minor offense.

2652:

the tag. Please familiarize yourself with basic Knowledge procedures before you reply.

2093:

in the written medium, but my artistic sense is too limited to understand the meaning.--

4459: 4446: 4112: 3615: 3577: 3555: 3531:

You appear to be right. It had been added but must have been deleted. It's still here:

3514: 3244: 3000: 2711: 1992: 1925: 1881: 1847: 1795: 1100: 1036: 957: 530: 477: 293: 54: 1380: 4944: 4935: 4913: 4639: 4536: 4489: 4344: 3918: 3871: 3819: 3782: 3627:

This is not a big deal, obviously. Just meditate on it or some such. Happy editing.--

3343: 2565: 2003: 1435: 1406: 1388: 270: 3592:? Given that you've already moved some of it you may as well go the rest of the way. 2586:

explain your reasons on the talk page. Did you do that? If the answer is no, then

1924:, thank you for using an informative edit summary. That discussion was wending into 1056:

P.S. I will be traveling for a few days and so my responses will be delayed. — Carl

4964: 4948: 4854: 4785: 4756: 4726: 4666: 4609: 4562: 4516: 4432: 4394: 4306: 4261: 4217: 4183: 4141: 4098: 4061: 4002: 3975: 3897: 3846: 3670: 3628: 3596: 3536: 3464: 3369: 3311: 3279: 3265: 3213: 3180: 3116: 3078: 3023: 2963: 2933: 2882: 2834: 2820: 2785: 2703: 2617: 2569: 2531: 2517: 2372: 2264: 2220: 2159: 2113: 2050: 2011: 1968: 1951: 1929: 1896: 1892: 1862: 1858: 1769: 1723: 1683: 1656: 1618: 1602: 1571: 1482: 1467: 1416: 1295: 1283: 1241: 1160: 1131: 1076: 791: 734: 545: 489: 436: 403: 381: 367: 313: 244: 188: 2030:

Concerning your deletion on the four causes article, I have started a talk thread

1371:

A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the

1177:

for you accusing me of misrepresenting sources? Why aren't you reverting when you

4594: 4249: 4083: 4075: 3998: 3691:

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located

3307: 3199: 2864: 2173:

participation or opinion. As such, your claim otherwise is a strong violation of

2064: 1622: 1567: 1522: 1315: 1224: 219: 96: 974:

As I have pointed out before, there is an equally valid argument that a formula

4960: 4952: 4697:

may I ask you, as I do indeed not have the Mayr book, whether Mayr really says

4375: 4126: 4016: 3994: 3525: 3384: 3354: 3325: 3293: 3100: 2929: 2910: 2904: 2896: 2715: 2707: 2699: 2685: 2653: 2609: 2605: 2591: 2560: 2546: 2487: 2458: 2428: 2386: 2358: 2329: 2260: 2256: 2208: 2204: 2145: 2072: 2065: 1641: 1319: 1259: 1237: 1204: 1182: 1146: 1116: 914:

metalanguage. It exists as an idea and there is nothing anyone can do about it

418: 117: 4685:

Hello again. I see you've been steadily trying to increase the leaning of the

643:

Nah, that's not it. Since interpretation isn't meaning, it's okay to say that

4956: 4253: 4245: 3656: 3611: 3573: 3551: 3510: 3131:

Population Statistics Correlating to Fomenko's Dating System by Ruth Jacobsen

3092: 2996: 2174: 2089:

I don't think this is what you want to say. If it is, it's a nice example of

1988: 1877: 1843: 1291: 1260: 1096: 1063: 1046: 991: 953: 942: 851: 758: 722: 633: 526: 473: 393: 329: 286: 107: 49: 4015:

No problem, you inadvertently helped. Appendages and fish may be overkill.

3959:

back-and-forth. I don't mean to be critical, just trying to avoid problems.

2706:

that the scandal is about the hacking. Even the compromise titles are not

2684:? I'm sure Heyitspeter can think for himself without you doing it for him. 1536:

It has come to my attention that you are eligible for charter membership in

1376: 292:

Thank you for that link. It is, as you said, a beautiful article. Cheers,

4369: 3718:

Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.

3231: 3037: 2719: 1825: 1821: 1431: 1402: 1384: 4328:

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read

1820:

among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek

1531: 4839: 4706:

result" is not good English? At the very least there has to be an "an"?--

4686: 4605: 4389:

Just for outside reference so I don't come across as too much of a dick,

4283: 4163:

Please stop removing other users' comments as you have done twice now at

3567: 2031: 2007: 1463: 1789: 4590: 2991:

some editors got so concerned about seeing their perspectives in print

2371:

AQFK answered just fine. Search the talkpage for "UNDUE" or "WP:DUE."--

2303: 2284: 2245: 2216: 1982: 1518: 1350: 1333: 1323: 90: 1704:

WMC has struck his comments - please could you do the same for yours.

3093: 2767:

and, if you can, return from your very conveniently placed wikibreak.

2681: 1645: 1220: 4305:

I was confused about what section I was in. Self-reverted. Thanks!--

1964:

I've now closed the section again with different reasoning provided

4431:

Aware at this point, and I've retracted a RfE over it. Thank you.--

4125:

from his talk page. Personal affront is not a reason for a revert.

3728:"Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"? 3652: 3136: 1059: 1042: 987: 938: 847: 754: 718: 629: 263: 3862:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#When a case is accepted

4951:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge

4561:

Got it. Thanks again, and sorry you have to deal with all this.--

3699:. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, 1090:

Say Hey (itspeter), I think perhaps you may be interested to see

1454:

FYI, I rewrote some, but mostly added, some info in the section

502:

Okay help me out here...what statement do you disagree with ...

4845:

Ah, a fellow few visits per year WPian. What's your reason?

4244:

I disagree, and in any case suggest you refresh your memory on

3860:

follow up in the workshop phase of arbitration. Have you read

3503:

Edited and tweaked, but not reverted. Curtis and Thepm approve.

2995:

that the whole article's on lockdown. I was suggesting calm.

1812:. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to 4872: 4824:

BTW, why does your talk page say you are retired from this?--

4632:

of yours was indeed welcome - do feel free to restore it. ~

3988:

And after looking back over the two edits you're referencing

3731:"Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?" 4121:. Surely you're not saying that you reverted simply because 3143:

logged in. Maybe you can help me on my talk page with this.

3701:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop

3697:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence

2680:

Again, why are you answering for Heyitspeter? Are you his

2090: 1346: 4721:

We appear to respectfully disagree. I'm reverting myself (

778:

when you're doing philosophy? The answer seems to be that

4585:

Please consider signing the CC restriction, as explained

4097:

Oh yeah haha I didn't even think about that. Thank you.--

3993:, I'll reiterate my refrain, this time with reference to 3734:"Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?" 2648:

of what you claim. The burden of proof is on the editor

1916:

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident#Climategate

4902:

Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

4690:

That's my main request. It will be checked eventually.

3533:

Climatic_Research_Unit_documents#Code_and_documentation

2512:

I'm sorry, but are you currently threatening to make a

782:

are the interpretation function, and you assign "1" to

4196:

What I want is not the issue; I'm fairly certain that

3498:

How sad to see the two of you bickering like children.

2343:

Are you serious? Did you not read Jimbo's comments?

1764:

When you edit this post you`ll see whats been done :)

4456:

Knowledge:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Pifeedback.com

3172:

you get the distinct rows you seem to be looking for.

1824:, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request 1458:(now renamed), based on my postings at the talk page 695: 675: 649: 612: 592: 568: 4335:

workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible

3168:

As regards your tabling queries: If you press enter

4330:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop

112:Another response to your message has been added on 3686:Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change 1621:'s was irrelevant sniping. HiP should desist. . . 707: 681: 655: 618: 598: 574: 4943:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current 4725:) since I don't think it's worth fighting over.-- 4333:Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep " 3350:contributions to the discussion at the talkpage? 3137:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:137.186.166.120 2002:If you're not interested in cutting back on your 1816:to work towards wording and content that gains a 544:harsh. That was unwarranted on various levels.-- 2928:the disputed revert, not before. Please do not 3346:. Instead of harassing me, why don't you make 2769:is a clear violation of AGF. Please redact it 1640:you brought to my attention on this talkpage. 200:I got your message; your point was well taken. 3338:There is no such edit war. And please review 1092:another version of the Interpretation article 562:interpreted. We could equally well interpret 415:Knowledge:Naming conventions (capitalization) 3054:would be appreciative, and for what reason? 2851:NPOV and BLP problems with your recent edits 2158:). Please do so even if only to humor me. -- 1511:Climatic Research Unit documents controversy 916:from the moment there is any object language 4393:a link to the edit I made. I'd forgotten.-- 3775:On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ 515:Geoffery Hunter, ''Metalogic''</ref: --> 23:This user is no longer active on Knowledge. 2962:That's fine. Thanks for the explanation.-- 2516:violation? That's hardly motivational. :) 2324:I noticed you added back the POV tag into 2152:, all of them) from the relevant section ( 1799:according to the reverts you have made on 70:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a 1793:You currently appear to be engaged in an 1032:interpretations of intuitionistic logic. 269:Hello. Please don't forget to provide an 4154:That's what I meant by "disambiguation." 1828:. Please stop the disruption, otherwise 1344:Hmm, as I suspected, there is no proof. 2328:. Could you very briefly explain why? 2326:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident 1801:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident 1506:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident 1373:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident 2255:The word 'content' does not appear at 173:Philosophy and Science were viewed as 4624:Your self-revert at on the CC PD talk 4478:To avoid confusion, I've undone your 3588:herementioned thread to the talkpage 2075:is (and has been for at least a year 1367:Please consider signing our proposal. 3264:I'll look for them as I have time.-- 2644:The reality of the situation is the 1290:. Please review these policies, and 4681:Your Darwin was a teleologist thing 4288:You've removed some of H's comment 4117:I think you have the wrong diff in 3069:But a pattern of judgments against 82:, ask me on my talk page, or place 13: 4871: 2901:It's rather impolite to ignore an 2714:than the current title. The most 2049:Thank you! :) I'll check it out.-- 558:As I have been pointing out, they 411:Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity 262: 14: 4995: 4969:review the candidates' statements 4867: 4581:Voluntary CC article restriction 1928:territory, though. Good luck, - 1857:? I see this as a clear case of 1788: 1345: 4454:Could you give your opinion on 2924:The 'inuse' template was added 514:Both are quite true<ref: --> 4975:. For the Election committee, 4945:Arbitration Committee election 4936:ArbCom elections are now open! 3750:considerable body of evidence. 1722:Done. (He has not, in fact.)-- 1282:Arguing the point would break 1105:20:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC) 1085:22:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC) 1069:11:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC) 1052:11:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC) 997:02:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 962:01:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 948:01:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 857:10:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 842:Interpretation_(logic)#Example 800:03:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 764:02:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 749:structure (mathematical logic) 743:02:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 728:02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 639:01:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 626:indicates disjunction. — Carl 584:structure (mathematical logic) 554:01:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 535:00:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 498:00:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 482:00:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 1: 4985:16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC) 3961:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 3457:you of all people should know 2800:Request concerning Dave souza 2722:for that matter) are saying. 1905:02:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 1886:02:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 1871:01:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 1852:01:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC) 1814:discuss controversial changes 1778:07:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC) 1746:13:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC) 1732:22:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC) 1714:20:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC) 1692:22:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC) 1665:23:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC) 1630:10:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC) 1611:22:43, 22 February 2010 (UTC) 1595:10:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC) 1580:10:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC) 1561:10:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC) 1527:05:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC) 1491:19:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 1476:13:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC) 1456:Modern classic element system 1450:Modern classic element system 924:definable in syntactic terms. 333:21:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 273:. Thanks, and happy editing. 103:00:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC) 40:The five pillars of Knowledge 4859:09:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC) 3073:does not imply bias against 2940:) 20:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC 2612:violation and astonishingly 1440:23:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC) 1425:23:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC) 1411:22:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC) 1393:15:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC) 1304:19:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC) 1277:15:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC) 1250:20:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC) 1232:12:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC) 1213:11:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC) 1191:11:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC) 1169:10:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC) 1155:10:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC) 1140:10:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC) 1125:10:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC) 60:How to write a great article 7: 4971:and submit your choices on 4834:19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 4809:19:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC) 4794:20:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4780:10:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4765:08:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4750:06:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC) 4735:22:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 4716:21:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC) 4675:19:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 4660:18:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 2881:to duck 1RR restrictions.-- 2259:nor at its parent article, 2071:The "third bulletpoint" of 1570:as it's not self-evident.-- 1236:Really? I'd have linked to 1130:Thanks for the heads up! -- 121:06:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC) 10: 5000: 4977:MediaWiki message delivery 4618:02:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 4599:01:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC) 4413:Regarding this discussion, 3911:sentences? Thank you. ~ 3125:02:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC) 3109:20:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC) 3087:04:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC) 3064:04:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC) 3032:02:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 3005:06:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC) 2972:02:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC) 2958:22:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 2919:20:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 2794:18:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC) 2779:16:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC) 2732:13:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC) 2694:20:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2676:12:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2662:04:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2640:04:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2626:04:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2600:04:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2578:04:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2555:04:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2540:04:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2526:04:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2496:03:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2481:03:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2467:03:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2452:03:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2437:03:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2423:03:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2409:03:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2395:03:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2381:03:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2367:02:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2353:02:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2338:02:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 2309:09:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 2290:09:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 2273:09:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 2251:09:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 2229:09:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 2187:10:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 2168:09:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 2136:09:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 2122:08:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 2103:08:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 2059:10:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC) 2044:10:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC) 1356:10:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 1339:10:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC) 606:indicates conjunction and 4925:11:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC) 4864:Dispute resolution survey 4571:21:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC) 4557:20:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC) 4525:18:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC) 4510:11:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC) 4468:12:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC) 4441:23:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 4426:23:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 4403:23:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 4384:23:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 4365:20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 4315:18:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 4300:16:26, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 4270:20:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 4240:20:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 4226:18:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 4211:18:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 4192:16:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 4177:15:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC) 4150:03:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC) 4135:03:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC) 4107:01:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC) 4092:22:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC) 4070:23:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC) 4055:22:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC) 4025:23:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 4011:03:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 3984:03:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 3969:03:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 3939:11:42, 17 June 2010 (UTC) 3906:23:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 3892:22:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 3855:11:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 3840:04:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC) 3803:00:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC) 2891:23:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC) 2872:22:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC) 2843:22:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC) 2829:22:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC) 2814:22:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC) 2020:19:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 1997:18:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC) 1977:23:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC) 1960:23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC) 1940:21:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC) 952:Be well Carl. Stay cool. 317:18:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 307:04:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 149:criteria of his time. -- 114:User talk:BlueNight#Logic 4789: 4760: 4730: 4670: 4613: 4566: 4520: 4436: 4398: 4310: 4265: 4221: 4187: 4145: 4102: 4065: 4006: 3979: 3901: 3850: 3679:08:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC) 3674: 3664:02:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC) 3637:18:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 3632: 3620:14:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC) 3605:18:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 3600: 3582:14:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 3560:04:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 3545:04:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 3540: 3519:04:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 3473:04:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 3468: 3393:03:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 3378:03:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 3373: 3363:03:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 3334:03:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 3320:03:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 3315: 3302:03:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 3288:03:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 3283: 3274:03:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 3269: 3257:03:13, 10 May 2010 (UTC) 3217: 3184: 3120: 3082: 3027: 2967: 2937: 2932:unless it's necessary.-- 2886: 2838: 2824: 2789: 2621: 2573: 2535: 2521: 2376: 2268: 2224: 2163: 2117: 2054: 2015: 1972: 1955: 1900: 1866: 1773: 1727: 1687: 1660: 1606: 1575: 1486: 1420: 1299: 1245: 1164: 1135: 1080: 795: 738: 549: 493: 445:08:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 440: 433:Check the bookcover here 427:03:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC) 376:20:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC) 371: 359:16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC) 281:16:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC) 129:Lucretius as a scientist 31:Hello, Heyitspeter, and 4529:Evidence talk page. ~ 4165:Talk:Two_dimensionalism 4123:V removed your question 3222:05:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC) 3208:04:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC) 3189:03:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC) 3162:03:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC) 3146:Thanks, Ruth Jacobsen 708:{\displaystyle A\lor B} 338:Thanks for your Message 248:04:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 231:03:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC) 192:03:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 183:03:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC) 154:21:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC) 4876: 4849:prevail in context. — 2833:I've done it anways.-- 1568:state as much directly 1460:Talk:Classical element 1009:Interpretation (logic) 709: 683: 657: 620: 619:{\displaystyle \land } 600: 576: 469:type-token distinction 458:Interpretation (logic) 267: 4949:Arbitration Committee 4881:Dispute Resolution – 4875: 4418:A Quest For Knowledge 4047:A Quest For Knowledge 4042:I think that your RFC 3500:I offer two comments: 2806:A Quest For Knowledge 2724:A Quest For Knowledge 2668:A Quest For Knowledge 2632:A Quest For Knowledge 2473:A Quest For Knowledge 2444:A Quest For Knowledge 2415:A Quest For Knowledge 2401:A Quest For Knowledge 2345:A Quest For Knowledge 1768:Ahh yeah thank you!-- 1644:or perhaps plain old 710: 684: 682:{\displaystyle \lor } 658: 656:{\displaystyle \lor } 621: 601: 599:{\displaystyle \lor } 577: 575:{\displaystyle \lor } 266: 4695:this particular edit 4292:William M. Connolley 2771:William M. Connolley 2559:To do so would be a 2008:CRU hacking incident 1223:seems apposite. . . 840:What do you make of 693: 673: 647: 610: 590: 566: 4953:arbitration process 4232:BrideOfKripkenstein 4203:BrideOfKripkenstein 4169:BrideOfKripkenstein 4037:Climategate scandal 3808:Sub-issues question 3647:Revised my RfC view 2710:, but are at least 2242:in content disputes 2207:and admission of a 1540:exclusive enclave. 885:Re Gregbard: There 80:Knowledge:Questions 4965:arbitration policy 4877: 4409:Self-revert? con't 4324:moving to Workshop 2986:Archiving comments 2590:being disruptive. 1822:dispute resolution 1267:warming science. 1175:MY FUCKING APOLOGY 1037:BHK interpretation 705: 679: 653: 616: 596: 572: 268: 45:How to edit a page 4932: 4931: 4927: 4857: 3260: 3243:comment added by 3152:comment added by 2514:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 2316: 2315: 1938: 1810:three-revert rule 1805:three-revert rule 1363: 1362: 1097:Pontiff Greg Bard 1067: 1050: 995: 954:Pontiff Greg Bard 946: 855: 762: 726: 637: 527:Pontiff Greg Bard 474:Pontiff Greg Bard 361: 349:comment added by 305: 100: 4991: 4923: 4921: 4916: 4906: 4868: 4853: 4826:Andrew Lancaster 4801:Andrew Lancaster 4772:Andrew Lancaster 4755:comprehension.-- 4742:Andrew Lancaster 4708:Andrew Lancaster 4665:Thank you. :) -- 4658: 4654: 4648: 4642: 4635: 4555: 4551: 4545: 4539: 4532: 4508: 4504: 4498: 4492: 4485: 4363: 4359: 4353: 4347: 4340: 4198:talk page policy 3937: 3933: 3927: 3921: 3914: 3890: 3886: 3880: 3874: 3867: 3838: 3834: 3828: 3822: 3815: 3801: 3797: 3791: 3785: 3778: 3259: 3237: 3164: 2908: 2879:WP:Wikilawyering 2720:reliable sources 2704:fringe viewpoint 2702:and expresses a 2306: 2287: 2248: 2199: 2198: 2036:Andrew Lancaster 1932: 1803:. Note that the 1792: 1762:your stuff here 1532:You are eligible 1497:CRU article name 1472: 1353: 1349: 1336: 1310: 1309: 1057: 1040: 985: 936: 845: 786:because you use 752: 716: 714: 712: 711: 706: 688: 686: 685: 680: 662: 660: 659: 654: 627: 625: 623: 622: 617: 605: 603: 602: 597: 581: 579: 578: 573: 408: 402: 398: 392: 344: 296: 94: 85: 20: 19: 4999: 4998: 4994: 4993: 4992: 4990: 4989: 4988: 4973:the voting page 4939: 4919: 4914: 4912: 4899:to participate. 4886: 4866: 4851:Charles Stewart 4843: 4683: 4652: 4646: 4640: 4636: 4633: 4626: 4583: 4549: 4543: 4537: 4533: 4530: 4502: 4496: 4490: 4486: 4483: 4480:recent addition 4476: 4449: 4411: 4372: 4357: 4351: 4345: 4341: 4338: 4326: 4286: 4161: 4115: 4078: 4040: 3953: 3951:Arbcom evidence 3931: 3925: 3919: 3915: 3912: 3884: 3878: 3872: 3868: 3865: 3832: 3826: 3820: 3816: 3813: 3810: 3795: 3789: 3783: 3779: 3776: 3689: 3649: 3590:in its entirety 3570: 3238: 3234: 3154:137.186.166.120 3147: 3133: 3097: 3040: 2988: 2902: 2899: 2853: 2802: 2764: 2568:my talkpage. -- 2545:tag". Thanks. 2322: 2317: 2304: 2285: 2246: 2231: 2213:WP:BATTLEGROUND 2069: 2028: 1985: 1919: 1826:page protection 1786: 1758: 1546: 1544:Pot, Kettle,... 1534: 1499: 1468: 1452: 1369: 1364: 1351: 1334: 1326: 1269:The Four Deuces 1264: 1181:you are wrong? 1112: 1011: 694: 691: 690: 674: 671: 670: 648: 645: 644: 611: 608: 607: 591: 588: 587: 567: 564: 563: 453: 406: 400: 396: 390: 384: 340: 325: 323:Richard Dawkins 290: 274: 260: 220:De Rerum Natura 131: 110: 101: 83: 65:Manual of Style 24: 21: 17: 16: 12: 11: 5: 4997: 4942: 4938: 4933: 4930: 4929: 4904: 4901: 4888: 4879: 4865: 4862: 4842: 4837: 4822: 4821: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4816: 4815: 4814: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4682: 4679: 4678: 4677: 4625: 4622: 4621: 4620: 4582: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4475: 4474:Added evidence 4472: 4470:ChaosMaster16 4448: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4410: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4371: 4368: 4325: 4322:Climate change 4319: 4318: 4317: 4285: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4257: 4160: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4152: 4114: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4077: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4039: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4027: 3952: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3809: 3806: 3773: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3761: 3758: 3754: 3751: 3746: 3745: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3735: 3732: 3729: 3719: 3716: 3688: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3648: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3625: 3593: 3569: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3529: 3504: 3501: 3499: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3233: 3230: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3224: 3192: 3191: 3177: 3173: 3132: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3096: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3056:TenOfAllTrades 3039: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3015: 3011: 2987: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2898: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2852: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2801: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2763: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2646:exact opposite 2628: 2528: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2321: 2318: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2233: 2232: 2202: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2179:Stephan Schulz 2128:Stephan Schulz 2095:Stephan Schulz 2087: 2086: 2068: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2027: 2024: 2023: 2022: 1984: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1962: 1918: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1785: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1757: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1738:LessHeard vanU 1717: 1716: 1706:LessHeard vanU 1701: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1679: 1676: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1587:Stephan Schulz 1553:Stephan Schulz 1545: 1542: 1533: 1530: 1498: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1451: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1368: 1365: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1328: 1327: 1313: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1263: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1111: 1108: 1088: 1087: 1029: 1028: 1024: 1010: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 982: 981: 980: 972: 933: 932: 931: 926: 925: 920: 919: 910: 909: 901: 900: 895: 894: 878: 877: 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 866: 865: 864: 863: 862: 861: 860: 859: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 768: 767: 766: 704: 701: 698: 678: 652: 615: 595: 571: 519: 518: 517: 516: 512: 511: 510: 507: 506:academicians). 452: 449: 448: 447: 409:. That said, 383: 380: 379: 378: 339: 336: 324: 321: 320: 319: 289: 284: 278:Midnightdreary 261: 259: 256: 255: 254: 253: 252: 251: 250: 236: 235: 234: 233: 228:SteveMcCluskey 213: 212: 211: 210: 204: 203: 202: 201: 195: 194: 185: 170: 169: 168: 167: 161: 160: 151:SteveMcCluskey 142: 141: 130: 127: 125: 109: 106: 93: 76:sign your name 68: 67: 62: 57: 52: 47: 42: 22: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4996: 4987: 4986: 4982: 4978: 4974: 4970: 4966: 4962: 4958: 4954: 4950: 4946: 4937: 4928: 4926: 4922: 4917: 4910: 4909:research page 4903: 4900: 4898: 4895:Please click 4892: 4887: 4885: 4884: 4883:Survey Invite 4874: 4870: 4869: 4861: 4860: 4856: 4852: 4846: 4841: 4836: 4835: 4831: 4827: 4810: 4806: 4802: 4797: 4796: 4795: 4791: 4787: 4783: 4782: 4781: 4777: 4773: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4762: 4758: 4753: 4752: 4751: 4747: 4743: 4738: 4737: 4736: 4732: 4728: 4724: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4713: 4709: 4705: 4700: 4696: 4691: 4688: 4676: 4672: 4668: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4657: 4655: 4649: 4643: 4631: 4619: 4615: 4611: 4607: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4596: 4592: 4588: 4572: 4568: 4564: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4554: 4552: 4546: 4540: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4522: 4518: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4511: 4507: 4505: 4499: 4493: 4481: 4471: 4469: 4465: 4461: 4460:ChaosMaster16 4457: 4452: 4442: 4438: 4434: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4423: 4419: 4415: 4404: 4400: 4396: 4392: 4388: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4381: 4377: 4367: 4366: 4362: 4360: 4354: 4348: 4336: 4331: 4323: 4316: 4312: 4308: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4297: 4293: 4290: 4271: 4267: 4263: 4258: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4208: 4204: 4199: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4189: 4185: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4174: 4170: 4166: 4153: 4151: 4147: 4143: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4132: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4108: 4104: 4100: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4089: 4085: 4081: 4071: 4067: 4063: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4038: 4026: 4022: 4018: 4017:Zulu Papa 5 * 4014: 4013: 4012: 4008: 4004: 4000: 3996: 3992: 3990: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3981: 3977: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3966: 3962: 3957: 3940: 3936: 3934: 3928: 3922: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3903: 3899: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3889: 3887: 3881: 3875: 3863: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3843: 3842: 3841: 3837: 3835: 3829: 3823: 3805: 3804: 3800: 3798: 3792: 3786: 3769: 3765: 3762: 3759: 3755: 3752: 3748: 3747: 3743: 3742: 3736: 3733: 3730: 3727: 3726: 3724: 3720: 3717: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3709: 3704: 3702: 3698: 3694: 3687: 3680: 3676: 3672: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3638: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3617: 3613: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3602: 3598: 3594: 3591: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3579: 3575: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3542: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3527: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3516: 3512: 3508: 3507:Computerworld 3474: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3448: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3409: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3351: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3317: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3276: 3275: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3245:Tasty monster 3242: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3178: 3174: 3171: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3163: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3144: 3140: 3138: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3095: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3048: 3046: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3016: 3012: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2973: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2906: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2858: 2855:As discussed 2844: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2629: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2614:WP:DISRUPTIVE 2611: 2607: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2562: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2529: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2310: 2307: 2301: 2300: 2291: 2288: 2281: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2249: 2243: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2218: 2215:violation by 2214: 2210: 2206: 2201: 2200: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2156: 2151: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2085: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2077: 2074: 2067: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1963: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1948: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1936: 1931: 1927: 1923: 1917: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1842: 1840: 1835: 1833: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1806: 1802: 1798: 1797: 1791: 1784:February 2010 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1763: 1756:strikethrough 1747: 1743: 1739: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1703: 1702: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1680: 1677: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1649:seem apposite 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1592: 1588: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1541: 1539: 1529: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1507: 1502: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1473: 1471: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1357: 1354: 1348: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1337: 1330: 1329: 1325: 1322:violation by 1321: 1317: 1312: 1311: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1288:WP:NOTSOAPBOX 1285: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1262: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1173:And where is 1172: 1171: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1107: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1093: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1065: 1061: 1054: 1053: 1048: 1044: 1038: 1033: 1025: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1017: 1014: 998: 993: 989: 983: 977: 973: 970: 965: 964: 963: 959: 955: 951: 950: 949: 944: 940: 934: 928: 927: 922: 921: 917: 912: 911: 907: 903: 902: 897: 896: 891: 890: 888: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 858: 853: 849: 843: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 801: 797: 793: 789: 785: 781: 777: 773: 769: 765: 760: 756: 750: 746: 745: 744: 740: 736: 731: 730: 729: 724: 720: 702: 699: 696: 676: 668: 667: 665: 650: 642: 641: 640: 635: 631: 613: 593: 585: 569: 561: 557: 556: 555: 551: 547: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 532: 528: 523: 522: 521: 520: 513: 508: 504: 503: 501: 500: 499: 495: 491: 486: 485: 484: 483: 479: 475: 470: 465: 461: 460: 459: 451:Hey its Peter 446: 442: 438: 434: 431: 430: 429: 428: 424: 420: 416: 412: 405: 395: 387: 377: 373: 369: 364: 363: 362: 360: 356: 352: 351:84.203.45.210 348: 335: 334: 331: 318: 315: 311: 310: 309: 308: 303: 300: 295: 294:Iknowyourider 288: 287:Richard Rorty 283: 282: 279: 272: 265: 249: 246: 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 237: 232: 229: 225: 221: 218:I agree that 217: 216: 215: 214: 208: 207: 206: 205: 199: 198: 197: 196: 193: 190: 186: 184: 181: 180:134.10.121.56 176: 172: 171: 165: 164: 163: 162: 158: 157: 156: 155: 152: 146: 139: 138: 137: 134: 126: 123: 122: 119: 115: 105: 104: 99: 98: 92: 87: 81: 77: 73: 66: 63: 61: 58: 56: 53: 51: 48: 46: 43: 41: 38: 37: 36: 34: 29: 28: 4940: 4905: 4894: 4893: 4889: 4882: 4880: 4878: 4850: 4847: 4844: 4823: 4704:a posteriori 4703: 4698: 4692: 4684: 4637: 4627: 4584: 4534: 4487: 4477: 4453: 4451:Pifeedback 4450: 4412: 4373: 4342: 4334: 4327: 4287: 4162: 4116: 4079: 4041: 3954: 3916: 3869: 3817: 3811: 3780: 3774: 3705: 3690: 3650: 3589: 3571: 3550:talk page. 3506: 3497: 3460: 3408:WP:CONSENSUS 3404: 3400: 3348:constructive 3347: 3340:WP:CONSENSUS 3235: 3169: 3145: 3141: 3134: 3098: 3074: 3070: 3051: 3049: 3044: 3041: 3019: 2992: 2989: 2925: 2900: 2854: 2803: 2766: 2765: 2649: 2645: 2587: 2583: 2323: 2279: 2241: 2154: 2149: 2141: 2110:that request 2088: 2082: 2070: 2029: 1986: 1920: 1859:RV vandalism 1837: 1834:from editing 1829: 1794: 1787: 1761: 1759: 1672: 1547: 1535: 1503: 1500: 1469: 1453: 1377:the proposal 1370: 1331: 1284:WP:NOT#FORUM 1265: 1201: 1178: 1174: 1113: 1089: 1055: 1034: 1030: 1018: 1015: 1012: 979:"logicians". 975: 968: 915: 886: 787: 783: 779: 775: 771: 663: 559: 466: 462: 455: 454: 388: 385: 341: 326: 291: 275: 271:edit summary 258:Edit summary 174: 147: 143: 135: 132: 124: 111: 95: 88: 69: 30: 26: 25: 4840:Modal logic 4786:Heyitspeter 4757:Heyitspeter 4727:Heyitspeter 4693:Concerning 4687:Four causes 4667:Heyitspeter 4610:Heyitspeter 4606:Climategate 4563:Heyitspeter 4517:Heyitspeter 4433:Heyitspeter 4395:Heyitspeter 4307:Heyitspeter 4262:Heyitspeter 4218:Heyitspeter 4184:Heyitspeter 4159:Please stop 4142:Heyitspeter 4099:Heyitspeter 4084:mark nutley 4062:Heyitspeter 4003:Heyitspeter 3976:Heyitspeter 3898:Heyitspeter 3847:Heyitspeter 3671:Heyitspeter 3629:Heyitspeter 3597:Heyitspeter 3537:Heyitspeter 3465:Heyitspeter 3370:Heyitspeter 3312:Heyitspeter 3280:Heyitspeter 3266:Heyitspeter 3239:—Preceding 3214:Heyitspeter 3181:Heyitspeter 3148:—Preceding 3117:Heyitspeter 3079:Heyitspeter 3024:Heyitspeter 2964:Heyitspeter 2934:Heyitspeter 2883:Heyitspeter 2835:Heyitspeter 2821:Heyitspeter 2786:Heyitspeter 2762:AGF failure 2618:Heyitspeter 2570:Heyitspeter 2532:Heyitspeter 2518:Heyitspeter 2373:Heyitspeter 2320:Re: POV tag 2265:Heyitspeter 2221:Heyitspeter 2160:Heyitspeter 2114:Heyitspeter 2051:Heyitspeter 2026:Four causes 2012:Heyitspeter 1969:Heyitspeter 1952:Heyitspeter 1926:WP:NOTFORUM 1922:Fair enough 1897:Heyitspeter 1863:Heyitspeter 1830:you may be 1770:Heyitspeter 1736:Thank you. 1724:Heyitspeter 1684:Heyitspeter 1657:Heyitspeter 1619:Heyitspeter 1603:Heyitspeter 1572:Heyitspeter 1517:. Thanks, 1483:Heyitspeter 1417:Heyitspeter 1296:Heyitspeter 1242:Heyitspeter 1161:Heyitspeter 1132:Heyitspeter 1110:Most recent 1077:Heyitspeter 792:Heyitspeter 735:Heyitspeter 546:Heyitspeter 490:Heyitspeter 437:Heyitspeter 389:As an FYI, 368:Heyitspeter 345:—Preceding 314:Heyitspeter 245:Heyitspeter 189:Heyitspeter 4961:topic bans 4447:Pifeedback 4260:editing!-- 4216:summary.-- 4113:Rationale? 3344:WP:DISRUPT 3200:Dougweller 3014:difficult. 2909:template. 2865:dave souza 2712:less wrong 2566:disrupting 2217:User:Ratel 2142:meatpuppet 2004:disruption 1682:wonders.-- 1623:dave souza 1324:User:Ratel 1225:dave souza 175:synonymous 84:{{helpme}} 72:Wikipedian 50:Help pages 4957:site bans 4723:done here 4376:Hipocrite 4127:Guettarda 4119:this edit 3767:behavior. 3669:Thanks!-- 3385:Viriditas 3355:Viriditas 3326:Viriditas 3294:Viriditas 3101:Guettarda 2930:bother me 2911:Guettarda 2686:Viriditas 2682:majordomo 2654:Viriditas 2592:Viriditas 2547:Viriditas 2488:Viriditas 2459:Viriditas 2429:Viriditas 2387:Viriditas 2359:Viriditas 2330:Viriditas 2305:► RATEL ◄ 2286:► RATEL ◄ 2247:► RATEL ◄ 2203:Collapse 1893:vandalism 1839:This edit 1818:consensus 1646:hipocrisy 1352:► RATEL ◄ 1335:► RATEL ◄ 1314:Collapse 1221:Notpology 1205:Hipocrite 1183:Hipocrite 1147:Hipocrite 1117:Hipocrite 906:structure 419:ThaddeusB 224:talk page 118:BlueNight 74:! Please 4250:WP:CIVIL 3999:WP:TROUT 3612:Polargeo 3574:Polargeo 3552:Yopienso 3524:I plead 3511:Yopienso 3368:you...-- 3253:contribs 3241:unsigned 3150:unsigned 2997:Yopienso 1989:Scjessey 1947:restored 1878:Scjessey 1844:Scjessey 1796:edit war 1466:dixit. ( 1316:WP:FORUM 733:there.-- 382:PROD tag 347:unsigned 330:Timeloss 55:Tutorial 27:Welcome! 4699:himself 4630:comment 4076:Stephan 4035:Rfc at 3997:and/or 3995:WP:DICK 3723:section 3526:WP:BAIT 3115:well.-- 2716:neutral 2708:neutral 2700:neutral 2610:WP:HEAR 2606:WP:NPOV 2561:WP:HEAR 2261:WP:SOCK 2257:WP:MEAT 2209:WP:MEAT 2205:WP:GAME 2146:WP:MEAT 2084:entity. 2073:WP:MEAT 2066:WP:MEAT 2006:of the 1832:blocked 1642:WP:GAME 1638:an edit 1501:Hello, 1432:GoRight 1403:GoRight 1385:GoRight 1320:WP:HEAR 1238:WP:IPAT 1145:board. 984:— Carl 935:— Carl 404:db-move 386:Hello, 33:welcome 18:Retired 4947:. The 4915:Steven 4855:(talk) 4391:here's 4254:WP:AGF 4246:WP:IAR 3715:means. 3405:as per 3045:editor 2950:ChrisO 2897:In use 2650:adding 2588:you're 2175:WP:AGF 1464:Rursus 1292:WP:AGF 1261:WP:AGF 1027:right. 4920:Zhang 4634:Amory 4628:That 4591:Cla68 4531:Amory 4484:Amory 4339:Amory 3913:Amory 3866:Amory 3864:? ~ 3814:Amory 3777:Amory 3461:there 3170:twice 3094:Diffs 2905:inuse 1935:cont. 1549:black 1519:Oren0 969:Every 664:means 488:on.-- 108:Logic 91:Ruakh 4981:talk 4897:HERE 4830:talk 4805:talk 4790:talk 4776:talk 4761:talk 4746:talk 4731:talk 4712:talk 4671:talk 4614:talk 4595:talk 4587:here 4567:talk 4521:talk 4464:talk 4437:talk 4422:talk 4399:talk 4380:talk 4311:talk 4296:talk 4266:talk 4252:and 4236:talk 4222:talk 4207:talk 4188:talk 4173:talk 4146:talk 4131:talk 4103:talk 4088:talk 4066:talk 4051:talk 4021:talk 4007:talk 3980:talk 3965:talk 3902:talk 3851:talk 3693:here 3675:talk 3633:talk 3616:talk 3601:talk 3578:talk 3556:talk 3541:talk 3515:talk 3469:talk 3389:talk 3374:talk 3359:talk 3342:and 3330:talk 3316:talk 3298:talk 3284:talk 3270:talk 3249:talk 3218:talk 3204:talk 3185:talk 3158:talk 3121:talk 3105:talk 3083:talk 3060:talk 3038:Bias 3028:talk 3020:will 3001:talk 2968:talk 2954:talk 2938:talk 2926:with 2915:talk 2887:talk 2869:talk 2861:here 2859:and 2857:here 2839:talk 2825:talk 2810:talk 2790:talk 2775:talk 2728:talk 2690:talk 2672:talk 2658:talk 2636:talk 2622:talk 2596:talk 2584:then 2574:talk 2551:talk 2536:talk 2522:talk 2492:talk 2477:talk 2463:talk 2448:talk 2433:talk 2419:talk 2405:talk 2391:talk 2377:talk 2363:talk 2349:talk 2334:talk 2269:talk 2225:talk 2211:and 2183:talk 2164:talk 2155:viz. 2150:viz. 2132:talk 2118:talk 2099:talk 2091:dada 2055:talk 2040:talk 2032:here 2016:talk 1993:talk 1973:talk 1956:talk 1901:talk 1882:talk 1867:talk 1848:talk 1774:talk 1742:talk 1728:talk 1710:talk 1688:talk 1661:talk 1653:here 1627:talk 1607:talk 1591:talk 1576:talk 1557:talk 1551:? -- 1538:this 1523:talk 1515:here 1487:talk 1470:bork 1436:talk 1421:talk 1407:talk 1398:RE: 1389:talk 1381:here 1300:talk 1286:and 1273:talk 1246:talk 1229:talk 1209:talk 1187:talk 1179:know 1165:talk 1151:talk 1136:talk 1121:talk 1101:talk 1081:talk 1064:talk 1047:talk 992:talk 958:talk 943:talk 930:.-GB 852:talk 796:talk 759:talk 739:talk 723:talk 634:talk 550:talk 531:talk 494:talk 478:talk 467:The 441:talk 423:talk 417:. -- 394:PROD 372:talk 355:talk 133:Hi, 116:. -- 97:TALK 4941:Hi, 4284:Err 3708:ask 3653:Lar 3568:Hey 3535:.-- 3401:met 3052:Who 2993:NOW 2263:.-- 2078:): 2034:.-- 1987:-- 1930:2/0 1836:. 1673:not 1655:)-- 1474:!) 1060:CBM 1043:CBM 988:CBM 939:CBM 893:is. 848:CBM 780:you 772:why 755:CBM 719:CBM 669:If 630:CBM 560:are 456:Re: 4983:) 4959:, 4911:. 4832:) 4807:) 4792:) 4778:) 4763:) 4748:) 4733:) 4714:) 4673:) 4650:• 4644:• 4616:) 4597:) 4589:. 4569:) 4547:• 4541:• 4523:) 4500:• 4494:• 4466:) 4439:) 4424:) 4401:) 4382:) 4370:No 4355:• 4349:• 4313:) 4298:) 4268:) 4248:, 4238:) 4224:) 4209:) 4190:) 4175:) 4167:. 4148:) 4133:) 4105:) 4090:) 4068:) 4053:) 4023:) 4009:) 3982:) 3967:) 3929:• 3923:• 3904:) 3882:• 3876:• 3853:) 3830:• 3824:• 3793:• 3787:• 3703:. 3677:) 3655:: 3635:) 3618:) 3603:) 3580:) 3558:) 3543:) 3517:) 3471:) 3391:) 3376:) 3361:) 3332:) 3318:) 3310:-- 3300:) 3286:) 3272:) 3255:) 3251:• 3232:No 3220:) 3206:) 3187:) 3160:) 3123:) 3107:) 3085:) 3062:) 3030:) 3003:) 2970:) 2956:) 2917:) 2907:}} 2903:{{ 2889:) 2867:, 2841:) 2827:) 2812:) 2792:) 2777:) 2730:) 2692:) 2674:) 2660:) 2638:) 2624:) 2598:) 2576:) 2553:) 2538:) 2524:) 2494:) 2479:) 2465:) 2450:) 2435:) 2421:) 2407:) 2393:) 2379:) 2365:) 2351:) 2336:) 2280:do 2271:) 2227:) 2219:-- 2185:) 2166:) 2134:) 2120:) 2101:) 2057:) 2042:) 2018:) 1995:) 1983:No 1975:) 1967:-- 1958:) 1903:) 1884:) 1869:) 1850:) 1776:) 1744:) 1730:) 1712:) 1690:) 1663:) 1625:, 1609:) 1593:) 1585:-- 1578:) 1559:) 1525:) 1489:) 1438:) 1430:-- 1423:) 1409:) 1391:) 1302:) 1275:) 1248:) 1227:, 1211:) 1189:) 1167:) 1153:) 1138:) 1123:) 1103:) 1083:) 1062:· 1045:· 990:· 976:is 960:) 941:· 887:is 850:· 798:) 757:· 741:) 721:· 700:∨ 677:∨ 651:∨ 632:· 614:∧ 594:∨ 570:∨ 552:) 533:) 496:) 480:) 443:) 425:) 407:}} 401:{{ 397:}} 391:{{ 374:) 366:-- 357:) 4979:( 4828:( 4803:( 4788:( 4774:( 4759:( 4744:( 4729:( 4710:( 4669:( 4656:) 4653:c 4647:t 4641:u 4638:( 4612:( 4593:( 4565:( 4553:) 4550:c 4544:t 4538:u 4535:( 4519:( 4506:) 4503:c 4497:t 4491:u 4488:( 4462:( 4458:? 4435:( 4420:( 4397:( 4378:( 4361:) 4358:c 4352:t 4346:u 4343:( 4309:( 4294:( 4264:( 4256:. 4234:( 4220:( 4205:( 4186:( 4171:( 4144:( 4129:( 4101:( 4086:( 4064:( 4049:( 4019:( 4005:( 3978:( 3963:( 3935:) 3932:c 3926:t 3920:u 3917:( 3900:( 3888:) 3885:c 3879:t 3873:u 3870:( 3849:( 3836:) 3833:c 3827:t 3821:u 3818:( 3799:) 3796:c 3790:t 3784:u 3781:( 3673:( 3661:c 3659:/ 3657:t 3631:( 3614:( 3599:( 3576:( 3554:( 3539:( 3528:. 3513:( 3467:( 3410:. 3387:( 3372:( 3357:( 3328:( 3314:( 3296:( 3282:( 3268:( 3247:( 3216:( 3202:( 3183:( 3156:( 3119:( 3103:( 3081:( 3075:x 3071:x 3058:( 3026:( 2999:( 2966:( 2952:( 2936:( 2913:( 2885:( 2837:( 2823:( 2808:( 2788:( 2773:( 2726:( 2688:( 2670:( 2656:( 2634:( 2620:( 2594:( 2572:( 2549:( 2534:( 2520:( 2490:( 2475:( 2461:( 2446:( 2431:( 2417:( 2403:( 2389:( 2375:( 2361:( 2347:( 2332:( 2267:( 2223:( 2181:( 2162:( 2130:( 2116:( 2097:( 2053:( 2038:( 2014:( 1991:( 1971:( 1954:( 1937:) 1933:( 1899:( 1880:( 1865:( 1846:( 1772:( 1740:( 1726:( 1708:( 1686:( 1659:( 1605:( 1589:( 1574:( 1555:( 1521:( 1485:( 1434:( 1419:( 1405:( 1387:( 1318:/ 1298:( 1271:( 1244:( 1207:( 1185:( 1163:( 1149:( 1134:( 1119:( 1099:( 1079:( 1066:) 1058:( 1049:) 1041:( 994:) 986:( 956:( 945:) 937:( 854:) 846:( 794:( 788:P 784:P 776:P 761:) 753:( 737:( 725:) 717:( 703:B 697:A 636:) 628:( 548:( 529:( 492:( 476:( 439:( 421:( 370:( 353:( 304:) 302:c 299:t 297:( 276:- 89:—

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

Index