872:... My suggestion is, review them extensively in an appropriate section in the body. When various editors can collaborate together to write an NPOV NOR compliant section in the body of the article - Knowledge is a collaborative process! - when diverse editors reach a consensus about the section in the body, I think then is the time to work out a sentence to add to the intro that signals that there is controversy covered later in the article. look, there is no rush! Have the patience and good faith to take time to work out s extion in the body. i really believe that it will be easier to do this first. And I believe that once this is done, it will be easier to modify the intro second. One step at a time! Slrubenstein
309:
your own. It's the same kind of slip that Aryeh Kaplan himself made when he said that the
Trinity was idolatry for Jews, but not for Christians (meaning Gentiles). An honest mistake by one of the most brilliant lights in Judaism -- and a mistake no Christian would have made. It's a paradigm typo, that's all. I've never intended to make people change what they INTEND to say, but merely to help them avoid unconscious slips. The current glossary does nothing for that, so I'm asking the admin for a place to put the style guide. It's sorely needed by Wikieditors to avoid "typos."
258:
previous stuff, I think.) Maybe you could float a list of the questions/topics under discussion, then see if people are willing to work within those headings. Personally, instead, I'd like to see you ask people to focus on the real crucial questions. I mean, why talk about specific words (like covenant), or the drafting of a lead, if there's no agreement yet on an article scope (and name) that satisfies our policies? Of course, folks have very different discussion styles and some like it more loose and free-flowing than I.
235:(Ok if I reply here? Feel free to move this, of course!) The previous section deals with several q's. E.g., religious vs academic terms. Partly on a focus on shared terms. Latest is on a proposed lede. So I don't think the whole previous section would easily fit under a single heading. But I do think that more narrow headings and discussion q's might be helpful. I suppose my comment might be broken down into the "Feasibility" problem (i.e., Is there a definable scope and range?) which is discussed above; and "Policy" (
669:..." The wording you've put makes it seem as though pidgins arise when groups come into contact and don't all share a second language. This is inaccurate. For a pidgin to form, the groups need to share no language. If group A speaks language A and language B while group B only speaks language B, then a pidgin won't form. There's nothing "incorrect" about the English usage there but do you think there's a way that it could be worded better now that you know the specifics? ā
589:
80:
Jews and "Old and New
Testaments" to Christians. But "Christian New Testament" only means "New Testament." Jeremiah and Song of Songs are not in the New Testament. I may have to make a one page web site for a small list for this sort of thing -- the original table was grossly bloated anyway by all the citation demands and losing it's usefulness for it's only intended purpose: as a term guide to help editors avoid unconscious accidents like that.
775:. I realize the version I'm talking about wasn't explicit enough in its sourcing, but it has been made clear through the work of a variety of editors that there is enough criticism of the specific points in the film related to science that we can have separate sections on these issues. Since the previous version did that, it's simply a matter of sourcing each of the individual counterpoints to the appropriate reviews/discussions.
1846:
for the inclusion of direct quotes from prominent neo-nazi organisations to "illustrate the point of view" that the holocaust never occurred. I think that if a source is unreliable and extremist, the only time we need quote it is when we are discussing that source - direct quotes of nazis are fine in the article on holocaust denial, but this proposal could hand people a wedge to drive them into mainstream articles.
1177:
wrote. As you, I still have no idea where to even begin, but thanks for the thought. I mean it's easy to respond to someone who is just being overtly racist but it's much more difficult when a person has absolutely no clue as to what they just wrote. Currently I've been trying to dispel his misconceptions about cultural relativism on his talk page and for some reason I remain optimistic.--
1796:
on this image to your contributions has been your rapid resort to derogatory comments directed at other sincere editors. Ridiculing obvious trolls is one thing, but your repeated comments about naivity, ignorance, people giving you the best laugh of the day and so one seemed to me to be designed to humiliate rather than encourage discussion. Let's be clear, you are the
349:. The discussion had got very long, and could do with a section break anyway. The fact that it is a sub heading and mentions fig in the title, makes it quite clear. There are no such rules anyway, moving words of others around is not acceptable. Do not do it again to my words, thanks. you also made it look like I responding to someone I was not responding to.
1893:
I ask is that you take a less arrogant tone when discussing matters with myself and I will follow suit. Your past insulting behaviour with myself was probably the only instance though I understand why you may have become upset. Let's just try to resolve things more "democratically" (I know I often haven't been so myself) if you will without emotion, agreedĀ ?
1201:
Same with me and Robert A. Godwin. His critical article about the Muslim world I called your attention to is no "racist" at all. It merely tries to convey the idea that many
Muslims are behind our times. Using deMause's jargon, I would say that, for example, what happened a couple of days ago in Iraq
808:
So your suggestion looks to me very much like what I'm proposing. Although jumping back to a previous version may look weird, it turns out that the previous version did deal with these issues. It just happened that the discussions at the time did not include references to the appropriate citations we
323:
Of course you know better! I'm not trying to educate you. You don't need it. There are typos that Jews make that
Christians don't, and typos that Christians make that Jews don't. There are also terms that some Jews continue to use even when corrected (like my Rabbi's insistence on calling the New
308:
Sl -- I was not attacking you. I was pointing out HONEST mistakes and typos that come from pardigmatic slips. A Christian would not have made that typo (they would make different typos that Jews would never make). That's all. The table was not to correct dishonesty, but to assist honesty, such as
1892:
Hey
Rubenstein, I just wanted to clear up any "bad history" that we may still have. I know I (often wrongfully) accused you of not being totally clear with regards to references in the past, but obviously you are an accomplished editor and have a solid grasp in anthropological issues. The only think
1795:
I misread the edit history, for which I apologise. Of course I was probably subconsciously influenced by my anger at the way the debate had been conducted. IMO, that is no excuse at all for immediately accusing people of lying. Do you realise how offensive that is? My objection throughout the debate
1743:
OK, so
Slrubenstein says Factwhen is a sockpuppet of a banned user. Which banned user? Isn't that something usually noted on the talk page of the sock? I'm not taking sides, but when I look at Factwhen's edits I see some good work being done, not what I'd expect from someone who doesn't belong on
79:
Although I won't be contributing, I'm lurking for a few days to see if I get what I asked from the admin. Anyhow -- you wrote: "Jeremiah or Song of Songs - namely, books that are both in the Hebrew Bilbe and in the
Christian New Testament." Careful, now. "Christian Bible" means "New Testament" to
1845:
Hi there, I'm keeping out of this discussion for now, since there are personal issues with some of the people involved. However, I was very concerned when I thought about how the "illustrate a point of view" idea could be misused. For example, in the article about the holocaust, editors could argue
1586:
and, until I helped him out, Fozzie became so frustrated with this site's lack of responsiveness that he nearly damaged his own reputation. I dealt with the Joan of Arc vandal, who had spent two years manipulating a range of articles that related to
Catholicism, homosexuality, and cross-dressing.
831:
Slrubenstein: This a response I made to your edit on SAs talk page that SA chose to delete from his page. He went on to characterize it as POV pushing in the edit summary of the deletion. In addition, SA has requested that I stay off his talk page. I will copy it here, so you can read or comment if
545:
The problem is that Donald
Cameron Watt did write that in the Evening Standard, and he is in fact Emeritus Professor of Modern History at the London School of Economics; however, when you look at the NYTimes article, it says no such thing. The article is in their archives, ran in ā99. If I get time
1614:
Hi, I've been referred to you as the person who delated the
Semiotic Triangle. I understanbd it is because a "banned user"wrote it. The article, in my view, had considerably more merit than the replacement article "Triangle of reference". Considerably. A "banned user" being used as a reason for
1176:
Thank you so much! I really appreciate that. It has always been surprising to me how under represented anthropology is both on WP and in society at large. Sometimes I think that people think that we just make this stuff up... I don't think that there was anything to say to Cesar Tort about what he
1800:
who has consistently objected to the use of this image and has used every argument you can think of to exclude it. If the inclusion of this imasge were really so obviously risable do you think you would be alone in this crusade? After a while, replying to the same points over and over, and to the
1309:
Knowledge provides accounts of notable views fronm reliable sources. We do not gg\ive undue weight to minoirty views. And we do not promote fringe views. There are in fact scholars writing about the Hyksos, in peer-reviewed journals in in books published by university presses. If you really cared
732:
I think a little more time is needed just to be sure. He has just started editing but went straight for R&I. Also usually MoritzB did not answer direct questions on his talk page. I have reverted his edits to R&I and instructed him to argue his case on the talk page, so we can wait to see
257:
Hi again. I think people (perhaps you'd include me, though I think of myself as rather laid back by wp stds) can get touchy about refactoring, esp for a live, active discussion. Rather than rearrange the previous discussion, it's easier to reorganize as you move forward. (Note how Shira copied in
1499:
Im not making things up. You cant read books and come to conclusions for the rest of your life. If you study history you should be aware of that history is written, there for there are bound to be mistakes, a lot of mistakes, so that's why one should always be open minded and let the branches be
1917:
in terms of Jewish ethnic identity (which is obviously far more complex than the average person might think). Anyways, I really need to get off this for a time to focus on other things, but clearly you are one of the more knowledgable editors I've discussed with on here and I look forward to
189:
Yes, but... you also have to take the human factor in mind. Bikini has been highly provoked, and is still operating on a correct methodology. BB is finding sources. You are at a disadvantage in that it is impossible to prove a negative. How do you find references saying that "Figs aren't
1310:
about these topics you would go to a good research library and find the books and articles, But as long as you rely on unreliable sources for fringe views, I will remove such material from articles. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to reproduce you tube pseudo-knowledge fantasies.
687:
Ahh, I see what you find objectionable. Well, I recommend you stay away from law ("ways and means", "cease and desist", "will and testament", "on or about", "null and void", "give, devise, and bequeath", "aid and abet", "fit and proper", etc). I agree that Maunus's compromise is good. ā
118:
Why do we need to establish that he's acting against consensus? If you leave the discussion exactly as it is now, that's established. But it's moot. Because there's nowhere to put his view in the article any more. There was, when it was a table, but now he'd need to go and put it in
1805:
article not a single regular editor there thought its uncontroversial addition was even worthy of comment - let alone edit-warring over. I feel strongly that you have some personal distaste for this picture which is manifested in unnecessarily aggressive behaviour in this case.
136:
In other words, there's no practical issue at play here. It's just Bikinibomb soaking up the attention on a talk page, with an issue that doesn't have any relevance whatsoever to the page. But by all means, continue to give him attention and a forum if you're having fun.
1615:
deletion of a piece with merit seems to me to be an inflexible and deleterious application of a rule. Would you please find a way to allow access to the original article? Luckily, someone has pointed me to the image on the page so I have been able to save at least that.
243:)" which presumably has come up before but I gather is not resolved. However, doesn't feasibility depend on complying with Policy? Plus, there's my idea of an internal glossary to avoid both of these problems. Hope this is useful. Thanks for your msg.
1437:
Provide me with three sources, books published in academic presses or articles in peer-reviewed journal articles, by extablished professors of Biblical/Ancient Near Eastern history or archeology, that make this claim. That is all I ask for.
1594:
Working on articles is a good thing; I endorse it of course. Yet it isn't a solution to everything. Even if you disagree with our approach, I hope you appreciate that both SirFozzie and I act in good faith and are committed to fairness.
461:
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!
195:
Back to the human factor -- BB will end up blowing up like I did. You saw how long I restrained myself in the first AfD, and this one I had no patience left. It's not in anyone's best interest to drive away a citation trouper like
1477:
Then I would have to see that you also deliver references this scale to all your edits. Of course I will include the best links and add more later. I know this is minor view so rather adding to the main content I do subcategory's.
1245:
I wanted to mention that I have some additional experience in the academic world besides being a librarian (at Princeton). But i see I left out a phrase which I have just added " and human biology, the field of my post-doc with
1405:
ok I make the information to subcontents not in the main info. And I try to provide links also. But if you want to go to look the links in wikipedia with me, a lot will be deleted being a "BS link". SO it's really up to not to
1024:. The difs under a redirects are all preserved if anything is decided to be merged. Frankly, at this moment I don't see much content worth merging. I'm going to take a much more detailed look at this as soon as I get a chance.
284:
You might want to see who responds next. You might want to ask folks if they would like to see the discussion refactored or facilitated more. Other than what I've said above, well, I'm about to go offline for awhile. Kol tuv,
1274:
I should say I'm sorry about reading other's talk pages, but I'm really not. I saw a comment you left on Futurebird's talk page and responded to the question you asked myself. If I was out of line in so doing, my apologies.
1668:
on both LookingGlass and KYPark and deal with them in a straightforward manner, but I will keep an eye on the developing situation in case one or both turn out to be further Awbrey socks. Thnaks for the heads up.
35:. I think the article has great potential to be a useful reference to many readers. It's also a chance for me to contribute constructively without getting immediately embroiled in some controversy or other.
168:
don't have to do that any more. If you no longer need a Jewish take on "Christian" and "Trinity" then you certainly don't need one on "Figs." Only the religion that primarily uses the term need be cited.
190:
important to us." If they aren't important to the writer, he won't mention them. All BB has to do is keep finding exceptions. BBs methodology is correct, but it is not perfect. No methodology can be.
665:
Hmm, seems like we're revert warring. I can back up the wording with Holm (1988) who says a pidgin is "a reduced language that results from extended contact between groups of people with no language
1801:
impossible demands for evidence of "notability" that are not applied to other images becomes very wearing, especially when it is combined with a derogatory tone. When the same image was added to the
956:
Not sure. At minimum it is a fringe subject. Furthermore, the fictional Asimov version is clearly more notable and so if we don't use a dab page that one should probably get to be listed solely at
596:
582:
32:
611:
790:
In fact, yes, they are explicit reviews of the film in relation to its claims on quantum mechanics and water crystals. There are also additional references about the other errors documented
99:
Look, Bikinibomb is a game player. You know this; you've commented on it yourself. He's an attention seeker. This is all a big lark to him, seeing how many Jews he can tweak. Is there a
385:
I didn't mean to be unfair, or aggressive, but it really gets on my nerves when people delete things that I write on talk pages, especially (as I only now note) when they disagree with me.
603:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "
537:, writes that he admires some of Irving's work as a historian though he rejects his conclusions about the Holocaust. According to Watt, prior to the 1996 Irving-Lipstadt libel case,
610:
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
580:
1375:
I'm an admin. But admins have no special say in content issues. As a normal editor, though, I have to side with Slrubenstein on the content issue. What you are trying to do is a
1657:
article is amazingly badly written. I have tagged it and will try to clean it up. The editor who wrote it is prone to the sort of wandering prose that Awbrey sometimes employed
1826:
Sorry I have been absent from the encyclopaedia lately; rather serious health issues have kept me incommunicado (in the hospital) for over two weeks. I'm back, however.Ā :)--
458:
157:
Sl, enlistment isn't the best tactic to use. I think it's against Knowledge rules somewhere. In any case, there's another route to take that I wrote to Bikini separately:
216:
993:
I'd be tempted to be bold and just redirect it to the main article. None of the sources are independent, and even the criticism section is OR. An AfD won't hurt though.
1269:
230:
713:
Could this be MoritzB? He seems to know about Finland and is making the same kind of pointy and offensive edits on scant evidence (the book of Lynn that he pushes in
767:
You're right about what the NOR policy says. Fortunately, we have a myriad of sources which detail (nearly point-by-point) where the film misrepresents science from
634:
1284:
818:
803:
128:
251:
521:
172:
I'm out of it because my style guide was my interest, and I'm hunting a different venue for it. But, I figure on my way out I'll try the peacemaker route.
555:
1577:
845:
I am in complete agreement with Slrubenstein. My comments on the talk page would confirm that. I would like to underscore that your suggestion is to add
858:
541:
asked a number of leading American and British historians whether they regarded Irving as being a historian "of repute". The large majority answered yes.
1753:
1738:
1815:
1695:
1601:
1051:
1196:
made all too clear that her brutally honest critique of Muslims had nothing to do with race, but with a medieval religion and medieval ways of living.
1624:
1536:
1487:
1460:
1424:
1396:
515:
1571:
1446:
1346:
1318:
1215:
1202:āa couple of bombs that killed more that 70 Muslimsā roughly equals the fratricidal "psychoclass" of the XVI century Europeans who perpetrated the
271:
Thanks to your q's, I've slightly revised my input under subunits. What do you think? Let me know if you think this is a useful direction. Thanks.
1033:
1015:
1873:
1687:
1679:
756:
700:
210:
146:
1002:
742:
1591:
to convince the community that this vandal even existed; the site lost several productive Wikipedians who quit in frustration because of him.
1055:
367:
364:
1770:
1719:
1047:
1043:
574:
428:
394:
1083:
409:
379:
358:
1360:
Hey stop editing and deleting relevant content and links. I suggest you to not to go to edit war with me. We should rather call an admin.
415:
The article is total BS in my view. I don't see what goal it serves. A list of terminology and sybolism explicitly common to both Judaism
1582:
During our early months as editors, both SirFozzie and I had the bad luck of encountering long term disruptive vandals. He dealt with
1261:
747:
It is also interesting that the article had not seen edits and suddenly two editors began going at it with pretty much the same POV.
546:
tomorrow I will try and find it again, but itās not too hard to find if you use āhistorianā as one of the search words, IIRC. Thanks,
1609:
293:
279:
266:
183:
66:
1123:
923:
was unsuccessful, but your support was still very much appreciated. Let me know if there is anything I can do for you. Thank you!--
920:
338:
1855:
1097:
471:
1527:. If you are right or wrong - Knowledge is not the place for your own research, unless you publish in a serious venue first. --
333:
318:
1500:
investigated and known information brought up as a minor viewpoint. History is always far more than what it looks like to be.
1166:
987:
969:
784:
1673:
1556:
89:
937:
My first impression is that it is at least fringe, but I will have to take a bit more time to give a more informed opinion.
909:
726:
1660:
The contributions of also show some worryingly "Awbrey-esque" patterns, but not enough, I think, to be certain it is him.
221:
Thank you for inviting me to contribute to the glossary. I will do so enthusiastically and humbly, Shalom, your friend, --
112:
1835:
1789:
946:
1509:
1369:
44:
681:
1881:
1186:
1074:
You're wasting your time trying to discuss things with Alun. He's good at repeating what he reads in books though. --
890:
1303:
1237:
562:
1678:
1108:
927:
655:
505:
1327:
about the recent links deletion you made regarding any hyksos pages. I think your going too far with deletions.
1203:
975:
485:
1914:
1102:
644:
1927:
1902:
152:
1726:
1451:
One thing I ask for is to unfold that double negative...I don't know if it is intentional or accidental. --
1342:
849:
I think if we could agree to the points that you have made, the article writing will move forward quickly.
501:
49:
1909:
I just read your message and I could not agree more with all of what you said, especially with regards to
1707:
1699:
1383:. Sorry, but we have higher standards in Wikipeda. And Slrubenstein, please try to keep the tone of your
1061:
814:
799:
780:
600:
534:
772:
434:
1011:
Redirect? What do you mean? Deletion? Shouldn't simply merging it with the main article be better? ā
1532:
1456:
1392:
1634:
Hi Slrubenstein. Thanks for dragging me back into the Awbrey messĀ :-) I've gone through the whole
1133:
I have noticed that you are interested in the historical Jesus. Since 1987 I became interested in
868:
I would like to get your permission to copy your comments on SA talk page to the Bleep talk page.
1910:
1840:
1766:
1749:
1715:
1384:
951:
625:
template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.
303:
1620:
1443:
1315:
17:
1148:
and the Clement letter. But that doesn't interest me much. The portrait that secular humanist
490:
I don't really think I have much to add to the conversation. Thanks for the message though. --
1811:
1785:
1654:
1639:
1629:
1280:
932:
810:
795:
776:
714:
226:
900:"I guess you do not understand how historians work." Have I ever said anything mean to you?
621:
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the
455:, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button
451:( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the
57:
Glad you think I can help, but as I mentioned, I don't know which article it applies to...--
1945:"History needs David Irvings" by Donald Cameron Watt, The Evening Standard, April 11, 2000.
1851:
1734:
1552:
1330:
1128:
706:
444:
74:
1159:
Do you hold a particular view on Smith? (BTW, I corresponded to him just before he died.)
1114:, with no attempt to even edit any articles yet. Clearly a pov pusher. What do you think?
8:
1528:
1452:
1388:
895:
752:
440:
62:
1821:
1877:
1831:
1762:
1745:
1711:
1567:
1542:
1182:
1021:
905:
886:
854:
693:
674:
538:
512:
329:
314:
206:
179:
142:
108:
94:
85:
1647:
1635:
1616:
1439:
1355:
1311:
1226:
I have just read you user page; please read mine--we ought to understand each other.
1221:
1029:
998:
983:
965:
738:
722:
527:
467:
26:
1807:
1802:
1781:
1505:
1483:
1420:
1365:
1338:
1299:
1276:
1119:
1093:
692:
673:
570:
551:
495:
424:
405:
390:
375:
354:
222:
40:
1847:
1730:
1548:
1212:
1163:
1012:
651:
630:
100:
1289:
1193:
1079:
1020:
Cesar, I mean redirecting, as in making it a redirect to the main article. See
914:
748:
660:
639:
370:, before I made the comment that you did it erm... twice, at 51 past the hour.
324:
Testament the "Christian Bible" no matter how many times I try to correct him).
236:
58:
1515:
That may or may not be so. But some of the core policies of Knowledge require
717:
was dismissed as unscholarly because it misrepresented statistical evidence).
1923:
1898:
1863:
1827:
1775:
1665:
1563:
1547:
Thanks for letting me know. I have now blocked the user for 24 hours. Cheers
1524:
1380:
1376:
1257:
1233:
1178:
1171:
957:
942:
901:
882:
850:
768:
762:
689:
670:
622:
615:
604:
325:
310:
240:
202:
175:
138:
104:
81:
1670:
1520:
1134:
1025:
994:
979:
961:
734:
718:
707:
476:
463:
290:
276:
263:
248:
124:
1690:
around and reverting their edits? Some of your reversions are impolite (
1596:
1516:
1501:
1479:
1416:
1361:
1334:
1295:
1247:
1115:
1111:
1089:
566:
547:
491:
420:
401:
386:
371:
350:
36:
588:
1886:
1869:
1583:
1149:
924:
647:
626:
482:
612:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms
1075:
1066:
I have just been complimented by Jagz, but I suspect he doesn't even
974:
Will take a look in more detail when I have time. However, right now
452:
1919:
1894:
1252:
1228:
938:
533:
Donald Cameron Watt, Emeritus Professor of Modern History at the
286:
272:
259:
244:
511:
Thanks for the invitation. This is beyond my knowledge, sorry. ā
419:
Christiany would be interesting, but this is not what there is.
599:, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for
160:
This isn't the same page it was three days ago. Remember when
1156:, in which he mentions Smith's book, strikes me as realistic.
457:
201:
Don't mount pressure. Let it cool off, or you'll lose BB too.
1780:
I said it because I believed it to be true. Was it not true?
448:
1646:
I strongly concur with you that we keep Awbrey's version of
561:
Is a Holocaust Skeptic Fit to Be a Historian? June 26, 1999
1761:
Thanks for the explanation. Sorry to have misunderstood!
1710:). I've reverted your reversions in those specific cases.
1696:
Knowledge talk:Knowledge Signpost/2008-02-11/Muhammad image
439:
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
120:
978:
doesn't even look like it is independently notable to me.
443:
and Knowledge pages that have open discussion, you should
1918:
co-operating with you on articles in the future. Ciao,
1650:
deleted, since all his contributions are deeply suspect
131:
article, which I'm quite sure would be hastily deleted.
1415:
Nobody today deny that the Hyksos were not Hebrews.
400:
No problem, it is very minor issue, don't sweat it.
217:
Thanks for inviting me to contribute to the glossary
1152:(whom I know personally) presents about Jesus in
1144:I know there has been a lot of controversy about
832:you wish. My comments form his talk page follow.
1270:My apologies for reading other people's messages
1642:situation as best I can. My brief conclusions:
1250:. " I've taught courses in it too, at Rutgers.
164:had to show every meaning for every POV? Well
1941:
1939:
1937:
1044:Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Psychohistory
526:Hey, I am going to hand this one off to you:
522:Not really sure on what grounds to alter this
481:Thanks for the heads-up, I'll comment there.
1702:), and some others are bad for the article (
1934:
31:Thank you for inviting me to contribute to
1578:Regarding SirFozzie's investigation pages
103:? If there isn't, there ought to be. -
14:
919:Well, not this time anyway it seems...
597:Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms
583:Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms
33:Glossary of Jewish and Christian terms
1294:Please don't delete relevant links.
1686:Is there a reason you're following
23:
1694:, reverting talk page comments at
587:
24:
1957:
877:Talk 23:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
921:my effort to regain my adminship
456:
976:Early infanticidal childrearing
1204:St. Bartholomew's Day massacre
1082:) 12:42, 31 January 2008(UTC).
645:Knowledge:Levels of competence
13:
1:
1928:22:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
1903:21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
1882:07:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
1856:18:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
1836:14:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
1816:16:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
1790:12:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
1771:21:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
1754:21:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
1739:20:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
1720:20:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
1674:12:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
1625:00:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
1602:20:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
1572:00:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
1557:23:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1537:23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1510:23:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1488:22:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1461:22:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1447:22:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1425:22:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1397:22:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1370:22:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1347:23:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1319:22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1304:21:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1154:The transcendental temptation
339:I didn't create a new heading
1285:02:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
1262:14:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
1238:02:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
1216:23:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
1187:17:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
1167:06:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
1124:07:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
1098:12:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
1056:21:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
1034:00:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
1016:22:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
1003:15:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
988:14:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
970:14:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
947:14:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
928:06:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
910:05:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
891:08:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
859:01:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
819:01:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
804:22:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
785:20:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
757:02:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
743:13:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
727:13:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
7:
1664:I am currently prepared to
701:00:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
682:21:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
656:01:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
635:13:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
618:with four tildes (~~~~).
575:06:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
556:02:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
516:22:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
506:17:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
486:03:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
472:23:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
429:22:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
410:22:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
395:22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
380:22:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
359:21:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
334:16:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
319:16:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
294:22:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
280:22:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
267:21:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
252:21:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
231:16:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
211:16:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
184:15:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
147:15:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
113:15:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
90:14:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
67:12:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
45:06:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
10:
1962:
1192:In her books about Islam,
535:London School of Economics
773:American Chemical Society
1729:before restoring edits.
1381:self-published web pages
1088:Made me smile at least.
595:An editor has nominated
1915:WP:no original research
1610:"RfD" Semiotic Triangle
1107:Looks like we've got a
1523:and explicitly forbid
1387:down a bit. Thanks! --
1137:, especially his book
1109:single purpose account
1103:Single purpose account
1086:
880:
614:and please be sure to
592:
528:David Irving#Historian
18:User talk:Slrubenstein
1868:Made reply to you on
1655:Triangle of reference
1640:Triangle of reference
1072:
870:
715:Race and intelligence
623:articles for deletion
605:What Knowledge is not
591:
153:Try a Different Route
1725:It's a good idea to
129:Figs (Jewish symbol)
50:Where to add comment
1727:check the block log
1070:it's a compliment.
1062:This is even better
1139:Jesus the magician
616:sign your comments
593:
581:AfD nomination of
539:The New York Times
1648:Semiotic triangle
1636:Semiotic triangle
1525:original research
1349:
1333:comment added by
1146:The secret Gospel
697:
678:
654:
504:
498:
435:Your recent edits
1953:
1946:
1943:
1911:WP:Verifiability
1803:Historical Jesus
1599:
1562:It's been done.
1521:reliable sources
1328:
878:
811:ScienceApologist
796:ScienceApologist
777:ScienceApologist
699:
694:
680:
675:
650:
500:
494:
460:
343:I created a new
1961:
1960:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1944:
1935:
1889:
1866:
1843:
1841:Comment on WP:V
1824:
1778:
1684:
1632:
1612:
1597:
1589:fourteen months
1580:
1545:
1358:
1292:
1272:
1224:
1174:
1131:
1105:
1064:
954:
935:
917:
898:
879:
876:
765:
711:
696:
677:
663:
642:
586:
524:
479:
447:by typing four
445:sign your posts
437:
341:
306:
304:Honest Mistakes
219:
155:
97:
77:
52:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1959:
1948:
1947:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1906:
1905:
1888:
1885:
1865:
1862:
1860:
1842:
1839:
1823:
1820:
1819:
1818:
1777:
1774:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1683:
1677:
1662:
1661:
1658:
1651:
1631:
1628:
1611:
1608:
1606:
1579:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1544:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1529:Stephan Schulz
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1453:Stephan Schulz
1449:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1400:
1399:
1389:Stephan Schulz
1385:edit summaries
1379:of unreliable
1357:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1322:
1321:
1291:
1288:
1271:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1223:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1208:
1207:
1198:
1197:
1194:Oriana Fallaci
1173:
1170:
1130:
1127:
1104:
1101:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1006:
1005:
953:
950:
934:
931:
916:
913:
897:
894:
874:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
824:
823:
822:
821:
792:about the film
764:
761:
760:
759:
745:
733:what happens.
710:
705:
704:
703:
695:
676:
662:
659:
641:
638:
585:
579:
578:
577:
564:
543:
542:
523:
520:
519:
518:
478:
475:
436:
433:
432:
431:
398:
397:
340:
337:
305:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
218:
215:
214:
213:
198:
197:
192:
191:
154:
151:
150:
149:
133:
132:
127:, or create a
96:
93:
76:
73:
72:
71:
70:
69:
51:
48:
28:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1958:
1942:
1940:
1938:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1916:
1912:
1908:
1907:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1891:
1890:
1884:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1861:
1858:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1838:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1804:
1799:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1773:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1763:RossPatterson
1755:
1751:
1747:
1746:RossPatterson
1742:
1741:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1712:RossPatterson
1709:
1705:
1701:
1700:Talk:GNU Hurd
1697:
1693:
1689:
1681:
1680:User:Factwhen
1676:
1675:
1672:
1667:
1659:
1656:
1652:
1649:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1641:
1637:
1630:Awbrey again?
1627:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1607:
1604:
1603:
1600:
1592:
1590:
1585:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1517:verifiability
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1507:
1503:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1448:
1445:
1441:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1320:
1317:
1313:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1287:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1254:
1249:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1230:
1217:
1214:
1210:
1209:
1205:
1200:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1169:
1168:
1165:
1160:
1157:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1142:
1140:
1136:
1126:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1110:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1085:
1084:
1081:
1077:
1071:
1069:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1014:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
991:
990:
989:
985:
981:
977:
972:
971:
967:
963:
959:
958:Psychohistory
952:Psychohistory
949:
948:
944:
940:
933:Psychohistory
930:
929:
926:
922:
912:
911:
907:
903:
893:
892:
888:
884:
873:
869:
860:
856:
852:
848:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
820:
816:
812:
807:
806:
805:
801:
797:
793:
789:
788:
787:
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
769:Physics Today
758:
754:
750:
746:
744:
740:
736:
731:
730:
729:
728:
724:
720:
716:
709:
702:
698:
691:
686:
685:
684:
683:
679:
672:
668:
658:
657:
653:
649:
646:
637:
636:
632:
628:
624:
619:
617:
613:
608:
606:
602:
598:
590:
584:
576:
572:
568:
565:
563:
560:
559:
558:
557:
553:
549:
540:
536:
532:
531:
530:
529:
517:
514:
513:Humus sapiens
510:
509:
508:
507:
503:
497:
493:
488:
487:
484:
474:
473:
469:
465:
459:
454:
450:
446:
442:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
413:
412:
411:
407:
403:
396:
392:
388:
384:
383:
382:
381:
377:
373:
369:
366:
361:
360:
356:
352:
348:
347:
336:
335:
331:
327:
321:
320:
316:
312:
295:
292:
288:
283:
282:
281:
278:
274:
270:
269:
268:
265:
261:
256:
255:
254:
253:
250:
246:
242:
238:
233:
232:
228:
224:
212:
208:
204:
200:
199:
194:
193:
188:
187:
186:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
158:
148:
144:
140:
135:
134:
130:
126:
122:
117:
116:
115:
114:
110:
106:
102:
92:
91:
87:
83:
68:
64:
60:
56:
55:
54:
53:
47:
46:
42:
38:
34:
19:
1867:
1859:
1844:
1825:
1797:
1779:
1760:
1744:Knowledge.
1703:
1691:
1685:
1663:
1653:The current
1633:
1617:LookingGlass
1613:
1605:
1593:
1588:
1581:
1546:
1498:
1440:Slrubenstein
1359:
1312:Slrubenstein
1293:
1273:
1251:
1227:
1225:
1175:
1161:
1158:
1153:
1145:
1143:
1138:
1135:Morton Smith
1132:
1129:Morton Smith
1106:
1087:
1073:
1067:
1065:
973:
955:
936:
918:
899:
881:
871:
867:
846:
791:
766:
712:
708:User:Spenpil
666:
664:
643:
620:
609:
594:
544:
525:
489:
480:
438:
416:
399:
362:
345:
344:
342:
322:
307:
234:
220:
174:
171:
165:
161:
159:
156:
125:The Fig Tree
98:
78:
75:Little Thing
30:
1870:Talk:Jesusā
1848:Tim Vickers
1798:only editor
1587:It took me
1329:āPreceding
1277:John Carter
1248:Alan Wilson
1042:Discuss at
1022:WP:REDIRECT
896:talk: Jesus
847:a sentence.
346:sub-heading
223:Drboisclair
1731:Wikitumnus
1682:reversions
1549:TigerShark
1543:RE: ASEOR2
1213:Cesar Tort
1164:Cesar Tort
1150:Paul Kurtz
1013:Cesar Tort
809:now have.
441:talk pages
237:dictionary
95:Bikinibomb
1377:synthesis
1356:Edit war?
1222:positions
749:Brusegadi
667:in common
648:ā jossi ā
453:Shift key
59:Gilabrand
27:Thank you
1874:Carlaude
1828:Ramdrake
1822:I'm back
1708:GNU Hurd
1688:Factwhen
1564:Dekisugi
1343:contribs
1331:unsigned
902:Leadwind
883:Anthon01
851:Anthon01
601:deletion
139:LisaLiel
105:LisaLiel
101:WP:DNFTT
1671:Gwernol
1068:realise
1026:JoshuaZ
995:JoshuaZ
980:JoshuaZ
962:JoshuaZ
771:to the
735:Mathsci
719:Mathsci
464:SineBot
1864:Jesusā
1808:Paul B
1782:Paul B
1666:WP:AGF
1598:Durova
1502:ASEOR2
1480:ASEOR2
1417:ASEOR2
1362:ASEOR2
1335:ASEOR2
1296:ASEOR2
1290:Hyksos
1179:Woland
1048:Wryspy
915:My Rfa
690:ĆĀµĀ§ÅÅ”Ā¹
671:ĆĀµĀ§ÅÅ”Ā¹
661:Pidgin
652:(talk)
640:See...
607:").
567:Brimba
548:Brimba
492:Eliyak
483:Jayjg
449:tildes
421:Lobojo
402:Lobojo
387:Lobojo
372:Lobojo
365:did it
351:Lobojo
241:WP:NOR
37:Wesley
1776:Image
1584:JB196
1172:Stuff
925:MONGO
763:Bleep
627:BJBot
368:twice
16:<
1924:talk
1913:and
1899:talk
1878:talk
1852:talk
1832:talk
1812:talk
1786:talk
1767:talk
1750:talk
1735:talk
1716:talk
1704:e.g.
1698:and
1692:e.g.
1621:talk
1568:talk
1553:talk
1533:talk
1506:talk
1484:talk
1457:talk
1444:Talk
1421:talk
1393:talk
1366:talk
1339:talk
1316:Talk
1300:talk
1281:talk
1258:talk
1234:talk
1183:talk
1120:talk
1116:Alun
1112:here
1094:talk
1090:Alun
1080:talk
1076:Jagz
1052:talk
1030:talk
999:talk
984:talk
966:talk
943:talk
906:talk
887:talk
855:talk
815:talk
800:talk
781:talk
753:talk
739:talk
723:talk
631:talk
571:talk
552:talk
477:Figs
468:talk
425:talk
406:talk
391:talk
376:talk
363:You
355:talk
330:talk
315:talk
291:Talk
277:Talk
264:Talk
249:Talk
227:talk
207:talk
180:talk
143:talk
121:Figs
109:talk
86:talk
63:talk
41:talk
1920:Epf
1895:Epf
1519:by
1442:|
1406:me.
1314:|
1253:DGG
1229:DGG
939:Kww
417:and
326:Tim
311:Tim
203:Tim
196:BB.
176:Tim
166:you
123:or
82:Tim
1936:^
1926:)
1901:)
1887:Hi
1880:)
1872:--
1854:)
1834:)
1814:)
1788:)
1769:)
1752:)
1737:)
1718:)
1706:,
1623:)
1570:)
1555:)
1535:)
1508:)
1486:)
1459:)
1423:)
1395:)
1368:)
1345:)
1341:ā¢
1302:)
1283:)
1260:)
1236:)
1185:)
1141:.
1122:)
1096:)
1054:)
1046:.
1032:)
1001:)
986:)
968:)
960:.
945:)
908:)
889:)
875:ā
857:)
817:)
802:)
794:.
783:)
755:)
741:)
725:)
633:)
573:)
554:)
470:)
462:--
427:)
408:)
393:)
378:)
357:)
332:)
317:)
289:|
287:HG
275:|
273:HG
262:|
260:HG
247:|
245:HG
239:;
229:)
209:)
182:)
162:we
145:)
111:)
88:)
65:)
43:)
1922:(
1897:(
1876:(
1850:(
1830:(
1810:(
1784:(
1765:(
1748:(
1733:(
1714:(
1638:/
1619:(
1566:(
1551:(
1531:(
1504:(
1482:(
1455:(
1419:(
1391:(
1364:(
1337:(
1298:(
1279:(
1256:(
1232:(
1211:ā
1206:.
1181:(
1162:ā
1118:(
1092:(
1078:(
1050:(
1028:(
997:(
982:(
964:(
941:(
904:(
885:(
853:(
813:(
798:(
779:(
751:(
737:(
721:(
629:(
569:(
550:(
502:C
499:Ā·
496:T
466:(
423:(
404:(
389:(
374:(
353:(
328:(
313:(
225:(
205:(
178:(
141:(
137:-
107:(
84:(
61:(
39:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.