User talk:Johnuniq/Archive 2

1235:, who is hastily pushing for its deletion, has posted some information regarding this article that are not correct. For example, to quote him, “per discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard it was established that this article was created by an editor with a conflict of interest with the intent to promote the organization.” I have reviewd the whole discussion & links with neutrality. This mentioned editor has noted “I, Prakashkanth (this is also my real name) …..am actively involved in this organization; but there is absolutely no conflict of interest as all the information added by me are facts, well referenced in this article & objectively verifiable by reliable, secondary sources.” This is not a proof of conflict of interest, especially when this contributor is not hiding any thing (not even his name!) & has no financial relation with this organization. The only thing is that probably he knows about this organization more than we know & is contributing this information to Knowledge. For example, as citizen of India, if I contibute to the aricle related to India, it will not automatically prove that I have conflict of interest. In fact majority of the articles in Knowledge are contibuted by people who are well familier with those topics. Reviewing all these facts I don’t think that this contibutor has any real conflict of interest. 1145:, who is hastily pushing for its deletion, has posted some information regarding this article that are not correct. For example, to quote him, “per discussion at the conflict of interest noticeboard it was established that this article was created by an editor with a conflict of interest with the intent to promote the organization.” I have reviewd the whole discussion & links with neutrality. This mentioned editor has noted “I, Prakashkanth (this is also my real name) …..am actively involved in this organization; but there is absolutely no conflict of interest as all the information added by me are facts, well referenced in this article & objectively verifiable by reliable, secondary sources.” This is not a proof of conflict of interest, especially when this contributor is not hiding any thing (not even his name!) & has no financial relation with this organization. The only thing is that probably he knows about this organization more than we know & is contributing this information to Knowledge. For example, as citizen of India, if I contibute to the aricle related to India, it will not automatically prove that I have conflict of interest. In fact majority of the articles in Knowledge are contibuted by people who are well familier with those topics. Reviewing all these facts I don’t think that this contibutor has any real conflict of interest. 195:

posted and deleted for being an ad. This page contains only technical information about the technology that allows the creation of durable self-reconfiguring robots, and mentions no products, but i'll give your volunteers the benefit of the doubt. This technology represents a signifigiant advance in robotics, because it allows robots to reconfigure to perform different tasks, such as switching production of goods in a factory. It is made to link to several pages in wikipedia including the list of invontors of modular robots, and is currently studied by ETS university in Quebec, as they own several of our robots for research and educational purposes. To be completely honest, i could keep writing about ANAT technolog until i develop carpal tunnel, but i initially posted the page and it was deleted, so if it isn't to presumptuous of me, id like to ask why shouldnt this technology be on wikipedia?

265:, and was initially made by a student (and translated, though it was deleted before i could put up the translation) and re-worded after the deletion by me. I would need your help in verifying the article to ensure it meets all guidelines, i have read them and do not find any discrepancies, as for notability, this products is notable because it is an entire mobile robot made from a single module that weighs 8kg and can carry 50kg, and can climb slopes and obstacles. This cleans the ducts that bring building air to breathe, and could just as easily become the smallest efficient EOD (explosive ordinance disposal) in the world. It can also remotely shift its shape and connect to identical mobile robots to form larger ones or be split in half to form the ARI-50. If you think that's notable (i do) check out the article, any problems tell me, if none im re-posting. 1841:. I want to understand your position and see if some fixes might be possible. First, I couldn't quite understand the question you put in the change log, which read "(rv: we don't insert images with copyright notices; is their any verification of the subject of the photo?)". What is your question about verification? If you go to the page for the file, you will see that it has a template for unfree content, which gives background about the photograph. Basically, the person in the photograph died 10 years ago, and the photograph is drawn from the website of an organization that he founded (follow the link on the file's info page to: 215:. On that talk page, there is a red link to "ANAT Technology", and clicking that link shows that a particular administrator deleted the page for a particular reason (with links being given). You should spend some time reading those links, and try to see the problem from our point of view. I accept that you are sincerely trying to provide good information, and are a bit mystified as to why anyone would want to delete it. However, there really are hundreds of people who say they have the same good intentions and who create pages that are judged not suitable for an article 168:

indication that you do not have the time to absorb even that simple message, so you may not be receptive to more detailed information about writing articles. I know that above you mentioned not being logged on – sometimes we do that accidentally but in general you need to take the trouble to log on, particularly when you want to talk. You would also add the four tildes as a signature even if you were not logged on (it leaves a timestamp, and saves the system from having to add one for you, as you see above).

1242:. If a source is in Hindi it does not make it less reliable! Comments by one editor who seems in very haste to delete this article ( Atama ) is surprizing “…scans of newspapers, nobody has yet been able to translate such photos and in the past web sites have been known to alter scanned images…” He is stating that nobody can translate & understand Hindi! He is also implying that fraud is involved because he himself can not read Hindi. These statements by this editor questions his intention. 1152:. If a source is in Hindi it does not make it less reliable! Comments by one editor who seems in very haste to delete this article ( Atama ) is surprizing “…scans of newspapers, nobody has yet been able to translate such photos and in the past web sites have been known to alter scanned images…” He is stating that nobody can translate & understand Hindi! He is also implying that fraud is involved because he himself can not read Hindi. These statements by this editor questions his intention. 544: 31: 2012:, and I would like your opinion on their validity. An article with 132 genuine references is not usually accused of lacking neutrality; the fact is the man was both controversial and successful, and the article has to reflect this. Actually, some of the original content has already been hived off, and what remains I believe to be necessary to a rounded portrait of the man. Of course, I accept that I'm too close to the subject, so once again I ask for your time and help. 1213:

with this heading ), and this whole fact with its reference was deleted by this editor (later brought back by a contibutor). This seems inapropriate haste in deletion! Similarly he deleted the mention of the fact that more than 300 libraries-community centers are run by this organization! Cameron Scott should have put a ‘citation needed’ tag & should not have removed these important facts that are some proofs of its notability.

1123:

1937:

further explanation (merely reassertions), this could invite an ugly edit war. Perhaps if you could weigh in, as a 3rd party, this would be helpful to avoid an awkward situation. Frankly, it strikes me that this photo is at least as well sourced as many in use by Knowledge. As an aside, in the past I have met many people who attended that class, and would vouch for the picture. It's also now part of the organization's press kit

2063: 261:

I really explain thoroughly what the technology is and is capable of. If you are able to help me, i would be most obliged to send you the articles (formatted for wikipedia) preferably to your email (i get a bit queasy thinking about the worldwide web reading discussion about me kicking and moaning to keep the article alive). One page for the ANATROLLER ARI-100 which was deleted was "userified" to

1209:& I read Hindi newspapers daily. Though I am a fan of Knowledge, this is my first contribution. I can well remember dozens of third party & reliable references related to this organization. Majority of natives of Bihar (with population of 50 million) are at least familiar with the name of this charity organization. This organization very well meets the notability criteria of Knowledge. 1119:& I read Hindi newspapers daily. Though I am a fan of Knowledge, this is my first contribution. I can well remember dozens of third party & reliable references related to this organization. Majority of natives of Bihar (with population of 50 million) are at least familiar with the name of this charity organization. This organization very well meets the notability criteria of Knowledge. 1062: 1932:, who has also been editing the page (almost always reversions of various kinds), has claimed that there is something unreliable about how the photo is sourced. But he's given no arguments, evidence, or noncategorical explanations -- merely made an assertion -- and he removed the revised caption, on the basis of a supposed lack of reliable sourcing. So it would seem a matter of 522:

amount of damage. If you wanted, and if you knew their user name, you could visit their user page (even if it does not exist) and click "User contributions" to see what changes they have made. Feel free to ask if you have any questions. By the way, this is a fairly serious place (an encyclopedia), and jokes and so on are not welcome.

1928:(would you agree?) (the specter of needing to dig up original documentation would feel to me like a disruptive demand for busywork - would I be wrong to feel that way?). In light of these considerations, I'd contend that the picture can be reinserted with the caption as described above, as I did on 24 November. But 256:

seen under the news tab at roboticsdesign.qc.ca). I recently wrote an article for ep&t magazine about the ANAT AMI-100 (industrial manipulator that replaces manual labor for manufacturing and assembly) which is to be published in their September issue, which has not yet been released, but is mentioned at

1936:

for him to explain, rather than merely reassert his position, but (as is common with him in my experience), on the discussion he invited in response to his reversion, he has merely reasserted his position. I would be inclined to go ahead and simply reinsert the photo, but if he reverts again, without

1212:

Also, when I was going through this article I noted that some of important facts (that are supported by reliable, secondary sources) were deleted (why?) by the editor Cameron Scott. This organization has volunteers more than ten thousand (there is reference to an American newspaper front page article

1122:

194:

I am not worried about spam, i recieve hundreds of spam email daily and never read one, my junk filter works perfectly. If you'd rather me write here, absloutely no problem, i though it might be more efficient to make this a private conversation. Let me being with the page for ANAT technology. It was

2194:

useful, as you said to me, then perhaps you could leave a similar message for the veteran editor who I incorrectly labeled as a vandal. One pertaining to the edit summary he was perfectly willing to leave for me, even though he shortly reverted it as an overreaction. Still, his edit summary does all

1911:

about the possibility of reinserting the photo into the article. In a nutshell, I reinserted the photo with a caption that 1. Omitted "copyright" and also 2. Omitted statement about "believed to be the first meditation course offered in at a major western university", and 3. DID include a mention of

521:

No problem, and welcome to Knowledge! There are a lot of strange edits made, and most of them (at least on important articles) get cleaned up pretty quickly. Don't worry about your young friend because people usually grow out of that stage, and they certainly get blocked if they do more than a small

505:

I'm sorry, I changed the Darwin article to prove to a friend that I could, and when I went back to change it, he hit alt+f4, and then my computer froze and the hour ended. I went to change it back later, but it seems you did it for me. Thank you! Also, my friend says that he will make a wiki account

260:

under category 7-Displays. I have made several new pages for wikipedia, and i could show them to you to get your approval, but if this is not possible, i will wait for this article to come out as it will be easily viewable online and I'm hoping will be foolproof in keeping articles from deletion, as

210:

You have not mentioned any reason why you want to talk specifically to me, on my talk page. I don't have a particular problem with conversation here, but you may want to know that the correct procedure would be to communicate on the article talk page (and if there were no response in, say, two days,

353:

They are articles that explain what the technology is and how it can be used, and one of them is an international award won by the technology. If you make me explain you everything, expect sarcasm. Im doing my best to play along here, but i am in the habit of giving ridiculous answers to ridiculous

333:

which has been widely discussed. If a duct-cleaning robot is significant, independent reports should be available, and those reports need to be cited in an article on the robot. If such reports are not available, it may not be possible to establish that the product warrants an article. Note that we

255:

Dear johnuniq, thank you for your reply, i recently posted new links from reliable sources on the Robotics Design page, which will be linked to the ANAT technology page and others, i would have more, but i have no way of linking the television reports about the technology online (though they can be

239:

and answer the questions I asked there. Suggestion: don't waste time wondering about the past or ETS university; just read the guidelines from the links on your talk page (why not get a student to do it?), then ask if you have a question about your proposed articles in the light of the policies and

1645:

I would say yes (by listing them, I rather hoped someone would take a hint and nominate them). I have added the two I mentioned to my watch list and will notice an AFD. I normally avoid entertainment stuff because I have noticed that extremely dubious articles seem to be the norm in that area, but

1318:

Further information about the "first citizen journalist" claim has become available, and I am not satisfied it is a valid claim. Because of that, and as I mentioned in the comments below my 'vote', I've changed my opinion to 'delete' on that AfD. Since you cited me in your 'keep vote', I wanted to

1256:

Knowledge, though very popular in English speaking world is rarely used by Hindi speaking peoples. But that does not mean that Hindi or other non-English citations should be disregarded. And, if you search on google (the English language search engine) to find Hindi article you will certainly find

1166:

171:

Communications on Knowledge are in the open unless there is good reason to do otherwise. If you had some confidential information you wanted to discuss with someone, you could go to their user page or talk (discussion) page, then (in the sidebar) click "E-mail this user". However, many people here

1728:

which includes the suggestion that if a notable musician releases an official album, then the album is probably notable and should have an article. Presumably, the same advice would apply to a comedian. Accordingly, I think it might be best just to let the AFDs for the albums lapse. Sorry that I

167:

there are three requests to sign your messages on talk pages by adding four tildes (after a space) on the last line of your message. When you click "Show preview" you will see that the four tildes are replaced with your user name and a timestamp. It's trivial, but I mention this because it is an

1858:

Second, regarding your statement that "we don't insert images with copyright notices", I was not the person who originally inserted the photo into the article. Perhaps he will continue this discussion with you, since he may have studied any relevant Knowledge guidelines more than I have (which

1252:

One of the editor who has written about this article just couple of days ago; -“But considering how long the article has been around, and how many editors have worked on it, I have the feeling that it would be rejected because the article can be "cleaned up".”—is now suddenly pushing for its

1162:

1409: 1703:

I've been away and won't have any meaningful time for a while yet, but I just had a quick look. How irritating, but that it is why I normally ignore AFDs for entertainment trivia. I'll see if I can confirm the suggestions that it is standard for albums like these to have a page.

227:

trying to create a page. Formatting is not a problem – you can just have paragraphs of text prepared with a simple text editor; someone will format the material within a day of it being posted. However, the text has to be suitable for an article (see the links on your talk

1039:

Actually, sortly before your edit, I had spent several minutes finding and formatting a reference to restore the text deleted by the IP, and it was dumb luck that I then noticed that the text had been deleted because it was a duplicate. An edit summary would have helped.

1366:

If you do not wish to participate in this discussion, you don't have to. If you wish to erase this comment from your talk page, you may do so. I will not post this message on your talk page a second time. This comment is meant as a request, and not a demand. Thank you.

1362:

on my talk page. I am especially concerned that the people who supported my topic ban did not answer these particular questions that I repeatedly asked during the discussion of my proposed topic ban. I am very much interested in hearing your answers to these questions.

1194:: I am surprised to see that some editors are pushing for a hasty deletion of this article. Before deleting we must do some research to find whether this topic is notable & the information is reliable or not. I have done some research & these are the findings:- 1104:: I am surprised to see that some editors are pushing for a hasty deletion of this article. Before deleting we must do some research to find whether this topic is notable & the information is reliable or not. I have done some research & these are the findings:- 1549:

recording my opposition to that very inappropriate comment (and while I did see that the user was using uncivil language earlier, I did not realize how many examples there were since I was really only interested in the substantive issue regarding the article).

295:. Both of these points are trivial, but I mention them (again) because they indicate a problem – you will not be successful here unless you can communicate appropriately. As I explained, we communicate in the open and do not use email for issues such as this. 298:

To avoid any misunderstanding, please note that I am just an editor who happened to comment on the article talk page: I am not an administrator and have no authority. Also, I am not familiar with what guidelines apply to an article about a product, such

1859:

guidelines cover copyright notices for valid unfree content?). BUT... is it your view that if it's OK for the picture to be used (as valid unfree content, with an acceptable rationale), then it should simply be used without copyright notice? Thanks --

2122:, but we don't have enough quotable material from the talk page yet, so I'm beg ... er, soliciting opinions from people who have spoken up on that talk page recently. If you have something quotable, or if you don't, feel free to weigh in at 1923:

Now there hardly seems anything extravagant about such a claim. The source is to a book published by the organization that Easwaran founded, but for such an uncontroversial claim, about Easwaran himself, I suggest that is unproblematic and

136:

with a link to your email, as i would rather communicate with you through there, problems and such don't look all that great on the articles talk page, considering its an encyclopedia. ---- Not logged in but signed Canadiansteve

1276:

I have reversed your revert on Carl Sagan. The section is relevant and sourced, per Knowledge guidelines. Further explanation made on talk page of the article, where you may weigh in on why you believe it should not be included.

1945:

and insert the picture? Or if there's a problem somewhere, how might we get beyond obstructionism, and constructively problem-solve to allow inclusion of this simple picture from a press-kit? Thanks in advance for your input

1844:, and scroll down a tiny bit). Perhaps redundantly (?), the creator of the photo file (not me) says he has an email from the organization that gives permission. Does this address your question about verification? Thanks -- 290:

If are you here to help Knowledge, you must take the time to learn some basics: You again failed to sign your above talk message, and you have not given a reason why you are talking to me rather than communicating at

655:

but given the large number of citations that mention these facts and their obvious impact on the status of the theory and her ability to comment on it, I think it has considerable merit to be pointed out. Thanks,

354:

questions. To be completely honest i completey and utterly doubt you read the links. Explain me what the links contain and you will have answered your question. I refuse to sign this post out of spite. Protest.

1629:

You mentioned two other articles as being advertisement in the Globo Thermo Tour 2009 AFD. Are those possible candidates for deletion? Because I'd love nothing more than to get rid of those articles too.

1238:

3) Reliable, secondary sources: The English speaking editors of the Knowledge should know that majority of people on our planet do not speak english. The mother tongue of about 500 million people is

1148:

3) Reliable, secondary sources: The English speaking editors of the Knowledge should know that majority of people on our planet do not speak english. The mother tongue of about 500 million people is

908:

Wow! My payments don't seem to be coming through at the moment, so I have temporarily stopped looking at that article, but I'll have to return because it looks like it might be getting interesting.

1832: 1181: 983: 995: 1650: 743:

I must ask you not to add material to this article at this time. Your addition is obviously highly controversial and not accepted by all editors - please aim for consensus on Talk beforehand.

1091: 1191: 1183: 1101: 1093: 506:

and start deleting articles. I am warning him against this, but he may do it anyway. :( I dont want to see wiki shut down because of some jerk like him. Is there anything that can be done?

1671:

I'll go ahead and nominate them. For some reason, Knowledge wouldn't let me create the AFD without the "2nd nomination." The prod counted as the first nomination, but I don't get why.

1868: 1853: 1228:- newspapers, perodicals, magazines etc. As a daily Hindi newspapers reader I could recognise several of them and they are real, reliable & from reputed (Hindi) publications. 1138:- newspapers, perodicals, magazines etc. As a daily Hindi newspapers reader I could recognise several of them and they are real, reliable & from reputed (Hindi) publications. 1249:, though the founders are in USA, and it is also registered in USA. In fact this was very clear in this article till Cameron Scott deleted this basic information, (again, why?). 1159:, though the founders are in USA, and it is also registered in USA. In fact this was very clear in this article till Cameron Scott deleted this basic information, (again, why?). 2246:

Darn good catch! It was a blatant sock of a user I'd blocked for promoting the same thing. I've blocked the sock and protected the title. Thank you for alerting me to that!

957: 1266: 932:. After being deleted then, it has been reposted and is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). Thank you, 315:

might be a better place to ask for advice. If you try this, you need to keep it short and to the point; do not regurgitate the history; state clearly what you want help with.

1176: 2195:

the things that you just pointed out to me as being the wrong thing to do (and he's like an administrator of apparently high rank, so if anyone should be scolded...) --

95: 923: 148: 211:

you might post on a relevant editor's talk page with a link to the article talk page). In this case, you are talking about a deleted page for a topic mentioned at

647:. I could have chosen a variety of sources - nearly every book that discusses her and the AAH mentions three things - Welsh, female and screenwriter. It is not 1311: 864: 235:

that are independent of the manufacturer to confirm that information (I never saw the deleted article, so do not know what it contained). I suggest you reply on

565: 457: 420: 1753: 858: 594: 89: 1073:). All articles, especially biographies, must be neutral and adequately sourced to avoid being deleted. If you can help with these issues, please visit 179:

I have changed your comment to remove your email address because it is probably not a good idea to leave even a disposable address open to spam harvesting.

950: 786:

Please see history of discussion between Pico & myself at the Donald Friend Talk page. I have referred this article for comments from other editors.--

133:

Dear Jonuniq, i would love to explain you everything about why the article is good for wikipedia to why i am putting it there, please send me an email at

1329: 1258: 1168: 2204: 1591: 876: 917: 107: 1991: 1977: 1963: 1887: 1216:

I have also visited the website of this organization & found that there are hundreds of reliable, secondary sources (mainly in Indian languages -

1126:

I have also visited the website of this organization & found that there are hundreds of reliable, secondary sources (mainly in Indian languages -

1359: 1049: 2185: 2069: 2055: 1826: 1618: 2044: 1949: 1908: 1489: 1573: 1559: 1312: 1305: 395: 249: 188: 2233: 2219: 1069:! A biography which you have either created, contributed to, or edited, is completely unreferenced and carries a possible promotional tone ( 2077: 1773: 1769: 1393: 531: 2107: 1452: 621: 2092: 1603: 557: 163:. I'm sorry that the following will sound brutal but it is intended simply as a frank statement (most talk here is pretty to-the-point). On 1434: 1344: 172:

would not respond to an email if the message should have been posted on a talk page. Is there some reason you would not want to respond at

969: 827: 795: 469: 447: 122: 1738: 1713: 1680: 1666: 1086: 2156: 2146: 813: 1657:

this is the first AFD, so the "2nd nomination" should not have been used. I doubt if it matters, and I would not try to change it now.

902: 730: 698: 1698: 1465:

I have initiated a discussion & proposal on the first para of the intro to Mimicry. It would benefit from your special talents...

1023: 887: 438:

Thanks for your encouragement. I replied at your MOSNUM link, and I'll have a look at MOS sometime to see if editing is needed there.

2027:

That's a really excellent article, and I see you have been a major contributor for some years: magnificent work. I have responded at

2151:

Well, what I was hoping for was that people would respond early in the week :) But I liked your comments, we can use that. - Dank (

1503: 374: 204: 152: 2259: 2050: 704: 577: 1539: 1232: 1142: 1055: 606: 223:

which includes many nonsense pages as well as unsuitable articles). It is best to prepare a reasonable amount of useful material

1807: 1787: 2179: 1399: 347: 1474: 863:

Hello, I think you may have commented on this matter in the past. You may wish to add your views to the RfC now under way at

300: 2123: 1074: 495: 2224:

No need to for you to watch it; I'll let you know here if I have a reply to your response. I do lots of tweaking there. --

1286: 1581: 1546: 1506:

is the type of behavior and comments that brought our "inappropriate messages" to that editor. Throw in calling a revert

1278: 432: 370: 312: 281: 144: 1875: 1378: 994:

is a genus with multiple species, leavng the question of whether any species can live in both marine & fresh water.

781: 515: 2021: 1033: 853: 679: 537: 686: 483: 636: 602: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1814: 1639: 1011: 2131: 1912:

the course title and number (citing a published source) (all three as per your suggestion 2 weeks ago). So the

1070: 409:

I (again) thanked you on WT:MOSNUM for your exceedingly meticulous work on WP:MOSNUM to give example text the “

1689:

It's a damn shame. Everybody wants to keep those two articles. I think they must be stupid Dane Cook fanbois.

1590:(Village Pump Proposals) and advertised it at the External Links Notice Board about a bot you commented on at 2241: 1507: 257: 419:-treatment.” I have a work-around—in case you’re interested—to get an {xtc} treatment without the template, 1764:. I seriously doubt most vandals ever bother to check a page's history, but it's probably a good policy to 1746: 945: 897: 582: 128: 81: 76: 71: 59: 1920:, only said that it's a certain person (Easwaran) teaching a specific class at a particular point in time. 1358:

Since you are one of the people who voted in favor of my recent topic ban, I invite you to participate in

1987: 1959: 1864: 1849: 2210:

Responded on your talk page (which I will watch for the next few days in case you want to reply there).

1245:

After checking the website of this organization I found that this is essentially an Indian organization

1155:

After checking the website of this organization I found that this is essentially an Indian organization

881: 759: 38: 2174: 2073: 1803: 1599: 1495: 715: 664: 627: 640: 160: 2076:. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at 2028: 2017: 1761: 1470: 401: 94:

Johnuniq, I have an idea for solving the “ugly scientific notation”-problem you saw on MOSNUM. See

1952:

right after my sentence that "it seems to be very appropriate to restore the photo to the article"

1569: 1535: 1282: 889: 366: 277: 200: 164: 1941:. In view of the fact that there hardly seems anything controversial anywhere, shouldn't we use 1913: 2229: 2200: 1983: 1955: 1942: 1860: 1845: 1793: 1262: 1172: 477: 1257:

none! I think that editors of Knowledge should not have bias against non-English languages. --

1167:

none! I think that editors of Knowledge should not have bias against non-English languages. --

2255: 2164: 1374: 1293: 1026: 738: 550: 543: 511: 1907:

article. If you've got a moment, I was hoping you might weigh in on the short discussion at

500: 2215: 2171: 2142: 2103: 2088: 2040: 1973: 1883: 1822: 1799: 1734: 1709: 1662: 1614: 1595: 1555: 1485: 1458: 1448: 1431: 1389: 1340: 1301: 1045: 965: 913: 849: 823: 777: 747: 694: 617: 598: 527: 491: 443: 391: 383: 358: 343: 292: 269: 245: 236: 212: 184: 173: 140: 118: 1813:

A pleasure, I'm actually unhappy that lately I haven't been able to pay much attention to

8: 2013: 2009: 1781: 1757: 1466: 1443:

Thanks Witty Lama: My efforts were pretty modest, particularly compared with your work.

176:? I will notice any reply on that page, or here, and am happy to offer any advice I can. 2119: 1933: 1904: 1838: 1837:

Hello, Johnuniq. I saw that you just deleted the photograph file ] from the article on

1587: 1565: 1531: 1350: 1271: 839: 801: 769: 362: 273: 220: 196: 47: 17: 1694: 1676: 1635: 583: 2225: 2196: 2113: 1725: 1624: 1496: 1327: 1082: 1007: 872: 113:

I have seen your idea (pretty neat!) and will continue editing MOSNUM as discussed.

2251: 1370: 809: 791: 720: 669: 573: 507: 465: 428: 103: 2137:

Hmm, I'm not exactly sure what you were hoping for, but I have added my thoughts.

2084: 1653:. BTW I don't think the "2nd nomination" is correct; a prod is not an AFD, and I 1428: 975: 845: 652: 590: 487: 304: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2152: 2127: 2003: 1765: 1424: 929: 755: 639:

comment, I did not engage in original research, if you look at the BBC link in

262: 2250:

sneaky of him to post the spam on his talk page and not the article space. --

2211: 2138: 2099: 2051: 2036: 1969: 1879: 1818: 1730: 1705: 1658: 1610: 1551: 1511: 1481: 1444: 1385: 1336: 1297: 1041: 961: 909: 819: 773: 723: 712: 690: 672: 661: 613: 523: 439: 387: 339: 335: 241: 180: 114: 1690: 1672: 1631: 1925: 1772:

I've received for my attempts to fight vandalism (even when it's on my own

1459: 1320: 1078: 1017: 1003: 868: 648: 326: 308: 232: 2031:

where I have expressed some reservations about the style. This is another

644: 258:

http://ept.hotims.com/r5/search.asp?action=search&return_by_category=y

231:

Above, you mention that the topic includes significant advances. You need

1929: 1917: 1768:

them any recognition. I must say that it really bothers me the amount of

1002:

lives in ditches, lakes and moderately salty water. I hope that helps. --

934: 818:

I've been putting that off, but have responded now. Thanks for reminder.

805: 787: 569: 461: 424: 413: 319: 99: 1909:

Talk:Passage_Meditation#Response_to_Request_for_Justification_of_Changes

1480:

I've just added it to my watch list, and will have a look within a day.

643:

version of the AAH (as well as on her own page) you will see that it is

382:

I have explained previously that the place to discuss the article is at

338:

we do not use them as a reason to justify new inappropriate articles.

928:

I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article

751: 2083:

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.

2062: 1968:

I don't have any time at the moment. Will look in next day or two.

1938: 1900: 1225: 1135: 708: 657: 1842: 1833:

EE-Berkeley_1968 (Easwaran) photograph on Passage Meditation page

1798:

Thanks for adding the links summary, as I missed removing one. --

1335:

Thanks. I commented at the discussion (am sticking with "keep").

1408: 685:

To help keep relevant discussions together, I have responded at

1776:). These have all been honest attempts to do the right thing. 1564:

Thank you. It was basically like that from the start. Cheers.

1061: 1239: 1217: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1149: 1127: 1116: 1112: 1108: 651:

as it is a factual claim. The issue might perhaps be one of

329:

have written about it. An excellent example of notability is

263:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Canadiansteve/ANATROLLER_ARI-100

560:

at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

1899:, thank you for your input a couple of weeks ago about the 1221: 1131: 330: 2035:

because it's not clear how one could "improve" the text.

1246: 1156: 996:

Algae and cyanobacteria in extreme environments pp. 67-68

844:

Oops. I've formatted the reference more appropriately. --

958:

WP:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Beale (4th nomination)

865:

Knowledge:Mosnum/proposal_on_YYYY-MM-DD_numerical_dates

1526:

that he only removed after a few hours. But you know,

1025:). I should be careful not to knee-jerk revert IPs. 800:

I would be interested in further comment from you at

334:

know that bad articles exist, but in accordance with

2068:An article that you have been involved in editing, 2124:Knowledge talk:Civility#Policy report_for_Signpost 1609:Thanks. I have made a preliminary comment at VPR. 703:I've replied on both pages as well as left a note 1545:Thanks for alerting me. I have left a message at 924:An article you commented on in the past is at AfD 982:Hi, Johnuniq, I know little about protists, but 1948:note: you might want to insert comments on the 1760:should never be labeled as such even when it's 1313:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/David Shankbone 990:are found in marine & fresh water. However 2078:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Free per click 1876:Talk:Passage Meditation#EE_Berkeley_1968 photo 1319:inform you of my change in position. Cheers! 859:YYYY-MM-DD numerical date format in footnotes 159:I imagine you are referring to my comment at 90:The “xt” template and MOSNUM numeric examples 549:Hello, Johnuniq. You have new messages at 307:(the deleting administrator) who suggested 1752:What I've learned this week, from you and 322:guidelines: a product would be notable if 2118:Monday's Policy Report is going to be on 1406: 303:. I see that you have posted messages at 2169:Yes you are right it is an AWb feature. 687:Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis#Writer label 14: 1914:caption I inserted, which was reverted 1646:these appear unduly promotional to me. 956:Thanks for the notice. I commented at 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 1205:, living in USA. My mother tongue is 1115:, living in USA. My mother tongue is 301:User:Canadiansteve/ANATROLLER_ARI-100 240:guidelines that exist for Knowledge. 1231:2) Conflict of interest: One editor 1141:2) Conflict of interest: One editor 1075:Talk:Tom Dixon (industrial designer) 25: 23: 2008:A contributor has placed flags on 1547:User talk:Man It's So Loud In Here 1190:Some Facts related to the article 1182:Some Facts related to the article 1100:Some Facts related to the article 1092:Some Facts related to the article 542: 24: 2270: 2061: 1939:HERE(lower right corner of page) 1423:For your assistance in creating 1407: 1197:1) Notability: I am a native of 1107:1) Notability: I am a native of 1060: 1022:Thanks for catching my mistake ( 29: 1384:I commented on your talk page. 1056:Tom Dixon (industrial designer) 886:Are you are a Mossad agent too? 2186:Incorrect label of "vandalism" 1516:gross incivility and profanity 1400:advice for the cultural sector 854:14:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC) 796:12:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC) 782:12:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC) 731:12:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 699:11:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 680:10:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC) 622:07:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC) 607:05:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC) 578:21:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC) 532:02:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC) 516:18:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC) 496:12:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC) 470:19:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC) 448:02:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC) 433:02:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC) 396:07:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 375:05:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 348:00:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC) 318:An article should satisfy the 250:04:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC) 205:19:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC) 189:23:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC) 153:21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC) 123:11:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 108:19:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC) 13: 1: 2260:16:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC) 2234:02:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 2220:01:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 2205:01:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC) 2180:18:54, 12 December 2009 (UTC) 2045:04:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC) 2022:11:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC) 1888:03:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC) 1869:01:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC) 1854:01:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC) 1827:00:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC) 1808:00:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC) 1788:16:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC) 1739:04:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC) 1714:07:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC) 1699:20:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC) 1681:19:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC) 1667:03:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC) 1640:23:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC) 1619:04:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC) 1604:03:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC) 1586:I opened a discussion at the 1077:, and improve the article. -- 161:Talk:Robotics Design#Concern? 2157:02:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC) 2147:00:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC) 2132:22:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC) 2108:23:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 2098:Thanks, I supported delete. 2093:17:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC) 1992:07:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC) 1978:04:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC) 1964:02:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC) 1574:05:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC) 1560:01:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC) 1540:21:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC) 1490:21:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC) 1475:09:56, 4 November 2009 (UTC) 1453:21:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 1435:15:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC) 1394:22:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 1379:13:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC) 1345:04:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 1330:03:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 1306:00:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 1287:23:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC) 1267:17:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC) 1177:17:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC) 1087:23:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC) 1050:07:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC) 1034:07:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC) 482:Yes, indeed, it was a silly 7: 1582:Discussion on ConnectomeBot 1294:Talk:Carl Sagan#Viral Video 1192:“Dr Prabhat Das Foundation” 1184:“Dr Prabhat Das Foundation” 1102:“Dr Prabhat Das Foundation” 1094:“Dr Prabhat Das Foundation” 1012:06:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC) 970:01:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC) 951:22:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC) 918:03:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 903:01:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC) 877:09:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC) 828:01:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC) 814:13:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC) 10: 2275: 762:) 11:52, 26 September 2009 538:Belated reply on WT:MOSNUM 284:) 17:17, 18 September 2009 1413: 2029:Talk:Thomas Henry Huxley 1524:blatant personal attacks 984:Advanced biology p. 471 313:WT:WikiProject Robotics 2072:, has been listed for 612:I just replied there. 547: 1903:, and its use in the 1417:The Teamwork Barnstar 546: 219:(here is the current 42:of past discussions. 1874:I have responded at 1747:Re: Revert Summaries 1729:misled you earlier. 1594:, ConnectomeBot. -- 1530:were inappropriate. 1292:I have commented at 584:Talk:Adaptation#Lead 486::-| Thank you :-) -- 384:Talk:Robotics Design 293:Talk:Robotics Design 237:Talk:Robotics Design 213:Talk:Robotics Design 174:Talk:Robotics Design 129:Robotics Design Page 2033:interesting problem 2010:Thomas Henry Huxley 1901:1968 Easwaran photo 1815:WT:WikiProject Spam 1905:Passage Meditation 1839:Passage Meditation 1502:Just so you know, 1067:Johnuniq/Archive 2 882:This made me laugh 802:Talk:Donald Friend 770:Talk:Donald Friend 768:I have replied at 718:Knowledge's rules: 667:Knowledge's rules: 558:remove this notice 548: 18:User talk:Johnuniq 1984:Health Researcher 1956:Health Researcher 1861:Health Researcher 1846:Health Researcher 1724:I have now found 1497:Talk:Jenna Elfman 1440: 1439: 1253:deletion! (why?) 1163:deletion! (why?) 949: 764: 750:comment added by 719: 668: 649:original research 628:Original research 458:here on WT:MOSNUM 421:here on WT:MOSNUM 378: 361:comment added by 286: 272:comment added by 143:comment added by 135: 87: 86: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2266: 2065: 1780: 1411: 1404: 1403: 1325: 1064: 942: 938: 900: 896: 892: 763: 744: 727: 711: 676: 660: 568:, from Greg L). 561: 418: 412: 402:{xtc} substitute 377: 355: 327:reliable sources 285: 266: 233:reliable sources 155: 134: 68: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2274: 2273: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2244: 2190:If it truly is 2188: 2167: 2116: 2066: 2059: 2006: 1950:discussion page 1943:WP:Common sense 1835: 1800:IP69.226.103.13 1796: 1784: 1778: 1749: 1627: 1596:IP69.226.103.13 1584: 1500: 1463: 1402: 1360:this discussion 1353: 1321: 1316: 1274: 1188: 1098: 1058: 1020: 980: 948: 936: 926: 898: 894: 890: 884: 861: 842: 745: 741: 728: 725: 677: 674: 630: 587: 562: 555: 540: 503: 480: 416: 410: 404: 356: 305:User talk:Alexf 267: 138: 131: 96:the thread here 92: 64: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2272: 2243: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2187: 2184: 2166: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2115: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2070:Free per click 2060: 2058: 2056:Free per click 2054:nomination of 2049: 2048: 2047: 2014:Macdonald-ross 2005: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1921: 1891: 1890: 1834: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1795: 1794:fancorepodcast 1792: 1791: 1790: 1782: 1748: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1647: 1626: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1583: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1499: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1467:Macdonald-ross 1462: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1438: 1437: 1420: 1419: 1414: 1412: 1401: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1352: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1315: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1273: 1270: 1187: 1180: 1097: 1090: 1057: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1019: 1016: 979: 974: 973: 972: 944: 930:Nicholas Beale 925: 922: 921: 920: 883: 880: 860: 857: 841: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 740: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 724: 673: 629: 626: 625: 624: 586: 581: 554: 541: 539: 536: 535: 534: 502: 499: 479: 478:Misplaced edit 476: 475: 474: 473: 472: 451: 450: 403: 400: 399: 398: 351: 350: 316: 311:. I wonder if 296: 253: 252: 229: 192: 191: 177: 169: 165:your talk page 130: 127: 126: 125: 98:on WT:MOSNUM. 91: 88: 85: 84: 79: 74: 69: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2271: 2262: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2193: 2183: 2181: 2177: 2176: 2173: 2165:HTML comments 2158: 2154: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2144: 2140: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2081: 2080:. Thank you. 2079: 2075: 2071: 2064: 2057: 2053: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 1993: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1975: 1971: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1953: 1951: 1944: 1940: 1935: 1931: 1927: 1922: 1919: 1915: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1897:Dear Johnuniq 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1870: 1866: 1862: 1856: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1840: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1789: 1786: 1785: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1751: 1750: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1727: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1687: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1575: 1571: 1567: 1566:Wildhartlivie 1563: 1562: 1561: 1557: 1553: 1548: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1532:Wildhartlivie 1529: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1498: 1491: 1487: 1483: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1461: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1441: 1436: 1433: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1421: 1418: 1415: 1410: 1405: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1361: 1356: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1328: 1326: 1324: 1314: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1279:204.17.31.126 1269: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1254: 1250: 1248: 1243: 1241: 1236: 1234: 1229: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1214: 1210: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1195: 1193: 1185: 1179: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1164: 1160: 1158: 1153: 1151: 1146: 1144: 1139: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1124: 1120: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1105: 1103: 1095: 1089: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1063: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1032: 1030: 1024: 1015: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 985: 978: 971: 967: 963: 959: 955: 954: 953: 952: 947: 941: 940: 931: 919: 915: 911: 907: 906: 905: 904: 901: 893: 888: 879: 878: 874: 870: 866: 856: 855: 851: 847: 829: 825: 821: 817: 816: 815: 811: 807: 803: 799: 798: 797: 793: 789: 785: 784: 783: 779: 775: 771: 767: 766: 765: 761: 757: 753: 749: 739:Donald Friend 732: 729: 721: 717: 714: 710: 706: 702: 701: 700: 696: 692: 688: 684: 683: 682: 681: 678: 670: 666: 663: 659: 654: 650: 646: 642: 638: 633: 623: 619: 615: 611: 610: 609: 608: 604: 600: 596: 592: 585: 580: 579: 575: 571: 567: 559: 552: 545: 533: 529: 525: 520: 519: 518: 517: 513: 509: 498: 497: 493: 489: 485: 471: 467: 463: 459: 455: 454: 453: 452: 449: 445: 441: 437: 436: 435: 434: 430: 426: 422: 415: 407: 397: 393: 389: 385: 381: 380: 379: 376: 372: 368: 364: 363:Canadiansteve 360: 349: 345: 341: 337: 332: 328: 325: 321: 317: 314: 310: 306: 302: 297: 294: 289: 288: 287: 283: 279: 275: 274:Canadiansteve 271: 264: 259: 251: 247: 243: 238: 234: 230: 226: 222: 218: 214: 209: 208: 207: 206: 202: 198: 197:Canadiansteve 190: 186: 182: 178: 175: 170: 166: 162: 158: 157: 156: 154: 150: 146: 145:72.53.107.197 142: 124: 120: 116: 112: 111: 110: 109: 105: 101: 97: 83: 80: 78: 75: 73: 70: 67: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2247: 2245: 2226:Neptunerover 2197:Neptunerover 2191: 2189: 2170: 2168: 2153:push to talk 2128:push to talk 2117: 2082: 2067: 2032: 2007: 1947: 1896: 1857: 1836: 1797: 1777: 1654: 1628: 1585: 1527: 1501: 1464: 1460:talk:Mimicry 1427:, thank you 1416: 1369: 1365: 1357: 1354: 1322: 1317: 1275: 1259:Barnabas2009 1255: 1251: 1244: 1237: 1230: 1215: 1211: 1196: 1189: 1169:Barnabas2009 1165: 1161: 1154: 1147: 1140: 1125: 1121: 1106: 1099: 1066: 1059: 1028: 1021: 999: 991: 987: 981: 976: 933: 927: 885: 862: 843: 742: 653:undue weight 634: 631: 588: 563: 504: 481: 456:Back at-cha 408: 405: 352: 323: 254: 224: 221:deletion log 216: 193: 132: 93: 65: 43: 37: 2252:PMDrive1061 2242:"MyFunLine" 2120:WP:Civility 1982:Thank you. 1934:WP:civility 1930:User:Verbal 1918:User:Verbal 1649:The AFD is 1514:violation, 1508:"vandalism" 1371:Grundle2600 804:. Thanks.-- 746:—Preceding 508:Mathdude101 357:—Preceding 324:independent 309:peer review 268:—Preceding 139:—Preceding 36:This is an 2175:Farmbrough 2126:. - Dank ( 2085:Ravensfire 1756:, is that 1726:WP:NALBUMS 1351:Greetings. 1272:Carl Sagan 1000:E. proxima 846:Geronimo20 840:NZonscreen 591:Stevertigo 501:I'm sorry! 320:notability 2114:Signpost? 1774:talk page 1770:criticism 1758:vandalism 1625:Dane Cook 564:(Here at 551:WT:MOSNUM 217:every day 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 72:Archive 3 66:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 2212:Johnuniq 2139:Johnuniq 2100:Johnuniq 2074:deletion 2037:Johnuniq 1970:Johnuniq 1926:reliable 1880:Johnuniq 1819:Johnuniq 1731:Johnuniq 1706:Johnuniq 1659:Johnuniq 1611:Johnuniq 1552:Johnuniq 1520:rudeness 1482:Johnuniq 1445:Johnuniq 1386:Johnuniq 1337:Johnuniq 1298:Johnuniq 1226:Maithili 1136:Maithili 1071:see: COI 1042:Johnuniq 962:Johnuniq 946:contribs 910:Johnuniq 820:Johnuniq 774:Johnuniq 760:contribs 748:unsigned 691:Johnuniq 635:Regards 614:Johnuniq 556:You can 524:Johnuniq 440:Johnuniq 388:Johnuniq 371:contribs 359:unsigned 340:Johnuniq 282:contribs 270:unsigned 242:Johnuniq 181:Johnuniq 141:unsigned 115:Johnuniq 1779:Jwesley 1762:obvious 1425:WP:GLAM 1323:Prodego 1079:Kudpung 1027:Adrian 1004:Philcha 988:Euglena 977:Euglena 899:Windows 869:Alarics 726:complex 675:complex 645:sourced 484:mistake 39:archive 2004:Huxley 1754:others 1224:& 1134:& 1031:Hunter 891:Fences 806:Design 788:Design 570:Greg L 566:Update 462:Greg L 425:Greg L 406:John, 336:WP:OSE 228:page). 225:before 100:Greg L 2192:never 1691:PÆonU 1673:PÆonU 1655:think 1632:PÆonU 1429:Witty 1240:Hindi 1233:Atama 1218:Hindi 1207:Hindi 1203:India 1199:Bihar 1150:Hindi 1143:Atama 1128:Hindi 1117:Hindi 1113:India 1109:Bihar 998:says 986:says 895:& 867:. -- 603:edits 16:< 2256:talk 2248:Very 2230:talk 2216:talk 2201:talk 2172:Rich 2143:talk 2104:talk 2089:talk 2041:talk 2018:talk 1988:talk 1974:talk 1960:talk 1884:talk 1865:talk 1850:talk 1823:talk 1804:talk 1766:deny 1735:talk 1710:talk 1695:talk 1677:talk 1663:talk 1651:here 1636:talk 1615:talk 1600:talk 1592:RFBA 1570:talk 1556:talk 1536:talk 1522:and 1510:, a 1504:this 1486:talk 1471:talk 1449:talk 1432:Lama 1390:talk 1375:talk 1355:Hi. 1341:talk 1302:talk 1283:talk 1263:talk 1222:Urdu 1173:talk 1132:Urdu 1083:talk 1046:talk 1018:Oops 1008:talk 966:talk 939:anaɢ 914:talk 873:talk 850:talk 824:talk 810:talk 792:talk 778:talk 756:talk 752:PiCo 705:here 695:talk 641:this 637:this 632:Hi, 618:talk 599:talk 595:wlog 574:talk 528:talk 512:talk 492:talk 466:talk 444:talk 429:talk 392:talk 367:talk 344:talk 331:BIXI 278:talk 246:talk 201:talk 185:talk 149:talk 119:talk 104:talk 2052:AfD 1954:). 1916:by 1588:VPR 1512:3RR 1247:NGO 1157:NGO 1065:Hi 716:(c) 713:(t) 709:WLU 707:. 665:(c) 662:(t) 658:WLU 2258:) 2232:) 2218:) 2203:) 2182:. 2178:, 2155:) 2145:) 2130:) 2106:) 2091:) 2043:) 2020:) 1990:) 1976:) 1962:) 1886:) 1878:. 1867:) 1852:) 1825:) 1817:. 1806:) 1783:78 1737:) 1712:) 1697:) 1679:) 1665:) 1638:) 1617:) 1602:) 1572:) 1558:) 1538:) 1528:we 1518:, 1488:) 1473:) 1451:) 1392:) 1377:) 1343:) 1304:) 1296:. 1285:) 1265:) 1220:, 1201:, 1175:) 1130:, 1111:, 1085:) 1048:) 1029:J. 1014:. 1010:) 992:E. 968:) 960:. 916:) 875:) 852:) 826:) 812:) 794:) 780:) 772:. 758:• 697:) 689:. 620:) 605:) 601:| 597:| 576:) 530:) 514:) 494:) 468:) 460:. 446:) 431:) 423:. 417:}} 414:xt 411:{{ 394:) 386:. 373:) 369:• 346:) 280:• 248:) 203:) 187:) 151:) 121:) 106:) 2254:( 2228:( 2214:( 2199:( 2141:( 2102:( 2087:( 2039:( 2016:( 1986:( 1972:( 1958:( 1946:( 1882:( 1863:( 1848:( 1821:( 1802:( 1733:( 1708:( 1693:( 1675:( 1661:( 1634:( 1613:( 1598:( 1568:( 1554:( 1534:( 1484:( 1469:( 1447:( 1388:( 1373:( 1339:( 1300:( 1281:( 1261:( 1186:: 1171:( 1096:: 1081:( 1044:( 1006:( 964:( 943:/ 937:ʨ 935:r 912:( 871:( 848:( 822:( 808:( 790:( 776:( 754:( 722:/ 693:( 671:/ 616:( 593:( 589:- 572:( 553:. 526:( 510:( 490:( 488:g 464:( 442:( 427:( 390:( 365:( 342:( 276:( 244:( 199:( 183:( 147:( 117:( 102:( 50:.

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

Index