750:. Please note the consensus and the spirit of co-operation. You will also have noted, since you read the talk page, it was proposed for the WP: Astology project members to create guidelines on content and sources. Since this process is ongoing, you are more than welcome to input your views. As I said, this would be seen as productive because if there is any particular reason why you have a problem with the text, other editors need to know and understand. This allows the opportunity to propose soltutions whereas blanking text against a strong consensus of opinion that it is necessary prevents the co-operation that leads to stable content, which goes against everyone's interests. --
1357:) so others can easily see it. I am used to "establish" meaning that the parties negotiate and agree on the options that will apply, although I'm not sure how widespread that interpretation would be. I should look at the RFC to remind myself what it says, but I think a good argument could be made to reword the definition to remove the word "establishment" because a security association is a set of properties (not an establishment or an agreement). At any rate, I don't think this is an improvement: "A Security Association (SA) is the agreement of shared security attributes between two network entities to support secure communication" (
31:
2006:
1684:
1696:? Is part of Fauciâs 4.8 billion dollar per year budget ending up in WMFs coffers? Or is he simply oblivious to what is going on at Knowledge? If he is oblivious, what does he intend to do to protect good faith editors from harassment? (I have no reason to believe that the two of you are anything but innocent in this matter. The problem is obviously higher up. The question is âhow high up?â ) --
128:, however a moment's reflection will show that since copyright violations are unethical, not to mention prohibited by law, it is clear that such material cannot be used at Knowledge. In principle, it is possible for the owner of material to officially introduce themselves (i.e. reveal their real-life identity with proof that they are the copyright owner), and donate the material (which requires that
977:
opinion do not offend anyone's sensibility and would satisfy 90% of my concerns with the page. Please consider each one on its own merit and let me know if you think they would be acceptable compromises. More than anything I'd like to return some spirit of rationality and common cause rather than continue to see two stringently divided camps.--
1228:
asked for help with: what a noteboard is. I thought you meant a noteboard was a place where, if I had a lengthy explanation of somethingâanalyses, citations, and explanationsâI could post it there and then just refer others to it while cohering with
Knowledge's rules. If there is no such place (I guess?), then okay.
662:
and I see now 'semi-retired'. No one has altered the page so I was subject for a half hour to an optical illusion, or rather a visual projection of my real thoughts on myself for getting mixed up in these humongously silly pages where fairness has to be fought for with sysiphean tedium. Keep out of the IP area!
905:...and yet it took some prodding to get you to comment at the talk page. Apologies. I will not trouble you here further. But I could not ignore your reply after the information you posted at the talk page. It's odd that you and the other editor hold yourselves above discussion of small article details.
1252:
Reading the comment I left at the article talk page (links above), shows that it was a statement of what should and should not occur on an article talk page. As such, my comment was not directed at a specific editor. Of course a reader can interpret it in that manner, particularly because the message
1526:
On the copyvio, I really wasn't at all sure about this, as I could see the wiki article had been duplicated around. That's why I raised the query, for wiser heads. But I then found a book published in 2004 that had that material in it word for word, so I decided that (a) it must indeed be copyvio,
1237:
I did not foresee burdening your talk page with such lengthy discussion, yet I think that your characterization of my behavior wasânot aggressiveâunwarranted and depicting me alike a reckless madman. So I would at least like to have some balance on record here. I presume that it is at least not in
976:
Hey there, I'm trying to advance the cause of civility on the NPOV page. I've tried to state my perspective without trying to discount other people's opinions (I'm sure I haven't succeeded completely) so I've try to lay it out in a historical progression. I've put forth three suggestions which in my
1691:
I edited
Knowledge for many yearsâwithout incidentâuntil I edited the HIV page. There is a big controversy within the HIV community about who should be treated and who should not be treated. Most lay people are unaware of this controversy and there is a group of users (and one checkuser) who want
1304:
personal attacks on a discussion page as seemed the only way to communicate with both individuals at onceâafter I was ordered to "stay off" one editor's talk page and before I discovered which other recourse I had. Both editors, merely deleters, were flouting three of 5P, NPA, and consensus on the
890:
Please slow down and look at how things are done in other articles. The place would grind to a halt if every tiny disagreement resulted in multiple posts on the talk page of each involved editor. It would be normal to assume that anyone interested in an article would notice a discussion at its talk
707:
I see that you substantially changed the text affecting the zodiac sign pages. I want to make you aware that there is full, extensive discussion concerning the structure and design of the astrology sign pages, and clear consensus in favour of utilising the text you have removed. If you have reasons
1227:
When I come here, what I figured the proper place, to ask you for further help, but then open by thanking you, I feel it gratuitousânot aggressiveâto suggest that I claimed I was flawless in meeting every
Knowledge rule, tell me that I'm completely flawed instead, and not even explain to me what I
1174:
faulty. I did not even know there was a ban on discussing personal attacks on a discussion page. When I caught on, after checking guidelines, I tried to take discussion to one individual's talk page, but the individual ordered me twice to "stay off" it, then returned to the discussion page with a
1087:
The purpose of
Knowledge is to collaboratively build an encyclopedia, and editors should restrict their activities to that end. Bearing in mind that we each have frustrations and personal problems, it is to be expected that occasional uncivil comments occur. It is only a problem when such comments
1000:
with editor's opinions of legal cases. I do not know of any editor who suggests that
Deckers does not own its trademarks, so if that is not clear in the article, a very minor tweak is all that is required. What's with the "Civility"? Is there some suggestion that those opposing use of Knowledge to
661:
While responding today, I kept noting 'Semi-retarded' where 'semi-retired' was written on the top of my page. Wondered:'Did I do that?' 'If not me, I'll still let it stand. It's a fair comment' etc. Checked the code, no evidence for how 'Semi-retarded' got there. This evening, I return to the page
1438:
The fact that
Knowledge is part of the Internet confuses many new editors as it suggests that the normal nonsense of the Internet is how things are done here. Wrong! If you were hoping to continue editing, it would be worth reading some of the links that have been provided to get some familiarity
869:
It is done, your point is well taken, and may I ask in return that you please not lecture people when they are trying to post to your convenience. Feel free, as you should do, to delet any unwanted posts on your talk page. But it is clearly stated in the rules that you cannot forbid editors from
276:
Knowledge encyclopedia newer hide facts and links to references of that same correct information. If
Johnuniq want to improve the articles and for some reason dosen´t want my report as a reference, Johnuniq must prove it wrong. Then Johnuniq must delete all the information, pictures and theories
1217:
of my putative personal attacks, and declared that they refused to discuss the article with me till we resolved the issue personal attacks. (That was the response I got when I specifically and directly tried to narrow discussion to characterization of my alleged original synthesis. Sincerely,
727:
As discussed at the article talk pages, Knowledge should not be used to elevate a topic of interest to a group of enthusiasts. Cooperation from the enthusiasts would lead to more encyclopedic and stable versions of the articles. If cooperation is not forthcoming, the result will eventually be a
123:
Sorry that
Knowledge can be hard to follow, but a very strongly enforced rule here is that copyright violations are not permitted. Often, a new editor associated with some organization will post more or less a copy of their website to start an article. Virtually all such material is a copyright
199:
Sorry, that was a blunder, and I have just restored your comment. I have not visited that page recently, but I was working rather quickly through my watchlist, and must have accidentally clicked 'rollback' on the line with WQA. I had better check what else I have done in the last few hours...
147:, click the "history" tab at the top of the page (you presumably did that because you undid my edit). In the history page, you can see the reason for my change to the article in the edit summary where I gave the URL of the website that contains the original material copied into the article.
1218:
should that be discussed somewhere else? It's not as if anyone has shown me a concise set of
Knowledge rulesâthey're scattered all over.) I made the mistake of taking the bait and thereby violated that single Knowledge guideline of trying to resolve personal attacks in the discussion page.
140:, that is unlikely to happen and is not suitable anyway since it is just a standard description of a product. The options are to completely rewrite the text in encyclopedic terms, or have the page deleted as a copyright violation, or demonstrate that it is not a copyright violation.
296:
Variations on the above were posted at a couple of places. Discussion on whether to use links to a thesis should occur on the talk page of the article concerned, and there is no need to post messages such as the above at my talk because I can see your response at your talk page.
708:
why you dissaprove of the text please contribute to the discussion and explain those reasons so that those who are currently working on guidelines for structure and content on these pages can understand your objections. This would be useful. The relevant discussion is here. --
638:
I'm grateful that you're keeping an eye on the article. Keeping articles clean of spam and copyright violations and cleaning up after single-purpose role accounts also waste much of my time, especially when the SPAs edit war to reinstate their policy-violating "improvements".
1796:
1092:, but if the matter is reported at a noticeboard, it would be desirable to follow the advice that I provided at that page. In my short comment, I provided two links: one was to the appropriate noticeboard, and the other was to show how to include a diff in a comment.
565:
I was just about to copy this over to the article talk so others can see it and possibly get involved, when I saw that another editor has undone me, so I think I'll just leave it at that. If the matter is raised at the article talk, I will make my above point there.
510:
Could you elaborate on your reversion of the previous editor's change to the hatnote? It seems to me that their edit was a good one, as it makes the difference between the two articles clear to the reader and, as the previous editor said, is consistent with
1546:) and so it was on my mind, and I know from my early experience that it is a bit of a trap until it's pointed out. I still have not looked at your case, but your reasoning sounds good, and I believe you used appropriate edit summaries, so all is good.
1417:
434:
It is not necessary to leave a user talk page message when someone has performed a single undo, with a clear edit summary. It would also be better to speak plainly rather than misuse a barnstar (which is why I have removed it above). Happy editing!
1126:
for criticism of my edits and refutation of my stated principles whereby I was structuring the article. Yet I was offered only bullying, putdowns, unsupported accusations, and attributions of personal adjectives like "absurd" and "shameless" and
702:
1759:, you would need to provide a link to the source, and a link to the article, and an explanation of the proposed edit (a diff if one exists). A source may be reliable for some assertions, but not for others, so the proposed edit is also needed.
1068:
I am going to provide some suggestions that may appear aggressiveâsorry about that, but the way things are going tough advice is required. You have been editing for a while, but much more experience is needed before
Knowledge's procedures are
1711:
You are reading too much into whatever problem you have encountered. The likely explanation (and I don't recall ever seeing an HIV article here) is that some edits have been removed because the sources were not adequate, and I imagine that
1261:
because no progress will occur until there is a succinct statement of any problems. Given that "The purpose of Knowledge is to collaboratively build an encyclopedia", as I wrote above, long discussions about editors should only occur when
1160:
the implication that I truly was the sole problem. I tried to say here that despite being singled outâsimply the fact of what occurredâI'm thankful to the be beneficiary of correction for my own improvement, regardless of the behavior of
107:
Can you explain why you tore down our page on this subject. We are trying to raise the profile of this product and as the Collection Server experts within OpenText UK, we are curious as to your rationale. Look forward to hearing from you.
797:"NEW YORK, March 23 -- Determined to right a historic wrong, a group that included authors, lawyers and a forensic pathologist called a news conference Friday to unveil a bold campaign to exhume a dead book. No, wait. To exhume a dead
1541:
Yes, you did right! The wiki is built by people who make decisions and take helpful action. I hope I didn't cause too much confusion with my suggestion about bacwardcopyvios: I just happen to be involved with one at the moment (see
280:
Do I promote my self, or do I promote a theory?? It´s clear I promote the theory not my work. But do you really think any researcher can write an scientific article which isnât based on his or her own knowledge including research?
553:
I did not post it on talk because it was not a major issue and I was not sure you would be watching it. However, as "scientific estimates" is the terminology used in the sources cited, shouldn't we use the same in the article? --
1643:
recently and much of it has been of a somewhat misguided nature with rants and provocative assertions (not your commentâother comments), so it was assumed your message was part of that. If it is addressed to Jimbo, it should say
1021:
Hello. At first I was irritated to be singled out for trying to resolve the issue of personal attacks on an article discussion page. I was simply responding to others who began the issue there, refused to let it go, posted a
1930:
1720:
if you want other opinions on whether a source is reliable. I have no idea what edits you are concerned about, but the only bullying that I have ever seen at Knowledge is from POV pushers who drive good editors to despair.
1977:
where a new editor has been soapboxing re the ugliness of certain business practices, and five experienced editors have tried to explain that Knowledge is not used to right great wrongs. No mediation is necessary thanks.
1029:
Yet now I think I get itâand thank you for singling me out. By closely adhering to the guidelines, myself, I maintain my protection under them, swiftly report their violations, and not continually have to justify why I
1095:
By the way, the correct way to sign a comment is to add a space then four tildes to the end of the last line of the comment. In an email, it is common to put a blank line then a signature. That should not be done here.
747:
266:
1179:
for criticism.) That individual had administrative power and kept posting warnings on my talk page when I analyzed and characterized their own statements about what the article should be like. Yet till now the only
1822:
1797:
1422:
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cowboy
677:
We shouldn't encourage the children, but that was pretty good! If you edit your talk page, then scroll down to the very bottom, a list of template "transcluded onto...this page" is shown. Clicking
539:, the latter article seems more speculative in nature to my untrained eye (for example, see the disclaimers in the lead), and "scientific estimates" may be an appropriate description in that case.
801:. Well, that's what they said, anyway. But the more they talked about exhuming the body, the more it seemed like the point was reviving the sluggish sales of a nearly moribund book. Specifically,
1338:- I think 'establishment' doesn't capture that the entities negotiate and agree a connection. What do you think? I'm new to Security Associations and maybe it's not been well explained to me. --
1804:
361:
Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here:
1432:
721:
624:
Thanks...I would like to do more constructive things eventually, but there is so much inappropriate material to remove/refactor that I never get around to it. I am watching that article.
290:
1834:
1925:
has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Occidental Petroleum". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation.
1175:
litany of putdowns and accusations about how horrid an editor I amâwithout offering a single explained illustrationâand then asking me if that was enough criticism for me. (I had
1527:(b) why not just delete it myself -- no-one else was around on the article, so why pester admins? So I went ahead and deleted it and removed the notice. Did I do right in this?
1305:
discussion page. I thanked you for correcting my single errorâyou noted only one I madeâand got corrected for claiming I met every single rule flawlessly and then told that I
273:
For example, It will be impossible to incorporate pictures in Knowledge if you canât give away your own pictures and include your own work as a reference to the same pictures.
1929:
is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the
816:
is hostile to the biography, to the authors, and it clearly calls the book a door-stop, though the haec verba is "door-stopper"...which is the term we use in my family.
805:, by William Kulash and Larry Sloman. Published in October, this door-stopper purports to reveal new and astounding elements of the great magician's life and death..."
1454:
1716:
has been mentioned because science-based articles, and particularly those related to medical matters, must be sourced from appropriate science-based references. Try
687:
which introduced the improved wording. Sometimes bad text appears in an article and you can't find it in the wikitextâthat is probably template vandalism like this.
1993:
334:
Hmmm, I had forgotten how to do that because it's quite a long time since the last request. However, I have reminded myself and it seems to have worked easily. See
768:
It's hard to know if you are not reading or not understanding what experienced editors are saying. The matter will be resolved by the wider community eventually.
1479:
109:
1309:. I'm familiar with TLDR. Sometimes length is truer than brevity. Thank you for your help, sincerely, the helpdesk link and the original comment. Farewell.
1213:
was quite in keeping with Knowledge guidelines. The post of mine that you corrected me about was my response to a post that personally attacked me, posted a
1037:
I thank you for helping me learn my options now helping me keep steady in mind where and how to report things before they snowball into such web of catch22s.
2017:
1818:
282:
996:
campaign is beyond belief. I might comment at another time, but there should not be any proliferation of primary sources as justification for including
1844:
I reverted sinebot's addition to the Stress talk page instead of that off-topic comment (which you reverted). I guess you probably figured that out. --
1034:
personal statementsâat the very razor's edge of personal attacksâonce they severely violated Knowledge guidelines with blatant personal attacks on me.
920:
900:
885:
864:
823:, the edit stating the article is hostile to the book and the authors (as already cited with the citation of the article itself) and none of this is
794:
My recent edit to the exhumation subsection was recently reverted. I have undone that revision, but you reverted it. Why did I edit that way? Here:
174:
156:
1667:
1424:
401:
387:
1964:
1868:
1604:
347:
1987:
1859:
Thanks for confirming that. I scratched my head, then decided your edit summary was pretty clear so I didn't bother mentioning it at your talk.
1782:
1768:
1750:
1730:
1657:
1616:
1598:
1555:
1536:
1518:
965:
378:
Thanks, I have commented at the RfC (I have looked at the page a few times since my last comments in September ... slow going, but good work!).
328:
306:
245:
1148:
whyâresponding to prior and greater violations by othersâI had departed from certain rules. Yet if you lack idea what indignities occurred at
335:
260:
1908:
1826:
1705:
1579:
1448:
1386:
1372:
1318:
1279:
1247:
1105:
777:
763:
741:
696:
640:
610:
490:
Thanks for the alert but I don't think I have anything to offer that discussion at the moment. I am watching the page and may comment later.
1692:
to keep it that way. Any mention of this controversy is ALWAYS sanitised from the pages of Knowledge. My question stands. Is Jim Wales a
1010:
484:
444:
218:
209:
648:
633:
499:
1914:
1663:
1485:
Thanks for letting me know about thatâI have fixed it. The bogus text was introduced into a template that is transcluded (inserted) into
226:
1671:
1266:. My suggestion would be to drop thoughts of the past, and to focus on how to improve articles. Any technical questions can be asked at
1945:
Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 December 2011.
1336:
586:
575:
560:
548:
452:
271:
Listen Johnuniq, try to understand. The question is if it´s ok to use your own scientific work in Wikipeida. The answer is Yes!<br /
1879:
1026:
of my alleged personal attacks, and declared that the issue must be resolved before they will join me in discussion of the article.
1812:
312:
950:
372:
845:
277:
which I have contributed to in the galling, wear and Stress (mechanics) articles, because they are closely linkt to my research.
117:
1347:
1938:
1565:
1051:
461:
1489:, so the text would have been visible in quite number of places (that's called template vandalism). The template concerned is
429:
1737:
I agree that POV pushers are bullies but you seem to be confused about who the POV pushers are. Is it your contention that
1934:
1823:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?
1798:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?
1238:
violation of Knowledge guidelines to defend myself from such accusation here. Thank you for your time. Farewell, perhaps.
986:
1960:
1412:
2009:
1998:
1808:
227:
1062:
1994:
809:
671:
521:
1853:
313:
1821:). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at
683:
1635:
It is hard to make out what the message is about, so I suppose that someone removed it because there has been a
1359:
2013:
1889:
618:
1922:
1486:
193:
94:
1882:. Five editors with strong preference for the previous version, versus an SPA, seems like consensus to me.
161:
I just noticed that I had already left an explanation at the talk page of the user who created the article (
1501:
1330:
1072:
I did not single you out, and you have not closely adhered to the guidelines. In particular, your grasp of
234:
89:
84:
72:
67:
59:
1648:(why ask Jimbo about Fauci or HIV?). If something is wanted, it should be made clearer (what is wanted?).
1418:
Johnuniq -- you need to provide a rationale for your edit. Otherwise you come across as a vandal. Thanks!
1523:
Thank you for this. I wasn't quite sure who to report it to. I hadn't seen the WP:HELPDESK page before.
1016:
932:
913:
878:
851:
Please do not raise issues about a single edit on the talk page of a user. Instead, put a new section at
838:
409:
1543:
113:
38:
1296:
I wasn't rebuking your original comment, simply adding sincere humannessâI thoughtâto my thanks while
1505:
that corrupted it. You are welcome to ask here and I'll respond if I can, but advice is available at
1408:
1354:
971:
397:
368:
1849:
703:
Please do not blank sections of referenced information from the astrology pages without good reason
505:
353:
162:
124:
violation and must be removed. Unfortunately the policy on this is verbose and hard to follow, see
1755:
Sorry but I do not intend to get involved in a disagreement concerning HIV articles. When you try
1149:
1144:
closely adhere to them, I'd retain protection under them, not fall into the catch22 of trying to
1089:
1058:
606:
324:
1956:
1895:
Good! I am still watching and will probably help if needed. To remind myself later, this is at
1807:, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on
1778:
1746:
1701:
1612:
1575:
1532:
1475:
946:
906:
871:
831:
286:
102:
1640:
1586:
787:
678:
528:
392:
Thanks. And thanks for your input. It's a tough fight, but things are looking up! Good luck!
1585:
I have explained at your talk page that questions should be at the user's talk page, namely
1983:
1974:
1904:
1896:
1864:
1805:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations
1764:
1726:
1653:
1594:
1551:
1514:
1444:
1404:
1368:
1275:
1101:
1040:
Anyhow, what is, where is, or how does one create a noticeboard (one of your suggestions)?
1006:
961:
896:
860:
773:
737:
692:
629:
571:
544:
495:
440:
393:
383:
364:
343:
302:
256:
241:
205:
170:
152:
1080:
at any time? IAR exists for very good reasons which have nothing to do with the issues at
8:
1948:
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
1926:
1886:
1845:
1470:
which I can't edit, and found it was full of text in Russian. That doesn't seem normal?
1428:
1382:
1343:
1314:
1243:
1209:
closely adhered to Knowledge's rules, and that my method of trying to reach consensus by
1047:
938:
808:-from Segal, David (March 24, 2007). "Why Not Just Hold a Seance?". The Washington Post.
667:
656:
536:
512:
1628:? That is, do you have a strong personal opinion about who should receive treatment for
1184:
that I violatedâas far I can tell and as far as even you have pointed outâwas trying to
1738:
1570:
My questions are not comments and they are not "off topic". They are VERY relevant. --
1506:
1400:
1267:
1081:
855:
where any editors interested in the article will be able to easily see the discussion.
852:
320:
47:
17:
1399:
Thanks Johnuniq. Yes rollback will be a useful tool to revert vandalism. I'll review
1952:
1774:
1742:
1697:
1608:
1571:
1528:
1471:
982:
942:
824:
425:
810:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301850.html
1830:
1394:
1152:, it seems unfair to assert that you did notâapart from whether it was bad or goodâ
644:
614:
532:
479:
319:
Hi. Could you list Jagged85's edits on this article as edit blocks? Thx in advance
1943:
please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate.
1713:
1493:
997:
237:
1257:
be on an article talk pageâthat is not a problem with my comment. Please review
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1883:
1378:
1339:
1310:
1258:
1239:
1043:
751:
709:
663:
144:
137:
1979:
1900:
1860:
1760:
1756:
1722:
1717:
1693:
1649:
1629:
1625:
1590:
1547:
1510:
1440:
1364:
1271:
1097:
1076:
is completely faulty. What would be the point of any rules if anyone can say
1073:
1002:
957:
892:
856:
788:
769:
733:
729:
688:
625:
598:
584:
567:
558:
540:
519:
491:
436:
379:
339:
298:
252:
201:
166:
148:
1839:
978:
421:
267:
Is it´s ok to use your own scientific work in Wikipeida? The answer is Yes!
215:
190:
1874:
1115:
803:
The Secret Life of Harry Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero
465:
180:
125:
1465:
189:
good reason for refactoring my report I suggest you revert yourself. â
1662:
I did apologize for not messaging the user with additional explanation
1088:
are unduly repeated. I have no idea what indignities have occurred at
993:
420:
for reverting white-space and re-breaking a citation while doing so.
355:
1122:. At the "Scientific realism" page, I multiple times specifically
830:
Let's actually read citations before we go round accusing editors.
581:
555:
516:
1683:
1170:
I do, however, feel it unjustified to say that my grasp of IAR is
1687:
Knowledge should be free of bullying. Unfortunately, it isnât.
1353:
This kind of discussion should occur at the article talk page (
937:
Please give your opinion on regarding merging some articles at
599:
460:
Your comments and opinions are most desired and requested at
746:
Sorry, I forgot to give the working link to the discussion.
1462:
I was looking at this article, via the new user template:
2018:
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page
1201:
personally attackâat most inferred a couple of personal
1188:
personal attacks, not levy them, on the discussion page.
1156:
single me out by correcting only my behavior. That now
336:
Talk:Early social changes under Islam#Misuse of sources
1621:
Your message had a heading of "Wikibias" and content:
1140:
closely adhered to the rules. I was saying that if I
1114:
I don't think your critique aggressive. I agree with
1466:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Article_development
891:
pageâthere is no need to notify individual editors.
1773:
I think youâve answered my question, thank you. --
728:decision taken by the wider community, probably at
2016:. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
1455:Article development policy is full of Russian text
1300:the comment. Yet I had broken one ruleâtrying to
1001:promote a company's interests have been uncivil?
1253:that I replied to was an example of what should
1118:that human understanding grows by process of
1973:Like the previous section, this relates to
609:, which upheld the quality of the article.
233:Re your response to an IP, the context is
535:should have a hatnote similar to that at
251:Thanks, I did not notice the background.
1682:
531:. While there may be good reasons that
14:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
2012:has been nominated for merging with
1057:This relates to a comment I made at
134:for any purpose including commercial
25:
2010:Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar
1999:Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar
1915:Formal mediation has been requested
1211:offering of citation and discussion
681:and then its history page leads to
228:Knowledge talk:Talk page guidelines
23:
1205:from their own assertionsâthat my
136:âsee previous link). However, for
24:
2029:
1803:Hi Johnuniq. You participated in
1544:Talk:Cyber-bullying#Copyvio claim
527:The right place to raise this is
453:Please ease over to math article
2004:
314:Early social changes under Islam
29:
1335:Hi John, you undid my revision
236:. See the IP's talk page also.
2014:Template:Criticism of religion
1809:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
13:
1:
1988:22:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
1965:12:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
1909:01:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
1890:01:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
1869:00:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
1854:00:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
1835:08:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
1783:07:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
1769:06:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
1751:06:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
1731:05:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
1706:04:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
1672:01:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
1658:01:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
1617:23:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
1599:22:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
1580:22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
1556:08:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
1537:08:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
1519:00:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
1487:Knowledge:Article development
1480:18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
1449:06:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
1433:04:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
1136:I was not telling you that I
1011:23:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
987:20:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
966:00:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
951:17:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
921:10:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
901:09:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
886:09:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
865:09:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
846:09:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
778:07:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
764:07:07, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
742:06:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
722:06:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
697:22:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
672:19:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
649:23:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
634:23:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
619:23:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
587:03:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
576:03:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
561:03:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
549:02:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
522:02:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
500:07:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
485:20:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
445:00:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
430:10:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
402:16:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
388:03:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
1963:of the Mediation Committee.
1413:11:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
1387:21:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
1373:02:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
1348:23:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
1319:06:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
1280:03:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
1248:03:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
1106:23:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
1052:21:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
812:. Retrieved March 24, 2007.
373:16:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
348:09:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
329:09:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
307:03:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
291:11:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
261:08:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
246:08:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
219:08:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
210:06:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
194:04:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
175:00:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
157:23:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
118:12:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
7:
1307:completely ignore all rules
1197:I maintain only that I did
10:
2034:
1939:guide to formal mediation
1355:Talk:Security association
1120:conjecture and refutation
1603:Done. The question was
1439:with normal procedures.
163:User talk:Sohara pivotal
1935:formal mediation policy
1880:I went ahead and did it
1150:Talk:Scientific realism
1090:Talk:Scientific realism
1059:Talk:Scientific realism
992:The tediousness of the
1995:Nomination for merging
1688:
1634:
870:posting at your talk.
1951:Message delivered by
1686:
1641:User talk:Jimbo Wales
1622:
1587:User talk:Jimbo Wales
679:Template:Semi-retired
529:Talk:Age of the Earth
132:can use the material
42:of past discussions.
1975:Occidental Petroleum
1897:Occidental Petroleum
1566:"Off topic" comments
1331:Security Association
1207:edits of the article
605:John, thank you for
580:Ok, sounds good. --
1923:Mediation Committee
1632:and who should not?
1377:Thanks for that. --
1017:Learning the ropes.
939:Talk:VIT University
933:Please give opinion
537:Age of the universe
513:Age of the Universe
410:A barnstar for you!
1689:
1401:Knowledge:Rollback
1082:Scientific realism
853:Talk:Harry Houdini
185:Unless you have a
18:User talk:Johnuniq
1967:
1741:is unreliable? --
972:NPOV and Civility
825:original research
416:
100:
99:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
2025:
2008:
2007:
1950:
1504:
1498:
1492:
1362:
1078:ignore all rules
918:
911:
883:
876:
843:
836:
758:
716:
686:
533:Age of the Earth
506:Age of the Earth
477:
474:
471:
468:
415:Text posted was:
414:
110:Pwallace pivotal
81:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
2033:
2032:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2005:
2002:
1970:
1969:
1946:
1917:
1877:
1842:
1801:
1639:of activity at
1568:
1500:
1496:
1490:
1457:
1420:
1405:Robert Brockway
1397:
1358:
1333:
1019:
974:
935:
914:
907:
879:
872:
839:
832:
792:
757:
752:
715:
710:
705:
682:
659:
603:
508:
475:
472:
469:
466:
458:
412:
394:Dominus Vobisdu
365:Dominus Vobisdu
359:
317:
269:
231:
183:
105:
77:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2031:
2001:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1949:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1916:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1876:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1846:sciencewatcher
1841:
1838:
1800:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1567:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1524:
1456:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1419:
1416:
1396:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1332:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1109:
1108:
1093:
1085:
1070:
1066:
1018:
1015:
1014:
1013:
973:
970:
969:
968:
956:Done, thanks.
934:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
791:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
753:
711:
704:
701:
700:
699:
658:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
607:this reversion
602:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
507:
504:
503:
502:
457:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
411:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
363:]. Thank you!
358:
352:
351:
350:
316:
311:
310:
309:
272:
268:
265:
264:
263:
230:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
182:
179:
178:
177:
159:
145:Basis database
141:
138:Basis database
104:
103:Basis Database
101:
98:
97:
92:
87:
82:
75:
70:
65:
62:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2030:
2021:
2020:. Thank you.
2019:
2015:
2011:
2000:
1996:
1989:
1985:
1981:
1976:
1972:
1971:
1968:
1966:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1944:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1928:
1924:
1910:
1906:
1902:
1898:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1888:
1885:
1881:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1851:
1847:
1837:
1836:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1820:
1817:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1799:
1784:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1739:this citation
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1719:
1715:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1685:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1642:
1638:
1633:
1631:
1630:HIV infection
1627:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1534:
1530:
1525:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1503:
1495:
1488:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1468:
1467:
1463:
1460:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1415:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1361:
1356:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1260:
1256:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1187:
1183:
1178:
1173:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1094:
1091:
1086:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1038:
1035:
1033:
1027:
1025:
1012:
1008:
1004:
999:
995:
991:
990:
989:
988:
984:
980:
967:
963:
959:
955:
954:
953:
952:
948:
944:
940:
922:
919:
917:
912:
910:
904:
903:
902:
898:
894:
889:
888:
887:
884:
882:
877:
875:
868:
867:
866:
862:
858:
854:
850:
849:
848:
847:
844:
842:
837:
835:
828:
826:
822:
817:
815:
811:
806:
804:
800:
795:
790:
789:Harry Houdini
779:
775:
771:
767:
766:
765:
762:
759:
756:
749:
745:
744:
743:
739:
735:
731:
726:
725:
724:
723:
720:
717:
714:
698:
694:
690:
685:
680:
676:
675:
674:
673:
669:
665:
650:
646:
642:
637:
636:
635:
631:
627:
623:
622:
621:
620:
616:
612:
608:
601:
588:
585:
583:
579:
578:
577:
573:
569:
564:
563:
562:
559:
557:
552:
551:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
525:
524:
523:
520:
518:
515:. Cheers! --
514:
501:
497:
493:
489:
488:
487:
486:
483:
482:
478:
463:
456:
446:
442:
438:
433:
432:
431:
427:
423:
419:
418:
417:
403:
399:
395:
391:
390:
389:
385:
381:
377:
376:
375:
374:
370:
366:
362:
357:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
332:
331:
330:
326:
322:
321:Gun Powder Ma
315:
308:
304:
300:
295:
294:
293:
292:
288:
284:
278:
274:
262:
258:
254:
250:
249:
248:
247:
243:
239:
235:
229:
220:
217:
214:Understood.â
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
198:
197:
196:
195:
192:
188:
176:
172:
168:
164:
160:
158:
154:
150:
146:
142:
139:
135:
131:
127:
122:
121:
120:
119:
115:
111:
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
83:
80:
76:
74:
71:
69:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
2003:
1953:MediationBot
1947:
1942:
1931:request page
1878:
1843:
1815:
1802:
1775:Filterbypass
1743:Filterbypass
1698:Filterbypass
1690:
1645:
1636:
1623:
1609:Filterbypass
1572:Filterbypass
1569:
1529:Sirpastealot
1472:Sirpastealot
1469:
1464:
1461:
1458:
1421:
1398:
1334:
1306:
1301:
1297:
1263:
1254:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1185:
1181:
1176:
1171:
1157:
1153:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1123:
1119:
1077:
1042:
1039:
1036:
1031:
1028:
1023:
1020:
975:
943:Alokprasad84
936:
915:
908:
880:
873:
840:
833:
829:
820:
818:
813:
807:
802:
798:
796:
793:
760:
754:
718:
712:
706:
660:
604:
509:
480:
459:
454:
413:
360:
318:
283:Haraldwallin
279:
275:
270:
232:
186:
184:
133:
129:
106:
78:
43:
37:
1607:. Why? --
1507:WP:HELPDESK
1499:and it was
1403:again too.
1268:WP:HELPDESK
1116:Karl Popper
657:Fascinating
36:This is an
1937:, and the
1884:Antandrus
1624:Are you a
1203:statements
1172:completely
748:It is here
238:Dougweller
95:Archive 10
1927:Mediation
1502:this edit
1425:Cowboy128
1379:Flexdream
1340:Flexdream
1311:Kusername
1298:accepting
1264:necessary
1240:Kusername
1044:Kusername
998:synthesis
994:Ugg boots
916:imacowboy
881:imacowboy
841:imacowboy
684:this edit
664:Nishidani
356:Astrology
90:Archive 9
85:Archive 8
79:Archive 7
73:Archive 6
68:Archive 5
60:Archive 1
1980:Johnuniq
1901:Johnuniq
1861:Johnuniq
1819:contribs
1761:Johnuniq
1723:Johnuniq
1714:WP:MEDRS
1650:Johnuniq
1591:Johnuniq
1548:Johnuniq
1511:Johnuniq
1441:Johnuniq
1395:Rollback
1365:Johnuniq
1272:Johnuniq
1154:de facto
1127:"upset".
1098:Johnuniq
1069:grasped.
1003:Johnuniq
958:Johnuniq
909:Djathink
893:Johnuniq
874:Djathink
857:Johnuniq
834:Djathink
770:Johnuniq
734:Johnuniq
689:Johnuniq
626:Johnuniq
568:Johnuniq
541:Johnuniq
492:Johnuniq
437:Johnuniq
380:Johnuniq
340:Johnuniq
299:Johnuniq
253:Johnuniq
202:Johnuniq
167:Johnuniq
149:Johnuniq
1694:Fuacist
1626:Faucist
1605:deleted
1459:Hello,
1302:resolve
1259:WP:TLDR
1186:resolve
1161:others.
1146:justify
979:Factchk
422:Alarbus
354:RfC on
39:archive
1961:behalf
1933:, the
1887:(talk)
1827:Cunard
1757:WP:RSN
1718:WP:RSN
1494:FAPath
1074:WP:IAR
1032:joined
730:WP:ANI
641:Cunard
611:Cunard
481:Cpiral
462:talk:e
216:Lionel
191:Lionel
187:really
130:anyone
1959:) on
1177:asked
1142:would
1124:asked
600:WePay
464:. â
16:<
1984:talk
1957:talk
1921:The
1905:talk
1865:talk
1850:talk
1840:oops
1831:talk
1813:talk
1779:talk
1765:talk
1747:talk
1727:talk
1702:talk
1668:talk
1664:Zola
1654:talk
1613:talk
1595:talk
1576:talk
1552:talk
1533:talk
1515:talk
1476:talk
1445:talk
1429:talk
1409:talk
1383:talk
1369:talk
1360:diff
1344:talk
1315:talk
1276:talk
1244:talk
1215:list
1182:rule
1158:adds
1102:talk
1063:diff
1048:talk
1024:list
1007:talk
983:talk
962:talk
947:talk
897:talk
861:talk
819:So,
814:That
799:body
774:talk
738:talk
693:talk
668:talk
645:talk
630:talk
615:talk
572:talk
545:talk
496:talk
441:talk
426:talk
398:talk
384:talk
369:talk
344:talk
325:talk
303:talk
287:talk
257:talk
242:talk
206:talk
171:talk
153:talk
126:WP:C
114:talk
1997:of
1875:FYI
1646:why
1637:lot
1423:128
1363:).
1255:not
1199:not
1138:had
941:.--
755:Zac
713:Zac
582:LWG
556:LWG
517:LWG
181:WQA
165:).
143:At
1986:)
1941:,
1907:)
1899:.
1867:)
1852:)
1833:)
1825:.
1781:)
1767:)
1749:)
1729:)
1704:)
1670:)
1656:)
1615:)
1597:)
1589:.
1578:)
1554:)
1535:)
1517:)
1509:.
1497:}}
1491:{{
1478:)
1447:)
1431:)
1411:)
1385:)
1371:)
1346:)
1317:)
1278:)
1270:.
1246:)
1104:)
1065:).
1050:)
1009:)
985:)
964:)
949:)
899:)
863:)
827:.
821:no
776:)
740:)
732:.
695:)
670:)
647:)
632:)
617:)
574:)
547:)
498:)
476:al
467:Cp
443:)
428:)
400:)
386:)
371:)
346:)
338:.
327:)
305:)
289:)
281:--
259:)
244:)
208:)
173:)
155:)
116:)
64:â
1982:(
1955:(
1903:(
1863:(
1848:(
1829:(
1816:¡
1811:(
1777:(
1763:(
1745:(
1725:(
1700:(
1666:(
1652:(
1611:(
1593:(
1574:(
1550:(
1531:(
1513:(
1474:(
1443:(
1427:(
1407:(
1381:(
1367:(
1342:(
1313:(
1274:(
1242:(
1100:(
1084:.
1061:(
1046:(
1005:(
981:(
960:(
945:(
895:(
859:(
772:(
761:Î
736:(
719:Î
691:(
666:(
643:(
628:(
613:(
570:(
543:(
494:(
473:r
470:i
455:e
439:(
424:(
396:(
382:(
367:(
342:(
323:(
301:(
285:(
255:(
240:(
204:(
169:(
151:(
112:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.