18:0918:09, 1 July 2017diffhist+18,028
User talk:174.3.155.181
restoring previous version of talk page that admin-in-question (that abused authority, invoking WP:SOCK when i clearly stated they're related) removed out of bias (early edit history suggests he is apart of the demographic studied by James Mill).
17:3817:38, 1 July 2017diffhist+1,693
User talk:174.3.155.181
calling on dr eppstein, a fellow computing scientist and mathematician, to get involved in this matter. it is upsetting that there is an agenda being promoted at the expense of correctness and due process.
16:5216:52, 1 July 2017diffhist+193
User talk:174.3.155.181
I find it disappointing that User:Mkdw reverts my preliminary request, and then the same person User:Bbb23 comes in and bans me for requesting due process, when clearly (larger) nuisances on this site get more attention from ARBCOM than legit reqs
23:5423:54, 27 December 2016diffhist+343
Democritus
"...essential(...) to impress upon men that violent motion (which we call mechanical, & Democritus, who in explaining his first motions is to be ranked even below mediocre philosophers,called the motion of the blow)" PWNT by sir francis
04:4704:47, 17 December 2016diffhist+289
Thomson problem
fixing deadlink to Sir JJ's paper that seems to provide the mathematical basis for result. wonder if georgie and [[fourth baron got dem Depends handy. y'all feelin' us yet or wat? 1 centy and sir JJ still fresh
03:5403:54, 26 July 2016diffhist+1,574
Isaac Barrow
Undid revision 731559272 by Sro23 (talk) can i please get a reason as to why new references provided are insufficient? they are new additions that i found when bolstering the original claim. thanks.
03:4403:44, 26 July 2016diffhist+1,574
Isaac Barrow
Undid revision 731558315 by David Eppstein (talk) instead of reverting, why not engage & tell me what is lacking in rigour of references? nothing has been stated regarding this at all
01:1801:18, 26 July 2016diffhist−1,032
Alfred North Whitehead
it is debatable whether this individual was a student at all. sources (https://books.google.ca/books?id=sMffGQKgJ9EC&pg=PA41) also say his thesis has remained unpublished. regardless, the individual is unfortunately not notable enough for insertion. sorry
25 July 2016
23:4123:41, 25 July 2016diffhist+1,542
Isaac Barrow
Undid revision 731527555 by 174.3.155.181 re-adding w/ stronger refs that synergise the original ("contested") one. if administrators punctuate my inactivity-vow due to my steadfast adherence to EVIDENCE, so be it..
22:4822:48, 25 July 2016diffhist−451
Isaac Barrow
Undid revision 731356242 by 174.3.155.181 (talk) feels weird leaving this up when the editors aren't even reading evidence & making decisions on a whim. this site officially sucks. peace.
20:4120:41, 25 July 2016diffhist+43
Theorema Egregium
providing link to first translation of Gauss' "General Investigations of Curved Surfaces of 1827 and 1825", commenting out second translation due to redundancy, rm'ing Morehead/Hiltebeitel trans as it is first ref. also homogenising the references.
21:0121:01, 24 July 2016diffhist+1,855
Talk:Isaac Barrow
brief response. i am not reverting and expecting the edit to stay. rather, i am leaving it there until User:S Marshall and i have a discussion about what else would be needed (if anything), if the current evidence is not as strong as *he* would like.
20:2520:25, 24 July 2016diffhist+277
Talk:Isaac Barrow
verdict of RfC was not as claimed, and further i had not voted (but opposition had), with many abstains/impartial voters. leave it open.