1,792
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 149:
Line 149: + +
→To "Sir" or not to "Sir": Philip, your edits are dishonest here
::::::::And why do you revert before making an attempt at getting agreement, given that we've had three editors here in the last few days (and others earlier) arguing for including the title, and only you arguing against it. Why can't the majority view be applied?
::::::::And why do you revert before making an attempt at getting agreement, given that we've had three editors here in the last few days (and others earlier) arguing for including the title, and only you arguing against it. Why can't the majority view be applied?
::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:01, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:01, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
Philip, your edits are dishonest here. You labeled one, "Revert to consensus view as per talk page", when in fact there is no consensus here. You say I was shown to be wrong on four points, but the only contradictions to what I said was that I said "The title is meaningless to anyone outside England" and you said "I'm outside England, and it's not meaningless to me." But all you've said about what it means is "often it's bestowed for a lifetime (almost) of effort". If you really know what it means, then write an article about it. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 14:52, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==
==Changed Leibniz calculus dispute statement==