Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)/Archive M

6784:

depending on the language. The degree of the variation depends on the word used and in some cases there is no satisfactory replacement. In addition to being an approximation, both of the words usually have more than one meaning depending on how they are used. This can result in the true meaning being misunderstood or may give the translation a different meaning than intended. Which is more likely to occur depends on the whether the translator is more or less familiar with the language being translated than he or she is with the other language. Also, idioms cannot be directly translated and must be replaced with a very similar idiom from the other language or a phrase with an equivalent meaning. For these reasons, text that is translated word for word may not be understandable, have a different meaning or be a mixture of both. In most cases, such as literature and letters, it is better to translate one sentence at a time, using the rest of the text for context. Once the text's meaning is determined, it should be expressed in an unambiguous, elegant manner in the other language. The best translations read as if they were written in that language originally. Poor translations are choppy, ambiguous, translate idioms literally and don't make use of idioms when they are less awkward than a literal phrase. --

4575:

have equal rights and may become valuable editors anytime" - Yeah right! As if the schoolkids who write 'cunt' on 16 different pages of the wiki will ever notice the err of their ways and become valuable editors. Ha! You, on the other hand, will probably be slammed by the wiki jihad who will remind you that 'edition of editing by anyone' is one of the 5 wiki pillars. What those people don't understand is that because the man-hours of good editors are limited, reverting vandalism actually HAS a cost - unlike what the propaganda says. Anyone who has ever tried to combat vandalism is probably familiar with the 16 consecutive revert dance, followed by unanswered complaints to a non-existent or overworked admin. Then the vandal notices your warning on this page and stalks you, or revert your edits to that very page (because vandals have rights, remember?) Finally, if you are still part of the wikipedia after your ordeal (during which you could have read a book or spent time with your kids), the admin may freeze the page, but very rarely blocks an IP for more than a few days (after which the vandal comes back if he hasn't already via a sockpuppet).

7515:, and maybe a dozen more CORE guideance pages). Had I known more about these in a practical way earlier, my editing work would have been different, probably somewhat more focussed. The larger point is, one finds "consensus" for significant things (like FAs) established, it seems, by relative handfuls of people (5, 10, 30, 50), and my suspicion is that it's not for lack of interest, but simply because many people really don't know. Until you get plunged into something, editing in WP can seem to be in a bit of a vacuum, where you're unaware of Stable versions debates, guideline changes, and all sorts of other things that interested me as an editor first. A more informed editor is a more committed and responsible one, it would seem. It'd be nice to have a "this is how WP works" summary right on sign-up; if one exists, I haven't seen it... -- 6344:. In the discussion area for that topic some who have provided thoughtful input regarding this issue, have proposed making 'activate image' links on that particular article with the images being 'invisible' by default. This has been overwhelming opposed (thankfully in my opinion) by the majority of editors who have voted about this issue. Others have wondered if the images could be censored so as not to alienate Muslim contributors (to me, a sensible question). Of course the images have been vandalized hundreds (if not thousands) of times already. What this has lead me to wonder is if WikiMedia could put in place a simple (one click) link (or button) that any person using the sites could click to disable the loading of images for that session? And possibly an actual preference item to disable image loading? 4541:. Right now we only have "unprotected" (anyone can edit it) and "protected" (only admins can edit it). It's not necessarily unwiki to have an intermediate "semi-protected" status, where only "users in good standing" can edit it. It may or may not be a good idea, but it's not necessarily "unwiki" to suggest it. However the normal status for nearly all Knowledge pages at nearly all times should be "unprotected", not "protected" or "semi-protected" (with perhaps a handful of exceptions like the Main Page... remember we permanently protect the Main page by necessity, no matter how "unwiki" this may be... many pages that are currently permanently protected could become "semi-protected" instead, which would be a good thing). Read this 7875:

community", I'd agree, yes, this principle is good -- there have been cases where people not subscribed to the mailing list were almost totally in the dark WRT policy changes. And again, if the out-of-process deletions were bad, where's the proof? If the net effect of the out-of-process deletion is to reduce the crap we have here, then it's good. And honestly -- I don't see why anyone should care that a pedophile userbox was deleted. A vast majority of userboxes have never been touched by the "deletionists". And kindly point out where Jimbo has desysoped people for upholding policy (and why this particular action here was bad). Last time I checked, it wasn't policy that people have a right to self-expression on their userpage. (

1482:- if used in the way proposed - could lead to confusion of interpretation. 2000 BC is actually 4000 years before "current", so is simultaneously 4000 BC. 1996 AD is 10 BC as well. If we were going to change it at all (which would only be accompanied by the greatest amount of screaming and bellowing in forums across this fine encyclopedia), I'd advocate CE and BCE. Not only would BCE and CE be symmetrical (both referring to CE), but there would be less cause for confusion. Having said that, as a non-Christian (or not in the accepted sense) I see nothing wrong with continuing to use the currently used terms, as they are the terms most widely encountered. 5355:

professor could have every student select a username, and the article could be locked until the professor has marked it to make sure that no one modifies it. For example a botany professor could assign each student a couple of species to write the paper on, and that would mean 30 articles or so per class, per semester. This would help 'recycle' the tremendous amounts of time wasted on papers only one person ever reads. Obviously this could be organized in various ways depending on constraints. For example contributing to wikipedia could be an extra activity for bonus points. Sensitizing college professors to the issue could yeld tremendous benefits.

6073:

topics so that they would pop-up in order in printable versions, with each closing of one window initiating the next window to open. Of course someone might get caught in a web too large to tackle at once so there would need to be a "terminate chain" link somewhere on each page to stop it. And also, if you could make a cookie that would allow them to resume the chain later, Im sure that would be appreciated as well. I figure since Knowledge is a free encyclopedia it might as well be useable offline as one. And this way, the user would be getting just what they wanted and nothing extra that was useless to them.

5707:, and I come across a lot of recreations of deleted articles. I have a feeling that in many cases, the creation was a test or an error by a confused newbie. They create an article, upon returning they see that it has been deleted, don't know what is going on and recreate the article thinking there may have been a technical glitch. Many recreations are currently treated as vandalism. I believe that we need a softer notice for probable newbies, telling them that an article they have created has been deleted, and that they shouldn't recreate the article, but have to go to Deletion Review instead and plead for the article's merits there. 7979:

broke the camel's back, even if he didn't mean to. Jimbo unblocked him as soon as he could confirm Joey meant no harm, and left the issue of desysoped admins to the arbcom, since the situation had calmed down. However, at the time of his actions, the wheel war was still raging. I think Jimbo's actions are understandable, if not entirely condonable. After all, userboxes and wheel warring have been two most hotly discussed issues over the past month or two, and scandals related to them seem to break every other day or so, so as I said, Joey was probably just the straw that broke the camel's back.

8909:: the idea of wikipedia is for it to be easy for anyone to edit anytime. Editing will get tedious and people will do it less if they are forced to log on. Just like how you lose interest in a site (or at least heave a sigh) when you click a link and it says "You need an account! Join here!". Secondarily there is no big advantage to having all edits nonanonymous. However, when you edit something without being logged in, it should give you an automatically off checkbox beside "watch this page" which reads "sign me in" - if the box is checked when you save, it goes through a login first.-- 3831:

that's not is bloated to to point of absurdity. Does anyone else think we need a "common knowledge" page where anyone can refer to at any time to find any piece of relatively mainsteram information about accepted WP practices and unspoken rules, etc.? This page would need to be extremely clean and provide information in a well-organized format. On a bloat scale from 1 to 10, Community Portal and VP would be somewhere in the 7-8 range, and this would preferably have to be in the 1-2 range. If we already have this, it should definitely be one of the first links in the Navigation box.

7765:

size of the community, ocasionally leading to impasses. There's also the fact that the English Knowledge is the most well-known one, which thus forces the Foundation to devote much of its time to it. (Because, believe it or not, what goes on in here has a lot of effect on what people think about us.) Don't get me wrong. I'm not a Jimbo sycophant. I think he fucked up WRT Radiant, and I think he's capable of fucking up further in the future. But I haven't seen any other way to butt in and handle the tough problems the community can't tackle alone (cases in point: the

6826:, but we could with a simple, clear process for promoting standard articles to good articles (probably based on fairly loose criteria). Then, if candidacy for featured status was dependant on having already gained good-article status, we would have a simple ladder of quality control. I believe that such a system would not create too much bureaucracy, but would help marshal our contents more effectively. If we need little icons, we could have bronze/silver/gold stars (back to school), one/two/three stars or different Pokémons! Here come the nice bullet points: 6221:

How to make widgets. whatever. an informal concept about all knowledge on the planet. The knowledge base is being developed on wiki and google and yahoo and other sites there is just no concept found by searching that describes the effort being accomplished. For instance when you call a help desk for MS Word (if you can reach them) the help desk has a knowledge base about word. So there is now being developed a World Knowledge Base that describes everything. There is just no searchable page on google or wiki or sites that describes the concept.

7662:

as they deemed necessary. You could take up whatever petition you felt necessary to gain support for having the board take such an action. I just think you'll find very weak if any significant support for it and the process would liekly be a net negative for the community and for the project's goals. Overall the biggest miss in your comments above is in thinking that the social project is the important part. We are an encyclopedia and that takes precedence. Diseminating free information is the goal, not having a social project. -

2231:) I strongly support the addition of such a feature. The "simple" suggestion above is a start, but the vast majority of dates are NOT in ISO format, and that format is not the most helpful one for people without any prefernces (which is the majority of users) so i think it is unlikely to become the dominant format any time in the near future. The mechanics of the synmtax don't matter to me -- it could be pesudo-HTML as shown above or soem more wiki-like markup such as <<5 March 2003: --> 8534:

able to circumvent the semiprotection and/or suffrage, can we do the other way around and count only the "active time" that is like 1 day around an edit. Thus, if I appear on a Japanese wiki only twice in my wikilife, then my experience there is two days despite the first edit been around 7 months ago. It would mean that I can not edit sprotected articles and vote there, that I think is fair. This way there would be not much use in creating dormant accounts for the sinister purposes

9472: 8068: 2199:

It might be possible to detect which country the IP address belongs to and format the dating appropriately, i.e. "December 25, 2005" for Americans and "25 December 2005" for Europeans. But I still think the best solution would be some kind of added syntax. It doesn't seem right that it should be done automatically (and only for ISO dates). Knowledge as it is is very explicit: words are only linked when you specifically say they should be linked, etc. A lot of this

6809:. Although some have reservations about this little self-referential icon, I believe that such things could help keep Knowledge goal oriented — encourage to write more, better articles. I believe that Knowledge could benefit from having its articles graded into a small number of classes based on their content. At the top, we would have the featured articles, continuing to demand high criteria for inclusion. At the bottom, we would have a new class of 5938: 5933: 5928: 5923: 5918: 5912: 7369:

my asking for explanations and for help. In fact, my articles were twice posted with Cleanup Needed tags ... but no explanation or help offered on what needed cleanup and how to do it. The only way I even knew who had posted those tags was by looking in the History pages. It seems to me that common courtesy would have been to at least explain on the Talk pages why the tags were posted and by whom ... and perhaps to offer some help on how to comply.

10000:, explain why, and post to the talk page of the submitter to alert him. In a few cases this seems to be warranted, but in 90% of cases, it's just a blatant copyright infringement with no fair use asserted (or, alternatively, clearly not a legitimate fair use claim, and the uploader just tagged the image "fair use" so it wouldn't get autodeleted by a sysop), by a user who is new to Knowledge or new to image uploading and is unfamiliar with policy. 5529:

possible to automatically copy all talk page questions that haven't been answered for, say, 2 weeks, into a common "Unanswered Questions" page where everyone can have a go? Eg. the regular contributors to the Reference Desk are full of never-ending knowledge about, well, just about everything, and would welcome the opportunity for almost unlimited ego-gratification (all in a good cause, of course). Why not bring the questions to them?

4549:: it's not a democracy. Right now sock puppets and anon IPs are actually more powerful than registered users in any edit war because they're effectively immune from 3RR, and that's not a good thing. When an edit war flares up, users in good standing should at least be on a level playing field, and quite possibly ought to be at an advantage. Again, read the Clay Shirky article (the part about "core group" and "members vs. users"). -- 4671:. Unfortunately, rules like this will become indispensable with the growing popularity of WP. Just no way around it. I foresee a time when a certain class of editor will need to be defined: not Admins, but sort of "known and trusted editors". Contributions/edits to certain articles by all users not in that class will have to be "submitted in advance" to an editor in that class who has assumed "oversight" duties for that article. 9477: 8073: 2035:

enforce sigs, suppress editor-specified color markup, and use trivial variations on existing facilities to assist detecting additions from re-ordering, from corrected, sanitized, or rethought replacements, and from refactoring. Use color coding and color-coded annotation to flag authentic sigs and the various sorts of replacement, including any endorsement by original editor of a replacement of their contrib.

5154:. I think it's a good idea, but the problem is that it has an unintended side effect: namely, a group of devoted people who wanted to prevent anons from editing some pages might then vandalize some pages with the intent of getting this sort of block placed. I don't think we want to give people an additional motivation to vandalize. If this concern can be addressed somehow I would strongly support. 4799:

restriction on some of this, but just as some rules are necessary for the betterment of all, even if they sometimes do create minor inconvenience for some, I believe that the net effect of this would be to free many of us up to focus on real edits, creating a better flow of information, rather than having to concentrate so much on vandalism. Also, can I take it that you would oppose this? -

3562: 5661:

in other ways such as settling disputes. I have been watching the arbitrator position elections for a while, and it seems to me that the best people for the job aren't getting elected because of their edits. But the way candidates with few edits conduct themselves around Knowledge seems better than those elected on the basis of their edits. I don't know, maybe there should be a distinction.

3470:

link to the article straight to his friend, with a little (gloating?) message. Now, I do realize that this very thing caused the scandal with mis-information on the site, but I still think that (with the new scurity messures that have been implemented) Knowledge can act as a wonderful tool for personal intellectual debate and the emailing option would therefore be an attractive option.

2118:. I'm sure someone else around here can figure out the appropriate way to implement it. With this feature implemented our article could be a lot better. We could link the first occurrence of December 25 on the Christmas page as ] because it is conceivable that someone may want to know what else happened on that date, but for subsequent uses of December 25 we would use <date: --> 5474:

perfectly inoffensive. Ticheli is very well known (in fact, my all-district honor band just preformed a piece by him earlier today...), he has numerous pieces out, and just about every band director I know has at least three of his pieces. So, if it's not too much to ask, can I or someone else please write a page for him? I think it would greatly benefit the Encyclopedia.

6902:

our disagreements with articles, but no way to say 'this is an article with which no one can disagree'. I feel that's the first step, the next is that hard-to-define 'goodness' level, on the way to featured status. Saying that the English Knowledge has just under a million articles is impressive, but I would like to be able to put a number on quality as well. The

4399:

need to do is to get a handful of volunteers to do this, and much key-pounding and frequent logins by vandal-patrol-editors become necessary in order to maintain any reasonable semblance of a good article there. Of the 14 vandalism edits, 12 were done via anonymous IP, and 2 were done by sock-puppets that had been created within the previous 20 days.

6532:

should be filtered, but there are some fairly explicite line drawings of sexual acts on Knowledge pages that are relevent to the context. Its opening a can of worms. The only way to protect children from inappropriate image is to not allow them to surf alone, thats a plain and simple solution that works better than anything technological. --

7793:'s article count (35,000). It would also simply place us at the behest of a new hardware owner, and also sacrifice our access to the valuable Knowledge name, logo, and Google rank. I think most of his actions have been either quite positive or at least not so bad - for now I'm willing to stick things out and I hope everyone else will too. 4021:

recent changes RSS feed (or whatever the vandalism-catching bots use) and find the reverts, while at the same time using its past experience to determine which of the new edits are liable to be reverted. This information could then be fed to an IRC channel along the lines of the ones currently in use for the vandal-catching bots.

7354:

available to read was completely overwhelming. And, in my opinion, most of that available material was way over the head of a newcomer, unless the newcomer was a computer guru. In fact, most of that learning material seemed to be written by computer gurus for reading by computer gurus rather than by newcomers wanting to learn.

3368:

tagging animal/plant articles with all the details currently listed in their infobox. Similarly cities could be tagged with their demographics and location details. Pretty much anything you see in an infobox now could be made into semantics tags - and with clever template modifications, perhaps with relatively little effort.

3991:

mean vandalism, or anb absolutely accurate commetn likely to be targeted by a PoV pusher. It would be interesting, but it wouldn't be simple to program. It would ahve soem server cost. Also to be at all sueful it would need to recognize non-rollback reverts, includign revrts to a version other than the just previous one.

7409:

us, because any contributor on here can fix up an article - not all of us can write about advanced chemical engineering. Although talk page comments can sometimes be strongly worded, we really only intend it to be friendly advice, and you are not obligated to follow it. We appreciate your feedback and I hope you'll stay.

3403:

deletion scene, making it hard for a casual editor to know how to get an article into the deletion pipeline. The rules for speedy deletion are confusing and constantly evolving, and the AfD nomination process is somewhat complex and time-consuming for the very occasional nominator. This leads to overuse of the speedy

3384:

user basis), since many would contribute and improve gradually over time. It is an identical modus operandii to the main principle of Knowledge, but applied to give meaning to the content, futureproofing and improving it ready for future iterations of deployment and advanced uses that may not have yet been conceived.

3344:

software (not by a defined controlled vocabulary) and then enhanced by users. Because the schema would be updated by users under a one-user, one-vote style system, the relevance of correct and valid links will always be reinforced and vandalism / key word stuff would be controlled democratically (i.e. the

8853:- I don't see a current problem. If you accidentally edit unregistered (as just happened to me), it's not that big of a deal. You can always go back and re-sign. This would present significant problems to those unregistered users who don't have cookies enabled; we're making life harder for them. Thanks! 10007:, and instead I change the incorrect license tag (often "fair use" with no justification listed, or "CopyrightedFreeUse") to the "no license" tag or "somewebsite" tag. This lets the image stick around for another week until the sysops are supposed to be free to delete the image, which is unfortunate. 10031:

to the page, and copy the text that shows up into the days listing (there is a link). Notifying the uploader is recommended, but not really mandatory. Unfortunately, notifying the uploader can not be done through a template (you would need a bot). If an image is obviously a copyvio and not used on

8533:

I occasionally use non-English wikis and forks (mostly to enter the interwiki links). I can edit something on a Japanese or Georgian wiki only once a half-year, but still would be upset if somebody would block my account there. If we suspect that somebody could create dormant accounts for a sock farm

8222:

Many entries on WP are highly technical - which is great; repository of knowledge and all that... But if I want to understand the basics of something, often the first paragraph, there are so many links to referenced terms (in the interests of brevity for experts I guess) that I have to choose between

7613:

Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do, short of forking. Jimbo runs the Foundation which runs the servers. (I've already blabbered on about this on my talk page and the talk page of the proposed decision in the pedophile userbox case, so I'm not about to repeat myself here anymore than necessary.)

7368:

However, in most cases, what was lacking was any discussion or explanation of most of the edits and criticisms despite the fact that I took great pains to ask for explanations on the Talk page for the articles I contributed. With a few notable exceptions, none of the editors and critics responded to

7357:

Other than a welcome letter posted to my User Talk page, nobody stepped up to offer help or guidance on how to get started. In effect, I was expected to have learned how to start a page, how to format it in Wiki markup, how to use TeX to create math formulas, and to be completely conversant with the

6962:

is closer to what I am suggesting: it classifies the entire gammut of articles by quality as a means to their improvement. The featured-article system is good, as it gives us a clear definition of quality. I believe that it would be good to have a graded system of quality definitions that covered the

6901:

I'm not really so keen on the icons, but more on the process of improving articles. Currently, only a tiny proportion of articles have featured status, and I would like to see a more obvious staircase up which articles can climb towards featured status. At the moment, we have al sorts of ways to mark

6877:

As to the proposal, I there would be a lot of unnecessary effort in classifying. The distinction between good and standard is also quite hard to draw, although, I know, there are already markers for good articles. It also makes it more effort to add "acronym" tags, because we have to change the icon.

6531:

The objection to tagging offensive content has always been that this is a subjective discussion. For instance consider nudity; you may want to tag as offensive any image featuring any nudity, but does that include an image of Michaelangelo's David? So for instance you say only photographic nude image

6220:

World knowledge base is kind of a generalized idea about a compliation of all info about all subjects on the planet. Kind of like how our civiliazion has developed to the current state. i.e. what does free speech or freedom mean. how the people on a beach should know to run when the tide goes out.

5671:

What you're referring to is called "editcountitis". Editcount is one factor taken into consideration at RFA, sure, but it is far from the only one. The reason for it being a factor at all is that when voting for an admin, we need to be sure that the candidate understands all the features of Knowledge

5209:

While I agree that in the context of making decisions and setting policy for the community, it is important to differentiate between user account holders (for whom there is at least a somewhat accountable record) "in good standing", and anonymous or new users, this solution would institutionalize the

5132:

sounds a bit long. IMHO the first goal should be to get such a limited block feature actualy implemented into the software and then use it instead of regular page blocking (as a first resort anyway). If it works out we can discuss the finer points of when to use it and for how long at a later date. --

3923:

Each revert would be automatically submitted to the Bayesian filter in order to train the filter to recognise edits that are likely to be reverted (for WHATEVER reason). New edits would be passed through the filter and classified according to their reversion probability. This could be used to compile

3580:

The template should work on any page and could be included in the toolbox with some adjustment. The only problem I see is that it puts underscores instead of spaces when mentioning the name of the article (to avoiding breaking the link). This could be easily fixed when converting to a toolbox link.

3469:

For instance... Say two friends are having a "discussion" (argument, if you will) about some topic. One says something, the other denies that it is true. Later that day the first is online, heads to Knowledge, looks up the answer and discovers he is correct. He can then, right there, click and send a

3383:

Surely the very essence of Wiki is an improvement of the product as a whole, over time. As I said, the initial burst of metadata could be a software development project and turned around in a couple of days using something like Perl. The gradual improvement would take a tiny amount of time (on a per

2198:

dates via some sort of regex, i.e. /\d\d\d\d-\d\d-\d\d/ (yyyy-mm-dd in common English). I'm not sure if this will work. Anonymous users, which describes the majority of the people who use Knowledge, are always going to be seeing ISO 8601, which isn't necessarily as clear as spelling out the month.

2107:

and all sorts of links to other dates as well. It's ugly and it clutters up the page. Links should only be used when the user would actually have some valid reason to click through and find out about a topic. But I can't think of any reason anyone would need to be able to click through to December

1860:

I'm finding it hard to phrase my idea, since so many of the reasons are similar to those who wish to permanently protect actual articles, but I'll give it a shot. Is there any reason for a discussion on an article's talk page to allow users to delete/modify the comments of others? Not only is it next

9078:

and it's also in a very visible red-pink box. Well, I think this is a good idea, since from experience it was all too possible to miss the old notice when it was displayed. However, what about also extending the text to include a link to the edit page for the current revision? Perhaps change the

7913:

I believe Cynical was referencing the desysoping of people who had engaged in the pedophile wheel war, some of whom merely unblocked users who were blocked out of process, if I recall correctly. I think the idea was to nip the whole war in the bud, but it was quite a drastic action. I oppose CSD T1,

7001:

No, classification of articles in Knowledge is bad. We shouldn't make the reader unconfortable when he reads a "one-star" article and make him trust blindly wikipedia when he reads a "five-stars" article. Stars judge articles on their quality, whereas stub status is put according to the content. And

6783:

I agree with the other comments, but word for word translations are awful whether they are done by machines or humans, such as someone looking up words in a dictionary. This is because words usually don't have the same meaning in each language and words are placed in different places in the sentence

6077:

I also looked through some of the Wikibooks, they kind of touch on this idea just because of the fact that they encompass all of one subject and dont go too far away into further-defining links of other words in the article. But it still doesn't quite give the simplicity of just reeling off a full,

5510:

Oh! Good! Thank you! I was rather frightened when I didn't see it. (By the way, American Elegy is probably the most beautiful piece ever. My brother's All-state band played it (with him as the conductor) two years ago, and they even sang the Columbine School Song (which ticheli wrote) beforehand.

5446:

An analogy can be used to understand a concept. For example, transistor be explained using the concept of handpump. Knowledge contains a lot of terms belonging to different fields/disciplines of Science, Engg, Arts. And I am sure people who are not experts in the field/discipline can understand them

5427:

I personally recommend that school papers get posted to your userpage or a subpage thereof, and links added to the talk pages of relevant articles. Interested contributors can extract and fix up information from the paper. You can do this with practically any document (well, as long as the people on

5354:

There's a nearly infinite number of term papers being submitted in college that get read only by the professor and the n thrown away. What if a system was created for having professors assign topics that are needed for wikipaedia, so after they are marked they could be integrated in the project? The

5167:

You think anti-vandals will suddenly vandalize pages in order to get them semi-protected? Are they doing this now, when they can get full protection by being enough of a bother? I don't think that people who are anti-vandals would find it worth their time to game the system this way. Of course, with

5131:

Well as I said I think it would make a good alternative to the current "full block" protection we currently use, but I rely don't think we should apply it much more liberaly than we currently are. One or two vandalism-edits per day is not realy that much of a problem on an active article, and a week

4921:

be open to editing—page protection must be applied with the greatest reluctance, for the strongest of reasons (ie. concerted, unrelenting, continuous, damaging vandalism or edit warring), and for the shortest possible time. And it must be open to every good faith user—registered, anonymous, steward,

4604:

some restrictions. The "semi-protected" articles could replace many of the completely protected ones, giving a chance for non-vandals to clean up and article and still add to it without giving the responsibility of cleaning up an article to an admin. Because of this, an article may be semi-protected

4561:

Knowledge will never be a real encyclopaedia until it adopts and enforces encyclopaedic standards, and one of the steps necessary to achieve that is doing something to deter vandals, particularly cranks and cultists. There is nothing in this proposal which would prevent or deter genuine editors from

4344:

Yes, but sophisticated vandals such as Willy on Wheels vandalized templates transcluded onto the Main Page and Mediawiki messages. Also, I don't think it's much more obscene to replace an article with pictures of penises than it is to replace it with erotic stories or reams of profanity in all caps.

3604:

I know, but the problem is the wiki syntax for links. There can be no spaces in the mailto URL (which here is everything before "Email someone this page") because spaces separate the URL from the displayed text. That's why I've escaped the spaces in the text as %20 . I had to escape the page name

3531:

I actually think this is a good idea - it would increase interest in Knowledge and help us drive editing and new editor arrival rates. The mail should send out a permalink so that they see the same version. We could add little trailers to the e-mails going out linking to the main page and maybe even

3367:

articles, even a single piece of metadata, would be a huge effort. Categories took a long time to get put in everything. However, I'm sure that individual Wikiprojects would entertain the idea of tagging articles in their area with metadata relevant to their area. A great example is Tree of Life and

3343:

Response so far.. Using in/out links is certainly viable to establish relationship strength between articles, and may go a certain way towards defining the root words used to start a metadata vocabulary. What I am proposing is not a true folksonomy, but a metadata schema that can be initialised by

2128:

makes it very clear that something should only be linked when it's relevant to the context; a date link is pretty much never relevant to the context as who exactly is going to want to randomly click through and see what else happened on that day in any other number of thousands of years? So what if

9725:

First of all, Thank you for responding on the topic. You are correct that there is no need of indian featured list to post a featured article on a particular's main page. But I have already created those pages. If we want some feedback from other people, i supposed there is no harm to do so. Thanks

8236:

If there was, whether on the main page or on the discussion page, an option to indicate (whether on a sliding scale or not) an easy way for those coming to the entry to say 'less expert definition PLEASE!' then it would be possible to gauge the importance (to the caring experts) or providing a more

7879:

has loads of exceptions, and presumably Jimbo was pointing out one of those in this case.) Nor was it policy to call for the banning of all self-identified pedophiles from Knowledge (nor to block them). Neither is it policy to indefinitely block people who have committed the aforementioned actions.

7661:

I don't think Jimbo's ultimate veto powers are written into any Wikimedia governing documents, but I could be wrong. De facto, the arbcom has upheld that he does have them. If the board truly felt Jimbo's actions were not in the best interests of the Foundation's goals, they could remove his rights

7346:

I'm a retired chemical engineer with a 55-year career in designing, commissioning and operating petroleum refineries, petrochemical plants, natural gas treating plants, and similar industrial plants in the USA, South America, Europe, the Middle East, and South Africa. Most of my career was spent in

7195:

follow this. Right now there is nothing (other then our common sense) stopping someone from re-writing the theory of evolution as a conspiracy thoery (to take this to an extreme). There needs to be some policy that backs up the secular scientific reality, and save us all from future headaces. I'm

7023:

How useful is a categorization when the already in use "Featured Article" category has contained un-cited, false or defaming information? Yes, I'm refering to the Portugese tsunami page, for one. A number of articles, including that one, I have looked at have no indication in the page history as to

6772:

One problem with Babelfish translations is that often a human translator can't determine the intended meaning from the Babelfish translation. Access to the original source is absolutely necessary. Assuming you provide this, I don't have a huge problem as long as the translation has been looked over

6597:

But can't we use machine translations while clearly notifying the reader of their unreliability? Even an unreliable translation is more informative than no translation at all, isn't it? It could be like a stub warning or a factual accuracy warning, and the machine translation only stays there until

6504:

I support this idea as well, I have no problem letting users have an option in their own little console which allows them to enable or disable images, possibly even "offensive" images but that might require more work than it is worth. Disabling images in general however makes more sense on just an

6100:

Well it doesn't have to be printed out, it could display online. There are connection mapping tools like this and they are very handy to visually see the links a topic has. Think of the music map thing that by default shows two links deep, and clicking on another moves the center of the map to that

6072:

I have been glancing through pages on Knowledge for the last few weeks and it is igniting inquiry for every possible subject related to the main topic Im looking at. I thought it would be a nice feature to make a link that presents an entire web of every link in an article and its related

5660:

I have been looking at some of these elections, and emphasis is mostly put on number of edits and such. It just kind of bothers me that that seems like the determining factor of being elected admin, etc. Maybe some users just don't know enough to make that many edits, such as myself, but are useful

5253:

I'm sure I've seen related proposals to give admins the additional power to "intermediate-protect" a page, as a less restrictive option than "protect". The problem with that was that if you merely excluded anonymous users, you encouraged vandals to sign up and vandalize, which is slightly harder to

5069:

Well-meaning concept, but would substantially reduce the differences between Knowledge and any other online purveyor of information. We'd lose more editors by denying them the rush of the first-time edit to a topic they care about than could be justified by any reduction in vandalism. Anything that

4995:

flag to be used as an alternative to full page protection and in the same fashion as existing page protection might be useful--a temporary flag that prevents all anons or users created after the protection was placed from editing the page. It shouldn't be placed on pages forever, though, just for a

4798:

Zoe, could you point to any guidelines or policies that might support what you just said? It seems to me that Knowledge is a place designed to encourage honesty, community, and the free flow of information. Vandalism opposes all of these things. It is true that such a rule might place some minor

4458:

I don't know. I am new to this page. Maybe this type of anti-vandalism measure has been proposed before. If so, still I would like to know why it hasn't been acted upon, and what others think about this proposal designed to cut down significantly on vandalism to high-vandalism types of articles,

4398:

page. Of these last 50 edits, 14 were vandalism. This pattern of heavy vandalism by multiple seemingly random IP's at this page seems to possibly be an orchestrated strategy to encourage cult members to make frequent anonymous vandal attacks. Having thousands of members, obviously all they would

3937:

Such an index would not pass any value judgement on the quality of an edit. It would simply judge its probability of being reverted. I would expect it to accurately flag all edits on both sides of an edit war, for example. This would have the effect of automatically calling attention to the dispute

2518:

Note *: I'm assuming that in the future, user prefs might be extended. For example, there might be a user pref for BCE/CE versus BC/AD in years, for currency and units formatting, etc. So you could choose to have "1000 kg" presented as "1000 kg", or "2400 pounds", or "2400 pounds (1000 kg)", etc.

2143:

One more thing I'd like to add - it's not obvious to me why date preferences formatting was implemented in the fashion it is now. There are two separate issues: linking to other articles and automatically formatting dates. Why the two were conflated as in the current implementation is beyond me.

2034:

_ _ Elevator-speech version of my long-term proposal: Traditional Wiki-markup (TWMu) is optimized for collaborative editing of articles but not discussion. Supplement TWMU with extensions (minor enuf to conserve editors' investment in learning TWMu). Lightly process each contribution before saving:

1673:

Most of us who do block-sorting also do considerable amounts off writing and updating. But if everyone only did writing and updating, Knowledge would be unusable. That's why that work is called things like "maintenance" and "cleanup". It would be like trying to run a car if garages didn't exist. If

1531:

Seems like a good idea. The only complication that I can forsee is that some of the more useful pages on Featured Pictures are the ones that show thumbnails of the pictures themselves. It should still be possible to conform the formatting, but there has been some previous discussion on changing the

7874:

Ok, and the major policy change has affected us detrimentally *how*? (Oh, yes, I agree it has been abused by some -- but so have a lot of other policies.) Just because Jimbo pushed it through without discussion doesn't automatically make it bad. If you ask for a more general "consultation with the

7731:

Knowledge is under his direct control. The projects in other languages seem to have done fine without his influence. What essential work does he do within en:? I'm not necessarily saying someone else should do what he does in dealing with the outside world, but the level of authority he's given

7480:

I have found individual editors and admins very helpful when I've asked for advice, and occassionally have received useful responses to questions on talk pages. It is true, however, that talk pages are often black holes. I suspect too many editors like to slap a template on an article and move on,

7468:

My experience differs somewhat, but still points to a problem in bringing in new editors. The last 20 years of my career involved supporting computers, and I have a lot of experience in working in on-line forums, so I was fairly comfortable starting in Knowledge. Nevertheless, after six months I'm

7412:

As for doing something about improving the user experience for people like you, I think part of the problem is that it's hard to identify users who really have something to offer and need our help. Maybe if we made more of an effort to learn a little about all our new users and their experience it

7408:

Although you're absolutely right that we should have done more to help teach you and answer your questions, please don't think your contributions are unwelcome. Even if you were a user who uses no markup, no links, and uploads all sorts of images in the wrong format, you would still be valuable to

6460:

editing and using Knowledge (meaning a large number of us) disabling images is a no-brainer... but to the average person on most browser configurations of today such a change in preferences isn't evident. Also when using publicly accessible computers it isn't always obvious (or in many cases even

6336:

On a number of sites on the web it is possible to have a user defined user experience relative to these sites. For example most search engines have a type of 'Safe Search' where once activated allows the engine to censor out certain material that certain individuals would find disagreeable (ie: to

6086:

that prints the content of associative trails as hard copy? I'm not sure that's a good idea. Laptops and electronic paper are going to become ridiculously cheap in the next five years in the First World, so printing hard copy of Knowledge will become less and less of an issue. As for developing

4971:

There's absolutely no way I would support this- the point of Knowledge is to be open. Most controversial pages are the ones anons/new users want to edit, and in many cases, the edits are _GOOD_. There's no need to create another block for users to edit. And, as Ryan Delaney says below, Jimbo will

4574:

I'm supporting this, even though I don't necessarily the right implementation. But it doesn't matter. What matters is supporting people like you trying to make a difference on the wiki. If you listen to some people around here, you'll hear stuff like "Vandals cant' just be banned outright has they

4322:

There would only be a couple of templates on any one article, and these could either be subst'd or easily "i-protected" as well and put in a temporary category. And I would not assume that vandals are always smarter than us; indeed experience shows that most of them are rather clueless– remember

4235:

Could there reasonably be a form of protection developed that only restricted the changiing of images in an article? For example, if someone added a new "Image:Something" that wan't there before, the edit just wouldn't take. Having an option like this could cut down on the worst vandalism on our

3714:

I think this is a bad idea. First of all, email is for plain text, not for HTML. Would you also email all the pictures as well with this? Now you're sending a quite-possibly large file. Also, what if the content changes because of new research/editors after you sent it? I generally never mail

3280:

with a vaguely controlled vocabulary based on democracy). Also, weighted relational links (i.e. 'What links here') could be changed so that there is a visual representation of the strength, relvance or importance of the connection between the viewed article and other articles, related through key

1633:

I find that most non-registered editors fall into two groups: those doing small adjustments such as typos, and those blatantly vandalizing. If we incorporated a short wait time between posts (like on IMDb's message board) for non-registered editors, the positive contributers would still be able to

9411:

I've refined my calculations: I weighted each month's multiplicative difference (month x+1 / month x) by an exponentially increasing factor (*1.01 per month), to take into account logarithmic decay in informativeness, and started at the sample closest to the predicted end time of day (1:00pm), to

8229:

The issue I want to raise is one of feedback - sure, I could add to the few comments in the discussion page with a 'me too' - but I'd be doing that for a number of maths and other pages - and what would it mean? Who would really care? Those looking to add definitions are involved in the subject,

7978:

in the United Kingdom.) Of course, that doesn't make it wrong to criticise him or his actions. However, do bear in mind that userboxes and wheel warring (and/or some combination of the two) are the most explosive issues in the Knowledge: namespace right now. I think Joeyramoney was the straw that

7764:

The only Knowledge comparable to the English one is the German Knowledge, and it is operated by a cabal with powers delegated from Jimbo. Most other wikis are sufficiently small that they can run themselves; the English Knowledge is unique in that its consensus mechanisms have not scaled with the

7530:

caused by the fact that the initial contributors to Knowledge mostly came from a formal or informal Computer Science background. The main obstacle to making it better is that, by the time you know enough about how it works to enhance the documentation, you aren't bothered by it anymore. There are

7353:

About 2-3 weeks ago, I decided to contribute some of my knowledge to the Knowledge, so I submitted some articles. Before doing so, I spent about 2-3 days reading the Help, the how-to use Wiki markup language, the how-to use TeX math markup, the Wiki style guidelines, etc. The amount of material

5539:

I believe a really good solution to this would only be possible as part of the proposed conversion of talk pages to a message board format (which I think is a good idea anyway). Then there could be forums that automatically view unanswered posts from talk page forums, without any forking or other

5008:

This is a terrible idea. It is entirely against everything that makes Knowledge daring and innovative. The whole idea of Knowledge comes down to freedom of everyone to edit everything (with a few exceptions where it is impossible to maintain any kind of consistent quality without some limits.)

4528:

PS: I am not entirely familiar with what the software requirements would be to accomplish something like this, but if it appears that this proposal is met with a positive consensus here, I will promise to bring this proposal to Jimbo Wales' attention, and to make certain that the results of this

4020:

This idea is a good one. You could probably count edit summaries containg terms like "rv", "revert", etc. as reverts as well; there might be a few false positives, but they'd definitely be too small to seriously affect the algorithms. This seems very workable; the bot could just crawl through the

3990:

A fairly subtle analyzer would be needed to provide useful input to any such clasifier. It would need to recognize the toopic, for example, and changes such as the addition of tags, presence or absence of references, adn the like. Also even if absolutely accurate, a high change of reversion could

3830:

IMO Knowledge's info pages have grown very unwieldy for anyone who wants to help with things a little deeper than just article content. Looking for well-grouped, simple information pertaining to the ins and outs of policy and guidelines is downright scary. Everything is scattered, and information

3507:

Blocking anonymous article creation was not a security measure. It was a policy decision that may or may not reduce vandalism. As for this, why can't you just email the url? I never got that. If you want to, you can even email the permalink. To get to the permanent version (permalink), click

3465:

I frequently use this service option on other sites (e.g. BBCWorld.com, NYTimes.com, and TheOnion.com) to alert friends and acquaintences of interesting news items. I realize that Knowledge is not really a news website, but as a constantly updating repositiory for information, it couldn't hurt to

2917:

The following Republican Senators have 'criticism', 'controversy' or other such sections in their articles, or parts that serve essentially as that: John McCain Ted Stevens Jeff Sessions Richard Shelby Saxby Chambliss Johnny Isakson Mel Martinez Sam Brownback Jim Bunning David Vitter Norm Coleman

2862:

is a fairly major bug that affects the integrity of watchlists. It basically means that if a page is moved, until the point where it is edited again, it disappears from the watchlist. This makes it kind of difficult to catch pagemove vandalism from the watchlist alone until someone else edits the

10010:

Could someone set up a "copyrighted" template tag for images like this that alerts the uploader and marks the image as subject to deletion by sysops? The template tag should have an argument for what the illegitimate source was, and it should automatically post a notice to the submitter that he

7252:

When speaking of secularism and religion in writing, there is no 'none of the above.' To keep this out of the projects scope is to simply ignore it. Yes, I am confident the admins are usually able to deal with individual problems, but it rarely is in a positive manner (as I have outlined in my

6611:

I beleive/recall some translation sites let you link directly to the translated version of the page. So, that provides the needed information for the user. The danger of posting the text in the article, is machine translations aren't just slightly bad, they often say the exact opposite of what

6586:

I would suggest machine translations are extremely unreliable, and we should never put text directly from them in article (except possibly an article about machine translation itself). I could see posting a translation in a talk page or something, maybe, for discussion purposes, but never in an

5035:

to it as currently presented. It makes sense to make it slightly harder for unknown users to contribute -- throttling the frequency with which they can edit certain pages, asking them to verify they are not a robot, or directing them to talk pages during an active controversy. It does not make

4587:

in principle, with details TBD. The number of pages that would need some kind of guardianship would be very small, the "open to all" provision would not be compromised (hang around just a little while and you can touch anything) and articles that are now functionally damaged goods would rise in

4182:

If you're talking about reverting to an earlier version, you must go through the History page, so you see the edit summary. If you're talking about someone *actually* editing the page and changing it, well, the problem is what if the change was three edits back? In cases where something could be

3942:

That's a really good idea. Difficult to implement, but I'd really like to see how it plays out. I can imagine a Recent Changes page with each edit colour coded. Likely vandalism would have a red background, while suspicious stuff would only have a yellow background, with a gradiant in-between. I

3473:

It would also serve well for aiding in research or other academic endeavors through the site, as a student or teacher/professor, could easily alert class members or colleagues to reference information throught this service, which would aid the site's use as a learning tool, as well as giving it

2564:

For dates, this seems like a great idea. If we have a locale feature for dates, it should of course support unlinked dates. For unit conversions, this is only good if you can provide the number of significant digits to be used. For example, 1000 kg should usually be converted to 2200 pounds, but

2094:

This has come up in repeated discussions and I think it's important enough that something needs to be done. Currently, the only way to get date preference formatting to work is to link the date. While this works, it has the unsightly side effect of cluttering up a page with unnecessary links.

1891:

There are some advantages to it, albeit they are mostly introduced by the lack of discussion thread features. Fixing mixformatted threads, adding section titles to stray comments, and blanking old or misplaced discussions, etc. are all important aspects of maintaining talk pages, which would be

8366:

That's a lot of accounts. Has there been an increase lately? I would be cautious in blocking such accounts. Once someone realizes that that happens, they will just make an edit after creating each account. Also, some people are overly cautious when first signing up and may not may an edit for a

8352:

New account formation is currently running at over 250 per hour (that's faster than new page creation). Many of these are surely dormant accounts for future trolling/sockpuppeting/vandalism. Would it be possible to autoblock a new account which has not been used for editing after, say 72 hours?

7699:

Yes it takes people to accomplish important things. But I would ask you to consider if your current actions are the best thing that you could be doing to build and strengthen the community to meet the project's goals. Is building dissent helpful, or would time be better spent knowing that while

5528:

I am sure most regular users would have had the experience of asking a question on a talk page, and receiving no answer for a long time (in some cases, never). The answer would in most cases be known to someone who doesn't happen to have that particular article on their watchlist. Would it be

4293:

I think there is already an embargo on image uploads before someone made has some minimal number of edits. But whether that number should be raised or prospective uploaders otherwise educated is another matter; as Golbez says, there are already plenty of images appropriate for, say, gentitalia

4261:

Another and probably easier to implement alternative is to simply not allow very new accounts to upload images. Sort of permanently sprotect image uploads. It might be a too radical change, but it sure would solve this problem on FA's as well as image vandalism in general. And as an added bonus

3402:

Sometimes while browsing random articles, an editor who is not necessarily involved in what I'll loosely call the "deletion scene" runs across an article that he or she feels should probably be deleted. However, the deletion procedures have become unwieldy for those who are not involved on the

2123:

I'd link to point out one more area in which my proposal would be useful: chronological lists. Many, many articles have them, and typically they consist of bulleted lists starting with the date and then a description of what happened on that day. And those dates are always linked for the sole

1674:

you want to try to have an encyclopedia where no articles are correctly linked, spelt correctly, or sorted into appropriate categories, then fine, but a lot of editors here would like Knowledge to at least try to be like a proper encyclopaedia. As such many of us do block-edit maintenance work.

9590:

I'm inclined to agree that our interface is a nightmare for newcomers, and I like this approach. We should be able to easily mimic the simplified interface with a skin, and the AJAX stuff (which seems to amount to a Google-suggest style search box) can come later. Is a Gollum skin a good idea?

8244:

So that's it - give us plebs a way to easily indicate a desire to understand the topic more readily, and I suspect the experts, appreciative of the interest, will try to accommodate. At the moment, they have no way of knowing what the interest level (and hence worth) of adding decomplexifying

7361:

So I did my very best (and I am quite comfortable with HTML which I used rather than Wiki markup) and I submitted some articles. Within a short time, some administrators not only did major edits of my articles but I was also criticized for using HTML for my text and for my formulas. I was also

7331:

No article should contain an unsourced or original claim assuming the truth or falsity of any claim made by a religion. A large proportion of editors have a secular bias, so you'll naturally see that emerge in our articles, but if you see any obvious secular bias (like say, "in an inconsistent

5048:

You are kidding, right? As someone who edits controversial material about Malaysian politics all the time, I can tell you that despite 90% of all anon edits being vandalism, I appreciate the 1 out of every 10 edits that contributes something to the article. This proposal essentially amounts to

4426:

I know that all 14 of the recent vandal-edits the the Scientology page would have qualified for blocking under these rules. My guess is that probably at least 50% of these attempts would have been completely stopped, discouraging the prospective vandal from going through all of the trouble of

1464:

above; I proposed that the mechanism for date formatting preferences should be extended to handle this. IMHO this is the right solution; no-one can say that one style is "right" and one is "wrong", except for themselves, so make it selectable. But you can't just use "CE/BC" as proposed here,

7424:

Well, in all fairness, we rarely get competent people willing and capable of contributing in arcane areas such as advanced mathematics (which require learning LaTeX and all that) -- and wikimarkup is fairly easy to learn. It's sort of a chicken and egg thing, really. People won't make room to

2111:

Also, keep in mind that the majority of the people browsing or viewing Knowledge either do not have user accounts or are not logged in, so they are not receiving any kind of benefit from the date preferences formatting. They're only perceiving the negative aspect of it: articles that are way

7494:

On this related "newbies" point, I, too, found it difficult to discover all of the policies and guidleines. After two years, and a modest but reasonably active editorial career on WP (working mainly on a core of maybe 40-50 related articles), I only began delving into the "behind-the-scenes"

7135:

nuance. And when there is no applicable policy, edit wars generally ensue. Editors involved get frustrated, admin has to weigh in and make a decision viewed as arbitrary. Nobody is happy. It simply would save a lot of our time if there was a policy stating that wikipedia takes no religious

5473:

Hello. I am new to the editing aspect of Knowledge, so I apologize if this sounds dumb. I was looking through the encyclopedia, and I discovered that it lacks a page for the great American composer Frank Ticheli. Now, I have tried to look into the Knowledge rules, and I think this page is

5096:

If the same rules that apply to "regular" page blocking now where applied then I think it would be a good idea. It could be the first line of defence against vandals. Temporarily block anonymous users and very young (think a month is a bit long though, maybe use the same rules that apply for

4683:. It's better than any anti-vandalism idea I would have had. Since the controversial pages are the ones most vandalized, and since RUs don't vandalize (as much, since we can catch you guys), it will definitely cut down on vandalism. Better idea: Perhaps we could even restrict editing to RUs. 3930:

In the first instance the Bayesian filter's opinion could be indicated on the recent changes page to help flag edits in need of particular scrutiny. In the long term, if the filter proved as accurate as one might hope, then a more aggressive approach might be taken, whereby edits with a high

4002:

You're right that ongoing training of the filter is a sticking point. However, if we give all registered users the rollback function (which is sort of like a current proposal), then rollbacks would be easy to identify and train on. Meanwhile we can guess from the edit summary pretty well.

3426:

tag, that allows casual editors to flag questionable articles for further follow-up by editors more involved in the deletion scene. I think this would significantly reduce controversy over the misuse of the speedy delete tag, and make the entire deletion process go much more smoothly and

4996:

brief period on pages facing a specific persistant vandal, the way full protection is occasionally used against vandalism now... and the only time I'd support that is when the alternative is having the page protected completely just to stop one persistant vandal attacking it via socks.

8896:

with the cookie-disable option Hiyya54 suggested. As for people that don't have cookies enabled, I don't see why the vast majority of Wikipedians should be without the benefit of this feature to make life a little easier for people that have disabled standard functions in their browser

4204:

Can someone write up an entry about contrast showers? It's apparently a method of detox or cleansing that involves alternating between hot and cold showers every few minutes. I was hoping to learn more from here only to be disappointed there exists no entry for "contrast showers".

9747:

I think it would be interesting for many people here, if someone who has the database dump, could create a list of categories and number of articles in them (including subcategories). It would like to know how many articles are tagged, what is the coverage in certain areas and so on.

6351:

Now I am quite aware that most visitors have the option to disable image loading for a given browser, however for those in public places using publicly accesible computers (and the technically challenged) it can be a bit difficult (or even impossible on restricted systems) to do so.

2184:

simple suggestion; ISO format dates (2005-12-25) could just be auto detected. Surpression with some simple sequence (2005-12‐25) in the very rare case it's needed. These have the advantage that they are reasonably country neutral and understandable for all when seen in edit mode.

8331:). Other times it's reasonable to have separate intro and expert articles (there are some examples that I'm not remembering right now). In general I think editors of these articles should try to keep the non-expert and experts sections separate where possible. For some articles ( 6296:, we can't point at that (though this would be yet another example of a confusing redirect). The nature of the case also means that it's not really a dab page either. It wouldn't be a stub, because there's little more to say than is already on the pages on the people referred to ( 2115:

I am therefore proposing the creation of a new kind of syntax or function in Wiki source that identifies a phrase as a date so that it can be properly formatted without having to have a date be linked. I don't exactly have something in mind, so for now let's just call it <date:

4393:

I've been involved on some cult related pages which it is my guess, probably suffer some of the highest rates of chronic vandalism within Wiki. The cult that I believe probably tops the list is Scientology, and related articles. I just did a review of the last 50 edits on the

8417:

Doppelgangers shouldn't have to worry about blocked accounts, and usernames which are "reserved" for a username change (I'm not sure that's really encouraged) could be unblocked when needed. I'm not sure how deleting the accounts would be any less upsetting than blocking them...

5838:, and I hope that it can be a tool to help identify and stop quickly developing and emotionally charged incidents in the future. The current form is embyronic, of course, and if the community decides it can be of use, I hope you will all help develop it further. Best regards, 1919:

Honestly I don't disagree with you. Wiki is brilliant for creating articles, not so much so much so for having discussions. It certainly works... but it is often a lot of needless hassle keeping things straight. I do not believe it would be easy to effect a change, though.

4155:

Often, if someone makes an edit, they will include as a summary "Changed X because of Y, see Z." Or similar. This message will only reach watchers of that pages - if someone else comes, they may be likely to be unaware of Y or Z, and thus may change X back. This is sometimes

2289:

It's intuitive to you because you've 'grown up' learning how to do it that way. If you had learned to enclose dates in #12/25/2005#, do you really think it would be all that much harder to figure out? Some of us have a problem with overdetermining the bracket syntax. --

4588:

quality. I had a page I cared about which is subject to constant reverts, edits, sabotage etc. I now ignore it because I don't have time, and other pages have collaborative work by editors. That means the "shout them down" people are winning. Thanks for listening.

6813:, the contents of which could go one of two ways: improvement or deletion. Into this bottom category would fall all articles tagged for clean-up or non-neutral point of view, as well as those listed for deletion. All articles that meet certain basic standards would be 7649:

left after getting besmirched in RfA. Simply, those people who devote lot of time and dedication to Knowledge need to be treated with utmost respect. Danger of being misunderstood and mistreated on electronic medium is very high. That's quite normal for human nature.

9102:

would of course have to be different for whatever the name of the page being edited was, but I can't picture that being too much of a strain on the server -- less so than if the user has to first load the current revision, then click the edit button on that page. --

3508:"permanent link" at the bottom of the navigation area on the left of your screen (assuming you're using the default interface). That means they'll see the exact version you do. Doing the email seems like an unnecessary drain on resources. It could also result in 5944:

or some such thing, the icon would appear both in the heading itself and its ToC entry, and the latter might appear in bold or highlighted in some other way. This would draw attention to those sections needed to protect users' personal, family or property safety,

2909:

As it stands now, there seems to be a de facto bias against Republican US senators within their personal articles. Beyond the tone of individual articles, which for some Democratic senators is far more positive than some Republican senators, there's the isssue of

6179:

This would probably entail storing and indexing capitalization-normalized versions of every page name. This wouldn't be too hard on the database, but it would certainly require a not-insignificant amount of effort to code. If it were done, however, pages like

8223:

spending a couple of hours with my head approaching detonation (because the problem is recursive) or just taking what little I can, knowing that a much more basic (although, perhaps a little longer) introduction would have given me much more and what I wanted.

7788:

It's a fact of life on the Internet that He Who Sits at the Keyboard makes the rules. He could voluntarily restrict his power, but he could also voluntarily expand it again. Our only real recourse is to fork, and the damage would be irreversible - just look at

8195:

Bohold, Cryptic reverted your edits -- template "Dict" is now just a redirect to to template "Move to Wiktionary". Your version is available in the history. I can't comment on your version because I'm not sure what it's supposed to do... it says "this is... a

7190:

That is the theory in it. I'm saying the NPOV theory is not working in nuanced cases. I'm looking at HOW an article is written. It is obviously standard to write from a secular pov, and cite religious views when appropriate, even the most religious editors

9371:

Don't forget to expect a brief surge of articles as soon as we get within spitting distance of 1m; I wouldn't be surprised if a few editors have a couple of dozen short articles drafted and ready to post to give them a good shot at getting page #1,000,000...

8933:. All the problems can probably be solved by setting a hidden variable on the edit page for logged-in users. If the login expires before the form is submitted, the variable can trigger a re-login. There's no need to affect anonymous users or use cookies. 6307:

Thus, I propose that in cases such as this, we have a "soft redirect"-like mechanism for doing cross references such as these which aren't strictly dab entries, and when the reason for a redirect might not be obvious. Thoughts? 02:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

5227:

I think the right implementation would be to set a bar for "good standing" which any well-meaning editor could meet in a matter of minutes. I do not think that requiring a few minutes of non-controversial contribution is in any way against the spirit of 5P.

6347:

Outside of this current controversy (and plenty of others I'm sure) it seems to make sense to me to have such functionality for those wanting to do research on sensitive image oriented topics in public places (like cyber-cafes, libraries, in classes, etc).

8591:

I just moved to a new computer and accidentally made a few changes without logging in. I propose that every attempt to edit by someone not logged in results in them being presented with the option to log in, create a new account or continue on anonymously.

8494:

Whilst I agree inactive accounts should expire after some time, 72 hours seems far too short a time. I did not make an edit with my account for several weeks after signing up for it, and probably wouldn't have if I had been blocked without doing anything.

7388:

If the person-to-person editing helpers agree that the article is worthwhile, then they completely Wikify the submission and have it reviewed by the submitter. When both the submitter and the editor have agreed on the final version, then publish it on the

6612:

they're supposed to. Also, factual dispute tags are a bad analogy, as you should only use those for things you think shouldn't have been put in the article in the first place (but somebody else has done so, and might have a reason you don't know of). --

7970:(shifting indent back) As I've argued before, I think Jimbo's actions were justified, if overly drastic. We all make mistakes, and this definitely could have been handled better (as Jimbo has admitted himself). Jimbo's actions were not unilateral either; 2481:

That bug was marked WONTFIX, although I am tempted to reopen it. I'll probably do so as I'm implementing it, which will be...whenever, I'm afraid. I've been distracted from development by a number of things; but should be back on track within a few days.

2308:

There's absolutely nothing intuitive about it. Most new users to Knowledge get very confused by this. Why should you have to turn a date into a link to get it to format properly? That's actually very counter-intuitive. And guess what, something being

4463:

Such suggestions have been made before, but there has always been disagreement about the specifics of implementation; who would write new software and what metrics would be used. I like to say of such recommendations : this sounds good, but rather than

2605:

support some kind of action on this subject. My user preferences are set to yyyy-mm-dd and it is so frustrating seeing dates not in that format mixed in with links that are. Additionally we need to review date ranges such as ] - 26 or December 25 -

1901:

We have strong conventions against editing of other's comments however. I would argue that a message board format, where a person can edit their own posts, would be a much better way of organizing talk pages. Wiki really just isn't suitable for this.

2203:

be done automatically but there is going to be some error rate. A workaround like 2005-12‐25 in the situation where you wouldn't want auto-formatting seems very clumsy. I think the easiest way to resolve this issue is to just create the <date:

2381:

gives clear evidence why something really needs to be done on this issue. Look at how ridiculous it is to create literally dozens of unnecessary links on a page just to get date preferences formatting working. Some sort of syntax like <date:

2926:

And I think you'll see that the criticism of Republicans is much more noted than that of Democrats. Additionally, senators Dorgan and Biden, both Democrats, have extended 'defenses' against criticisms which many of the Republican senators lack.

1787:

Why not add a section where you can report a vandal instead of having to post on their talk page or trying to find an administrator? Life would be so much easier for those fixing the vandalism and the administator can take the necessary action.

7581:

We've seen on numerous occasions that Jimbo simply does not have the requisite respect for the community for a social project of Knowledge's size, nor sufficient respect for the core values of the project (witness, for example, his editing to

7234:

Can you provide an example of where NPOV doesn't work? Perhaps the expanded community can offer some alternate suggestions without deciding whether secularism or religion is correct, a decision slightly outside of the scope of the project. -

6314: 4605:

for a shorter time than if one were completely protected. These semi-protected pages would not be permanent, but in some cases could be. The Main Page could even become semi-protected giving even more credit to the anyone-can-edit philosophy.

8312:

I am personally interested in adding more intuitive explanations to many mathematical topics and other technical topics. The only problem is that making complex things simple without creating a misleading or blatantly incorrect impression is

3581:

The advantage to this solution (besides allowing adoption elsewhere on the wiki) is that it doesn't requre server resources to send the mail. The converse is that not everyone has access to a mail client (and some clients don't read mailtos)

4067:

We can't include ALL reverts: rollbak is made for vandalism (although it is often misused); "rvv" is a reversion of vandalism... But reversion of POV/OR additions should not be covered by the classifier, as these will be too topic-specific.

3779:

can make a request for a peer review of their work? I think this would be good because mistakes, persistent flaws and other editing imperfections can be corrected at the source instead of fixing individual errors on a page by page basis. -

2501:

is a little too bulky, but otherwise yes — using the same syntax for two things is very bad practice. I would introduce a new, and simpler, syntax that could be used for user-preferred formatting of things other than dates. My suggestion:

7848:

Making major policy changes without any community discussion (see CSD T1), pressurising the ArbCom not to take action against admins who delete out-of-process, de-sysopping people (and driving others from the project) for upholding policy.

7108:

The Help Desk mailing list (when it existed) was constantly getting complaints from AOL users that they couldn't create accounts because there is a 10-user limit on IP addresses, and AOL accounts were always butting up against that limit.

6283:

There are a number of redirects around (I forget specific examples) where it might not be entirely obvious to the user why they are being redirected (particularly if the connection is explained "below the fold", since we can't redirect to

4841:

Actually, it isn't against the concept of Knowledge. It is similar to protected pages. This type of page protection just restricts some edits instead of all edits. Similar to page protection it can be for a restricted amount of time. -

2330:

Strong support; I've been meaning to propose this myself. I also strongly support auto-parsing yyyy-mm-dd syntax. The default date format can be something other than yyyy-mm-dd. Other possibilities like {{yyyy-mm-dd}} or {yyyy-mm-dd}.

3594:

No need to use underscores - if you visit a URL with spaces the software will automatically convert them. This looks like a pretty good solution - let's bring it up on the talk page of whatever Mediawiki page corresponds to the toolbox.

4275:

Shanes, that's not the point. You don't have to upload pictures of penises; they're already on Knowledge. That's what Pharos is proposing preventing, new images from being added to an article, not necessarily new images being uploaded.

1973:

Hm, there's been no real editing there in over a year. Are there actual plans to include LiquidThreads, or is it more of a wishlist thing? The suggestion looks okay, but I'd much prefer a more standard forum layout like the mockup on

7713:

I don't always agree with Jimbo's actions, but I can't think of anyone who could does what he does better. If we did start to become more of a democracy then the project would become very difficult, I couldn't see that working at all.

3308:

Would it work to use an article's incoming and outgoing links and categories (possibly extended by a few levels) for the tag set? It seems like a folksonomy would take a lot of effort to maintain, and I can see a lot of potential for

7476:

throwing a basket at your front door as it drives by. In my case, I never have been "welcomed", although after 6 months, 4700+ edits, 65+ images uploaded and 80+ articles and 7 categories created, I don't think I need to be welcomed

8522:

How about blocking accounts that have not made a single edit for a time period equal to the period one is required so that they can edit semi-protected pages? And of course warning every user that creates a new account about this!

7014:. If we put the stars system, any user will classify articles according to his likes and dislikes, whereas featured articles are chosen by vote and discussion, that's why it may be the only category where a star should be allowed. 6817:

and sit a step above the non-standard. This could be the default for all articles: we would have to demote them to sub-standard. Once an article is resting comfortably in the standard category, it could be listed to be promoted to

9412:

compensate for variances throughout the day. My refined estimate comes to 12:00pm. At that time there's about 86 new articles an hour. So depending on how big one considers that surge to be, one can make their own adjustments.

6505:"offense" scale, it can help those on dial-up load pages even faster and speed up browsing and server load as well. I do not support putting any type of warning on pages though, "viewer" modification only, not wikipedia wide. - 9485:

I'm sure we'll put a banner up, but that's about it. Probably some press releases too (as if anyone would resspond to them at this point, there has been way too much news about wiki as of late). Do you have any suggestions?

8335:) no real nontechnical explanation is possible but there should still be a sentence or two mentioning what subject area the topic comes from. Most math articles I've seen (including that one) do a reasonable job of this. 1765:

Which is fine. Blocking a registered user for vandalism will not hinder the IP address of other's on their subnet. Also, the majortity of vandals are non-registered, and I suspect this will be the case for quite some time.

9456:

So anyway, getting back to the initial question, what sort of "ceremony" will happen at 1,000,000? Great work on all this extrapolation, Kevin, and I don't think it really matters if you use AM, PM, 24hr, or a sun dial.

8438:

A lot of sites do expire inactive accounts eventually. I think people wouldn't be surprised if an account they'd never used disappeared. If they decided they wanted the account, it'd be easy for them to recreate it.

6881:

I don't think the icons should be different coloured stars. FACs already have the symbol of the star with a corner removed and I think this would be a good symbol to use for good/FAC articles. The others, I'm not sure.

5676:, you'll see that many regular voters a AFD have set standards that cover a large number of different factors. Vrtually none of those standards listed have editcount as the only - or even the main - determining factor. 7914:

on the basis of it not being sufficiently objective, but not Jimbo's right to create such a policy if he so chooses - I just hope as its danger becomes evident that the community will come to a consensus to remove it.

6159: 5809:, but the name of the article didn't show up in the message. I've looked at other templates, and they have a colon in front of where the page name goes. I added the colon to the template, but that didn't help either. 4468:

anyone from editing, perhaps you can simply make it more difficult for them to edit. For instance, redirect them to the talk page, with polite instructions to post both the existing text and their suggested changes.

1146:

terminology personally, but I have a different proposal that may just satisfy everyone who reads Knowledge. This proposal would remove the edit wars, as well as all problems of "confusion" and the extreme likeness of

6429:

Now that I removed them (with only one edit conflict this time): yes, it has already been beaten to death before. The result has always been "your browser has an option to disable images, use it". For a particularly

5833:

in response to the recent handling of the user_pedophile template incident. It is a proposal for a guideline and I request comment as to whether or not it should be adopted. The shortcut I have suggested for it is

4695:. This will allow the trimming of vandalism. I imagine that some work will need to be done on determining when the semi-protection can start and how long it can last, but it will reduce the incidents of vandalism. -- 3730:

I think that in today's world, many intellectuals cherish the arts. Having said that, I think that Knowledge should begin an Artist of the Month program, whereby a nominated artist's article is rectified, brought to

2531:

I like that idea, I was actually thinking of using double angle brackets originally (it's parallel to ]), but I was worrying if it might throw people off, so I went with the universally understood pseudo-HTML code.

2364:

Dates in various article names/categories would be better as yyyy-mm-dd or yyyy-mm instead of spelled-out or American "middle-endian" style (e.g. Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2005-12-26, Category:Cleanup from

2922:

Contrast that with the Democrat senators with comparable article layout: Dianne Feinstein<b Richard Durbin Mary Landrieu Ted Kennedy John Kerry Max Baucus Charles Schumer Hillary Clinton Patty Murray Robert Byrd

8511:

Not all people use accounts for editing. Some people use accounts just to be able to change the preferences (for instance, the skin). So, blocking accounts just because they don't edit is completely inappropriate.

5281:

would be able to work on these semi-protected pages. I believe that minimum number of contributions may need to be a bit higher (~100-500), but that should be able to remove the account stockpiling side of things.

9069: 3957: 8240:

Some pages have the 'This entry is in need of attention by a subject expert' tag, but never is there a 'This entry is need of attention by a subject expert with a knack for explaining things to the plebs' tag...

6744:

instead of dumping this stuff here, we would have better articles on these topics now. Most translators seem to rather prefer translating from scratch to cleaning up the complete nonsense the Babelfish produces.

6677:

The translation projects strongly feel that machine translations should never be used in articles. At best they could be used as a start on the talk page or a subpage. They often miss the meaning pretty badly. -

8643:. To avoid that irritation, let the anonymous user check a box "continue anonymous editing" and store the results in the cookie. If the would be editor wants to edit anonymously, she only has to say so once. 6402: 6367: 5447:

using analogies. If we could contribute by adding analogies that really made sense, it would be really great. In this fashion we can help build our understanding across different fields/discipline in less time.

5009:

This is why there is so much concern about keeping pages linked from the main page open to edit; it is our ideology. The implementation of this proposal would essentially cut Knowledge out from under its knees.

3273:), with metadata generated and controlled by individuals, I'm not aware that there is a community-wide collaborative metadata generation system. Knowledge would be a perfect project for this to be deployed on. 2549:

It's not so much the syntax, as the idea that by not saying "date", we can use the same feature for more generic user-preferred formatting (in the longer term; it wouldn't have to be implemented all at once). —

8557:

it's obvious there are blocks of accounts made by vandals. Maybe a software patch could detect when a block of accounts gets created by a small cluster of IP addresses, and flag that cluster for admin review.

9436:

And before then, that quantity is consistently lower. So I've refined my calculations to use only data past march 2004 (starting april 2004). This puts the arrival time much later, at around 6pm on Feb 28th.

4529:

interaction with Jimbo are reported here, whatever they might be. My sense is that it would probably be technically possible to do this, but might possibly be somewhat time consuming to write such a program.

8326:

There are some topics that need both an elementary and an advanced treatment and it's difficult for an article to do both. Sometimes a reasonable solution is to link to Wikibooks in the intro paragraph (see

6337:

block pornography,or for parents who want to restrict what content their children see). While I do not find such functionality useful in my own use of the web I can appreciate why such functionality exists.

6635:. Its not simply a matter of bad English, but the meaning itself has been lost. I am unable to say if the human translation is a good one, but I definately know the machine one is bad. So, when you say " 4448:

A discussion about the validity of the claim of such frequent vandalism was allowed for, that lasted 15 days, and which the outcome was that these vandalism-edits did indeed meet the criteria for frequency.

2581:

I think unit conversion (i.e. kilograms and pounds) is not nearly as necessary as these proposed changes. Overloading of the linking syntax to mean two separate things is a pretty big problem right now.

9107: 7629:

Minor correction. Jimbo did not desysop Radiant!. He did 'reprimand' him for removing the block, but also later apologized for doing so. Unfortunately, by that time Radiant! had apparently already left.

7531:

projects to enhance the documentation, but I haven't seen much change. Also, the documentation is helplessly fragmented into a large number of pages, making it harder to find what you are looking for. --

7396:

Which is most important to you? Is it the substantive quality of the published material on the Wiki or is it getting everyone to become experts in Wikifying an article before they make their very first

6067:

I sent this message to Knowledge's email before I knew about this proposals board. Now that I know where to put it, I thought someone might be interested in trying to accomplish this with the articles.

5540:

issues associated with copying of content. Also, if we were to do this now, any attempt to determine what's a reply to what by parsing wikitext would be a nightmare to implement and occasionally wrong.

5263:

The obvious fix to that is to make it apply to users who had thier first edit after the protection started. Ofc this may encourage account stockpiling as our old friend willy does now for page moveing.

2089: 7373:

If you want contributed knowledge from older, experienced people, you must find a better way than expecting them to spend weeks learning how to create and format contributions. Here is what I suggest:

3917:

Bayesian classification works very effectively for spam. A Bayesian classifier for contributions to Knowledge could make it easier to more quickly detect edits which are highly likely to be reverted.

7393:

Before rejecting this proposal out of hand, just ask yourselves how would you handle a submitter who was a Nobel prize winner and who did not want to spend weeks learning how to Wikify a submission.

5555:

I want to see if anyone can identify penis vandals; namely, vandals who put a picture of a penis in a Knowledge article. I want to know if anyone can create a template for penis vandals' talk pages.

8617:. This has been something that has bothered me since I started using Knowledge. The problem is significantly worse when you sign on a talk page with tildes and end up signing with a IP on accident. 2953: 4913:

The problem here is a fundamental one. It goes to the heart of what a wiki is. It is proposed that new registered users be barred from editing certain articles, through no fault of their own, for

2108:

25 a dozen times from the Christmas article. The desire to get dates working with the date preferences formatting is causing our Knowledge pages to unnecessarily be cluttered with useless links.

7481:

never to look at the article again. If I put a template on an article, it stays on my watchlist, and usually goes on my suspense list (although I have trouble finding time to get back to it). --

7472:

The "welcoming" processed is flawed. There has been some recent discussion about the impersonal nature of slapping a "welcome" template on a new editor's talk page, sort of the equivalent of the

6373:

For further clarification on this proposal I'm adding this code below which would appear in a small and discreet way perhaps under a user's name in the upper right hand corner of any page (under

5015:, but not due to any non-wikiness. Mostly because controversial often means little-known in a lot of ways, and one-off anon editors could also have a lot of value to put into those articles. -- 10036: 2526: 8943: 8449: 8388: 8296: 7742: 7685: 7598: 7253:

preamble). I can understand a lack of willingness to address this concern, but it will keep on popping up. What do you say to an editor that calls "secular bias?" Pretend it's not there? --

3799:

I think Shiftchange is referring to grammatical, technical, style and editorial judgements - if that's the case, then I concur, but I agree with Deco if you meant content accuracy review :)

3327: 1988: 9431: 1978:. Any new system should have a subject-only view and keep different threads on separate pages. I don't see a use for the thread summary; all threads should be archived by their subject. 7526:

The appearence of the learning material seeming to be written by computer gurus for reading by computer gurus is not really an appearence — it's true, and an unfortunate reflection of the

2258: 2239: 2099:

is a good guide in this regard. Unfortunately, because of the desire to get date formatting preferences to work, you end up seeing lots of unnecessary links. Let's take the high profile

8986:

The highest priority should be to make editing as easy as possible. Logged in users should learn to look for the "minor edit" checkbox. (If it's not present then you forgot to log in.) --

8605:. I've had a simmilar exeperience. This would not stop people from editing as an IP but still give new users the idea that they can become a member easily. Also it wouldn't be intrusive. 7341: 5456: 4955:

I have to oppose this for all of the above reasons. It would also initiate voting, which is not tolerable. And a consensus has little to do with a hard number. And it's simply unwiki. --

2967: 2283: 4627:

wiki to have some pages semi-protected long-term than to have them fully protected some of the time and constantly vandalized the rest of the time. And it isn't just cult articles like

2373: 1461: 7769:

controversy, appointing the arbcom, and more recently, the pedo case -- yes, Jimbo fucked up WRT Radiant, but he did the right thing by desysoping the most egregrious wheel warriors).

2543: 2456: 2440: 2395: 2178: 2155: 7402: 10015: 9991: 4522: 2896: 1935: 4767:. The requirements are too stern. Why not just have it like the semi-protection policy (no anons, and users who have been members for a few days)? I still think it's a GREAT idea. 2027:

_ _ I'll go look at liquid threads, but as i just noted on perennial, IMO, the Add-only proposal is far too restrictive for the problem identified, and additions of talk-vandalism

1864:

Take the mohammed cartoons page. So much energy is being wasted reverting vandals on the *talk* page alone. And making this change has absolutely no drawbacks as far as I can tell

9656: 6955: 4359: 7178:

stance, either. That's the essence of the NPOV policy: Knowledge doesn't take any "stance" on disputed issues; it just documents the different opinions people have about topics.

6972:

Not exactly. It's more a process for creating alternate versions of articles that are stable, reliable, and have been fact-checked. It can be applied at all levels equally well.

8404:

Note that some idle accounts serve a legitimate purpose, for example for reserving a username for a pending username change, or for preemptive protection against Doppelgangers (

6333:

After doing a cursory perusal of this proposal Wiki area, I could not find a similar proposal however if my following proposal has already been made please do direct me to it!

5114:

Thanks for that idea Sherool. I think everyone agrees that Wiki's current page locking policy is beneficial. How about if we had a rule that said that if the vandalism-edits

8279: 7588:). I think we need to reassess the saying "Knowledge is not a democracy". We have no recourse against people with too much power going off the hook. That needs to change. 6133:. So the suggestion is this: that if an article can't be found, the engine automatically looks for alternative capitalisations - if there is one, then it goes straight there. 3656: 2513:

produces 12 BCE ditto* ] produces ] ditto ] produces ], ] ditto <<1000 kg: -->

2445:

Someone said this same kind of proposal is somewhere on the Knowledge Bugzilla but I have been unable to find it with relevant search terms. Can anyone confirm? Thanks. --

8272: 7974:. And the rules don't apply to Jimbo, because it's his webservers running this project; when necessary, he makes the law and is not necessarily subject to it. (Compare with 4476: 3454: 9091:

You are editing a prior version of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this version will be removed. If you want to edit the current revision instead, click

6410: 6224:

Wold knowledge base does not does not reside at any single location but is available through spoken, written, and internet exchange of information - at least so far.. : -->

3655:

Because the terms of the GFDL insist you include a full copy of the license with each copy of GFDL'd material you distribute. Which is why it's a PITA for e.g. images. See

1872:

philosophy allows anyone to edit anything. Vandals are a pain in the ass, but protection is typically a last resort, since vandalism is easily reverted. Some policies like

8367:

little while, or they could sign up one day after exploring and then either not come back to Knowledge for a couple of days or not even go online for a couple of days. --

6863: 5402: 3500: 3068: 8698:

but let the login fields be above the edit box, so you don't have to click extra. This will be a strong enough reminder for people, but not intrusive. Cookies is evil. --

8690: 7028:

posted the initial information, so you can't even go to their user page to (possibly) see info regarding credibility or to their talk page to ask Where did you get this?

9633: 9447:

With activity generally peaking around 6:00, and an expectation of a surge in article count around 1m, I'm willing to gamble $ 50 on 17:25 +/- 15 minutes (GMT -06:00).

8768: 5504: 8749: 7499:, and so on, which included not only the various processes, but having to gain a MUCH greater familiarity with the policies and guidelines that should inform editing ( 6050: 5672:

and is confident and competent in its use. If a person only has a small number of edits, and all in one space, hen there's no way of guaranteeing that. If you look at

5021: 2850: 1603: 1525: 8867: 8670: 8627:

It's a good idea, but I imagine it would become very irritating for anonymous users to have to click a "continue anonymous editing" option every time they edited. —

8219:

Recently I've been browsing mathematical terms' entries, and it's accentuated something I've thought about before to the point of me digging out this section of WP.

6166:

if you're willing to defend your proposal against possible problems (such as disambiguating between two articles spelled the same with different capitalizations). —

6038: 5404: 3790:

An interesting concept, especially for new users, but I'd be surprised if people found it very interesting to do - few people have completely overlapping interests.

3033: 9863: 9840: 9508:

would be the place to coordinate it at. Though I'm sure hitting 1 million articles is going to get picked up in the press whether we have a press release or not. -

9133: 8845: 8814: 8796: 6888: 6643: 6616: 6602: 6340:

Lately as I'm sure many of you are aware of there has been much vandalism by certain individuals regarding the display of the caricatures depicting Muhammad in the

6122:

ush". In most cases you'll get a search result that has "George Bush" with 100% relevancy, but there ARE some cases in which bad capitalisation leads to an all out

5463: 5455:

I've suggested we allow admins to delete promptly (on-sight, not 7-days) nonfree orphaned fairuse images, if an adequate free image is in place. Please discuss at

4309:

Well, images are embedded in wikitext and can be transcluded through multiple levels of templates. This makes them very difficult to exclude, even if we wanted to.

9986: 9785: 9291: 8925: 8901: 8764: 8705: 8647: 6172: 5881: 5864: 5185: 4190: 1565:

I think it makes sense for the page rubric (instructions/how this pagew works/nominating/etc) to be included in a double-width pane below the top two - again, see

9558: 8952: 8538: 8527: 5200: 3697: 3665: 3650: 3023: 2020: 1997: 1960: 9696:

There's no need for a whole separate process for this. I mean, Indian featured lists? If you want to feature an article on the main page, you don't need to fork

9499: 9305: 8501: 7654: 6967: 6865: 6860: 6168: 6152: 5500: 5399: 4186: 4176: 3715:

people an actual page, but just a reference to it. That way they can be assured of always getting the most up-to-date content. Pass by reference, not by value.

3420: 2892: 2045: 2016: 1956: 1884: 50: 9996:

Currently, when I see a recently uploaded image that was obviously grabbed from some other website, I am supposed to do a 3-step procedure to post the image to

9451: 9381: 9360: 9338: 9325: 8609: 7362:

criticized for using .jpg graphics for some of my formulas and for one of my tables because they were not in the spirit of the Wiki collaboration methodology.

6777: 4933: 3878: 3686: 3459:

This idea has probably come up already at this point and may already have either been shot down or put into the implementation process, but here goes anyway...

2948: 1448: 1411: 1397: 9819: 9799: 8378:

Blocking would probably upset some legitimate users. Would it be reasonable to simply delete these accounts if they haven't been used to log in for a month?

8360: 7880:

The only action I think you could be alluding to is Jimbo's desysoping of Karmafist for wheel warring with him, but I don't see where Karmafist upheld policy.

6269: 3670:

You are correct, but this does not apply to mere links to the material, only if we send out the full text of the article, which we have no intention of doing.

3259: 3010: 1690: 1668: 10059: 9416: 8721: 8621: 6941: 6118:

When I search for, say "George bush", if there wasn't a redirect then I might get a "this page doesn't exist" message because the page is actually at "George

5172: 2934: 2206:

tags (or whatever they end up being called). That way as you're editing articles that have too many repetitive linkings you simply convert ] to <date: -->

1807: 1659: 1621: 9613: 9512: 8656: 8208: 8161: 7634: 7461: 7433: 7015: 6203: 5587: 5366: 5136: 5122: 5101:

like we do now. That way vandal blocks would be less intrusive for normal contributors, while still very effective against your average vandal. I do however

5016: 4074: 2559: 2491: 1500: 9734: 9716: 9480: 9398: 9287:

As of this time, there are less than 19,000 articles to go before this exciting number. I'm trying to see if I can find out the actual day for this number.

9263: 9206: 9074:

I've just seen that the text displayed when editing a version of a page other than the current version has been changed; it now links the word "removed" to

8829: 8458: 8397: 8371: 7888: 7853: 7831: 7229: 7185: 6105: 5105:

agree that all controversial pages should have this installed as a permanent measure. Strictly on a case by case basis just like page blocking works now. --

3997: 3947: 3784: 3111: 3085: 1896: 1830: 1745: 1540: 9396: 9176:

Only slightly related: Would it make sense to force or at least suggest an automatic edit summary that contains "edited old version" whenever you do that?

8886: 8547: 8516: 8136: 7987: 7777: 7751: 7718: 7622: 7489: 7018: 5894: 5793: 5778: 5754: 5730: 5578: 5569: 5385: 3985: 3794: 3182: 3148: 1942: 8481: 8425: 8412: 7535: 7519: 7165: 6101:

artist. It would be a useful visualization tool, but like any other good idea is unlikely to be implemented unless someone steps forward with the code. -

5646: 5420: 4056: 2301: 1756: 9183: 9060: 8804:

this would be helpful, and unexpected logouts do seem to happen with significant frequency. But ther would need to be an easy way for an anon to respond

8759: 8076: 7918: 7336: 7282: 7247: 7103: 7032: 7029: 6910: 6766: 6667: 6581: 6509: 5688: 5627: 5515: 5481: 5288: 5268: 5182: 4879: 4832: 4819: 4803: 4240: 4029: 3819: 3621: 3599: 3589: 3193: 2421: 2405: 2219: 2189: 9691: 9660: 9170: 8305: 7704: 7694: 7666: 7417: 6495: 6475: 6451: 5544: 5090: 4298: 4280: 4266: 4254: 4007: 3972: 3903:

No, the "cultural cringe" is an inferiority complex, the "tall poppy syndrome" is resenting the success of others. Quite possible to have both at once.

3524: 3044:, a poll to gauge consensus on whether good contributors who are not admins should be given the rollback privilege, is closing at 00:00 UTC on Tuesday, 2980: 2842: 2827: 2802: 2472: 1589: 1576: 8123: 7951: 7810: 6471:

also probably would like to see the rendered MathML on the math articles. Turning of images in the browser is an effective way to kill them as well...

5966: 3907: 3448: 2249: 1924: 1906: 1846: 1445: 1394: 1353: 8990: 8321: 8252: 7797: 7316: 6752: 5432: 5235: 4870: 4858: 4349: 4331: 4313: 4136: 3956:

It is a very good idea. Another way of listing the frequently-reverted articles would be simply to do a database dump every couple of weeks, and list

3674: 3336: 2324: 9448: 9438: 9413: 9357: 9335: 9322: 9302: 8578: 8562: 7947:

Precisely. If people haven't broken any rules (and are simply seeking to counteract bullying and vandalism ) then they shouldn't be blocked, period.

7310: 7276: 7223: 7159: 7116: 6976: 6923: 5450: 3719: 3638: 2588: 2576: 2125: 2096: 6996: 6292:. This refers to the joint work of two people, though we can't really redirect to one or the other. Since their work together is more than simply 5359: 3372: 1393:

system in its entirety? If so I agree with you, but not enough people agree with us to use AD/BC only, so we need to offer a reasonable compromise.

8339: 6564:

and added the incomplete Russian-to-English translation to the article. I also added the following note in the article right above the translation:

6091: 5819: 5717: 3536: 1259:, because it only acknowledges the historical meaning behind the word, not that the historical meaning is a god. It can also be difficult to speak 8634: 7071: 6853: 5961: 5941:

with the browser font), be available for addition to specially designated headings. If someone typed a heading ==Safety precautions== __WARNING__

5665: 1855: 9791:

Anon's already see a notice in the upper right of all pages; however, one on every search page for all users at all times would be quite garish.

9752: 9545: 9393: 9281: 8841: 8793: 6591: 6136:

So if you searched "emperor foo", it would also check "Emperor foo", "emperor Foo", and "Emperor Foo" before telling you there's no such page. --

6113: 6046: 6034: 5518: 5484: 3040: 2939: 1792: 10011:

shouldn't do that in the future, and if there was a mistake then please upload again with the correct copyright tag, fully explained. Thanks -

9237: 7099:

Which would screw a huge number of would-be Wikipedians who make edits from behind large-user-number proxies such as schools, universities etc.

6246: 5181:

This is against the will of Jimbo, so this whole vote is pointless. It will never be implemented, regardless of the result of this straw poll --

9757: 9441: 8154: 8110: 8044: 7347:

the USA and in England. I have written two published engineering text books and I am a Fellow of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers.

7093: 6788: 6682: 5533: 4768: 4091: 2998: 2954: 2263:

Someone tell me why we should add new syntax to the parser to replace something that is intuitive and works already, just because it's "ugly".

1921: 1893: 1536:. That was somewhat inconclusive, but we probably do need to break the page up into a collection of pages in order to reduce loading times. -- 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 999: 995: 991: 987: 983: 979: 975: 971: 967: 963: 959: 955: 951: 947: 943: 939: 935: 931: 927: 923: 919: 915: 911: 907: 903: 899: 895: 891: 887: 883: 879: 875: 871: 867: 863: 859: 855: 851: 847: 843: 839: 835: 831: 827: 823: 819: 815: 811: 807: 803: 799: 795: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 771: 767: 763: 759: 755: 751: 747: 743: 739: 735: 731: 727: 723: 719: 715: 711: 707: 703: 699: 695: 691: 687: 683: 679: 675: 6726: 6717: 6700: 5196:. But he also wants 3 revert rule violators to cool off with a lock. Do you know for sure that he doesn't want vandals to cool off at all? - 5158: 3761: 2904: 1752:

The usefulness of this may be limited. Recent changes in editing policy have led many vandals to create accounts where they would not before.

6341: 5869:

It's really good - but how long do you think it'll be before someone suggests putting a link to it in big friendly letters on the main page?

5187: 3912: 3897: 2245: 2031:

specific to the discussion pages, in their histories, are a better medium-term response. I'll post specific suggestions if there is interest.

671: 667: 663: 659: 655: 651: 647: 643: 639: 635: 631: 627: 623: 619: 615: 611: 607: 603: 599: 595: 591: 587: 583: 579: 575: 571: 567: 563: 559: 555: 551: 547: 543: 539: 535: 531: 527: 523: 519: 515: 511: 507: 503: 499: 495: 491: 487: 483: 479: 475: 471: 467: 463: 459: 455: 451: 447: 443: 439: 435: 431: 427: 423: 419: 415: 411: 407: 403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 379: 375: 371: 367: 363: 359: 355: 351: 347: 343: 339: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 273: 269: 265: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 229: 225: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 9536: 8596: 5305: 3301: 9150:

A few editors have expressed an interest in making this notice more visible, please see the current version at ] and a proposed version at

8808:

and not again for that sesson, or at elast a significant time -- intil a "not-logged-in" cookie expired, perhaps? Is this on bugzilla yet?

8283: 8096: 7806:

But if enough of the Knowledge community threaten to leave the project unless Jimbo does, then hopefully he would listen to our grievances

7288: 7254: 7201: 7137: 6959: 6805:), but we've got a lot of rubbish in among the features and the useful. Just recently, we've had the little star added to the top right of 6087:

countries, the last time I checked, there has been a lot of talk about a special offline paper version of Knowledge for such audiences. --

5498:. P.S. It seems that something real hokey was going on a few minutes ago as when I checked the first time Ticheli didn't exist. Ah well. — 5248: 4824:

All but heavily vandalized pages could still be changed by anyone at the spur of the moment. Heavily vandalized pages could be changed by

4224: 2062: 311: 307: 303: 299: 295: 291: 287: 283: 279: 201: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 177: 173: 169: 165: 161: 157: 153: 145: 141: 137: 133: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 109: 105: 101: 9218: 9190:

The new box has been implemented. Please report any issues at the Talk Page. Kusma, that sounds like a good idea, looking in to it more.

5559: 5341: 4759: 4532: 1558:

You don't seem to have a place for the shortcut in your design. I think top-right of the top-right pane is probably the best place - see

1474: 1356: 8977: 8409: 8318: 8120: 8036: 7915: 7794: 7414: 7333: 6973: 6920: 6774: 5566: 5541: 5429: 5222: 4346: 4310: 4004: 3944: 3791: 3671: 3596: 3533: 3445: 3369: 3298: 1903: 1753: 1627: 7607: 6958:

is along these lines, but seems to focus on the top end of the spectrum: it's about getting the best articles into print. The system at

5565:

This is much too specific a vandalism to create a template for. This falls under the more useful broad umbrella of "obvious vandalism".

5109: 4777: 8776:, I'm all for registering to make edits. This is a great comprise to hopefully cut back on vandals and keep post counts more accurate. 8347: 7122: 6056: 5967: 5673: 5026: 3434: 8471: 8189: 6536: 6261:, etc. Intellectuals have been musing over variations of that idea since at least the 1930s (and maybe even the 1910s if one includes 5258: 5079: 4755:

as long as only used for very heavily vandalised pages. Hopefully, this would also allow us to reduce the number of protected pages.

4250:

image tags either. Because if you could, then a vandal could go in, remove them, then we'd have to wait for an admin to readd them. --

1384: 9621:

Not just that by including Hindi, a lot of information about Indian scriptures and culture can be made available to the wikipedians.

4687: 4208:

Never have I ever come across such a wonderful site as this. Very informative. I found myself addicted to reading stuff for hours.

3873:

to tidy the Help and Knowledge namespaces was launched a couple of weeks ago -- I'm sure they'd be happy to have your help there. —

1861:

to impossible to catch on high traffic pages, but I can see no benefit to simply changing it so that you can only append to to page.

1494: 9421:

On closer analysis, there's an anomaly in the monthly difference of the natural log of the article count, on feb. and march of 2004:

6577:

Is this something that could be useful as a template? Are there any other articles that could use similar Babelfish translations? --

6461:

possible on preference disabled systems) to disable image loading... whereas a solution like this would be 'universal'. Am I wrong?

10051:

for short) and it will be deleted after 7 days. You do not need to notify anyone if you use this tag (though it's always polite).

9605: 9573:, a simplified AJAX-ified interface to Knowledge. It presents the user with a very basic but functional interface - to demo it, go 8113: 8047: 7036: 6931: 6546: 5850: 5583:

Wouldn't it become a badge of honour? Your average adolescent male would see a template like that and think, can I have one too...

5414: 4908: 4735: 4723: 4663: 4566: 4230: 2930:

So, I think it'd be beneficial to have a drive to improve the articles for US Senators, to achieve a greater semblance of balance.

1533: 5061: 5000: 3165:

I will pack it the previous Febturday, Octember. Going back to the poll, I've suggested a way forwards based on the trends shown.

6878:

Finally, there are some good articles on controversial topics that are occasionally, if not permanently, given POV/disputed tags.

6526: 6442: 6424: 5704: 4963: 4947: 4771: 4711: 4087:

This can be very useful when the page you are browsing is not refreshing when you clear your cache. Hope you find this useful. --

2378: 9671: 5996:(Articles for deletion). Perhaps a system that takes care of both moves (renames), deletion and keeps would be more productive. 4579: 4983: 4747: 4699: 4611: 4592: 4553: 3770: 3493:

Doesn't your browser have this capability? I use IE, and ther's an icon at the top of the page which mails the current page.

67: 4786:

This proposal is in complete contravention of what Knowledge is, and I don't think you will find many people who support it.

4651: 3835: 9142: 9026: 8543:

I think that requiring them to make edits is silly - but why not require at least one subsequent login in the next few days?

8214: 5398:

does something like this with his students, but he's working in a specialist area which is amenable to encyclopedic writing.

4863:

I don't see the proposal as being temporary. It seems to be permanent unless there can be a 75% consensus to unprotect it.

4731:

Also, people should be required to provide their email address in order to be able to access pages under these restrictions.

4675: 3679:

I agree with Deco: the GDFL may apply to the text of the articles itself, but not to the URLs that link to those articles. —

2081: 1509:

and related pages). It's gotten pretty good feedback so far -- I want to now convert the remaining featured content pages --

9980:

Well, that HTML doesn't seem to work well because it's a form. Can admins make a template out of the above failing HTML? --

9618:

For the benefit of hindi-speaking people all over the internet I suggest that Hindi should also be included as a language.

6874:

Gareth proposes that each of these categories of articles be marked with an icon in the corner appropriate to that category.

4793: 4432:(Please also note -and/ or comment on- the counter-proposal as discussed by Sherool and Scott P. in comment section below.) 3613:

and I don't think there is a corresponding MediaWiki page for the toolbox. We would probably have to get the devs involved.

87: 6382: 5043: 4427:

jumping through all of the hoops, before doing the vandalizm. Perhaps even 90% or 95% would have been stopped, who knows?

2623:

preferences do to the display (The third section in each is what I see with my ISO preference - links shown as italics.) -

7127:

This question needs to be addressed in policy. Although NPOV policy covers the fringe this debate, it does not cover the

6275: 5574:

How is it too specific?? I think it is so common among kinds of vandalism that I think it deserves a template of its own.

5036:

sense to make certain articles entirely 'off-limits' to new editors, or to say to them "sorry, we don't want your input".

9808:

Anonymous browsers aren't the most likely to donate. How about one appeal in the unused white space in the middle of the

6393: 5694: 5349: 3889:

Question: Is the famous Australian "tall poppy syndrome" merely the opposite of Australia's renowned "cultural cringe"?

2619:

For those unsure how the various options currently are displayed (EG me), I have listed a few variants below to see what

2014:

I really don't know. Part of the problem implementing the feature is that no one really has thought it out yet... ^_^" —

1729:

Ah - right. Sorry, yes, that is what I thought you meant. Could work... and would tie in with some of the suggestions at

6696:(path, way) weren't even translated, just transliterated. Gibberish is unencyclopedic, it just doesn't belong here. -- 6044:

You are welcome to make alternative proposals. Also please explain why you support or oppose a particular view point. --

5254:

spot, and wastes account names. And a "good standing" criterion to get around that is a whole big nasty kettle of fish.

3609:

don't seem to provide a way to escape page names with %20 (and I spent a while working on this). Also, I looked through

6796: 6740:. Some of these pages were Babelfished from other Wikipedias. I guess if people had submitted a translation request at 6187: 5655: 3854: 2538: 2452: 2436: 2417: 2391: 2320: 2215: 2174: 2151: 1730: 83: 45: 40: 17: 3812:; the Boot Camp project is broadly intended to help people learn to edit and use the community structure effectively. 3545:

Could we accomplish the same thing with a simple mailto link including the URL? I created a template to demonstrate,

1647:...and meanwhile those of us doing maintenance and sorting edits to blocks of 20-50 articles in one go would do what? 1352:

pages, meaning all pages other than those associated with religion, will use the proposal above. How does this sound?

9602: 8883: 7350:

I am not trying to boast about my accomplishments, but my career experience is pertinent to what I want to say here.

6732:

I would like to see all Babelfish translations deleted on sight. People don't seem to like to clean them up: look at

5946: 5904: 4053: 3931:

revertability index would not be automatically implemented but would pass through a moderation process of some kind.

3776: 3748: 3632:

We'd have to remember to include the full text of the GFDL in every email, e.g. as an attachment. Yay for the GFDL. -

2565:

999.95 kg to 2204.51 pounds. Automatic conversion that gives a wrong number of significant digits is misleading, see

1954:. The short treatment at perennial proposals really doesn't do it justice, so hammer out the details over at meta. — 57: 8872:

The rather tame patch that's been commited to CVS just gives a warning above the edit box when editing anonymously.

4402:

I have a humble proposal that I believe might be able to reduce the workload of vandal-patrolling by 50% or more.

1271:, meaning the terms cannot be confused with one another easily. (One of the reasons of support given for the use of 9258: 9232: 9201: 9165: 9128: 9037: 9001:

I'm not sure if this has been posted here or not, but discussion on it has died down recently, so please check out

6688:

The machine translation for the Uzbek SSR anthem was really bad, I removed it. Many words, even common words like

6199: 3735:

standards, and pulled more towards the front pages of Knowledge, via a link or small statement with a picture. ----

9317:

Thus, at 981.388k articles at about 1pm on Feb. 19th, I calculate that wikipedia will reach 1,000,000 articles on

9083:

You are editing a prior version of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this version will be removed.

6639:", I disagree. I think in some cases we would be misinforming people, which is worse to than saying nothing. -- 5992: 5374: 5311: 5244:

While I think that this proposal would make certain Knowledge articles better, on the whole quality would suffer

5085: 4546: 4367: 3462:

I think Knowledge articles should have the option to "email this to a friend", like many online news sources do.

2973: 35: 8286:. A lot of people agree that accessibility is a useful goal, but what isn't agreed on is how to achieve that. 8095:

should already have been applied to wikimedia because it could help to solve most dispute issues, by applying a

7299: 7265: 7212: 7148: 5441: 4922:

newbie—one and all. The solution to vandalism is not to lock down pages from users. It is to fight the vandals.—

7675:

But it is a social project. Without the community, the encyclopedia would not exist, and could not progress.

7383:

On the Main Wiki page, clearly invite newcomers to submit articles written either in Microsoft Word or in HTML.

7079: 7042: 6551: 6062: 5394:

That is essentially the problem: college papers tend to present theses, not to summarise existing knowledge.

5370: 3532:

encouraging donations. Admittedly, this would've been more useful when Knowledge was nascent and little-known.

1782: 94: 6078:

in-depth definition of one full subject in the few minutes that it takes for your printer to get it all done.

4412:

Then set this editing restriction up so that the only editors who will be permitted to edit these pages must:

2313:

is a very good reason to change it, especially because Knowledge is a resource used by millions of people. --

9997: 9212: 4183:

disputed but was already resolved, HTML comments, e.g.

4082: 3246: 3178: 3107: 3064: 1465:

because there's no such standard in the wider world — all you'll do with that is introduce more confusion. —

2056: 9466: 8960:- this would just make life hard for anons. Maybe a box like below could be above the editing box, instead: 8062: 6210: 5950: 5523: 5097:

accessing the "move" feature) registered acounts only from editing for a brief period rather than blocking

3884: 3850: 62: 7425:

accomodate people who know their stuff but need some guidance unless such people are coming in droves. :{

4646: 2515:

produces 2400 pounds (1000 kg) ditto* ] produces 2400 ]s (1000 ]) ditto*

9742: 8233:

I wonder how many other visitors to expert-intolerant pages feel the same as me? How would anyone know?

7196:

not saying there should be a policy that says wikipedia is secular, but there just needs to be something

7056: 6830: 6806: 6733: 6487:

markup, which show up as the alternate text when an image is disabled, so it's not that big of a problem

5813: 5787: 5748: 5711: 4719:

It's a good idea as an alternative to full blown protection. Agree with many points others have made too

3732: 3725: 3441: 2164: 2144:

From the current state of matters one thing appears to me: the situation must be fixed. That is all. --

1817:

does that already, I believe; if you want to find an admin in a hurry, for something non-vandal related,

1510: 1506: 7495:

intricacies after what I saw as a ridiculously poor article featured on the front page. That lead me to

7440:

It should be noted that there is now a way that newcomers can ask for help. The standard help template (

7378:

Get some of your best volunteer administrators to become person-to-person editing helpers for newcomers.

6447:

Many computers are set so that you cannot alter the browser settings, like at kiosks or in libraries. --

5978: 4445:

The article clearly showed at least a 1 month history of an average of one or more vandal-edits per day.

4246:

An interesting proposal; keep in mind that the reciprocal would also have to be blocked, i.e. you can't

4152:

This would be useful for many reasons (particularly collaborative ones), but a specific reason is thus:

2874:

has insisted that this is a major issue and people should know about it. I would, then, propose editing

9272: 8631: 5468: 5116:

clearly exceeded 1 vandalism edit per day, for 1 week, then the restriction could be applied for 1 week

3870: 3846: 3683: 3647: 2818: 1518: 86:. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either 6560:. It featured a Russian language version of the anthem but without any translation to English. I used 6129:

When I search for something, and when anyone searches for something, chances are they will type it in

5735:

The wording I had in mind is something like this: "You have recently created the article <name: -->

4455:

Perhaps such restrictions could only be removed by a special vote that required a 75% consensus vote.

4096: 3293:

Weighting how closely related two articles are seems potentially useful. This could allow us to build

9955:<input type="radio" name="os0" id="name-no" checked="checked" value="Don't mention my name" /: --> 9522:

Kevin: I don't want to be a dick, but I think you should use 24-hour clock instead of 12-hour clock.

9151: 9114: 8150: 8082: 7998: 6916: 6023: 5986: 5886:

Would that be a bad thing? These collective panics (Kelly Martin's RFC, the user_pedophile template,

5861: 5741: 5737: 5334: 3858: 3808:

There is no such place right now. I would like to see it happen, however. You might suggest it at

3174: 3103: 3060: 2867: 2077: 5973:

My proposals (please respond/discuss/vote on sub page so as not to disrupt regular discussion here)

5377:

policies. If there's anyone willing to put in the effort to ensure such compliance, then go for it.

1363: 9838: 9505: 6162:. I believe that programming a system like this would be unfeasible, but you can always take it to 5699:

I don't know where I need to be to propose a new user talk page template (or if this is covered by

4482:

Please let me know what you think about this by preceeding your comment with one of the following:

4199: 3809: 2882:

Note that page moves do not show up on watchlists until the page has been subsequently edited. See

1714:, I didn't reiterate this point and you thought I meant to include such a time delay on all users. 1514: 7332:

theory, you can derive any false statement, including the existence of God"), try to edit it out.

6022:. Also the process is more like a vote which is easily infested by "vote only accounts" and other 4118: 9504:

Doesn't look like there's going to be a press release unless some people decide to go start one.

9330:

Scratch that, 7pm on feb 28th. But activity is peeks at about 6pm, so i'm going to skew that to

8586: 7993: 7541: 7055:. This would result in the template appearing on every talk page edit screen. Please comment at 6836: 6823: 6657: 6276: 5075: 5070:

reduces the ability of new users to jump into the mix harms our ability to maintain a community.

3005: 2554: 1469: 8652:

But what if the user is posting anonymously because he/she doesn't want to / can't use cookies?

5740:. Please do not recreate the article. If you disagree with the article's deletion, please go to 3444:, which is undergoing a live trial right now. It's very lightweight and easy for anyone to use. 8405: 7052: 5830: 5315: 5215: 4809: 4371: 3842: 2875: 2852: 1308:

be required that we change the current Knowledge policy. The current Knowledge years pages use

29: 8087:

I also believe there are some good solutions to solve technical issues for every day usage of

7358:

Wiki style guidelines when I submitted my first article. That would have taken weeks to do.

5168:

billions of potential editors, it is possible that someone besides you would think of this. --

4107: 9493: 9104: 8628: 8524: 8174: 7700:

people are flawed and will make mistakes, overall they can still be doing the right thing. -

6987: 6839:— good, all-round articles that we can be proud of, yet aren't quite as good as they could be 6802: 6763: 6599: 6578: 5457:

Knowledge talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#fairuse replaced: should they be speedied faster?

5053:

controversial articles. THIS IS NOT HOW A WIKI WORKS. ANONYMOUS EDITING IS A NECESSARY EVIL.

4756: 3904: 3680: 3644: 3397: 2883: 2859: 2814: 2233:. Ideally, whatever methos is used, it would involve a single markup for each complete date. 1618: 9663:. Is it feasible? I need your feedback. Please help to save these articles from deletion. -- 3413:

tag, and even worse, no action taken at all on dubious articles run across by most editors.

9966: 9277:

Will it be any milestone commemoration to mark 1 million articles reaching achievement? :)

9143: 8859: 8782: 8478: 8422: 8357: 7971: 7651: 6938: 6737: 6518:

I support this, however, I do not support having a vote for it at this time. Discussion is

6195: 5857: 5817: 5791: 5775: 5752: 5727: 5715: 5550: 4928: 4903: 4562:

editing articles, and therefore it does not contravene Knowledge's open access principles.

3513: 3484: 3224: 2507:

produces 13 January formatted by user prefs <<2000-01-13: -->

2073: 2069: 1805: 1772: 1720: 1703: 1640: 1137: 8237:

simple or a more expert sub-entry, based on the experiences of those visiting that entry.

7174:

does cover it, and, yes, Knowledge takes no religious stance. Equally, Knowledge takes no

5325: 4382: 3938:

and possibly automatically invoking moderation procedures, not a bad thing in my opinion.

1876:

also require allowing editors to edit others' comments (i.e. to remove personal attacks).

1505:

I just finished converting all featured article-related pages to use a new interface (see

8: 10056: 9833: 9796: 9713: 9564: 9075: 8687: 8679: 8328: 7984: 7885: 7828: 7774: 7619: 7551: 7456: 7430: 7084:

Could we make it so IP's that have created 2 sockpuppets cannot register new accounts? -

7068: 7048: 6557: 6243: 5624: 5382: 5058: 4026: 3874: 3618: 3610: 3586: 3521: 3297:

of articles that could be used to suggest related articles that are not directly linked.

3082: 3020: 2566: 2487: 2296: 1881: 1408: 1381: 8332: 4430:

Two further consideration about when such restrictions could be placed and/ or lifted.

9377: 9253: 9227: 9196: 9160: 9123: 8827: 8812: 8535: 8262: 8092: 7728: 7243: 6886: 5875: 5846: 5806: 5765: 5682: 5319: 5155: 5071: 4376: 4221: 4072: 3995: 3966: 3759: 3125: 3002: 2825: 2551: 2523: 2470: 2256: 2237: 1951: 1826: 1739: 1684: 1653: 1488: 1466: 1428:, and it is recommended for Christians that may use CE/BCE. Not to mention, the use of 1232: 9896: 9813:

1, where c=2 to begin with and is tuned based on user feedback and Foundation need? --

6417: 6416:

I've removed the voting sections. Let's discuss first before blindly voting (see also

5723:

I should be bold, so that we can see the proposed wording and maybe use it ourselves!

1936:

Knowledge:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Discussion Pages - Bring Modern Interface

1585:

Excellent ideas, Aloan. I've implimented them (if I missed any, go ahead and fix it).

10025: 9542: 9530: 9315:

the article count on day x equals the article count on day (x-1) times 1.002035629...

9278: 9021: 8965: 8918: 8702: 7555: 7006:

there's no "formal" status or categorisation of articles in Knowledge "regulated" by

6145: 4848: 4169: 4124: 3800: 3740: 3385: 3353: 3286: 3170: 3099: 3056: 6758:

Now, that's what I should have heard from the start. I didn't even know there was a

6226:

If you choose to add the concept I am certain someone can do a much better job : -->

4875:

Zoe, how would you feel if some less restrictive unlocking rule were used instead? -

2208:. You wouldn't have to go around changing all of the dates to match ISO format. -- 9749: 9487: 9462: 9288: 9052: 8746: 8575: 8496: 8205: 8133: 8058: 7823:

And what are your grievances? Or are you throwing him out just for the heck of it?

7631: 7547: 7441: 7179: 7088: 6906:

test (click through random articles to see what you get) can be very depressing. --

6533: 6377:) (which granted would look nothing like the final UI) but just for clarification: 5824: 5802: 5575: 5556: 5302: 5118:(and if abused, could be removed prematurely by a sysop)? Would you support this? - 4978: 4743:- Together with WP:Semi-protection, it is a good way to keep Knowledge manageable. 4684: 4213: 3781: 3314: 3294: 2275: 1665: 1614: 1227:

Although this method would acknowledge Jesus (Christ) directly, noting this era as

9912:<input type="text" name="amount" id="don-amount" maxlength="30" size="5" /: --> 9346: 9296: 8408:). However, both of these really have better potential solutions in the software. 8317:. I've seen some articles do an excellent job of this, though - give it time. :-) 8248:(NB: WikiExperts, please feel free to edit / enhance text above for conformity) -- 5490:

Ah, how would I not know him (our regions band and my high school have played his

4542: 4262:

reduce the number of copyvio-images that new users in particaular tend to upload.

1664:

Um, those of you doing so could concentrate on writing/updating the encyclopedia?

1251:

acknowledge Christ as a god, simply as a historical figure, which most scientists

9982: 9859: 9815: 9781: 9598: 9552: 9244: 9180: 8879: 8854: 8778: 8667: 8653: 8606: 8593: 8475: 8419: 8354: 6935: 6749: 6664: 6628: 6266: 6191: 6088: 5835: 5815: 5789: 5772: 5750: 5724: 5713: 5636: 5245: 5197: 5119: 4923: 4898: 4876: 4829: 4800: 4519: 4324: 4049: 3480: 3407: 3219: 2871: 2573: 2134: 2130: 2042: 1802: 1768: 1716: 1699: 1636: 1610: 1573: 1325: 1236: 1164: 8942: 8448: 8387: 8295: 7741: 7684: 7597: 6632: 5413:

This is already been done at several universities, to some success. Please see

5214:. I don't see a way reconcile that conclusion with the spirit of wikipedia and 4600:. I don't see this proposal as creating even more restrictions to users, but as 3326: 1987: 10052: 10045: 10012: 9809: 9792: 9763: 9709: 9705: 9642: 7980: 7975: 7881: 7876: 7824: 7770: 7715: 7615: 7500: 7451: 7426: 7064: 7011: 6903: 6435: 6258: 6239: 6235: 5700: 5620: 5378: 5338: 5054: 4997: 4943:. Knowledge is not a clique, and we should not support the formation of such. 4732: 4720: 4660: 4644: 4563: 4022: 3614: 3582: 3549: 3517: 3078: 3016: 2914:

criticism sections, or sections which essentially serve as criticism sections.

2483: 2402: 2349:

Format any date such as year-month or just year in addition to year-month-date

2291: 2186: 2120:. This would help to drastically cut down on the number of unnecessary links. 1877: 1818: 1798: 1566: 1559: 1537: 1404: 1377: 9951:<input type="radio" name="os0" id="name-yes" value="Mention my name" /: --> 9771: 6315:

A proposal for simple "no image loading" preference on Wikimedia related sites

4405:

Create a restriction on page editors, that could be called something like the

2511:

produces 2000 ditto* <<12 BC: -->

9886:<input type="hidden" name="business" value="donation@wikipedia.org" /: --> 9697: 9679: 9659:

and done work very deeply in this. But Knowledge administration is going for

9648: 9630: 9373: 9248: 9222: 9191: 9155: 9118: 9002: 8824: 8809: 8682: 8618: 8554: 8182: 8175: 7571: 7567: 7527: 7512: 7504: 7496: 7473: 7399: 7236: 7114: 7007: 6883: 6759: 6741: 6640: 6637:

Even an unreliable translation is more informative than no translation at all

6613: 6588: 6543: 6462: 6399: 6364: 6163: 5957:

in moving said disclaimer link to the top screen (a more conspicuous place).

5870: 5839: 5677: 5644: 5613: 5530: 5495: 5460: 5395: 5265: 5219: 4957: 4944: 4868: 4817: 4791: 4632: 4217: 4069: 4039: 3992: 3978: 3961: 3862: 3825: 3756: 3606: 3498: 3218:

No, he meant a way forward from the past from the future to the present. :-)

2963:

is too big to be navigable. It needs to be sub categorised like stubbing. --

2931: 2822: 2799: 2666:

December 25, 2005 - December 31. December 25, 2005 - December 31.

2467: 2253: 2234: 1873: 1844: 1836: 1822: 1814: 1789: 1734: 1679: 1648: 1548: 1483: 1373: 1263:

in dialog, and also, it has three letters. When we drop the "E" and use just

1255:

that he is. It is basically the same as saying the days of the week, such as

10021:

You're not supposed to do an ifd listing in the case of copyvios. Just add

9471: 8067: 7570:, who attempted to uphold policy by unblocking the creator of the userbox. 2509:

produces 13 January 2000 ditto <<2000: -->

2194:

So your suggestion is to not have any special formatting but just recognize

9727: 9701: 9664: 9626: 9525: 9430: 9352:, starting at 1:30 on Jan 19th, I calculate reaching 1,000,000 articles at 9016: 9011: 9006: 8972: 8910: 8898: 8699: 8644: 7948: 7850: 7807: 7766: 7563: 7516: 7483: 7100: 7003: 6991: 6990:

system; five-star articles are featured, one-star articles are sub-stubs.--

6506: 6289: 6137: 5891: 5298: 5232: 5133: 5106: 5040: 4853: 4843: 4708: 4473: 4161: 4088: 3982: 3816: 3736: 3431: 3166: 3095: 3052: 2698:

25 December 2005 - 31 December. 25 December 2005 - 31 December.

1600: 1586: 1552: 1522: 9942:<input type="text" size="25" name="os1" id="os1" maxlength="200" /: --> 9584:

In my opinion the interface of Knowledge is too overloaded and confusing.

7469:

still finding policies, guidelines and resources I didn't realize existed.

5210:

idea that anonymous and new contributors are not as worthy as other users

3187:

You most assuredly mean a way backwards based on the trends to be shown. -

9887:<input type="hidden" name="item_name" value="One time donation" /: --> 9585: 9509: 9458: 9041: 8996: 8934: 8572: 8544: 8513: 8440: 8379: 8368: 8287: 8249: 8186: 8158: 8153:(of the second type) to me. Also, the so-called "new idea" is already on 8099: 8054: 7733: 7701: 7676: 7663: 7589: 7584: 7532: 7508: 7085: 6785: 6679: 6523: 6492: 6472: 6448: 6439: 6431: 6421: 6301: 6254: 6218:

googled for the concept of a World Knowledge Base. Nothing there. : -->

6102: 5958: 5603: 5584: 5356: 4973: 4628: 4576: 4395: 4328: 4295: 4277: 4263: 4251: 4237: 4212:

Thanks for the compliments. I just wrote a short article on the topic on

3894: 3869:

linked from the Navigation box) is underway right now, and an associated

3832: 3716: 3692: 3660: 3633: 3352:

would not be seen unless someone was specifically looking for it). --- --

3318: 3188: 2977: 2964: 2945: 2723: 2707: 2703: 2678: 2671: 2646: 2638: 2264: 2104: 1979: 1939: 1424:

is referenced in the opening. Many Christians use CE and interpret CE as

1291:

in a sentence also roll off the tongue easily (e.g - It was ongoing from

9880: 9311: 9299: 5937: 5932: 5927: 5922: 5917: 5911: 4659:. Details TBD. No need to repeat all the good reasons given by others. 3657:

Knowledge:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License#2. VERBATIM COPYING

3276:

Metadata could be generated by all and controlled by the masses (like a

3094:

Don't tell me you didn't pack your time travelling device this morning!

1634:

make their changes while the cannonading by vandals would be minimized.

9592: 9177: 9117:

regarding the message (also note the announcement above on this page).

8873: 8820: 7642: 7575: 6964: 6907: 6850: 6842:

Standard articles — stuff that doesn't make us howl acronyms (AFD, POV)

6746: 6723: 6714: 6697: 6661: 6262: 5954: 5810: 5784: 5745: 5708: 5662: 5283: 5255: 5169: 4744: 4696: 4620: 4606: 4589: 4550: 4294:

articles, that are mighty embarrassing on computer science articles.--

4043: 3752: 3349: 3277: 3270: 3045: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2765: 2740: 2570: 2463: 2370: 2038: 1570: 1417: 9967:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/foundation/7/78/Credit_cards.png

8132:

Nor me, you'll have to explain much more clearly what you're saying -

6859:

I don't understand. How is that different from what we already have?

9683: 9652: 9577:

and select the big blue "Start Gollum browser" button on the right.

8088: 8015: 8012: 8004: 7559: 6297: 6293: 4640: 3943:

suggest we do an offline trial of this with a training and test set.

3345: 3310: 3263: 2837: 2769: 2744: 2583: 2534: 2447: 2431: 2412: 2386: 2315: 2210: 2169: 2146: 2100: 1337: 1256: 6722:

Added an external link to a somewhat better English translation. --

6288:), or if there is more than one sensible redirect target. Example: 4438:

Perhaps such a restriction could only be placed on pages for which:

4149:

gets included somewhere on any edit page, eg in grey at the bottom.

9969:" alt="Visa, MasterCard, Discover, American Express, eCheck" /: --> 9962:<input class="centered" type="submit" value="Donate Now!" /: --> 8987: 8559: 8336: 8103: 8027: 7790: 7110: 6123: 5640: 4864: 4813: 4787: 4672: 3494: 3282: 3255: 2195: 1840: 1609:

Yes it did. Good work Raul. (Although I might change the colour of

9779:

Please add at least one of those on the search results page(s). --

9476: 9036:

yet, it's "Discussions for Adminship", a potential replacement of

8666:, with the option to turn off the login page as Hiyya54 suggests. 8072: 7450:

on their talk page, someone should show up to provide assistance.

6186:

This would probably be more noticed by coders if you posted it at

8718: 8031: 8023: 8008: 7646: 7175: 5229: 5037: 4636: 4470: 3813: 2955:

Category talk:Living people#Category:Living people of South Korea

2090:

Creating syntax for date preference formatting that isn't linking

1197:

that Jesus Christ is God, and it also leaves Christians with the

9888:<input type="hidden" name="item_number" value="DONATE" /: --> 9313:, using 10 samples from dec 2002 to dec 2005, I calculated that 8571:

A subsequent login test would fail as some folks never logout.

8230:

more interested in providing deeper, not shallower description.

7047:

There is currently a debate about including wikitext similar to

6190:. No doubt there's a long-standing Bugzilla request for this. — 5949:. Of similar benefit would be making it appear near the link to 4828:

with a little patience. That would be the only difference. No?-

4631:, it's articles on topics the immature find funny as well, like 3977:

The top 100 articles that Grutness refers to is pretty close to

3258:

is created (in order to complement categories, et al) by users.

9070:

Place "edit current" link in warning about not editing current?

5273:

The original proposal mentioned that only users that have been

4459:

without significantly restricting access to serious editors.

4104:{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|action=purge}} 1710:

I think I see the confusion now. Despite my initial mention of

9812:, and one at the bottom of the search results if rand()*c: --> 9574: 9570: 7972:

he consulted with the arbcom before blocking/desysoping anyone

7366:

I admit that most of the criticisms were completely justified.

6569: 6561: 6488: 6083: 5703:), so I'll do it here. I regularly patrol Recent Changes and 5333:

And in any case, it has been implemented (or a variant). See

3285:(Google ranking technique) system that is user generated. -- 2919:

Rick Santorum John Thune Bill Frist John Cornyn George Allen

2346:

Group linked yyyy-mm-dd dates by yyyy-mm in addition to mm-dd

1156: 90:

a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

7342:

Attracting contributions from older, highly qualified people

4442:

Three or more editors had petitioned for such a restriction.

4236:

main page FAs while still leaving them generally editable.--

2429:

Just wondering how this is going. Hope it's going well. --

2124:

reason of getting the date preferences formatting to work.

82:

This page contains discussions that have been archived from

9894:<input type="hidden" name="on0" value="Anonymity" /: --> 9348:

Dec 2003 to January 2006, resulting in a day-multiplier of

8019: 7171: 6656:

Even translations by people are not always that good - see

6181: 4894: 3509: 3048: 2878:

to notify users of the bug. The text would look like this:

2760:

March 2005 - June 2005. March 2005 - June 2005.

2674: 2642: 2410:

Excellent! I am very much looking forward to this one. --

1869: 1348:

for exclusively non-Christian religious pages. However for

1292: 1207: 8947: 8453: 8392: 8300: 7746: 7689: 7602: 7413:

would help us to direct this effort better. Thanks again.

4917:. A wiki simply does not work that way. It must virtually 3474:

additional (free) adviertising within the academic world.

3331: 1992: 9892:<input type="hidden" name="on1" value="Comment" /: --> 9891:<input type="hidden" name="cmd" value="_xclick" /: --> 8200:

of articles with titles that Wiktionary entries". Why a

8106:. We could find no new name on internet for it just yet. 6484: 3478:

I love the idea. It's also simple to code and implement.

2944:

It would be logical and standardised with the watchlist.

9392:

Yeah I got a few articles ready to go for one million --

9310:

Assuming an exponential growth, and using the data from

8053:

This seems to just be a poor "markating" scheme itself.

5511:

I must say... there wasn't a dry eye in the audience.)

4360:

A proposal that might eliminate 50% or more of vandalism

2918:

Trent Lott Conrad Burns George Voinovich Tom Coburn: -->

9889:<input type="hidden" name="no_note" value="0" /: --> 9762:

I think there should be an appeal for donations on the

9655:

does have. I am asking this question because i created

9247:, I've added the shortcut box to the top of this page. 7550:

de-adminned several users for their participation in a

6919:, currently undergoing discussion and experimentation. 6572:. You can help Knowledge by fixing the inaccurate parts 6568:

This is an incomplete automated translation done using

6006:

deletions are determined. Many (if not most) end up as

5981:

argument style and I propose it here for all deletions.

4812:: "Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone". 3430:

Thoughts? Comments? Volunteers for implementation? -

9857:

Okay, I've removed the excess rules and the image. --

9321:. (999.5k on feb 28th 1pm, 1001.5k on march 1st 1pm) 8149:

Neither do I, in fact, it looks dangerously close to

6227:

of writing the description - I just had the concept.

4504:(Note, before placing comment or vote, please review 1321: 1296: 1173: 9832:

Seems like a good idea, but perhaps not so gaudy? --

8282:. We also have a very controversial style guide at 6082:

You mean you want Knowledge to become an electronic

5301:. That site is pure vandalism (and very fun, too!). 3605:(and permalink) using underscores because Knowledge 3269:

Although at present, folksonomies are freeform (see

9893:<input type="hidden" name="lc" value="en" /: --> 5514:

Anyway, thanks again! Sorry for the confusion.. --

4539:

Not necessarily support, but don't instantly reject

4422:

Have at least 25 edits in their contributions file.

3849:are excellent pages that do much of what you ask. 3775:Is there any system where a specific user, such as 3691:

I was interpreting the section heading literally. -

2985:Not a new idea (although not a bad one). See also 9897:http://wikimediafoundation.org/cgi-bin/paywiki.cgi 9875:This one might fit better on the new search page: 5736:. This was deleted in accordance with Knowledge's 3416:To solve this problem, I propose that we create a 3363:The main problem I see is that adding anything to 2976:- let's add a few feature to make this easier. -- 2250:Knowledge Talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) 1304:The best part about this proposal is that it will 9895:<input type="hidden" name="notify_url" value=" 8678:(and strongly) - but not without the checkbox. -- 8474:to see the current rate of new account creation! 6375:Username | my talk | my preferences | etc. | etc. 6160:Category:Redirects for alternative capitalisation 3034:Request for rollback privileges poll closing soon 2785:March 2005 - June. March 2005 - June. 2126:Knowledge:Make only links relevant to the context 2097:Knowledge:Make only links relevant to the context 10003:As a result of the tedious AFD posting process, 6542:Sorry Neo, did you actually read the proposal?? 5771:, for example? (I edited the wording a little). 5192:I know that Jimbo wants Wiki to be available to 4407:Controversial material- editing restriction rule 3958:Knowledge: Top 100 articles by number of reverts 3751:, or otherwise consider it for a feature of the 9992:"Copyrighted and subject to deletion" image tag 9915:<option value="USD" selected="selected": --> 8757:, brilliant idea, this gets me all the time -- 6930:Some WikiProjects already do this, for example 6801:Knowledge is growing by the second (just click 6713:(in) were transliterated as "I" and "V" !!! -- 2735:December 25 - 31. December 25 - 31. 2384:, discussed above, is absolutely essential. -- 2133:occurred on the same day as the signing of the 1892:impossible if the pages were locked somehow. -- 9901: 7641:This unhappy event is not alone. For example, 2999:Talk:List_of_sailors/Archived_feature_proposal 2338:Signature timestamps should obey date locales. 9614:Inclusion of Hindi as a language in Knowledge 9334:, that's Central Standard Time (GMT -06:00). 8729:only if the checkbox feature is implemented. 8278:. There's a project to address this issue — 8119:I don't really understand any of your ideas. 6370:<-- signature got deleted with poll.. heh 6342:Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy 5909:I propose that a small warning icon, such as 4184:can be used to notify prospective editors. — 2354:should show up as 2005-12 in ISO8601 locales. 2341:This is probably assumed by the <date: --> 2246:Knowledge:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) 1501:Standardization of Featured content interface 9629:. Or maybe I misunerstood your request. -- 8553:That's a reasonable idea. Also, looking at 8284:Knowledge:Make technical articles accessible 5365:They'd have to be created in userspace (i.e 4419:Have been registered for at least one month. 4042:, who has apparently done this a while ago. 3015:The developers have said they ignore votes. 2359:should show up as "0567" in ISO8601 locales. 2063:Knowledge:Village pump (perennial proposals) 1599:All done! I think it came out quite nicely. 8226:I offer 'polynomial' as today's example. 7732:within the project seems to be a mistake. 3455:Add "Email this Article to a Friend" Option 3051:. If you haven't weighed in, please do so! 1155:. Also, it would stop confusing pages like 9690:But Knowledge administration is going for 8022:that I believe it could help solving that 6057:Knowledge talk:Articles for deletion/Patch 5968:Knowledge talk:Articles for deletion/Patch 5674:Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Standards 5494:! And Knowledge, it seems, knows him too: 2112:overlinked to irrelevant dates and years. 1163:. I got this idea from the customs of the 9657:Today's featured article for Portal:India 8785:) 12:37 AM, Monday; January 30 2006 (EST) 7298: 7264: 7211: 7147: 6598:someone goes on and actually fixes it. -- 5915:(which has the benefit of being scalable 5451:Deleting replaced fairuse orphans quicker 5297:Maybe we should redirect some vandals to 3571:The source is (previous post was wrong): 3487:) 11:17 AM, Monday; January 30 2006 (EST) 2813:This discussion has been copied/moved to 1775:) 1:07 PM, Tuesday; January 31 2006 (EST) 1643:) 12:55 AM, Monday; January 30 2006 (EST) 1389:What neologism are you referring to? The 9541:Let's stop it at 999,999 and ruminate. 7319:(re-added 05:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)) 6932:Knowledge:WikiProject Chemicals/Worklist 6627:Using the example you gave, compare the 6002:is misleading, this is not a page where 5415:Knowledge:School and University Projects 5279:at least 25 edits in their contributions 4991:in its current form. However, a similar 2165:Talk:Christmas#Snipping extraneous links 1723:) 8:12 PM, Monday; January 30 2006 (EST) 1706:) 8:07 PM, Monday; January 30 2006 (EST) 1534:Wikipedia_talk:Featured_pictures_visible 1267:, it has no grammatical similarities to 1142:Hello, everyone. I am in support of the 9682:have Today's featured article as today 9651:have Today's featured article as today 6845:Sub-standard articles — stuff that does 6114:Auto-Detect Capitals Mistakes in Search 5705:Category:Candidates for speedy deletion 5310:Deciding policy is beyond the scope of 4137:Show Last Editor's Comment When Editing 3924:a `revertability index' for each edit. 2940:Change (last) to (dif) in History pages 2103:article. It has over a dozen links to 14: 9758:Fundraising on the search results page 6773:to edit out anything totally bizarre. 1231:simply masks the reasoning behind the 1210:and previous will be abbreviated with 10032:any article, you can now tag it with 9881:https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr 9354:11am on Feb 28th, again, (GMT -0:600) 8258:The templates you're looking for are 8204:? Where might this template be used? 6556:Recently I stumbled upon the article 4112:("purge cache" or something similar) 3913:Bayesian Classifier for contributions 3041:requests for rollback privileges poll 1856:Why aren't Discussion pages add-only? 1432:in my compromise has it standing for 9913:<select name="currency_code": --> 9154:. Please comment at the talk page. 8091:growing up in wikipedia. Ideas such 6215:had an idea for the editors of wiki 6184:could drop the damn capital at last. 6158:We have a system in place for this: 5006:Completely and Fundamentally Opposed 2821:. please continue discussion there. 8245:examples and definitions might be. 6456:Let's admit something, for many of 6323:about content filtering but simple 5947:without being a disclaimer template 5442:Analogies to understand Disciplines 4972:never let it happen (rightly so). 2905:Parity within US Senators' articles 1731:Knowledge: Blocking policy proposal 1628:Time Delay for Non-Registered Users 23: 9688:They can, but it's not mandatory. 8823:express your support on bugzilla. 8348:Autoblock on inactive new accounts 7123:Is Knowledge Secular or Religious? 6960:WikiProject Chemicals/Organization 6833:— high criteria, not given lightly 5801:I've tried to use the template on 5744:and plead for the article there." 4707:For all the reasons stated above. 4374:on 17:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC) by 3861:myself.) Actually an overhaul of 3857:are other attempts. (I'm fond of 3855:Knowledge:Knowledge in eight words 3747:You might want to propose this at 3124:No, I packed it tomorrow morning. 3001:. You can vote for those bugs. — 2664:December 25, 2005 - December 31. 2343:proposal: ] should work like ], ]. 24: 18:Knowledge:Village pump (proposals) 10071: 9879:<form class="contrib" action=" 9625:I think what you want is already 9032:For those who don't know what it 7444:) explains that if a user places 5330:/ ) 17:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 5275:registered for at least one month 4808:I would strongly oppose it. See 4543:insightful article by Clay Shirky 4391:Dear fellow vandalism patrollers, 3749:Knowledge:WikiProject Visual arts 3440:You may be interested in the new 2696:25 December 2005 - 31 December. 2334:Related date gripes/suggestions: 2139:It's not relevant to the context! 2057:Full semi-protection of Knowledge 1697:I don't understand the question. 1176:forward will be abbreviated with 9580:On the website the author says 9551:I heartily endorse this idea. - 9475: 9470: 9429: 9113:Please see the discussion here: 8941: 8447: 8386: 8294: 8071: 8066: 7740: 7683: 7596: 5936: 5931: 5926: 5921: 5916: 5910: 5314:, so I've moved the page to the 4231:Protection against vandal images 3643:Why would we have to do that? — 3560: 3325: 1986: 78:Village pump (proposals) archive 9957:List anonymously</label: --> 9905:<label for="don-amount": --> 7035:(I somehow got logged out; I'm 5993:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 4366:This discussion was moved from 2974:Knowledge:Category math feature 8034:it, consider taking a look at 7727:As far as I'm aware, only the 6355:Does such an idea make sense? 6327:image load, no load settings. 5984:I also propose the merging of 5977:I am quite satisfied with the 5890:) are really getting tiresome 5223:00:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC) 5201:00:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC) 5188:00:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC) 5159:22:47, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 5137:23:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 5123:22:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 5110:22:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 5001:00:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC) 4984:00:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC) 4964:00:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC) 4948:22:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 4934:22:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 4909:22:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 4880:21:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 4871:21:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 4859:21:24, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 4833:22:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 4820:21:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 4804:21:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 4794:21:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 4567:22:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 4554:22:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 4523:21:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC) 3771:Peer review user contributions 2401:Looking into this one now. :) 2252:for more related discussions. 1547:Good idea. I've started with 13: 1: 10060:04:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 10016:00:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 9998:Knowledge:Images for deletion 9987:05:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 9952:<label for="name-yes": --> 9864:05:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 9841:05:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 9820:04:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 9800:04:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 9786:23:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC) 9753:08:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 9735:13:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 9717:12:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 9672:11:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 9634:13:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC) 9606:14:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 9571:Gollum, the Knowledge browser 9559:13:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 9546:06:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 9537:22:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 9513:19:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 9500:05:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 9481:22:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 9452:22:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 9442:21:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 9417:20:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 9399:04:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 9382:20:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 9361:19:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 9339:19:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 9326:19:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 9306:18:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 9292:18:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 9282:16:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 9264:02:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 9238:04:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 9207:01:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 9184:18:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 9171:03:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 9134:02:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 9108:02:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC) 9061:06:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC) 9027:21:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 8991:18:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 8978:09:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 8597:23:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 8579:19:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 8563:19:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 8548:04:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 8539:07:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 8528:21:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 8517:15:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 8502:10:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 8482:00:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 8459:00:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 8426:00:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 8413:03:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 8398:03:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 8372:03:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 8361:02:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 8340:19:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 8322:02:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 8306:01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 8253:01:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 8215:Complexity Relevance (Voting) 8209:12:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 8190:07:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC) 8162:15:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 8137:10:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 8124:08:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 8114:07:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 8077:22:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 8048:07:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC) 7988:15:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 7952:08:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 7919:20:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 7889:19:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 7854:19:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 7832:18:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 7811:18:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 7798:02:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 7778:06:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 7752:00:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 7719:23:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 7705:04:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 7695:00:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 7667:23:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 7655:23:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 7635:22:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 7623:08:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 7608:05:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 7536:17:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 7520:18:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 7490:12:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 7462:09:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 7434:09:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 7418:09:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 7403:07:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 7337:07:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 7317:03:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 7287:Any other opinions on this?-- 7283:08:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 7248:07:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 7230:07:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 7186:06:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 7166:06:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 7117:19:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 7104:08:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 7094:04:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 7072:04:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 7033:16:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC) 7019:13:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 6997:09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 6977:00:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 6968:16:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 6942:14:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 6924:10:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 6911:00:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 6789:01:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC) 6778:05:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 6767:00:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 6762:. Thanks for the tip guys. -- 6753:22:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 6727:22:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 6718:22:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 6701:22:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 6683:21:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 6668:12:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 6644:11:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 6617:11:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 6603:10:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 6592:10:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 6582:10:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 6547:00:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 6537:00:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 6527:19:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 6510:20:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 6496:00:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC) 6476:23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 6452:20:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 6443:20:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 6425:19:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 6403:01:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC) 6368:21:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 6270:02:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 6247:04:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 6204:04:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 6173:20:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 6153:14:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 6106:17:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 6092:02:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 6051:02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 6039:02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 5962:03:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC) 5953:and following the example of 5895:18:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 5820:18:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 5794:09:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 5779:23:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 5755:08:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 5731:02:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 5718:22:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 5689:21:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 5666:02:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 5647:21:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 5628:06:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 5588:02:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 5579:02:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 5570:02:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 5560:01:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC) 5545:02:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 5534:02:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 5519:03:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 5505:03:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 5485:03:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 5464:04:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 5433:23:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 5421:17:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 5405:14:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 5386:13:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 5360:13:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 5080:09:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 5062:09:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 4772:02:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 4724:15:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 4712:08:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC) 4453:For removing the restriction: 4350:00:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 4332:16:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 4314:10:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 4299:16:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 4281:07:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 4267:05:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 4255:01:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 4241:01:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 4225:08:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 4191:20:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 4177:14:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 4092:01:06, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 2396:20:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 2374:10:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 2325:15:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 2302:09:35, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 2284:04:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 2259:00:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 2240:22:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 2220:22:10, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 2190:21:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 2179:21:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 2156:21:47, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 1159:from referring to years like 10037:Orphaned unfree not replaced 9956:<label for="name-no": --> 9766:results page. For example: 8953:16:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 8926:14:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 8902:12:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 8887:01:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 8868:16:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC) 8846:16:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC) 8830:16:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 8815:16:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 8797:16:14, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 8769:10:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC) 8750:22:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC) 8739:05:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC) 8722:19:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC) 8706:21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC) 8691:12:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC) 8671:00:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC) 8657:23:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC) 8280:WikiProject:General Audience 7558:that claimed its user was a 6889:23:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 6866:21:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 6854:20:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 6392:Image loading is: OFF, Turn 6390: 6379: 5951:Knowledge:General disclaimer 5882:08:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 5865:22:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 5851:19:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 5342:17:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 5306:22:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC) 5289:21:55, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 5269:01:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 5259:20:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 5236:21:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 5173:14:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 5044:21:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 5027:17:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 4760:20:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 4748:18:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 4736:16:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 4700:14:32, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 4688:17:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 4676:22:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC) 4664:12:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 4652:21:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 4612:21:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC) 4477:21:25, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 4436:For placing the restriction: 4075:23:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 4057:14:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 4030:16:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 4008:22:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 3998:15:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 3986:07:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 3973:05:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 3948:04:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 3908:20:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 3898:05:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 3879:02:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 3851:Knowledge:Simplified Ruleset 3836:00:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 3820:19:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 3795:09:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 3785:09:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 3762:23:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC) 3720:20:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 3698:03:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 3687:03:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 3675:02:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 3666:02:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 3651:02:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 3639:00:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 3622:01:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 3600:20:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC) 3590:08:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC) 3537:00:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 3525:23:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC) 3501:16:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC) 3449:02:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 3435:23:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 3373:18:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 3337:11:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 3302:10:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC) 3194:02:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 3183:23:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC) 3149:23:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC) 3112:14:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 3086:14:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 3069:11:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 3024:15:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 3011:16:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC) 2981:15:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC) 2968:12:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC) 2949:06:09, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 2935:17:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 2897:21:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 2843:05:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 2828:20:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC) 2803:12:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC) 2589:21:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC) 2577:23:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC) 2560:11:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC) 2544:02:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC) 2527:13:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC) 2492:19:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC) 2473:21:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 2457:19:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC) 2441:01:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 2167:for relevant discussion. -- 2046:06:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 2021:02:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 1998:02:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 1961:02:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 1943:21:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 1925:20:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 1907:20:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 1897:17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 1885:16:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 1847:17:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC) 1831:20:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 1808:20:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 1793:20:58, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 1757:03:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 1746:01:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 1691:23:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC) 1669:02:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 1660:00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC) 1622:04:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC) 1604:20:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 1590:17:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 1577:13:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 1541:12:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 1526:09:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC) 1495:23:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC) 1475:15:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 1449:07:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 1412:07:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 1398:07:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 1385:07:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 1357:07:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 1193:This ensures that nobody is 7: 9953:List my name</label: --> 9925:<option value="JPY": --> 9923:<option value="AUD": --> 9921:<option value="CAD": --> 9919:<option value="GBP": --> 9917:<option value="EUR": --> 9774:can help Knowledge improve. 9692:deletion all these articles 9661:deletion all these articles 8648:20:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 8635:04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 8622:04:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 8610:09:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 7200:that it is not religious.-- 7057:MediaWiki talk:Talkpagetext 6734:Category:Rough translations 6381:Image loading is: ON, Turn 5695:New user talk page template 5350:From College Paper to Wiki? 5249:23:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 4593:01:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 4580:23:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 4141:A simple proposal that the 3442:Knowledge:Proposed deletion 2422:21:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 2406:20:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 2353:December 2005</date: --> 1678:our work writing articles. 1521:to use the same interface. 1511:wikipedia:Featured pictures 1507:wikipedia:featured articles 1283:page). Finally, using both 10: 10076: 9301:might be of use for this. 6797:Classification of articles 6522:required before a vote. -- 5656:Change election standards? 3871:Knowledge:WikiProject Help 3847:Knowledge:List of policies 2819:Knowledge talk:Date debate 2499:I think that <date: --> 1519:wikipedia:Featured portals 9964: 9961: 9950: 9946: 9941: 9932: 9911: 9904: 9152:MediaWiki talk:Editingold 9115:MediaWiki talk:Editingold 6917:Knowledge:Stable versions 6915:You may be interested in 6279:internal to article space 6230:thanks dwallace1@att.net 5987:Knowledge:Requested moves 5979:m:9/11 wiki move proposal 5905:Warning icon for headings 5742:Knowledge:Deletion review 5335:Knowledge:Semi-protection 4515:Thanks for reading this, 4508:by Sherool, and followup 3859:Knowledge:Policy trifecta 3561: 2868:Knowledge talk:Bug report 2758:March 2005 - June 2005. 2119:December 25</date: --> 1555:. A couple of questions 9933:<label for="os1": --> 9924:$ (AUD)</option: --> 9922:$ (CAD)</option: --> 9916:$ (USD)</option: --> 9506:Knowledge:Press releases 8964:WARNING: IF YOU WISH TO 7562:, clearly an example of 6822:status. We already have 6188:Village pump (technical) 4396:main Scientology article 3810:Knowledge Talk:Boot Camp 2129:the first launch of the 1515:wikipedia:Featured lists 1239:calendars. Unlike using 1218:; can be interpreted as 1184:; can be interpreted as 1167:. Here is the proposal: 84:Village pump (proposals) 9926:¥ (JPY)</option: --> 9920:£ (GBP)</option: --> 9918:€ (EUR)</option: --> 6658:English as she is spoke 6319:Note: This proposal is 5428:MFD don't get to you). 5369:), and comply with our 3281:words. Effectively, a 2505:<<January 13: --> 1444:for those who want to. 1312:, but they use neither 9345:Using 26 samples from 9038:Requests for Adminship 8792:Its happened to me. -- 8406:Knowledge:Doppelganger 7080:Sockpuppet restriction 7053:MediaWiki:Talkpagetext 7043:Talk Page Edit Message 6552:Babelfish Translations 6434:similar proposal, see 6234:We have an article on 6063:Knowledge Article Webs 5783:Exactly :) Thank you! 4810:Knowledge:Five pillars 4123:(at the bottom of the 3893:Is this a proposal? -- 3843:Knowledge:Five pillars 3803:09:50, 9 February 2006 3266:) could be generated. 3232:02:43, 6 Tertiary 2009 2961:Category:Living people 2876:MediaWiki:Watchdetails 2853:MediaWiki:Watchdetails 2681:. < : --> 1783:Vandal report section? 1712:non-registered editors 1340:pages, and we can use 95:< Older discussions 9810:page for new searches 9221:regarding this prop. 9213:Shortcut to this page 8717:, as Celestianpower. 6849:What do you think? -- 6811:sub-standard articles 6570:Altavista's Babelfish 6562:Altavista's Babelfish 6000:Articles for deletion 5831:Knowledge:Don't panic 5375:neutral point of view 5312:Vandalism in progress 4547:what Knowledge is not 4368:Vandalism in progress 4083:Purge cache (Sidebar) 3928:How could it be used? 3388:09:55 8 February 2006 3247:Collaborative tagging 2815:Knowledge:Date debate 1229:Before the Common Era 9937:(200 characters max) 9883:" method="post": --> 9243:Thanks for the info 9144:MediaWiki:Editingold 8181:I introduce to you: 7574:left the project on 7301:File:Locatecolle.gif 7267:File:Locatecolle.gif 7214:File:Locatecolle.gif 7150:File:Locatecolle.gif 6738:Kocher Valley Bridge 6709:(meaning "and") and 6211:World Knowledge Base 5955:the French Knowledge 5856:I really like it. -- 5805:, who had recreated 5524:Unanswered Questions 5371:no original research 5049:semi-protection for 4512:by Scott P. below.) 4038:You want to talk to 3885:Australian character 3260:Relational searching 2836:Thanks for that. -- 2783:March 2005 - June. 2358:567 AD</date: --> 9743:Category statistics 9087:to something like: 9076:Knowledge:Reverting 8329:Limit (mathematics) 7566:. Among these was 7049:Template:talkheader 6760:Translation Project 6558:Anthem of Uzbek SSR 6483:can understand the 5367:User:Foo/My article 4130:** purge-url|purge 4097:MediaWiki:purge-url 3726:Artist of the Month 3611:Special:Allmessages 2733:December 25 - 31. 2229:after edit conflict 1976:Perennial proposals 1835:The original is at 9569:I stumbled across 9273:1,000,000 articles 8821:Bugzilla bug #4841 8273:technical (expert) 8093:garbage collection 6963:entire project. -- 6954:The discussion at 6458:those Geeky people 6391:<font="-1": --> 6380:<font="-1": --> 5807:Robbie van Leeuwen 5469:Frank Ticheli Page 4101:(the link ifself) 3921:How would it work? 3555:. It renders as: 3466:offer the option. 3289:10:09, 8 Feb 2006 2726:- 31. 2500:and </date: --> 2464:bugzilla bug #4582 2383:and </date: --> 2357:e.g. <date: --> 2352:e.g. <date: --> 2207:and </date: --> 2205:and </date: --> 2117:and </date: --> 1952:meta:LiquidThreads 1332:in replacement of 9973: 9972: 9947:Public donor list 9938: 9557: 8866: 8844: 8790:Support Strongly' 8786: 8767: 8018:. There is a new 7240: 7183: 6831:Featured articles 6815:standard articles 6807:featured articles 6574: 6361:-Scott Stevenson 6049: 6037: 5878: 5843: 5738:deletion policies 5685: 5417:. --best, kevin 5031:Well-meant idea; 5025: 4119:MediaWiki:Sidebar 3969: 3696: 3664: 3637: 3488: 3356:11:33, 8 Feb 2006 3295:semantic networks 3231: 3192: 2855:for page move bug 2086: 2072:comment added by 1776: 1742: 1724: 1707: 1687: 1656: 1644: 1491: 1420:, where the term 1403:"Christian Era"? 1328:does, we can use 1324:. Also, like the 10067: 10050: 10044: 10041: 10035: 10030: 10024: 9936: 9928:</select: --> 9907:One time gift of 9902: 9836: 9732: 9669: 9555: 9533: 9528: 9479: 9474: 9433: 9257: 9251: 9231: 9225: 9200: 9194: 9164: 9158: 9127: 9121: 9105:Antaeus Feldspar 9058: 9055: 9048: 9045: 9024: 9019: 9014: 9009: 8950: 8946: 8945: 8938: 8923: 8915: 8863: 8857: 8840: 8777: 8774:Strongly Support 8758: 8755:Strongly support 8738: 8735: 8732: 8685: 8629:Knowledge Seeker 8525:Michalis Famelis 8499: 8456: 8452: 8451: 8444: 8395: 8391: 8390: 8383: 8333:Étale cohomology 8303: 8299: 8298: 8291: 8277: 8271: 8267: 8261: 8134:Adrian Pingstone 8075: 8070: 7749: 7745: 7744: 7737: 7692: 7688: 7687: 7680: 7605: 7601: 7600: 7593: 7486: 7459: 7454: 7448: 7442:Template:Welcome 7313: 7309: 7304: 7302: 7297: 7291: 7279: 7275: 7270: 7268: 7263: 7257: 7238: 7226: 7222: 7217: 7215: 7210: 7204: 7181: 7162: 7158: 7153: 7151: 7146: 7140: 6764:Michalis Famelis 6600:Michalis Famelis 6579:Michalis Famelis 6566: 6418:m:voting is evil 6171: 6169:Ambush Commander 6150: 6142: 6045: 6033: 5940: 5935: 5930: 5925: 5920: 5914: 5876: 5841: 5803:User talk:Hindol 5770: 5764: 5683: 5618: 5612: 5608: 5602: 5503: 5501:Ambush Commander 5286: 5067:Strongly opposed 5019: 4981: 4976: 4962: 4931: 4926: 4906: 4901: 4856: 4851: 4846: 4784:Strongly oppose: 4757:Average Earthman 4648: 4609: 4214:Contrast showers 4200:Contrast showers 4189: 4187:Ambush Commander 4174: 4166: 3967: 3905:Average Earthman 3733:featured article 3695: 3681:Knowledge Seeker 3663: 3645:Knowledge Seeker 3636: 3575: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3563: 3554: 3548: 3479: 3425: 3419: 3412: 3406: 3334: 3330: 3329: 3322: 3315:keyword stuffing 3228: 3222: 3191: 3145: 3143: 3141: 3139: 3137: 2895: 2893:Ambush Commander 2840: 2586: 2541: 2462:Now enter3ed as 2281: 2278: 2271: 2268: 2085: 2066: 2019: 2017:Ambush Commander 1995: 1991: 1990: 1983: 1959: 1957:Ambush Commander 1767: 1740: 1715: 1698: 1685: 1654: 1635: 1489: 1436:, but it can be 1350:religion-neutral 1336:for exclusively 1320:for years after 79: 54: 10075: 10074: 10070: 10069: 10068: 10066: 10065: 10064: 10048: 10042: 10039: 10033: 10028: 10022: 9994: 9974: 9939:</label: --> 9909:</label: --> 9900: 9834: 9776: 9775: 9760: 9745: 9728: 9665: 9645: 9616: 9567: 9535: 9531: 9526: 9275: 9261: 9255: 9249: 9245:User:Flcelloguy 9235: 9229: 9223: 9215: 9204: 9198: 9192: 9168: 9162: 9156: 9148: 9131: 9125: 9119: 9072: 9056: 9053: 9046: 9043: 9022: 9017: 9012: 9007: 8999: 8969: 8948: 8940: 8936: 8919: 8911: 8861: 8736: 8733: 8730: 8683: 8589: 8587:Editing feature 8545:Michael Ralston 8497: 8454: 8446: 8442: 8393: 8385: 8381: 8350: 8301: 8293: 8289: 8275: 8269: 8265: 8259: 8217: 8179: 8151:patent nonsense 8085: 8011:due to lack of 8001: 7996: 7994:breaking limits 7747: 7739: 7735: 7690: 7682: 7678: 7652:Pavel Vozenilek 7603: 7595: 7591: 7544: 7542:Exploding Wales 7484: 7457: 7452: 7446: 7344: 7311: 7305: 7300: 7293: 7289: 7277: 7271: 7266: 7259: 7255: 7224: 7218: 7213: 7206: 7202: 7160: 7154: 7149: 7142: 7138: 7125: 7082: 7045: 6956:stable versions 6799: 6554: 6413: 6397: 6386: 6317: 6281: 6213: 6167: 6146: 6138: 6116: 6074: 6065: 5971: 5907: 5858:unforgettableid 5827: 5768: 5762: 5761:Something like 5697: 5658: 5616: 5610: 5606: 5600: 5553: 5526: 5499: 5471: 5453: 5444: 5352: 5329: 5284: 5093: 5088: 4979: 4974: 4956: 4953:Absolutely not! 4929: 4924: 4904: 4899: 4854: 4849: 4844: 4780: 4649: 4619:. I agree with 4607: 4535: 4386: 4362: 4233: 4202: 4185: 4170: 4162: 4139: 4131: 4121: 4116: 4110: 4108:MediaWiki:purge 4105: 4099: 4085: 3915: 3887: 3828: 3773: 3728: 3574: 3559: 3558: 3552: 3546: 3457: 3423: 3417: 3410: 3404: 3400: 3332: 3324: 3320: 3249: 3226: 3135: 3133: 3131: 3129: 3127: 3036: 3008: 3003:Johan the Ghost 2958: 2942: 2907: 2891: 2872:User:Zen-master 2857: 2838: 2584: 2567:WP:MOSNUM#Units 2557: 2552:Johan the Ghost 2539: 2516: 2455: 2439: 2420: 2394: 2323: 2299: 2279: 2276: 2269: 2266: 2218: 2177: 2154: 2137:. Who cares? 2135:Treaty of Ghent 2092: 2074:JosephBarillari 2067: 2059: 2015: 1993: 1985: 1981: 1955: 1858: 1821:may also help. 1785: 1630: 1503: 1472: 1467:Johan the Ghost 1366: 1326:History Channel 1165:History Channel 1140: 1135: 80: 77: 74: 48: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 10073: 10063: 10062: 9993: 9990: 9979: 9976:</form: --> 9971: 9970: 9963: 9959: 9958: 9954: 9949: 9948: 9944: 9943: 9940: 9935: 9934:Public comment 9930: 9929: 9910: 9890: 9885: 9878: 9873: 9872: 9871: 9870: 9869: 9868: 9867: 9866: 9848: 9847: 9846: 9845: 9844: 9843: 9825: 9824: 9823: 9822: 9803: 9802: 9778: 9769: 9768: 9759: 9756: 9744: 9741: 9740: 9739: 9738: 9737: 9720: 9719: 9644: 9641: 9639: 9637: 9636: 9615: 9612: 9610: 9588: 9587: 9566: 9563: 9562: 9561: 9523: 9520: 9519: 9518: 9517: 9516: 9515: 9483: 9427: 9426: 9425: 9424: 9423: 9422: 9406: 9405: 9404: 9403: 9402: 9401: 9385: 9384: 9368: 9367: 9366: 9365: 9364: 9363: 9350:1.002110584... 9343: 9342: 9341: 9274: 9271: 9269: 9267: 9266: 9259: 9233: 9214: 9211: 9210: 9209: 9202: 9187: 9186: 9166: 9147: 9141: 9139: 9137: 9136: 9129: 9097: 9096: 9085: 9084: 9071: 9068: 9066: 9064: 9063: 9005:. Thanks :) — 8998: 8995: 8994: 8993: 8963: 8962: 8961: 8955: 8928: 8904: 8891: 8890: 8889: 8848: 8834: 8833: 8832: 8799: 8787: 8771: 8752: 8740: 8724: 8708: 8693: 8673: 8661: 8660: 8659: 8625: 8624: 8615:Strong Support 8612: 8588: 8585: 8584: 8583: 8582: 8581: 8566: 8565: 8531: 8530: 8509: 8508: 8507: 8506: 8505: 8504: 8487: 8486: 8485: 8484: 8466: 8465: 8464: 8463: 8462: 8461: 8431: 8430: 8429: 8428: 8401: 8400: 8375: 8374: 8349: 8346: 8345: 8344: 8343: 8342: 8309: 8308: 8216: 8213: 8212: 8211: 8178: 8173: 8171: 8169: 8168: 8167: 8166: 8165: 8164: 8142: 8141: 8140: 8139: 8127: 8126: 8084: 8081: 8080: 8079: 8000: 7997: 7995: 7992: 7991: 7990: 7976:Crown immunity 7967: 7966: 7965: 7964: 7963: 7962: 7961: 7960: 7959: 7958: 7957: 7956: 7955: 7954: 7932: 7931: 7930: 7929: 7928: 7927: 7926: 7925: 7924: 7923: 7922: 7921: 7900: 7899: 7898: 7897: 7896: 7895: 7894: 7893: 7892: 7891: 7863: 7862: 7861: 7860: 7859: 7858: 7857: 7856: 7839: 7838: 7837: 7836: 7835: 7834: 7816: 7815: 7814: 7813: 7801: 7800: 7785: 7784: 7783: 7782: 7781: 7780: 7757: 7756: 7755: 7754: 7722: 7721: 7711: 7710: 7709: 7708: 7707: 7670: 7669: 7658: 7657: 7638: 7637: 7626: 7625: 7543: 7540: 7539: 7538: 7524: 7523: 7522: 7478: 7470: 7465: 7464: 7437: 7436: 7421: 7420: 7410: 7398: 7391: 7390: 7385: 7384: 7380: 7379: 7343: 7340: 7329: 7328: 7327: 7326: 7325: 7324: 7323: 7322: 7321: 7320: 7133:religious bias 7124: 7121: 7120: 7119: 7106: 7081: 7078: 7076: 7044: 7041: 6984: 6983: 6982: 6981: 6980: 6979: 6949: 6948: 6947: 6946: 6945: 6944: 6928: 6927: 6926: 6904:random article 6894: 6893: 6892: 6891: 6879: 6875: 6869: 6868: 6847: 6846: 6843: 6840: 6834: 6803:recent changes 6798: 6795: 6793: 6781: 6780: 6756: 6755: 6705:Even the word 6687: 6675: 6674: 6673: 6672: 6671: 6670: 6649: 6648: 6647: 6646: 6622: 6621: 6620: 6619: 6606: 6605: 6576: 6565: 6553: 6550: 6540: 6539: 6529: 6515: 6514: 6513: 6512: 6502: 6501: 6500: 6499: 6498: 6467:Many of those 6454: 6436:Knowledge:Toby 6427: 6412: 6409: 6407: 6325:user definable 6316: 6313: 6311: 6280: 6277:Soft redirects 6274: 6273: 6272: 6259:Project Xanadu 6250: 6249: 6236:knowledge base 6212: 6209: 6208: 6207: 6176: 6175: 6115: 6112: 6111: 6110: 6109: 6108: 6095: 6094: 6075: 6071: 6070: 6064: 6061: 6060: 6059: 6042: 6041: 6029: 6028: 6027: 6026: 5982: 5970: 5965: 5906: 5903: 5902: 5901: 5900: 5899: 5898: 5897: 5826: 5823: 5799: 5798: 5797: 5796: 5759: 5758: 5757: 5696: 5693: 5692: 5691: 5657: 5654: 5652: 5650: 5649: 5633: 5632: 5631: 5630: 5595: 5594: 5593: 5592: 5591: 5590: 5552: 5549: 5548: 5547: 5525: 5522: 5508: 5507: 5492:American Elegy 5470: 5467: 5452: 5449: 5443: 5440: 5438: 5436: 5435: 5424: 5423: 5410: 5409: 5408: 5407: 5389: 5388: 5351: 5348: 5347: 5346: 5345: 5344: 5323: 5308: 5295: 5294: 5293: 5292: 5291: 5251: 5241: 5240: 5239: 5238: 5206: 5205: 5204: 5203: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5175: 5162: 5161: 5143: 5142: 5141: 5140: 5139: 5126: 5125: 5092: 5091:Other Comments 5089: 5087: 5084: 5083: 5082: 5064: 5046: 5029: 5017:badlydrawnjeff 5010: 5003: 4986: 4966: 4950: 4938: 4937: 4936: 4888: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4884: 4883: 4882: 4839: 4838: 4837: 4836: 4835: 4779: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4762: 4750: 4738: 4726: 4714: 4702: 4690: 4678: 4666: 4654: 4645: 4614: 4595: 4582: 4569: 4556: 4534: 4531: 4527: 4503: 4501:Other/ reason: 4499: 4494: 4489: 4480: 4479: 4450: 4449: 4446: 4443: 4431: 4424: 4423: 4420: 4417: 4416:Be registered. 4392: 4389: 4388: 4380: 4361: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4337: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4317: 4316: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4270: 4269: 4258: 4257: 4232: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4201: 4198: 4196: 4194: 4193: 4138: 4135: 4133: 4129: 4120: 4117: 4114: 4109: 4106: 4103: 4098: 4095: 4084: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4033: 4032: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4011: 4010: 3988: 3951: 3950: 3914: 3911: 3901: 3900: 3886: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3827: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3805: 3804: 3797: 3772: 3769: 3767: 3765: 3764: 3727: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3700: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3540: 3539: 3528: 3527: 3504: 3503: 3490: 3489: 3456: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3399: 3396: 3394: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3358: 3357: 3340: 3339: 3305: 3304: 3248: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3089: 3088: 3035: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3006: 2957: 2952: 2941: 2938: 2906: 2903: 2901: 2888: 2887: 2856: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2831: 2830: 2810: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2784: 2781: 2772:. 2764: 2761: 2759: 2756: 2747:. 2739: 2736: 2734: 2731: 2722: 2719: 2710:. 2702: 2699: 2697: 2694: 2670: 2667: 2665: 2662: 2649:. 2637: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2562: 2555: 2504: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2476: 2475: 2451: 2435: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2416: 2390: 2367: 2366: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2355: 2347: 2344: 2342:</date: --> 2339: 2328: 2327: 2319: 2305: 2304: 2295: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2214: 2173: 2150: 2091: 2088: 2058: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2036: 2032: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1946: 1945: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1888: 1887: 1857: 1854: 1852: 1850: 1849: 1833: 1811: 1810: 1784: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1760: 1759: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1708: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1629: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1580: 1579: 1563: 1544: 1543: 1502: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1477: 1470: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1365: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1301: 1300: 1220:Before Current 1203: 1202: 1170: 1139: 1136: 92: 76: 75: 73: 72: 71: 70: 65: 60: 55: 43: 38: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 10072: 10061: 10058: 10054: 10047: 10038: 10027: 10020: 10019: 10018: 10017: 10014: 10008: 10006: 10005:I never do it 10001: 9999: 9989: 9988: 9985: 9984: 9977: 9968: 9965:<img src=" 9960: 9945: 9931: 9927: 9908: 9903: 9898: 9884: 9882: 9876: 9865: 9862: 9861: 9856: 9855: 9854: 9853: 9852: 9851: 9850: 9849: 9842: 9839: 9837: 9831: 9830: 9829: 9828: 9827: 9826: 9821: 9818: 9817: 9811: 9807: 9806: 9805: 9804: 9801: 9798: 9794: 9790: 9789: 9788: 9787: 9784: 9783: 9773: 9767: 9765: 9755: 9754: 9751: 9736: 9733: 9731: 9724: 9723: 9722: 9721: 9718: 9715: 9711: 9707: 9703: 9699: 9695: 9693: 9687: 9685: 9681: 9676: 9675: 9674: 9673: 9670: 9668: 9662: 9658: 9654: 9650: 9640: 9635: 9632: 9628: 9624: 9623: 9622: 9619: 9611: 9608: 9607: 9604: 9600: 9596: 9595: 9586: 9583: 9582: 9581: 9578: 9576: 9572: 9560: 9554: 9550: 9549: 9548: 9547: 9544: 9539: 9538: 9534: 9529: 9514: 9511: 9507: 9503: 9502: 9501: 9498: 9496: 9492: 9490: 9484: 9482: 9478: 9473: 9468: 9464: 9460: 9455: 9454: 9453: 9450: 9446: 9445: 9444: 9443: 9440: 9434: 9432: 9420: 9419: 9418: 9415: 9410: 9409: 9408: 9407: 9400: 9397: 9395: 9391: 9390: 9389: 9388: 9387: 9386: 9383: 9379: 9375: 9370: 9369: 9362: 9359: 9355: 9351: 9347: 9344: 9340: 9337: 9333: 9329: 9328: 9327: 9324: 9320: 9316: 9312: 9309: 9308: 9307: 9304: 9300: 9297: 9295: 9294: 9293: 9290: 9286: 9285: 9284: 9283: 9280: 9270: 9265: 9262: 9254: 9252: 9246: 9242: 9241: 9240: 9239: 9236: 9228: 9226: 9220: 9219:The Talk Page 9208: 9205: 9197: 9195: 9189: 9188: 9185: 9182: 9179: 9175: 9174: 9173: 9172: 9169: 9161: 9159: 9153: 9145: 9140: 9135: 9132: 9124: 9122: 9116: 9112: 9111: 9110: 9109: 9106: 9101: 9094: 9090: 9089: 9088: 9082: 9081: 9080: 9077: 9067: 9062: 9059: 9050: 9049: 9039: 9035: 9031: 9030: 9029: 9028: 9025: 9020: 9015: 9010: 9004: 8992: 8989: 8985: 8982: 8981: 8980: 8979: 8976: 8975: 8967: 8959: 8956: 8954: 8951: 8944: 8939: 8932: 8929: 8927: 8924: 8922: 8916: 8914: 8908: 8907:Strong Oppose 8905: 8903: 8900: 8895: 8892: 8888: 8885: 8881: 8877: 8876: 8871: 8870: 8869: 8864: 8856: 8852: 8851:Strong oppose 8849: 8847: 8843: 8838: 8835: 8831: 8828: 8826: 8822: 8818: 8817: 8816: 8813: 8811: 8807: 8803: 8800: 8798: 8795: 8791: 8788: 8784: 8780: 8775: 8772: 8770: 8766: 8763: 8762: 8756: 8753: 8751: 8748: 8744: 8741: 8728: 8725: 8723: 8720: 8716: 8715:very strongly 8712: 8709: 8707: 8704: 8701: 8697: 8694: 8692: 8689: 8686: 8681: 8677: 8674: 8672: 8669: 8665: 8662: 8658: 8655: 8651: 8650: 8649: 8646: 8642: 8639: 8638: 8637: 8636: 8633: 8630: 8623: 8620: 8616: 8613: 8611: 8608: 8604: 8601: 8600: 8599: 8598: 8595: 8580: 8577: 8574: 8570: 8569: 8568: 8567: 8564: 8561: 8556: 8552: 8551: 8550: 8549: 8546: 8541: 8540: 8537: 8529: 8526: 8521: 8520: 8519: 8518: 8515: 8503: 8500: 8493: 8492: 8491: 8490: 8489: 8488: 8483: 8480: 8477: 8473: 8470: 8469: 8468: 8467: 8460: 8457: 8450: 8445: 8437: 8436: 8435: 8434: 8433: 8432: 8427: 8424: 8421: 8416: 8415: 8414: 8411: 8407: 8403: 8402: 8399: 8396: 8389: 8384: 8377: 8376: 8373: 8370: 8365: 8364: 8363: 8362: 8359: 8356: 8341: 8338: 8334: 8330: 8325: 8324: 8323: 8320: 8316: 8311: 8310: 8307: 8304: 8297: 8292: 8285: 8281: 8274: 8264: 8257: 8256: 8255: 8254: 8251: 8246: 8242: 8238: 8234: 8231: 8227: 8224: 8220: 8210: 8207: 8203: 8199: 8194: 8193: 8192: 8191: 8188: 8184: 8183:Template:Dict 8177: 8176:Template:Dict 8172: 8163: 8160: 8156: 8152: 8148: 8147: 8146: 8145: 8144: 8143: 8138: 8135: 8131: 8130: 8129: 8128: 8125: 8122: 8118: 8117: 8116: 8115: 8112: 8107: 8105: 8101: 8098: 8094: 8090: 8078: 8074: 8069: 8064: 8060: 8056: 8052: 8051: 8050: 8049: 8046: 8041: 8039: 8038: 8033: 8029: 8025: 8021: 8017: 8014: 8010: 8007:is still too 8006: 7989: 7986: 7982: 7977: 7973: 7969: 7968: 7953: 7950: 7946: 7945: 7944: 7943: 7942: 7941: 7940: 7939: 7938: 7937: 7936: 7935: 7934: 7933: 7920: 7917: 7912: 7911: 7910: 7909: 7908: 7907: 7906: 7905: 7904: 7903: 7902: 7901: 7890: 7887: 7883: 7878: 7873: 7872: 7871: 7870: 7869: 7868: 7867: 7866: 7865: 7864: 7855: 7852: 7847: 7846: 7845: 7844: 7843: 7842: 7841: 7840: 7833: 7830: 7826: 7822: 7821: 7820: 7819: 7818: 7817: 7812: 7809: 7805: 7804: 7803: 7802: 7799: 7796: 7792: 7787: 7786: 7779: 7776: 7772: 7768: 7763: 7762: 7761: 7760: 7759: 7758: 7753: 7750: 7743: 7738: 7730: 7726: 7725: 7724: 7723: 7720: 7717: 7712: 7706: 7703: 7698: 7697: 7696: 7693: 7686: 7681: 7674: 7673: 7672: 7671: 7668: 7665: 7660: 7659: 7656: 7653: 7648: 7644: 7640: 7639: 7636: 7633: 7628: 7627: 7624: 7621: 7617: 7612: 7611: 7610: 7609: 7606: 7599: 7594: 7587: 7586: 7579: 7577: 7573: 7569: 7565: 7561: 7557: 7554:concerning a 7553: 7549: 7537: 7534: 7529: 7528:systemic bias 7525: 7521: 7518: 7514: 7510: 7506: 7502: 7498: 7493: 7492: 7491: 7488: 7487: 7479: 7475: 7474:Welcome Wagon 7471: 7467: 7466: 7463: 7460: 7455: 7449: 7443: 7439: 7438: 7435: 7432: 7428: 7423: 7422: 7419: 7416: 7411: 7407: 7406: 7405: 7404: 7401: 7394: 7387: 7386: 7382: 7381: 7377: 7376: 7375: 7374: 7370: 7367: 7363: 7359: 7355: 7351: 7348: 7339: 7338: 7335: 7318: 7314: 7308: 7303: 7296: 7292: 7286: 7285: 7284: 7280: 7274: 7269: 7262: 7258: 7251: 7250: 7249: 7245: 7241: 7233: 7232: 7231: 7227: 7221: 7216: 7209: 7205: 7199: 7194: 7189: 7188: 7187: 7184: 7177: 7173: 7170: 7169: 7168: 7167: 7163: 7157: 7152: 7145: 7141: 7134: 7130: 7118: 7115: 7112: 7107: 7105: 7102: 7098: 7097: 7096: 7095: 7092: 7091: 7087: 7077: 7074: 7073: 7070: 7066: 7062: 7058: 7054: 7050: 7040: 7038: 7034: 7031: 7027: 7021: 7020: 7017: 7013: 7009: 7005: 6999: 6998: 6995: 6994: 6989: 6978: 6975: 6971: 6970: 6969: 6966: 6965:Gareth Hughes 6961: 6957: 6953: 6952: 6951: 6950: 6943: 6940: 6937: 6933: 6929: 6925: 6922: 6918: 6914: 6913: 6912: 6909: 6908:Gareth Hughes 6905: 6900: 6899: 6898: 6897: 6896: 6895: 6890: 6887: 6885: 6880: 6876: 6873: 6872: 6871: 6870: 6867: 6864: 6862: 6858: 6857: 6856: 6855: 6852: 6851:Gareth Hughes 6844: 6841: 6838: 6837:Good articles 6835: 6832: 6829: 6828: 6827: 6825: 6824:good articles 6821: 6816: 6812: 6808: 6804: 6794: 6791: 6790: 6787: 6779: 6776: 6771: 6770: 6769: 6768: 6765: 6761: 6754: 6751: 6748: 6743: 6739: 6735: 6731: 6730: 6729: 6728: 6725: 6720: 6719: 6716: 6712: 6708: 6703: 6702: 6699: 6695: 6692:( party) and 6691: 6685: 6684: 6681: 6669: 6666: 6663: 6659: 6655: 6654: 6653: 6652: 6651: 6650: 6645: 6642: 6638: 6634: 6630: 6626: 6625: 6624: 6623: 6618: 6615: 6610: 6609: 6608: 6607: 6604: 6601: 6596: 6595: 6594: 6593: 6590: 6584: 6583: 6580: 6573: 6571: 6563: 6559: 6549: 6548: 6545: 6538: 6535: 6530: 6528: 6525: 6521: 6517: 6516: 6511: 6508: 6503: 6497: 6494: 6490: 6486: 6482: 6479: 6478: 6477: 6474: 6470: 6466: 6465: 6464: 6459: 6455: 6453: 6450: 6446: 6445: 6444: 6441: 6437: 6433: 6428: 6426: 6423: 6419: 6415: 6414: 6408: 6405: 6404: 6401: 6395: 6389: 6384: 6378: 6376: 6371: 6369: 6366: 6362: 6359: 6356: 6353: 6349: 6345: 6343: 6338: 6334: 6331: 6328: 6326: 6322: 6312: 6309: 6305: 6303: 6299: 6295: 6291: 6287: 6278: 6271: 6268: 6264: 6260: 6256: 6252: 6251: 6248: 6245: 6241: 6237: 6233: 6232: 6231: 6228: 6222: 6216: 6206: 6205: 6201: 6197: 6193: 6189: 6183: 6178: 6177: 6174: 6170: 6165: 6161: 6157: 6156: 6155: 6154: 6151: 6149: 6143: 6141: 6134: 6132: 6131:all lowercase 6127: 6125: 6121: 6107: 6104: 6099: 6098: 6097: 6096: 6093: 6090: 6085: 6081: 6080: 6079: 6069: 6058: 6055: 6054: 6053: 6052: 6048: 6040: 6036: 6031: 6030: 6025: 6021: 6017: 6013: 6009: 6005: 6001: 5998: 5997: 5995: 5994: 5989: 5988: 5983: 5980: 5976: 5975: 5974: 5969: 5964: 5963: 5960: 5956: 5952: 5948: 5942: 5939: 5934: 5929: 5924: 5919: 5913: 5896: 5893: 5889: 5885: 5884: 5883: 5880: 5879: 5872: 5868: 5867: 5866: 5863: 5859: 5855: 5854: 5853: 5852: 5848: 5844: 5837: 5832: 5829:I've created 5822: 5821: 5818: 5816: 5814: 5812: 5808: 5804: 5795: 5792: 5790: 5788: 5786: 5782: 5781: 5780: 5777: 5774: 5767: 5760: 5756: 5753: 5751: 5749: 5747: 5743: 5739: 5734: 5733: 5732: 5729: 5726: 5722: 5721: 5720: 5719: 5716: 5714: 5712: 5710: 5706: 5702: 5690: 5687: 5686: 5679: 5675: 5670: 5669: 5668: 5667: 5664: 5653: 5648: 5645: 5642: 5638: 5635: 5634: 5629: 5626: 5622: 5615: 5605: 5599: 5598: 5597: 5596: 5589: 5586: 5582: 5581: 5580: 5577: 5573: 5572: 5571: 5568: 5564: 5563: 5562: 5561: 5558: 5546: 5543: 5538: 5537: 5536: 5535: 5532: 5521: 5520: 5517: 5512: 5506: 5502: 5497: 5496:Frank Ticheli 5493: 5489: 5488: 5487: 5486: 5483: 5478: 5475: 5466: 5465: 5462: 5458: 5448: 5439: 5434: 5431: 5426: 5425: 5422: 5419: 5416: 5412: 5411: 5406: 5403: 5401: 5397: 5396:User:Fuzheado 5393: 5392: 5391: 5390: 5387: 5384: 5380: 5376: 5372: 5368: 5364: 5363: 5362: 5361: 5358: 5343: 5340: 5336: 5332: 5331: 5328: 5327: 5321: 5317: 5313: 5309: 5307: 5304: 5300: 5296: 5290: 5287: 5280: 5276: 5272: 5271: 5270: 5267: 5262: 5261: 5260: 5257: 5252: 5250: 5247: 5243: 5242: 5237: 5234: 5231: 5226: 5225: 5224: 5221: 5217: 5213: 5208: 5207: 5202: 5199: 5195: 5191: 5190: 5189: 5186: 5184: 5180: 5179: 5174: 5171: 5166: 5165: 5164: 5163: 5160: 5157: 5153: 5149: 5148: 5144: 5138: 5135: 5130: 5129: 5128: 5127: 5124: 5121: 5117: 5113: 5112: 5111: 5108: 5104: 5100: 5095: 5094: 5081: 5077: 5073: 5072:Adrian~enwiki 5068: 5065: 5063: 5060: 5056: 5052: 5047: 5045: 5042: 5039: 5034: 5030: 5028: 5023: 5018: 5014: 5011: 5007: 5004: 5002: 4999: 4994: 4990: 4987: 4985: 4982: 4977: 4970: 4967: 4965: 4961: 4959: 4954: 4951: 4949: 4946: 4942: 4939: 4935: 4932: 4927: 4920: 4916: 4912: 4911: 4910: 4907: 4902: 4896: 4892: 4889: 4881: 4878: 4874: 4873: 4872: 4869: 4866: 4862: 4861: 4860: 4857: 4852: 4847: 4840: 4834: 4831: 4827: 4823: 4822: 4821: 4818: 4815: 4811: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4802: 4797: 4796: 4795: 4792: 4789: 4785: 4782: 4781: 4773: 4770: 4766: 4763: 4761: 4758: 4754: 4751: 4749: 4746: 4742: 4739: 4737: 4734: 4730: 4727: 4725: 4722: 4718: 4715: 4713: 4710: 4706: 4703: 4701: 4698: 4694: 4691: 4689: 4686: 4682: 4679: 4677: 4674: 4670: 4667: 4665: 4662: 4658: 4655: 4653: 4650: 4642: 4638: 4634: 4633:Homosexuality 4630: 4626: 4622: 4618: 4615: 4613: 4610: 4603: 4599: 4596: 4594: 4591: 4586: 4583: 4581: 4578: 4573: 4570: 4568: 4565: 4560: 4557: 4555: 4552: 4548: 4545:and remember 4544: 4540: 4537: 4536: 4530: 4525: 4524: 4521: 4516: 4513: 4511: 4507: 4506:Other comment 4502: 4497: 4492: 4487: 4483: 4478: 4475: 4472: 4467: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4456: 4454: 4447: 4444: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4437: 4433: 4428: 4421: 4418: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4410: 4408: 4403: 4400: 4397: 4385: 4384: 4378: 4375: 4373: 4369: 4364: 4363: 4351: 4348: 4343: 4342: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4333: 4330: 4326: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4315: 4312: 4308: 4307: 4300: 4297: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4282: 4279: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4268: 4265: 4260: 4259: 4256: 4253: 4249: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4239: 4226: 4223: 4219: 4215: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4206: 4197: 4192: 4188: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4175: 4173: 4167: 4165: 4159: 4153: 4150: 4148: 4144: 4134: 4128: 4126: 4113: 4102: 4094: 4093: 4090: 4076: 4073: 4071: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4058: 4055: 4051: 4047: 4046: 4041: 4040:User:Gmaxwell 4037: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4031: 4028: 4024: 4019: 4018: 4009: 4006: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3996: 3994: 3989: 3987: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3971: 3970: 3963: 3959: 3955: 3954: 3953: 3952: 3949: 3946: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3936: 3932: 3929: 3925: 3922: 3918: 3910: 3909: 3906: 3899: 3896: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3880: 3876: 3872: 3868: 3864: 3863:Help:Contents 3860: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3834: 3821: 3818: 3815: 3811: 3807: 3806: 3802: 3798: 3796: 3793: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3783: 3778: 3768: 3763: 3760: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3742: 3738: 3734: 3721: 3718: 3713: 3712: 3699: 3694: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3685: 3682: 3678: 3677: 3676: 3673: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3649: 3646: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3635: 3631: 3623: 3620: 3616: 3612: 3608: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3598: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3588: 3584: 3579: 3573: 3572: 3570: 3557: 3556: 3551: 3544: 3543: 3542: 3541: 3538: 3535: 3530: 3529: 3526: 3523: 3519: 3515: 3511: 3506: 3505: 3502: 3499: 3496: 3492: 3491: 3486: 3482: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3460: 3450: 3447: 3443: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3436: 3433: 3428: 3427:efficiently. 3422: 3414: 3409: 3398:Deletion flag 3395: 3387: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3374: 3371: 3366: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3347: 3342: 3341: 3338: 3335: 3328: 3323: 3316: 3312: 3307: 3306: 3303: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3288: 3284: 3279: 3274: 3272: 3267: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3229: 3221: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3195: 3190: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3150: 3147: 3146: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3087: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3047: 3043: 3042: 3025: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3009: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2988: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2979: 2975: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2966: 2962: 2956: 2951: 2950: 2947: 2937: 2936: 2933: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2915: 2913: 2902: 2899: 2898: 2894: 2885: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2864: 2861: 2854: 2844: 2841: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2829: 2826: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2811: 2804: 2801: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2782: 2779: 2775: 2771: 2767: 2762: 2757: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2742: 2737: 2732: 2729: 2725: 2720: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2700: 2695: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2673: 2668: 2663: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2622: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2604: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2590: 2587: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2575: 2572: 2568: 2563: 2561: 2558: 2553: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2542: 2537: 2536: 2529: 2528: 2525: 2524:Johantheghost 2520: 2503: 2493: 2489: 2485: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2474: 2471: 2469: 2465: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2449: 2443: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2433: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2414: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2404: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2388: 2380: 2376: 2375: 2372: 2363: 2356: 2351: 2350: 2348: 2345: 2340: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2332: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2317: 2312: 2307: 2306: 2303: 2300: 2298: 2293: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2282: 2273: 2272: 2261: 2260: 2257: 2255: 2251: 2247: 2242: 2241: 2238: 2236: 2230: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2212: 2202: 2197: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2188: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2171: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2148: 2141: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2131:Ariane rocket 2127: 2121: 2113: 2109: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2064: 2047: 2044: 2040: 2033: 2030: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 1999: 1996: 1989: 1984: 1977: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1962: 1958: 1953: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1944: 1941: 1937: 1934: 1933: 1926: 1923: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1908: 1905: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1895: 1890: 1889: 1886: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1862: 1853: 1848: 1845: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1813: 1812: 1809: 1806: 1804: 1800: 1797: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1791: 1774: 1770: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1758: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1744: 1743: 1736: 1732: 1728: 1722: 1718: 1713: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1696: 1692: 1689: 1688: 1681: 1677: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1667: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1658: 1657: 1650: 1646: 1645: 1642: 1638: 1632: 1631: 1623: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1602: 1591: 1588: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1578: 1575: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1561: 1557: 1556: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1545: 1542: 1539: 1535: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1496: 1493: 1492: 1485: 1481: 1478: 1476: 1473: 1468: 1463: 1459: 1450: 1447: 1443: 1442:Christian era 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1426:Christian era 1423: 1422:Christian era 1419: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1401: 1399: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1368: 1367: 1358: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1303: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1221: 1217: 1216:Before Christ 1213: 1209: 1200: 1199:Christian era 1196: 1195:acknowledging 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1187: 1186:Christian Era 1183: 1179: 1175: 1168: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1145: 1134: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 985: 981: 977: 973: 969: 965: 961: 957: 953: 949: 945: 941: 937: 933: 929: 925: 921: 917: 913: 909: 905: 901: 897: 893: 889: 885: 881: 877: 873: 869: 865: 861: 857: 853: 849: 845: 841: 837: 833: 829: 825: 821: 817: 813: 809: 805: 801: 797: 793: 789: 785: 781: 777: 773: 769: 765: 761: 757: 753: 749: 745: 741: 737: 733: 729: 725: 721: 717: 713: 709: 705: 701: 697: 693: 689: 685: 681: 677: 673: 669: 665: 661: 657: 653: 649: 645: 641: 637: 633: 629: 625: 621: 617: 613: 609: 605: 601: 597: 593: 589: 585: 581: 577: 573: 569: 565: 561: 557: 553: 549: 545: 541: 537: 533: 529: 525: 521: 517: 513: 509: 505: 501: 497: 493: 489: 485: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 461: 457: 453: 449: 445: 441: 437: 433: 429: 425: 421: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 397: 393: 389: 385: 381: 377: 373: 369: 365: 361: 357: 353: 349: 345: 341: 337: 333: 329: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 301: 297: 293: 289: 285: 281: 278: 275: 271: 267: 263: 259: 255: 251: 247: 243: 239: 235: 231: 227: 223: 219: 215: 211: 207: 203: 199: 195: 191: 187: 183: 179: 175: 171: 167: 163: 159: 155: 151: 147: 143: 139: 135: 131: 127: 123: 119: 115: 111: 107: 103: 99: 96: 91: 89: 85: 69: 68:Miscellaneous 66: 64: 61: 59: 56: 52: 47: 44: 42: 39: 37: 34: 33: 32: 31: 27: 26: 19: 10009: 10004: 10002: 9995: 9981: 9978: 9975: 9914: 9906: 9877: 9874: 9858: 9814: 9780: 9777: 9761: 9746: 9729: 9689: 9677: 9666: 9646: 9638: 9620: 9617: 9609: 9593: 9589: 9579: 9568: 9543:Lotsofissues 9540: 9521: 9494: 9488: 9435: 9428: 9353: 9349: 9332:6pm Feb 28th 9331: 9318: 9314: 9279:Brandmeister 9276: 9268: 9216: 9149: 9138: 9099: 9098: 9092: 9086: 9073: 9065: 9042: 9033: 9000: 8983: 8973: 8970: 8968:, DO SO NOW. 8957: 8930: 8920: 8912: 8906: 8893: 8874: 8850: 8836: 8805: 8801: 8789: 8773: 8760: 8754: 8745:- as above - 8742: 8726: 8714: 8710: 8695: 8675: 8663: 8640: 8626: 8614: 8602: 8590: 8542: 8532: 8510: 8351: 8314: 8247: 8243: 8239: 8235: 8232: 8228: 8225: 8221: 8218: 8201: 8197: 8180: 8170: 8108: 8086: 8042: 8035: 8026:. If you're 8002: 7767:autofellatio 7583: 7580: 7545: 7482: 7445: 7395: 7392: 7372: 7371: 7365: 7364: 7360: 7356: 7352: 7349: 7345: 7330: 7306: 7294: 7272: 7260: 7219: 7207: 7197: 7192: 7155: 7143: 7132: 7129:secular bias 7128: 7126: 7089: 7083: 7075: 7060: 7046: 7030:69.165.44.90 7025: 7022: 7000: 6992: 6985: 6848: 6820:good article 6819: 6814: 6810: 6800: 6792: 6782: 6757: 6721: 6710: 6706: 6704: 6693: 6689: 6686: 6676: 6636: 6585: 6567: 6555: 6541: 6519: 6481:Geeky people 6480: 6469:Geeky people 6468: 6457: 6406: 6398: 6387: 6374: 6372: 6363: 6360: 6357: 6354: 6350: 6346: 6339: 6335: 6332: 6329: 6324: 6320: 6318: 6310: 6306: 6290:Grant Naylor 6285: 6282: 6229: 6223: 6217: 6214: 6185: 6147: 6139: 6135: 6130: 6128: 6119: 6117: 6076: 6066: 6043: 6019: 6015: 6011: 6007: 6003: 5999: 5991: 5985: 5972: 5943: 5908: 5887: 5874: 5828: 5800: 5698: 5681: 5659: 5651: 5554: 5551:Penis vandal 5527: 5516:24.99.38.182 5513: 5509: 5491: 5482:24.99.38.182 5479: 5476: 5472: 5454: 5445: 5437: 5418: 5353: 5324: 5316:Village pump 5299:Uncyclopedia 5278: 5274: 5211: 5193: 5183:Ryan Delaney 5151: 5146: 5145: 5115: 5102: 5098: 5066: 5050: 5032: 5012: 5005: 4992: 4988: 4968: 4960: 4952: 4940: 4918: 4914: 4890: 4825: 4783: 4764: 4752: 4740: 4728: 4716: 4704: 4692: 4680: 4668: 4656: 4624: 4616: 4601: 4597: 4584: 4571: 4558: 4538: 4526: 4517: 4514: 4509: 4505: 4500: 4495: 4490: 4485: 4484: 4481: 4465: 4457: 4452: 4451: 4435: 4434: 4429: 4425: 4411: 4406: 4404: 4401: 4390: 4381: 4372:Village pump 4365: 4247: 4234: 4207: 4203: 4195: 4171: 4163: 4157: 4154: 4151: 4146: 4143:edit summary 4142: 4140: 4132: 4122: 4115:Purge cache 4111: 4100: 4086: 4044: 3965: 3960:or similar. 3934: 3933: 3927: 3926: 3920: 3919: 3916: 3902: 3888: 3866: 3829: 3801:bigpinkthing 3774: 3766: 3729: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3461: 3458: 3429: 3421:deletereview 3415: 3401: 3393: 3386:bigpinkthing 3364: 3354:bigpinkthing 3287:bigpinkthing 3275: 3268: 3251: 3250: 3126: 3074: 3039: 3037: 2960: 2959: 2943: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2916: 2911: 2908: 2900: 2889: 2865: 2858: 2777: 2773: 2752: 2748: 2727: 2715: 2711: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2620: 2602: 2533: 2530: 2522:Thoughts? — 2521: 2517: 2498: 2446: 2444: 2430: 2428: 2411: 2385: 2377: 2368: 2333: 2329: 2314: 2310: 2294: 2265: 2262: 2243: 2228: 2226: 2209: 2200: 2168: 2160: 2159: 2145: 2142: 2138: 2122: 2114: 2110: 2093: 2068:— Preceding 2060: 2028: 1975: 1863: 1859: 1851: 1786: 1738: 1711: 1683: 1675: 1652: 1598: 1504: 1487: 1479: 1462:date formats 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1390: 1369: 1349: 1345: 1344:rather than 1341: 1333: 1329: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1228: 1219: 1215: 1211: 1205: 1204: 1198: 1194: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1171: 1169: 1160: 1152: 1148: 1143: 1141: 1138:Era Proposal 276: 149: 97: 93: 81: 30:Village pump 28: 9750:Samohyl Jan 9565:Gollum skin 9289:Georgia guy 9217:Please see 9079:text from: 8747:Chairman S. 8498:Chairman S. 8315:really hard 8206:Herostratus 8100:mathematics 8030:in helping 7632:CBDunkerson 7585:Jimbo Wales 7548:Jimbo Wales 7397:submission? 6587:article. -- 6330:Greetings, 6302:Doug Naylor 6255:World Brain 6018:as well as 5576:Georgia guy 5557:Georgia guy 5320:Pathoschild 5303:Davidizer13 5246:Makenji-san 4685:Davidizer13 4629:Scientology 4377:Pathoschild 4160:tedious. -- 3782:Shiftchange 2728:December 25 2724:December 25 2712:December 25 2704:December 25 2691:31 December 2679:31 December 2672:25 December 2659:December 31 2647:December 31 2639:December 25 2636:], ] - ]. 2244:Please see 2163:Please see 2105:December 25 2029:information 1666:Cjmarsicano 1446:Darwiner111 1438:interpreted 1395:Darwiner111 1372:. Violates 1354:Darwiner111 1172:Years from 1144:anno Domini 9686:does have. 9553:Randwicked 9449:Kevin Baas 9439:Kevin Baas 9414:Kevin Baas 9358:Kevin Baas 9336:Kevin Baas 9323:Kevin Baas 9303:Kevin Baas 8855:Flcelloguy 8819:Logged as 8779:Pattersonc 8688:stianpower 8668:Hairy Dude 8654:Ma.rkus.nl 8607:Witty lama 8594:Hackwrench 8476:Physchim62 8472:Click here 8420:Physchim62 8355:Physchim62 8097:baby steps 8032:developing 8028:interested 7643:User:Weyes 7576:February 7 7564:dark humor 7546:Recently, 7447:{{helpme}} 7198:confirming 6936:Physchim62 6736:, say, at 6267:Coolcaesar 6263:Paul Otlet 6192:Simetrical 6089:Coolcaesar 5862:talk to me 5773:Physchim62 5725:Physchim62 5477:Thank You 5212:as editors 4969:Noooooooo. 4925:encephalon 4900:encephalon 4466:preventing 3753:Art portal 3481:Pattersonc 3350:meta noise 3278:folksonomy 3271:Flickr.com 3220:Flcelloguy 3046:7 February 2851:Change to 2774:March 2005 2766:March 2005 2749:March 2005 2741:March 2005 2669:] ] - ]. 2484:Rob Church 2403:Rob Church 1803:Sean Black 1769:Pattersonc 1717:Pattersonc 1700:Pattersonc 1637:Pattersonc 1532:layout at 1460:Check out 1434:Common era 1418:Common era 1391:common era 1364:Discussion 1281:common era 1182:Common Era 1161:164 BC/BCE 100:Archives: 51:persistent 10053:Superm401 10013:Tempshill 9793:Superm401 9772:donations 9710:Johnleemk 9684:Main Page 9653:Main Page 9319:March 1st 8536:abakharev 8263:technical 8089:mediawiki 8083:technical 8037:wiki mark 8016:resources 8013:financial 8005:wikimedia 7999:financial 7981:Johnleemk 7882:Johnleemk 7825:Johnleemk 7771:Johnleemk 7616:Johnleemk 7560:pedophile 7552:wheel war 7427:Johnleemk 7193:generally 7136:stance.-- 7065:Superm401 6631:with the 6298:Rob Grant 6294:Red Dwarf 6253:See also 6240:Superm401 5766:Recreated 5621:Johnleemk 5379:Johnleemk 5339:Sam Vimes 5277:and have 5194:all users 5152:Undecided 5055:Johnleemk 4998:Aquillion 4993:temporary 4930:ὲγκέφαλον 4905:ὲγκέφαλον 4733:Asdquefty 4721:Nil Einne 4661:Brandon39 4147:last edit 4145:from the 4023:Johnleemk 3875:Catherine 3615:Superm401 3607:variables 3583:Superm401 3518:Superm401 3514:copyright 3346:long tail 3311:vandalism 3264:tag cloud 3079:Johnleemk 3017:Superm401 2995:bug #3972 2991:bug #1106 2987:bug #2725 2912:dedicated 2839:Cyde Weys 2753:June 2005 2745:June 2005 2721:] - 31. 2585:Cyde Weys 2535:Cyde Weys 2448:Cyde Weys 2432:Cyde Weys 2413:Cyde Weys 2387:Cyde Weys 2379:This edit 2316:Cyde Weys 2211:Cyde Weys 2187:Mozzerati 2170:Cyde Weys 2161:Addendum: 2147:Cyde Weys 2101:Christmas 2061:Moved to 1878:Johnleemk 1676:Alongside 1538:Solipsist 1405:Johnleemk 1378:Johnleemk 1338:Christian 1257:Wednesday 1233:Gregorian 46:Proposals 41:Technical 10026:imagevio 9983:James S. 9899:" /: --> 9860:James S. 9816:James S. 9782:James S. 9374:Shimgray 9250:xaosflux 9224:xaosflux 9193:xaosflux 9157:xaosflux 9146:proposal 9120:xaosflux 8913:Alfakim 8842:Cool Cat 8794:Larsinio 8619:Noneloud 8104:software 8003:I think 7572:Radiant! 7568:Radiant! 7400:mbeychok 7111:User:Zoe 7061:not here 7002:besides 6986:Maybe a 6884:jnothman 6544:Netscott 6463:Netscott 6411:Comments 6400:Netscott 6365:Netscott 6358:Thanks! 6286:sections 6200:contribs 6164:Bugzilla 6140:Alfakim 6124:red link 6047:Cool Cat 6035:Cool Cat 6024:nonsense 5871:Grutness 5836:WP:PANIC 5825:WP:PANIC 5678:Grutness 5641:User:Zoe 5637:WP:BEANS 5531:JackofOz 5266:Plugwash 5198:Scott P. 5156:Colin M. 5120:Scott P. 5099:everyone 5022:WP:MEME? 4958:Phroziac 4893:This is 4877:Scott P. 4865:User:Zoe 4830:Scott P. 4814:User:Zoe 4801:Scott P. 4788:User:Zoe 4602:removing 4520:Scott P. 4496:Neutral: 4486:Support: 4325:WP:BEANS 4218:Chris 73 4164:Alfakim 4070:jnothman 3962:Grutness 3841:I think 3757:jnothman 3516:issues. 3495:User:Zoe 3283:PageRank 3256:metadata 2932:Trilemma 2884:Bug 4898 2860:Bug 4898 2800:SGBailey 2763:] - ]. 2738:] - ]. 2701:] - ]. 2603:strongly 2365:2005-12) 2292:nae'blis 2196:ISO 8601 2082:contribs 2070:unsigned 1841:User:Zoe 1823:Shimgray 1790:Acebrock 1735:Grutness 1680:Grutness 1649:Grutness 1611:WP:FPORT 1484:Grutness 1243:, using 1157:this one 58:Idea lab 9708:, etc. 9680:portals 9678:Should 9649:portals 9647:Should 9394:Jaranda 8974:Keycard 8931:Support 8899:Cynical 8894:Support 8837:Support 8743:Support 8727:Support 8711:Support 8696:Support 8676:Support 8664:Support 8645:Hiyya54 8641:Support 8603:Support 8111:Cacumer 8102:to the 8045:Cacumer 8024:problem 8009:limited 7949:Cynical 7877:WP:USER 7851:Cynical 7808:Cynical 7791:Wikinfo 7729:English 7647:User:Rl 7556:userbox 7517:Tsavage 7501:WP:NPOV 7485:Dalbury 7239:HAIRBOY 7180:— Matt 7176:secular 7101:Cynical 7012:WP:FARC 6993:Keycard 6690:partiya 6629:machine 6507:Moocats 5892:Cynical 5842:HAIRBOY 5701:WP:BOLD 5134:Sherool 5107:Sherool 5086:Neutral 5033:opposed 5013:Opposed 4915:a month 4891:Oppose: 4769:Gflores 4765:Support 4753:Support 4741:Support 4729:Support 4717:Support 4709:DaGizza 4705:Support 4693:Support 4681:Support 4669:Support 4657:Support 4647:tɔktəmi 4637:Obesity 4623:; it's 4617:Support 4598:Support 4585:Support 4572:Support 4559:Support 4533:Support 4510:comment 4491:Oppose: 4370:to the 4125:Sidebar 4089:MarioJE 3983:gadfium 3865:(which 3737:Jwhites 3432:Bantman 3252:Propose 3167:Talrias 3096:Talrias 3075:January 3053:Talrias 2540:2M-VOTE 1922:W.marsh 1894:W.marsh 1819:WP:AN/I 1799:WP:AIAV 1601:Raul654 1587:Raul654 1567:WP:FARC 1560:WP:FARC 1523:Raul654 1279:on the 1201:option. 9764:search 9643:Portal 9603:popups 9556:Alex B 9510:Taxman 9459:JHMM13 9023:(Talk) 9003:WP:DFA 8984:Oppose 8966:LOG IN 8958:Oppose 8884:popups 8802:Suport 8765:! Talk 8573:hydnjo 8555:WP:AIV 8514:cesarb 8479:(talk) 8423:(talk) 8369:Kjkolb 8358:(talk) 8250:Jaymax 8187:Zondor 8159:cesarb 8055:JHMM13 7716:Martin 7702:Taxman 7664:Taxman 7533:cesarb 7513:WP:NOT 7505:WP:NOR 7497:WP:FAC 7182:Crypto 7037:EllenT 7008:WP:FAC 6939:(talk) 6786:Kjkolb 6742:WP:TIE 6680:Taxman 6665:(Talk) 6633:person 6524:Golbez 6520:always 6493:cesarb 6473:TERdON 6449:Golbez 6440:cesarb 6422:cesarb 6265:). -- 6103:Taxman 6020:delete 6016:rename 5959:Seahen 5776:(talk) 5728:(talk) 5585:JackyR 5357:Redfax 5147:Oppose 4989:Oppose 4941:Oppose 4919:always 4895:unwiki 4826:anyone 4778:Oppose 4577:Adidas 4329:Pharos 4296:Pharos 4278:Golbez 4264:Shanes 4252:Golbez 4248:remove 4238:Pharos 4054:popups 3979:WP:MVP 3895:Golbez 3833:Noclip 3717:Aaronw 3693:Splash 3661:Splash 3634:Splash 3408:delete 3262:(i.e. 3189:Splash 3007:seance 2978:Zondor 2965:Zondor 2946:Ksenon 2863:page. 2556:seance 2297:(talk) 1940:cesarb 1837:WP:VIP 1815:WP:AIV 1574:(Talk) 1549:WP:FLC 1517:, and 1471:seance 1376:. ^_^ 1374:WP:NEO 1370:Delete 1237:Julian 1206:Years 36:Policy 10046:or-cr 9770:Your 9730:Shyam 9667:Shyam 9594:Lupin 9491:roken 9178:Kusma 9054:ɹəəds 9047:speer 9008:Ilyan 8921:talk 8875:Lupin 8862:note? 8761:SAMIR 8700:vidar 8185:. -- 7458:plane 7389:Wiki. 7290:Colle 7256:Colle 7203:Colle 7139:Colle 7004:WP:FA 6747:Kusma 6724:Curps 6715:Curps 6698:Curps 6662:ALoan 6660:. -- 6420:). -- 6304:). 6225:: --> 6219:: --> 6148:talk 6084:Memex 5888:et al 5811:Aecis 5785:Aecis 5746:Aecis 5709:Aecis 5663:Osbus 5459:. -- 5326:admin 5318:. // 5285:Zhatt 5256:Rd232 5220:siafu 5170:Habap 4945:siafu 4745:JoJan 4697:Habap 4621:Zhatt 4608:Zhatt 4590:Coll7 4551:Curps 4383:admin 4216:. -- 4172:talk 4045:Lupin 3935:Note: 3826:Bloat 3550:email 3254:that 3227:note? 3128:: --> 2730:- 31. 2687:12-25 2655:12-25 2571:Kusma 2514:: --> 2512:: --> 2510:: --> 2508:: --> 2506:: --> 2371:Quarl 2277:ɹəəds 2270:speer 2232:: --> 2201:could 2039:Jerzy 1571:ALoan 1569:. -- 1553:WP:FL 1253:agree 1247:does 88:start 16:< 10057:Talk 9797:Talk 9714:Talk 9706:FARC 9627:here 9599:talk 9575:here 9532:Toth 9497:egue 9378:talk 9298:and 9181:(討論) 9100:Here 9093:here 8880:talk 8839:! -- 8806:once 8783:Talk 8576:talk 8410:Deco 8319:Deco 8268:and 8202:list 8198:list 8157:. -- 8121:Deco 8020:idea 7985:Talk 7916:Deco 7886:Talk 7829:Talk 7795:Deco 7775:Talk 7645:and 7620:Talk 7509:WP:V 7477:now. 7453:Jaco 7431:Talk 7415:Deco 7334:Deco 7312:Talk 7278:Talk 7225:Talk 7172:NPOV 7161:Talk 7069:Talk 7010:and 6988:star 6974:Deco 6921:Deco 6861:Mark 6775:Deco 6750:(討論) 6694:put' 6491:. -- 6438:. -- 6432:evil 6388:and 6300:and 6244:Talk 6196:talk 6182:EBay 6012:move 6008:keep 6004:only 5990:and 5877:wha? 5684:wha? 5625:Talk 5614:bv-n 5609:and 5567:Deco 5542:Deco 5430:Deco 5400:Mark 5383:Talk 5373:and 5230:+sj 5076:talk 5059:Talk 5038:+sj 4641:Angr 4639:. -- 4635:and 4625:more 4564:Adam 4471:+sj 4409:. 4387:/ ). 4347:Deco 4311:Deco 4222:Talk 4158:very 4050:talk 4027:Talk 4005:Deco 3968:wha? 3945:Deco 3853:and 3845:and 3814:+sj 3792:Deco 3777:mine 3741:talk 3672:Deco 3619:Talk 3597:Deco 3587:Talk 3534:Deco 3522:Talk 3510:spam 3485:Talk 3446:Deco 3370:Deco 3299:Deco 3144:< 3083:Talk 3049:2006 3038:The 3021:Talk 2817:and 2778:June 2770:June 2683:2005 2675:2005 2651:2005 2643:2005 2621:your 2574:(討論) 2488:talk 2453:vote 2437:vote 2418:vote 2392:vote 2321:vote 2311:ugly 2248:and 2216:vote 2175:vote 2152:vote 2078:talk 1938:. -- 1904:Deco 1882:Talk 1870:wiki 1868:The 1827:talk 1773:Talk 1754:Deco 1741:wha? 1721:Talk 1704:Talk 1686:wha? 1655:wha? 1641:Talk 1619:talk 1613:).-- 1551:and 1490:wha? 1416:See 1409:Talk 1382:Talk 1316:nor 1297:5 CE 1293:2 BC 1287:and 1275:and 1208:1 BC 9698:FAC 9631:Rob 9527:Aza 9260:CVU 9234:CVU 9203:CVU 9167:CVU 9130:CVU 8997:DFA 8988:PeR 8917:-- 8825:DES 8810:DES 8680:Cel 8560:Phr 8337:Phr 8155:AfD 7315:-- 7281:-- 7228:-- 7164:-- 7131:VS 7090:Boy 7086:Roy 7051:on 7026:who 6641:Rob 6614:Rob 6589:Rob 6534:Neo 6485:TeX 6383:OFF 6321:not 6144:-- 6010:or 5873:... 5680:... 5639:. 5461:Rob 5103:not 5051:all 4980:315 4975:Ral 4855:urε 4845:Tεx 4673:JDG 4498:or 4168:-- 3993:DES 3964:... 3659:. - 3512:or 3365:all 3348:of 3317:. 3313:or 2866:On 2823:DES 2798:-- 2606:26. 2468:DES 2382:--> 2254:DES 2235:DES 2204:--> 2116:--> 1874:NPA 1839:. 1801:.-- 1737:... 1682:... 1651:... 1486:... 1440:as 1342:BCE 1306:not 1295:to 1261:BCE 1249:not 1151:to 1149:BCE 1132:214 1128:213 1124:212 1120:211 1116:210 1112:209 1108:208 1104:207 1100:206 1096:205 1092:204 1088:203 1084:202 1080:201 1076:200 1072:199 1068:198 1064:197 1060:196 1056:195 1052:194 1048:193 1044:192 1040:191 1036:190 1032:189 1028:188 1024:187 1020:186 1016:185 1012:184 1008:183 1004:182 1000:181 996:180 992:179 988:178 984:177 980:176 976:175 972:174 968:173 964:172 960:171 956:170 952:169 948:168 944:167 940:166 936:165 932:164 928:163 924:162 920:161 916:160 912:159 908:158 904:157 900:156 896:155 892:154 888:153 884:152 880:151 876:150 872:149 868:148 864:147 860:146 856:145 852:144 848:143 844:142 840:141 836:140 832:139 828:138 824:137 820:136 816:135 812:134 808:133 804:132 800:131 796:130 792:129 788:128 784:127 780:126 776:125 772:124 768:123 764:122 760:121 756:120 752:119 748:118 744:117 740:116 736:115 732:114 728:113 724:112 720:111 716:110 712:109 708:108 704:107 700:106 696:105 692:104 688:103 684:102 680:101 676:100 63:WMF 10055:- 10049:}} 10043:{{ 10040:}} 10034:{{ 10029:}} 10023:{{ 9835:LV 9795:- 9726:-- 9712:| 9704:, 9702:FA 9700:, 9469:) 9465:| 9380:| 9376:| 9356:. 9057:ɹ 9051:/ 9040:. 9034:is 8971:-- 8937:ᓛᖁ 8860:A 8737:ті 8734:zє 8731:тə 8719:-b 8713:, 8703:lo 8523:-- 8512:-- 8443:ᓛᖁ 8382:ᓛᖁ 8290:ᓛᖁ 8276:}} 8270:{{ 8266:}} 8260:{{ 8109:-- 8065:) 8061:| 8043:-- 8040:. 7983:| 7884:| 7827:| 7773:| 7736:ᓛᖁ 7679:ᓛᖁ 7630:-- 7618:| 7592:ᓛᖁ 7578:. 7511:, 7507:, 7503:, 7429:| 7246:) 7067:- 7063:. 7059:, 7039:) 7016:CG 6934:. 6575:. 6394:On 6257:, 6242:- 6238:. 6202:) 6198:• 6126:. 6032:-- 5860:| 5849:) 5769:}} 5763:{{ 5623:| 5619:. 5617:}} 5611:{{ 5607:}} 5604:bv 5601:{{ 5480:-- 5381:| 5337:. 5218:. 5216:5P 5150:, 5078:) 5057:| 4897:.— 4327:-- 4276:-- 4220:| 4127:) 4025:| 3981:.- 3877:\ 3867:is 3755:. 3743:) 3617:- 3585:- 3553:}} 3547:{{ 3520:- 3424:}} 3418:{{ 3411:}} 3405:{{ 3321:ᓛᖁ 3225:A 3181:) 3177:| 3173:| 3110:) 3106:| 3102:| 3081:| 3077:? 3067:) 3063:| 3059:| 3019:- 2997:; 2993:; 2989:; 2890:— 2870:, 2776:- 2768:- 2751:- 2743:- 2716:31 2714:- 2708:31 2706:- 2689:- 2677:- 2657:- 2645:- 2641:, 2601:I 2582:-- 2569:. 2532:-- 2490:) 2466:. 2369:-- 2280:ɹ 2274:/ 2084:) 2080:• 2065:. 2037:-- 1982:ᓛᖁ 1920:-- 1880:| 1829:| 1825:| 1788:-- 1733:. 1617:| 1615:cj 1513:, 1480:BC 1430:CE 1407:| 1400:. 1380:| 1346:BC 1334:CE 1330:AD 1318:AD 1314:CE 1310:BC 1299:). 1289:CE 1285:BC 1277:BC 1273:AD 1269:CE 1265:BC 1245:BC 1241:AD 1222:). 1212:BC 1188:). 1178:CE 1153:CE 1130:, 1126:, 1122:, 1118:, 1114:, 1110:, 1106:, 1102:, 1098:, 1094:, 1090:, 1086:, 1082:, 1078:, 1074:, 1070:, 1066:, 1062:, 1058:, 1054:, 1050:, 1046:, 1042:, 1038:, 1034:, 1030:, 1026:, 1022:, 1018:, 1014:, 1010:, 1006:, 1002:, 998:, 994:, 990:, 986:, 982:, 978:, 974:, 970:, 966:, 962:, 958:, 954:, 950:, 946:, 942:, 938:, 934:, 930:, 926:, 922:, 918:, 914:, 910:, 906:, 902:, 898:, 894:, 890:, 886:, 882:, 878:, 874:, 870:, 866:, 862:, 858:, 854:, 850:, 846:, 842:, 838:, 834:, 830:, 826:, 822:, 818:, 814:, 810:, 806:, 802:, 798:, 794:, 790:, 786:, 782:, 778:, 774:, 770:, 766:, 762:, 758:, 754:, 750:, 746:, 742:, 738:, 734:, 730:, 726:, 722:, 718:, 714:, 710:, 706:, 702:, 698:, 694:, 690:, 686:, 682:, 678:, 674:, 672:99 670:, 668:98 666:, 664:97 662:, 660:96 658:, 656:95 654:, 652:94 650:, 648:93 646:, 644:92 642:, 640:91 638:, 636:90 634:, 632:89 630:, 628:88 626:, 624:87 622:, 620:86 618:, 616:85 614:, 612:84 610:, 608:83 606:, 604:82 602:, 600:81 598:, 596:80 594:, 592:79 590:, 588:78 586:, 584:77 582:, 580:76 578:, 576:75 574:, 572:74 570:, 568:73 566:, 564:72 562:, 560:71 558:, 556:70 554:, 552:69 550:, 548:68 546:, 544:67 542:, 540:66 538:, 536:65 534:, 532:64 530:, 528:63 526:, 524:62 522:, 520:61 518:, 516:60 514:, 512:59 510:, 508:58 506:, 504:57 502:, 500:56 498:, 496:55 494:, 492:54 490:, 488:53 486:, 484:52 482:, 480:51 478:, 476:50 474:, 472:49 470:, 468:48 466:, 464:47 462:, 460:46 458:, 456:45 454:, 452:44 450:, 448:43 446:, 444:42 442:, 440:41 438:, 436:40 434:, 432:39 430:, 428:38 426:, 424:37 422:, 420:36 418:, 416:35 414:, 412:34 410:, 408:33 406:, 404:32 402:, 400:31 398:, 396:30 394:, 392:29 390:, 388:28 386:, 384:27 382:, 380:26 378:, 376:25 374:, 372:24 370:, 368:23 366:, 364:22 362:, 360:21 358:, 356:20 354:, 352:19 350:, 348:18 346:, 344:17 342:, 340:16 338:, 336:15 334:, 332:14 330:, 328:13 326:, 324:12 322:, 320:11 318:, 316:10 314:, 310:, 306:, 302:, 298:, 294:, 290:, 286:, 282:, 274:AR 272:, 270:AQ 268:, 266:AP 264:, 262:AO 260:, 258:AN 256:, 254:AM 252:, 250:AL 248:, 246:AK 244:, 242:AJ 240:, 238:AI 236:, 234:AH 232:, 230:AG 228:, 226:AF 224:, 222:AE 220:, 218:AD 216:, 214:AC 212:, 210:AB 208:, 206:AA 204:, 200:, 196:, 192:, 188:, 184:, 180:, 176:, 172:, 168:, 164:, 160:, 156:, 152:, 148:, 144:, 140:, 136:, 132:, 128:, 124:, 120:, 116:, 112:, 108:, 104:, 9694:. 9601:| 9597:| 9524:→ 9495:S 9489:B 9467:C 9463:T 9461:( 9256:/ 9230:/ 9199:/ 9163:/ 9126:/ 9095:. 9044:r 9018:p 9013:e 8949:ᑐ 8935:‣ 8882:| 8878:| 8865:) 8858:( 8781:( 8684:e 8632:দ 8455:ᑐ 8441:‣ 8394:ᑐ 8380:‣ 8302:ᑐ 8288:‣ 8063:C 8059:T 8057:( 7748:ᑐ 7734:‣ 7691:ᑐ 7677:‣ 7604:ᑐ 7590:‣ 7307:| 7295:| 7273:| 7261:| 7244:☎ 7242:( 7237:C 7220:| 7208:| 7156:| 7144:| 7113:| 6711:v 6707:i 6489:☺ 6396:? 6385:? 6194:( 6120:B 6014:/ 5847:☎ 5845:( 5840:C 5643:| 5322:( 5233:+ 5074:( 5041:+ 5024:) 5020:( 4867:| 4850:τ 4816:| 4790:| 4643:/ 4518:- 4493:, 4488:, 4474:+ 4379:( 4052:| 4048:| 3817:+ 3739:( 3684:দ 3648:দ 3497:| 3483:( 3333:ᑐ 3319:‣ 3230:) 3223:( 3179:c 3175:e 3171:t 3169:( 3142:t 3140:n 3138:a 3136:i 3134:d 3132:a 3130:R 3108:c 3104:e 3100:t 3098:( 3065:c 3061:e 3057:t 3055:( 2886:. 2780:. 2755:. 2718:. 2693:. 2685:- 2661:. 2653:- 2486:( 2267:r 2227:( 2076:( 2043:t 2041:• 1994:ᑐ 1980:‣ 1843:| 1771:( 1719:( 1702:( 1639:( 1562:. 1451:. 1359:. 1322:1 1235:/ 1214:( 1180:( 1174:1 312:9 308:8 304:7 300:6 296:5 292:4 288:3 284:2 280:1 277:· 202:Z 198:Y 194:X 190:W 186:V 182:U 178:T 174:S 170:R 166:Q 162:P 158:O 154:N 150:M 146:L 142:K 138:J 134:I 130:H 126:G 122:F 118:E 114:D 110:C 106:B 102:A 98:· 53:) 49:(

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

Knowledge

:Village pump (proposals)/Archive M - Knowledge

Index