User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 3

3061:

later is also a writer of novels but is mainly known around the world’s intellectual circles as an environmental thinker who suggested the protection of extraterrestrial environments from human space missions. Every time a NASA probe lands on Mars, like Curiosity did a few weeks ago, many ‘pop’ science articles appear quoting Alan Marshall, the Australian writer (1902-1984) as saying ‘Mars belong to the Martians’ when he never talked about such matters. This confuses the large audience of Alan Marshall (1902-1984) readers at high schools all over the world, and the not-so-large but still significant number of tertiary environmental studies students who believe that Alan Marshall (1902-1984) talked about preserving Martians. The origin of this confusion arises, perhaps understandably, because the two have the same name and both published novels and books in Melbourne presses and appeared on Australia’s Radio National but they are two different “Alan Marshalls”, that a continuous stream of wikipedians keep getting confused and hyper-linking one with the other. Over the last 10 years, my personal attempts to actively de-hyperlink the two have been unsuccessful because non-wikipedia writers have read Knowledge entries and got them confused and writen about them, and then Knowledge editors have read the writings of these non-wikipedia writers and had the confusion reinforced. If Knowledge is wanting to claim ‘reliability’, it should finally allow the two Alan Marshall’s a distinct Knowledge presence, especially since one is dead and the other is alive. And the one who is alive is probably sick of being thought of as being dead (and the other one, if he were alive, would probably be annoyed that he keeps being linked with the protection of Martians). Given this decade of confusion whose origin lies in Knowledge editing, it now behooves Knowledge to correct a systemic mistake and accept an article about Alan Marshall (scholar) that sits as a clear disambiguation between the two.

3381:

BNI entry has 4 citations: two from the organisation's own website and two are independent. I have provided 7 citations, two from the organisation's own website and 5 independent. Yes, 4 of these are from The Times, which does have a paywall. However, Wiki's own entry for UK newspapers shows that The Times is the oldest UK newspaper. It therefore has to be recognised as an independent, notable research source and the paywall shouldn't be a barrier to this. After all, you can't check citations from books for free online: you can only check them by buying the book or visiting a library - but that doesn't stop Wiki accepting them as a source. It's the same with The Times: you check the reference by buying it or visiting a library. (I am actually surprised that Wiki doesn't provide a subscription for its UK editors to The Times - as a journalist not having access to one of the 4 broadsheets is not an option.) Two of The Times articles are very much about 4Networking, rather than Brad Burton: Pressure is just not the British way and Contacts are key to door of opportunity.

1288:

actually do see everyday. Your staff here does great work and well, I'm no writer, lol. I'm here to ask you and your staff (and any users who may be interested)with some help in this article as I think it may need to be added to your wonderful database. Knowledge is a very useful tool and people use it everyday. The subject of "Predictive Programming" is real. And I thinks its only proper to give some humble lean in the direction of truth with terms like this. I cannot find a dictionary with the term in it as of yet (still looking). However I do know a couple of journalists who in fact tell me that this is a very real tactic used by some media corps. I thank you once again for your time and patience and the great work you all perform here on Knowledge. And bless you all.

551: 3250: 1939: 1837: 334: 31: 407: 496: 2530:

is a 4+ page feature about the company. The 1990 Star Tribune article is about toy designers, but the coverage of WB is more than trivial. The Business Week reference identifies WB as a design award winner; though not in-depth coverage itself, winning a design award recognized by a national magazine should add to the case of notability. Let me know if you think this suffices. If you do, I will go back and make edits based on your previous comments. Thanks.

2486:- I'm not sure how important the 1997 Business Week Idea Winners actually is, and four news references over a 25 year period doesn't seem like much. The article also still has too many non neutral terms in it, such as "Realizing that multiple in-house capabilities help achieve better results" and "The Whiteboard development process centers on the idea that 'Form Follows Reality'" which don't have much to do with what Whiteboard Product Solutions actually 3634: 2238: 1614: 3091:

their advisory panels. Under the guidelines from Wiki, this is classifiable as significant coverage’, allaying the fears of the editor quoted above. To make this absolutely clear, let me invoke THE GOLDEN RULE of notability which states: “To count as "significant coverage", a cited reference must be about the subject – there must be at least one lengthy paragraph, and preferably more, directly covering it.”

1872:

ieee members can cite them. Though i did happen to find a .pdf copy of the same research paper somewhere else. Any guidance will be highly appreciated. Moreover, I know that page needs a lot of work to be done, can you tell me precisely what are the mistakes, though i am sure that there are plenty, but that would help me to correct it and prepare it upto wikipedian standards. Thank You. --

443: 2065: 3479: 1023:

my current issues are that some of the references are blogs, which tend to be unreliable, and some of the other references are not actually about the article's subject, such as the BBC review, which is about Mary Anne Hobbs rather than Untold. You'll need to find references from reliable sources (such as newspapers or magazines - BBC is a good source,

933::-p My friend who likes weird music, criticizes me all the time for my poor taste. I would not mind so much, except that he knows nothing about music. Never touched a musical instrument, wouldn't know a minor from a major or a violin from a viola. I need to get back practicing something at least once a year, before my joints freeze. -- 3068:“can't comment on the book references, but the web references only appear to mention the article's subject briefly in passing. Unfortunately, we need significant coverage in reliable sources in order to assert notability of an article's subject. Additionally, the preferred format for book citations is to include ISBN numbers” 3031:. Basically, get rid of any reference that has the word "blog" in its address, and remove anything cited by that if it can't be cited by another reference instead. You can reference your own site for basic details like company size and history - you just need enough reliable sources from elsewhere to establish 3313:

Many Thanks for reviewing my draft article about the NSRC. This is intended to be an article about the organization itself, and I'm not sure how to build it by editing John Klensin's bio entry. The NSRC links in the Klensin entry point out to NSRC.org rather than to existing wikipedia entries. Thanks

3090:

Having said that, many of the online references about the subject of the article have detailed artistic in-depth apparaisals covering mre than 3-5 printed pages by established critics, including pop-science writers, grammy-award winners, philosophy professors from journals with nobel prize winners on

3082:

We might note that the number of references to this article's subject is a considerably larger number of references than the other ‘Alan Marshall’s on Knowledge. Any more references would make the article reference heavy surely, since every sentence would use references, making the readability not so

3002:

Saw your recent comment on the Help Desk regarding my efforts to get the Virtual Piggy page approved - I've been confused as to users citing my sources as unreliable blogs, even though they are associated with reputable news sources such as the Wall Street Journal. It sounds like you agree with me on

2297:

Despite extensive research we have been unable to find any online sources as a reference - the collection was until recently not available to the public and has never been mentioned on any MOD or government website or literature . It is a collection of national importance and shows items returned to

1022:

Hi. I've had a look and I think reason I probably declined this is due to not much changing between the previous decline, and the one I reviewed. I haven't checked through all the references in detail, so I can't give a definite answer on whether the article would pass a review right now, but I think

184:

article and elsewhere off Knowledge about the G-Spot, and it's also debated. However, I wouldn't call the A-Spot "debated." It's simply not mentioned in most scholarly sources, if any at all besides the one medical journal included in its article (I'm obviously not counting the book). The most you'll

3380:

You have just declined my article for not being notable. I have therefore looked up the entries for comparable organisations, The British Chambers of Commerce and BNI (organisation). British Chambers of Commerce entry has no independent citations - only one link to the organisation's own website.

3098:

As well as this, the subject of study is noted as a key thinker in a school textbook read by almost all students studying for A-levels in the UK’s ‘religuous studies’ course, which is an audience of many tens of thousands. None of them want to be confused by Knowledge between the two Alan Marshall’s

3086:

Just to make the reviewr editor happy and more confident, a few more online references have been included. It might seem to the above editor that the subject of this article is mentioned in passing in a few of these references because these references are official published records that name winners

2529:

Hi Ritchie333 - Thanks for the response. Whiteboard has more than 4 news references, but these 4 have the most significant coverage to establish notability. The 1995 article in the Star Tribune is about WB (formerly called Leisure) and its founder. The 2005 article in Twin Cities Business Monthly

1895:

if one exists. I've converted your BBC News reference into a web link, so have a look at the underlying code to see how I've done that. Having said all of that, the problem with the BBC article is it doesn't actually mention 3D Password at all, so it isn't really any good as a reference. You need to

1743:

Ritchie333 - I'm happy to eliminate the primary source references. The articles that I have cited are the best available for establishing notability. Whiteboard does not have more recent coverage that is available on-line that can do that. I can send pdf's to you or have them posted to a web site

1483:

and the style is not appropriate for a Knowledge article. I would probably write the first sentence along the lines of "Upon You records is an independent record label based in Berlin, Germany, which was founded in 2007." If I passed it in its current state, there is a strong risk it would appear at

786:

Unfortunately I don't have enough knowledge and expertise on the subject to improve the article myself. The suitability of the Radio 1 showcase page would depend on how many other artists feature on there, and what the barrier to entry is. But it sounds like you do have the expertise. My suggestion,

681:

and so normally can't be used, while the other sources are just front page links and don't directly explain why the society is notable. You need to find specific third party publications such as news reports that directly talk about the society and why it's important, and cross reference to those in

2461:

Hi Ritchie333 - I left a post on your talk page almost a week ago and I haven't received a response. I left a comment/question about the on-line availability of reliable sources to establish notability for Whiteboard Product Solutions. Please take a look at the post from last week and let me know

1871:

Hi, i am not sure if this is the way to communicate here on wikipedia, but can you please help me by telling me how to cite an ieee research paper. I tried but still i couldn't find. I did talk on the live chat about it before creating the page, about citing the ieee research paper. Apparently only

1643:

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can

771:

Well, I kind of sort of know what I am talking about here. Underground hiphop artists generally do not have a single reliable source, the fact the BBC mentioned him in the first couple of search results is really exceptional for an artist in this genre. You can nominate the whole genre for deletion

651:

Hello Ritchie333. Thank you for your assistance with the Sociology Association of Ireland page. I have added my signature and some extra references. I would be grateful for any other assistance with the SAI page. It is similar in content to the British Sociology Association wikipage, I thought that

3060:

The reason this article is created is to correct a decade-long ambiguation made by non other than Knowledge editors between ‘Alan Marshall (writer, 1902-1984)’ and the scholar Alan Marshall, the subject of this article. The former is one of Australia’s best known literary figures of all time, the

2821:

There's a huge backlog at the moment, which seems to be due to people submitting articles faster than people can review them. However, in your case it's simply because the article hasn't been marked as submitted for review yet. I can do this, but the article is tagged as "in creation", so I'd want

1370:

Hi Ritchie! First, thanks for reviewing my article on Joseph Vincent at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Joseph_Vincent . I just had a question in regards to your declining it. For notability, Joseph Vincent has featured on NBC's "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" twice in 2010. Wouldn't that satisfy

1287:

Hi and how are you? I just wanted say thank you first for the great work you guys do here on wiki. I refer to this site daily for the most part if need be. I come to you asking for help in an article i been trying to create here on your site. Its my first article and its based on something that we

807:

The sources we call reliable on Knowledge are extremely unlikely to mention underground hiphop artists, especially relatively new ones. So your suggestion is unfortunately probably impossible. That is why my suggestion, to improve the article (and maybe even the policy) together is so much better.

3074:

It’s a shame this Wikipedean makes no effort to go to the printed references and privileges online sources (which is ironic given the professed concern for credibility and the problems of online Knowledge reliability mentioned above—which would never have occurred in Wikipedians didn’t under rate

3094:

In the Journal of Social Philosophy reference, the whole article talks about the subjects work. In the Environmental Ethics reference, a third of the ten age article talks about the subjects work. In the Sage work 3 pages are devoted to the subjects work. In the Routledge book, half a chapter is

1201:

from 1919 that may some day become an article (although I don't have the citations to indicate it's noteworthiness on it's own). As I am new to Wikipeda, and do not fully understand the naming conventions, would there be a problem with putting the year back into the Portland (Boat) title to

1522:

Hi Ritchie333. I have just seen that you declined my article upon MDT, IDE for Magik language. You mention that is should be referenced by reliable sources. I have put a couple of them already and I fear this is all there is. Smallworld Magik is so niche technology that there is very little

3135:(for instance) and verify the content. In fact, we actually prefer printed book references as opposed to web references in some instances. You've added ISBN numbers to the book references and some more web references, so I would now expect this article to pass - just resubmit it for review. 2199:

Hi, I've been working on the assumption that cleanup != AfD and so if an article is substantiated by reliable sources, but is badly formatted, it should pass but tagged as requiring attention. I'm afraid I'm no less sure as to where the inline citations should go, hence I tagged it as

1523:

information on it on the web (try and google it). In the whole world there is no more than a couple of thousand people that are writing in this language. I have found one more small reference, but it seems that's it. Please advise if it still doesn't fulfill the requirements.

3140:

One of the other things I like to do is for people submitting articles to AfC to do the research and references themselves, as they learn how to do so in the process and gain experience and understanding of Knowledge's core policies by doing it. You may be also interested in

119:

I think the difference there is that article has a medical journal and a book cited as sources - ISBN numbers would be helpful in that instance, but I don't really know enough about the subject material to make a judgement call. The canonical example I'd give is the case of

3026:

is handling this - I mentioned there were several reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal, Yahoo News, and Business Wire. That's probably enough to make an article out of. However, he and Huon were both right when they said quite a few of the other sources were

3391:

If I remove the newspaper citations that are primarily about the founder rather than the organisation, this would seem to me to bring the article very much in line with entries on other, comparable organisations. Would this change make my article pass the threshold?

2298:

MOD Donnington in the process of recovering captured or obsolete weaponry - that part of it is verifiable as a function of the establishment - all negotiations as to the release of the collection and its destination were typically secret as it was a sensitive subject.

3384:

British Chambers of Commerce, founded in 1860, has 92,000 members. BNI, founded in 1985, has 139,971 members across the globe (although this figure is not accredited). 4Networking has achieved membership of 50,000+ in just 6 years, showing huge momentum.

3075:

printed sources). Any way, the printed references for this article come from scholarly texts and reputable science and arts journals such as: -Artlink -Journal of Social Philosophy -New Scientist -Sage publishing company -a Routledge Publishing company

3099:

because they might fail their A-Level and Knowledge could be responsible for that. If this does not convince you, sure the fact that the subject of the article has 4 books published by international publishers is enough to make the subject notable.

898:

Yeah, I've been doing a bunch of batch scripting tasks elsewhere, and each time I'm bored of waiting for one to finish, I've picked off another AfC and reviewed it. Actually, Toonz is one the few I looked up and down and said "can't even tag it with

3411:

things when there's a web reference available. To work around the Times paywall issue, you can quote a small selection from it eg: "The Times said 4Networking was xyz" and cite the newspaper as your source. Provided those two times references talk

2104:

I have cn'ed that and one other claim for the time being, but I'm pretty sure we can find sources for both of them. I've also cleaned up the credits list as it had some questionable stuff, such as Mason playing Mellotron, which isn't claimed on

190:

Anyway, I brought it to you because nominating articles, or anything on Knowledge, for deletion isn't my thing. Haven't been too interested in it, though I have been tempted...as I am now. And, LOL, about "erogenous zone and road enthusiast."

2041:

Just want confirmed that everything mentioned above really is in the book and it's not just my memory playing tricks. You might need to split the references out in order to cite specific page numbers, unless you just want to cite by chapter.

2330:

to see some examples of how to cite printed material. Were the publications you refer to commercially issued? If so, they will have an ISBN number and can be used to assert the claims of notability in the article. Hope that's of some use.

2937:

Well ok. I don't understand really. seeing as nobody else knows about it because they weren't there when it happened it would be incredibly difficult to have someone verify it. I was there and I witnessed it, I took part in it all.

2481:

to see how to cite printed media such as journals or newspapers. Having said that, the problem I see is that too much of the article still depends on the primary sources, and there doesn't seem to be much else available that can assert

1650:

to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with

2502:

so can't be used to established notability. I think my conclusion is, unfortunately, that the company simply isn't notable enough to appear on Knowledge unless substantial new evidence of notability comes to light. Sorry about that.

1280: 2353: 124:, which got (AFAIK) speedy deleted at least once and deleted through AfD twice, despite featuring occasional coverage on BBC Television and local radio, and in national newspapers. We eventually compromised and got it into 2361: 2969:

Unfortunately, that is Knowledge's policy. It might sound ridiculous, but there are plenty of people in this world who will happily lie about anything just to get noticed on Knowledge, and that's one of the reasons the

2417: 3064:

The editor who rejected the first draft if this article didn’t know about any of this (although he could have easily worked it out of he explored the various ‘Alan Marshall’ entries). He makes the following points:

3371: 851:

This one was a borderline case, but I remember passing this through last night on the basis of the chart hit. It's odd I didn't tag it with at least blp refimprove and wikify - I would have normally done so. I have

128:, which I actually think works out better. If you're trying to search for SABRE, you know what it is anyway, whereas if you don't know about it, you're more likely to come across it in WP via its subject matter. -- 1595:

Thanks for quick response. I added and changed some references, we will see how the reviewer will judge it. Bottom line: merging this with Smallworld content is an alternative. Could anything be done to make it

1112:

You recently declined our submission due to lack of references or confirmations. I have added a few books that verify, confirm and substantiate the contents we published. Please advise if this is acceptable.

2173:

a little. You moved the article, but the submission wasn't cleaned. Also, the author hadn't connected the references inline. Do you mind finishing this one up? You are probably more familiar with it than I.

1656: 1441:

Upon.You Records article. Hello Ritchie333, you declined my article on Upon.You Records a few minutes ago. I sort of get your point, but we have befriended labels on Knowledge with similar aritcels, i.e.:

2301:

There are of course documents that show its release but they were not in the public domain . It exists and has been used as a reference source by various publications for weapon details and photographs

1144:

I have resubmitted your article to the queue of those being reviewed, so someone will look at it soon. In the case of books, it may take a day or two for somebody to get round checking they are all

2477:

Hi - sorry I did read your last message and wasn't sure if there was anything that needed actioning from it - I just assumed you'd resubmit the article. You don't need to have online references -

2798:

I edited it and resubmitted a week ago but have not heard anything as yet. I assume that perhaps I did something wrong when trying to resubmit, but can't seem to fund any way to resubmit again.

185:

find about this topic is what is stated on unreliable sex sites and in sex guides spreading information about erogenous zones that aren't even supported by research or at least valid research.

2243: 2231: 3183:

has been renominated by the same nominator 11 days after it closed as "no consensus". I'm contacting everyone who participated in the last AFD, who hasn't found their way there already.

3087:

of awards. The same official records also list Peter Jackson (director) and Douglas Adams (writer) in passing because they are merely recording award conferrals not artistic appraisals.

1632:) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the 2036:

Waters refusing to write the lyrics to "The Narrow Way". It wouldn't surprise me if Waters would have remembered this and used it as ammunition to bash Gilmour with the late 80s as well.

3567: 3604:

We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 2 or 3 reviews, it would be extremely beneficial.

180:

is a peer-reviewed journal. And in any case, it's just one medical journal and one book that looks to be a popular press book. This is in stark contrast to the sources found in the

2768:

which calls any content you may write about the article into question. I short - unless you can find better references, this isn't a suitable article for Knowledge. Have a look at

2270:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 98: 787:

therefore, is to find some reliable sources, add them to the article, and state you have improved them in the AfD. This is likely to result in more "keep" !votes if done well. --

2707: 2266:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

2352: 1798:

the claims you make in the article. For web references, this must be a full URL and title; for books, this must be the title, ISBN number and page reference. Have a look at

1646: 2899:

be independently verifiable, and this is a core policy. Also, it's generally a bad idea to write about things you're personally involved with, as it's hard to write with a

2287: 1602: 983: 2456: 1891:

for a complete set of instructions on how to cite sources. Basically, for a research journal, you should include as much information as you possibly can, ideally with a

2736: 1407:(my emphasis) was invited" which suggest like it was made by Vincent himself, or somebody closely associated with him, which would also mean the source would also be a 991:

I was wondering which of the sources are unreliable as I've tried to use as many sources that I've seen on similar artists' pages on wikipedia that have been approved.

3053: 2524: 464: 1308: 3175: 2872: 1738: 1517: 713: 3401: 3370: 2384: 1621: 1607: 3206: 3119: 2544: 1774: 1459: 3393: 2471: 1718: 1669: 2539: 3614: 3407:

You're correct - we can certainly accept non-web references with some identifiers such as a Google Books preview link or an ISBN number. It's just easier to

3329: 2259:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see

1945: 1753: 1543: 520: 487: 2255:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 1371:#12 on criteria for musicians ensembles of "Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network?" Thanks! 1014: 2724: 2610: 2576:. I think the product is just about notable, and if you can find another reference like TechRepublic, that might be sufficient to make the article pass. -- 2558: 1411:, even if it wasn't unreliable. Primary sources can be used to assert basic biographical details, but not notability. Hope that helps. PS: Don't forget to 206: 3342: 2876: 2807: 829: 2133:– which might have sources for those lines, and maybe more info. Did you know... Gilmour was helping Barrett on Barrett's first solo album, at the time 1821: 1511: 322: 3452: 3054: 2308: 845: 3079:

Many of these journals and publishers have published nobel prize winners, unlike the entries of Knowledge), and they are independent from the author.

2450: 3107: 2958: 2946: 2927: 2784: 606: 514: 2847: 1253: 1239: 150:(off topic, I suspect I may be the first person ever on the internet to have a conversation involving "erogenous zone" and "road enthusiast"....) -- 2346: 1923: 1101: 433: 3299: 3169: 2986: 2815: 2549:

Hi Ritchie333, thank you for your feedback on the article. I have added three independent references. Will you please take a look and revert? Thx

2225: 1881: 294: 2853: 2405: 1002: 351: 2316: 1050: 817: 802: 781: 766: 238: 3675: 3364: 3180: 3047: 3009: 2683: 2646:

Both of them seem to originate from a press release. Here's a neutral review which shares the good & not so good features of the product.

2639: 2591: 2531: 2518: 2463: 1745: 1590: 1531: 1430: 1391: 1379: 1359: 967: 939: 924: 882: 871: 701: 655: 200: 173: 143: 2148: 2124: 2083: 2057: 1786: 1730: 1709: 1694: 1399:

The problem with this section of the article is that it is asserted by a YouTube video as a reference, which is generally (but not always) an

290: 1451:

So maybe you could consider, letting the Upon.You Records article pass? Would be great to hear back from you..Thank you. Upon.You Records.

1171: 165: 3424:

coverage, as none of the other references do on their own. The basic criteria for passing an article at AfC is : "If this got nominated for

2701: 2659: 1981: 1766:

I see you don't like my entry on Smtihs Row! I can't find your feedback, which I'm sure you left. Any advice please?... Many thanks.Kaye

893: 663: 234: 1124: 720:, and very notable. Can't you help me improve the article instead of nominating it for deletion? It should be easy enough to find sources. 2099: 2072:

I've found all those points, luckily all on the same page. I prefer citing the page with the chapter name, to me, it seems more complete.

637: 266: 113: 3627: 3607: 3468: 3330: 1365: 830: 3336:

Hey Ritchie333, Just checking to see if you want to change your vote on this issue? After careful checking it appears you did okay. --

2267: 1866: 3433:

On the subject of membership figures, numbers and figures are generally not sufficient to establish notability on their own - see the

1794:

Hi. It's not a question of "not liking it", but the references you supplied aren't specific enough in order for someone to be able to

1065:. Never ending conversations on perennial topics drive me nuts however (so do posts that get long, get really bored trying to read.). 1061:

My frustration is just towards some editors, and besides I need a break. I've got a good thing going with my personal research of the

572: 262: 3650: 2912: 2790: 2275: 2018: 1471: 669:

Hi. I've had a look through the page and there are still a few issues. Firstly, you need to put the "ref" tags in the correct places

222: 3278: 3006:

Please let me know which steps I should take at this point to get the entry approved - I'm hearing some conflicting advice. Thanks!

2390:

Thanks. Not sure why I would have declined it, but I'd have to go back and check the sources to come up with a definitive answer. --

772:

because of that imperfection in our policy. Or we can improve the article a bit together, and maybe even try to improve the policy!

595: 3662: 3146: 2292: 2193: 1858: 1220:(boat) seems to be regularly used to distinguish ships or boats that have names used elsewhere. You're probably best off asking on 1214: 646: 425: 2429: 605:

Hello Ritchie333. Thank you for passsing Syd Barrett. Could you do me one small favour? On my talk, could you post a message like

3323: 1782: 1660: 1603: 1559:, it can't belong in the encyclopaedia. However, that's not to say it might not increase notability and be worthy of Knowledge 1467: 97: 2668:

Yes, that looks better - it appears to originate from a consulting company and is neutral, so that would appear to suffice. --

2024:

I have added everything I can think of that I remember reading in Schaffner and referenced it in the article, but in summary:

536: 392: 2887:. Being personally involved with a subject unfortunately isn't sufficient to warrant a Knowledge article, as nobody else can 218: 215:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 929:

Odd? There are some REAL weirdos here. You like weird music? Not me, I'm boring. I like popular stuff... a good tune...

677:

if you are unsure. Secondly, some of the references are problematic - Facebook and LinkedIn pages are generally considered

3235: 3095:

devoted to the articles work. Tis adds up to many many paragraphs over at least half a dozen reliable printed materials.

3596: 3017: 2868: 2732: 1799: 1275: 1076: 2828: 1987: 1957: 564: 876:

The trout is not necessary. I have pulled some real boners. Who knows maybe it will be a keep. Worth a mackerel. --

620: 2564:

I've had a look, and while the TechRepublic reference looks good (it contains mild criticism, which is important for

2420:

because the article in the mainspace was a copy-paste move by the same user. I've had an admin histmerge the two.

1758: 747:

and improve the article, then consensus may go to"keep" - it's happened before. But a youtube video is more often an

371: 2647: 1992:

Hello Ritchie. Yes, I have a copy, got mine from the library. Any particular quotes you want me to look for/add in?

674: 3503: 3450: 3362: 3297: 3271: 3167: 3115: 3045: 2984: 2954: 2925: 2845: 2782: 2186: 1488:, especially as your account name suggests you are affiliated with the record company, which would be flagged as a 1221: 347: 3416:

about 4Networking as their primary subject, and go into in some depth, the article may be able to pass - but they

2568:), the other two references appear to be blogs or personal sites, which unfortunately aren't generally considered 526:

Fair enough on the context decline. I added a comment, and updated draft with an interesting quote. Cheers. --

3536: 2376: 2252: 808:

Don't worry about not having the knowledge and expertise: I'll try my best to answer any questions you may have.

729: 478: 89: 2129:

Good, good. I've cited the original sleeve for some credits, and added some missing ones. I have another book –

2247:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a 1136: 1010: 81: 76: 64: 59: 2260: 563:

Thank You for your many contributions to creating new articles for the future of Knowledge! Keep on Creator!--

3240: 1827: 1571:

at any time. It's a bit of a shame about this, as you might have seen from my user page, as the developer of

1539: 1387: 1304: 541: 533: 474: 2861:

all the information is authentic because I was personally involved in it all. I don't know what you want.

2030:

Rick saying he wanted to make "real music" and being generally enthusiastic about doing the solo experiments

1744:

so that you can review them. You can find the Star Tribune 1995 article in the archives on their web site.

2162: 1948:. Time and again I find you answering questions before I can - maybe some apple pie will distract you. ;-) 1679:, a message along the lines of "Why did you pass this through AfC?" might have been a better first step. -- 683: 1132: 952:

on the box) but I changed it to cover a wider genre of music and add a bit of self deprecating humour. --

397: 3388:

The rapidly growing membership, plus independent coverage, seem to be strong arguments of notability.

2621: 1778: 1652: 1463: 1177: 609:, but about passing the Syd Barrett article? I kinda have this thing about showing off an achievement. 460: 38: 477:, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to 3654: 3543: 3397: 1281: 1194: 519: 2598: 3547: 3319: 1436: 212: 2822:

confirmation that you really want it reviewed. Let me know if you want this done, and I can do it.

3554: 3211: 2756:

your film, but you can't create a Knowledge article about something unless it's been reported by

2728: 2411: 945: 3666:. As the reviewer, your contribution to the discussion will be helpful in reaching a consensus. 3305: 2811: 1929: 1249: 1210: 568: 3142: 2994: 2915:

page (and indeed, WikiProject Football) would be the best place to ask for advice on this. --

2380: 2312: 1908:

depth. A passing mention of just the phrase "3D Password" isn't sufficient, unfortunately. --

1877: 449: 420: 3448: 3360: 3295: 3269: 3165: 3154: 3111: 3103: 3043: 2982: 2950: 2942: 2923: 2864: 2843: 2780: 2720: 2676: 2632: 2617: 2584: 2511: 2443: 2398: 2339: 2283: 2218: 2184: 2170: 2163: 2117: 2050: 1974: 1916: 1814: 1770: 1687: 1637: 1583: 1527: 1504: 1455: 1423: 1375: 1352: 1292: 1232: 1164: 1120: 1094: 1083: 1043: 998: 960: 917: 864: 795: 759: 694: 588: 158: 136: 47: 17: 3221: 2624:. Have a look and see if those give you any more information, then resubmit for review. -- 735:

I did a quick search for sources, but it's not my area of expertise. From experience with

8: 3584: 3574: 3315: 3023: 2424: 2372: 2204: 1854: 1261: 903: 600: 376: 1496:

and getting someone to translate it into English afterwards. Hope that's of some use. --

1628:, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, 1271: 1006: 813: 777: 725: 550: 530: 510: 385:

into a redirect, it might be best to hold off until the AFD's done to avoid confusion.

301: 249: 125: 3570:

and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. You might wish to add

3249: 2305:

It would be helpful if you could give some guidance on what would verify the entry .

1724:

without asking anybody of the OTRS team? For what is this template used? Who uses it?

1633: 839:

I worked for two hours on this article trying to make it work, but it's not there. --

3671: 3337: 3013: 2884: 2749: 2744:

The article only refers to YouTube videos to assert its claims. YouTube videos are a

2697: 2655: 2606: 2554: 2535: 2478: 2467: 2327: 2088:

The only thing I can't find in the book is a test pressing being given to John Peel.

1749: 1535: 1408: 1383: 1300: 1245: 1206: 934: 888: 877: 840: 659: 318: 309:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

196: 109: 2835:

that talk about the subject in depth, which is probably enough to get it to pass. --

2109:. Once I can fix (or remove) the two cns, I think we'll be ready for a GA review. -- 1282:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Predictive_Programming

176:

Peer-reviewed journals are what count on topics like these, and I don't know if the

3230: 3184: 2760:

organisations such as news outlets or magazines. Also, if this is an article about

2490:. I searched myself for references, and while there are entries for the company on 2143: 2094: 2078: 2013: 1873: 1726: 1705: 1665: 1056: 632: 615: 364: 340: 333: 327: 2795:

Thanks very much for your guidance re the first wiki page I have tried to create!

1479:

Hi. I cannot pass the article in it's current state, because it is unsupported by

3532: 3508: 3498:, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently there are 3441: 3353: 3288: 3265: 3158: 3132: 3036: 2975: 2916: 2836: 2773: 2769: 2669: 2648:

http://www.m62.net/presentation-skills/presentation-technology/yawnbuster-review/

2625: 2577: 2504: 2436: 2391: 2332: 2279: 2211: 2180: 2110: 2043: 1967: 1938: 1909: 1807: 1680: 1576: 1497: 1416: 1345: 1225: 1186: 1157: 1128: 1087: 1036: 953: 910: 857: 853: 788: 752: 736: 687: 581: 495: 151: 129: 1625: 1624:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under

46:

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

3434: 2900: 2565: 2367: 2256: 2210:

as an indication to the creator that it requires more involvement from them. --

1953: 1888: 1850: 1803: 1412: 1153: 286: 3348:

I'm a bit busy with actual article work (yeah, who'd have thought we actually

3224:(last reply). Would you, if you're not busy, like to help us c/e the section? 3220:. I fellow Wiki-friend of mine has told me of duplication of information, see 1836: 717: 3646: 3525: 3425: 3028: 2904: 2765: 2745: 2106: 1892: 1676: 1568: 1489: 1485: 1400: 1321: 1267: 1107: 1062: 949: 809: 773: 748: 721: 678: 527: 506: 435: 230: 3149:

to see how your school can help participate, but from my experience I would

2692:

Thanks for your help Ritchie333. I have resubmitted the article for review.

1082:

See if you can find a really good edit war between them and nominate it for

3667: 2832: 2693: 2651: 2602: 2569: 2550: 2499: 2248: 1897: 1700: 1567:, but that article is tagged as "unreferenced" and therefore may appear on 1556: 1480: 1341: 1324:

as far as Knowledge is concerned, and we can't accept it. Knowledge is for

1296: 1145: 751:

than not, and saying "he's very notable" doesn't necessarily make it so. --

744: 712:

I also like obscure music that everyone else hates. But you have nominated

707: 406: 314: 310: 192: 105: 3590:

to your userpage, which will alert you to the number of open submissions.

3408: 3225: 3032: 2971: 2908: 2888: 2573: 2483: 2138: 2089: 2073: 2008: 1795: 1337: 1149: 627: 610: 382: 359: 2831:

somewhere in the article as a reference, as it will then give you three

2713: 1806:

on talk pages, so it's easy to see who writes what. Hope that helps. --

1564: 1336:. Similarly, just knowing some people who tell you it's real cannot be 258: 2772:

for more information about notability of films. Hope that's of use. --

1572: 469:

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to

211:

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to

1949: 1900:

such as newspaper or magazine articles, or research papers that talk

470: 3287:

Thanks, Stella! I'm on vacation next week, and boy do I need one. --

2748:, as anyone can upload anything by anyone. More importantly, it's a 2712:

Can you please tell me more details and how can I improve this page

1443: 3641: 2601:

which seems neutral. Let me know if this will be a good reference.

2495: 2491: 740: 494:

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

3352:

around here?) but I'll try and check for the AfD time runs out. --

2423:

Thanks for all the work you've done with Articles for Creation. ~

1446: 2599:

http://www.indezine.com/products/powerpoint/addin/yawnbuster.html

2326:

to be online - they can be books, magazines or printed journals.

909:". I've started putting some really odd stuff on my user page. -- 673:

the article in order for the "references" template to work - see

452:, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. 178:

Journal of the British Association for Sexual and Marital Therapy

3458: 3153:

rely on Knowledge for school or university research - I believe

121: 1266:

Just wanted to say thanks for creating the tin can api article.

743:

seem to be the bar for notability in articles. If you can find

181: 104:

Speaking of deleting articles... See the above linked article.

3566:

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the

419:

Jimbo as Spiderman supporting Bieber on Twitter. Hilarious! ♦

3649:

process, is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to

2232:

Orphaned non-free media (File:Bullets and daffodils cast.jpg)

1575:, I do have a passing interest in maps related technology. -- 1492:. You might find it easier to write the article in German at 1202:

differentiate it from other water-craft of the same name?

3560:

Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

1638:

see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

1551:

Hi. Unfortunately if the subject of an article doesn't have

1403:. Specifically, in this case, the video also has the title " 1024: 354:

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

3478: 1699:

Good question: why did it pass? I don't see that it passed

1027:

tends to be quite good for musician reviews too) that talk

442: 2858:

so, I need to have an explanation of why it was rejected.

2007:) and working my way up, but I'm glad to help in any way. 3127:

All we need is notable coverage in reliable sources that

2597:

Thanks for the quick response. Here is another reference

485:

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the

277: 245: 2903:

and can result in people complaining about you having a

2027:

Interstellar Overdrive being dropped from the live album

172:

The topic is definitely non-notable, per what is stated

3639:

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

273: 2708:

Need more explanation for rejecting my page Kaalavanam

1316:

Hi. If you can't find this term in a dictionary, then

887:

You done good. You got Toonz out of here finally. --

473:. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can 3131:. If you include ISBN numbers, someone can go to the 3071:

The ISBN of each book has been included where found.

2714:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Kousik2371988/Kaalavanam

2354:

Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Shadow Education

1189:. There have been several small craft with the name 3377:Hi Ritchie333, I'd really appreciate your advice. 1995:

I'm glad I'm not the only one trying to get the pre-

1904:about 3D Password as a technology, and cover it in 1636:, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please 3599:which helps in reviewing in just few edits easily! 3055:Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Alan Marshall 2883:The rejection is because all of your sources were 2525:Whiteboard Product Solutions articles for creation 2274:will be deleted after seven days, as described on 1563:. I was going to suggest merging the content with 3507:waiting to be reviewed and many help requests at 3176:An AFD you participated in has been started again 2457:Whiteboard Product Solutions article for creation 1739:Whiteboard Product Solutions article for creation 1518:Submission Declined: MDT: Magik Development Tools 3372:Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/4Networking 2545:Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/YawnBuster 1444:http://de.wikipedia.org/Moon_Harbour_Recordings 984:Unreliable Sources for page 'Untold (musician)' 686:for an example of a well-referenced article. -- 3181:List of UK Singles Chart Christmas number twos 1626:section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion 381:It's happened before, but if you plan to make 3645:, which you recently reviewed as part of the 2365:at the AFC help desk you may wish to answer. 1802:for more advice. By the way, don't forget to 1447:http://de.wikipedia.org/Poker_Flat_Recordings 339:Hello, Ritchie333. You have new messages at 2435:No problems. Cheers for sorting that out. -- 1493: 207:Disambiguation link notification for June 28 3331:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Not Profane 2616:I've found a few more potential references 1344:, and hence means it cannot be accepted. -- 831:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Not Profane 3157:has banned it as a source for research. -- 1655:. If the page is deleted, you can contact 682:the article's description. Have a look at 3595:PS: we have a great AFC helper script at 3435:guidelines on Google searches and Numbers 2913:Knowledge:WikiProject Football/Notability 2033:Rick describing Sisyphus as "pretentious" 944:The userbox used to say "This user likes 675:Knowledge:Citing sources#Inline citations 504:Thank you for helping improve Knowledge! 3147:Knowledge:School and University projects 467:to see how you can improve the article. 3542:Do you have a working knowledge of the 2854:Spruce Grove Minor Football Association 14: 2650:. Will this be sufficient to resubmit. 2003:(and also Barrett's first solo album, 652:would be the best template to follow. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3469:Articles for Creation urgently needs 2907:. Also, I was unsure if the club was 463:. You may like to take a look at the 459:, which is recorded on the article's 1185:Thank you for approving the article 1152:of the article. PS: Don't forget to 25: 3651:Knowledge's policies and guidelines 3628:Nomination of SafeRTOS for deletion 3597:User:Timotheus Canens/afchelper4.js 3526:Knowledge's policies and guidelines 2827:I'd personally recommend including 2244:File:Bullets and daffodils cast.jpg 1800:Knowledge:Referencing for beginners 1703:... (my golden rule: 3 good refs). 1663:the page or email a copy to you. 1653:Knowledge's policies and guidelines 1366:Submission Declined: Joseph Vincent 23: 3477: 3216:Hello Ritchie. Thanks for passing 1867:3d password- article not approved. 1659:to request that the administrator 1612: 441: 332: 24: 3686: 3256:The Tireless Contributor Barnstar 2791:Draft article on Graham Ratcliffe 2169:Hello, Ritchie~! I just swept up 1193:, including the existing article 455:The article has been assessed as 3632: 3462: 3248: 3035:. Hope that clarifies things. -- 2293:Donnington Collection submission 2236: 2063: 1937: 1835: 1222:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Ships 647:Sociology Association of Ireland 549: 405: 29: 3488:desperately short of reviewers! 1486:the Articles for Deletion board 557:Articles for Creation Barnstar 2829:this BBC Radio Scotland Review 2764:film, it creates an immediate 1944:For your tireless work at the 739:, chart hits and a mention on 99:Anterior fornix erogenous zone 13: 1: 3608:Articles for Creation project 3143:the Knowledge FAQ for Schools 2974:policy is in place. Sorry. -- 2261:our policy for non-free media 2131:The Rough Guide to Pink Floyd 1999:albums to GA. I'm working on 1647:the page's talk page directly 2416:I've undone your decline of 2276:criteria for speedy deletion 1634:criteria for speedy deletion 684:British Journal of Sociology 7: 3676:13:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC) 3660:The discussion is occuring 3531:Do you know what Knowledge 3453:16:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 3402:15:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 3365:19:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 3343:14:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 3324:05:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC) 3314:for any clarification, - -- 3300:20:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 3279:20:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 3236:14:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC) 3207:21:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC) 3170:09:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC) 3120:07:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC) 3048:21:21, 13 August 2012 (UTC) 3018:21:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC) 2987:20:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC) 2959:20:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC) 2928:09:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC) 2877:03:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC) 2848:12:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC) 2816:12:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC) 2785:18:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 2737:18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 2702:13:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2684:13:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2660:13:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2640:13:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2611:13:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2592:12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2559:06:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC) 2251:. However, it is currently 2107:Planet Mellotron's coverage 1657:one of these administrators 10: 3691: 3548:article naming conventions 3517:Do you have what it takes? 2540:22:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2519:20:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2472:20:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2451:19:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2430:16:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2406:09:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2385:09:46, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2359:Hi Ritchie333, there is a 2347:10:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2317:09:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 2288:04:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC) 2226:11:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC) 2194:03:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC) 2176:It's Happy Hour somewhere! 2149:11:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC) 2125:11:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC) 2100:10:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC) 2084:10:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC) 2058:22:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC) 2019:18:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC) 1988:RE:Ummagumma and Schaffner 1982:17:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC) 1958:17:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC) 1924:14:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC) 1882:14:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC) 1859:13:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC) 1822:10:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC) 1787:10:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC) 1754:18:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC) 1731:14:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC) 1710:14:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC) 1695:14:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC) 1670:14:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC) 1591:14:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC) 1544:14:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC) 1512:11:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC) 1472:11:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC) 1431:09:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC) 1392:22:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC) 1360:19:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 1309:18:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 1276:16:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 1254:16:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 1240:16:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 1215:16:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 1172:14:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 1137:13:56, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 1102:10:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC) 413:The Barnstar of Good Humor 3486:Articles for Creation is 3247: 2895:information on Knowledge 1843:The Barnstar of Diligence 1834: 1759:Smiths Row - not accepted 1620:A tag has been placed on 1195:Portland (steam tug 1875) 1077:23:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 1051:12:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 1015:12:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 968:09:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC) 940:23:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 925:23:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 894:23:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 883:13:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 872:07:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 846:05:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC) 818:13:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 803:13:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 782:13:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 767:13:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 730:13:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC) 702:11:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 664:00:41, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 638:11:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 621:11:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC) 596:21:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 573:19:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 548: 537:18:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC) 515:13:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC) 426:15:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC) 404: 323:15:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 300:added a link pointing to 201:09:15, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 166:08:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 144:08:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 114:01:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC) 3653:or whether it should be 2891:anything else you said. 2801:Sorry to be so useless! 497:leaving us some feedback 475:create articles yourself 393:19:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC) 372:01:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC) 348:01:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC) 272:added links pointing to 244:added links pointing to 2462:your thoughts. Thanks. 948:" (that's a picture of 946:Van der Graaf Generator 716:. This guy is actually 3568:reviewing instructions 3524:Are you familiar with 3482: 3440:Hope that's of use. -- 1622:Thesaurus Software Ltd 1617: 1608:Thesaurus Software Ltd 446: 337: 3647:Articles for creation 3481: 3426:Articles for Deletion 2901:neutral point of view 2322:Hi. References don't 2241:Thanks for uploading 1616: 1569:Articles for Deletion 1244:Will do, thank you. 479:Articles for Creation 450:Bullets and Daffodils 445: 436:Articles for creation 336: 126:Road enthusiast#SABRE 42:of past discussions. 3155:Lancaster University 2905:conflict of interest 2766:conflict of interest 2171:The Springfield Plan 2164:The Springfield Plan 1494:the German Knowledge 1490:conflict of interest 311:opt-out instructions 213:disambiguation pages 18:User talk:Ritchie333 3496:experienced editors 3490:We are looking for 3428:, could I save it?" 3241:A barnstar for you! 2257:You may add it back 1828:A barnstar for you! 856:myself in the AfD. 626:Thank you Ritchie. 542:A barnstar for you! 434:Your submission at 398:A barnstar for you! 295:fix with Dab solver 267:fix with Dab solver 239:fix with Dab solver 3483: 3129:someone can verify 1618: 836:Sorry Ritchie333, 679:unreliable sources 447: 352:remove this notice 341:Hahc21's talk page 338: 302:Amphenol connector 250:Amphenol connector 221:• Join us at the 3625: 3624: 3606:On behalf of the 3310:Dear Ritchie333: 3284: 3283: 3275: 3234: 3123: 3106:comment added by 2962: 2945:comment added by 2867:comment added by 2752:as it's directly 2746:unreliable source 2740: 2723:comment added by 2249:claim of fair use 2190: 2147: 2137:was being mixed? 2098: 2082: 2017: 1966:Yum! Thankyou. -- 1963: 1962: 1864: 1863: 1790: 1773:comment added by 1729: 1714:Why did you pass 1708: 1668: 1547: 1530:comment added by 1475: 1458:comment added by 1415:on talk pages. -- 1401:unreliable source 1395: 1378:comment added by 1312: 1295:comment added by 1156:on talk pages. -- 1140: 1123:comment added by 1018: 1001:comment added by 749:unreliable source 636: 619: 578: 577: 534:(COI Declaration) 521:Geek & Sundry 431: 430: 226: 168: 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3682: 3636: 3635: 3617: 3589: 3583: 3579: 3573: 3463: 3446: 3358: 3350:improve articles 3340: 3326:Andrew Bonamici 3293: 3273: 3252: 3245: 3244: 3231:Time for a chat? 3228: 3203: 3200: 3197: 3194: 3191: 3188: 3163: 3122: 3100: 3041: 2980: 2961: 2939: 2921: 2879: 2841: 2833:reliable sources 2778: 2739: 2717: 2681: 2674: 2637: 2630: 2589: 2582: 2570:reliable sources 2516: 2509: 2500:reliable sources 2448: 2441: 2427: 2403: 2396: 2344: 2337: 2268:my contributions 2240: 2239: 2223: 2216: 2209: 2203: 2188: 2144:Time for a chat? 2141: 2122: 2115: 2095:Time for a chat? 2092: 2079:Time for a chat? 2076: 2071: 2067: 2066: 2055: 2048: 2014:Time for a chat? 2011: 1979: 1972: 1941: 1934: 1933: 1921: 1914: 1898:reliable sources 1839: 1832: 1831: 1819: 1812: 1789: 1775:K Hamilton-Jones 1767: 1725: 1723: 1717: 1704: 1692: 1685: 1664: 1615: 1588: 1581: 1557:reliable sources 1546: 1524: 1509: 1502: 1481:reliable sources 1474: 1460:Upon.You Records 1452: 1437:Upon.You Records 1428: 1421: 1394: 1372: 1357: 1350: 1342:reliable sources 1340:on Knowledge by 1311: 1289: 1237: 1230: 1224:to be honest. -- 1169: 1162: 1148:and sustain the 1146:reliable sources 1139: 1117: 1099: 1092: 1075: 1074: 1048: 1041: 1017: 995: 965: 958: 937: 922: 915: 908: 902: 891: 880: 869: 862: 843: 800: 793: 764: 757: 745:reliable sources 699: 692: 633:Time for a chat? 630: 616:Time for a chat? 613: 593: 586: 553: 546: 545: 499: 423: 409: 402: 401: 390: 388:Ten Pound Hammer 369: 362: 355: 291:check to confirm 263:check to confirm 235:check to confirm 216: 163: 156: 149: 141: 134: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3690: 3689: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3637: 3633: 3630: 3615: 3587: 3581: 3577: 3571: 3546:, particularly 3544:Manual of Style 3519: 3476: 3461: 3442: 3437:, for instance. 3394:Siobhanstirling 3375: 3354: 3338: 3334: 3308: 3289: 3276: 3243: 3214: 3212:Madcaps/Barrett 3201: 3198: 3195: 3192: 3189: 3186: 3178: 3159: 3133:British Library 3101: 3058: 3037: 2997: 2976: 2940: 2917: 2885:primary sources 2862: 2856: 2837: 2793: 2774: 2718: 2710: 2677: 2670: 2633: 2626: 2585: 2578: 2547: 2527: 2512: 2505: 2498:, these aren't 2459: 2444: 2437: 2425: 2414: 2412:Just a heads up 2399: 2392: 2357: 2340: 2333: 2295: 2237: 2234: 2219: 2212: 2207: 2201: 2191: 2167: 2118: 2111: 2064: 2062: 2051: 2044: 1990: 1975: 1968: 1932: 1917: 1910: 1869: 1830: 1815: 1808: 1804:sign your edits 1768: 1761: 1741: 1721: 1715: 1688: 1681: 1613: 1611: 1604:Speedy deletion 1584: 1577: 1525: 1520: 1505: 1498: 1453: 1439: 1424: 1417: 1413:sign your edits 1373: 1368: 1353: 1346: 1290: 1285: 1264: 1233: 1226: 1197:, as well as a 1187:Portland (boat) 1183: 1165: 1158: 1154:sign your edits 1118: 1110: 1095: 1088: 1073: 1068: 1066: 1059: 1044: 1037: 996: 986: 961: 954: 935: 931:Pumped up Kicks 918: 911: 906: 900: 889: 878: 865: 858: 841: 834: 796: 789: 760: 753: 718:pretty talented 710: 695: 688: 649: 603: 589: 582: 544: 524: 517: 439: 421: 400: 386: 379: 365: 360: 356: 345: 330: 223:DPL WikiProject 209: 159: 152: 137: 130: 102: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3688: 3631: 3629: 3626: 3623: 3622: 3616:TheSpecialUser 3611: 3605: 3602: 3601: 3564: 3563: 3558: 3551: 3540: 3529: 3521: 3520: 3515: 3484: 3466: 3460: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3438: 3430: 3429: 3374: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3333: 3328: 3316:AndrewBonamici 3307: 3306:NSRC / Klensin 3304: 3303: 3302: 3282: 3281: 3272: 3262:Just because! 3259: 3258: 3253: 3242: 3239: 3213: 3210: 3177: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3137: 3136: 3078: 3057: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3024:SwisterTwister 2996: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2964: 2963: 2933: 2931: 2930: 2855: 2852: 2851: 2850: 2824: 2823: 2804:All the best. 2792: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2750:primary source 2709: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2689: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2663: 2662: 2643: 2642: 2595: 2594: 2546: 2543: 2526: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2458: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2426:Matthewrbowker 2413: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2356: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2294: 2291: 2233: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2187: 2166: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2034: 2031: 2028: 1989: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1961: 1960: 1942: 1931: 1930:A pie for you! 1928: 1927: 1926: 1868: 1865: 1862: 1861: 1846: 1845: 1840: 1829: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1760: 1757: 1740: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1712: 1610: 1606:nomination of 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1519: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1438: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1409:primary source 1367: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1284: 1279: 1263: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1182: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1109: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1069: 1058: 1055: 1054: 1053: 985: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 972: 971: 970: 833: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 820: 709: 706: 705: 704: 648: 645: 643: 641: 640: 602: 599: 576: 575: 560: 559: 554: 543: 540: 523: 518: 502: 501: 492: 465:grading scheme 454: 440: 438: 432: 429: 428: 416: 415: 410: 399: 396: 378: 375: 346:Message added 344: 331: 329: 326: 307: 306: 305: 304: 287:Leslie speaker 283: 282: 281: 280: 255: 254: 253: 252: 208: 205: 204: 203: 187: 186: 147: 146: 101: 96: 93: 92: 87: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3687: 3678: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3665: 3664: 3658: 3656: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3643: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3609: 3600: 3598: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3586: 3576: 3569: 3562: 3559: 3556: 3555:autoconfirmed 3552: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3538: 3534: 3530: 3527: 3523: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3510: 3509:our Help Desk 3506: 3505: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3489: 3480: 3475: 3474: 3472: 3465: 3464: 3454: 3451: 3449: 3447: 3445: 3439: 3436: 3432: 3431: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3410: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3399: 3395: 3389: 3386: 3382: 3378: 3373: 3366: 3363: 3361: 3359: 3357: 3351: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3341: 3332: 3327: 3325: 3321: 3317: 3311: 3301: 3298: 3296: 3294: 3292: 3286: 3285: 3280: 3277: 3270: 3268: 3267: 3261: 3260: 3257: 3254: 3251: 3246: 3238: 3237: 3232: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3209: 3208: 3205: 3204: 3182: 3171: 3168: 3166: 3164: 3162: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3139: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3109: 3105: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3072: 3069: 3066: 3062: 3056: 3049: 3046: 3044: 3042: 3040: 3034: 3030: 3025: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3004: 3003:this point. 3000: 2995:Virtual Piggy 2988: 2985: 2983: 2981: 2979: 2973: 2972:verifiability 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2944: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2929: 2926: 2924: 2922: 2920: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2869:68.150.163.19 2866: 2859: 2849: 2846: 2844: 2842: 2840: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2825: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2802: 2799: 2796: 2786: 2783: 2781: 2779: 2777: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2725:Kousik2371988 2722: 2715: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2690: 2685: 2682: 2680: 2675: 2673: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2644: 2641: 2638: 2636: 2631: 2629: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2608: 2604: 2600: 2593: 2590: 2588: 2583: 2581: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2542: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2520: 2517: 2515: 2510: 2508: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2485: 2480: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2452: 2449: 2447: 2442: 2440: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2428: 2421: 2419: 2407: 2404: 2402: 2397: 2395: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2369: 2364: 2363: 2355: 2348: 2345: 2343: 2338: 2336: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2303: 2299: 2290: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2278:. Thank you. 2277: 2273: 2269: 2264: 2262: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2245: 2227: 2224: 2222: 2217: 2215: 2206: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2192: 2185: 2183: 2182: 2177: 2172: 2165: 2150: 2145: 2140: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2123: 2121: 2116: 2114: 2108: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2096: 2091: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2080: 2075: 2070: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2056: 2054: 2049: 2047: 2040: 2035: 2032: 2029: 2026: 2025: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2015: 2010: 2006: 2005:Madcap Laughs 2002: 1998: 1993: 1983: 1980: 1978: 1973: 1971: 1965: 1964: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1946:AfC help desk 1943: 1940: 1936: 1935: 1925: 1922: 1920: 1915: 1913: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1894: 1890: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1847: 1844: 1841: 1838: 1833: 1823: 1820: 1818: 1813: 1811: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1764: 1756: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1732: 1728: 1720: 1713: 1711: 1707: 1702: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1693: 1691: 1686: 1684: 1678: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1667: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1649: 1648: 1641: 1639: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1609: 1605: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1589: 1587: 1582: 1580: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1513: 1510: 1508: 1503: 1501: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1482: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1449: 1448: 1445: 1432: 1429: 1427: 1422: 1420: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1361: 1358: 1356: 1351: 1349: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1330:already exist 1327: 1323: 1319: 1318:by definition 1315: 1314: 1313: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1283: 1278: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1255: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1238: 1236: 1231: 1229: 1223: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1203: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1181: 1173: 1170: 1168: 1163: 1161: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1114: 1103: 1100: 1098: 1093: 1091: 1085: 1084:WP:HALLOFLAME 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1072: 1064: 1063:Erie Railroad 1052: 1049: 1047: 1042: 1040: 1034: 1031:about Untold 1030: 1026: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 992: 989: 969: 966: 964: 959: 957: 951: 950:Peter Hammill 947: 943: 942: 941: 938: 932: 928: 927: 926: 923: 921: 916: 914: 905: 897: 896: 895: 892: 886: 885: 884: 881: 875: 874: 873: 870: 868: 863: 861: 855: 850: 849: 848: 847: 844: 837: 832: 819: 815: 811: 806: 805: 804: 801: 799: 794: 792: 785: 784: 783: 779: 775: 770: 769: 768: 765: 763: 758: 756: 750: 746: 742: 738: 734: 733: 732: 731: 727: 723: 719: 715: 703: 700: 698: 693: 691: 685: 680: 676: 672: 668: 667: 666: 665: 661: 657: 653: 644: 639: 634: 629: 625: 624: 623: 622: 617: 612: 608: 598: 597: 594: 592: 587: 585: 574: 570: 566: 562: 561: 558: 555: 552: 547: 539: 538: 535: 532: 529: 522: 516: 512: 508: 505: 498: 493: 490: 489: 484: 483: 482: 480: 476: 472: 466: 462: 458: 453: 451: 444: 437: 427: 424: 418: 417: 414: 411: 408: 403: 395: 394: 389: 384: 374: 373: 370: 368: 363: 353: 349: 342: 335: 325: 324: 320: 316: 312: 303: 299: 298: 296: 292: 288: 285: 284: 279: 275: 271: 270: 268: 264: 260: 257: 256: 251: 247: 243: 242: 240: 236: 232: 231:Nord C Series 229: 228: 227: 224: 220: 214: 202: 198: 194: 189: 188: 183: 179: 175: 171: 170: 169: 167: 164: 162: 157: 155: 145: 142: 140: 135: 133: 127: 123: 118: 117: 116: 115: 111: 107: 100: 91: 88: 85: 83: 80: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3661: 3659: 3640: 3638: 3613: 3612: 3603: 3594: 3565: 3561: 3516: 3502: 3499: 3495: 3491: 3487: 3485: 3470: 3467: 3443: 3421: 3417: 3414:specifically 3413: 3390: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3376: 3355: 3349: 3335: 3312: 3309: 3290: 3263: 3255: 3217: 3215: 3185: 3179: 3160: 3150: 3128: 3102:— Preceding 3097: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3073: 3070: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3038: 3008: 3005: 3001: 2998: 2977: 2941:— Preceding 2932: 2918: 2896: 2892: 2863:— Preceding 2860: 2857: 2838: 2808:Paula Talbot 2806: 2803: 2800: 2797: 2794: 2775: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2719:— Preceding 2711: 2678: 2671: 2634: 2627: 2596: 2586: 2579: 2548: 2528: 2513: 2506: 2487: 2460: 2445: 2438: 2422: 2418:this article 2415: 2400: 2393: 2366: 2360: 2358: 2341: 2334: 2323: 2307: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2271: 2265: 2242: 2235: 2220: 2213: 2178: 2175: 2168: 2134: 2130: 2119: 2112: 2068: 2052: 2045: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1994: 1991: 1976: 1969: 1918: 1911: 1905: 1902:specifically 1901: 1870: 1842: 1816: 1809: 1769:— Preceding 1765: 1762: 1742: 1689: 1682: 1645: 1642: 1629: 1619: 1585: 1578: 1560: 1555:coverage in 1552: 1526:— Preceding 1521: 1506: 1499: 1454:— Preceding 1450: 1440: 1425: 1418: 1404: 1374:— Preceding 1369: 1354: 1347: 1333: 1329: 1328:things that 1325: 1317: 1291:— Preceding 1286: 1265: 1246:Name Omitted 1234: 1227: 1207:Name Omitted 1204: 1198: 1190: 1184: 1179: 1166: 1159: 1119:— Preceding 1115: 1111: 1096: 1089: 1070: 1060: 1045: 1038: 1032: 1029:specifically 1028: 1025:The Guardian 997:— Preceding 993: 990: 987: 962: 955: 930: 919: 912: 866: 859: 838: 835: 797: 790: 761: 754: 711: 696: 689: 670: 654: 650: 642: 604: 590: 583: 579: 565:50.122.54.84 556: 525: 503: 486: 468: 456: 448: 412: 387: 380: 366: 357: 308: 210: 177: 160: 153: 148: 138: 131: 103: 70: 43: 37: 3504:submissions 3492:urgent help 3459:AFC Backlog 3422:significant 2309:Cocklecanoe 1906:significant 1874:Simplycyrus 1719:OTRS failed 1644:also visit 1553:significant 1262:tin can api 1205:Thank you, 601:Syd Barrett 422:Dr. Blofeld 383:Sound Check 377:Sound Check 36:This is an 3585:AfC Defcon 3575:AFC status 3444:Ritchie333 3356:Ritchie333 3291:Ritchie333 3161:Ritchie333 3108:Ecomimicry 3039:Ritchie333 3033:notability 3029:unreliable 2999:Hi there, 2978:Ritchie333 2947:Mcmlxxviii 2919:Ritchie333 2839:Ritchie333 2776:Ritchie333 2672:Ritchie333 2628:Ritchie333 2580:Ritchie333 2574:notability 2572:to assert 2566:neutrality 2507:Ritchie333 2484:notability 2479:click here 2439:Ritchie333 2394:Ritchie333 2335:Ritchie333 2328:Click here 2280:Hazard-Bot 2214:Ritchie333 2205:refimprove 2113:Ritchie333 2046:Ritchie333 1970:Ritchie333 1912:Ritchie333 1889:Click here 1810:Ritchie333 1763:Hi Richie 1683:Ritchie333 1579:Ritchie333 1573:SABRE Maps 1565:Smallworld 1500:Ritchie333 1419:Ritchie333 1348:Ritchie333 1334:well known 1228:Ritchie333 1178:Steam Tug 1160:Ritchie333 1150:notability 1090:Ritchie333 1039:Ritchie333 988:Hi there, 956:Ritchie333 913:Ritchie333 904:refimprove 860:Ritchie333 791:Ritchie333 755:Ritchie333 690:Ritchie333 584:Ritchie333 580:Thanks! -- 457:Stub-Class 350:. You can 313:. Thanks, 259:Nord Stage 154:Ritchie333 132:Ritchie333 90:Archive 10 2368:Callanecc 2135:Ummagumma 1997:Dark Side 1851:Jengawiki 1326:reporting 1322:neologism 1033:in detail 488:help desk 471:Knowledge 461:talk page 217:Read the 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3642:SafeRTOS 3553:Are you 3339::- ) Don 3264:Cheers! 3116:contribs 3104:unsigned 2955:contribs 2943:unsigned 2865:unsigned 2770:WP:MOVIE 2762:your own 2733:contribs 2721:unsigned 2496:Facebook 2492:LinkedIn 2377:contribs 2362:question 2272:articles 2253:orphaned 2179:Cheers! 1783:contribs 1771:unsigned 1540:contribs 1528:unsigned 1468:contribs 1456:unsigned 1388:contribs 1376:unsigned 1338:verified 1332:and are 1320:it is a 1305:contribs 1293:unsigned 1268:Garemoko 1199:Portland 1191:Portland 1180:Portland 1133:contribs 1121:unsigned 1057:Re: USRD 1011:contribs 1003:Robingmm 999:unsigned 994:thanks 936::- ) Don 890::- ) Don 879::- ) Don 842::- ) Don 810:Arcandam 774:Arcandam 741:BBC News 737:WP:MUSIC 722:Arcandam 607:this one 528:Eclipsed 507:Smcg8374 328:Talkback 3668:NoomBot 3655:deleted 3494:, from 3274:GROOVES 3218:Madcaps 3083:great, 3010:RevToby 2909:notable 2694:Godimrm 2652:Godimrm 2603:Godimrm 2551:Godimrm 2532:Clevegd 2464:Clevegd 2189:GROOVES 1746:Clevegd 1596:happen? 1532:B.Sytar 1380:Dansonn 1297:Raabixx 1116:atlwc 854:trouted 656:Liamled 315:DPL bot 193:Flyer22 106:Flyer22 39:archive 3537:is not 3409:verify 3266:Stella 3226:yeepsi 2911:- the 2889:verify 2679:(talk) 2635:(talk) 2587:(talk) 2514:(talk) 2446:(talk) 2401:(talk) 2342:(talk) 2221:(talk) 2181:Stella 2139:yeepsi 2120:(talk) 2090:yeepsi 2074:yeepsi 2053:(talk) 2009:yeepsi 1977:(talk) 1919:(talk) 1817:(talk) 1796:verify 1727:mabdul 1706:mabdul 1690:(talk) 1677:WP:DTR 1666:mabdul 1661:userfy 1586:(talk) 1507:(talk) 1426:(talk) 1355:(talk) 1235:(talk) 1167:(talk) 1097:(talk) 1046:(talk) 963:(talk) 920:(talk) 867:(talk) 798:(talk) 762:(talk) 697:(talk) 671:within 628:yeepsi 611:yeepsi 591:(talk) 531:(talk) 182:G-Spot 161:(talk) 139:(talk) 3473:help! 3420:give 3202:Focus 2758:other 2754:about 2001:Piper 1896:find 1701:WP:42 1561:later 1125:Atlwc 1108:ATLWC 1067:Mitch 174:here. 122:SABRE 16:< 3672:talk 3663:here 3535:and 3500:1244 3471:YOUR 3418:must 3398:talk 3320:talk 3222:here 3145:and 3112:talk 3014:talk 2951:talk 2897:must 2873:talk 2812:talk 2729:talk 2698:talk 2656:talk 2622:here 2618:here 2607:talk 2555:talk 2536:talk 2494:and 2488:does 2468:talk 2381:logs 2373:talk 2324:have 2313:talk 2284:talk 2069:Done 1954:talk 1950:Huon 1887:Hi. 1878:talk 1855:talk 1849:LOL 1779:talk 1750:talk 1675:Per 1630:etc. 1536:talk 1464:talk 1384:talk 1301:talk 1272:talk 1250:talk 1211:talk 1129:talk 1086:. -- 1035:. -- 1007:talk 814:talk 778:talk 726:talk 714:Stig 708:Stig 660:talk 569:talk 511:talk 361:Hahc 319:talk 276:and 248:and 197:talk 110:talk 3580:or 3151:not 2893:All 2716:? 2620:and 2263:). 1893:DOI 1640:. 391:• 278:Mac 246:Vox 219:FAQ 3674:) 3657:. 3588:}} 3582:{{ 3578:}} 3572:{{ 3533:is 3400:) 3322:) 3118:) 3114:• 3016:) 2957:) 2953:• 2875:) 2814:) 2735:) 2731:• 2700:) 2658:) 2609:) 2557:) 2538:) 2503:-- 2470:) 2383:) 2379:• 2375:• 2331:-- 2315:) 2286:) 2208:}} 2202:{{ 2042:-- 1956:) 1880:) 1857:) 1785:) 1781:• 1752:) 1722:}} 1716:{{ 1542:) 1538:• 1470:) 1466:• 1390:) 1386:• 1307:) 1303:• 1274:) 1252:) 1213:) 1135:) 1131:• 1071:32 1013:) 1009:• 907:}} 901:{{ 816:) 780:) 728:) 662:) 571:) 513:) 481:. 367:21 321:) 297:) 293:| 274:PC 269:) 265:| 241:) 237:| 199:) 112:) 86:→ 3670:( 3610:, 3557:? 3550:? 3539:? 3528:? 3511:. 3396:( 3318:( 3233:) 3229:( 3199:m 3196:a 3193:e 3190:r 3187:D 3110:( 3012:( 2949:( 2871:( 2810:( 2727:( 2696:( 2654:( 2605:( 2553:( 2534:( 2466:( 2371:( 2311:( 2282:( 2146:) 2142:( 2097:) 2093:( 2081:) 2077:( 2016:) 2012:( 1952:( 1876:( 1853:( 1777:( 1748:( 1534:( 1462:( 1405:I 1382:( 1299:( 1270:( 1248:( 1209:( 1127:( 1005:( 812:( 776:( 724:( 658:( 635:) 631:( 618:) 614:( 567:( 509:( 500:. 491:. 358:— 343:. 317:( 289:( 261:( 233:( 225:. 195:( 108:( 50:.

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

Index