Knowledge:Village pump (policy)/Archive C

4829:(First apology in advance for bad English) I am a new regular editor on these issues. Yes I have POV too :). Problem resides in 'no original research'. If you make any statement which is a 'fact/conclusion' rather then an 'opinion' It is more likely then not, a subject of dispute. So these articles are mostly collection of views rather then conclusions. Some 'factual' articles are regular subject of deletion votes. Like 'Israeli violence against children'. And related articles which give supportive evidences. And on other site 'List of terrorist acts against Israel'. Although Policy clearly states that POV is not a reason for delete. Normally pro-Palestinian article gets more delete votes then pro-Israeli articles. (on other thought may be my POV again coming). I personally believe more serious need is about POV of titles. Like we should recommend use of words like claims, apparent etc in disputed titles. Take the example of list of terrorist incidences. The 'terrorist' is one of the words to avoid in wikipedia policy. Specially due to definitional problems. For example by most definitions, the civilian killing due to 'hate' does not qualify as 'terrorism'!. That's why u never see label of terrorist on nazis. There are many other issues there. But mostly if you hear from any active editor, you will get one side of the story. And if you try to listen to both. You will wish that their keyboards should crash :) 3976:

Latvian government and one or two Latvian personalities and political parties) because it requires time and we do not have too many participants as yet. The way I see it, once Raul managed to read the materials, he must have some knowledge of Russian - so I do not understand why he prefers complaining to the English-speaking community instead of presenting his criticism (which may be really well-substantiated) in Russian - just like a small kid running to his big brother to protect him from big bullies in the yard. I assure you, we are not so bad as he tries to present us. The history of every nation has things some people would like to forget - but this is what we are here for, to have these things remembered, good and evil alike. It is high time we learned to discuss things like equal partners rather than go and look for some just and benign arbiter above us. If any person assumes he/she has the right to forbid anyone else to say whatever he/she thinks true, in what way is this person different from the Russian authorities and media he so justly criticizes?

3855:

siting absence of media freedom. Together with the fact that official Kremlin and its security services have launched a controlled media campaign against Latvia, this implies that Russian sources-based information in Knowledge's Russian page on Latvia, emphasizing "latvian waffen ss" could be politically motivated and one-sided. As now, it seems to be based on USSR sources and no mentioning of the opinion of western countries (or Latvia) is provided. For example, US Commission of Refugees issued an opinion in 1950s that baltic waffen ss members, who, in fact, fought against USSR in front combat units, cannot be considered "criminal" or nazies, therefore undermining any special meaning that the Russians attach to artifitial entry on "latvian waffen ss units". At least such an entry should have a note that the opinion given is not shared in Lavia.

6316:. However, encyclopedias as a whole have a tendency to be biased none the less. I looked through a lexicon from the late '70s the other day, finding countless references to "bushmen" describing everyone not of a fair skin complexion. It also described communism as a great evil. Reaching my point here: Even if the article on communism in this lexicon was accurate and extensive, it included graphical models with "The Soviet system in theory" and another one labelled "How it really works". I live in Norway, for the record, where we had nowhere near as powerful anti-communism waves as in the US, and still very POV stuff like this snuck into the encyclopedias. My point is that no matter where you look you must be source critical. This goes not only for wikipedia, and this should apply equally much to; "serious" encyclopedias in print. -- 1573:", and b) in this particular case, of the three links provided in the article, the first (the only one linked) gets 'account terminated due to TOS violations', the second gets a 'domain cannot be found' error, and the third (after much navigation) shows a three-minute video, starting with Bigley pleading for his life, then a LONG rant that English-only speakers can't understand, then the "beheading" happens off camera. What's the point? 3:11 of my life wasted, with nothing gained--didn't learn anything, didn't see anything of note, didn't hear anything informative. Knowledge shouldn't censor or take sides, but we shouldn't provide links that indirectly take people to things of no value. 5314:

yes, women have clitorises. Yes, people got abused in Abu Ghraib. Do we have photographs which illustrate these things clearly and with the intention to explain and not to shock? Yes. And those pictures make the article more informative, so yes, they belong. Not everything in the world is pretty. Not everything in the world is nice. But it is still our responsibility to present it. If we censor, we make the decision for our readers - do we not trust them to decide for themselves what they want to read? I, for one, am throughly and totally against censoring or adding warnings to anything. ] 08:07, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1382:

inaccurate. When I see that article after article on related topics have erroneous details matching a single website and see other close resemblences between those articles and the articles on that website and note that most such articles are created by the same editor, it is obvious what has been happening and where the information has been lifted from. (I am not talking here about one single website or one single editor. This is obviously common practice.) And a normal method to get rid of supposed copyvio is to create a new paraphrased article in place of the copyvio article, still without indicating source.

8305:

protected it or procured its protection, what time limit if any exists on its protection. I would appreciate a response, and not a personal attack along the lines that I am planning to edit the page. I pledge not to do so under any circumstances and accordingly invite your response to the questions asked. Clearly it is a sensitive matter, and perhaps warrants wider discussion, although the reason I asked you directly was that there may have already been such a discussion prior to my arrival. If you could answer the questions or just point me to when it was discussed that would be splendiferous. :-)

7043:- essentially, that for controversial images the image should be replaced the alt text by default, plus a "click here to display the page with this image" (and user pref option to override the default and show all pictures immediately). Advantage of this: doesn't require any complex categorisation systems; doesn't declare images "offensive"; it;s just minimal user control over what they see when they first come to a page. (I for one could live without having to see the picture of the penises above right. It's not like we can't have the discussion without having those thrust in readers' faces.) 5054:

find themselves embarrassed when viewing certain images or possibly find their own arousal at viewing certain images distasteful. Ultimately they wish to impose their own view upon others and clearly that aim is against NPOV. What you find obscene is your POV and what I find obscene is my POV. If I find something obscene I stop looking at it. Everyone has that choice. Good god, go to google, turn safe image search ON and type in "nipple" and see what you get. If you are worried about what your children might see, the images found on Knowledge are the least of your worries.

3288:

MLA Style manual also agreed that the comma should be used, so I'm thinking 'this is easy--slam-dunk for commas'. However, Chicago said that while the comma was previously required, it was now 'optional', and Strunk & White said that while the comma was used traditionally, "logically" it was not necessary (something about it not being parenthetical, but restrictive). So I still lean towards commas, because without just looks wrong, compared to what I'm used to seeing, but I'm not sure that the case is clear enuf to justify moving all articles to that usage.

2341:

disambiguators (and I'm an American), as they are meaningless (or even confusing) to people unfamiliar with the system (e.g., someone recently commented elsewhere that they thought MN was Maine). First step would be to include the city or school district name. In the rare cases where there are two cities with the same name having schools with the same name (and that someone has created articles for them on Knowledge and they survive VfD), then they can be further disambiguated by adding the state or province or country name as needed. So,

7767:

for a while before it's corrected. It's obvious some articles (creationism, Israel, etc.) are always going to have a hot NPOV dispute tag on them, but there are other topics (Scientology, pedophilia -- maybe there are better examples?) which are more subject to the "sneaky bias". While there's no substitute for active watchlisting and eternal vigilance, what he's asking is whether we should have a template for identifiably controversial but less-angry subjects, TO WARN READERS, simply saying something to the effect of

1548:, the British hostage in Iraq who was beheaded, about whether it's appropriate to provide links to the video showing his death. I feel it's not appropriate (a) because I regard it as the worst kind of pornography, (b) because the killers wanted it to be shown widely and we shouldn't assist them, and (c) one of the websites hosting it apparently shows bestiality videos, so we'd be helping readers to find them too. Is there a Knowledge policy that covers this, or has a consensus been reached about it? 1482:. :-D — Of course, anyone can replace the notice, so it is almost impossible to tell if the notice is 'official' or has been placed there by a random visitor. At the moment, there is an official-looking notice that the sandbox is colsed, but it was placed there by an anon editor. I am replacing the note with a simple 'please do not edit', since the threat, if it has any effect at all, only dares people to mess with the notice. I like the {{sandboxheader}} proposal, though. this could be the solution. 4491:, legal threats against Knowledge by editors are a violation of policy, but there does not seem to be consensus to block or ban users who engage in this practice. Nevertheless, many admins do routinely block people for making legal threats. I don't believe these blocks are justified by policy. Whether or not you believe blocking should be allowed, the policy is currently inconclusive. Maybe someone could clarify this, or if necessary, we could have a vote about it. Cross-posted to WIKIEN-L. 6267:

attempt to express a view outside of these norms is liable to get shouted down; and this is simply because the technological superiority of the US allows many more people from that country cheap access to the Internet in numbers that overwhlem people from other nations. I suppose this is the "cabal" of which you speak. My point is that there is absolutely nothing to stop a narrowing of this "cabal" by an organised group, be they neo-nazis in the US or communist ideologues in China.

5501:

nudity, shouldn't we 'adapt' Knowledge to their views as well? But then not only nipples and penises would have to go, but unveiled (wo)men, certain national flags, certain band links (I mean music), manyotherthings, would have to take leave as well. In other words, we could practically close the project down. Preceding every article by an 'If you are offended by ((content of article)) then you might not want to read ((article))' is pure nonsens.

7852: 7804: 4354:, and IMO we cannot survive without it. So the legalistic solution of trying to fix the policy won't work for two reasons: Firstly it's not obvious how to do it, and secondly even if we do it won't help. The proposed solution of enforcing existing policy (and incidentally Wikilove is an existing policy, and one of the oldest) won't work either, for both of those reasons and for a third: It's often not obvious what existing policy is. 2997:

a copyvio (I also made factual corrections since the original IMDb trivia item was erroneous anyway). It's my understanding the copyvio notice was to have been removed by an admin within a week, but it's been more than a month. Is there a penalty for going ahead and removing the copyvio notice and replacing the offending material so we can lose the ugly (and no longer necessary) copyvio notice in the middle of the article? Cheers

1225:

idea. Also, to establish ethical standards for Knowledge articles in general would be setting a very flammable sort of policy that I'd be surprised to see adopted, never mind maintained. All that said, I do frown on copying large bodies of text from public domain (or not-so-public domain) sources without any credit, especially since the result is often an obvious contast with other articles. I've only seen this done once, though.

4818:, it adds nothing not already expressed in the policy or by an NPOV warning, and worst of all, it makes broad generalizations about the editors of the articles. Imagine the impression on readers of our authority, especially if it were quoted elsewhere. Many articles have issues, but I hardly think it's fair to accuse "the majority" of the editors of having a bias in a public forum when not one of them would admit to it. 4347:, part of the problem is that we have little idea how serious or otherwise the problem is. Some other aspects of the problem IMO are that the policy pages are a bit of a mess at present, and I'm not optimistic about the chances of improving them any time soon. So while I hope I'm not violating policy myself, I'm actually glad that some admins are, and I don't think I'm the only one. It's the lesser of two evils. 3516:

City (I happen to know, as I live here), some of them don't actually mention that they are about train stations, although one might infer that from the mention of tracks. (The articles are all written from the point of view of a New York resident, who knows where Queens is, but just needs to know the exact layout of a subway station). Should they be fixed up (with some boilerplate, about "this is a station in

6939:. I know that there is a lot of emotional backlash because of the excesses of the conservatives, but I don't think we should react to those excesses in a way that pulls conservatives out of the discussion. (I also think a lot of male-oriented sex discussion here pays too much attention to the physical aspect and not enough attention to the emotional aspects of sex, but that discussion is for another day). 4924:(be warned that the page carries a graphic picture), which has continued for some time? Most editors are of the belief that any means of protecting those who might be offended or children from graphic images, including specific warnings, would be censorship, and they disapprove of it, but some are in favour of a more inclusive attitude. Narya, you'll note that the hardline editors believe that by visiting 3275:

guess I have to break down and get Strunk & White, AP Style, and Chicago style manuals here, even tho' I already have copies of the first two back in my Seattle apt.) The exactness of Knowledge search beyond just punctuation, while vexing, is probably part of a bigger discussion than this. Of the google hits, the ones that say not to use the comma seem to fall into two categories--those that say it's

6935:

emotional reaction. I was offended when, in high school, my parents had to sign a permission slip for me to get sex education; I was also offended when, in high school, you had to get parental permission to have a school perform an anonymous survey about your sex life. I am offended by the fact that people, being denied sex education, are becoming pregnant at young ages because they don't know about

3575:

were the first articles I made, so I was still a newbie here) was to kind of create a wiki train system, as you can see with the tables at the bottom of each article; get to Union Street, click on to the Amtrak link, follow Amtrak stations up to New York, then pop out there to read New York related articles. More suited for WikiTravel? Maybe. But I'm not screwing with anyone's namespace. :) --

5175:

ever offensive to anyone, flying in the face of the objective fact that some images offend many people. Until we have a way of labelling offensive images, and a box some user may click to disable to loading of said offensive images (possibly separated by category), this battle will continue to rage on Wikiepdia. The only compromise is to label things that may be offensive in some manner.

5137:

tittilating when other topics that might disturb are retained. It all should be kept. Note, however, that there is (or was?) a proposal to implement PICS-sensitivity (and/or other related automatic content-management) in Mediawiki, so if your browser supports that, you wouldn't see it but the rest of us who don't have it set would. This seems like a decent way to go. Please see

5226:

should provide the incentive for someone to produce a separate page "to lessen the impact" of the article. The story of this article is the pictures. Without the pictures there would have been no story in the first place. There would just have been unsubstantiated rumous of abuse. To remove the pictures is an attempt to water down the article so that it can be forgotten about.

3959:, but issues like this one should be discussed on the Talk page of a particular article. Note, however, that we do not take into consideration any requests of "removing emphasis" on particular parts of a country's history (regardless of whether the emphasis is politically, personally, religiously, or whatever motivated), as long as the information is true. We 6786:... and it does not have a disambig page but it has it on the bottom. I've tried reading the Wiki page on disambiguation, I don't know why... maybe I'm tired or something, but it didn't help me comprehend when/why disambigs are put on the bottom rather than having a proper page made and a clear warning at the top of the main article for quick navigation. - 1952:, and I would like to include a recorded example of the spoken language. I have some (copyrighted) folklore recordings of native speakers singing, telling stories, etc. If I take a short (~15 seconds) excerpt of one story and credit it appropriately, is this fair use? The key, I think, is that the content of the story is not important to the article. -- 7505:

important that for the short time the casual surfer is here, they have every reasonable chance to gain as complete a picture as possible about the subject they're reading about. And if that means that a disputed article gets a "Hey! There may be more to this than meets the eye. Check out the article history!" flag on the article, then why not do that? --

1185:: talk about what they said in less words and give the source. The line between a copyright workaround and a new work is admittedly fuzzy sometimes, but I think as long as a source is given the two can be compared and our version updated if necessary. As for a project page on plagiarism, that's a great idea; I'm not aware of any such page, but there is 1655:

will presumably someday incorporate the info from all published obituaries, which means the cause of death of a lot of private individuals will point into Knowledge articles. Perhaps culturally accepted notions of privacy will evolve as more info gets collated like that, and the custom will stop working and we'll figure out something different then.

6246:, I don't understand your complaint. Are you saying that some people join Knowledge to push their POV around? Are you saying that VFD is any more sensitive to Knowledge's weaknesses than any other part of the project? Are you saying there is a problem with Scientologists or Marines? What, exactly, is the real or perceived problem with 2201:

is going to want to (a) look up their own school, and (b) make an entry for it if it's not there. Secondly, the fact that every school kid is going to want to look up their own school (as will every alum) in some ways defines the usefulness of these entries: it's information people will naturally seek here, whether we like it or not.

6448:

interest group need only hold a poll on an article and it can then enforce the majority decision for the rest of the article's life. Or of course it can simply outrevert any opposition. The policy on reversion allows groups to tag-revert individuals, so minority voices can be shut down by interest groups without any difficulty.

6473:

their POV. Until recently I was doing my best to reason with these few and make sure the page was NPOV. But it really is a full time job and one requiring considerable diplomatic skills. Furthermore, certain individuals amongst these profess to believe in NPOV but show by their actions a total lack of respect for it.

5330:

offended by it to avoid it, but you keep that information from anyone who wishes to use it. You would ultimately help more people to not censor the articles, but warnings of possibly objectional material would not effect the articles in any adverse way. Perhaps you could make warnings an option under user preferences.

5306:, we should take advantage of customizable settings to expose the encyclopedia to the largest possible audience. Although the default would be to include all such material some articles could have short warnings with a link to a discussion of the setting, how to set it, and how it works, for those who wish to use it. 8437:, who create whole subtrees to their User pages. At some point, this turns WP into personal webspace. Obviously, subpages are the right place for WP-related writeups, and drafts, but at which point does it cross the line to the blogosphere, and to what point should pov forks into User: namespace be tolerated? 7374:

trolling users should, as this is not an edit war. For edit wars, by blanking the article until the dispute is settled, it seems to be the only way to avoid POV by the protecting sysop. This is especially important since some edit warriors have sysop friends, or are themselves sysops. My 2¢. (or $ 0,0264)

6978:, which may well be offensive to some people? Etc. The only NPOV thing to do is tag pretty much everything precisely and give people the option to block whatever part of the taxonomy they want to block. This would be a huge chore and lead to lots of disputes though. (Why was this discussion moved from 3463:). I rather suspect it's identical to the deleted page, though of course I can't be sure since I can't see it. While I don't think the resume's any more appropriate in userspace than WP proper (let alone in non-user userspace), I wouldn't bother to bring it up except that anons have been redirecting 8565:

1) proposes "BC" and "AD" (in contrast with "BCE" and "CE") as standard for Knowledge, 2) apparently encourages linking of years, and 3) encourages linking of units of measurement, among other changes. It also reverses the style of many of the dates used within the guide (such as "February 12" to "12

8390:

RickK's user page was protected because it has been the victim of persistent vandalism because of his vandalhunting activity. Anyone with a user page that is subject to persistent vandalism (or any other good reason) can request protection. And unless there's a good reason to edit such a user page, I

7931:

Plus, the talk pages a tend to be chaotic, whereas previous versions and the version comparison tool on the History page speak for themselves. Besides, a POV notice at the top of the page might just set people off, whereas a pointer to the History page will put all contributors on notice that readers

7174:

The Thai government closed the country’s border with Cambodia following the riots. The border was re-opened on 21 March 2003, following the Cambodian government’s payment of $ 6 million compensation for the destruction of the Thai embassy. The Cambodian government also agreed to compensate individual

7072:

images on Knowledge (which would be a great option for dialup users as well; perhaps with a "click to load image" placeholder on pages) or don't even bother implimenting anything at all. I realize this can be a touchy subject with some (I daresay even most) people, but don't let your (general "your")

6266:

and usurp the decision making process of Knowledge. Indeed that may have already happened. A cynic might argue that the predominant point of view that can be read between the lines of nearly every article on Knowledge is one based on the mores and the cultural norms of the United States, and that any

5877:

However remote the possibility, being caught with this kind of image in your computer can cause lots of trouble in some countries. You just don't want your ex-spouse to present it in a child custody case. I don't like that manga image. I do appreciate the freedom of speech. However, I do believe this

5186:

We're publishing an encyclopedia, not a television program, not a school textbook and not a treatise on morality. If a photograph adds something to an article, it should be present. If not, it should not be. If it is present and may likely cause offence to some people then it should be well within

5174:

First of all, I hope you stay around Knowledge and share your thoughts with us. There are a lot of hard liners here who oppose even labelling "potentially offensive" images, and we need people like you to counteract their irrational position. They wish to push their very strong POV that no image is

5136:

Several articles on WW2 do have graphic pictures, disturbing descriptions of things (when I was younger, and first heard about some of the things done in the Holocaust, I had nightmares for weeks), and other content that sensitive people might have issues with. I see no reason to single out something

3924:

Raul, the best approach is adding new articles about Latvia and editing the article about the Latvian Waffen-SS. I don't think there is a politics of the Latvian Knowledge as such. The Russian Wikipedians certainly have different political views. If you can write Russian, please collaborate there and

3404:

Being a French Wikipedian, I can answer this. Actually, the issue is rather controversial. Some people, probably including the one who reverted you, vehemently support having categories and interwikis at top. Others would prefer them at the bottom. As a result, no one wishes to clarify the matter for

3388:

Hmm, yes. I sure hope that problem will be fixed in the next versions. It's just like the hidden text feature. It'll add a blank line instead of just making the text disappear, so to avoid that it's necessary to add the tags to the beginning or end of another block of text. Another problem is the way

3338:

that happens, and if it really should be that way. Why they have such a preference. Wouldn't it be better if they just did it like we do? I'm not asking for the whole stuff to be changed (also because that would be damn hard to do, manually), though I do think it would be better to keep those tags at

3333:

I Once edited an article on the French Knowledge, moving languages and categories tags to the bottom of the page, among with other small edits. Well, that was promptly reverted by someone else, easy like that. That member labeled what I did as "vandalism" (yes, I understood that). I don't keep rancor

3329:

of the page. While I'm not aware of everything about styles regarding this and different Wikipedias, I do think that's a very bad habit. Adding those tags to the beginning of each article adds a good share of unnecessary spaces there, which, in my opinion, makes those pages look strange. That's why I

3252:

I would like to see a software enhancement that would allow a person's name to be normalized in a way that a reference would work without knowing exactly how it is punctuated. I find it most annoying to have to do a search every time I want to insert a reference to someone in another article. (But I

3137:

Cases like this, where only a section of a larger article is affected, are difficult. The article was never going to be deleted, so it didn't require an admin-only action, but 23skidoo seemed to be waiting for some sort of "official" decision. The lesson is: if you can solve any case on WP:CP without

2607:

In the 9 or so months I've been here, I have gotten the strong sense that blank pages are undesirable--that any page in the article space should be an article, a disamb page, a redir, or else be deleted. However, when that opinion was challenged, I couldn't find anything it writing to that effect (of

8473:

Right. He's been harrassing Rhobite for Rhobite's activities to protect Knowledge from him. He votes Keep on obvious VfD candidates solely because Rhobite proposes them. He votes oppose for admin candidates solely because Rhobite votes support. And now, since I blocked him the other day, he's on

8070:

Well i thought we can create template 'freely'. I even thought of making templates of smily faces. (images linked to other sites). It might be very intresting. We can put smily faces in talk page like many other forums. if there is no such restriction I am seriously considering making such templates

7635:

This problem cannot be solved by a new template but can already be solved by existing measures. Articles subject to significant edit warring should normally be protected until the warring parties are able and willing to discuss their differences. There already exists a template for this purpose. If

7344:

Actually, in this case the contributors don't concern me; the readers do. If the content of an article is swinging back and forth between disputing contributors, then readers should be given a heads-up to check out the History and make up their own minds. Contributors can argue till kingdom come for

6326:

The nice thing about GFDL is that if Knowledge were really to be overwhelmed by a particular faction, there is nothing to stop a different group from forking, setting up a somewhat more restrictive set of rules as to who can edit, and taking the project from there. And then the world will presumably

6140:

Are you claiming something like this is happening, or is it a hypothetical? Yes, it is possible to overwhelm an open consensus group. It is why, for example, on VfD we ignore votes by unregistered users and tend to discount votes by brand new users who have not made other contributions. I venture to

6127:

created several hundred accounts on Knowledge (making legitimate edits so as not to be accused of sock puppetry), they could decide to vote down any proposal for the inclusion of content that might be seen as detrimental to the image of Scientology (to the point of deleting pages on VFD), and nobody

5504:

I see that 'offensive' content is a problem, but I hold that restriction or 'shielding' in combination with NPOV principles can never be a way out. The only reasonable thing I could think of is to indicate the open, NPOV, non-censored/adapted/restricted character of Knowledge right at the start page

5466:

This debate should be dubbed "The morality of neutrality". Honestly, this isn't christian conservative America - it's Knowledge. Almost everyone here has sucked on titties before - either as a baby and possibly later. It's nothing new to any of us, and as a neutral encyclopedia, well, I must revert

5053:

To Dr:Zen - You are trying to draw me into a discussion here about a specific issue that I haven't been following. I was merely commenting on the incorrect assertion by naryathegreat that "all have about the same guidelines concerning what is "obscene". Obscenity only exists in the mind of those who

4787:

I don't have a constructive solution, so I think that this problem is part of the nature of the "wiki" system. I have found many of the articles in wikipedia very useful, but I am very unlikely to even read articles about Palestine/Israel issues for that reason. I think that the general disclaimer

4715:

You can dual-license your own content under any license you like. I like to release a lot of my edits into the public domain. The GFDL isn't great, but it was there when Knowledge started and it keeps everything under one integrated license. As others have noted, it's almost impossible to switch now

4519:

What admins are and are not allowed to do is set out by the wikipedia community, not "a fairly long history" of admins blocking without clear policy. You got it the wrong way round. Policy is not dictated by admins. Legal threat blocks are not sanctioned by policy. It is not in good faith for admins

3854:

I would like to draw attention to the estimates of international organizations such as Freedom House and Reporteurs sans frontiers who, in their annual estmates, in recent years gave Russian media very low index, putting it essentially close to the level of media of some of worst dictatorships, thus

3846:

The problem seems to be that there's political argument between modern Russian leadership, in particular Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Latvia over the history and interpretation of history of Latvia in 2 World War. This is why Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued its official opinion

3842:

No doubt that even Germany between 1933 and 1945, if taken neutrally, had something else in addition to Hitler, nazies, ss, gestapo etc, worth mentioning would for examle be victims, devastation, war refugees etc, not even mentioning a usual eastern-european country of the year 2004, not fighting in

3515:

I was fixing up some of the articles on the "orphans" page. I happened to notice that there is this category ] with 22 short articles, each for a station on one line of the New York City subway system. The first thing I notice is that many don't bother to mention that the stations are in New York

3366:

Thanks for your comment. However, I never stated we're superior, or that our standards should be everybody else's standards. I just wanted to understand why they do that, or most importantly, why my action was seen as vandalism. I am allowing differences. That's exactly what I did when I accepted my

2996:

contained a trivia item (which I did not contribute, I should note) which turned out to be a cut-and-paste of a trivia item from IMDb. Back in November someone placed a copyvio tag on the page. About 5 minutes later I spotted this and rewrote the trivia item on the temp page so that it was no longer

2650:

Thanks, guys. FWIW, in the case in question, a Wikpedian created a redirect to an existing article, then decided the article didn't discuss the subject as described in the redirect's title adequately, and blanked the redir because "deletion is anti-wiki", so I reverted the blanking (in hindsight, if

2186:

I think the right choice is to use the http form and the description "article in the Spanish-language Knowledge encyclopedia - to make it clear that this article may not be in a Knowledge. I think the interlanguage links should only be used in discussion pages and automatic inter-language links. If

1813:

No firm policy, but a strong pattern of not doing this. If he has an official site, we should link to that. If it has contact info, then it's there at one remove. If he lacks an official site with contact info, then he probably doesn't want to publish his contact info. This gets down to a reasonable

1590:. It seems perfectly reasonable to summarize those criticisms raised in this link which are legitimate in the body of the article along with a summary of what Congressman Lantos has accomplished, but I am uncomfortable with a stub which links to an article that is nothing more than a vicious attack. 1354:

I'll have to do some more thinking about it; can't quite reconcile this "Keep in mind that the role of an encyclopedia is quite different from that of a typical paper — there is no implication that any of our text is our own original idea." with this "By submitting your work you promise you wrote it

1224:

Ethics are quite a matter of debate, though; I would argue any properly credited statements are ethical, as well as any widely-known ones. Keep in mind that the role of an encyclopedia is quite different from that of a typical paper — there is no implication that any of our text is our own original

1169:

Comment: plagiarism is rife in articles about entertainers; for some reason people think it's fine to copy from e.g. the IMDB. I think this is aided by well-meaning responses on the HelpDesk that say things like, "if you retype in your own words, it's fine". Well, no, I don't think it is; we were

7029:

To use user-activated censorship, it is not necessary that anything be tagged as possibly offensive. Things should be tagged based on objective criteria. "Category: Female nipple", or "Category: Map showing independent North Cyprus" can be applied to an image obejctively. And it's something that

7016:

The very act of tagging articles and photos as offensive will offend people. In addition, by tagging a specific item as possibly offensive you will be offending someone who finds that item as particularly non-offensive. Obviously there is a certain low level of filter that could be applied. George

6701:

I once fell for the MarketScore proxy (and I consider myself quite savvy with regards the internet). It took an adware removal tool to rid myself of it, so the "Why MarketScore is evil and hwo to get rid of it" template shoudl include details of such a tool - I believe SpyBot S&D is open-source

6621:

Current practice is to maintain both lists and categories, as both formats have their own advantages. Categories are far easier to keep up to date and complete, but they cannot be annotated or put in orders other than alphabetical. As to having lists of non-existent items on category pages I don't

6546:

I agree that VfD process is a failure, and this is because you have not defined yet what consensus is and how a delete decision should be taken. Consensus is just a number of people who agree in a subject, and this number has to be voted by a certified voters population. Do you want consensus to be

6472:

for a start. This might actually be what Dr Zen is reffering to as I've seen her around in these pages. In these pages we have just a few very motivated creationists systematically biasing pages on that topic. They revert changes, introduce POV statements, change the format of the page to favour

6013:

Someone pointed out a significant difference between the Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg and the Coppertone girl, one which I had failed to notice in the manga image. The manga image is explicitly sexualized in a way the Coppertone girl is not. I withdraw my comment. Don't really know the right answer

5917:

It is inappropriate for us to bow to paranoia in this way. People can clear their cache if they need to, and given what popups and banner ads place on one's computer nowadays anyhow, it's likely they'll need to know how to do that anyhow. If the image helps the article, it should be there. Very few

5225:

is already censored. The pictures have fuzzy bits over parts of the images that someone somewhere has deemed too shocking to show. I feel that the providing a separate "censored" version without the pictures can only have a political agenga. It it curious that of all the pages in Knowledge this one

5007:

Jooler:Merely because half of Europe "does it" does not make it "correct" or acceptable. Why don't you question the greedy motivation of the advertisers and the TV companies, and the unashamed actors who "act" being nude for the camera, all of whom are only out to make big bucks and they don't care

4960:

This comes back to question of defining obscene and objectionable. Now I know that your questions are about pictures but lets look at articles for a moment. I note that you have written some articles about WWII. Now there are some people out there who would find it obscene to talk about a period of

4549:

policy to block people for disruption. admins have some discretion to decide what is disruptive. if legal threats are disruptive (e.g. replacing entire articles), their authors may be blocked. If a legal threat is reasonable and polite (e.g. "please remove copyvio, or I will take action"), there is

4533:

If you want to get technical (which you apparently do, based on the above posts), we are all using wikipedia web servers by the grace of the wikimedia foundation. I (and I assume the rest of us) have no legal right to force the wikimedia foundation to allow me to use its servers. If the foundation

4327:

I agree with Fvw. I don't think admins "misinterpret" the criteria. I think they stretch them to fit their own opinions when they think they can get away with it. The speedy deletion cases are pretty clear. I entirely disagree with Shane. VfD is not "collapsing under its own weight". It would be in

3975:

The Russian Knowledge is a developing entity, and it is developing fast, but today we still have too few participants interested in history and willing to provide input in the form of new articles. I agree that the article on Latvia is too short (even though I, for one, placed there info on the new

3873:

PS: I hope it is understood that as though now it is justified to consider Knowledge to large extent as a product of information stored elsewhere, in future, it could be considered as actually souce of information in itself. That's why, if somebody puts his or her distorted or one-sided information

3723:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for

3353:

For my two penny's worth, I'd say what the French Knowledge do is up to them. Whilst the difference may be a little annoying and confusing, it is not our place to dictate what they should do. The English Knowledge, though it was the first, is in no way superior to any others. Perhaps it would be

2620:

defines "childish vandalism" as including page blanking. It's common sense that blank articles shouldn't be lying around, because they break the red/blue link meanings. Nobody's ever felt the need to write up an explicit rule about it, and quite frankly they shouldn't. We've got too damn many rules

2200:

Originally, I was of the mind that schools are not per se notable; that articles about schools should be included here if and only if the school met some sort of notability standard. I've changed my opinion on this for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's like pushing rope; every high school kid

1571:

Matt--I generally agree with your points in principle, but a) I don't think Slim was using the term "pornography" to mean sexual content, but rather m-w.com's third def "the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence:

1511:

It may be a good time to point out that you can use the substitution template {{subst:sandboxpaste}} to paste in the HTML notice "***** Please do not edit this line. We like people to see the notice. Put any testing content below it. *****" plus the sandbox template also. It makes for easy and fast

1271:

At some point, hopefully when enough of the article has been rewritten, perhaps every single paragraph, and maybe the layout changed, we can remove such notices from the article itself (which can remain in the history, or perhaps the talk page. Actually, maybe they should always be just on the talk

1165:

Question: do we have a concise Knowledge essay on what plagiarism is and isn't and is there a way to provide an internal link to it? If I deleted a plagiarized passage or entry and wanted to place a helpful note at a User's Talkpage like "please see Knowledge policy here" or "for a definition of

8304:

I would appreciate a response to the above, I don't propose to edit the page at all. I noticed it was protected and am entitled to ask, as above, why it is protected, whether it is a privilege only available to yourself, whether it is within Knowledge guidelines for it to be protected, whether you

8089:

What is the difference between the NPOV and the Objective POV? What types of text does one enclude that the other doesn't? Does the NPOV not contain conclusions from the facts, while the Objective POV does? Does the NPOV state the popular point of view while the Objective POV doesn't if it isn't

7766:

Sigh. I follow what you're saying, Dablaze. Violet, he's not talking about active edit wars, with head-to-head POV pushers like Sollog or the anti-circumcision crew. He's talking about longstanding, slower battles where the single article sometimes drifts widely from NPOV, and may stay that way

7707:

You poo-pooed my mention of the disclaimer, but it really is a very important part of Knowledge. In particular, every single reader of Knowledge is advised as follows: Knowledge cannot guarantee, in any way whatsoever, the validity of the information found here. It may recently have been changed,

7229:

about what might be done to set up policies for controversial articles and vandal magnets, policies that might be distinct from those applied to typical Knowledge articles, but short of outright protection. I was wondering, is there already a page somewhere to discuss ideas like this, or should I

7083:

I agree that this would be useful, but I also have pointed out that all web browsers known to me permit the user to decide whether or not to download and display images. I used to do this with NCSA Mosaic and Netscape when I had a slow (v32) modem, and have used the same feature more recently for

6674:

We appear to be getting quite a bit of vandalism from marketscore proxies. It's technically an open proxy, so current policy says block it, but there have also been useful edits coming from these proxies (they're not quite in line with normal anonymous proxies in that users get suckered into using

6574:

as the best model for VfD, if pushed to it, because it limits the power of veto. The implication is also that you extend the time for debate to facilitate consensus building. The first thing to agree is a set of consensual guidelines for article retention. I'd then change the process name to votes

6520:

agree with Filiocht. Votes are valid for layout decisions etc. Votes can never replace consensus and npov in questions of content (i.e. you cannot vote a minority position out of an article). Unfortunately, VfD does exactly that, sometimes, but more often to the inverse effect of voting irrelevant

6503:

The general point here is, it seems to me, that if you move away from genuine concensus decision-making to the rule of the majority, then you enable vote-rigging and the territorial rule over certain groups of articles by interest-groups who can simply vote-down any minority view that comes along,

5445:

The category system we already have, and as applied to the image namespace, it allows us to transcend the debate over whether a picture would be found objectionable by a suitably large number of people, and just objectively place it in a category like Category: Diseased anatomy, Category: Explicit

5411:

You know, I raised this issue about 6 months ago in requesting whether a template should be created for a warning that an article contains adult content. What the discussion boiled down to was that the template should not be created, due to the fact that it might end up inviting more trouble that

5329:

Censorship is lying. I dont always tell my mother the whole truth, leaving out parts that I know would upset her, but thats basically the same as lying to her. Its an attempt to divert her from the truth. An encyclopedia should strive for truth. If you censor something, you help the people who are

5301:

I think, by default, nothing should be censored. However, it would be quite upsetting to me if a middle school library or a popular filtering software allowed no one to view an article I wrote simply because it contained images they deemed too sensitive. Because I can't change society, and because

4980:

You are just coming up with an excuse for irrational behavior. We all have about the same guidelines concerning what is "obscene". You can say that you don't want people to take it that far, but what you really mean is that you have no reasonable objection to the proposal. The articles on World

4797:

I disagree. I can't find the exact page, but somewhere in the FAQ for readers it's mentioned you should cross-reference everything you read in wikipedia. Singling one sort of article out to have such a disclaimer might inflame more people, putting it on every article discredits wikipedia. I see no

3609:

I haven't been there, but I don't think you can say too much of interest about a single train station. I vote that they be made sections in one big article about New York train stations, complete with a map and some random photos of interesting aspects of some of them. The aid of the context would

3287:

A visit to my local library shed some light on the problems with adopting a standard. At first, it went well--all three encyclopedias there used the comma in their "Martin Luther King, Jr." articles, and all eight books used the comma for "Martin Luther King, Jr." in their titles or subtitles. The

2260:

It there are two schools with the same name, then the oldest one should be able to claim seniority and keep the page with links to disambiguation pages for the others if neccessary. I do not see why "Rugby School" should be put on a new page called "Rugby School (Rugby, Warwickshire, England, UK)"

2027:

I would like articles like that, describing how names in different languages are similar, and the origins of names. This is kind of a middle-ground between dictionary and encylopedia, but since it would have historical context, I'd say that puts it in encyclopedic territory. What do you mean about

1654:

Skysmith's approach sounds good to me. Note that "what links here" on the medical problem's page will locate the article about the person under that policy. Right now, only well-known people have articles, but if the Wikiverse is to fulfill its goals of encompassing all human knowledge, Wikinews

1471:

Another way to do it that would prevent them from editing the header altogether is to protect the main sandbox page and place nothing but two templates on it, {{sandboxheader}} and {{sandbox}}. The first would contain the header message and a link (an external link I guess) to the edit URL for the

1381:

Knowledge is rife with arguable plagiarism. I find article after article with no sources, but in some areas that I know well it is often very easy to determine the source by noting common errors between Knowledge and a likely website. There are websites that seem authoritative but are in fact very

7955:

article. I sumbled accross the article via the random page link a couple of days ago, and made a minor improvment to the grammar. I was most surpised to see that my eidt has come and gone a couple of times since, as the article is partially reverted then reworded by the two debatees. Although not

6224:

experienced users, solely for the purpose of pushing their weight around. My main argument against this is that anyone who has become a true Wikipedian has learned to weigh issues carefully and respect the viewpoints of others. If they haven't, it doesn't matter how many edits they might have, it

5926:

The picture you chose doesn't look like lolicon to me because it is not sexualized in any way. I won't look at the other picture but I read the article without images. In my view, a genuine lolicon picture could be unsuitable for Knowledge because it may be illegal under Florida law. People who

5863:

reminds me that unlike the stylized or medical images on other articles, the Lolicon picture is objectionably pornographic. The Profanity page also notes that you should not use pictures that are illegal for many Knowledge readers to download, and I think this might fall into that category. Since

5575:

I don't know of a specifc policy on this, but I agree with you. Since the "User" in question has been POV pushing, the best response is probably to go through dispute resolution providing as evidence the name and statement on the user page. If a User is registered as a group and isn't pushing a

5454:

Spot on Shimmin. Imho this is the obvious solution to the problem. We provide a search facility to help people find material they are looking for and toolbox features to ease authorship of articles. Features of mediawiki software should be designed to help people use and write wikipedia. Some

5438:

In terms of looking for a consensus, I think we should accept that any form of censorship besides self-censorship cannot achieve consensus. However, I think we should also recognize that expecting users to know which pages contain images that they don't want to see before they see them is not a

5313:

To censor is to be inherently biased. Who are we to declare what is or what is not obscene? Our responsibility as editors of an encyclopedia is to collect and present information in as clear and neutral a manner as possible. We are not here to protect sensitive people. Sometimes the truth hurts -

5091:

To Jooler: To oppose labelling pictures as being "potentially offensive" is just as dogmatic and as POV as any religious person I have seen in the US. Now, I don't know if you have the hard line position of opposing the labelling of some pictures as "potentially offensive" the way many Knowledge

4666:

Alas, one of the risks of being an early adopter; Knowledge is locked into the GFDL at this point despite its troublesome foibles. If we could change it to something else, then what would stop others from being able to relicence Knowledge's content under non-free licences of their own choosing? I

4652:

Can't be done in any practical sort of way. If you don't believe me, I suggest you start by contacting all the anonymous users with copyright claims to their work here to get them to relicense their work. It would be a massive copyright violation to change the license without their permission. --

4511:

The above statement is wrong. It would be more accurate to say that this is not a black-or-white issue. There is a fairly long history of blocking users for making legal threats, and the arbcom has ruled that making legal threats is a violation of wikiettiquite. On the other hand, blocking policy

4503:

either. These blocks are not sanctioned by policy. Until the wikipedia community decides on this issue, admins should stop blocking people for making legal threats, since it is not a blockable offence. If people see a legal threat, delete and warn. Blocking someone is a serious thing to do, there

4148:

If the anon is in fact posting fake material, it's no abuse of speedy deletion. The article claimed he was an actor and musician, which are not supported by reputable guides to such people. The intentional posting of fraudulent material is vandalism and a candidate for speedy deletion. I defer to

3963:

remove articles that are obviously misleading. This policy insures freedom of speech, democracy and racial tolerance etc. on the pages of the Russian Knowledge. I am sorry to tell that the only way to remove "one-sidedness" from an article is to add something (that the brainwashed Russians do not

3574:

Heh. :) Well, some time ago someone left me a note on my talk page, alarmed that a train station article had been successfully VfD'd, so I look out for those now. And I simply liked being called lord protector, since those make up a full 1/8 of my watch list. :) My notion (and keep in mind, these

3375:

Given the current functionality of the MediaWiki software (it still seems to be in 1.4), that seems nuts, as interwikis and cats add white space instead of being ignored. I assume some smarter handling these and other white space issues are in the pipeline somewhere, but I don't they're seen as a

3039:

I don't see how, as the stuff regarding Lee Majors was part of an original addition I put in there. The fact the crash shown is real is not a copyvio as it is a well-known piece of trivia regarding the show. I just checked the IMDb and the trivia items are no longer identical. I rewrote it top to

1744:

I'd prefer alternatives where reasonable, but I can imagine that they'd sometimes be better than the alternatives. PDFs scale well, are supported on essentially all OSs, there are two main open source implementations (for those who prefer OSS), and there's a publicly-available spec describing the

8646:

I really don't agree with having such links to wikinews. It's confusing to have links to an outside (kinda) source, especially with the colour of external links being virtually the same as internal links. Link to the wikinews stories from Current events using the current standard practise, but

7504:

I am basing this request on the fact of Knowledge's increasing visibility in web searches. This will attract casual surfers who probably won't know the technical ins and outs of Knowledge; moreover, they'll probably only look once at whichever article they surf to. This is why I think it is very

7166:

Hello, This is my first post to Village pump.. Anyway is it alright to copy content from a Knowledge article into another one. For example, I want to copy some content from an article into a country article and then delete some bits out, so it becomes like a summary to the article which I copied

6934:

page only adds value for horny teenage males, however) but decrease the value of Knowledge for other people. I think a lot of people plain simply do not understand that offensive images decrease the value of the wiki for some people; I do not think this is a logical reaction as much as it is an

6275:

I agree with the possibility of the hypothetical scenario. I think that if wikipedia gets to the point of being considered an authoritative source (which could have already happened) it will be more likely. I am actually more worried about groups that are more subtle than the U.S. Marine. How

5500:

kind of 'adaptation' or 'censorship' should we adhere to? Some people with a certain cultural and/or religious background, eg, judge nudity a problem. However, not only is this not a globally held view, but there will be other people who are offended by other things. If we censor/make fuss about

4279:

I think abuse is far too strong a word. It's just admins interpretting the speedy deletion criteria more liberally than you do. Admins who act like this are the only thing stopping vfd collapsing under its own weight, and as such I find it a bit difficult to be too harsh on them. So long as they

3274:

Thanks for the replies. OK, I think we've established Knowledge has not yet developed a standard. I lean toward including the comma, as, at least here in the US, in formal, written documents, it is pretty much always included. Is there a different standard in other English speaking countries? (I

2376:

Using the full name for a state seems fine to me. In this case, ambiguities are almost certain, but disambiguating only when necessary isn't insane either. But let's face it, many school names will need disambiguation instantaneously. There are probably as many "Robert E. Lee High School"s as

2340:

Pre-emptive disambiguation is in general discouraged and I would not support a proposal to require including disambiguating details by default. What would be helpful is to have guidelines for how to disambiguate schools when it is needed. I also very much dislike using two-letter postal codes as

2321:

Aesthetic judgement noted. So what? Regardless, "Woodland Hills" by itself is insufficient information, since there are several of them; should editors creating an article be required to go check to make sure there are no other Taft High Schools in places called Woodland Hills? Or wouldn't it be

7585:

Anyway, that's why I asked above if there was some way to limit removal of the template to administrators, and perhaps even initial placement. And if some sysop "ally" places or removes inappropriately, then the regular adjudication process, blah blah blah. Though if it's worded as neutrally as

7373:

variant. As long as the page is not stable, it is inherently POV to pick one of the two variants as the locked version. If it is not an edit war but a case of trolling by one ore more users, there is of course a "right version" to lock on, but in that case the article should not be blocked: the

6910:

I wonder why we only think images might offend/damage children; think of all the texts we have about sex, violence, war, holocaust etc. The world is not only for children, and if you want to protect your kids, you should not let your kids surf to sites describling the world like wikipedia does.

6894:

Why not allow children to view our encyclopedia? It won't cost us a lot. We can make something like google's SafeSearch or voluntary ratings, like the Toytoy proposal - so we'll say: 'click that button - and leave your child within our encyclopedia', so parents will be happy. This could greatly

6447:

their interest.) Knowledge was in fact designed to negate the effect, by insisting that decisions should be consensual, that is, include all views, but the drift from that to a community that votes on proposals, deletion, this, that and the other opens the door to the dedicated POV pushers. The

4635:

license. Why does Knowledge insist on using such a beast as the GFDL? I'm sure more than a few people are sick of having to dual (or tri-) license their writing in order to put it on Knowledge and other websites. If we're not using a license that's compatible with any other websites, it kind of

2501:

When I'm making significant edits to articles, I copy the section into a text editor, then write the wiki markup in there. When I have finished, I put it into the main article and preview the page. I save the text document as I go along. This also allows for spelling checks (though it is not

1804:

article "You can contact him via e-mail at ." The address given does appear in two places on the web, but it's not clear that Schnoebelen intends it to be used as a general public contact address (his site offers a different contact address). Further, Schnoebelen is a very controversial figure;

8736:

Oh no. We shouldn't link to Wikinews in the stories (or at least not in bold words). The purpose of news on the main page is not to provide news, but to provide encyclopedia articles related to news. In some cases, it's hard to tell the difference, where on the whole it's not. Short answer: it

7107:

Personally, I feel that as long as pictures fit an article there's no need to censor them to the public at large. And parents should be advised there is such a thing as filters to protect their kids from pretty much anything they want. If a user activated censor option could settle this entire

6286:

Yes, this is going to be a massive problem one day. There could come a time where the truth about a subject in many people's minds is "What it says in Knowledge". I know about all the disclaimers about how you are supposed to use Knowledge, but what proportion of Knowledge users (as opposed to

1297:

I agree, and we do with the {{1911}} template. I should do a hunt sometime for EB pages without it (they're surprisingly easy to find with a few searches for archaic language). Re Improv, I think we should definitely keep the 1911 EB listed eternally as a reference, even if the tag is removed.

8046:

put it: "if you buy pork at a butcher shop, are they required to warn you in case you're going to a Jewish barbeque?" This is a what-if template and a highly specific one to boot. However, the information on the status of texts containing the tetragrammaton is not explicitly present in either

5348:

policy of Knowledge. It is bias in its most basic form. I completely disagree with the idea of censoring articles with dipictions and/or descriptions that are relevent to the articles they lie within. If they are not relevent, they should not be present. One precedent of proper discretion

2479:

On the subject of H hours, I suggest that a new policy include not putting a newly created page on VfD for an hour or two when it is first created. I know that if I'm spending a lot of time getting the wiki markup right in a new article, I like to save it (so I can continue on if my computer

6035:

Just a note on the legality of these things: It is typical for H-manga (especially of this kind) even in Japan to have forenotes that essentially state that every girl featured in that publication, despite her appearance, is of a legal age of consent. This is enough in most countries (the US

5487:

audience is helpful, sometimes not doing that would in fact be reproachworthy(?). For example, if I were to talk about torture to a five-year-old child, I would keep more to a description like 'people hurting other people', etc., rather than show pictures of tortured people or quote detailed

4854:

I understand that by introducing this topic yet again (not by me, but as a topic) that I am pouring salt on a few open sores, but I feel I must find a place to discuss it. Knowledge has a problem in several articles concerning the inclusion of nude, obscene, or vulgar images. An example is

8513:

A tag like {{cleanup-translation}} might be useful to mark articles that need further language-related cleanup but are far enough along in this process that it is now clear that they will not be deleted (at least not for this reason: they can still be VfD'd like anything else). That is, for

1556:(a) Knowledge isn't using this video as an example of pornography (who the hell gets their jollies from this kind of thing anyway?); we shouldn't remove a link simply because 0.01% of readers might find it titillating. (b) Why should Knowledge take a side either way? (c) As unpleasant as 4892:

users (like myself, I'm 17) and the legal aspects of such actions. More importantly, what about school children? Sexuality is a common topic of research among teens, do we want them to come across obscene images as well as objective information? I'd like other user's opinions on this

1745:

format. It's not a publicly-controlled standard, but it's certainly possible to do worse. Ideally it should be in "archival PDF" format, whenever that finally gets standardized; I believe that's a format that's intended for libraries etc. who need their material to last for centuries.

4859:

where there is actually a censored version of the article. However, at this location there is an attempt to delete the censored article. Shouldn't Knowledge attempt to protect users who want to use its resources but have moral or ethical sensibilities to such material? For example,

1452:

Is it possible to create some sort of daemon that will just check the sandbox periodically and restore the notice? If I were programming wiki*, I might allow for registering certain pages as permanently having certain headers (or perhaps allow for a certain number of inviolate lines.)

8678:

I can hardly tell the difference, though I realise this LCD screen isn't the best. I don't like interwiki links in the middle of the text, be it to wiktionary or wikinews. While I agree that linking to the wikinews story would be very good I think that another way should be sought.

7150:

I'm not sure how to proceed. Proper structure should obviously be a FA requirement, and this should probably also be in the how-to series. But since structure is a fundamental editorial issue which heavily affects both quality and NPOV, it could also be a part of the Manual of Style.

5533:"We are group of people who are advocates of the asexual same-sex marriage, and we want the marriage between asexual same-sex partners to be recognized by society. Please help asexual same-sex couples to get all legal rights the normal couples (the gay or the different sex ones) have. 5187:

expectations. So an article labelled "Carrot" should not contain pictures of disturbing things that are not connected with carrots, whereas someone reading an article labelled "Suicide bomber" could reasonably expect to find pictures of macerated people, given the subject matter. --

2556:. The issue is whether or not it is appropriate for someone to keep a copy of an uncertified RfC in their user space when policy calls for the RfC to be deleted. Is this similar to copying a deleted article to BJAODN or is it circumventing Knowledge policy? Your input is welcome. 4328:

far better shape if deletionists stopped trolling it by listing schools and "fancruft" and worked to create consensus on the broader issues connected with those subjects. I think we should censure the admins who indulge in unilateralist behaviour and not encourage it. Admins should

2667:

There seems to be a policy to refer to eg The Lord Williams of Mostyn. I haven't checked to see if this is correct, but I do know it sounds ridiculous and no-one ever says this. Who makes these decisions? Is there a style guide? And how would one go about getting the style changed?

3493:). I wouldn't mind seeing them becoming speediable actually, it'll prevent crud buildup (usually these pages are written (badly) once and then forgotten about unlike real user pages) and avoid new users being confused by there already being a user page for their fresh account. -- 7181:

The Thai government closed the country’s border with Cambodia following the riots. The border was re-opened on 21 March 2003, following the Cambodian government’s payment of $ 6 million compensation. The Cambodian government also agreed to compensate individual Thai businesses.

6204:

Another reason this is done is because often, very new users are less familiar with Knowledge policies and that their contributions tend to show partiality to the subject in question. Experienced users tend to apply their personal standards of inclusion in casting their vote.

4169:

The point isn't whether they should be deleted or not, the point is that they are not candidates for speedy deletion under the current policy. If you want to argue the policy needs changing, fine. But blatantly ignoring the policy isn't going to get us anywhere in the long run.

3321:

Hello. I've had this doubt for quite a while now, and this is the best way I could find to discuss about it. It does concern the French Knowledge, I know, but since I'm not a member from that version, and since I do not speak French either, perhaps I could talk about this here.

4083:. Please sign to indicate that you agree (or give a reason why we shouldn't stick to the speedy deletion rules I suppose). (The reason I want this is to be able to link this statement when people keep CSD-marking and SDing non-candidates defending it as 'standard practice'). 3790:

It's a derived work, so the original copyright still applies. Original copyright statement is "Contents may be free reproduced outside Taiwan; please credit Travel in Taiwan." Geographical limitation of free distribution is not acceptable, and the fair use claim is weak. --

5546:

Our main problem is that our sanctioned platonic love bond is not recognized in most of the states. In the states where our marriage is recognized we are categorized as gay couples, which is not our case as long as we are against sexual relashionships in a same-sex married

6141:

say that if we had a vote and 10 experienced Wikipedians all voted to delete while 50 total newbies voted to keep (or vice versa), we'd either consider it a draw or go with the opinion of the experienced Wikipedians. I call this sound practice. Others call it a cabal. --

5207:. Okay not exactly on World War II but my point is that everyone jumps up and down when we see pictures of the 'naughty bits' (something that we all have a see on and daily basis) but would you be willing to support a policy that only 18 year olds could see this picture. 8590:. I asked a couple of people on IRC earlier if they thought linking to an article on from the latter to the former was acceptable, particularly given that wikinews is in a relative limbo regarding contributions. The general feeling was positive, and I linked two stories 3670:

In determining whether the exploitation of a work complies with the provisions of Articles 44 through 63, or other conditions of fair use, all circumstances shall be taken into account, and in particular the following facts shall be noted as the basis for determination:

2204:

With that in mind, I propose a naming standard for schools. There appear to be only a limited number of names for schools; any school named after an American president, for example, is not going to be unique. I suggest that school articles be always titled (for example)

6062:, so I don't think it needs to become anything more "official policy"-ish than a statement of principles for a segment of the WP community.) Feedback, discussion, and edits are welcome. Does this seem potentially useful enough to move into the Knowledge namespace? -- 1560:

might seem to you or I, I'm also pretty uncomfortable with the idea of Knowledge boycotting links to one part of a site because some people disagree with the sexual practices depicted in another part. Why should Knowledge policy take a moral stand against bestiality?

8290:

Is there a policy that governs user pages, I've noticed some people edit others and others protest that and defend their right to say what they want on their page, are there rules about this? If there is no policy, does it constitute vandalism to edit another's user

3558:

I actually share the philosophy of inclusionism (and would never imagine bothering articles which have a lord protector (:-)). I think that I will sometime try to improve the New York Subway articles to the (approximate) level of quality of the Washington articles.

7142:

I've therefore written up a draft guideline for writing articles in a "pyramid structure". Being mostly based on common sense, it is in part a description of what we already do, but its goal is also to explain why structuring articles in this way is good. It's at

5071:

To IZAZ - I see, you obviously have extreme views that are reinforced by your religious beliefs. I learnt a long time ago that trying to argue against people who have "faith" is a complete waste of time as they ignore rational logical argument and rely on dogma.

7923:

Violet, I don't think those templates are adequate. I've found in my own long-term editing disputes that the people entering their own counter-edits don't necessarily include inaccurate information, but instead include only the information that's both accurate

7653:

Really, it's my own fault for saying "edit war." I guess I should have used a different term to describe the kind of situation I'm talking about (please see the list of bullet points above). But in any case, I'm not talking about regular Knowledge users, but

2706:(and my own opinion) is that this honorific is considered POV, but others disagree and contend that it's part of her legal title. I haven't found chapter and verse in the manual of style on this issue. Would other Wikipedians like to offer their opinions? -- 6839:

This is a bit surprising to me, as from several discussions on talk pages, as well as from discussions seen on the mailing list, I very much feel that there is an implicit external link policy in action. Actually not unlike the explicit one on de.wikipedia.

6442:

This scenario already exists. Several interest groups already do control articles by exactly this method. (I won't name names but I will say that in some cases those interest groups do not even realise that they are doing anything like this: they are just

3535:

bothered. If you want to do so, fixing all the articles with a boilerplate of your own making would be a great service. Be bold! List them for deletion only if you are convinced they should go though, because there are lots of similar articles about other

4762:

Isn't this the policy for every Knowledge page. Nobody around here claims that you should use Knowledge for any primary research and only use it as a starting point. And you would probably need to add disclaimers to Abortion, MPAA, RIAA, SCO v Linux etc.

4291:

Agree with Shane King. Speedy deletion rules can be interpreted somewhat differently by different admins. From what I can see in the Deletion log copy above, i would have considered most of them borderline, and have no problem with them being deleted. --

3419:

Aah, I see. Thanks for clearing that up. But yes, you're right. Not much to be done about this, except to wait until the developers can fix the interlinks and prevent them from converting into spaces. Also, thanks for the tip. I'll drop by sometime. =]

3367:

edit being reverted. I guess it's just a point of view, after all. To me that drops the article's aesthetics way down, but that's just my opinion. I created this discussion here because perhaps I was missing something on this. It's all I wanted to know.--

3354:

better for us if they put their tags at the bottom. Maybe it would be better for them if we put our tags at the top. I think we just have to have some leniency and allow for the differences - just like in real life (does Knowledge count as real life?)

8314:

I can't see a problem with a user page being protected. Mine gets vandalised occasionally. If it happens too often, I might protect mine too. Why are you so concerned Ollieplatt, since you don't intend to edit it? What business could it possibly be of

2245:

Personally, I'd say we could put the city, province (if applicable), and country (for example: (Winnipeg, MB, Canada) or (London, England)). This standard could even be used for American schools, in the interest of fairness (making the above example

1325:

Absolutely. No matter how far we have evolved the article, it remains a reference we used. Also, when people are using the {{1911}} tag, it should always be in the "References" section of the article, not just hanging there in the body of the text. --

6857:

OK. I know some people go mad if a woman does not cover her hair. I wonder if there can be a system to flag images based on its contents. If I cannot tolerate any picture of nudity, I set a personal preference to filter all images with a nudity flag.

7345:

all I care, as long as readers are given the chance to see more than just the most recent incarnation of a running dispute. And since I'd bet most readers don't know about the History page, this proposed template seems like a good way to do this. --

5731:. Then, as far as the user who clicked is concerned, it goes to the language just like all other language links. But all the links would still be collected together under a single redirect's sub-heading in the Russian language's "what links here". 5446:

human death, Category: Nazi propoganda, or Category: Female nipple. The classification of what an image actually shows can be done at least somewhat objectively. Objectively determining which images should be displayed is in many cases hopeless.

1180:

Paraphrasing sometimes violates copyright, but if a court could reasonably rule that the facts and ideas were duplicated but the selection and arrangement of those facts was not, then it's not plagiarism. The rule should not be to paraphrase but to

5364:

I see no reason why warnings could not be placed at the top of pages that contain material that could offend some viewers. This does not censor the page, nor does it hamper its effectiveness in any way, but merely serves to give viewers a choice,

5252:(19)Yet she increased her whorings, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the whore in the land of Egypt (20)and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions. 2978:

I'm also strongly against this. It seems counter productive for a free encylopedia to employ proprietary standards. Knowledge, as a popular website, could be a great tool in promoting an SVG implementation over Flash, so when that's viable, sure.

7673:

And has anyone noticed that mainstream news sites are beginning to link to Knowledge? Yahoo does it a lot, and I'm very sure that among the many who click on those links, there are at least one or two who are unfamiliar with the way Knowledge

7636:

edit warring isn't a problem then there's no need for further action. Knowledge readers already know better than to rely on the accuracy of Knowledge articles; the content disclaimer linked to every page tells them they should not do this. --

5643:

This is a technical article for the sole purpose of linking to it from pages that say that someone speaks Russian language or that something is wtitten or translated into Russian, etc. The goal is to declutter links to the "Russian language"

8602:

for a reason that I think could be boiled down to "the wrong thing was bolded". This is an obvious sign that we need to review what is acceptable at in the news, especially given that the wikinews stories were more useful at describing the

2346: 1432:

to experiment, and likely make their first edit on WP? Wouldn't it be just as easy to have a script that replaces the {{sandbox}} template every 10 minutes or so, if it is removed? Just a consideration of not barking at the wrong people.

6186:

Well, it has already happened as regards individual editors, who (in one case) created a dozen sockpuppets, and was readying them so he could force his views on any article he wanted. It more luck than anything else that caught this.

4398:

I never put stuff like that in articles that I write/edit, but I don't think I would bother to remove it from an existing article, unless you think that it is incorrect. Of course some people say that my writing is a bit dry... (See

4034:? Obviously, it could not work, almost surely it never even existed (although if it did, it would be very interesting evidence of idiocy of Catholic scientists) and it's not like it even has a strong following of conspiracy theorists. 3874:

in Knowledge, later, provided this person is dishonest or disoriented, he or she can further facilitate his or her claims citing Knowledge's entries and using Knowledge's authority and trust of its users, which it will perhaps have.

2247: 6311:

I have to agree with all who claim this to be a likely scenario. I also have to agree with Jooler on the point that anything going against the cultural norms of the USA gets shouted down, see for reference the history and talk of

3653:. According to the Article 65 of the Copyright Act of ROC, my alteration of it is very likely a justifiable case of fair use. And as the derivative work's creator, I can claim copyright of this brand new picture. The Article 65 ( 4694:

That would be great if the FSF could come up with a more compatible version of the GFDL. When I actually read the GFDL license I was rather amazed at how cumbersome it was. The Creative Commons licenses are so much more elegant.

2040:

it is clearly an encyclopedia article. The confusion seems to be that people have used firstname articles as disambigs when in fact they really should be articles. Knowledge is for the end user, not for the convience of editors.

4058:

Assuming it isn't a complete hoax (the article, not the device), it is a NPOV article on something that some people might look up. What harm does it do to Knowledge or to the 99.99% of Knowledge visitors who will never see it?

3640:

Whoever deletes this image please explain. I altered much about this image that I can easily claim fair use or derivated work. The useful information in this picture is ALL ADDED BY ME. The background is only A BACKGROUND. --

7204:

Yup, that sounds fine. Make sure not to duplicate too much though, it doesn't need to be redundant. Also, put the attribution in the edit summary or on the talk page; Putting it in the article itsself would disturb the flow.

6612:

exist isn't something that belongs in a category page. I've poked around the Knowledge category pages, but aside from a page saying why list pages can be useful even though there's categories, I can't find anything else. --

7303:

I propose that a new template be created to prominently and specifically direct readers to a disputed article's History page, so that they can get a better idea of the disputed information by viewing the different versions.

5092:

editors do. This is a dogmatic position; it is an objective fact that many people will be offended by certain pictures; to ignore objective facts in order to push an agenda is to do the same thing that religious people do.

4578:

software? The MediaWiki site says it "may not be stable. Recommended only for adventurous souls." I can't imaging my credit card company or even Yahoo! or Google running beta software which hasn't been thoroughly tested.

4103:

I'd removed a CSD notice from this article earlier and it was definately not a very short article at that time. It might have been blanked but a non-CSD article would still be available in the history which should have been

7663:

If I may be so bold, I'm noticing a kind of insularity here. I mean, there's a wider audience out there besides Wikipedians. And those are the people I'm concerned about. Knowledge results come up in my normal web searches

7611:

But still, I find it distressing that readers could end up with the wrong information when we could at least give them a fighting chance amid a longstanding editing dispute. And with that, I'm going to have some breakfast.

2206: 2651:

I had speedied it as 'blanked by author' probably nobody would have complained). Redirects for deletion I guess would be the most proper way to handle it if the redir really isn't called for. BTW, while hunting I did find

7231: 4357:

So my solution to all of these is to make an extra effort to promote goodwill, particularly among the admins, who should be expected to set an example both by respecting policy and by respecting their fellow Wikipedians.

3201: 5455:

people will undeniably want not to see images of certain types. As they cannot be expected to know where these images are the above suggestion would allow users to make these choices with the minimum amount of hassle.

5000:- we most certainly do not. In the US female nipples cannot be shown on TV commercials for shower gel, whilst in Europe and elsewhere not only is this allowed but so is the display of male genitalia in such commercials. 2655:, but it hasn't been updated since May--are they being tracked somewhere else now, or can it be updated automatically, or would this possibly be a job for one of the query/collaborate whizzes (Topbanana, Nickj, et al)? 1701: 5655:

I don't think wikipedia policy has much to say about it directly (apart from the fact that making big changes without discussion first is not a good idea), but I agree that the change isn't a good idea in most cases.

6675:

them without being aware of it). What should we do, block them with a pretty little "Why Marketscore is evil and how to get rid of it" template, or leave them open until they start getting abused on a large scale? --

6504:

regardless of merit. These groupings can then find ways to use house rules like the 3RR to protect their turf by playing on the frustration of the dissenting voices. Personally, I have walked away from articles like

6261:

My examples are hypothetical, but entirely possible. It would not be hard for any organized group of people who share a particular political/religious/other agenga to decide to stage what would amount to a "virtual"

3142:, fix it, and leave a note to let the world know what you've done. Any advice or sleuth work on the "hard cases" that hang around at the top of WP:CP is appreciated, even if we don't seem to act on it straight away. 2342: 2287: 6864:

We need all kinds of flags to help people co-exist with their fears. A true veggie may not want to see the picture of a sausage. Personally, I hate to see a sausage that's too small to feed me. I want mine big. --

5640:

If I clicked on the word "Russian" in that sentence, I would expect to see an article about the Russian language, or maybe Russia, or maybe even slang in the Russian language, but not an article that says simply:

4098:

02:04, 3 Dec 2004 ******** deleted Vfxartist (content was: '{{deletebecause|dubious neologism}}vfxartist - short for 'visual fx' artists do special effects for film and tv. tody they use software and computers...')

3688:

Where the copyright owner organization and the exploiter organization have formed an agreement on the scope of the fair use of a work, it may be taken as reference in the determination referred to in the preceding

4094:

02:04, 3 Dec 2004 ******** deleted Nicholas oliver (content was: 'Captain of Birmingham Eagles Ice Hockey team. Student at the University of birmingham. Born July 5th 1984 in Teaneck, New Jersey. Moved to England

5520:

I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that registered user accounts were intended for the use of one individual only, not for a "group." The reason I bring it up is because of the following account:

6873:

and an anarchist may object to being exposed to images of national flags. That way leads madness. If you don't want your children to see women, don't let them on the internet, or out-of-doors, for that matter.

6456:

Can you name these articles? It is hard to know what the discussion is about otherwise. I don't mean to be difficult, I just want to know what you're referring to, and I doubt that I can guess it successfully.

1598:

article contains a lot of useful leads for further research on Lantos. I'd usually be inclined either to just put something like this on the talk page or to be overt in our article about the accusations in the

5680:

from what he thinks are "unimportant" ones. However, convenient this may be for him, it seems to be inconvenient for the readers of the articles in question, which I think should be our primary concern here.

1887:

Is it Knowledge policy to capitalise headwords in the body of articles as a matter of course? For example, the names of animals often seem to have initial capitals in Knowledge where they would not normally.

1735:(especially if we get any of them "done"), and other materials could be useful as source files to our pngs (svg, pdf, photoshop, etc). I therefore think we should reactivate some formats and keep others open. 8323:

it may be reasonable to discuss if a clearer policy is desirable. We don't want more policies than we need, WP is complicated already. But if the community senses the need, it will of course be implemented.

1923:

Correct. Animals are the exception, however; it has for some reason been decided that their names should have initial capitals. I disagree with this, but it's at least consistent within that set of articles.

4076:

are too narrow, and they are probably right that something should be done; Just ignoring policy and deleting non-CSD articles is not a solution however. I'd like to make a strong statement here that this is

3778:

an obscure and nearly meaningless low-resolution image into a meaningful and useful illustration of three different kinds of beef-related Chinese food items. I can easily stand in a court of law and win. --

3724:

classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

2224:

Sounds good to me. If we only have one article on a school with a certain name, the renaming shouldn't be necessary, but a standardized way of dealing witht he shared names that do come would help matters.

2210: 1697: 7139:. They mostly deal with the issue from a general stylistic and aesthetic viewpoint, and only touch on the underlying reasons for giving a logical and fairly standardized structure to encyclopedia articles. 6555:

envelop procedure that allows wikipedia owner to send back (using normal mail) a pair of keys to legitimate real persons that they can be used for secure and certified voting. But the admin cabal refuse to

2090:.. IMO the John article is confusing. Editors put info across 2 places, it is not clear where to put new info (as evidenced by the current article) -- it is neither a disambiguation page, or a real article. 6743:

comparisons. Since we might be doing multiple large images I was wondering what the policy was on deciding where to upload images. When should one upload to Wikicommons, and when to upload to Knowledge? -

6026:

The original lolicon image is legal anywhere within the United States (including Florida) according to the US Supreme Court (see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition). It may not be legal in Canada however.

6796:

Disambiguation pages are made when several articles have the same name. Notes at the top of one such article referring to the others, are usually made when the article in question is the most often used.

6633:

of the category page, above the list of sub-categories and category members, makes it so that you have to scroll down a lot to find the real content of the page, and in my opinion just clutters the page

5204: 3488:

Probably not the intent of the policy, but yes, it is a valid reading of the policy. It doesn't address the bigger issue though, I often see anons create pages in User: without the associated user (like

4702:

GFDL was really intended for software documentation, which faces somewhat different issues than something like Knowledge. I'm not in any hurry to dual license. I'd rather see what GFDL 2.0 is like.

1906:

I ask because I often refer to Knowledge when contributing to Wiktionary, and it is irritating not to be able to know whether a capitalised word is actually a proper noun or really just a common noun.

8497: 4754:

This will stop the more conscientious editors from stressing over every moronic agenda-based edit that mutates Knowledge every few moments and focus on articles they can actually make progress on. --

3982:

No offence is meant, and I hope none is taken. My respects to all the English-speaking Knowledge community - I do envy you for being that far ahead of us in both diversity and depth. Sincerely yours,

1975:. What do you think of my method of crediting it? Is there a better way? When linking as ], the link just plays the sample. The only way I could link to the file's credits was by linking as ]. -- 8515: 3180:

Can't find anything on the naming convention pages whether there should be a comma between a last name and 'Jr.' in the article/page title, and current usage/precedent doesn't seem to help much, EG

1351:, I see it all the time because I spend a lot of time on actors and singers and the like. Pages lifted from IMDB, liner notes, websites--sometimes this is listed as a 'reference', sometimes not. 6000:

P. S. OK, Canadian readers, I've found that Coppertone sun products are indeed sold in Canada, by Schering Canada Inc. Do they use the Coppertone girl on the label and in their advertising there?

8502:

I see that someone has recently introduced {{cleanup-translation}}. As far as I can tell, the main effect of this will be to subvert the excellent process we have had working for about a year at

6559:

about those solutions that could define a certified voters population. The admin cabal loves sock puppets, because sock puppets are the pretext they are using in order to do whatever they like.

5878:

kind of image could get some people in serious trouble especially in the U.S. There were some cases where innocent people were accused to be pedophilias and it costed them jobs and families. --

2691:

You say it's correct, I think it's a level of formality that isn't necessary for this encyclopaedia and I think it's liable to mislead people into thinking anyone ever says it. - Andrew Roberts

5290:

say that "words" and "photos" are NOT equal (maybe only "in the minds' of some beholders"). There are ways of saying things, and then again, there are ways of saying things. Knowledge is NOT a

8055:, when it arguably should be. The template may seem silly, but I've been told it's factually accurate, and it's a fact I wager many of our readers will not be aware of. (And no, I don't think 8004:

about the tetragrammaton already. And if you're not, well, the template tells you nothing. Can we get rid of the more superfluous warnings please? There is no limit to the imagination of what

4590:

is expensive and time-consuming. Who would test the MediaWiki software if not us? I note that despite your inability to imagine it, Google does run beta software, for example Google Groups at

7487:

This is why I would like a template to put at the top of such articles (like the NPOV template) to alert readers that they may find valuable, albeit disputed, information in the History page.

1204:

Ah, yes, but I mean to speak to an ethical rather than a legal issue. Copyvio (legal) and plagiarism (ethical) are not always the same thing. Often go hand in hand, but not always the same.

6228:

Another simpler argument is that if this were to happen, the people who decide the outcome of the vote would presumably be aware of it and take it into account, unless the contributors were

4683:

FSF is aware of this and is working on it. CC founder Lawrence Lessig is on the FSF board of directors, so it's not as if there's no contact between FSF and CC. I'd say that Prof. Lessig

2919:

Would that mean that non-broadband users would have to wait for a long time or that the page would cause a "flash-block" (ie. "I refuse to load because you do not have Flash installed")? -

6752:

Screenshots of computer games will almost always contain copyrighted elements belonging to the creators. They are thus ineligible to be placed on Commons as they cannot be made "free". --

6806:

a disamb is in order, as I can't see how one of the mountains is more important than any of the others which would warrant their placement at the Mount Ida page with the disamb moving to

4460:

We don't need to turn a Knowledge article into an example of a point merely to illustrate that point. If we want to convey this, I think it's much better to directly state something like

3380:(which recommends the bottom) is much shorter and doesn't say one way or the other. One interesting diff, is that they are sticking with the 'singular always' rules for cats, unlike en:) 7960:

theory markedly. A template like this would let a reader know of the differing view points (the nature of the difference means they cannot co-exist, at least in their current wordings).

4350:

A more immediate problem I think is the lack of censure that some prominent admins (and Wikipedians generally) currently receive for downright rudeness. We cannot legislate good will or

7951:

I've just read this section and agree with Dablaze that a template like that would be useful. There is currently a slowish moving debate of the type that might benefit from this on the

3433: 4947:

censorship. It's a complex world and we should all try to balance different objectives (such as protecting children, or simply those who are squeamish like me) in a proportionate way.

6103:

Thanks for the feedback. It seems as though at least a continued discussion would be useful, so I'm going to move the page into the Knowledge namespace. Further comments welcome at

6050:

For a while now I have been frustrated at the lack of restraint displayed by partisan editors in many of Knowledge's college and university articles. So I've drafted a guideline on

3858:

I think, while it largely corresponds to the believes of most of population of modern Russia, as one-sided and propaganda-influenced information, it should not be part of Knowledge.

3264:

The comma should go in, as it splits the person's name from his position in the family. Junior, (Jr) and Senior (Sr) are not part of a person's surname, which is why it is important

7719:

processes are mentioned, but even then, the reader is told "articles that have been vetted by those processes may later have been inappropriately edited just before you view them."

6247: 6129: 3543:

As lord protector of the 108 Washington Metro subway articles, I say that train stations, even subway stations, are useful articles. Maybe check out some of the articles linked off

4667:

think the only possible "out" is if the FSF comes up with a new version of the GFDL that's cross-compatible with CC. Knowledge's already partway there by having no invariant text.

5522: 3901:'s attention to this. Drbug, could you please indicate here when you've seen this, and maybe start a Russian equivalent of the Village Pump, or just provide the interwiki link on 3116:

looks pretty bad, but the version that was in the article at that point was already slightly rewritten from the IMDb text. It's not perfect, but the listing was hanging around on

4448:

Copyvio concerns aside, this kind of obsessive detail seems to be typical of fandom in China and Japan. Keep it because it tells us a lot about how his business is conducted. --

1445:, it's chomping their heads off. No one will miss the template too much if it's missing for a few hours. I for one wouldn't ban an anon even for repeated removal of the template. 8562: 7679:

Anyway, that's the crux of my concerns: More and more casual readers may be coming to the site believing it's more authoritative than it really is. Are my concerns misplaced? --

6833: 6539:

The whole VfD process is the clearest example of the failure of voting here. The drowning out of minority voices is more insidious and, IMHO, just as dangerous in the long run.

4748:

The majority of the editors on Israel-Palestine issues have a strong bias and all readers are requested to make independent conclusions, cross-check information themselves and

7248:

I remember seeing a list of articles that are often the victim of vandalism, but I can't seem to remember the link. Be assured it does exist at least the last time I checked.

3836:

It is a short entry, providing with relatively little information and, unlike English version, contains only one additional link, that is "Latvian Legionaries of Waffen SS"

3405:

fear of igniting a giant edit war and everyone does as they like. Anyway, you shouldn't have been branded a vandal for this ! And you could have voiced your complaint on the

2930:

that users use a proprietary software package? I suspect many would object to it if it does, and as a practical matter it might. The SWF format (Flash 7) is available at

6566:

Consensus is not achieved by defining the size of the majority that can dictate. The minority might be right, and even if they are not, there opinions may be strongly held.

5966:

those who get a charge out of the Coppertone girl. Doubtless some of its advertising effectiveness comes from the shock value of the its implied borderline sexuality, but

5794: 5646:

What possible use is that article?? (The italics above is the entire text of the article.) I'm not a policy lawyer, but this change clearly looks like a bad idea to me.

5744:

was a more complete, but brief, annotated guide with links to language, pronunciation, orthography, and transliteration articles. I'd also suggest a name that was either

5424: 4676:

I understand that the wiki media foundation people are talking to FSF legal people about just that -- a new version of GFDL that would be better serve wikipedia's needs.

4462:"Like many celebrities in Japan and China, it is typical for Chow's fans to have a large interest in small details of his life, such as his food preferences or shoe size" 1472:

sandbox template. The idea is similar to the process of the Main Page. Again, though, I think the sandbox header message probably isn't important enough to justify this.

4390:

contains a lot of personal profile, such as "his favorite..., his favorite...", etc. Can anyone tell me that whether these kind of articles should be cleanup? Thank you!

8454:

For those unaware, petty harrassment is Ollieplatt's method of "getting back" at those who have blocked him (even justifiably). He did the same to me several days ago.

7755:

In my opinion there shouldn't be any unprotected articles that are undergoing edit wars. If an article is reverted more than three times then it should be protected.

3376:

priority. (FWIW, from a bit of looking with Babelfish, they don't seem to have any placement preference documented for either interwikis or cats--the fr: equivalent to

1805:

posting the guy's email address and encouraging people to contact him would seem to invite abusive behaviour, IMHO. Is there a standard policy on this sort of thing? --

4602:

You do realize that MediaWiki is custom-written by our developers for us, right? Our problems seem to be more oriented around "release quality" software by others. --

1398: 8190:

Can you think of terms defining notability in this context? The reason I ask is as I know of a couple of translators who have won prizes for translating the works of

6690:

Asking users to not edit through an open proxy seems reasonable to me. So I would be fine with blocking it, especially as it doesn't look like a very nice operation.

6287:

Wikiepedians) read them? Some people will automatically make appropriate critical assumptions anyway, but many won't. Knowledge doesn't may the same type of claim to

5944:

don't see the eroticism in the original Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg image. (Yes, I admit to finding that fact reassuring). Just how is this image different from the

3847:

on those Latvian-related units which fought with the Germans against Soviet Union in form of waffen ss, which has similarity of attitude with the entry in question. (

3432:

Perhaps as dry as you could possibly get (I'm sure the taxonomic geeks might take issue with that ;)), but something I'm hoping to nail down a decent consensus on.

2608:

course, it doesn't help that realtime search is currently disabled). Am I wrong, or can someone point me to a policy/guideline page that supports that view? Help!?!

1836: 8201:

How about creating an article on the prize, with a list of winners? And then if you have enough biographical info, you can create articles about the translators.

4848: 4197:

a candidate for speedy deletion. The intentional posting of false material is a form of vandalism, and is quite frankly the single worst form of vandalism there is.

3837: 8194:, although these prizes are not widely known (and have no articles on wikipedia). Soes this make the translator notable outside the world of translated fiction? -- 5756: 2377:

there are Southern towns, and various other famous people (Thomas Edison, Thomas Jefferson, etc.) probably have over 10,000 high schools named after each of them.

8158:

That's the way canadian medias reference it. And I wonder what else it could reasonably refer too. If need be, a disambig or redirect will be set up, won't it? --

7533:

Now I understand. One problem with that: malicious editors may remove the template at any time, so there will be times when the article in flux will be untagged.

7068:

Make it all or nothing. No user or group of users should have the right to decide what is and is not potentially offensive. So either move for an option to block

2553: 1766: 50: 5442:

Each user may maintain a list of categories, such that images labeled with one of those categories appear in a linked rather than inline form on their display.

2112: 2015:

Do we want articles on common first names? Where should the disambiguation pages for first names go? Are hybrid disambiguation articles ok? Comments welcome at

5825:

Because it was 2 against 1 on a little-known article, I thought this debate was concluded, but just yesterday someone posted on my talk page in support of me.

4391: 1667: 1624: 7333:, pages in a mess like this should be blanked (like copyvios). Perhaps with both versions then linked. That way neither side "wins" until discussion is over. 5357:. The picture that was removed was not relevant enough to the article (ie. it was considered pornographic and not informative). Summation: Censorship = Bad 3692:

In the course of forming an agreement referred to in the preceding paragraph, advice may be sought from the specialized agency in charge of copyright matters.

3427: 1244:

We snag stuff from the 1911 Britannica all the time. And while there is no legal requirement to credit it, there is certainly an ethical requirement, IMO. --

8530: 8128: 5492:

while one has to talk differently to different audiences, the particularity of Knowledge as a freely accessible on-line encyclopaedia seems to be that it is

4703: 4688: 3956: 1801: 8347: 7708:

vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the particular area you are interested in learning about.

7534: 7375: 7334: 7096:

form of server-side image barring that is fully compatible with NPOV) it isn't as if the user didn't already have the option to accept or decline images. --

6659: 3389:

those boxes (usually made up from HTML tags in the article's own body, or sometimes via template) will add blank spaces to the beginning of an article that

3325:

On the few times I've been to the French Knowledge, I noticed their policy on dealing with categories and languages on articles is to add their tags in the

3005:

It was apparently either not listed on the copyright problems page or was lost. Its listing was restored on December 12. I'll take care of it right now. --

2942:

it, which raises concerns. I believe there was some partial open source software implementation of the SWF format, but I do not know how complete it is. --

8180:

How about just including an ISBN link to the translated edition, with a mention of the translator's name? Unless the translator is particularly notable.

8072: 7897: 7000:

An excellent point. I can see that flagging images and articles that could possibly offend people would be utterly impossible to satisfy everyone own POV.

5870: 5860: 4835: 3232:

as Maurreen suggests, but since we're discussing it here I think there shouldn't be a comma, as it's not a title but a part of the name. A quick survey of

2290:

is better (unless of course there is another Taft H.S. in another Woodland Hills.) The disambiguation page can contain the state and other information. -

2150:

After being admonished that this constitutes an unacceptable self-reference (because the interwiki link would break when used elsewhere, I started using:

8729:

I personally would just stick something at the end of the article, like a link saying "more", "news", "WN", or just an icon, or something like that. --

8173:

Is it appropriate to list principle translators into English on the pages of well-known foreign authors (either if, or if not these people have pages)? --

2054:

is not an encyclopedia article, it is just a very good dict. def. Much of its present content should be moved to Wiktionary, and the rest made more like

7040: 6979: 5138: 5439:

reasonable approach to self-censorship. To this end, I think we could put the issue to rest if the MediaWiki software supported the following feature:

5266:

something we want children to read. Maybe I should get a campaign to get the Bible banned because it promotes sexism, racism, and its obscene in parts.

3233: 2234:

How about schools in other countries? Is it not also true that people will want to make pages on their schools in other English-speaking countries? --

8567: 8253:

The protection of my User page is none of Ollieplatt's business, unless he was attempting to vandalize it. My Talk page is available for discussion.

7296:

When articles are engaged in prolonged edit wars, readers may get very different versions of the same article, depending on when they click on it. The

3517: 3020:

Um, now that I read the "rewritten" section, I see that the first (of 2) sentences is still almost identical to the original copied material. Yuck. --

2127:

Do we have any standard on how to reference a foreign-language wikipedia article? It seems that no matter what I do, people come through and edit it.

3207:

Anyone know if there's a preferred standard that I'm not finding? Any similar policies/guidelines to extrapolate from? Other comments or suggestions?

3120:

and nobody really knew what to do with it; I decided to take the plunge. One sentence is arguably a derivative work, but is actually fairly different.

2452:

Generally concur, but with a minimum of H hours (I suggest H=24), so people can't just gang up and overwhelm the consensus process by voting fast. --

2286:

The general rule for disambiguation is to have the shortest possible name that is unambiguous. We don't need descriptive information in title. Thus

2195: 5633: 5607: 5599: 5588: 4888:. I am not advocating their complete censorship (although it might be best), but shouldn't we make our materials available to everyone? What about 3531:

Personally I feel that train stations are not particularly encyclopaedic subjects, but I accept that many either disagree or don't care, and I'm not

5852:

An objection was immediately raised to my image; that it wasn't a fair representation of the sexual basis of lolicon. As the tentative statement at

5318:

I agree with you that we shouldn't make the choice for our readers. However, warnings are one way of helping the reader to make an explicit choice.

4973: 3674:

The purposes and nature of the exploitation, including whether such exploitation is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.

3477:

I called it a CSD under the "recreation of deleted content" bit. As there was no user, it wasn't a user page. It was just in the user namespace. --

2213:

and so on; a disambiguation page of course would exist. We should make a point of renaming existing American school articles using this standard. --

2122: 8503: 7446:

Readers encountering this article may not necessarily know, at the time they read the article, that it may convey inaccurate or biased information.

3763:

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

7365:

I see your point, but remember of course every reader is potentially a contributor. If an article is in edit war protection hell, that means that

6093:

Any policy, applied unevenly, is dangerous. This proposed guideline, applied evenly, is an excellent one. Kudos to Rbellin for writing this up. --

4716:— we would need signed consent from every contributor ever, or else we'd have to throw out all articles editing by editors who haven't consented. 8416: 8042:

was quite sincere, though likely overenthusiastic, after hearing about this phenomenon. I agree that this sets a bad precedent if it remains. As

7054:

You want to mangle the default view? Please. Feel free to censor for yourself, but don't dare define others' work as not fit for the public eye.

5867: 5018:

I don't share IZAK's view, but I have to say, Jooler, you could draw the appropriate conclusion from what you're noting, which is that standards

3490: 2426:

b) If a page on VfD gets N delete votes, not including the nominator, with no opposition, the discussion shall be archived and the page deleted.

1586:

What is the policy for external links? For example, what if a linked site is purely vicious invective. I am thinking of the Counterpunch link on

3624: 2436: 8434: 4009:

is warranted and generally non-controversial, unless it's really on some obscure item (the 5th Ring of Dwarves), when it becomes an example of

3838:

http://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%9B%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B%D1%88%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%8B_Waffen_SS

3448:

What's policy on pages in the User: namespace that don't have a corresponding user? Are these speedyable, or painfully-slow-VfDable, or what?

2950:

I am against this, link to a flash-enabled page, don't embed. Plus, if we must use a more interactive format, can an open one be used instead (

2856:

Specific articles that could benefit from the ability of flash files to explain complicated situation such as the recent Asian tsunami and the

2585: 7466:

I know that any article on Knowledge may be biased or inaccurate, but I am talking about a subgroup whose bias or inaccuracy is the result of

7030:

need concern only the person who desires to censor themselves: those who gain no utility from such categorization need not participate in it.

6036:

included) to clear a person of any sort of legal wrongdoing despite how young the girls may appear to be. So that really isn't an issue here.

3942:

And here, to the English one, as well. Here you have a very large audience, and the material here is authoritative for other wikipedias here.

8371:

I was of course not implying that Ollie asked the question in good faith (it seems this user has yet to make his/her first good-faith edit).

7280: 7186: 7168: 4961:

human history where people were slaughtered. Should we put a warning at the top of the Holocaust article? How about the Battle of the Somme?

2851: 8391:

personally don't have a problem with it staying protected. You can still direct comments to their user talk page and request changes there.

4045:

Someone might imaginably look up the term, so a debunking article seems in order. The present one is a bit understated in this respect. --

1615: 4884:, which carries no warning label). At the very least, I propose that pages with possibly offensive pictures contain warnings at the top, 3316: 2401: 8408: 6317: 3236:

suggests leaving the comma out is probably best, but if someone has strong feelings for using the comma I think it's worth discussing. --

2423:

a) If a page on VfD gets M keep votes, with the only opposition being the nominator, the discussion shall be archived and the page kept.

1372: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1139: 1135: 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: 7291: 7112:. I say, categorize a picture in one or more NPOV cats and use these so users can click an option in their preferences. Problem solved? 1909:

In my opinion, capitals should only be used in Knowledge where appropriate, that is, at the beginning of sentences and in proper nouns.

6926:

I keep seeing this "Somebody might be offended by XXX, so we should not allow personal preferences at all" argument posted, and it's a

6557: 6168: 5767: 763: 759: 755: 751: 747: 743: 739: 735: 731: 727: 723: 719: 715: 711: 707: 703: 699: 695: 691: 687: 683: 679: 675: 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: 365: 361: 357: 353: 349: 345: 341: 337: 333: 329: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 301: 297: 293: 289: 285: 281: 277: 273: 269: 265: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 229: 225: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 8657:

I see no problem having an inline link to Wikinews, as long as it's not the bolded one. The colour is quite distinguishable (to me).

6157:

At least you're honest. Call a vote and ignore the outcome! You might just as well delete what you please and not bother with the vote

8343: 6950:

Personally I feel that we should have warnings at the start of articles, similar to what is shown before some TV shows in here NZ. ie

5982:

majority of Americans find acceptable. (In contrast, Brooke Shields' "Nothing comes between me and my Jordaches" ads in the eighties

5836: 5241: 3460: 403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 379: 375: 371: 201: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 177: 173: 169: 165: 161: 157: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 133: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 105: 101: 8266: 6956:

This article contains depictions/descriptions of nudity/violence/whatever which may offend some people. Reader discretion is advised

6074:

I generally agree. I am a little concerned, though, about it being used as a hammer. At least one user in my experience tried to do

5471:. We are here to report, "Just the Facts, Ma'am". Maybe we can exercise a teensy bit of discretion by not showing rolled heads at 4905:. I would like to recommend wikipedia to the librarian in my son's school (he is in fifth grade, and found some of the articles on 3989: 3739:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

1681:

I imagine that it is rarely appropriate, but might occasionally be. Can you provide an example of where this user has done this? --

6104: 5846: 5404:

and company (and those who admire him and his ilk) from setting up Knowledge's policy of "new tastes" in photography of women etc?

4614: 2839: 7220: 4280:

don't delete articles that blatantly fall outside the criteria, they're actually doing wikipedia a service, not violating policy.

4157:

joke. It was a personal letter from "Heroin Fred" trying to get himself a date. The other two deserve to go, but weren't CSDs. --

3824: 2301:

The American standard of two letters for the state after the town/city name is, to me and many other non-Americans, rather ugly.

8218: 7369:

version of the article is the "right version", and therefore neither version should be presented as the protected, and therefore

5952: 5763: 5338: 5164:

like Knowledge which is used by millions of children who don't need to see things that most people don't see on a regular basis.

3878:

The Russian Knowledge runs largely separately from the English Knowledge. Complaining to us isn't likely to have much effect. --

8143:

Standard style on Knowledge is to only capitalize proper nouns. Also, 1998 Ice Storm is probably too ambiguous a page title. --

6930:

fallacy. The thing about offensive images is that they increase the value of Knowledge for some people (The naked woman on the

6132:

and there's nothing to stop members of the USMC (or whoever) ganging up on Knowledge and voting for the retention of this page.

2391: 1936: 6055: 2903:

site but couldn't find anything. My guess would be to contact someone there who is involved in the development side of things.

1643:

In my opinion, it would be better to include the description (and link) of the medical problem to the article about the person

67: 8704:

Is there a Wikinews template similar to the Wikiquote template? Such as "There are Wikinews items about this article" etc? --

8487:

I dont see what business it is of anyone else what someone does with their userpage. Nobody else should be editing it anyway.

7307:

The "Twoversions" template almost does this, but it refers to two separate versions instead of to one hotly disputed article.

2130:

Originally, when indicating (for example) a Spanish-language Knowledge article as a reference I would refer, for example, to:

7310:

Also, would it be possible to give only administrators the power to remove (and possibly place) this template on an article?

2765: 2699: 2487:

If you need to do that, create pages as a subpage of your userpage and move them into the main namespace when you're done. --

1705: 8084: 7773:

This article is often subject to edits slanted towards certain points of view. Although we make every effort to maintain a

4623:

license is an overly-restrictive license that isn't compatible with any other content licenses (that I know of). Unless the

4381: 4113:

And the list goes on and on. None of these articles had already previously been deleted, so CSD criterion 5 didn't apply. --

3618: 2965:

I'm strongly against the use of a proprietary format that requires the use of proprietary. That'd also exclude people using

7128: 4181: 4124: 8025:

The "tetragrammaton" thing is perhaps the most blatant of these. And most of them are useless outside of a web browser.

2845: 8000:

too. Please tell me this was created by a troll?! Because, you know, if you are an orthodox jew, I would expect that you

1603:

article. Putting the link in the body of the article with no indication that it is an attack piece seems wrong to me. --

87: 8271:

Hello. I have some questions relating to administrator powers and the interaction between those powers and user pages.

7692:

I think the problem here is that you're misusing language. You said you were concerned that readers wouldn't be aware,

4217:

You may ask why such a title has come into the Knowledge Library. Well I say to you it because I need to promote myself.

2833: 8507: 5889: 5376:

Since when is using one's common sense and applying one's sense of decency "equal" to "censorship"? To refuse to allow

3330:

always move those tags to the bottom in the English Knowledge, and it looks like that's the style we've addopted here.

2836: 2636:

This is one of Knowledge's older policies, but it does not seeem to have been written down. I did a quick write up at

1760: 1529:

about the use of bots to mass-post on user talk pages. My hope is that it can result in a policy one way or the other.

45: 40: 6852: 6128:

could do anything to stop it. The whole process therefore seems fundamentally flawed. Right now a vote is going on at

5864:

there is still an even split on the issue-- 2 vs. 2-- I'd like the opinion of the Village Pump on which image to use.

1792: 8623:). The items in question did not have a bolded link to an updated internal article, but rather to Wikinews stories. 7881: 7833: 7127:

I tried to find some good advice on structuring articles in wikipedia namespaces. All I found were some pages in the

6220:

Well, these responses aren't really addressing the complaint, the idea that a group with certain interests could all

3544: 1442: 57: 6604:, and the red-links for the list page were put at the top of the category page. I restored the previous version of 6045: 4482: 3113: 7996:

We have 'spoiler' warnings. We have 'Unicode glyphs' warnings. We have 'graphic images' warnings. And now, we have

6551:. There are many ways to define a certified voters population, including the advogato trust metric system, or the 5303: 4861: 1774: 1347:

Thanks for the responses, folks. Okay, that sorts things through WRT the 1911 EB, but how about the other stuff?

7722:

People who either do not read this disclaimer (and there are many) or do not understand its sheer extent probably

7393:

I don't think I'm making myself understood very well. These points describe the kind of article I'm talking about:

7313:

This policy/tech stuff is unknown territory for me, so forgive me if I'm asking a stupid and/or obvious question.

6165:

Ha Ha Ha! just wanted to turn bold the answer of Dr_Zen. May I complete Dr_Zen's quote a little bit? "Call a vote

4020:

are also warranted, especially when a large number of people have some beliefs (no matter how crazy) about these.

2785:

When will Knowledge enter the 21st century and allow Flash files to be imbedded into article pages like images? -

1520: 7956:

very different, both versions are both factually accurate but the different wording alters the importance of the

7861: 7813: 7259: 6232:

clever about hiding it, to the point of voting against their ideals sometimes. It could happen, just not easily.

5034:

solutions. What would it hurt if the Frau was a link? So you have to do an extra click to see her boobs? Is that

4002:. It made me think of what is the wikipedian standard on inclusion of articles on alleged phenomena/devices/etc. 2662: 1594:

In this particular case, I don't think a blind reference like this is much use to anyone. On the other hand, the

83: 35: 17: 8237: 7778: 6591: 3848: 1797:

Does Knowledge have a policy on whether/when it's acceptable to post somebody's contact details in an article?

1722:

I would hope people would not upload PDFs/SWFs/etc. Perhaps we should make an official policy to this effect? --

4815: 3523:...) or should they all be listed on the VFD page as being beyond any appropriate level of detail, or nothing? 3229: 3216: 1368:

All this reminds me of the cliché - to copy two peoples work is plagiarism, to copy 4 peoples work is research!

94: 8593: 8591: 8211: 6171:, and finnaly ignore the outcome! You might just as well delete what you please and not bother with the vote." 5856:

says, accuracy should not be sacrificed in order to be less objectionable. So I dropped my case at that time.

3925:

help getting their information unbiased. And of course, I invite you to contribute to the Estonian Knowledge.

3112:

Well, I went ahead and put it into the article about twelve hours ago (before i noticed this discussion). The

2518: 6644: 6059: 5008:

if they trash the human race and human dignity and self-respect in the process. Please get some perspective!

4731: 2652: 2016: 1480: 4534:(through its agents) tells me that I was not allowed to make updates to its computers, that is their right. 8529:

I don't know who is active in managing cleanup, but I'd appreciate if someone who is would leave a note on

7935:

I guess it's kind of a "meta" move, but one that could be valuable in the ever-changing world of Wiki, no?

7144: 4778:

This is a good idea, as almost every Israeli/Palestinian article seems to have a permanent NPOV warning. -

3377: 3078:

You may want to check other sections as well. The contributor could have posted multiple copyvio materials.

3075:

Let those who know it well to rewrite or do some research. Knowledge is not just cut-and-paste or rephrase.

2572: 2523:

Can I put ebooks (possibly illegal) links in my wikipedia user pages? To know about the kind of links, see

2467: 2443: 62: 8263:

I have asked some valid questions about this, which may have some simple answers., from RickK's user talk

7738:

I believe that my specific concerns and supporting arguments are clearly set out above. If you would read

5945: 4645: 3303:

is not part of the name, because a person has the option of changing it when the senior of that name dies

3175: 2987: 1826: 8716: 7716: 7297: 5558:

Now, this smacks of advertising to me (never mind that the user(s) has been making non-NPOV edits to the

3279:, and medical and professorial style guides that deal with other suffixes after last names (EG MD, PhD). 1190: 6291:

as some other reference materials do, but like it or not, it is on the way to becoming the most broadly

5727:

I think I understand the reasoning, but it would accomplish the same thing if it was just a redirect to

8689:

Maybe a Wikinews icon next to the item? And a short blurb at the top indicating what the icons mean? —

8516:

pages that are "mostly done" but could still use some attention from someone who approaches dual-native

7932:

may be going back to see exactly what information is in dispute, and exactly who adds or deletes what.

6807: 4488: 2993: 2681:"I haven't checked to see if this is correct" - what more can I say? (Needless to say, it is correct.) 86:. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either 8246:'s user page is protected. I have asked him why this is and was interested in the opinions of others. 5903: 2931: 2396:

In response to some new developments, I'd like comment on a possible update to the currently-outdated

1972: 1620:

Should individuals known publicly to have suffered from a pathology be mentioned in the article? How?

8748:

I'm in complete agreement. ITN also helps to encourage people to keep the encyclopedia up to date. --

7329:

Good idea. But I have a better one: since all page protections over edit wars will end up protecting

7226: 7132: 6567: 6214: 6082:

of the articles on what he presumably saw as institutions competing with the one he was boosting. --

5885: 5628:

I don't see the point. One usage is (for example) this sentence (from the Clockwork Orange article):

5392:, and shows that as responsible humans we are capable of knowing right from wrong by excluding moral 5222: 4856: 4500: 3815: 3745:

the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

3215:

I don't know of any Knowledge preference, but if you want to develop one, it might be good to ask at

2960: 2750: 2262: 1999: 7991: 7928:

favorable to their point of view. So the question of whether something's NPOV is subject to debate.

5672:

I'm strongly against the idea; I haven't seen it done in any other cases. It seems to be a way for

3407: 2819:

Can you give me an example where this would be useful. Also there may be GFDL issues with using it.

2429:

c) If a page is nominated in obvious bad faith, the VfD subpage shall be deleted and the page kept.

1753: 7442:

It does not convey consistent information over time because of these constant, diverging revisions.

6829: 6508:

because I felt this going on by a group of users some of whom were acting in good faith in the way

6123:

I feel there is a problem with the democratic process on Knowledge. If for example people from the

5331: 4109:

01:44, 3 Dec 2004 ******** deleted French Absolutism (joke/vanity obviously, plus possibly copyvio)

3159:

Finally, I agree with Toytoy that doing some research is a good thing that we want to encourage. --

2832:

Well done flash files would would add immeasurably to Knowledge. Look at examples from the BBC etc

2036:

I don't see why we are trying to make a special case out of first names. Looking at the example of

1882: 1839:

page. Is there an official policy on things like this? Should they be removed or just copyedited.

1157: 8396: 8052: 7997: 7253: 7117: 6815: 6639:

A technique used with some success on some of the writer categories is to add the red links to a

6458: 6400: 6352: 5810: 4989: 4909:

very useful for his research on the origin of democracy) but I hesitate for exactly that reason.

4803: 4636:

defeats the whole purpose of having "free" content, IMO. For more information see the following:

3197: 3193: 2873: 2798: 2738: 1943: 1770: 1712: 1674: 7742:

posts preceding yours in this section, I'd be very interested in hearing your thoughts. Cheers,

7161: 5843:

This image might be considered child pornography in Canada, Australia, and many other countries)

4981:

War II don't have graphic pictures or links to pornographic websites either (at least, the ones

4798:

use in such a disclaimer. It's more likely to cause problems at the editor end of the spectrum.

4435: 3654: 3396:

By the way, thanks for sharing what you found out about the French Knowledge. I appreciate it.--

1990:

The latter is better, if you're that concerned. Placing image tags on an article is bad form.

1708:

for more. At least one of the opriginal research, I believe, but for the rest I don't know. --

8595:

on ITN to their respective wikinews article (while not removing any content from the summary).

7865: 7817: 7731: 7641: 7101: 6736: 6652: 5932: 5192: 4453: 4400: 4264:

That's either a newbie test or vandalism, take your pick. It's not worth wasting time over. --

3902: 3894: 2143: 1784: 29: 8118: 6843:

This makes me wonder, whether it is an oversight or by design, that no written policy exists.

6730: 5820: 2418: 2081:.. Based on what criteria? What if I wanted to jazz up the article to featured article status? 1647:

they are particulary famous or notorious precedents on the treatment or something like that -

7774: 7712: 7059: 7006: 6966: 6406: 6358: 6124: 5897: 5272: 5213: 4967: 4769: 4374: 2909: 2879: 2825: 2804: 2637: 2568:

Thanks to you all for your input. Voting has closed. The result was Keep, by a vote 12 to 7.

2409: 1845: 1355:

yourself, or copied it from public domain resources — this does not include most web pages."

8615:

He's basically right. I removed the items because they did not comply with ITN guidelines (

8071:

and if it creates conflict i can create in userspace like Template:zain_engineer_Smiling :)

7330: 4943:

I think hose editors are applying one principal in an absurdly inflexible way. A warning is

4487:

Knowledge doesn't have a clear policy on the proper response to legal threats. According to

4027:

are warranted when they have a large amount of influence on culture, society, even science.

1765:

Sysops now have the ability to undelete selected revisions of a deleted article. Please see

1666:

Does Knowledge have a policy on accepting uploaded PDFs as media to be linked in articles?

8683: 8651: 8587: 8433:

A loosely related issue (what are User pages for, and whose are they?), we have users like

7909: 7759: 6658:

One advantage list pages have over categories is 'Related changes', for shared watchlists.

6640: 6505: 6469: 5717: 5505:(in a way that doesn't scare people away, of course). (I hope you ken vork sru my English…) 5370: 5358: 2528: 2309: 2269:

I would say that in that case there is no question, but do see the recent controversy over

1732: 7872: 7824: 6836:

seems to be stalled. Discussion there seems to be centered on a heated side issue (dmoz).

4841: 4752:

very importantly, not take offense at the presentation of historical facts on these pages.

4746:

I think Knowledge needs a general disclaimer on all Palestine/Israel-related issues, like

4627:

reforms it significantly, I would really rather not publish anything under it personally.

4569: 4067: 3680:

The amount and substantiality of the portion exploited in relation to the work as a whole.

3443: 2734:

That discussion surely does need more opinions, particularly from somewhere not under the

2439:. My preferred values of M and N would be 5 and 3, but I've left that open intentionally. 2345:

is just fine until there is a need to further disambiguate, and in that case, I'd favor [[

8: 8664: 8630: 8442: 8376: 8329: 8124: 8107: 8091: 8013: 7787: 6879: 6718: 6547:

50%+1? Do you want it to be 75%? Do you want it to be 100%? Consensus has to be defined,

6526: 6474: 6313: 5901: 5853: 5456: 5431: 5416: 4555: 4520:

to continue blocking until clear policy has been agreed on by the wikipedia community. --

4315: 4101:

01:57, 3 Dec 2004 ******** deleted Paul Paquette (fulfills Speedy Deletion criterion 4) (

3181: 2735: 2617: 2596: 2589: 2270: 1976: 1953: 1949: 1526: 8510:, which is a way to request translation of an article in a foreign-language Knowledge.) 7968:

Is there a way of displaying these templates without adding the pump to the categories?

6713:

of course they should be blocked. they're just an invitation for anonymous vandalising.

3510: 2010: 1539: 8463: 8392: 8043: 7952: 7249: 7113: 6811: 6018: 6004: 5990: 5909: 5741: 5696: 5677: 5603: 5568: 4986: 4902: 4894: 4799: 4668: 4351: 4296: 4137: 2326: 2251: 2217: 1832: 1709: 1671: 1631:

article. This issue potentially affects a large number of articles. Your comments at

1458: 7658:(see what I wrote above about casual readers and Knowledge results in search engines). 6823: 6118: 6058:. (It's purely a statement of voluntary principle, and anyway it's a special case of 2547: 8712: 7727: 7668:, but I at least know the deal with Knowledge. I'm not sure how many other people do. 7637: 7175:

Thai businesses for the losses which they had suffered, to be negotiated separately.

7097: 7089: 7018: 6648: 6112: 6067: 5928: 5559: 5188: 4925: 4906: 4881: 4449: 4145:

04:51, 3 Dec 2004 Mikkalai deleted Paul Paquette (verifiable hoax by repeated hoaxer)

3748:

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

3650: 3452: 3381: 3289: 3280: 3208: 3189: 3139: 2685: 2656: 2609: 2561: 2397: 2358: 1929: 1858: 1574: 8577: 8557: 7980:

page that suggests there might be, I don't know if that works for templates though.

7977: 6861:

The HTML code may need no modification but the server only sends out a blank image.

5905:. That said, I'm glad I hadn't heard of the article in question before now. Nutty. — 3667:

Fair use of a work shall not constitute infringement on economic rights in the work.

3057:

It was me who put the copyvio in the first place. The flag serves multiple purposes:

2166:

Now someone is going through editing those back to how I had it in the first place.

8538: 8523: 8195: 8174: 8148: 8056: 8030: 7439:

These revisions may occur over weeks or even months, not necessarily hours or days.

7239: 7198: 7092:. So while it would be a nice-to-have feature on Knowledge (and in my opinion the 7055: 7001: 6961: 6757: 6614: 6429: 6381: 6332: 6210: 6146: 6087: 5949: 5728: 5319: 5267: 5208: 4962: 4764: 4658: 4640: 4632: 4607: 4587: 4469: 4438: 4417: 4371: 4269: 4162: 4050: 4024: 3910: 3883: 3811: 3796: 3482: 3471: 3359: 3025: 3010: 2904: 2857: 2820: 2746: 2626: 2540: 2507: 2457: 2405: 2278: 2179: 1995: 1873: 1840: 1819: 1686: 1608: 1562: 1497: 1331: 1249: 8647:

otherwise I'd much rather not see links on the front page going to other places.

8191: 8008:

warnings people will include if we do not develop some reasonable policy on this.

6387:

Clearly. Perhaps Knowledge is the National Enquirer of the Encyclopaedia world. -

5587: 4849:

Knowledge:Village pump (policy)#Nudity (full frontal) pictures in an encyclopedia?

2524: 1891:

I have just removed an initial capital from the entry for "cyclist", which began:

1581: 8749: 8680: 8648: 8548: 8478: 8412: 8364: 8308: 8298: 8257: 8247: 8205: 8184: 8039: 7906: 7756: 7136: 7077: 6192: 6040: 5974:(It was created by a Floridian, for gosh sakes). That indicates to me that it is 5801: 5714: 5704: 5686: 5619: 4743:

I am not clear where this belongs, so I am reposting it from the Proposals page:

4017: 3830: 3265: 3163: 2306: 2226: 1549: 7122: 6669: 5762:

an abbreviation that can be typed in this context, without disambiguation, like

2579: 8658: 8624: 8599: 8498:

Cleanup of foreign language material dumped into the English-language Knowledge

8438: 8424: 8372: 8325: 8132: 8103: 8048: 8009: 7981: 7961: 6927: 6875: 6740: 6714: 6703: 6695: 6601: 6522: 6512:

indicates above (others I feel fairly sure knew exactly what they were doing).

6412: 6364: 5428: 5413: 5345: 4755: 4551: 4521: 4505: 4344: 4332:

be encouraged to work off their own initiative or to invent policy on the fly.

4311: 4281: 4023:

It's also clear that even articles on alleged (but not real) phenomena such as

3712:

In fact, the four factors are exact replica of the 17 U.S.C. § 107 which reads:

3520: 3185: 2885: 2842: 2810: 2769: 2707: 2703: 2593: 2100: 2042: 1781: 1545: 1513: 1483: 1434: 8506:. (Note, by the way, that this is, and should remain, a separate process from 6974:

Ah, but television series have a much lower level of neutrality. Why not also

8738: 8705: 8690: 8608: 8571: 8459: 8455: 8222: 8099: 7969: 7276: 7209: 7022: 6986: 6936: 6912: 6679: 6605: 6597: 6576: 6540: 6513: 6394: 6346: 6251: 6233: 6015: 6001: 5987: 5906: 5893: 5673: 5660: 5595: 5476: 5307: 4819: 4717: 4580: 4293: 4174: 4134: 4117: 4073: 4038: 3995: 3849:

http://www.ln.mid.ru/Bl.nsf/arh/ACC381543BF4F1D7C3256E5B003561F1?OpenDocument

3611: 3497: 3421: 3397: 3368: 3346: 3304: 3240: 3220: 3041: 2998: 2973: 2958: 2943: 2920: 2867: 2792: 2491: 2378: 2323: 2214: 2020: 1961: 1746: 1736: 1648: 1636: 1473: 1454: 1446: 1402: 1348: 1299: 1226: 1194: 7586:

possible, it could reduce the probability that that would happen. Maybe. :-)

5795:

Knowledge:Votes_for_deletion/Russian_(usage)#.5B.5BRussian_.28usage.29.5D.5D

4976:

happened over having an article about Japanese video games on the front page

4253:

And with all these fine attributes I have yet to fine a woman who favors me.

3683:

Effect of the exploitation on the work's current and potential market value.

1423:

DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES EDIT THIS LINE or ABOVE. YOU COULD BE BLOCKED

1358:

I like your idea about a guideline page. Can something be done about this?

8730: 8316: 8159: 8136: 7939: 7743: 7680: 7613: 7506: 7346: 7317: 7031: 6846: 6263: 6225:

will show in the scuffles they get into and the quality of what they write.

6167:

in the name of consensus, but refuse to define or discuss what consensus is

6108: 6063: 6028: 5447: 5425:

Knowledge:Village_pump_archive_2004-09-26 - Adult content warning template?

5161: 4696: 4513: 4492: 4359: 4087: 3983: 3464: 3456: 3437: 3117: 2682: 2675: 2557: 2350: 1925: 1854: 1632: 8354:

I have only one further comment to make on this discussion. My User page

7696:, that a Knowledge article "may convey inaccurate or biased information." 7430:

at the point where sysops are intervening or are being asked to intervene.

6570:

welcomes dissent and then tries to accomodate all viewpoints. I'd suggest

4738: 4687:

one of the FSF legal people and so I think something will be worked out.

1670:

has uploaded a quite a few, including some that are original research. --

8534: 8519: 8231: 8226: 8144: 8026: 7433:

For all intents and purposes, it appears to be a normal article; however,

7263: 7235: 7194: 7108:

discussion I'm all for it. However, most images will be found obscene by

6940: 6895:

increase our audience. Every child likes to learn, most grown-ups don't.

6866: 6787: 6768: 6753: 6745: 6623: 6560: 6509: 6492: 6449: 6425: 6377: 6328: 6296: 6277: 6268: 6243: 6206: 6172: 6160: 6142: 6133: 6094: 6083: 5919: 5879: 5832:

article was too offensive, and replaced it with a different one. Compare

5814: 5783: 5647: 5577: 5401: 5354: 5227: 5176: 5142: 5120: 5093: 5073: 5055: 5039: 5001: 4948: 4929: 4910: 4789: 4779: 4677: 4654: 4603: 4535: 4512:

does not explicetely condone or oppose it. So it's a bit of a grey area.

4426: 4413: 4404: 4333: 4265: 4158: 4090:, names removed because I don't want to single out any specific editors: 4060: 4046: 4031: 3999: 3943: 3926: 3906: 3879: 3807: 3792: 3780: 3702: 3642: 3633: 3595: 3576: 3560: 3548: 3537: 3524: 3478: 3468: 3355: 3254: 3094: 3021: 3006: 2742: 2722: 2641: 2622: 2569: 2536: 2503: 2481: 2464: 2453: 2440: 2302: 2291: 2274: 2235: 2188: 2175: 2059: 2029: 1991: 1916: 1869: 1815: 1806: 1723: 1682: 1604: 1494: 1383: 1327: 1273: 1245: 1166:

plagiarism, please click here" or some such. Can someone please advise?

5384:

into your home is NOT "censorship", it is rather an application of good

1814:

respect for this kind of privacy even for the notable and notorious. --

8545: 8488: 8475: 8361: 8254: 8243: 8202: 8181: 7152: 7074: 7044: 6188: 6037: 5797: 5700: 5682: 5615: 5472: 5468: 5397: 4928:

you should expect to see a picture and consequently need not be warned.

4628: 3965: 3898: 3412: 3307: 3160: 2116: 1587: 1557: 1530: 1490: 1465: 1361: 1210: 1186: 1173: 4724: 4016:

Articles on real objects that are subject of unfounded claims such as

1831:

I've noticed that an anonymous user has added donation appeals to the

1413: 8420: 7777:

and present all perspectives within the article, you might find that

6896: 6832:

is rather terse and doesn't decide much. A proposal for a new policy

6803: 6783: 6691: 6549:

consensus it is NOT the subjective opinion of the administrator cabal

5405: 5381: 5295: 5246: 5237: 5165: 5116: 5009: 4412:

Nasty. Much of that can be removed because it's simply redundant. --

3296: 2095:

I still don't see why we make special exceptions for names. Just use

1778: 7073:

personal, religious, or cultural biases override your common sense.

6777: 5515: 4750:

best of all, avoid reading these pages for authoritative information

3632:

The picture is reverted but I still do not see any explaination. --

3040:

bottom. The first few words of the sentence are similar, that's all.

8720: 8060: 7206: 6983: 6676: 6388: 6340: 5657: 5632:

He tells his story in a teenage slang called "Nadsat", which mixes

5509: 5389: 5291: 5153: 4998:

We all have about the same guidelines concerning what is "obscene".

4921: 4594: 4387: 4171: 4114: 4010: 4006: 3861:

Please communicate this to the persons responsible for management,

3494: 3434:

Knowledge:Naming conventions (government departments and ministers)

3237: 2955: 2932:

http://www.macromedia.com/software/flash/open/licensing/fileformat/

2861: 2786: 2488: 8287:

Is there some time limit on how long a user page can be protected?

2099:

its very clear and follows the same procedure as everything else.

8737:

defeats the purpose. A small link at the bottom of ITN is enough.

7957: 7085: 6488: 6248:

Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored)

6130:

Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse (censored)

5829: 5377: 5287: 5150: 4591: 2980: 2076: 2051: 2037: 1628: 8168: 4149:

Mikkalai's judgment on whether this person is a repeat offender.

2602: 8563:

Knowledge:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/proposed revision

7917: 5393: 5385: 5157: 4370:

I agree that is is not acceptable for admins to ignore policy.

3300: 2527:. (When you reply, please drop me a message in my talk page) - 2322:

simpler to have the standard be unambiguous from the outset? --

8583: 4403:

for an example biography that I recently substantially wrote)

2674:. It is the "correct" formal style for a baron and Life Peer. 6976:

This article contains depictions of women with bare arms/legs

6931: 5927:

really want to see lolicon online can use a search engine. --

5283: 3655:

http://db.lawbank.com.tw/eng/FLAW/FLAWDAT10.asp?lsid=FL011264

2966: 1704:. See those pages for wher they are linked in articles, and 90:

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

7794:

Not really as I don't see why this isn't already covered by:

7700:

But this is the case with every single article on Knowledge.

6339:

In the sense that the most popular will be more credible? -

5713:

Not looked at it too much but it does seem wrong to me too.

3831:

http://ru.wikipedia.org/%D0%9B%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%8F

2672: 2347:

William Howard Taft High School (Woodland Hills, California)

2261:

even if there is one in another country called Rugby School

2113:

VFD/Precedents#Are_all_first_names_valid_topics_for_articles

82:

This page contains discussions that have been archived from

8123:

What is the policy for Events capitalization? Should it be

7436:

It is the subject of constant and diverging revisions; and,

6552: 5334: 4620: 4499:

Seems like you are right, was not able to find anything in

2086: 2055: 8090:

the POV of one of the sides? All of these are theories. -

4504:

should be CLEAR policy outlined in the blocking policy. --

3428:

New naming convention on government departments and so on.

2273:: this is by no means a universally accepted approach. -- 1769:

for explanation of this feature (what I've figured out by

5676:

to differentiate what he thinks are "important" links to

4624: 4030:

But what about articles about trivial items such as this

4005:

It's clear that an article on a fictional object such as

3893:

It's also one of the few major ones not interwiki'd from

2969: 2951: 2248:

William Howard Taft High School (Woodland Hills, CA, USA)

7781:

of this page carry additional information of use to you.

5201:

The articles on World War II don't have graphic pictures

6295:

work of reference ever. I have no solutions to suggest

5483:

I agree that 'censoring' (adapting) a content aimed at

3253:

have nothing against making a standard for this case.)

2584:

Policy over stub sorting is currently being decided at

1767:

Knowledge:Viewing and restoring deleted pages by sysops

5576:

POV, then we'll have to deal with the issue directly.

3829:

I happened to stumble upon Russian entry on "Latvia" (

3806:

I think "Free reproduced" means "freely reproduced".

2554:

Knowledge:Votes for deletion/User:Amgine/Maureen's RfC

2196:

Proposed method of dealing with schools: name standard

8607:

that lead to them being listed in the first place. --

8544:

Why not list "cleanup-translation" on the tfd page?

8531:

Knowledge talk:Pages needing translation into English

5369:. Does anybody here disagree with spoiler warnings? 3610:

result in a lot less content overall, which is good.

2123:

How to reference a foreign-language wikipedia article

1948:

I've been working on fleshing out the article on the

7021:

for example, and we already filter much nudity. --

5562:

article which reflect his/her/their stated mission.

4788:

is a good idea, for the reasons given by Simonides.

4631:

uses the much more lightweight and compatible by-sa

3393:

be removed (at least I can rarely manage to do so).

2780: 2764:

Please contribute (on either side of the debate) at

2432:

d) The usual vote exclusions for sockpuppets apply.

2207:

William Howard Taft High School (Woodland Hills, CA)

8284:

Did you protect it yourself or ask someone else to?

7232:

Knowledge:controversial articles and vandal magnets

7041:

Knowledge:Graphic and potentially disturbing images

6980:

Knowledge:Graphic and potentially disturbing images

6828:The current external link (semi?, quarter?) policy 5951:? The Coppertone girl has been famous in the U. S. 5400:from Knowledge. Unless of course we want to invite 3955:The general discussion of the Russian Knowledge is 3202:

Knowledge:List of encyclopedia topics/Biographies Y

1702:

Image:Required Legal Forms And Aftercare Sheets.pdf

8568:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) 7193:Just so long as you say where you got it from. -- 6608:, and think that the list of anime articles which 5612:declutter links to the "Russian language" article. 5353:use of a picture depicting a nude woman is on the 2552:Policy regarding user space is being clarified at 2435:Some feedback would be greatly appreciated on the 1661: 8059:applies, as I refuse to work from ignorance. :-) 5740:Maybe the scheme as-is would feel more useful if 3455:, which seems to have been created shortly after 2702:about the use of "Her Majesty". My experience on 1418:Do we really need a threat as ... threatening as 1207:I would volunteer to help with a plagiarism page. 8504:Knowledge:Pages needing translation into English 5525:, on whose user page is the following message: 4868:links to pornographic websites. Is this really 3317:Categories and languages on the French Knowledge 2698:In a similar vein, I've been in a discussion on 2343:William Howard Taft High School (Woodland Hills) 2288:William Howard Taft High School (Woodland Hills) 1903:The capital "C" is completely unnecessary here. 8533:so that we can reconcile the two processes. -- 7648:Ah, yes, the disclaimer. That should do it. :-) 5423:The link to that discussion can be found here: 5244:because we don't like what they say. How about 5236:Agree. Should there be a censored page for the 4464:, rather than including a bullet point list of 4425:Yeah, tag it for clean-up, or fix it yourself. 3200:were caused by scripts that (I assume) created 8711:Yes, there is. And wouldn't you know it, it's 5464:do we want them to come across obscene images? 2900: 2586:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Policy 1853:Certainly that can be considered advertising. 1616:Medical ethics: mention a pathology's victims? 1170:taught that paraphrasing is still plagiarism. 6327:sort out which fork has more credibility. -- 4920:Might I direct you both to the discussion on 3990:Chronovisor - are such articles encyclopedic? 2934:but the license described there only permits 2134:...the ] in the Spanish-language Knowledge... 1698:Image:Universal_Convective_Pulse_Theory_S.pdf 8344:Knowledge:Requests_for_page_protection#RickK 7726:be misled by what they read on Knowledge. -- 7221:Controversial articles, vandal magnets, etc. 7147:. Please feel free to improve and comment. 6468:I can. The majority of the articles in the 6376:is very popular and not at all credible. -- 5367:similar to the way spoiler warnings are used 3825:Politically motivated entry(ies?) in Russian 3342:Anyhow, I'd just like to hear your opinion. 3072:Keep a record that we are catching copyvios. 2211:William Howard Taft High School (Dallas, TX) 2162:...the in the Spanish-language Knowledge... 2154:...the in the Spanish-language Knowledge... 1800:I ask because an anon recently added to the 1493:asking for a sandbox-cleaning enhancement. - 8409:Knowledge:Requests_for_arbitration/Libertas 6629:Having a list of non-existant pages at the 5205:Image:Mass Grave Bergen Belsen May 1945.jpg 2404:, as this involves all Wikimedia projects. 2392:Discussion on video policy, please comment. 1946:since this may be a better place to ask...) 1937:Sound sample fair use for language article? 8415:is being accused of being a sockpuppet of 8098:congratulations, you have just discovered 5614:Is this in keeping with Knowledge policy? 4615:GFDL license is a pain, let's switch to CC 4343:I agree that there's a problem. Like with 8085:Difference between NPOV and Objective POV 7882:Learn how and when to remove this message 7834:Learn how and when to remove this message 6250:? Do you have any thoughts on solutions? 5968:it was never even slightly controversial. 5828:A while back, I thought the image at the 5602:page, and is busy replacing links to the 5242:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 4810:As an ignorant outsider, I say this is a 4382:Is so much personal profile encyclopedic? 4206:As for French Absolutism, it opened with: 3623: 3619:Whoever deletes this image please explain 2694:Btw, does anyone know what the DNB does? 8617:The entry must have a bolded link to an 8217:Administrator assistance is required on 7978:category:articles needing to be wikified 7871:Please do not remove this message until 7823:Please do not remove this message until 7300:article is a very good example of this. 6105:Knowledge talk:Avoid academic boosterism 4847:NEW: See additional discussion below at 2741:. I, in particular, have no opinions. 2463:Copied comment to the VfD talk section. 8621:article UPDATED with the current event. 8219:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Swastika 5344:Censorship is not in the spirit of the 4574:Question: Why is the Knowledge running 4394:03:56, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)mickeymousechen 4074:Candidates for Speedy Deletion criteria 3964:know) to make it two- or more-"sided". 3334:or anything, but I'd just like to know 2717:Prohibiting use of that title would be 14: 6853:User-activated censorship (a proposal) 6078:academic boosting by ripping material 6056:User:Rbellin/Avoid academic boosterism 5610:page, on the grounds that he wants to 5160:and both cannot be shown in a general 4901:I agree with the concern expressed by 4086:Some random examples from the current 3998:I stumbled upon this little article - 1971:I've included it in the article under 1793:Publishing contact details in articles 8360:be unprotected. End of discussion. 8281:Is this privilege extended to others? 7292:New template request: "Unstable"/etc. 6276:about The Olin Foundation, or AIPAC. 6046:Academic boosterism guideline useful? 5475:, but breasts and penis? come on! -- 4483:Are legal threats blockable offenses? 2766:Talk:British and Irish current events 2700:Talk:British and Irish current events 8598:These stories were later removed by 8474:a harrassment campaign against me. 7845: 7797: 6702:and AdAware also has a free option. 5496:aimed at a particular audience. So, 3626:File:Beef noodle soup food stand.jpg 3451:The specific case I have in mind is 2146:in the Spanish-language Knowledge... 1731:PDFs are appropriate and useful for 1521:Automated posting on user talk pages 8238:Protecting Administrator User pages 6600:page was turned into a redirect to 6592:Category pages versus list articles 3774:In the making of this image, I was 3742:the nature of the copyrighted work; 3411:, we don't bite english speakers ! 23: 8508:Knowledge:Translation into English 8212:Administrator assistance required. 7976:There is a note at the top of the 5755:an article in its own right, like 5156:are just as deplorable as graphic 3649:This picture was published in the 3277:common, but nowadays not necessary 2519:Putting ebooks links in user pages 2187:this is not policy, it should be. 2111:For older discussion on this, see 2028:disambiguation for first names? -- 1761:Knowledge:Village pump (technical) 24: 8764: 8295:Thanks for your prompt response, 8230:- this issue has been dealt with 8225:and not our article on Swastika. 4641:Why You Shouldn't Use the GNU FDL 4434:This is also possibly a copyvio: 4072:A lot of people feel the current 3545:List of Washington Metro stations 3196:(I'm assuming constructions like 1428:in the sandbox, where people are 8586:there is obvious need to reform 8419:, for people not aware if that. 8275:Why is your user page protected? 7850: 7802: 7560:(My, that's a lot of colons! :-) 7423:protected or blocked in any way. 5355:Talk page for the Breast article 4862:Nude celebrities on the internet 2988:Removing copyvio notice question 2850:Also interesting is this news - 1960:I think that should be very OK. 1912:Thanks for any useful feedback. 1827:Adding donation appeals to pages 1777:for some questions on its use. — 1775:Knowledge talk:Undeletion policy 1441:Totally agreed. This isn't just 8278:How long has it been protected? 7260:Knowledge:Most vandalized pages 6643:on the category talk page (see 5918:other considerations belong. -- 5022:. We ought not simply to apply 4886:as a matter of Knowledge policy 4816:Knowledge: Avoid self-reference 18:Knowledge:Village pump (policy) 5861:anonymous note on my talk page 5699:article for the same purpose. 5523:User:Asexual same-sex marriage 4592:http://groups-beta.google.com/ 3230:Knowledge Talk:Manual of Style 3217:Knowledge Talk:Manual of Style 2402:comment on the discussion here 2079:is not an encyclopedia article 1401:, which is only links so far. 13: 1: 7992:templates. where will it end? 7770: 6834:Knowledge:External links/temp 6645:category talk:fantasy writers 6060:Knowledge:Avoid peacock terms 5888:is legal in the U.S. per the 5793:I've put it up for VfD here: 5250:where Ezekiel 23:19-20 reads: 4732:Wikipedia_talk:Privacy_policy 3459:went through VfD (discussion 3234:a google search on the matter 2653:Knowledge:List of blank pages 2017:Knowledge talk:Disambiguation 1754:Undeleting selected revisions 1397:Maybe info could be added to 78:Village pump (policy) archive 7272:") 01:12, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) 7145:User:Zocky/Pyramid structure 6810:. I'll see if I can fix it. 5815:Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 3905:if there already is one? -- 3378:Knowledge:How to edit a page 2972:, text-based browsers, etc. 2899:I did a quick search on the 2172:can we please establish one? 1883:Inappropriate capitalisation 1627:should be referenced in the 1191:Knowledge: Cite your sources 1158:Plagiarism by any other name 7: 8717:Knowledge:Template messages 8267:Use of Administrator Powers 8033:) 01:51, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC) 7873:conditions to do so are met 7825:conditions to do so are met 7790:\ 03:12, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) 7717:Knowledge:Featured articles 7470:rather than random editing. 7275:You can also get there via 7162:Copying from other articles 6735:I plan to collaborate with 6217:) 06:54, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC) 5813:for more comments on this.— 3818:) 02:38, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC) 3176:Commas in between and 'Jr' 3093:I then forget about it. -- 2753:) 03:25, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC) 2671:Check the Debretts website 2305:suggests the best method. 2209:, to differentiate it from 2002:) 06:56, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC) 1464:That is a great suggestion 10: 8769: 8708:18:43, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC) 8551:06:56, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC) 8541:20:04, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) 8526:19:53, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) 8367:08:51, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) 8260:07:55, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) 8208:21:49, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) 8187:22:35, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC) 8139:00:59, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC) 8119:Capitalizations for events 7972:10:37, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC) 7947:05:36, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC) 7325:08:47, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC) 7242:01:17, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC) 7129:Style and How-to Directory 7119:22:06, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC) 7079:10:09, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC) 6817:22:22, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC) 6808:Mount Ida (disambiguation) 6731:Counter-Strike Comparisons 6626:19:04, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC) 6622:see what harm they do. - 6617:07:44, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC) 6543:14:17, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC) 6516:11:40, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC) 6384:22:30, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC) 6335:21:35, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC) 6280:13:24, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC) 6042:03:49, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC) 5821:Offensive image at Lolicon 5817:22:02, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC) 5026:. We should be aiming for 4992:21:39, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC) 4970:06:32, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC). 4897:04:52, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC) 4583:06:47, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC). 4489:Knowledge:No legal threats 3645:12:35, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) 3636:14:42, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) 3527:05:36, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC) 2994:The Six Million Dollar Man 2829:23:56, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC) 2592:on the matter. Thanks! -- 2419:Proposal:VfD early removal 2182:20:55, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC) 2168:Is there a policy on this? 2023:21:26, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC) 1956:20:20, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC) 1849:20:08, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) 1639:22:02, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC) 1552:06:09, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC) 1525:I started a discussion on 1162:A question and a comment: 8693:01:44, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC) 8686:23:44, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8675:21:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8654:21:21, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8611:19:50, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8574:01:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8491:20:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8481:20:34, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) 8450:09:05, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8398:09:31, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC) 8319:08:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8311:07:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8301:07:48, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8250:07:51, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8234:10:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8198:00:21, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8177:19:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8162:17:27, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC) 8094:17:49, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8021:22:46, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) 7762:20:49, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) 7751:20:23, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC) 7734:16:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) 7704:There are no exceptions. 7688:13:04, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC) 7644:12:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) 7621:10:48, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC) 7514:10:48, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC) 7354:09:51, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC) 7255:22:16, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC) 7227:the recent Seattle meetup 7189:00:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) 7171:00:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) 7155:14:07, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) 7133:Knowledge:Manual of Style 7104:10:58, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) 7025:03:19, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) 6970:00:00, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) 6869:14:48, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC) 6849:21:08, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC) 6790:21:47, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6767:That would make sense. - 6748:20:14, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6739:on doing high resolution 6698:11:34, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6686:23:08, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC) 6655:10:09, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC) 6579:13:57, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC) 6568:Consensus decision making 6563:13:15, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6534:12:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6417:22:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) 6369:22:00, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) 6149:05:19, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC) 6136:04:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) 6115:01:09, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6090:20:11, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC) 5970:Not even in the Fifties. 5912:03:28, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC) 5886:Virtual child pornography 5882:07:54, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC) 5806:22:00, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5709:20:38, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5650:19:35, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC) 5624:19:03, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5571:21:26, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC) 5479:06:11, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC) 5450:14:01, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC) 5276:21:22, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC) 5230:17:58, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) 5223:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse 5217:04:08, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC) 5115:To Samboy - You put up a 4913:05:40, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC) 4857:Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse 4792:16:24, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC) 4782:03:57, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC) 4773:01:42, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC) 4758:01:24, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) 4680:00:53, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC) 4646:Why Wikitravel isn't GFDL 4516:01:10, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) 4501:Knowledge:Blocking_policy 4495:00:31, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) 4377:03:09, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC) 4153:French Absolutism was an 4053:03:26, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC) 4041:21:22, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3913:20:12, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) 3783:13:20, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) 3705:12:58, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) 3579:19:06, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC) 3563:13:49, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC) 3551:07:14, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC) 3485:01:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3473:00:59, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3440:04:34, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3400:01:32, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3371:20:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3349:19:20, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3292:00:16, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3283:16:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3257:13:30, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC) 3211:01:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3097:05:01, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC) 3001:02:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2962:04:56, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) ~ 2946:19:36, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC) 2923:09:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2913:01:22, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC) 2901:http://meta.wikimedia.org 2815:23:51, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2688:14:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2678:13:18, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2659:20:54, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2644:18:52, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC) 2612:17:31, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2599:02:10, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2588:. Please help us form a 2564:03:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2484:13:51, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) 2460:22:09, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC) 2446:17:17, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC) 2361:19:37, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC) 2119:00:21, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2062:05:44, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC) 2045:04:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2032:22:31, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC) 1979:22:23, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC) 1919:15:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1876:20:17, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC) 1822:05:05, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC) 1809:23:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1786:13:18, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1651:09:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1635:would be most welcome. -- 1611:03:39, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC) 1533:01:21, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1486:09:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1476:21:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1461:01:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1449:00:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1437:17:35, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1375:15:21, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1364:20:09, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1252:00:50, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC) 1176:23:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC) 8752:04:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8741:23:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8723:19:15, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC) 8641:20:17, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8582:Since the appearance of 8466:12:48, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8427:15:57, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8350:08:48, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8337:08:38, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8242:I was interested to see 8151:02:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8131:? What about the recent 8075:02:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) 8063:02:18, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC) 7984:11:57, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) 7964:11:57, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) 7912:10:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) 7537:10:39, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) 7378:10:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) 7337:08:55, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) 7283:13:33, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) 7216:16:23, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC) 7201:02:36, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) 7062:09:47, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC) 7034:00:45, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC) 7010:00:56, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC) 6943:15:27, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6915:16:34, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6830:Knowledge:External links 6771:02:06, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6760:00:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6726:14:22, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6706:12:04, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6662:10:45, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6495:13:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6477:13:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6452:12:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6432:08:41, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC) 6320:18:03, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) 6299:17:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) 6271:11:19, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) 6254:08:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) 6236:07:58, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) 6175:12:01, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6070:20:17, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6031:03:19, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5935:14:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5873:06:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5786:21:26, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC) 5720:20:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5691:20:13, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5667:19:49, 2005 Jan 12 (UTC) 5580:07:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) 5459:11:14, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5419:11:38, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5408:11:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5373:06:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5361:06:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5310:06:31, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5298:11:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5294:to all things negative. 5195:00:42, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) 5168:11:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5145:22:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) 5012:11:00, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 4951:17:32, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) 4932:05:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) 4874:? There are of course, 4842:Censorship and wikipedia 4838:22:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 4805:15:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC) 4706:06:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) 4699:02:37, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) 4691:06:18, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) 4570:Knowledge a beta tester? 4563:14:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) 4550:no reason for blocking. 4538:04:14, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC) 4508:00:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) 4456:14:50, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) 4429:10:21, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC) 4407:04:07, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC) 4362:19:17, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) 4336:07:02, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) 4318:08:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) 4299:06:19, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC) 4284:05:47, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC) 4165:05:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) 4129:02:57, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC) 4068:Abuse of speedy deletion 4063:17:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3986:06:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) 3968:08:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC). 3946:21:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3929:21:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3886:16:39, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3799:16:42, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3614:04:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3598:03:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3540:05:47, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3504:18:01, 2004 Dec 26 (UTC) 3444:User pages without users 3424:20:47, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) 3384:01:51, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3362:20:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3310:22:34, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3268:14:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3247:13:59, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC) 3223:07:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3044:04:50, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3028:04:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3013:03:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2983:00:21, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC) 2890:00:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2772:17:41, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2725:17:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2710:15:20, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2629:18:17, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2575:17:09, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) 2531:06:55, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) 2498:14:01, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC) 2470:01:41, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC) 2412:13:10, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC) 2381:03:36, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC) 2329:19:08, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2294:18:13, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC) 2281:19:49, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC) 2265:18:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2254:16:41, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC) 2229:05:55, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC) 2220:19:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2191:05:49, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2103:03:08, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1964:03:58, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1932:16:03, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1861:20:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1749:23:19, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC) 1739:20:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1689:22:10, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC) 1677:21:23, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1577:18:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1568:09:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1516:05:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1500:04:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1479:reactions to the notice 1468:09:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1405:17:19, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1399:Knowledge:Ethics and law 1386:16:26, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1302:06:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1276:04:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1229:00:41, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1213:00:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) 1197:00:02, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) 8053:Names of God in Judaism 7998:Template:tetragrammaton 7225:We had a discussion at 7047:22:40, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6993:00:09, 2005 Jan 7 (UTC) 6899:00:18, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6887:15:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6461:02:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6197:17:43, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6097:20:39, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6021:22:05, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) 6007:13:21, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5993:13:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5922:09:00, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5811:Talk:Russian (spelling) 5695:I see he has created a 5606:page with links to his 5434:11:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5325:12:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5179:21:34, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5123:23:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5096:21:20, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5076:12:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5058:12:56, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5042:12:32, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 5030:and as far as possible 4880:more examples (such as 4822:06:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) 4720:03:57, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) 4671:00:00, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) 4661:23:23, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC) 4610:01:27, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) 4597:20:45, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC) 4524:01:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) 4475:15:19, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) 4444:12:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) 4420:05:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) 4272:05:43, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) 4186:05:23, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC) 4140:03:05, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC) 3843:World War II anymore. 3677:The nature of the work. 3511:Train station articles? 3436:. Fire/ignore away. -- 3415:03:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC) 3228:Probably something for 3198:Whitney Moore Jr. Young 3194:Martin Luther King, Jr. 3165:23:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) 2663:"The" in aristos' names 2543:08:11, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) 2510:14:45, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) 2312:01:02, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2238:12:07, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) 2011:Articles on first names 1944:Knowledge talk:Fair use 1837:Bobbie Jo Stinnett/Temp 1726:15:26, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1715:01:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) 1544:An issue has arisen at 1540:Linking to death videos 6119:Democracy on Knowledge 5757:Guide to Russian names 5304:Knowledge is not paper 4972:PS A somewhat similar 4401:Lewis B. Schwellenbach 3903:Knowledge:Village Pump 3895:Knowledge:Village Pump 3299:, the comma is used. 3138:the help of an admin, 2926:Will this essentially 2548:Policy decision on VfD 95:< Older discussions 8578:Reform of in the news 8558:Date and number style 7775:neutral point of view 7713:Knowledge:Peer review 7258:Were you thinking of 7167:from. Is it alright? 6521:crap (GNAA) into WP. 6420:Or perhaps it is the 6372:Not necessarily. The 6125:Church of Scientology 5962:I am sure that there 5898:Free Speech Coalition 2638:Knowledge:Blank pages 2144:corresponding article 1512:sandbox maintenance! 84:Village pump (policy) 8588:Template:In the news 8221:- this is regarding 7916:Catherine, you're a 7786:Does that clarify? 7230:start one, maybe at 7135:, and some links on 7131:, some pages in the 6824:External link policy 6506:Historicity of Jesus 6491:is another example. 6470:Template:Creationism 5972:Not even in Florida. 5636:with English slang. 5141:for more details. -- 3701:Revert my image. -- 2263:Philip Baird Shearer 2097:name(disambiguation) 1868:I've removed it. -- 1625:Gayle Laverne Grinds 1623:At issue is whether 1582:External link policy 8129:1996 Saguenay flood 8125:1996 Saguenay Flood 7864:of this article is 7816:of this article is 7331:m:The Wrong Version 7185:just an example... 7123:Article structuring 7084:various reasons on 7039:See my proposal on 6670:Marketscore proxies 6572:unanimity minus one 6314:Christian terrorism 6052:academic boosterism 5854:Knowledge:Profanity 5332:Inebriation station 4037:What do you think? 3594:That's a nice idea. 3182:Joseph Pulitzer Jr. 2736:sphere of influence 2618:Knowledge:Vandalism 2580:Stub sorting policy 2271:Wesleyan University 2158:...which shows as: 2138:...which shows as: 1950:Samogitian language 1802:William Schnoebelen 1527:Wikipedia_talk:Spam 7953:deluge (mythology) 7779:previous revisions 7694:in a specific case 6459:Wile E. Heresiarch 5837:The original image 5742:Russian (spelling) 5697:Russian (spelling) 5678:Russian (language) 5604:Russian (language) 4987:User:naryathegreat 3957:ru:Википедия:Форум 3547:for some ideas. -- 1833:Bobbie Jo Stinnett 1443:biting the newbies 8449: 8383: 8336: 8114: 8020: 7892: 7891: 7884: 7844: 7843: 7836: 7298:Christian Science 7214: 7090:Internet Explorer 7019:seven dirty words 7009: 6991: 6969: 6886: 6782:I've come across 6725: 6684: 6533: 6415: 6409: 6403: 6397: 6391: 6374:National Enquirer 6367: 6361: 6355: 6349: 6343: 6289:authoritativeness 6215:automation script 6195: 5804: 5707: 5689: 5665: 5622: 5560:Same-sex marriage 5323: 5275: 5216: 5024:our own standards 4971: 4926:male circumcision 4907:History of Greece 4882:male circumcision 4772: 4562: 4473: 4442: 4184: 4179: 4127: 4122: 3816:automation script 3651:Republic of China 3502: 3453:User:Gabriel Kent 3245: 3190:William Usery Jr. 2912: 2888: 2882: 2876: 2870: 2864: 2828: 2813: 2807: 2801: 2795: 2789: 2751:automation script 2535:Please don't. -- 2496: 2398:meta:Video policy 2000:automation script 1848: 1566: 8760: 8570:for discussion. 8566:February"). See 8441: 8375: 8348:User:Anárion/sig 8328: 8106: 8038:For the record: 8012: 7945: 7944: 7902: 7896: 7887: 7880: 7876: 7854: 7853: 7846: 7839: 7832: 7828: 7806: 7805: 7798: 7749: 7748: 7686: 7685: 7619: 7618: 7535:User:Anárion/sig 7512: 7511: 7468:concerted effort 7376:User:Anárion/sig 7352: 7351: 7335:User:Anárion/sig 7323: 7322: 7271: 7213: 7210: 7005: 6990: 6987: 6965: 6878: 6717: 6683: 6680: 6660:User:Anárion/sig 6647:for example). -- 6525: 6413: 6407: 6401: 6395: 6389: 6365: 6359: 6353: 6347: 6341: 6193: 5986:controversial). 5978:within what the 5809:Please also see 5802: 5729:Russian language 5705: 5687: 5664: 5661: 5620: 5467:to the infamous 5321: 5271: 5212: 4966: 4768: 4739:Knowledge biases 4633:Creative Commons 4588:Software testing 4554: 4471: 4440: 4182: 4178: 4175: 4125: 4121: 4118: 4025:Bermuda Triangle 3629: 3627: 3501: 3498: 3244: 3241: 2938:the format, not 2908: 2886: 2880: 2874: 2868: 2862: 2858:Second Congo War 2824: 2811: 2805: 2799: 2793: 2787: 2495: 2492: 2437:VfD talk section 2357: 1844: 1706:Rafti's contribs 1564: 79: 54: 8768: 8767: 8763: 8762: 8761: 8759: 8758: 8757: 8715:. :-) See also 8605:immediate event 8580: 8560: 8500: 8269: 8240: 8214: 8171: 8121: 8087: 7994: 7942: 7940: 7900: 7894: 7888: 7877: 7870: 7855: 7851: 7840: 7829: 7822: 7807: 7803: 7784: 7746: 7744: 7683: 7681: 7616: 7614: 7509: 7507: 7349: 7347: 7320: 7318: 7294: 7267: 7223: 7211: 7164: 7137:template:FAPath 7125: 6988: 6982:by the way?) -- 6855: 6826: 6780: 6733: 6681: 6672: 6594: 6575:for retention. 6121: 6048: 5946:Coppertone girl 5823: 5662: 5637: 5608:Russian (usage) 5600:Russian (usage) 5593: 5589:Russian (usage) 5555:"""thank you." 5518: 5221:The article at 4844: 4741: 4727: 4617: 4572: 4485: 4392:Mickeymousechen 4386:The article of 4384: 4193:Pure vandalism 4176: 4119: 4070: 4018:Shroud of Turin 3992: 3827: 3625: 3621: 3518:New York City's 3513: 3499: 3446: 3430: 3319: 3242: 3178: 2992:The article on 2990: 2853:- from the BBC. 2783: 2665: 2605: 2582: 2550: 2521: 2493: 2480:crashes, etc.) 2421: 2394: 2353: 2198: 2125: 2085:made more like 2013: 1939: 1885: 1829: 1795: 1771:playing with it 1759:crossposted to 1756: 1668:Rafti Institute 1664: 1618: 1584: 1542: 1523: 1491:Bugzilla report 1489:I have filed a 1416: 1160: 1155: 80: 77: 74: 48: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 8766: 8756: 8755: 8754: 8753: 8743: 8742: 8727: 8726: 8725: 8724: 8701: 8700: 8699: 8698: 8697: 8696: 8695: 8694: 8643: 8642: 8579: 8576: 8559: 8556: 8554: 8499: 8496: 8485: 8484: 8483: 8482: 8468: 8467: 8431: 8430: 8429: 8428: 8402: 8401: 8400: 8399: 8385: 8384: 8352: 8351: 8339: 8338: 8293: 8292: 8288: 8285: 8282: 8279: 8276: 8268: 8265: 8239: 8236: 8213: 8210: 8170: 8167: 8166: 8165: 8164: 8163: 8153: 8152: 8133:1998 Ice Storm 8120: 8117: 8116: 8115: 8092:Lee S. Svoboda 8086: 8083: 8081: 8079: 8078: 8077: 8076: 8065: 8064: 8049:Tetragrammaton 8035: 8034: 7993: 7990: 7988: 7986: 7985: 7966: 7965: 7914: 7913: 7890: 7889: 7858: 7856: 7849: 7842: 7841: 7810: 7808: 7801: 7796: 7795: 7769: 7768: 7753: 7752: 7690: 7689: 7676: 7675: 7670: 7669: 7660: 7659: 7656:casual readers 7650: 7649: 7633: 7632: 7631: 7630: 7629: 7628: 7627: 7626: 7625: 7624: 7623: 7622: 7598: 7597: 7596: 7595: 7594: 7593: 7592: 7591: 7590: 7589: 7588: 7587: 7572: 7571: 7570: 7569: 7568: 7567: 7566: 7565: 7564: 7563: 7562: 7561: 7547: 7546: 7545: 7544: 7543: 7542: 7541: 7540: 7539: 7538: 7522: 7521: 7520: 7519: 7518: 7517: 7516: 7515: 7495: 7494: 7493: 7492: 7491: 7490: 7489: 7488: 7478: 7477: 7476: 7475: 7474: 7473: 7472: 7471: 7457: 7456: 7455: 7454: 7453: 7452: 7451: 7450: 7449: 7448: 7443: 7440: 7437: 7434: 7431: 7424: 7417: 7401: 7400: 7399: 7398: 7397: 7396: 7395: 7394: 7384: 7383: 7382: 7381: 7380: 7379: 7358: 7357: 7356: 7355: 7339: 7338: 7293: 7290: 7289: 7288: 7287: 7286: 7285: 7284: 7256: 7222: 7219: 7218: 7217: 7202: 7163: 7160: 7158: 7124: 7121: 7082: 7066: 7065: 7064: 7063: 7049: 7048: 7036: 7035: 7014: 7013: 7012: 7011: 6995: 6994: 6959: 6958: 6952: 6951: 6947: 6946: 6945: 6944: 6928:slippery slope 6921: 6920: 6919: 6918: 6917: 6916: 6903: 6902: 6901: 6900: 6889: 6888: 6854: 6851: 6825: 6822: 6820: 6800: 6799: 6798: 6797: 6779: 6776: 6775: 6774: 6773: 6772: 6762: 6761: 6741:Counter-Strike 6732: 6729: 6728: 6727: 6710: 6709: 6708: 6707: 6671: 6668: 6666: 6664: 6663: 6656: 6637: 6636: 6635: 6602:Category:Anime 6596:Recently, the 6593: 6590: 6589: 6588: 6587: 6586: 6585: 6584: 6583: 6582: 6581: 6580: 6501: 6500: 6499: 6498: 6497: 6496: 6481: 6480: 6479: 6478: 6475:Barnaby dawson 6463: 6462: 6440: 6439: 6438: 6437: 6436: 6435: 6434: 6433: 6324: 6323: 6322: 6321: 6305: 6303: 6302: 6301: 6300: 6273: 6272: 6258: 6257: 6256: 6255: 6238: 6237: 6226: 6218: 6201: 6200: 6199: 6198: 6181: 6180: 6179: 6178: 6177: 6176: 6151: 6150: 6120: 6117: 6101: 6100: 6099: 6098: 6047: 6044: 6033: 6032: 6023: 6022: 6010: 6009: 5996: 5995: 5958: 5957: 5924: 5923: 5915: 5914: 5913: 5850: 5849: 5847:My replacement 5844: 5822: 5819: 5791: 5790: 5789: 5788: 5776: 5775: 5774: 5773: 5772: 5771: 5760: 5748: 5747: 5746: 5745: 5735: 5734: 5733: 5732: 5722: 5721: 5693: 5692: 5669: 5668: 5652: 5651: 5631: 5630: 5629: 5598:has created a 5592: 5586: 5584: 5582: 5581: 5553: 5552: 5551: 5550: 5549: 5548: 5539: 5538: 5537: 5536: 5535: 5534: 5517: 5514: 5513: 5512: 5506: 5502: 5461: 5460: 5457:Barnaby dawson 5436: 5435: 5327: 5326: 5280: 5279: 5278: 5277: 5257: 5256: 5255: 5254: 5219: 5218: 5197: 5196: 5183: 5182: 5181: 5180: 5147: 5146: 5133: 5132: 5131: 5130: 5129: 5128: 5127: 5126: 5125: 5124: 5104: 5103: 5102: 5101: 5100: 5099: 5098: 5097: 5082: 5081: 5080: 5079: 5078: 5077: 5064: 5063: 5062: 5061: 5060: 5059: 5046: 5045: 5044: 5043: 5005: 5004: 4978: 4977: 4957: 4956: 4955: 4954: 4953: 4952: 4936: 4935: 4934: 4933: 4915: 4914: 4843: 4840: 4833: 4832: 4831: 4830: 4824: 4823: 4814:. It violates 4807: 4806: 4794: 4793: 4784: 4783: 4775: 4774: 4740: 4737: 4726: 4725:privacy policy 4723: 4722: 4721: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4704:67.120.102.204 4692: 4689:67.120.102.204 4673: 4672: 4663: 4662: 4649: 4648: 4643: 4616: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4599: 4598: 4571: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4540: 4539: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4484: 4481: 4479: 4477: 4476: 4446: 4445: 4431: 4430: 4422: 4421: 4409: 4408: 4383: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4363: 4355: 4348: 4345:greenhouse gas 4338: 4337: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4286: 4285: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4236: 4233: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4219: 4218: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4188: 4187: 4151: 4150: 4146: 4142: 4141: 4111: 4110: 4107: 4099: 4096: 4080:not acceptable 4069: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4055: 4054: 3991: 3988: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3970: 3969: 3952: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3888: 3887: 3826: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3820: 3819: 3801: 3800: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3749: 3746: 3743: 3740: 3730: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3726: 3725: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3707: 3706: 3698: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3693: 3690: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3681: 3678: 3675: 3668: 3659: 3658: 3638: 3620: 3617: 3616: 3615: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3553: 3552: 3541: 3521:Public Transit 3512: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3445: 3442: 3429: 3426: 3417: 3416: 3386: 3385: 3364: 3363: 3318: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3259: 3258: 3249: 3248: 3225: 3224: 3186:Ed Begley, Jr. 3177: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3076: 3073: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3015: 3014: 2989: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2976: 2963: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2854: 2848: 2782: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2712: 2711: 2704:current events 2664: 2661: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2631: 2630: 2604: 2601: 2581: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2549: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2520: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2502:infallible). 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2420: 2417: 2415: 2393: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2296: 2295: 2283: 2282: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2240: 2239: 2231: 2230: 2197: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2164: 2163: 2156: 2155: 2148: 2147: 2136: 2135: 2124: 2121: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2082: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2034: 2033: 2012: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1977:Theodore Kloba 1966: 1965: 1954:Theodore Kloba 1938: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1901: 1900: 1884: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1863: 1862: 1828: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1794: 1791: 1789: 1764: 1755: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1741: 1740: 1728: 1727: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1691: 1690: 1663: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1617: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1583: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1569: 1546:Kenneth Bigley 1541: 1538: 1536: 1522: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1469: 1426: 1425: 1415: 1414:Sandbox threat 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1370: 1369: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1208: 1205: 1199: 1198: 1159: 1156: 92: 76: 75: 73: 72: 71: 70: 65: 60: 55: 43: 38: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 8765: 8751: 8747: 8746: 8745: 8744: 8740: 8735: 8734: 8733: 8732: 8722: 8718: 8714: 8710: 8709: 8707: 8703: 8702: 8692: 8688: 8687: 8685: 8682: 8677: 8676: 8674: 8673: 8670: 8667: 8662: 8661: 8656: 8655: 8653: 8650: 8645: 8644: 8640: 8639: 8636: 8633: 8628: 8627: 8622: 8620: 8614: 8613: 8612: 8610: 8606: 8601: 8596: 8594: 8592: 8589: 8585: 8575: 8573: 8569: 8564: 8555: 8552: 8550: 8547: 8542: 8540: 8536: 8532: 8527: 8525: 8521: 8517: 8511: 8509: 8505: 8495: 8492: 8490: 8480: 8477: 8472: 8471: 8470: 8469: 8465: 8461: 8457: 8453: 8452: 8451: 8448: 8446: 8440: 8436: 8426: 8422: 8418: 8414: 8410: 8406: 8405: 8404: 8403: 8397: 8394: 8389: 8388: 8387: 8386: 8382: 8380: 8374: 8370: 8369: 8368: 8366: 8363: 8359: 8358: 8349: 8345: 8341: 8340: 8335: 8333: 8327: 8322: 8321: 8320: 8318: 8312: 8310: 8306: 8302: 8300: 8296: 8289: 8286: 8283: 8280: 8277: 8274: 8273: 8272: 8264: 8261: 8259: 8256: 8251: 8249: 8245: 8235: 8233: 8229: 8228: 8224: 8223:User:Swastika 8220: 8209: 8207: 8204: 8199: 8197: 8193: 8192:José Saramago 8188: 8186: 8183: 8178: 8176: 8161: 8157: 8156: 8155: 8154: 8150: 8146: 8142: 8141: 8140: 8138: 8134: 8130: 8126: 8113: 8111: 8105: 8101: 8100:postmodernism 8097: 8096: 8095: 8093: 8082: 8074: 8069: 8068: 8067: 8066: 8062: 8058: 8054: 8050: 8045: 8044:Jill St. Crux 8041: 8037: 8036: 8032: 8028: 8024: 8023: 8022: 8019: 8017: 8011: 8007: 8003: 7999: 7989: 7983: 7979: 7975: 7974: 7973: 7971: 7963: 7959: 7954: 7950: 7949: 7948: 7946: 7936: 7933: 7929: 7927: 7921: 7919: 7911: 7908: 7905: 7904: 7903: 7899: 7886: 7883: 7874: 7868: 7867: 7863: 7857: 7848: 7847: 7838: 7835: 7826: 7820: 7819: 7815: 7809: 7800: 7799: 7793: 7792: 7791: 7789: 7783: 7782: 7780: 7776: 7765: 7764: 7763: 7761: 7758: 7750: 7741: 7737: 7736: 7735: 7733: 7729: 7725: 7720: 7718: 7714: 7709: 7705: 7702: 7701: 7697: 7695: 7687: 7678: 7677: 7672: 7671: 7667: 7662: 7661: 7657: 7652: 7651: 7647: 7646: 7645: 7643: 7639: 7620: 7610: 7609: 7608: 7607: 7606: 7605: 7604: 7603: 7602: 7601: 7600: 7599: 7584: 7583: 7582: 7581: 7580: 7579: 7578: 7577: 7576: 7575: 7574: 7573: 7559: 7558: 7557: 7556: 7555: 7554: 7553: 7552: 7551: 7550: 7549: 7548: 7536: 7532: 7531: 7530: 7529: 7528: 7527: 7526: 7525: 7524: 7523: 7513: 7503: 7502: 7501: 7500: 7499: 7498: 7497: 7496: 7486: 7485: 7484: 7483: 7482: 7481: 7480: 7479: 7469: 7465: 7464: 7463: 7462: 7461: 7460: 7459: 7458: 7447: 7444: 7441: 7438: 7435: 7432: 7429: 7425: 7422: 7418: 7415: 7411: 7410: 7409: 7408: 7407: 7406: 7405: 7404: 7403: 7402: 7392: 7391: 7390: 7389: 7388: 7387: 7386: 7385: 7377: 7372: 7368: 7364: 7363: 7362: 7361: 7360: 7359: 7353: 7343: 7342: 7341: 7340: 7336: 7332: 7328: 7327: 7326: 7324: 7314: 7311: 7308: 7305: 7301: 7299: 7282: 7278: 7274: 7273: 7270: 7265: 7261: 7257: 7254: 7251: 7247: 7246: 7245: 7244: 7243: 7241: 7237: 7233: 7228: 7215: 7208: 7203: 7200: 7196: 7192: 7191: 7190: 7188: 7183: 7179: 7176: 7172: 7170: 7159: 7156: 7154: 7148: 7146: 7140: 7138: 7134: 7130: 7120: 7118: 7115: 7111: 7105: 7103: 7099: 7095: 7091: 7087: 7080: 7078: 7076: 7071: 7061: 7057: 7053: 7052: 7051: 7050: 7046: 7042: 7038: 7037: 7033: 7028: 7027: 7026: 7024: 7020: 7008: 7003: 6999: 6998: 6997: 6996: 6992: 6985: 6981: 6977: 6973: 6972: 6971: 6968: 6963: 6957: 6954: 6953: 6949: 6948: 6942: 6938: 6937:birth control 6933: 6929: 6925: 6924: 6923: 6922: 6914: 6909: 6908: 6907: 6906: 6905: 6904: 6898: 6893: 6892: 6891: 6890: 6885: 6883: 6877: 6872: 6871: 6870: 6868: 6862: 6859: 6850: 6848: 6844: 6841: 6837: 6835: 6831: 6821: 6818: 6816: 6813: 6809: 6805: 6795: 6794: 6793: 6792: 6791: 6789: 6785: 6778:Disambig call 6770: 6766: 6765: 6764: 6763: 6759: 6755: 6751: 6750: 6749: 6747: 6742: 6738: 6724: 6722: 6716: 6712: 6711: 6705: 6700: 6699: 6697: 6693: 6689: 6688: 6687: 6685: 6678: 6667: 6661: 6657: 6654: 6650: 6646: 6642: 6638: 6632: 6628: 6627: 6625: 6620: 6619: 6618: 6616: 6611: 6607: 6606:List of anime 6603: 6599: 6598:List of anime 6578: 6573: 6569: 6565: 6564: 6562: 6558: 6554: 6550: 6545: 6544: 6542: 6538: 6537: 6536: 6535: 6532: 6530: 6524: 6519: 6518: 6517: 6515: 6511: 6507: 6494: 6490: 6487: 6486: 6485: 6484: 6483: 6482: 6476: 6471: 6467: 6466: 6465: 6464: 6460: 6455: 6454: 6453: 6451: 6446: 6431: 6427: 6423: 6419: 6418: 6416: 6410: 6404: 6398: 6392: 6386: 6385: 6383: 6379: 6375: 6371: 6370: 6368: 6362: 6356: 6350: 6344: 6338: 6337: 6336: 6334: 6330: 6319: 6315: 6310: 6309: 6308: 6307: 6306: 6298: 6294: 6290: 6285: 6284: 6283: 6282: 6281: 6279: 6270: 6265: 6260: 6259: 6253: 6249: 6245: 6242: 6241: 6240: 6239: 6235: 6231: 6227: 6223: 6219: 6216: 6212: 6208: 6203: 6202: 6196: 6190: 6185: 6184: 6183: 6182: 6174: 6170: 6169: 6164: 6163: 6162: 6158: 6155: 6154: 6153: 6152: 6148: 6144: 6139: 6138: 6137: 6135: 6131: 6126: 6116: 6114: 6110: 6106: 6096: 6092: 6091: 6089: 6085: 6081: 6077: 6073: 6072: 6071: 6069: 6065: 6061: 6057: 6053: 6043: 6041: 6039: 6030: 6025: 6024: 6020: 6017: 6014:on this one. 6012: 6011: 6008: 6006: 6003: 5998: 5997: 5994: 5992: 5989: 5985: 5981: 5977: 5973: 5969: 5965: 5960: 5959: 5956: 5954: 5950: 5947: 5943: 5938: 5937: 5936: 5934: 5930: 5921: 5916: 5911: 5908: 5904: 5902: 5899: 5895: 5891: 5890:Supreme Court 5887: 5884: 5883: 5881: 5876: 5875: 5874: 5872: 5869: 5865: 5862: 5859:However, the 5857: 5855: 5848: 5845: 5842: 5838: 5835: 5834: 5833: 5831: 5826: 5818: 5816: 5812: 5807: 5805: 5799: 5796: 5787: 5785: 5780: 5779: 5778: 5777: 5769: 5765: 5761: 5758: 5754: 5753: 5752: 5751: 5750: 5749: 5743: 5739: 5738: 5737: 5736: 5730: 5726: 5725: 5724: 5723: 5719: 5716: 5712: 5711: 5710: 5708: 5702: 5698: 5690: 5684: 5679: 5675: 5674:User:Mikkalai 5671: 5670: 5666: 5659: 5654: 5653: 5649: 5645: 5639: 5638: 5635: 5627: 5626: 5625: 5623: 5617: 5613: 5609: 5605: 5601: 5597: 5596:User:Mikkalai 5590: 5585: 5579: 5574: 5573: 5572: 5570: 5569:Exploding Boy 5566: 5563: 5561: 5556: 5545: 5544: 5543: 5542: 5541: 5540: 5532: 5531: 5530: 5529: 5528: 5527: 5526: 5524: 5516:User accounts 5511: 5507: 5503: 5499: 5495: 5491: 5488:documentary. 5486: 5482: 5481: 5480: 5478: 5474: 5470: 5465: 5458: 5453: 5452: 5451: 5449: 5443: 5440: 5433: 5430: 5426: 5422: 5421: 5420: 5418: 5415: 5412:its worth. -- 5409: 5407: 5403: 5399: 5395: 5391: 5388:and superior 5387: 5383: 5379: 5374: 5372: 5368: 5362: 5360: 5356: 5352: 5347: 5342: 5340: 5336: 5333: 5324: 5317: 5316: 5315: 5311: 5309: 5305: 5299: 5297: 5293: 5289: 5285: 5274: 5269: 5265: 5261: 5260: 5259: 5258: 5253: 5249: 5248: 5243: 5239: 5235: 5234: 5233: 5232: 5231: 5229: 5224: 5215: 5210: 5206: 5202: 5199: 5198: 5194: 5190: 5185: 5184: 5178: 5173: 5172: 5171: 5170: 5169: 5167: 5163: 5159: 5155: 5152: 5144: 5140: 5135: 5134: 5122: 5118: 5114: 5113: 5112: 5111: 5110: 5109: 5108: 5107: 5106: 5105: 5095: 5090: 5089: 5088: 5087: 5086: 5085: 5084: 5083: 5075: 5070: 5069: 5068: 5067: 5066: 5065: 5057: 5052: 5051: 5050: 5049: 5048: 5047: 5041: 5037: 5033: 5032:all-embracing 5029: 5025: 5021: 5017: 5016: 5015: 5014: 5013: 5011: 5003: 4999: 4995: 4994: 4993: 4991: 4988: 4984: 4975: 4969: 4964: 4959: 4958: 4950: 4946: 4942: 4941: 4940: 4939: 4938: 4937: 4931: 4927: 4923: 4919: 4918: 4917: 4916: 4912: 4908: 4904: 4903:naryathegreat 4900: 4899: 4898: 4896: 4895:naryathegreat 4891: 4887: 4883: 4879: 4878: 4873: 4872: 4867: 4863: 4858: 4852: 4851: 4850: 4839: 4837: 4828: 4827: 4826: 4825: 4821: 4817: 4813: 4812:very bad idea 4809: 4808: 4804: 4801: 4796: 4795: 4791: 4786: 4785: 4781: 4777: 4776: 4771: 4766: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4757: 4753: 4751: 4744: 4736: 4735: 4733: 4719: 4714: 4713: 4705: 4701: 4700: 4698: 4693: 4690: 4686: 4682: 4681: 4679: 4675: 4674: 4670: 4665: 4664: 4660: 4656: 4651: 4650: 4647: 4644: 4642: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4634: 4630: 4626: 4622: 4609: 4605: 4601: 4600: 4596: 4593: 4589: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4582: 4577: 4561: 4559: 4553: 4548: 4544: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4537: 4532: 4531: 4523: 4518: 4517: 4515: 4510: 4509: 4507: 4502: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4494: 4490: 4480: 4474: 4467: 4463: 4459: 4458: 4457: 4455: 4451: 4443: 4436: 4433: 4432: 4428: 4424: 4423: 4419: 4415: 4411: 4410: 4406: 4402: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4393: 4389: 4376: 4373: 4369: 4368: 4361: 4356: 4353: 4349: 4346: 4342: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4335: 4331: 4326: 4325: 4317: 4313: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4298: 4295: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4283: 4278: 4277: 4271: 4267: 4263: 4262: 4261: 4260: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4247: 4238:And I am hot. 4237: 4234: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4216: 4215: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4196: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4185: 4180: 4173: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4164: 4160: 4156: 4147: 4144: 4143: 4139: 4136: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4128: 4123: 4116: 4108: 4105: 4100: 4097: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4089: 4084: 4082: 4081: 4075: 4062: 4057: 4056: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4040: 4035: 4033: 4028: 4026: 4021: 4019: 4014: 4012: 4008: 4003: 4001: 3997: 3996:Category:Time 3994:Browsing the 3987: 3985: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3971: 3967: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3953: 3945: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3928: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3912: 3908: 3904: 3900: 3896: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3885: 3881: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3871: 3868: 3865: 3864:Best Regards 3862: 3859: 3856: 3852: 3850: 3844: 3840: 3839: 3834: 3832: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3798: 3794: 3789: 3788: 3782: 3777: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3747: 3744: 3741: 3738: 3737: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3699: 3691: 3687: 3682: 3679: 3676: 3673: 3672: 3669: 3666: 3665: 3664:Article 65 3663: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3644: 3637: 3635: 3630: 3628: 3613: 3608: 3607: 3597: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3578: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3562: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3550: 3546: 3542: 3539: 3534: 3530: 3529: 3528: 3526: 3522: 3519: 3503: 3496: 3492: 3487: 3486: 3484: 3480: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3472: 3470: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3449: 3441: 3439: 3435: 3425: 3423: 3414: 3410: 3409: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3399: 3394: 3392: 3383: 3379: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3370: 3361: 3357: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3348: 3343: 3340: 3337: 3331: 3328: 3323: 3309: 3306: 3305:Suffix (name) 3302: 3298: 3295:According to 3294: 3293: 3291: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3282: 3278: 3267: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3256: 3251: 3250: 3246: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3226: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3210: 3205: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3187: 3183: 3164: 3162: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3141: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3096: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3077: 3074: 3071: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3043: 3038: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3000: 2995: 2982: 2977: 2975: 2971: 2968: 2964: 2961: 2959: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2924: 2922: 2911: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2889: 2883: 2877: 2871: 2865: 2859: 2855: 2852: 2849: 2846: 2843: 2840: 2837: 2834: 2831: 2830: 2827: 2822: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2814: 2808: 2802: 2796: 2790: 2771: 2768:. Thanks. -- 2767: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2737: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2692: 2689: 2687: 2684: 2679: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2660: 2658: 2654: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2628: 2624: 2619: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2611: 2600: 2598: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2574: 2571: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2530: 2526: 2509: 2505: 2500: 2499: 2497: 2490: 2486: 2485: 2483: 2478: 2477: 2469: 2466: 2462: 2461: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2445: 2442: 2438: 2433: 2430: 2427: 2424: 2416: 2413: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2399: 2380: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2360: 2356: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2328: 2325: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2311: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2264: 2253: 2249: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2237: 2233: 2232: 2228: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2219: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2202: 2190: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2145: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2128: 2120: 2118: 2114: 2102: 2098: 2094: 2089: 2088: 2083: 2080: 2078: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2044: 2039: 2031: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2022: 2018: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1945: 1942:(Copied from 1931: 1927: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1918: 1913: 1910: 1907: 1904: 1898: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1889: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1847: 1842: 1838: 1835:page and the 1834: 1821: 1817: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1808: 1803: 1798: 1790: 1787: 1785: 1783: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1763: 1762: 1748: 1743: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1720: 1714: 1711: 1710:Whosyourjudas 1707: 1703: 1699: 1696:For example: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1676: 1673: 1672:Whosyourjudas 1669: 1653: 1652: 1650: 1646: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1638: 1634: 1630: 1626: 1621: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1597: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1589: 1576: 1570: 1567: 1559: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1551: 1547: 1537: 1534: 1532: 1528: 1515: 1510: 1499: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1487: 1485: 1481: 1478: 1477: 1475: 1470: 1467: 1463: 1462: 1460: 1456: 1451: 1450: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1436: 1431: 1424: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1385: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1374: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1363: 1359: 1356: 1352: 1350: 1333: 1329: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1301: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1275: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1251: 1247: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1228: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1212: 1209: 1206: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1154: 1153: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 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: 370: 367: 363: 359: 355: 351: 347: 343: 339: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 311: 307: 303: 299: 295: 291: 287: 283: 279: 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: 8731:user:zanimum 8728: 8713:{{wikinews}} 8671: 8668: 8665: 8659: 8637: 8634: 8631: 8625: 8618: 8616: 8604: 8597: 8581: 8561: 8553: 8543: 8528: 8512: 8501: 8493: 8486: 8444: 8435:User:Vergina 8432: 8378: 8356: 8355: 8353: 8331: 8313: 8307: 8303: 8297: 8294: 8270: 8262: 8252: 8241: 8216: 8215: 8200: 8189: 8179: 8172: 8122: 8109: 8088: 8080: 8015: 8005: 8001: 7995: 7987: 7967: 7937: 7934: 7930: 7925: 7922: 7915: 7893: 7878: 7860: 7830: 7812: 7785: 7772: 7771: 7754: 7739: 7728:Tony Sidaway 7723: 7721: 7710: 7706: 7703: 7699: 7698: 7693: 7691: 7666:all the time 7665: 7655: 7638:Tony Sidaway 7634: 7467: 7445: 7427: 7420: 7413: 7370: 7366: 7315: 7312: 7309: 7306: 7302: 7295: 7268: 7224: 7184: 7180: 7177: 7173: 7165: 7157: 7149: 7141: 7126: 7109: 7106: 7098:Tony Sidaway 7093: 7081: 7069: 7067: 7015: 6975: 6960: 6955: 6881: 6863: 6860: 6856: 6845: 6842: 6838: 6827: 6819: 6801: 6781: 6737:CannedLizard 6734: 6720: 6673: 6665: 6630: 6609: 6595: 6571: 6548: 6528: 6502: 6444: 6441: 6421: 6373: 6325: 6304: 6292: 6288: 6274: 6229: 6221: 6166: 6156: 6122: 6102: 6079: 6075: 6051: 6049: 6034: 5999: 5983: 5980:overwhelming 5979: 5975: 5971: 5967: 5963: 5961: 5941: 5939: 5929:Tony Sidaway 5925: 5907:Ben Brockert 5896:, et al. v. 5866: 5858: 5851: 5840: 5827: 5824: 5808: 5792: 5781: 5694: 5642: 5611: 5594: 5583: 5567: 5564: 5557: 5554: 5519: 5497: 5493: 5489: 5485:a particular 5484: 5463: 5462: 5444: 5441: 5437: 5410: 5375: 5366: 5363: 5350: 5343: 5341:21:54 (UTC) 5328: 5312: 5300: 5281: 5263: 5251: 5245: 5220: 5200: 5189:Tony Sidaway 5162:encyclopedia 5148: 5035: 5031: 5027: 5023: 5019: 5006: 4997: 4982: 4979: 4944: 4889: 4885: 4876: 4875: 4870: 4869: 4865: 4853: 4846: 4845: 4834: 4811: 4749: 4747: 4745: 4742: 4729: 4728: 4684: 4618: 4575: 4573: 4557: 4546: 4486: 4478: 4465: 4461: 4450:Tony Sidaway 4447: 4385: 4372:Paul August 4329: 4235:I am French. 4232:I am single. 4194: 4154: 4152: 4112: 4102: 4088:deletion log 4085: 4079: 4078: 4071: 4036: 4029: 4022: 4015: 4004: 3993: 3981: 3960: 3897:. I'll call 3872: 3869: 3866: 3863: 3860: 3857: 3853: 3845: 3841: 3835: 3828: 3776:transforming 3775: 3639: 3631: 3622: 3532: 3514: 3465:Gabriel Kent 3457:Gabriel Kent 3450: 3447: 3431: 3418: 3406: 3395: 3390: 3387: 3382:Niteowlneils 3365: 3345:Thank you.-- 3344: 3341: 3339:the bottom. 3335: 3332: 3326: 3324: 3320: 3290:Niteowlneils 3281:Niteowlneils 3276: 3273: 3209:Niteowlneils 3206: 3179: 2991: 2939: 2935: 2927: 2925: 2918: 2784: 2718: 2693: 2690: 2680: 2670: 2666: 2657:Niteowlneils 2649: 2621:already. -- 2610:Niteowlneils 2606: 2583: 2551: 2522: 2434: 2431: 2428: 2425: 2422: 2414: 2395: 2354: 2259: 2203: 2199: 2171: 2167: 2165: 2157: 2149: 2137: 2129: 2126: 2110: 2096: 2084: 2075: 2035: 2014: 1973:Audio sample 1941: 1940: 1914: 1911: 1908: 1905: 1902: 1896: 1890: 1886: 1830: 1799: 1796: 1788: 1758: 1757: 1665: 1644: 1633:Talk:Bedsore 1622: 1619: 1601:Counterpunch 1600: 1596:Counterpunch 1595: 1585: 1575:Niteowlneils 1543: 1535: 1524: 1429: 1427: 1422: 1417: 1371: 1360: 1357: 1353: 1346: 1182: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1161: 368: 109: 97: 93: 81: 30:Village pump 28: 8681:violet/riga 8649:violet/riga 8169:Translators 8057:{{sofixit}} 7907:violet/riga 7757:violet/riga 7002:Evil Monkey 6962:Evil Monkey 6802:In case of 6615:Khym Chanur 6422:Utne Reader 6293:influential 6264:coup d'etat 5715:violet/riga 5402:Hugh Hefner 5268:Evil Monkey 5209:Evil Monkey 5038:censorship? 4985:been on).-- 4963:Evil Monkey 4765:Evil Monkey 4468:minutiae. 4032:Chronovisor 4000:Chronovisor 3867:Raul Nugis 2905:Evil Monkey 2821:Evil Monkey 2603:blank pages 2307:violet/riga 1841:Evil Monkey 1733:WikiReaders 8739:✏ Sverdrup 8413:Ollieplatt 8309:Ollieplatt 8299:Ollieplatt 8248:Ollieplatt 8040:OldakQuill 7862:neutrality 7814:neutrality 6913:✏ Sverdrup 6641:to-do list 5953:since 1959 5784:Michael Z. 5473:guillotine 5469:Joe Friday 5398:corruption 5149:Photos of 4996:You say - 4974:discussion 4629:WikiTravel 4282:Shane King 3689:paragraph. 3266:Apwoolrich 2940:displaying 2739:of Britain 2719:compulsory 2227:Factitious 1737:✏ Sverdrup 1588:Tom Lantos 1558:bestiality 1498:(はさばくのきつね) 1430:encouraged 1187:plagiarism 100:Archives: 51:persistent 8660:BLANKFAZE 8626:BLANKFAZE 8600:blankfaze 8407:See also 8342:See also 7982:Thryduulf 7962:Thryduulf 7898:long npov 7788:Catherine 7017:Carlin's 6804:Mount Ida 6784:Mount_Ida 6704:Thryduulf 6445:defending 5429:AllyUnion 5414:AllyUnion 5382:Penthouse 5247:The Bible 5238:Holocaust 5117:straw man 5028:inclusive 4893:please.-- 4871:necessary 4864:actually 4756:Simonides 4730:Moved to 4522:Nasrallah 4506:Nasrallah 4312:Johnleemk 4310:Dittoed. 3536:stations. 3327:beginning 3297:etiquette 2770:Avaragado 2708:Avaragado 2594:AllyUnion 2590:consensus 2525:this page 2400:. Please 2101:Stbalbach 2043:Stbalbach 1514:Dysprosia 1272:page). -- 1183:summarize 46:Proposals 41:Technical 8706:Sketchee 8619:internal 8609:BesigedB 8584:Wikinews 8572:Maurreen 8456:Rdsmith4 8417:Libertas 8411:, where 8357:WILL NOT 8027:Peter O. 7970:Filiocht 7866:disputed 7818:disputed 7416:article. 7316:Thanks, 7023:Alterego 6577:Filiocht 6541:Filiocht 6514:Filiocht 6252:Maurreen 6207:Peter O. 6016:Dpbsmith 6002:Dpbsmith 5988:Dpbsmith 5894:Ashcroft 5868:Ashibaka 5841:WARNING: 5768:Russian: 5644:article. 5565:Anyone? 5490:However, 5477:Alterego 5390:morality 5292:trapdoor 5154:violence 4922:clitoris 4890:underage 4866:contains 4514:→Raul654 4466:fancruft 4388:Jay Chow 4352:Wikilove 4294:Chris 73 4135:Dpbsmith 4104:restored 4039:Paranoid 4011:fancruft 4007:One Ring 3870:Estonia 3808:Peter O. 3657:) reads: 3491:this one 3467:there. — 3422:Kaonashi 3398:Kaonashi 3369:Kaonashi 3347:Kaonashi 3221:Maurreen 3042:23skidoo 2999:23skidoo 2974:BernardM 2944:Dwheeler 2936:creating 2921:Skysmith 2743:Peter O. 2379:Dwheeler 2324:jpgordon 2215:jpgordon 2170:If not, 2021:Rmhermen 1992:Peter O. 1962:Maurreen 1747:Dwheeler 1649:Skysmith 1637:Pontifex 1455:jpgordon 1403:Maurreen 58:Idea lab 8317:gadfium 8315:yours?- 8160:Circeus 8137:Circeus 7958:Genesis 7371:default 7367:neither 7110:someone 7086:Firefox 7056:grendel 7032:Shimmin 6847:Pjacobi 6489:Sealand 6109:Rbellin 6064:Rbellin 6029:Kaldari 5948:, also 5900:et al. 5830:Lolicon 5766:, , or 5634:Russian 5547:couple. 5448:Shimmin 5378:Playboy 5371:-ÅrÐ£nT 5359:-ÅrÐ£nT 5351:against 5320:— Matt 5288:reality 5151:graphic 4697:Kaldari 4493:Rhobite 4470:— Matt 4439:— Matt 4360:Andrewa 4155:obvious 4133:Agree. 3984:Wulfson 3438:The Tom 3140:be bold 2928:require 2683:Proteus 2676:Dabbler 2558:SWAdair 2529:Sridhar 2406:grendel 2142:...the 2077:William 2052:William 2038:William 1926:Fredrik 1897:Cyclist 1855:Fredrik 1779:Charles 1629:bedsore 1563:— Matt 8535:Jmabel 8520:Jmabel 8494:<s 8232:Jooler 8227:Jooler 8145:Cyrius 7918:mensch 7674:works. 7426:It is 7419:It is 7412:It is 7281:ChrisO 7277:WP:MVP 7264:Aranel 7236:Jmabel 7195:Cyrius 7187:Squash 7169:Squash 7075:→Reene 6941:Samboy 6867:Toytoy 6788:RoyBoy 6769:RoyBoy 6754:Cyrius 6746:RoyBoy 6624:SimonP 6561:Iasson 6510:Dr Zen 6493:Jooler 6450:Dr Zen 6426:Jmabel 6378:Jmabel 6329:Jmabel 6297:Philip 6278:Morris 6269:Jooler 6244:Jooler 6222:become 6194:(Talk) 6189:Jayjg 6173:Iasson 6161:Dr Zen 6143:Jmabel 6134:Jooler 6095:Improv 6084:Jmabel 6038:→Reene 6019:(talk) 6005:(talk) 5991:(talk) 5940:Well, 5920:Improv 5880:Toytoy 5803:(Talk) 5798:Jayjg 5706:(Talk) 5701:Jayjg 5688:(Talk) 5683:Jayjg 5648:Morris 5621:(Talk) 5616:Jayjg 5578:JesseW 5510:E.A.N. 5432:(talk) 5417:(talk) 5394:poison 5386:ethics 5322:Crypto 5282:Evil: 5228:Jooler 5177:Samboy 5158:nudity 5143:Improv 5121:Jooler 5094:Samboy 5074:Jooler 5056:Jooler 5040:Dr Zen 5036:really 5002:Jooler 4949:Philip 4930:Dr Zen 4911:Morris 4790:Morris 4780:SimonP 4678:Morris 4655:Cyrius 4604:Cyrius 4536:Morris 4472:Crypto 4441:Crypto 4427:Dan100 4414:Cyrius 4405:Morris 4334:Dr Zen 4266:Cyrius 4159:Cyrius 4138:(talk) 4061:Philip 4047:Jmabel 3944:Andres 3927:Andres 3907:Jmabel 3880:Cyrius 3793:Cyrius 3781:Toytoy 3703:Toytoy 3643:Toytoy 3634:Toytoy 3596:Dr Zen 3577:Golbez 3561:Morris 3549:Golbez 3538:Dr Zen 3525:Morris 3479:Cyrius 3469:Korath 3408:Bistro 3356:Smoddy 3301:Junior 3255:Morris 3095:Toytoy 3022:Cyrius 3007:Cyrius 2723:Philip 2686:(Talk) 2642:SimonP 2623:Cyrius 2616:Well, 2597:(talk) 2570:Vacuum 2537:Cyrius 2504:Smoddy 2482:Morris 2465:Vacuum 2454:Jmabel 2441:Vacuum 2303:SimonP 2292:SimonP 2275:Jmabel 2236:Smoddy 2189:JesseW 2176:Jmabel 2060:SimonP 2030:Golbez 1917:Paul G 1870:Jmabel 1816:Jmabel 1807:Calair 1773:) and 1724:Improv 1713:(talk) 1683:Jmabel 1675:(talk) 1645:unless 1605:Jmabel 1565:Crypto 1495:Fennec 1384:Jallan 1328:Jmabel 1274:Improv 1246:Jmabel 36:Policy 8518:. -- 8489:G-Man 8291:page? 8244:RickK 8006:other 7943:blaze 7747:blaze 7711:The 7684:blaze 7617:blaze 7510:blaze 7350:blaze 7321:blaze 7279:. -- 7269:Sarah 7234:? -- 7178:into 7153:Zocky 7045:Rd232 7007:Talk 6967:Talk 6932:woman 6610:don't 6424:. -- 6402:stalk 6354:stalk 6107:. -- 5764:Russ. 5498:which 5339:01-03 5284:Logic 5273:Talk 5214:Talk 4968:Talk 4770:Talk 4669:Bryan 4095:...') 3966:Ramir 3899:Drbug 3391:can't 3308:Quill 3161:rbrwr 3118:WP:CP 2967:Linux 2954:). ~ 2910:Talk 2875:stalk 2826:Talk 2800:stalk 2781:Flash 2721:POV. 2562:Talk 2359:wiser 2351:older 2250:) -- 2117:Key45 1899:is... 1846:Talk 1531:PRiis 1466:IRude 1362:Quill 1211:Quill 1174:Quill 88:start 16:< 8691:Mike 8666:(что 8632:(что 8546:Rick 8539:Talk 8524:Talk 8476:Rick 8464:Talk 8425:talk 8421:Thue 8362:Rick 8255:Rick 8203:Rick 8182:Rick 8135:? -- 8073:Zain 8031:Talk 8002:know 7859:The 7811:The 7732:Talk 7724:will 7715:and 7642:Talk 7240:Talk 7102:Talk 7094:only 7088:and 7060:khan 6897:ilya 6696:talk 6692:Thue 6653:Talk 6649:Phil 6556:talk 6553:SASE 6430:Talk 6408:mail 6396:talk 6382:Talk 6360:mail 6348:talk 6333:Talk 6318:TVPR 6234:Deco 6230:very 6211:Talk 6147:Talk 6113:Talk 6088:Talk 6068:Talk 5984:were 5976:well 5933:Talk 5910:(42) 5759:, or 5591:page 5406:IZAK 5396:and 5346:NPOV 5335:2005 5308:Deco 5296:IZAK 5286:and 5264:that 5193:Talk 5166:IZAK 5139:here 5020:vary 5010:IZAK 4983:I've 4877:many 4836:Zain 4820:Deco 4718:Deco 4621:GFDL 4619:The 4581:Mike 4576:beta 4454:Talk 4316:Talk 4297:Talk 4051:Talk 3961:only 3911:Talk 3833:). 3812:Talk 3612:Deco 3533:that 3461:here 3360:Talk 3192:but 3184:but 3114:diff 2881:mail 2869:talk 2847:etc. 2806:mail 2794:talk 2747:Talk 2640:. - 2508:Talk 2458:Talk 2410:khan 2327:∇∆∇∆ 2279:Talk 2218:∇∆∇∆ 2180:Talk 2087:John 2058:. - 2056:John 1996:Talk 1930:talk 1874:Talk 1859:talk 1820:Talk 1700:and 1687:Talk 1662:PDFs 1609:Talk 1550:Slim 1474:Deco 1459:gab} 1447:Deco 1373:Maxx 1349:Deco 1332:Talk 1300:Deco 1250:Talk 1227:Deco 1195:Deco 1189:and 8750:mav 8721:JRM 8684:(t) 8652:(t) 8460:Dan 8439:dab 8393:Mgm 8373:dab 8326:dab 8196:Neo 8175:Neo 8127:or 8104:dab 8061:JRM 8051:or 8010:dab 7926:and 7910:(t) 7760:(t) 7740:all 7428:not 7421:not 7414:one 7262:? - 7250:Mgm 7207:fvw 7114:Mgm 7070:all 6984:fvw 6876:dab 6812:Mgm 6715:dab 6677:fvw 6634:up. 6631:top 6523:dab 6414:csb 6390:XED 6366:csb 6342:XED 6080:out 6076:his 6054:at 5964:are 5871:tlk 5718:(t) 5658:fvw 5494:not 5380:or 5262:Is 4990:(t) 4945:not 4800:Mgm 4625:FSF 4595:Gdr 4552:dab 4545:it 4330:not 4172:fvw 4115:fvw 3851:). 3495:fvw 3413:_R_ 3336:why 3238:fvw 3204:.) 2970:PPC 2956:mlk 2952:SVG 2887:csb 2863:XED 2860:. - 2812:csb 2788:XED 2489:fvw 2310:(t) 2252:HBK 2174:-- 1572:--> 1484:dab 1435:dab 1152:196 1148:195 1144:194 1140:193 1136:192 1132:191 1128:190 1124:189 1120:188 1116:187 1112:186 1108:185 1104:184 1100:183 1096:182 1092:181 1088:180 1084:179 1080:178 1076:177 1072:176 1068:175 1064:174 1060:173 1056:172 1052:171 1048:170 1044:169 1040:168 1036:167 1032:166 1028:165 1024:164 1020:163 1016:162 1012:161 1008:160 1004:159 1000:158 996:157 992:156 988:155 984:154 980:153 976:152 972:151 968:150 964:149 960:148 956:147 952:146 948:145 944:144 940:143 936:142 932:141 928:140 924:139 920:138 916:137 912:136 908:135 904:134 900:133 896:132 892:131 888:130 884:129 880:128 876:127 872:126 868:125 864:124 860:123 856:122 852:121 848:120 844:119 840:118 836:117 832:116 828:115 824:114 820:113 816:112 812:111 808:110 804:109 800:108 796:107 792:106 788:105 784:104 780:103 776:102 772:101 768:100 63:WMF 8719:. 8669:?? 8663:| 8635:?? 8629:| 8537:| 8522:| 8462:| 8458:— 8423:| 8346:. 8102:. 7941:da 7938:-- 7920:. 7901:}} 7895:{{ 7745:da 7682:da 7615:da 7612:-- 7508:da 7348:da 7319:da 7266:(" 7238:| 7205:-- 7004:→ 6964:→ 6694:| 6651:| 6428:| 6380:| 6331:| 6213:, 6191:| 6145:| 6086:| 5955:. 5892:, 5800:| 5703:| 5685:| 5656:-- 5618:| 5427:-- 5270:→ 5240:, 5211:→ 5203:: 5119:. 4965:→ 4767:→ 4685:is 4547:is 4437:. 4314:| 4195:is 4170:-- 4049:| 4013:. 3909:| 3814:, 3420:-- 3358:| 3219:. 3188:; 2981:Hn 2907:→ 2844:, 2841:, 2838:, 2835:, 2823:→ 2749:, 2560:| 2506:| 2456:| 2349:. 2277:| 2178:| 2115:-- 2019:. 1998:, 1928:| 1915:— 1895:A 1872:| 1857:| 1843:→ 1818:| 1782:P. 1685:| 1607:| 1453:-- 1330:| 1248:| 1193:. 1150:, 1146:, 1142:, 1138:, 1134:, 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:, 764:99 762:, 760:98 758:, 756:97 754:, 752:96 750:, 748:95 746:, 744:94 742:, 740:93 738:, 736:92 734:, 732:91 730:, 728:90 726:, 724:89 722:, 720:88 718:, 716:87 714:, 712:86 710:, 708:85 706:, 704:84 702:, 700:83 698:, 696:82 694:, 692:81 690:, 688:80 686:, 684:79 682:, 680:78 678:, 676:77 674:, 672:76 670:, 668:75 666:, 664:74 662:, 660:73 658:, 656:72 654:, 652:71 650:, 648:70 646:, 644:69 642:, 640:68 638:, 636:67 634:, 632:66 630:, 628:65 626:, 624:64 622:, 620:63 618:, 616:62 614:, 612:61 610:, 608:60 606:, 604:59 602:, 600:58 598:, 596:57 594:, 592:56 590:, 588:55 586:, 584:54 582:, 580:53 578:, 576:52 574:, 572:51 570:, 568:50 566:, 564:49 562:, 560:48 558:, 556:47 554:, 552:46 550:, 548:45 546:, 544:44 542:, 540:43 538:, 536:42 534:, 532:41 530:, 528:40 526:, 524:39 522:, 520:38 518:, 516:37 514:, 512:36 510:, 508:35 506:, 504:34 502:, 500:33 498:, 496:32 494:, 492:31 490:, 488:30 486:, 484:29 482:, 480:28 478:, 476:27 474:, 472:26 470:, 468:25 466:, 464:24 462:, 460:23 458:, 456:22 454:, 452:21 450:, 448:20 446:, 444:19 442:, 440:18 438:, 436:17 434:, 432:16 430:, 428:15 426:, 424:14 422:, 420:13 418:, 416:12 414:, 412:11 410:, 408:10 406:, 402:, 398:, 394:, 390:, 386:, 382:, 378:, 374:, 366:BO 364:, 362:BN 360:, 358:BM 356:, 354:BL 352:, 350:BK 348:, 346:BJ 344:, 342:BI 340:, 338:BH 336:, 334:BG 332:, 330:BF 328:, 326:BE 324:, 322:BD 320:, 318:BC 316:, 314:BB 312:, 310:BA 308:, 306:AZ 304:, 302:AY 300:, 298:AX 296:, 294:AW 292:, 290:AV 288:, 286:AU 284:, 282:AT 280:, 278:AS 276:, 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:, 8672:) 8638:) 8549:K 8479:K 8447:) 8445:ᛏ 8443:( 8395:| 8381:) 8379:ᛏ 8377:( 8365:K 8334:) 8332:ᛏ 8330:( 8258:K 8206:K 8185:K 8149:✎ 8147:| 8112:) 8110:ᛏ 8108:( 8029:( 8018:) 8016:ᛏ 8014:( 7885:) 7879:( 7875:. 7869:. 7837:) 7831:( 7827:. 7821:. 7730:| 7640:| 7252:| 7212:* 7199:✎ 7197:| 7116:| 7100:| 7058:| 6989:* 6884:) 6882:ᛏ 6880:( 6814:| 6758:✎ 6756:| 6723:) 6721:ᛏ 6719:( 6682:* 6531:) 6529:ᛏ 6527:( 6411:. 6405:. 6399:. 6393:. 6363:. 6357:. 6351:. 6345:. 6209:( 6159:. 6111:| 6066:| 5942:I 5931:| 5839:( 5782:— 5770:. 5663:* 5508:– 5337:- 5191:| 4802:| 4734:. 4659:✎ 4657:| 4608:✎ 4606:| 4579:— 4560:) 4558:ᛏ 4556:( 4452:| 4418:✎ 4416:| 4375:☎ 4270:✎ 4268:| 4183:† 4177:* 4163:✎ 4161:| 4126:† 4120:* 4106:) 3884:✎ 3882:| 3810:( 3797:✎ 3795:| 3500:* 3483:✎ 3481:| 3243:* 3026:✎ 3024:| 3011:✎ 3009:| 2884:. 2878:. 2872:. 2866:. 2809:. 2803:. 2797:. 2791:. 2745:( 2627:✎ 2625:| 2573:c 2541:✎ 2539:| 2494:* 2468:c 2444:c 2408:| 2355:≠ 1994:( 1457:{ 404:9 400:8 396:7 392:6 388:5 384:4 380:3 376:2 372:1 369:· 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 (policy)/Archive C - Knowledge

Index