Knowledge:Village pump (policy)/Archive P

7046:

credentialed contributor would be done in the completely opposite fashion of everything at Knowledge. Instead of people being able to sign up for this level of access, it would be something which the user is contacted by Knowledge admins. Starting with current contributors who are acknowledged as experts in their field, a referral system would be used so that credentialed contributors could recommend additional people to contact as a potential credentialed contributor. Additionally, users could request credentialed contributor access by providing documentation which would provide verification of their expertise. They would then be asked to submit their resume, or automatically given permissions based on a set number of referrals by credentialed contributors (i.e. - if 5 credentialed contributors recommended Albert Einstein, then he would automatically receive credentialed contributor status if he wanted it). One limitation on the scope of the access granted to the credentialed contributor could be that it would be limited to a specific subject matter (i.e. - Albert Einstein would receive credentialed contributor access to the Math/Physics section of Knowledge articles and everywhere else he would be a normal user). The benefit of being a credentialed contributor would be that any modification or entry that a credentialed contributor made would be unalterable by basic users. A change to what a credentialed contributor could be suggested, but it would have to be approved by a user with higher access (credentialed contributor, admin, etc.). Additional privileges and rights could be assigned to a credentialed contributor.

8024:

example of this, I believe, involves the current dispute I am having with Wiki administrators over the repeated publication of libelous statements by Wiki user Julio Siqueria. I have repeatedly complained, cited examples of his defamation, and asked that he be stopped from publishing any more libelous material on Wiki. Yet, just this morning, Siqueria published more defamation on Knowledge. He falsely stated that I am under psychiatric care. (For those not familiar with libel law, falsely saying someone is mentally ill is considered defamation per se. No evidence of damage is necessary for defamation to be proven. Being under psychiatric care in some cases may disqualify people for certain jobs, for purchasing a gun, etc. As the Carter Center for Mental Health keeps pointing out, there is widespread discrimination against people with mental illness. Siqueira clearly sought to exploit this discrimination with his false and libelous accusation.) Although Wiki administrators were repeatedly warned, they have done nothing to stop Siqueira from using Knowledge to defame others. In my opinion, this failure to act responsibly constitutes evidence of a reckless disregard for the truth.

2014:

still exist. I checked last ten pages created in each of the hours, that's 240 pages. Unfortunately, my Firefox died a noble death after I had 80 something tabs open, so I mostly didn't get to do anything about pages that need attention. I also looked at the delete log for Friday. Trying to find out anything meaningful from there would require even more work than this, so I came up with a shortcut: I looked only at the pages in article space that were deleted with the standard summary "Content was foo and the only contributor was bar", and counted IPs and logged users. I reckon that roughly as many articles were deleted friday through AfD as there were nominated for AfD, so I went and pretended that all deleted articles were new pages and added them to the pages that still exist. Here are the results, along with extrapolated values for all new pages from Friday (numbers in italics are calculated, upright numbers are data I gathered):

4389:

changing a section name has no idea of the side effects of their action. Sadly, breaking up into manageable smaller articles isn't generally an option, as inevitably the newly created spin-off article will be AFD'd for not being sufficiently "notable" on its on. The spin-off article's AFD will result in a re-merge, or possibly even a full deletion. Knowledge has a pecular notion that every topic is worthy of exactly one page (as an article is essentially a page of varying length). Somehow other content management systems allow for multi-page articles, but we can't. You can cram the silliest most insignficant item on an already huge article (just think of the all the sections that are actually labelled "Trivia"), without controversy, but if you spin-off a logical chunk into a separate article, it will face AFD (if it's about a person it might even face a speedy). --

6222:

the misinformation insinuates involvement in pedophilia, terrorism or murder (probably the most inflammatory charges I can imagine in the modern world). But perhaps these users were merely trying to express the sharp distinction between technology and social mechanisms which are inexpensive and involve volunteer labor versus those which are expensive and involve highly paid professionals. One reason I think the admin system needs overhaul is that currently I think there are some technical problems which make it more difficult than need be the case for newbies to discover and grasp the distinction between "wikifriendly" ways of doing things (like resolving content disputes over allegations of factual inaccuracies) and "wikihostile" ways. Naturally, we should do everything we can to encourage wikifriendly modes of discourse and dispute resolution.

6054:

of likely vandalism (still relevant in edits), but it's sneakier vandalism or hoaxes that are more problematic. It might be a possible help if anon edits were subject to validation before appearing, and if there was a way of monitoring new registered users closely until they'd shown trustworthiness. Another approach might be to emphasise the unreliability of Knowledge as a positive virtue, a useful reminder to students to always double-check sources: it excels as an introduction to a subject, but not as the truth on tablets of stone. The best answer to vandalism must be more people checking articles and edits, and we do need to rethink RfA which has too often become a way of testing useful editors to destruction rather than encouraging trustworthy people to play more of a part in monitoring quality (check out the

1826:

policy template, without significant debate, is IMO very kuch the wrong way to do this. I understand that originally they two terms had the same meanign on wikipedia, but that hasn't been truew is quite soem time. i also understand that because of this some old pages that are generally treated as policy have not been so labled. That can and should be corrected. if soemone wants to propose that there not be a distinction between "policy" and "guideline" that should be made a s a proposal to cvhange existing policy, and should need to gain consensus just as any proposal for change does. I personally would oppose any such proposal, or at least that is my present view -- I would of course consider arguemtns to the contrary that might be put forward.

7863:

talkpage" piece in about five different places). Maybe you are not "whining", because your concerns are legitimate, but you sound bitter. Either you accept Knowledge for the sad monster it is, and put your shoulder to the wheel to make it a little better, or you write it off, and do an academic fork. This is a serious alternative, and I've had serious discussions about such projects in the past. If the academic fork is GFDL, Knowledge editors can import its work back into Knowledge, and there could be a beneficient synergy between the two projects. But your academic fork will have to start small, because you'd need funding. Plus, you'd need to convince academic editors to use it. The joy of Knowledge is that you can type

1196:. If so please feel free to move it there. The Seigenthaler debacle has had me thinking about a feature I have thought for quite a while may be a good thing. Part of the problem with the Seigenthaler article, in my mind, is that no one was watching it. The idea that "given enough eyes, all errors are shallow", only applies if there are enough eyes. I would like to see a list generated periodically (or in real time) that sorts articles by the number of users watching that article. This would allow interested parties to add underwatched articles to their watch lists so that vandalism there might be more likely to be detected. I have no idea how difficult (or easy) this would be to implement. 8858:

that this dating system is POV! I'm perplexed. Someone suggested it is because it skirts with Christianity and that people opposed to Christianity don't want to use something that was derived from the Christian religion no matter how seperated or accepted BC and AD is. If that is the case I can't believe that anyone would support such a miopic and biased view. What next revert back to the Julian calender? Randomly assign the beginning of the new era 47 years before the supposed birth year of Christ so that it won't have any ties to Christianity?! Religion hadn't even come into the situation for me, but apparently others prejudices are what is causing problems.

7794:"Knowledge has sprung up to fill a temporary void. Copyright law exists in a permanent state of tension, and there's a latency between a new technology being invented and compensation mechanisms being agreed upon that spread that valuable, copyrighted material far and wide. / So I'm very privileged right now, as a member of the San Francisco public library, to be able to tap into expensive databases I couldn't otherwise afford. In ten years time, these "member's societies" will be the norm, and most of us won't even realize we're members. The good stuff will just come out of a computer network." 8931:" have a christian connotation. As such, I believe they are strongly linked to christianity and to the christian parts of the world (or parts with a distinctly christian identity or history, since many parts of northern and western Europe are rapidly secularizing). There are many areas that are not covered by this. One would be ancient Greece, which was an explicitly pagan society. I believe it is inappropriate to use the BC/AD system in an encyclopedia article about e.g. Xenophon, Sophocles or Euripides. I believe an encyclopedia should, in such cases, use BCE/CE. 8908:

should be changed and that it should be up to each contributor to choose which system he or she wishes to use when making an addition. Under NO circumstances should anyone's personal choice of system be disputed or reverted, and this should be a blockable offense from both sides. If I want to add a section with BC in it, that should be fine. If I want to add a section using CE, that should be fine too. It is hardly confusing to use both, and it would stop the edit warring in its tracks.

3396:

printer or Salavan DVD burner guy can sell it (to schools or whatever) for a fair price - if we insisted on no-one making any profit, then only charities could do so (and you might well think that charities have rather more immediate problems on which to spend their money). As the content is free and fairly easy to get, our little Nairobi printer can't corner the market and become a big giant hyperweathy Nairobi printer, as some hungry little agile guy will undercut him. --

5498:

People can use us to find links to primary and secondary sources and get informed there. We also give a good basic idea of great many subjects. But anyone using an often tertiary source like Knowledge to check facts should be either told not to believe everything they read on the internet, or told to do their homework or job properly, as in the hillarious case of NYT reporters who need to be told not to use Knowledge as a source for writing stories

6590:

of it's users. (This has been repeatedly decided by the courts - ISPs and BBS systems cannot be held accountable for user's comments). Also they want to change WP so that there is someone (or some entity) in charge that can take responsibility for WP content, and then hold that entity liable. They could conceivably do the first one, but the second goal is contingent on the first and therefore not really relevant till the first happens. --

8842:

indicating eras, and editors should not change the era notation in an article that is already consistent. In specific cases, if there is some kind of consensus on the article's talk page to use one particular system or another, then that would trump this general guideline, of course. Perhaps by amending the MoS, we could force the issue out of the edit summaries and onto the talk pages, where it belongs. Opinions? -

5816:

what I squawk, although I try not to think about it :-/ So perhaps we are simply discussing which mode of pstittacide we prefer :-/ But seriously, I would like to postpone the inevitable (assuming WP be not the exception which proves the rule). Others who are not as pessimistic about the long term future of WP as I might still agree that realizing the goal of providing the world with a free, on-line, universal,

3908:. Because of the nature of this page, it would be pretty nice for this article to have an image of the guy. Because his site has a big "do not reproduce" etc etc tag on it, i figured taking an image straight from his site was a bad idea, so I emailed him asking for a picture I could use in the wikipedia article. He emailed me back with a picture attached (he also commented on how the article contained lies). 3203:, I'm sure you can see some of the annoying compromises forced by single classification. Sometimes there is no really good place in the hierarchy for something, and other times something really belongs in 2 or more places. I can already imagine edit wars about where some article really "belongs". Let's stay with multiple classification and also try to avoid adding additional clutter to the article intro. 6495:

help for these situations, as people will argue over the template being placed on the page. Also, people may add it to any redirect they don't like without commenting in the edit summary or on the talk page, just like how many "POV" tags are added to articles (mostly by veteran editors and admins). Often the editors haven't edited the article before and don't edit the article after placing the tag. --

7421:

the article you were just at won't show up in the list of articles in this category (!). IMO, the only acceptable way to implement this would be for redirected categories to act more like aliases and show identical content under different names (either name showing the union of the articles added to each). Assuming this all works, now undo such a redirect or redirect a target. Even precisely

3370:

private company selling it for a nominal cost, yet making a small profit (they gave us a euro per copy - 10% is a good cut!). Distributing via commercial companies, who already have the infrastructure in place, is arguably the only efficient way to do such a thing... and they tend to be for-profit organisations, thus rendering a "non-commercial use by nonprofits" interpretation problematic.

5758:, can you please explain just why you would be logged onto "a strange computer" and have the need or ability to create a user account on such a machine? I hope you can provide some innocuous explanation; otherwise, some of us are apt to conclude that this comment speaks volumes about the moral standards of at least some users who badly desire to continue to edit the WP anonymously! 2841:

minutes. Making would-be vandals sign up before creating new pages has the advantage of tending to mean that all new pages are treated with equal suspicion. What's needed is enough people willing to check pages and not just hit the obvious rubbish while letting subtle vandals through. A question: is there duplication of effort with good pages being checked repeatedly? ...

7916:), that has been there since October 2005. A quick search of google reveals nothing. Now, student-athletes commiting sex crimes and being protected by campus authorities is certainly not unheard of--but Knowledge should not repeat such allegations without firm and verifiable evidence. (A bogus link, claiming to be evidence, was included in the article as well). -- 7904:, known attempts at using Knowledge for defamation should be documented, perhaps in the Knowledge namespace? I would limit such a list to significant character attacks which persist for some minimum duration--anonymous rants of "g30rg3 bu$ h is an 33d10t!" which are reverted in minutes don't qualify. I just removed an (unsubstantiated, as far as I can tell) 6960:

so I can write any lie I want here", and use that as a shield. If that was the way we handled libellous matters then I think we'd see the problem reduced. I'm not sure how one addresses it in a practical or policy manner, but I think the principle, that a user who posts libel shouldn't use WP as a shield and it's not really WP's issue to defend it, is sound.

6902:

happen. I think that "hoax" is a bad way to describe it. Perhaps more like "pre-empting an obvious disaster" is a more accurate way to describe it. Knowledge better hire a few lawyers over this one or else they'll be in deep doggy doo. Brandt's a good lawyer. Why not hire him? He beat google after all. Don't want him against you, that's for sure.

8853:

BCE is rather obscure and less well known and rather pointless, if an article was started that way I'm not going to change it. I think it is silly to use these "new" initials when every encyclopedia I have consulted in this matter uses BC and AD. Knowledge does not even have date pages for BCE and CE they are just redirects to the BC and AD date pages.

7143:. Can you refrain from taking your vendetta aginst Amgine across all of Wikimedia? Not everyone likes what he does, no, but if he's a troll I'll eat my hat. (It's a very large hat.) FWIW, I think there are enough cross-project contributors around these parts that such a measure would not be necessary even if proposed under less dubious circumstances. 6945:(as opposed to mistakenly or because they thought it was appropriate) have added information not to help and build wikipedia, but to abuse the above privilege. They should not necessarily be immune for their action any more than a person who posts a libel on a forum. The forum might be -- but users themselves are responsible for their actions. 3887:

please?". The mistake part got removed along with a number of other important but secondary parts of the CSDs a while ago. I think they're all back now. The wider application of this should be dropped: if it a mistake, thats fine, if it's merely a "would prefer this wasn't actually here", then it needs to be decided by more than one person. -

5642:

comments like those above from Deco and C. Parham, I think they must be living in some alternate reality (rather, unreality), but perhaps they are simply watching a very different set of pages from the ones I am watching. I would like to see Jimbo &c. acknowledge (by policy changes, not just discussion) that some pages (such as

7797:"since nothing at all can be trusted, er, "definitively", then Knowledge can't be trusted either. ... Everything you read is suspect! ... Only a paranoiac, or a mad person, can sustain this level of defensiveness for any length of time however, and to hear a putative "encyclopedia" making such a statement is odd, to say the least." 6204:

arbitration, but we all need to recognize that as a practical matter it wouldn't take very many lawsuits to exhaust the WP operating budget (even if they have pro bono lawyers "on retainer"), and as I understand it, there is a real possiblity that a single adverse legal ruling could shut down the entire enterprise in a heartbeat.

8547:, whose offerings all come with a monstrous legal disclaimer prepended, and though that disclaimer may not formally be a license or a copyright notice, my memory is that it sure acts like one. (And that disclaimer annoys the heck out of me, so I think I'm seeing more and more of your objection to Knowledge's use of the GFDL.) 6122:

I much prefer spending time at WP creating new content to spending time on cruft patrol, and as you would guess, this implies that I don't want to have to (hypothetically) spend energy trying to track rapidfire WP policy changes in real time so that I can be confident that I am not violating any policies with any given edit.

4399:

excellent way of encouraging proper breakup of articles. The Knowledge software actually supports subpages using "/", and I believe they were used on Nupedia, but it has long been our policy to not use them because a flat, interlinked article space turned out to work better. You can read all about the history of subpages at

6008:

perhaps someone who truly believes that the right to edit anonymously trumps all other considerations for the health of the WP can explain their reasoning to me. Indeed, we might all perhaps learn that addressing the thorny problem of suppressing wikicruft is even more difficult than we had each previously realized! ---

7582:"... often form a pejorative means of attacking political opponents. This habit of demanding behaviour aligned to one's own desires also occurs in other arenas: one expects "responsibility" from children, parents, spouses, colleagues and employees, meaning they should change their attitudes to suit the speaker." 8542:

And I think the answer (or at least part of it) is that people do this sort of thing all the time, and the legal system doesn't seem to mind. Media companies are constantly republishing PD information with their own, new copyright notices on it, either wrongly, or because they believe they have some

8081:

Now that is a weasel statement: Defamation is of course information. But it's false information that causes injury to a person's (or corporation's) reputation. It is a tort under civil law. By the same argument, one could defend sexual offenders by saying, "what some call "rape," others call "having

8023:

EngineerScotty, a retraction is not always enough to protect a defamer from successfully pressing legal action. If it were, then defamers could just keep defaming and retracting with impunity. This is especially so if a plaintif can prove the defendent acted with reckless disregard for the truth. An

7875:

and know the links will come up blue. Knowledge 1.0 could be such a fork, there could be a select team of academics working on it, but the question will invariably arise, who will select such an "elite"? If you want full control of who's in and who's out, you'd need to do your own private fork, where

7564:

Even as the Seigenthaler scandal was breaking in hundreds of news reports across the world, arbcomm member and suspended (in effect, apparently disbarred) lawyer Fred Bauder voted to endorse the statement that my sourcing standards were "unrealistic," as in, "Why bother for accuracy? Any tabloid crud

7420:

A little more on this - consider the case where a user adds an article to a redirected category. From looking at the article there would be no way to tell anything is even remotely odd. However, if you click on the category link from the article you'll end up at the target category (which is OK) but

6824:

I wrote for my church's public wiki website. Much of the wording is directly applicable IMO; Knowledge shouldn't take itself too seriously. On the other hand, I think the time for a refereed derivative either as part of English Knowledge or as a separate WikiMedia project is at least approaching, and

6053:

I can see why Jimbo "had to do something" relating to the recent embarrassment, and it's actually something I was thinking of as a possible way of slightly discouraging the stream of ridiculous test or joke new articles. The downside is losing the signal that an IP address instead of a username gives

5793:

CH, I for one appreciate what you are saying: losing time with people who are not here to help is a problem. But you seem to be missing an important issue – all we know for certain is that allowing anons to edit is a part of the process that works. We don't know whether it's essential, but we do know

5641:

These are only a few reasons why, based upon my own experience trying to create and maintain high quality articles (in math/physics), I am much more pessimistic than some others who have spoken up about how bad the cruft problem already is, and how important it is to curb anonymous edits. When I see

5572:

at any given moment which I find unacceptable (higher than say one chance in a thousand). Yes, this article is vandalized much more often than some little known stub, but again this would miss the point. Random users, schoolchildren, etc., who visit WP to learn about a topic are much more likely to

5497:

But they sure are acceptable for now. We are a work in progress. Any thinking that we're close to being in publishing quality is strongly misguided. We need hundreds of thousands of articles that far exceed our current FA standards to do that. We are a work in progress, which doesn't make us useless.

4612:

You should definitely cite yourself, particularly if the paper is published online — otherwise not only might your school accuse you of plagiarism, but a vigilant Wikipedian may accuse you of copyright violation. If anyone accuses you of self-promotion or removes the citation you can just explain the

4042:

Its weird -- He has not yet explicitly given me permission to use an image. He replied to my request for image email with an image attachment, but didn't state in the email that I could use it. I replied and (among other things) asked if i had explicit permission to use the image. He did not reply to

3395:

Another reason was part of Jimbo's (and I guess lots of people's) vision for Knowledge: that it could be packaged in some format (whether paper or electronic) and distributed in the third world to folks who don't have reasonable access to the web version. It's only reasonable that the little Nairobi

3015:

Blatant vandalism is very irritating and a waste of many people's time, but actually pretty straightforward. What's worse are things like (i) the scrupulous copying of factoids from other "sources" that are themselves unreliable (and often pretty obviously so, when examined by an adult who's at least

8907:

My concern with this is that it's going to lead to a complete edit war over every article that is currently split between AD and CE. The POV warriors on both sides are going to rush to find articles to make "consistent" and spark 15,000 brushfires around the Wiki. My thoughts are that NO date system

8719:

You seem to view copyright as attaching to the work (a not unreasonable point of view given the prevalence of © on things), but it is really binding on people; it controls what actions you and others may or may not take. There is nothing deceitful or unethical about saying that you agree to license

8687:

No, you misunderstand, you do own the public domain (as does everyone else) and it would be perfectly ethical for me to sign such an agreement. I don't have the right to claim exclusive control over it be that is a seperate thing. When you provide a license with your work you are telling the world

8589:

Maybe it is a little unfair to users to tell them that content if GFDL when in fact it could be found in the public domain and used as such, but surely you recognize that trying to state the least restrictive terms applicable to each given paragraph or passage would be an absurdly complicated task.

8584:

and there would be no problem sticking a big fat copyright notice on it, but I wouldn't be able to enforce any copyright claims that conflicted with the public domain content. In essence, the copyright statement is saying that any content which is original to you must be licensed under the GFDL and

8575:

Anon, the thing you apparently don't appreciate is that works may be simultaneously placed under multiple different licenses even if the terms of which are explicitly incompatible. You aren't making anything more restrictive by doing so as under conflicts the least restrictive terms compatible with

8395:

Now, Knowledge includes considerable amounts of material that was in the public domain when contributed. Copyright-expired encyclopedia articles, US government photos, and so on. I do not believe anyone intended to shut off these sources of content; I think the intent was that people should not be

7862:

Wyss, the problems of Knowledge are well known to every serious editor here. And yes, we need to do some things about them. People are trying, maybe you haven't noted. But you are telling us nothing new, you are just telling it many times (I've seen your "on what was to be my last day of checking my

7849:

Part of this is a true, and sad thing. Many excellent Wikipedians do burn out, and leave in anger or despair over the fate of the project. While this still is a pretty civil place, further methods for dealing with editor burnout would be great. As for the "social responsibilities", details (other

6121:

One reason for careful public discussion before making changes is to avoid creating a situation where Wikimedia rapidly makes a chaotic sequence of possibly unannounced or at least insufficiently publicized WP policy changes, which would obviously be frustrating for everyone here. I said above that

5567:

for months. This is one of the most visited physics-related articles in WP, to judge from the fact that it is vandalized several times per day. Yes, most of this vandalism is reverted, but is not the point. Check the history page of this article, note the timestamps, and do the math. Despite the

5443:

Agreed with DES. I think this is a poor implementation of a reasonable idea -- helping new contributors learn how to edit before cluttering up article-space (say, by following a redlink or hacking their first url). We should NOT change the current minimum time to contribution, which is one of WP's

5420:

could show the number of contributions of the contributor, that would help.) I also think thas will reduce the rate at which useful new volunteers enter the project, while doing little to slow vandalism. i also note that this makes it imposible for non-logged-in users to nominatge pages for deletion

5401:

Also, while the potential loss of good editors resulting from changes like this is a valid concern, there are consequences to accepting a higher level of bad articles. We may lose editors we already have when they get sick of dealing with the articles. A more significant consequence is the amount of

4339:

Situation: Long articles that cover many aspects of a subject. These are difficult to cite in other articles. It almost requires 'sub-links'. My memory of reading the entire home encyclopedia as a child was that entries were generally short. Is there a general policy of fragmentation for better

4100:

The question is, explicit permission under what terms? Remember that the default copyright terms are very restrictive, and to lift them generally requires something more precise than "you can use it." You should ask him specifically whether we can use it under the GFDL, or perhaps under one of the

3369:

Even if the non-commercial license turns out to only be "you must not make a profit", we're still screwed - arranging distribution of something so you don't make a profit yet don't lose money is really tricky, and in many cases (like the German one above) we're not distributing it ourselves - it's a

2651:

Quite fascinating! Although IPs do not significantly outperform registered editors in terms of the volume of garbage produced (55% by IPs), they are disproportionately likely to create bad articles (66% for IPs versus 30% for registered). It will be interesting to repeat this in a few weeks to see

1770:, most of which was put together by a fairly small group of users on the talk page and is felt virtually only on CFD. I'd be surprised if the majority of editors even know this page exists, let alone if it has "wide acceptance among editors." In any case, it's clearly not fundamental in the same way 8176:

Causality is the wrong way around here. People with accounts generally make better edits because more dedicated editors create accounts. If you restrict anons they'll just make the same changes with throwaway accounts and become more difficult to detect. And if you think the additional trouble will

6959:

I can see problems and concerns, but i think legally and morally, someone who uses Knowledge not to build an encyclopedia, but visibly to libel someone (a very VERY small class of edits), shouldn't be able to hide behind "Oh I'm just contributing to an encyclopedia that says users can add anything,

6589:

here - I think this is just a joke or some way for someone to get some attention/money. I can't find a single legal argument that really holds water. They claim to represent epople who have lots money due to Knowledge, and frankly, I don't see how the wikipedia foundationc an be sued for the claims

6524:

The Wikimedia Foundation, by contrast, is essentially litigation-proof. It's got virtually no cash, no real assets, no income, no customers, no contracts, and no worthwhile intellectual property (individual contributors own the encyclopedia, collectively; the foundation owns none of it). Other than

6350:

and it looks like there is a few editors having a fight over whether a mention should be made of HK in that article (for me, I explicitly mention HK to avoid any doubt). But I am a bit worried I might be treading against some policy here (and a bit scared of this Huiawei guy). Pointers anyone????

6239:

Beyond this, we probably need to try harder to help technically incompetent newbies learn our ways, or at least seek effective assistance from more experience/competent users if they are having trouble accomplishing some legitimate goal here (like correcting factual misinformation). This is a huge

6166:

comparatively tiny staff and operating budget, so we do need to cut the staff some slack in that respect. I am disappointed when I see Jimmy repeat shibboleths which do not accord with my own experience at WP, but I was struck by the comments of a poster at news.com, who drew a distinction between

5902:

reliable. (I venture to guess that surveying journalists would show that 90% think WP is not reliable, but that many or most of them would probably anonymously :-/ admit to using WP as a source, which raises the issue of what I see as our broader social responsibility, as citizens of the world, to

5402:

time good editors waste deleting bad articles. How many good articles and edits are don't get made because they are busy nominating or voting them for deletion, or reporting them to copyright problems? I don't know which loss would be greater, but there are definitely consequences to doing nothing.

5393:

I strongly support the new policy. Here's the reasons why from a previous discussion: I would support limiting new page creations to those who are logged in, perhaps even requiring them to build up a few edits first, like we already do for page moves. It's much harder to deal with bad articles than

5360:

I tried to look at the new pages, but got tired after scrolling through about 6500 of them. I didn't have the patience to scroll through thousands of new articles get back to when we didn't require registration. While your point is well taken that some anonymous users contribute good articles, it

5221:

I noticed that talk pages can still be created by anons... As for requiring accounts, I'd probbaly discontinute contributions instead. The only reason I might have registered would be to access page moves, but it's not that big a deal. To require registration, won't stop determined vandals. Since I

5158:

overwhelmed, the way to solve that is to improve our ability to sort and delete bad new articles, not to toss a blanket over an entire arbitrary class of new articles, both good and bad. There are many suggestions for new RC and NP patrol software that could improve the responsiveness of our vandal

5114:

I also strongly object to his policy. I regularly patrol new articles and find that no more than half are vandalism. The rest are valuable suggestions for legitimate topics that we may never have come up with on our own. That said, perhaps 50% of new pages is a lot of pages for admins to delete, as

4854:

be used if no name conflict exists. I agree that this is usually a bad idea, but someimes it makes things much clearer. For example I often see articels titles soemthing like "Phrase (band)" even if there is no actual article about "Phrase" because the simple title "Phrase" whould mislead users who

4775:

I agree that such a rule, or indeed this precedent, may be opening a can of worms. I'm not bothered by either of the examples Babajobu raises though: for country names we have the UN and ISO standards as credible authorities to prefer a given name, and with political science topics, if the dispute

4540:

Often in my university classes, I've had to do quite a bit of background research on an academic topic, generally compiling information that is (gasp) not available on Knowledge. This background research becomes part of an assignment, but I am left with the nagging feeling that all this work should

3816:

Anons don't have 'their own' user pages. IP address user pages are a community resource, usually used by admins to indicate which addresses are part of ISP/school/whatever proxies, or to warn anonymous editors about vandalism or inappropriate editing techniques. (Note that once a logged-in editor

3037:

What I have in mind would entail a drastic reduction in the addition of new content. Much of the new content that WP wouldn't get would be good. Its loss would indeed be a pity. But it would also get much less blather, leading it to be more highly regarded, and I think in turn leading it to attract

2962:

If Knowledge doesn't have the balls to ban the offenders, and Knowledge dislikes the vandalism, then you can't win. One or the other has to be true, not both. I really wish wikipedians would stop complaining, and stop the endless rants about vandalism. Perhaps someone vandalised my comments on this

1796:

As a general matter, I do think there's a useful distinction between policy and guidelines, but I think it's drawn in the wrong place right now; for people reading the policy pages, what's useful is to distinguish "fundamental pages I should definitely understand" from "ad hoc pages to be consulted

1292:

I was not saying that these elections were not free and fair (my opinion is not relevant in an encyclopedic article. At the party entries I just added after the results that the OSCE/ODIHR mission considered these elections not free and fair. Why should we hide that position? It is a fact that OSCE

8857:

I further am totally perplexed as to why the most commonly accepted dating system, the most widely used and the one that has been in exsistance for over a thousand years in Western Civilization is considered point of view by several Wikipedians. Suddenly, after a 1000 years a few Wikipedians judge

8852:

Thank you GT for inviting me to speak hear. From what I understand if an article was started using CE and it consistently used BCE and CE then it should stay that way. And the same with BC and AD I think that is fine. Although I think that the whole recently invented, compared to AD and BC, CE and

8611:

Let's change the analogy a bit. Suppose you come across a 17th century copy of Hamlet and decide that if you have this same edition republished, people will buy it. The content of your edition will be absolutely identical to the old one, so there is no question of your being able to meaningfully

8509:

public-domain material; it is not reasonable to ask for a single contribution to be GFDL'd if it is already in the public domain. So the resolution I would like to see would be to substitute something like this (which I believed was always the intent): "All Knowledge content is released under the

8440:

IANAL, but I don't see how GFDL would prevent use of public domain material. It says that you cannot restrict the use of any material you copy from Knowledge. Since you cannot restrict the use of material that is in the public domain anyway, I don't see what the problem is supposed to be. The only

7842:

Ah, another interesting (if already often discussed) issue! Again, the author makes unjustified jumps, seeming to believe that only the entire current version of en.wikipedia could be published, rather than (as has already happened with the German Knowledge) carefully selected, and very carefully

6494:

I think it should be worked out somehow instead. For this situation, since the AfD failed, I would just leave it as an article and mention that most historians and economists don't use the term (assuming they don't) and other problems with the idea of economic facism. I don't think a template will

6221:

Some outraged Wikipedians have suggested that Siegenthaler should have simply edited his own bio and have done with it. I think that is an absurd suggestion: no-one should have to waste time in daily edit wars with some anonymous crank to correct blatant factual misinformation, certainly not when

6165:

I also want to add that while I am frustrated with what I see as a weak and tardy response by the Board to the growth of the Wikicruft and accountability issues, we must all remember that one of the most remarkable aspects of the WP is that it has been built almost entirely by volunteers and has a

5985:

editing under a pseudonym (too late, in my case!)--- but while WP is not without security flaws, the Wikimedia privacy policy is easy to find and the registration process is fast and easy. So, I tend to wonder why some users seem to have a huge problem with establishing even this minimal level of

5980:

It has not escaped my notice, incidently, that part of my frustration with the claim that we must at all costs preserve the right to edit anonymously, is that I still find it difficult to understand why anyone would feel (apparently) that this right trumps all other considerations in promoting the

5815:

Well, if we start thinking like that we might well wind up saying that WP is a utopian social experiment and therefore is doomed to ultimately fail, simply because all previous utopian social experiments have ultimately failed. In fact, I have often parroted this slogan myself, and mostly believe

4567:

So does anyone have any ideas? Do I put a note in the paper that I'm releasing it under the GFDL and plan to use its content in Knowledge (risking funny looks from the professor)? Do I cite myself in the Knowledge article (which seems too self-promotional)? Any other ideas for how this could work?

3724:

debates by the creators of the article - I have created a meatpuppet template. This can be placed on the page of any user who is suspected of being a meatpuppet. Example: A new user who was asked to come here from a non-notable website to vote for the retention of that article would be tagged as a

3413:

It's also important to allow derivative commercial works. Much of the world's creative content is controlled by corporations, and the ability for this content to be enriched by incorporating our content will benefit not only individual companies but the audiences that consume their content, in the

2840:

This number crunching is splendid and way beyond my capabilities, but I think you'd agree that an analysis of surviving pages is skewed in favour of non-logged in new page creators, as the IP number gives a strong hint that a new page needs checking and a high proportion of them are deleted within

2814:

I don't see why the two aren't going on simultaneously. In this case, there's an anon who wants to add a new page, and the question is do we get that page or not. Denying him the ability to add that page is hardly going to funnel his efforts into improving our other articles; we're simply going to

2013:

After I heard about the latest experiment with page creation privileges, I was interested to see how much good and bad comes out of anon IPs creating pages. So I went ahead and slaved away for a couple of hours, and tried to collect some data. I looked at the new pages from Friday, 2 December that

1825:

I think that policies and guidelines and and should be distinct. There may well be particular pages that are mis-labled, and should be marked as policy when they are not currently so marked. if so, they can and should be corrected. But an attempt to simply abolish the distinction by redircting the

8865:

Please let the policy stand for the consistency of dating from when the article was first created. Why is that a problem. Just follow the rules. I haven't tried changing articles that were created in CBE or CE to BC and AD even though I think CE and CBE are silly so why are these other people all

8735:

I still believe that the statement is wrongly worded and in order to reflect the intent it should be corrected as I suggested. But if everyone else still thinks it already does reflect the intent (and we all agree on what that is), then I have no further arguments to bring forward. So I'll just

6775:

Ha! Unitet states of Amerika. Te only pleis in the voold vheer people don't haf enouf knou-how tu klik the "Edit this page", but know the intrikate prosyedur of hau to start a laww-syut. Wye, te vide varied peepuls of Euroup, velkum Vikimedyia Faundesun, oupn aams, to aur soill, wye velkum yuu to

6756:

Can we change our slogan from "Knowledge, the 💕 that anyone can edit" to "Knowledge: We are above the law"? The OfficialWire articles were written by the person who was trying to add the content to the article. So it's a normal edit war, but one has access to a shabby online newspaper. Also, the

5925:

users who are too hasty or inexperienced to take care not to shove in new material any old place, but rather to to try find some place where it fits neatly, or barring that, rewriting nearby paragraphs in order to correct any damage done to the previous flow of ideas. A dangerously naive WP myth

5251:

Now that you mention it, that was sort of a dumb thing that i wrote earlier. I wasn't thinking correctly. What i meant was that if an anon user really wants to create an article, they can just get an account and create the article. There's nothing preventing them from getting an account. It takes

5015:

in which at some users expressed that existing policies/structures have proven insufficient for countering the systematic introduction of believable nonsense, as illustrated by one user. Things are currently in the discussion stage and any formed policy proposals that emerge would obviously come

4439:

Hi, Although I can see that massive events (Iraq war, etc) need their own wikipedia pages, does every newsworthy event deserve permenant listings here? I'd have thought the recent fire in Hertfordshire is a good example of something that won't be any interest to anybody after the initial fuss has

3949:

deals with this exact problem. On the other hand, we certainly should take it serious when he says our article contains lies - removing the disputed facts which are not backed up by a reputable source seems a good solution to me. Also consider that even if a fairly reputable source says something

3886:

The first, obviously. If someone realises months after creating an obscure article that is perfectly decent, that they wish to leave Knowledge in a storm, they don't acquire the right to have their article deleted. G7 is a statement of common sense "Oh, I messed up, could someone fix that for me,

3444:

had misspelled Antioch (among other problems), and all the useful information in it was already in the first line of the article. Rather than merely fixing the bad stuff, I replaced it with the usual Otheruses. Seemed the perfect spot for that template. It was quickly "reverted" (although it was

3309:

All content here must be usable for commercial purposes (except fair use, which is a whole other story). All text must be GFDL, and can be other (alternate) licences too (although in practice figuring out what is dual-licenced is almost impossible). The Wikimedia Foundation does (in Germany, at

2857:

Even if you somehow manage to stop the "deluge" of vandalism, you are effectively cutting off anyone who could make meaningful contributions to the articles. The regular users of Knowledge cannot possibly have enough knowledge to make helpful contributions, save copying the information from other

1435:

to the cities, but they don't add anything to the reader's understanding of the article if there's nothing in it about watertowers. If there was a little one-liner about them, would the links have reason to stay? If nothing else, I would appreciate if someone would point me in the right direction

9014:

In that case, the primary source of the game itself is reliable source (primary source) when it comes to statements made about the game itself. So if the game itself says that's the name of the boss (or the accompanying manual does, etc.), that is a reliable source for that piece of information.

8861:

BC and AD is the accepted dating system. This is not my opinion it is a fact. I don't see anny need to change the current Knowledge policy leave the dating as original started in the article that should make both parties happy. I'm not the problem causer here despite what has been said about me.

8749:

Did the Anon's suggested wording ever really get considered? For reference, it was "All Knowledge content is released under the GFDL. Your contributions must not violate any copyright." Did anyone have specific objections? It's certainly a significantly different statement from the one that's

8522:

I'm trying, but I'm still not sure I'm getting it. IANAL cubed, but my naive understanding of "public domain" is, "material you can do anything at all with", where "anything at all" is very broadly defined. In particular, "rereleasing under GFDL" is not disallowed as an example of "anything at

7410:

has an associated bot that automatically moves incorecctly-placed articles. It's also made clear to users that they're looking at the wrong category to put articles in, where a conventional redirect wouldn't. It's not a bug issue so much as a redirects-still-don't-do-what-you'd-expect issue. --

6691:

QuakeAID has written once again to Jimbo Wales, demanding the untrue and libelous information be removed from Knowledge, while a group of interested parties have joined together and plan to initiate legal proceedings against Wales and Knowledge Foundation, Inc., and numerous others—the so-called

6601:

I think its just a variation on the legal threat strategy. Like big business organisations they hope to get the change of behaviour they want by scaring the opposition. Normally this is done with a high powered lawyer, but since they don't have one they are trying to get public opinion to do the

5534:

stubs.) I believe that as a community we urgently need to recognize this, and to take steps to curb the growth of the problem, which should enable us to catch our breath and consider how to eliminate the huge amount of vapid nonsense, crackpottery, vanitycruft, and even carefully crafted hoaxes

5483:

and we'd better do something. The better Knowledge gets, the more people trust it; the more people trust it, the angrier they are going to get at gross inaccuracies in it. Saying "you can fix it yourself" and "it's a work in progress" and "we never said you could trust it" are not going to be an

2901:. These are some of our most important guiding principals. You may have a misconception about what Knowledge is supposed to be. It is true, however, that field experts are often more adept at finding, understanding, and integrating sources related to their fields, so your point still has merit. — 8879:

The same people who are currently being blocked over this pointless revert war will almost certianly ignore any descion made by other people, and will simply keep edit warring, for instance, after the second time one such person was blocked for this, he decided instead to edit war over miles vs

8445:

I'm aware of since the first time I became involved in Knowledge (2003) it that at the notice didn't use the phrase GFDL; it said you were agreeing to license your contributions under "the terms of the Knowledge license" (which was, in fact, the GFDL.) The notice used to use stronger or plainer

7826:

Ok. Something like a real issue. Does Knowledge make it's status as not-the-same-sort-of-thing-as-a-normal-encyclopedia sufficiently clear? Maybe, maybe not. The Reg article gives no specifics, or details. If someone wants to discuss this (or find the many past discussions on this), please

7622:

Involvement in Knowledge has taken its toll on a significant number of decent, fair minded people who with the most honorable intentions, have tried to alert the project to its social responsibilities and failed. Such voices could be heard on the Knowledge mailing list, speaking up for quality.

6901:

Whatever you do, don't ignore this. There have been over a dozen prominent personalities who have in the past 2 weeks threatened to sue Knowledge over the content of their biographies. Whether this site is a hoax or not, it is being picked up by the media, and is emminently possible to really

6203:

I see another issue lurking in the background of this controversy. I don't much care for the possibility that the board might be more responsive to individuals who threaten legal action than to those who prefer to resolve content disputes by talk page discussion and if neccessary an appeal for

5705:

But leaving aside the question of what policy issues still need to be addressed by further (perhaps provisional) policy changes, I have two immediate concerns about this particular new policy which echo points raised by others, including several who strongly disagree with me about the extent or

4388:

Linking to sections works very poorly, as the the section names are likely to be changed by somebody else, and there's the section links no longer work properly (renames of articles are handled well, due to redirects). It's impossible to even check what links to a specific section, so somebody

1271:

Being Belarus and its legally-constitued government -wether you like it or not, like Venezuela's Chávez- under pressure of other countries, namely the United States of America and its allies, it is a sensible topic that should be covered with extreme rely on NPOV principles. The ellections were

8982:

If you see spelling mistakes, you should fix them yourself, or at least politey point them out, rather than making witty comments about them. Besides, the talk pages is about the ideas people convey, not knitpicking out minor things like spelling. Making fun of other people's errors instead of

8484:

Dpbsmith says that "Since you cannot restrict the use of material that is in the public domain anyway, I don't see what the problem is supposed to be." The problem is precisely that the GFDL does restrict its use, even though only in the small and well-intended ways that I've just mentioned.

7989:

AFAIK, no. In some cases, the issues were discovered and reverted by Knowledge editors; only two of the listed cases (the Norwegian PM and Seigenthaler) attracted any press attention. Seigenthaler would probably have a difficult time suing WP under US law (IANAL) due to the provisions of the

7819:

has been limited to logged in users, not all editing. But every edit not made by a "anon" is one more edit that (unless the logged in user has effectively verified their identity (as many Wikipedians have, examples provided on request)) cannot be traced by IP without permission of a user with

7093:

I actually really like the idea of people being "credentialed contributor"s, but not to the extent of locking their edits, because no matter how technically correct a passage is, there's usually improvement in terms of grammar or style (which Albert Einstein is probably not an expert on). What

6669:

OfficialWire published an article about untrue postings on Knowledge, by Christian Wirth also known as RaDMan. Shortly after the devastating earthquake and tsunamis on December 26, 2004 in the Indian Ocean, Wirth took upon himself to wage a war against QuakeAID Foundation, Inc. Wirth's arsenal

6244:

is a crucial component of ensuring that WP is easy to use effectively. For example, while Wikipedians like to say that in the event of a quarrel, the sequence of events can be readily reconstructed from the history page, it only takes one technical incompetent to render a history or talk page

6007:

I'd like to see a kind of round table discussion of all these issues (I'd guess participants would have to start by agreeing upon some list of issues to discuss, heh), in hope that as a community we can make wise decisions of this difficult and painful nature. If nothing else, in such a forum

3478:

Yes, I thought it polite not to mention you by name. Actually, since I thought these issues had long since been resolved (many months ago), and there are now hundreds of pages using the template, it seemed a wider policy discussion would be in order. However, on issue #1, it appears that yet

3346:

Yep, to "educational only" it's much the same as above: we don't limit what folks do with our stuff - in particular, it's not limited to encyclopedias. Can an open-source CD player display the article for the song or band that's playing? Can a local tourist office make a kiosk PC that allows

2867:

What if an IP is used by more than one person you say? If one user screws it up for the rest, too bad. You need to weed out the vandalizers no matter what it takes. If that means excluding the 100 people that are using the IP, oh well. Most likely, 1 out of those 100 would actually ever make a

1732:

I thought policy had community consensus and required community consensus to change, and ought be respected in all but extreme situations, whilst guidelines may not have a full community consensus, don't have to be followed absolutely and acted as fall back positions in unresolvable disputes.

8403:

For myself, I want to be able to contribute new material of my own without being required to have a copyright on it. I also want to be able to upload existing public-domain material if I happen to find some that would be useful. And I cannot imagine that anyone really wants me not to do so.

5655:

I also feel that the rapid growth of WP has overwhelmed the current admin system, which simply has not scaled with sufficient grace to address the problem of administering such a huge and complex enterprise. In particular, I have doubts whether the current system supports experimental policy

5521:

measures, even experimental or draconian measures, to curb the creation of hoax articles, vandalism of existing articles, and I strongly feel (on the basis of my own WP experience) that wikicruft poses a critical problem which urgently requires amelioration. I have no illusion that hoaxes or

5398:, combined with copyright violations puts the number of bad articles over good. On the other hand, I've seen a much better bad to good ratio for edits. However, this is just my experience and perception, which can be unreliable. It would be good to have some precise numbers about the problem. 4626:

Often, though, your paper won't be something that can be cited in the article. In those instances, you could begin the article's talk page with a comment like, "My first draft of this article is taken from a class assignment I wrote... ." Along with protecting you from an academic charge of

4398:

Regarding the poor behaviour of section linking in the face of updates, these are very good points that I feel are inadequately addressed by the current technology. However, I think the current practice of creating self-contained pages on each topic instead of having multi-page articles is an

3462:

I was the one making the first comment. Surely the pump isn't the place to discuss this specific instance, is it? Shouldn't we be at the geo dab talk page or the dab talk page itself? That's where we'll find the other people interested in this issue. Pick a place and I'll meet you there.

7045:

nature.com article), I thought of the idea of getting more academics and experts involved in the contribution process. My thought was to create a new user level where with a little work on the part of admins, we can hopefully increase the participation by experts. The process of becoming a

4734:

as rather sui generis. But regardless, Charles's question is legit: should we use qualifiers such as "(term)" in the title of articles to serve as a disclaimer, even when no dismabiguation purpose is served by the qualifier? I think we would be opening up a serious can of worms. People would

8841:

I suggest adding a sentence to the above paragraph acknowledging that the controversy exists and setting up a guideline along the lines of: "make it consistent, then leave it alone," in order to avoid unproductive edit wars. More specifically, a given article should only use one system for

6602:

same. HOWEVER we should really be taking account the recently publicity that caused this. We should really be making sure that we are not publishing libel; not because we could be sued, but because libel is (be definition) inaccurate information, and we should be being careful to avoid it.

4601:

One thing that might help would be to add a references section to any article you take from materials you write, and give yourself credit as the reference for the material from your paper. That way if your teachers or academic review board see it they will also see your name as the author.

7769:

Wyss - pardon me if you've answered this (multiple times) before, but - Why don't you go and work on "editing an encyclopedia to academic standards"? Forks are good things - and if your's is better, I, for one, will be happy to say - Great! You were right! Now we have an even better free

8660:

Dragon flight wrote, "In essence, the copyright statement is saying that any content which is original to you must be licensed under the GFDL". But the actual agreement doesn't say "which is original to you"; it says "your contributions", whether they are original or not. That's what's

7830:

Ah, wild speculation #1; The author of the Reg piece seems to believe that, in some vague way, "member's societies" will save us from the evils of relying of information sources put together by people helping other people. Ok. Details, please? And what does any of this have to do with

5124:

Hear, hear! What makes Jimbo think that enough anons are not physically able to create well-crafted meaningful articles that it requires a full out ban, blocking out good anon article creators? And what makes him think that its worth throwing out the baby with the bathwater? So I take it

7994:; don't know about the other case (where Norwegian law may come into play). One other interesting question (and maybe this page leads here): In the US at least, a common defense against libelous information which is published in error, rather than maliciously, is the publication of a 6033:

You may be overlooking an important factor, that is recruitement. People burn out or just go do other stuff in life. We need a constant influx of new good editors. Most of started as anons, and many of us would have never tried editting in the first place in registration was required.

4950:

about Knowledge and other Internet sources before using them, so they won't be quite as naive as whoever wrote the lead paragraph of this story (probably not the same person who wrote the rest of the article, of course). If anyone's credibility is jeopardised by this article, it's the

4363:. I even use them in redirects sometimes. Watch out though, because they will be blue even if the section does not exist, and you must use underscores, not spaces (punctuation acts funny too). However, we do have consensus on some nonmandatory suggestions regarding article length ( 1978:), I think it's pretty obvious that it makes no sense to have an entire page to mocking peoples' ignorance of Wiki-policy(which has become in desperate need of reform anyway, so this might be a subconsious plea to do something), especially since it just says what Knowledge is not. 5378:

I would like to state my objection to the new policy. If there's a discussion of this policy other than here, I'd appreciate it if someone could point it out to me--I do not do IRC, generally, so I missed this entirely. My first edit to Knowledge was the creation of an article,

1446:

Personally speaking, I'd have purged them - they don't particularly add anything to the individual articles, if Barrie is representative... Knowledge is not here to link to every single useful page on a single subject; we want to link to at most half a dozen good and useful ones.

8528:

Ah. Perhaps I'm starting to see the objection, from the perspective of the end reader of the rereleased material. "You're placing restrictions on me via the GFDL," says that reader. "But you can't do that, I recognize this material, it's a verbatim copy from the public domain,

5429:

allowed to make AfD nominations, this has effectively changed that rule as a byproduct. if this change is kept, pages in the AFD-space (or perhaps in the entire wikipedia spce) should not have this restriction applied, just as pages in the talk: space now are not restricted.

4705:

Potentially this device has the ability to defuse editor conflicts over what articles are about when articles are saddled with potentially inflammatory names. Equally, though, many editors find the qualifier redundant. I'd value feedback on the appropriatness of this name.

7724:

Maybe you should start listening again. The writer may use over-the-top, unhelpful analogies but otherwise seems rather spot-on to me. WP has serious, systemic sourcing problems which (both in appearance and in fact) undermine credibility and reliability across its content.

5444:

greatest strengths. If I'm on a strange computer, and need to add info about a new topic, I should still be able to do it in 15s, not 150s -- creating a new account from scratch takes a good minute, as you have to find your way back to where you were before to keep editing.

5142:

For what it's worth, I approved of this idea before I even heard Jimbo was considering it. I didn't think it was politically feasable, but always felt it would be a good idea. If Jimbo is going to force the community to swallow some bitter but good medicine, I'm all for it.

2923:

Knowledge moderators need to stop being afraid banning users and ban them. You will not lose any content, as you say it is knowledge that is already known, someone will add it sooner or later. The goal is to stop the exisiting additions from getting changed for the worse.

6948:

In the event that someone uses Knowledge, to post material, which they knew was untrue or knew or should have known was not factual, then I really don't see why that user is not liable for it, same as any other user who uses the net to post malice or libel. Wiki policies

6670:

consisted of untrue, libelous writings that he and Knowledge published as fact. All attempts, by QuakeAID's founder, to correct the untrue comments were re-edited, blocked or labelled as 'untrue' by a group of volunteers, who hold themselves untouchable and above the law.

2858:

sources. If you expect someone to add new content, it is most likely the people who have not been to wikipedia much before. The frequent users just copy content from other sources, wikipedia is merely a storehouse that is accumulating knowledge from what is already known.

1357:

This is a card. In the CNN interview, Phillips said that there are 'people who can't print articles about themselves.' And answering them all, "go thou and change it" won't do. They're all going to gang up on us now. If they gather in large enough numbers...brr. No?

4560:, they'd get the causality the wrong way, and I'd get accused of a serious case of plagiarism. It doesn't matter that if it came to an academic hearing, it would be comically short ("We have found that your essay duplicates content from an encyclopedia article." "Sir, I 3950:

ebout him, there is a good chance that it isn't true: in my experience "back page" articles about subjects such as this tend not to be very well fact-checked. As such, I would personally give his email a relative high weight when considering what to do about the article.

3754:- is it time for a change to this long-standing page? Does it still serve its' original purpose? Is it helping or hindering the addition of references to Knowledge, which in light of recent events seems to be of more importance than ever? Editors are invited to comment. 8157:

Someone conscientious enough to actually research, reference outside sources and check the history and talk of an article before making a significant edit more than likely already has an account, and if they're that committed to the article then they won't mind getting

6253:

admins). From time to time I have noticed them playing with various changes, not always with good results. I'd like to see a "developer's sandbox" where they can test describe the rationale for and given samples of proposed layout changes and get feedback from users.

4555:

If I wanted to make a part of an essay that I submitted for credit into a Knowledge article, how should I go about doing it? My greatest worry is that, sometime down the line, someone would observe that the content of my essay and the Knowledge article were pretty much

8227:

attempting to create a new page. They may just have tried to follow a link from an ordinary article -- either they didn't know what a red link means, or they were using a browser that didn't render it specially at all. (I often access wikipedia in monochrome through

6466:

I don't see why the example I gave above doesn't do the same with far less work and confusion; the entire content of both the article and the redirect (a link to another article) would appear on the page at once. How does this make the redirect a "second-best option"?

6147:

measures as needed, since occasional unanticipated circumstances seem to be unavoidable in a huge social enterprise like WP (or in maintaining any large website). Of course, in a well-run website any emergency measures should be reversible or amendable once the dust

4690:

vote on whether to drop this qualifier. The argument against is that in its previous unqualified life no consensus on the articles content could be found, only by moving in this manner and insisting that only the usage of the term was to be covered was relative calm

4613:

situation, although I admit this is a difficult situation. As for suitability of format, don't worry too much about Original Research or NPOV — if you want to give us reams of raw material to play with, we'd be happy to fix it up. That's what Knowledge is all about.

8358:

Until now the GFDL was applied to Knowledge as a whole, and would be based on its compilation copyright. The only copyright requirement on individual contributions that I know of was the rule (once implicit, lately explicit) that they must not violate a copyright.

4216:

Please be sure to coipy any email or email exchange that gives permisison for use to "permissions at wikimedia dot org". Please be sure that he understood (or at least that you mentioned) that use was not limited to wikipedia, but coud be reused by anyone under the

5081:

to this change. I doubt that this will stop the nonsense articles. People will just replace existing articles with nonsense even more. And if people are really determined to create nonsense articles, having this new ugly restriction won't do anything to stop them.

3414:

same way that, say, synthesizers have contributed to popular music. Imagine a fiction or nonfiction book using our text or images to add value, or some of our text being edited and used in a movie or television script. We are a raw ingredient in many future works.

2768:

Hmmm, interesting order for the last two there. On topic, I think the big number here is that extrapolated 234,695 pages a year by anons -- that is a huge amount of content. If this new policy is causing us to lose even 10 percent of that, it is a serious problem.

6079:(not just maintaining) the community of active editors is essential to the continued growth of high quality content in WP. I suspect our only difference is this: I never edited anonymously before I became a registered user, but you did. I guess we both may have 6518:

Class actions are run by law firms who expect to collect a large sum of money, both for members of the class and for themselves. So they sue auto makers, drug companies, and airlines. You have to expect to recover millions of dollars for the whole business to be

8705:

By agreeing to license your contributions under the GFDL you are relinquishing your rights to stop copying, etc. provided the other party follows the GFDL. You have agreed to be bound by this regardless of whether your content would otherwise have a defensible

5383:, because I noticed there wasn't one and thought there should be. It was easy, I got interested, and became a registered user. I suspect this is not all that uncommon. I would not have registered if I hadn't already realized how easy it was to create pages. 4147:

If he sent you the image after you asked for an image for the article, I think it is a pretty strong implicit permission to use it. I would say that is good enough for fair use in the article, but it of course depends on exactly were said in the email exchange.

5731:

Banning all edits by unregistered users is neccessary, but the new policy falls far short of even this tiny first baby step toward saving the WP from the rapid growth of wikicruft. The new policty strikes me as a pulsillanimous attempt to curb the creation of

2743:

I would be willing to bet that if you divided the logged-in users between those who have had an account less than two months (or maybe one month) with those who have been editing longer, that you would also see a significant difference in the pattern of edits.

5553:

of new articles on that day were obvious hoax articles, or obvious vanity articles, or otherwise obviously crufty articles. In addition, in the categories I watch closely (math and physics), something like 1-2% of new articles are cranky or less obvious hoax

5981:

stated goals of the WP. Some users hint that they believe that habitual anons are too shy to register even under a pseudonym. I can well understand why users might not wish to use their IRL identity here--- in fact, from my own experience I'd probably even

5930:. As I see it, this is rather like saying that we need not worry about energy resources because the laws of thermodynamics are too depressing to take seriously! I suspect that the typical evolution of a WP article is more analogous to statistical-mechanical 6607:

Thinking about it, this publicity could probably all have been avoided if there was a Knowledge complaints procedure. Subjects of an article (or anyone else affected) could complain, and the offending information be temporarily removed pending verification.

8481:. Clause 2 requires that all copies include a notice of the license; this is sometimes called a "viral condition" because of its "infectious" nature. Similarly, Clause 4 requires modified versions to be identified by a change of title, among other things. 4639:

Survey articles are both good topics for assignments, and a good content for WP. You are not obliged to tell your professor that you plan on putting content up here (you hold the copyright on your assignments), but it is probably wise to tell him/her. ---

8590:

In essence what we do is say that all content is compatible with the GFDL, so as long as you are following that, you should be okay. The fact that some cotnent is even more free is a bonus to the reader, but not something we are required to tell them.

2988:

The way everybody -- including the 15 million (or however many) users on AOL -- is treated should I think be radically changed, within a radically changed WP. They should get usernames, and should then have to prove the integrity of these usernames via

7758:

I'm having trouble with Knowledge standards too. An admin blocked me recently for adding citation details, and I think that is also part of my ArbComm case (I think I won't find out until the Grand Inquisitor emits a pronouncement from the pulpit).

3366:. This is fine as long as we're on the web. If we want to make a DVD copy and sell it - like the German wikipedia did, selling thousands at ten euros each - this becomes impractical; it essentially makes it impossible to have a printed version at all. 1847:

from the speedy category, it was tagged on the basis that it did not assert the importance or significance of the subject. Is being married to Ernest Hemingway and a journalist for a national paper not enough to qualify as important or significant?

2919:

That is why I said that. I do not appreciate the addition to my discussion page, I am not a newbie to Knowledge. Pulling together information from outside sources and combining them would be new content. I did not mention new research or verifiable

8612:

assert a claim of copyright. You might think of adding "©2005 Dragons flight" somewhere, just in case it would benefit you somehow, but you're sure it won't mean anything if you do, so you just photocopy the old pages and take them to the printer.

7800:"the word "publication" has become rather blurry. ... as soon as it hits print, the blurriness behind publication disappears, and Knowledge The Book is seen for what it is, an evasiveness based on accident. And the lawsuits will begin in earnest." 5415:

I am opposed to this policy change. It is my view that this will only make the job of new-page patrollers harder, because a page created by an IP user used to get extra scrutiny as a rule -- now pages by newly created users will not get that. (If

4812:

WRT SimonP's examples, I would want both to be qualified with "(slogan)" in preference to the formulation with "Slogan:" at the beginning, which suggests that there is a Slogan namespace spearate from the article namespace. I'll put these up for

3935:

1.: Is the use of the image conditioned on making certain (unreasonable) changes? In that case we probably can't use the picture as the conditions are too restrictive. Otherwise the email is a perfectly fine permission; I would suggest using the

3301:

Again, this is an encyclopedia, so I fail to see any reason why these shouldn't be allowed. In cases where licenses allow only for use by schools and colleges, this would not be the case, of course, but surely it would be OK in all other cases?

7081:

Actually, it probably should get some community support first. Personally, I don't think it's a good idea, but I'd have to think about it before shooting it down to the ground. I can, however, point out the immediate implementation problems. —

6245:

virtually unreadable--- and now it seems that history pages are limited to the previous 500 edits, which isn't enough in some cases. Also, edit histories are currently almost impossible to reconstruct if a page underwent several moves. These

5986:

responsibility for their actions here. Speaking as one deeply concerned about current trends in my own country (the U. S.), I find it hard to understand why people concerned about supression of dissent or whatever would fail to recognize that

4627:

plagiarism, this might help with plagiarism problems the other way, i.e., if a later editor happens upon a copy of your class paper somewhere and lists the Knowledge article as a copyright violation, thinking it was plagiarized from the paper.

4000:

Stalking Cat said he has lost track of how much his transformation has cost, though one figure quoted on a Web site estimates it would cost more than $ 200,000 — a figure Stalking Cat would neither confirm nor deny. He would only say, "It's a

3605:

It's a bad idea because we don't protect articles just because they are slashdotted. We can handle slashdot trolls with our eyes closed, as we did the other day. When a page is protected because Jimbo's on TV about it, well....then it's just

5590:

to force them to either spend the time required to revert with sufficient care so frequently, or else to let a core article (in my fields of interest, anyway) become corrupted by vandalism of various kinds. IMO, users like myself should be

8829:

I got lightly involved with this issue in a couple of articles before deciding that it might be more productive to change the MoS than to try to put out many small fires. At this point, the edit warring is going on, and people are getting

4192:

Yes - but we don't have a permission image template as far as I am aware :). Anyway, with the article being under the GFDL and being constantly modified we will have to claim fair use in some sense to make a limited permission make sense.

8543:

claim on the novelty of their presentation. (And readers can either ignore the wrong/meaningless notice with impunity, or ignore the rereleased-but-copyrighted copy and go to the PD copy for all their copying needs.) Another example is

8428:

IANAL, but poster is quite mistaken. We have always, *always* required materials posted here to be licensed under GFDL. That has never been not-true in the entire time I've been here. Also, you misunderstand the public domain completely.

7947:. 3 incidents (Seigenthaler, Jens Stoltenberg, and Rashad) are listed, as are a proposed set of rules. The rules are only proposals at this point. (The interesting question--how much time will elapse before the page is slapped with an 7734:

We should ignore him. The writer is "over-the-top, unhelpful" because he wants to stir drama rather than encourage reform. He has found a shctick--bashing Knowledge--that gets him slashdotted. I wouldn't bother furthering his career.

3436:

Somebody changed an existing geodis to disambig, among other drastic deletions to the page. When queried on her/his Talk, said: "The geo dab template is useless. A dab is a dab, as far as I can tell, and I see no reason to have multiple

2797:

I don't think this is a problem at all. We are now reaching a point were we need to focus on improving what articles we have, rather than on creating new ones. (Of course this doesn't mean that we have everything we should have now — see

7998:--for example, if the local newspaper mistakenly puts your photo next to a caption indicating "wanted for bank robbery"; and it was done in error, they can avoid liability by retracting the information upon notification of the error. -- 2630:

means that the page has been nominated for AfD. This doesn't necessarily make it a bad page, but since the number is relatively small and doesn't have a great influence on the end results, I went ahead an pretended that they're all bad.

9293:

Some users are delinking years if they are not central to the article, even the first occurrence, so it might have to be something different than the date preferences. I'm not implying that the users doing so are acting improperly. --

8918:

I agree that the BC and AD system are much more common than BCE/CE, and I wholeheartedly admit that I never use BCE/CE in everyday life. However, I believe that wikipedia shouldn't always simply go by this. After all, this is not the

7018:

It's been my impression from some recent discussions on wikien-l that if it's a ranty screed unsupported by any kind of facts (or assertions of fact from a source we'd consider reliable) it should probably be refactored or removed. ·

1308:

to call Electionworld's actions "vandalism". He/she was adding encyclopedic, factual and sourced statements to these articles, something which cannot be said for a lot of our other contributions. This is not vandalism by any means.

9274:

Why don't we just add a feature to MediaWiki where dates are entered in a coded format, and then automatically translated before rendering to one of the two styles based on user preferences? That'd put an end to all this nonsense.

7785:"Knowledge has made it more difficult for such detective work to be performed in the future, as the site now requires a 30 second log-in procedure to create an unvalidated user id, behind which libellers can shield their identity." 7060:

I won't comment on the wisdom of your proposal, but the technical aspects need to be hashed out more. How does one "lock" a five word edit and how would the software know that that specific word was "locked" and thus uneditable? —

5837:

Just to be clear: from time to time I have been pleasantly surprised to see some helpful anon correct my often careless spelling in some article I have labored over, and I am sincerely grateful to those editors. So the claim that

5573:

visit the most popular articles, but unfortunately, popular articles are more often vandalized. Surely this has something to do with why (according a recent and highly informal CNN internet poll) 66% of those voting believe WP is

7702:"Adult" content didn't work, a scholarly encyclopedia (Nupedia) didn't either but a global culture blog marketed as an encyclopedia and run like an online community has brought numbers and fame. Hmmm... what to do with it now...? 6798:

This reinforces the need to emphasise that Knowledge should not be taken as gospel, and while wiser minds have no doubt already considered this, it seems to me that a short statement under the globe logo could help, along these

6868:. There is a link to this at the bottom of every page of Knowledge (including editing pages), and has "Knowledge makes no claim of validity" in gigantic small caps font. I don't think you can get any more obvious than that. -- 5695:

I would like to see (or learn of the prior existence of!) a convenient forum where registered users can discuss all these policy issues (and more) with a reasonable chance of being heard by those who are in a position to make

4068:

He must give you written, explicit permission before you can use his copyrighted image. It's also questionable in my mind whether fair use applies in this case, and if it doesn't our new image policy forbids uploading it even

1178:. I think at this point the AMA can be officially considered "dead", and it's only a matter how to clean the slate and start over again. I'll send it to mfd in a few days if there's no initiative towards renewing things here. 7838:

The fun of over-generalization, wheee! "Don't trust anything absolutely" somehow got translated, in the author's head, into "Distrust everything completely". I hope most readers of this can see the error here. Straw-man,

5293:

from a few days back, practically all of the anon additions (and there are a fair number) are constructive. An article is always better than no article, even when it's not great. Some are better than others, of course, e.g.

3445:

actually an edit that also fixed the old misspellings) with the tag: "Hard to believe someone would deliberately put the obnoxious one-size-fits-all "otheruses" template in place of a notice tailored to the page. Reverting."

3178:

I mean, think if you are looking for "Christian views of men" and dont find it in the "see also", what to do? Make a search? In the proposed system, you just go to "Christian studies" and follow the subarticles, for example

2993:

changes. IFF those suggestions are consistently good (once a genuine "newbie" period has elapsed), the username can then be lent the power to edit articles directly, a power that's revoked when the username blatantly screws

5897:

As I see it, dealing with anons is only one facet of protecting the good material already in WP and promoting the goal of reversing the figures in that CNN poll which claims that about 2/3 of respondents believe that WP is

5394:

bad edits. The vast majority of new articles created by anonymous users, that I've seen, could be called "bad". However, bad doesn't mean vandalism. A lot of it is vandalism, but the articles that are CSD and AfD material

3310:

least) make very limited commercial use of content, and lots of our mirrors do. It wouldn't be free if you couldn't sell it. But as it's free, it's commoditised, so no-one is going to be able to sell it for very much. --

9076:

to the effect that it contains flavanoids which may reduce high blood pressure, and equally reasonable to note in the citation that Hollenberg's studies have been funded by the American Cocoa Institute and by Mars, Inc.

4476:

Something that caused serious environmental problems, dominated the news for days, closed major motorways and caused the evacuation of 2000 people is encyclopedic. It would be embarassing not to have an article on it.

8720:

Hamlet under the GFDL than there would be in my promising not to turn into a fairy next Tuesday. In both cases the promise is moot, but Hamlet is in no way hurt or encumbered by my promise to treat it as a GFDL work.

8688:

that as long as they do X they are allowed to do A, B, C with your work. I could write a license on my work that says you are allowed to copy Dragons flight's Hamlet provided you offer up your first born child to the

5920:

For example, on several occasions since I came to WP, I have watched with dismay as articles reach a state of which WP can be proud, but then are gradually dismantled by careless edits, sometimes from well-intentioned

7850:

than what's mentioned above), please? And, has the author met our regular trolls and nutcases? They have plenty of "social responsibilities" they think we need to address, mainly involving doing whatever they say...

7113: 6621:

The Knowledge complaints procedure idea sounds very interesting. The real problem is, as you stated, inaccurate information getting on Knowledge. However, if we can stop disputes from escalating, we should do it. --

5771:

the issue of wikicruft and what to do about it, and if so I am glad to know that hoaxing and other wikicruft is at least on the radar screen. I hope the board will remember a bit of traditional WP advice to newbies:

5656:

changes, because I have doubts whether there is an adequate system in place to track statistics and otherwise make a proper rational assessment of whether an given experimental policy change seems to be working well.

4678:

There are at least two articles that use "(term)" as a qualifier, not because of any need to disambiguate, but to emphasise that the article does not document the referent of the word or phrase, but the term itself:

5595:, rather than spending all our time in bootless attempts to protect the articles we have already written or rewritten from vandalism or other degradation (e.g. the insertion of irrelevant political rants by certain 5544:

Some months ago I spent a Sunday carrying out an informal survey in which I attempted to vote on every AfD (I could only vote on perhaps 10%, as it turned out) and also tried to monitor the listed articles with the

9387:

Ah, I forgot about unregistered users. It would be nice if unregistered users could set preferences for dates and such with cookie-based preferences, although the default setting would still have to be decided. --

7806:"Involvement in Knowledge has taken its toll on a significant number of decent, fair minded people who with the most honorable intentions, have tried to alert the project to its social responsibilities and failed." 5875:

anon edits. And my belief, or rather my wild surmise, is that the best way of ensuring the rapid creation of more high qualtity WP articles is in fact to demonstrate that we care about the articles and categories

4735:

demanding "(term)" be appended to every disputed country name, every poli sci concept with which they disagreed, "term" article-move wars might spread like a wikicancer. But we seem to be setting this precedent on

1424:

I don't think the external links area serves as a place to promote your website just because it has some connection to Toronto. It should at least add something to the reader's understanding with original content,

7169:, who is challenging the incumbent U.S. representative fron Pennsylvania in 2006. It's an election year, so I figure some people will be inflating the Carney article, and adding potshots to the Sherwood article. 4251: 3676: 5189:

It seems we either hear it from the news, or the news hears it from us, and gets an even more distorted version of it. Jimbo doesn't really have a way to share it with the site without sharing it with the world.

7499:

Sometimes discussions in the Village Pump can go from small to long and long-lived. Is there any consensus on when a discussion should be branched off Village Pump and given its own Knowledge namespace page? —

7487:

A: This is an issue being solved by the MediaWiki development team, and it may account for the fact that category redirects do not work yet. As a result, category redirects are to be used lightly for the time

5717:

did you see this assurance, pray tell?! I have been editing WP for months, so I am surely no novice, yet I after several minutes I couldn't find the official announcement which presumably exists somewhere on

4757: 6083:

that most other users are like ourselves. I'd like to see a survey of active WP editors to find out if an overwhelming majority agree with "I never would have started to edit the WP if registration had been

5685:

high quality articles). Much better to do it now and allow those who fear it will somehow ruin the WP experience to learn better, while there is still sufficient ratio of signal/noise at WP to make it worth

2794:

On topic, I think the big number here is that extrapolated 234,695 pages a year by anons -- that is a huge amount of content. If this new policy is causing us to lose even 10 percent of that, it is a serious

7944: 9252:

on the matter, but ArbCom decisions are not policy, and if some there is some principle at work in the ArbCom decision that is a sound one, it probably deserves being written into the guidelines somewhere.

4894:

Though Jimbo bears part of the blame for not always explaining new policies with the utmost clarity, do the rest of us always have to go off half-cocked every time he says something ambiguous to the media?

3505:, dealing with a creation of an intermediate level of protection for pages with extreme levels of vandalism from new users. Right now, the policy has strong support, but additional input is always welcome. 8692:. In so do I have made a binding obligation not to sue anyone who copies my book after engaging in human sacrifice to this chosen diety. The fact that I didn't have the right to sue anyway is irrelevant. 6530:

Anyone suing Knowledge will lose money doing so. For folks like Seigenthaler whose primary concern is getting libelous information removed, this might be worth it. But no lawyer is going to take this on

5115:

few as there are of them, and ideally newbies should be starting out by minor editing and getting feedback on that, not creating brand new articles. I guess there are legitimate arguments on both sides.

8968: 7927: 5040:

but there hasn't been any consensus formed to adopt it that I can see (or perhaps guidelines are a bit like that). IMO some wider discussion of the implications of this would be a good thing. See also

4795:

I hope you're right. We can always point to certain arbiters of "official terms", the U.N., ISO, et cetera, but people could just as easily argue that these are simply top-down enforcers of arbitrary

3593:

to handle situations where the article is about to go out to a wide audience; for example, being posted on Slashdot or an interview about Knowledge. Is this a good idea, a bad idea, or just an idea?

9248:

doesn't sufficiently address the problem. Indeed, many Wikipedians assume and quote guidelines on the matter that do not in fact exist, at least not explicitly. Some refer to what has been said in

8477:

First, IANAL either, but I certainly understand that public domain material is that with no copyright restrictions on it of any kind. GFDL, on the other hand, allows unlimited copying or modication

5450:

Instead, we could transparently redirect such edits to a section on "Articles for Creation", and thank the user afterwards, encouraging them to log in to create new articles directly in-place . Now

7133: 4295: 7744:

Yeah, anything to avoid addressing the issues raised in the article... anything to avoid editing an encyclopedia to academic standards... anything to justify coddling the trolls and fools... :)

9104:

I've suggested on the talk page that we make a distinction between reputability, which is fairly broad in scope, and being authoritative, which is narrow in scope but is entirely reliable. ---

8492:

contribution, rather than the totality of contributed material, was to be licensed under GFDL, then I say that there was always a problem, which the new wording has simply called attention to.

4591:

before doing this. If you do, then no one will accuse you of anything. If it were me, I wouldn't mind at all if I knew beforehand but I would be annoyed if I didn't. I hope that's helpful.

3914:

1. Is an email from him, the copyright holder of the image, enough to be considered permission to USE the image? 2. If I correct what he maintained were "lies" on his article, is that violated

4306: 3701: 7320:

If there are no articles pointing to the Redirect Category, this will not be an issue. If there are still articles pointing to the Redirect Category, they will need to be recategorized first.

3329:

encyclopedia -- all material used must also be freely reusable. Licenses that place restrictions on reuse (beyond requiring attribution) are not free and are thus incompatible with the GFDL.

1809:. These are fundamental prescriptive policies (foundation issues), and it is useful to distinguish them from the bulk of the project space that contains descriptive guidelines and policies. 7835:? Even if one accepts his claim that "Knowledge has sprung up to fill a temporary void", isn't it better that something exist to fill a void? I don't see how this is a criticism, exactly. 7227: 5471:

lately--who made the experimental policy change and why. The scary part is that the reporters who wrote the news articles, and the public who reads them, probably don't understand just how

4340:

internal linking? My ideal would be to have short, focused articles with many internal links, but this might be more 'linked' to our general 'social purpose', whatever that might be. :) --

1385: 8976: 8775:

is a proposal to accept a slightly more limited license for images, one which migjht be accpetable to many content creators/copyright oners whoa re not willing to release images under the

1575:

What makes it correct, Kim? The fact that that's how it was once, and you like it? Personally, I abide by the consensus of the community, which seems to find the difference important. --

9191:

is scientific notation where the exponent is limited to being a multiple of three. As for short scale vs long scale, the Manual of Style doesn't specify, but it's usually short scale. --

8552:

At any rate, I'm rambling here, and I'll stop now, though I realize I haven't answered the question, but perhaps my ramblings have further clarified the question so that someone else can.

6433:

This seems like a fairly silly template; why are you creating a subpage simply for a redirect? Why not just have a note at the top saying some editors want to turn it into a redirect to

4417: 2665:

That's true. Logged in users are on average much better editors than IP's. Another thing worth of notice is that on Friday, IPs were producing good pages at the rate of 234,695 per year.

9068:

the source. The reader can judge its reliability. In cases where a source is obviously non-neutral, it is not inappropriate to make a comment to that effect, provided of course that the

6803:

Anyone can edit Knowledge and many have contributed to making it an extensive introduction to a huge range of topics. By its nature it is not definitive: always double check information.

4867: 9122: 9008: 7777:

What the heck... After wading through the Register article linked above, here's the "the issues raised in the article" as best as I can identify them. Let the "avoiding" begin.... :-)

5006: 4440:

died down, and so can be comfortably deleted after a few weeks. News is what wikinews is for, and I think it might be worth tightening the guidelines on what deserves a wikipedia page.

4835:). There's plenty of room in the article to explain if you're covering only a narrow meaning of the term, and it can be moved if necessary when a need for disambiguation later arises. 8594: 5023: 4988:

Especially when they violate the spirit of wikicracy. I continue to be outraged that the community was left out of the decision, even if the decision was technically a good one. —

4429: 6389:. In the vote, no consensus was reached, with 12 voters opting to delete, 11 to keep, and 5 to merge or redirect. Following the end of the vote, several editors, including myself, 3972:

I dont feel right pasting his private correspondence here, but I'll paraphrase. He said that the quote as the cost of his surgeries is innaccurate -- he says he doesn't keep track.

8516: 8411: 9303:

Surely somebody can write a bot to relink all the relevant years? That is, of course, if people like this plan in principle, I think the technical problems are surmountable. --

8331: 8322: 8275: 5210:). It is a fairly meaningless policy change, but it may force the Knowledge community to take stock of existing problems and make some other more important and needed changes. -- 5048: 3661:

Is this lack of comments because nobody at all cares? Or it because everybody assumes the template is redundant? If it's the latter, I could just make the template a redirect to

1440: 8336: 5736:

hoax articles by anons, but its does nothing to begin to address the broader wikicruft problem, which I believe is already even more serious (and is rapidly growing even worse).

2781:

Well, it's harder to be what I call a "good user" (maybe I should have said "very good user") than to become an admin, and we have plenty of very good users who are not admins.

8629:. You have to own the copyright on the manuscript yourself. If you don't, then take it to another printer. If you do, then you must sign here to promise me that you own it." 8625:

Church, and my religion forbids me from publishing public-domain material. You can place it under an open license allowing unlimited copying if you want, but public domain is

8499:

to license my contribution under a particular license (one that does impose restrictions even if they are small ones) if it is in the public domain already. Simply, I do not.

7396:

still remain. That is, the redirecting category will show up as empty, and users may put articles in it without them ever being seen or the error being realized. By contrast

6336: 1885:

And should we also not consider the message we send to contributors of such pages? I appreciate what you say, but sadly disagree. Still, fair play, I'll withdraw once again.

8198: 7230:, and so it shows up itself as empty and orphaned. Is this kind of category redirect a standard practice, or is it something that should be handled in some other way? -- User 3487: 3347:

visitors to learn about the surrounding area and its history, using Knowledge content? We deliberately want these uses, and millions like them, to be made of our content. --

7698:

Anyway yeah, I know I'm whining like Zoe said and missing the whole pith of Knowledge which isn't so much about writing an encyclopedia as it is a big Bomis traffic machine.

6988: 3432:

I've been seeing some backlash against Template use. Is there specific policy on this? Is this just an attitude, or a trend? A couple of instances that happened to me today:

8651:

an individual contribution under GFDL when you know it is public domain: the GFDL belongs to the Connochaetean Church, and its functioning requires you to own the copyright.

6826: 6454: 6405: 5467:

I support the experimental policy change. And it should be clear to anyone who's read a newspaper—it turned up on my print copy of the Boston Globe yesterday—or performed a

5344: 5306: 5167: 4423: 3784: 2819: 2773: 1813: 1778: 9118:. There is nothing (IMHO) very controversial there, but much of the text of the article is based on the writers of the article observing the installation of the art work. 7186:

clearly applies. Political POV (in any direction) should be avoided. Knowledge has articles for most incumbents, so adding an article for a candidate seems only fair. --

5491: 4881: 3697:

If not, is anyone checking to make sure that major WP policies are always easy to find, whether by clueless newbies or allegedly experienced active users (like me)? TIA---

7223: 5068: 4730:

regarded it as a disambiguation move, rather than an NPOV "disclaimer" move. There are two other articles with very similar titles to "American terrorism". So that leaves

5846:

is not in dispute, at least not by me. I do not even dispute that from time to time anons have started legitimate articles which have sometimes grown into good articles.

5409: 5086: 1334:; that is, repeating something everywhere to convince or persuade the reader of that thing. Electionworld, could you please develop as deep as you can this topic, but in 8884: 7446: 6969: 6420: 6182:. I also feel that we must avoid getting bogged down in disputes over moral philosophy or espistemology and focus on practical measures we can take as a community, and 6101:

When I called for a public discussion here at WP in advance of major policy changes, I should have made it clear that I have in mind a "policy cyle" somewhat like this:

5283: 2822: 9160:

The preference is for scientific or engineering notation. Voyager 1 travelled 14.2×10 kilometers (engineering notation) or 1.42×10 kilometers (scientific notation). --

7088: 7076: 4552:

completely suitable for Knowledge. Those parts aren't original research, because they only involve compiling facts from existing sources, just like Knowledge articles.

3809: 7341: 7337: 5183: 3568: 3456: 1530: 9268: 5820:

encyclopedia is incompatible with permitting the rapid growth of hoaxes, vanity articles, blatant factual inaccuracies, crackpottery and other cruft in the Knowledge.

4974: 4019:

The money quote has been moved around in the article. Your quoted part as it stood before being deleted it was CnP from one of the media articles used as reference.

3833: 1658:

is not policy. So how about we put the correct actual text there that would be the "consensus policy" please, else it's all going to be very confusing to new people.

7103: 7067: 4644: 4606: 4581: 1930: 1816: 6612: 5154:

I'll throw my voice in with those opposing; there's no reason for this policy. We are simply not being overwhelmed by the bad new pages created by anons, and if we

4996: 3471: 1954: 1297: 8740: 8724: 8674: 7254:

Until category redirects actually work, they should be replaced by a "This category should be empty, all articles should be in Category:Foo" type message.. -- User

6488: 5341: 5303: 5164: 4469: 3318: 2816: 2770: 1810: 1775: 8585:

the fact that other content "must not violate any copyright" implies that any content which is not original to you must have at least as much freedom as the GFDL.

7197: 6594: 6474: 6461: 6444: 5369: 4887:

Or–possibly–Jimbo was referring to the recently-expanded pool of admins with CheckUser privileges. Perhaps the best place to ask Jimbo what he means might be at

4484: 1544:

is proposing a major change to existing Knowledge practice, namely removing the difference between policies and guidelines. I think it is worth taking a look at

9072:

is neutral and, if necessary, sourced. For example, in a discussion of whether chocolate is healthy, it would be perfectly reasonable to cite Harvard researcher

9022: 8433: 8121: 7955: 7934: 7534: 7502: 7084: 7063: 6576: 6390: 4821: 4715: 4535: 4287: 4134: 50: 8028: 7150: 6561: 6427: 6321:

These are better, but I rather have no policies at all. So, if you can, please get rid of the policies. If not, please do either number 1 or number 2. --anon

5170: 4970:

It would certainly help if Jimbo would start letting us know ahead of time what his new "experiments" are going to be before reporting them to the press. Zoe (

3404: 3386: 3362:

I'm not offhand sure of the educational-only prohibition, but the major problem with "non-commercial" is that many non-commercial clauses essentially mean that

1781: 1304:

Ignoring the fact that I think it's a bit over the top to mention this in every single article related to Belarusian politics, I do think it was a violation of

8002: 7972: 7716: 7129:

item 3.) Is it possible to design a policy where applicants for administrator positions here are required to disclose their user names at other wiki projects?

6895: 6275: 5669:. I have the impression that the WP board is extremely reluctant to acknowledge certain regretable hard truths about human nature (or at least, the nature of 5309: 5020: 4971: 4006:"one figure quoted on a Web site estimates" (unspecified website even) is not a very authorative source :). So I would definently trust his email on this one. 3806: 3662: 3642: 3355: 3337: 3119: 2785: 2776: 1749: 1317: 8811:

Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but be consistent within an article. Normally you should use plain numbers for years in the

8055: 4959: 4500: 3084: 2928: 2910: 1745:

No. On two counts: For one it's posible to ignore practically everything and still be ok, and for two rules pages are labeled practically at random, it seems

9325: 9229: 8466: 8457: 7920: 7538: 7527: 6652: 6272: 5476: 5347: 5335: 5223: 4231: 3610: 3560: 3480: 2809: 1482: 1223: 8950: 8941: 8894: 7889: 6525:

goodwill, its major assets are a farm of computers (for which, after expenses, you'd get very little money for) and the Knowledge trademark and domain name.

4529: 4513:, and tend to lose a lot of readers quite quickly, before they're fully polished or the full story emerges. It might be worth working through everything on 4105: 3525: 3418: 3075: 2669: 2656: 2644: 1761: 1562:

In fact this is not a change at all, rather undoing some instruction creep. Many people still (correctly) refer to all wikipedia rules as being guidelines.

9348: 8421: 8294: 7031: 6979: 6626: 6062: 5318:

Filtered out of this, of course, are the many, many articles that were speedy-deleted shortly after being created. Anyone who has spent much time watching

4023: 3653: 2749: 1892: 1876: 1272:

considered only by some as unfair, and CIS observers didn't say so. If Belarusians like Lukashenko, Knowledge can't lie nor hide any position or fall into

9312:

They probably could, but we would have to decide whether we want years linked or not when they are unimportant. I think it is a good solution, though. --

8912: 8759: 8565: 7763: 7641: 6854: 6833: 6811: 6692:

anonymous 'volunteers'—who they believe should be held responsible for the content they publish. For more information, visit www.WikipediaClassAction.org.

6355: 6258: 5226: 4904: 4595: 2873:

Ban the vandalizers, ban them all, no strikes, no second chances. If they decide to vandalize an article, they do not deserve to come back, end of story.

2635: 2589: 1915: 1903: 1740: 1715: 1662: 1633: 1596: 1579: 1566: 1379: 9279: 9073: 8880:

kilometers, because he had been prohibited from BCE vs BC edit wars on penalty of block, it has nothing to do with content, some people are just trolls--

8737: 8671: 8513: 8408: 8328: 8319: 8310: 8285: 8272: 8086: 7739: 7729: 7658: 7436: 6499: 6484:

I oppose such a template on the basis that it would be confusing for a person who logs on to Knowledge to read an article and not necessarily edit it. --

6368: 5568:

allegation that an army of honest folk quickly revert vandalism to such articles, by my estimate a random user has a chance of finding this article in a

5387: 5199: 5109: 4803: 4673: 4170: 4156: 4077: 4014: 3984: 3963: 3590: 3548: 2967: 2945: 9392: 9378: 9361: 9214: 9195: 9183: 9164: 9040: 8987: 7467: 6727: 3693:

Content must not violate any copyright and must be based on verifiable sources. By editing here, you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL.

3636: 3145: 2815:

lose the information and gain nothing. Generally, I don't see how stopping anons from creating new pages helps us improve the articles we already have.

2763: 2734: 9093: 8962: 7770:

encylopedia! Otherwise, while you are free to rail and go on as much as you like, I'm somewhat at a loss as to what response you are hoping to get...

7631: 7183: 7130: 6457:, each side gets equal billing. Redirect and article are presented as equally valid options, each requiring exactly the same amount of work to access. 6386: 5436: 5073:

Who the hell came up with this ridiculous idea? This was done with no consensus at all! I swear that this just came out of thin air. What happened to "

5061: 4861: 4788: 4768: 4747: 4667: 4631: 4283: 3739: 1832: 9298: 9288: 7687: 7675: 5624:

of anon edits constitute vandalism, hoaxes, or other edits which (we would probably agree) are destructive to the stated purpose/goals of WP. Yes, I

5508: 3893: 3042: 2845: 2704: 2691: 1757:

pages are labeled the wrong thing? All the ones I've seen make sense to me, with the possible exception of the consensus page as discussed above. --

1460: 1238: 1210: 9336:

Ah, I should have mentioned that, too. There is a proposal to automate era formats for registered users, in a way that would be controlable through

9316: 9307: 9108: 9084: 8384:

the copyright holder already allows copying for the purposes that Knowledge requires -- such as by having already placed the material under the GFDL!

8190: 8181: 8110: 7671:"has an editorial policy of bashing whenever they possibly can." Did you mean they only bash WP whenever they can or, like, everything in the world? 6544: 6376: 6328:. It seems to me that Knowledge should be the one to file a lawsuit against these mean-spirited pricks launching this crap against the Knowledge. — 6038: 6012: 5798: 5780: 5265: 5256: 5246: 5214: 5147: 5017: 4564:

that encyclopedia article.") -- even the slightest possibility of being accused of plagiarism is a risk that I won't touch with an eleven-foot pole.

4407: 4393: 4354: 3800: 3514: 2720: 1361:

What troubles me is that a country like America is very sensitive to words, whether or not they be of substance. And America was watching today...--

7706: 7415: 6346:

Can someone direct me to the policy that WP has (if any exists) on what the naming/text should be like for China related articles. I stumbled upon

4383: 4118: 3287:

Surely Knowledge is not a commercial project, and thus these licenses are allowed by U.S. law, correct? And yet here they are listed as prohibited.

2887:

The frequent users just copy content from other sources, wikipedia is merely a storehouse that is accumulating knowledge from what is already known.

9055: 8495:

The issue is not whether I want to allow my contribution to be widely and freely copied, or whether I object to the GFDL's intent; it is whether I

8170: 8128: 7176: 5237: 5119: 4839: 4617: 4246: 4092: 4062: 3929: 1869:

all the time, but that's no reason to deprecate it. You're under no obligation to speedy an article just because someone's put a template on it. —

8799: 8785: 8736:

shut up about this now, consider myself governed by the intended meaning henceforth, and offer my thanks to those who took the time to answer. --

6885: 6536:

Note that the page has google ads. He just wants to surf the Siegenhaler wave, get on CNN, and rake in some nice adsense revenue. Ignore him. --

9089:

Sources should be named, but there is normally the suggestion of credibility if we cite a source without providing grounds for doubting it. ---

7748: 6642: 6303:

6)People should have the right to choose whether to get a username or not. Knowledge shouldn't force people to get a username to make articles.

5461: 5133: 4873:"Jimmy Wales, who founded Knowledge, said that the site would make more information about users available to make it easier to lodge complaints." 4344: 4201: 4187: 2880: 2579: 1376: 1246: 9051:

is a notable such case. In these cases just following your favourite official source is not okay, and you should probably discuss the conflict.

8824:

I don't think this is satisfactory, as it seems to lead to edit wars between those who feel strongly about the appropriateness of each system.

7712:

This is the 7th anti-Knowledge screed from the Register essayist with a nagging hatred. We've stopped listening since the Pol Pot comparison.

7506: 5405:

If we do make a change, we could limit it to a week or a month and collect information on whether it works and whether new editors are lost. --

3278:

There are many different kinds of non-commercial licenses, but generally they say something like You may use, copy, or distribute this work for

2725:

Though they seem to appear retroactively, if the second edit stops them being a redirect. At least, I'm sure I saw one last night. Interesting.

2568:

means pages that should have or should not have been created, not good or bad articles have been written. All this limited to article namespace.

1897:

Accidents aren't vandalism. Vandalism requires bad-faith. Of course an accident that keeps on happening becomes progressively less accidental. -

9341: 8867: 7483:

Q: If Category A redirects to Category B and User C puts Article D into Category A, then Article D won't show up on Category B like it should!

5041: 3853:. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created." 7012: 6361: 5673:

humans), but I strongly believe that it is only a matter of time before they will have take this step, however reluctantly. My point is that

4350:

Unfortunately there is a culture of merging short convenient articles into long unwieldy ones. I believe it's linked to a dislike of "stubs".

1182: 7037: 6920: 6792: 4302:

The reason that changes can not be made perminant is because this is an ENCYCLOPEDIA! Information changes constantly, things happen, etc. --

3671: 3599: 1855: 1556: 1510: 9425: 8846: 8141:

I know I'm going to get a lot of heat for this one after gleaning the 'Anon New Page Creation' argument. I support that policy, by the way.

7968:

The current title perhaps suggests that legal action was taken in the cases listed, i.e. somebody sued for defamation. Is this at all true?

6769: 6751: 4444: 1200: 8901: 7650:

has always hated Knowledge, and has an editorial policy of bashing whenever they possibly can. The "hive mind" crap is a direct quote from

6434: 6281:

What's a user space page? Whatever it is, it doesn't sound good. Why would anybody want to ban anonymous users? They shouldn't because:

5361:

is less than clear (and I submit, unlikely) that many anons that previously submitted "quality pages" will be deterred by registration. I

3427: 3262: 9244:

over the traditional BC/AD notation versus the less common but arguably more NPOV BCE/CE notation, some Wikipedians have decided that the

9154: 8870: 6315:

1) Whenever an anonymous user wants to make an article, they have to go here (or some other place) to debate whether they want it or not.

4462:, seems to have the potential to become another landmark event in British folklore/history. I think the guidelines are okay as they are. 3729: 3579: 2002: 9052: 8282: 8178: 7843:

checked, selections from the corpus are published. If someone would like to link to the many existing discussions of this, please do so.

7559: 7524: 6964: 5677:, because WP will have been that much more degraded by the time Wikimedia gets serious about protecting high quality articles which have 5116: 4836: 4614: 4404: 4380: 4184: 4183:. The reason we want both is that the fair use provides a backup in the case that the explicit permission falls through for some reason. 4074: 3792: 3415: 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: 8937: 3776: 1865:

polite'n'explanatory note on the tagger's user talk page. I find people tagging perfectly comprehensible (if quite deletable) pages as

9370:

on the page talking about the tehnical proposal that you might want to read first; it contains arguments for why the two proposals are

9027:

yes, "reputable" is relative to the subject. You don't go looking for Pokemon character names in the Proceedings of the Royal Society.

8233: 6638: 6341: 5794:

that similar projects that tried to get quality through limitation of access rather than through sheer numbers of editors have failed.

5012: 3521: 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: 6553:

If a spiteful person was willing to pay for the lawsuit, taking the domain name would be a huge lose to this effort, don't you think?

6249:

combine technical and policy elements; technical problems and possible solutions can be best explored by the sysops (i.e. developers,

3824:

having a user page, that person can create a throwaway account for the purpose. Not sure why they would need to do this, however....

3623:

protect a page that gets linked from a somewhere prominent. We could lose far more good editors than what we would temporarily gain.--

8474:

This is the original poster. I decided to wait a couple of days before coming back to this, to allow time for considered responses.

8102:

I question whether this is a good idea. It seems to encourage a certain type of vandal to make trouble, hoping to score an entry. --

4926:

The article doesn't say who this information will be provided to, and under what circumstances. It does, however, speak of Knowledge

4324: 3257: 1767: 1406:

to not be specific enough (and should I be weary it's not actually policy?) I still left a note about adding the links on the user's

403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 379: 375: 371: 201: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 177: 173: 169: 165: 157: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 133: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 109: 105: 101: 9001: 4872: 3305:

In both cases, the email linked to did not help clarify this in the slightest, so I was hoping someone here could explain it to me.

8267:

But you can write it. As an unregistered user, you have two choices... (and then continue with something like the present notice).

5222:

contribute on impulse, I won't contribute further, because it impedes my altruistic impulses. I can just read google news instead.

3232: 1975: 1365: 6716: 5963:

below says more than I could say in a thousand words about why we must, however reluctantly, ban unregistered editors from the WP.

4711:

Articles that go by titles that cannot be neutrally applied to what that title referes to, should have the (term) qualifier". ---

3520:

Yes, please come! This is not another minor policy!! MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! Please don't let this slip by, and at least just read

7895: 7214: 4891:; it seems a tad reckless to jump from a one-line quote at the bottom of a news.com article to the headline on this page section. 3493: 8819:, use AD or CE for the date at the end of the range (note that AD precedes the date and CE follows it). For example, ]–] or ]–]. 5054: 4317: 1843:

I think we either have to deprecate this or give better guidance on what constitutes a claim of non-notability. I just removed

7803:"If "publication" by an "encyclopedia" means anything, it means that you have to get those facts right. / More or less. Kinda." 7618:

happens to behave like a clueless, irresponsible 14 year old boy. Wankers, fiddlers, fools and trolls. Also from that article:

6449:

Because doing it the way you suggest essentially makes the redirect a "second best" option. This is one of the reasons the old

5577:. (Too bad, incidently, that Wikimedia presumably lacks the funds for a properly designed Harris Poll or something like that.) 1985: 1947: 67: 8983:

helping to deal with them, and looking for minor unimportant things shove in other people's faces, is as trolling as it gets.

8944:

that a preference setting for BCE/CE or BC/AD be created. If it is technically possible, this suggestion has my full support.

5938:

than to the proverbial free lunch. In social experiments, as in physics, if a claim seems to good to be true, it probably is.

7386: 7203: 4722:

Two things: first, from my reading of the associated talk page, it appears that at least some people involved in the move of

4544:

I am quite aware that essays written for a class, on the whole, are not encyclopedia articles, particularly because they are

4083:

Really? Even if the owner of the copyright gives permission? And I think this falls under "Publicity photos" under fair-use.

3880: 3864: 3502: 3377:, which may be worth looking at (there was an argument on wikien-l, the project mailing list, about this a week or two back) 1256: 8485:

Therefore it requires the work to be under copyright, and a contributor cannot "agree" to place it under GFDL if it is not.

5709:

why did I learn about this new policy from a friend who read about it on CNN, rather than from the Knowledge welcome page?

1330:

if you don't consider it so; you're right, traditional and typical vandalism is another thing. I'll insist with the idea of

7576:

Calls for responsibility, we learn, in that unique strangulated prose style that is truly Knowledge's legacy to the world -

7249:, which is not much different from "see instead", but has a little better message (and is easier for bots to find). -- User 4222: 2008: 1703:

page; I don't think that's necessary, but I'm not strongly opposed. Maybe just a clearer note that the ideal of consensus

1490: 8772: 8136: 7236: 5628:

sometimes see legitimate edits by anons to the pages I watch, but by my count, the ratio is roughly 5% legitimate to 95%

4450:

I'd disagree. I'm not sure we can accurately predict what will be a notable event, and the Hertfordshire fire, like the

3735:... and remain evermore branded, even though xe might have otherwise chosen to stay and to begin contributing elsewhere? 1391: 1283:

here... If there are objections to Belarusian democracy and its ellectoral system, that should be named and developed in

87: 5665:

Banning all edits by anons is only one baby step toward ameliorating the wikicruft problem, but I strongly believe that

1474:

hi can i copy a small portion of an article as long as i put/acknowledge Knowledge in my sources/bibliography? -thanks.

8862:

Every history book I own uses BC and AD. Michael Grant the famous Roman scholar uses them and that good enough for me.

8767: 7791:"The public has a firm idea of what an "encyclopedia" is, and it's a place where information can generally be trusted," 5176:

Where on Knowledge was this policy change announced? Do we have to hear about major changes like this from the news?

5016:

here, but I figured that a courtesy notice would be in order at this point. Further comments are of course welcome. -

4651: 4334: 4110:

I think it is pretty clear from the context that he does not want to license an image of himself under a free licence.

1193: 45: 40: 8124:. It has been proposed to formalise an arrangement used already in practice. Please continue the discussion there. -- 5955:

But while by no means all bad or otherwise problematic edits are made by anons, it is nonetheless true that anons are

5302:, both reasonably high quality articles that were created totally by anons, including references from the first edit. 3686: 8115: 7268:

I have done some work on this myself, and reviewed the Bug trackers. The following problems from my experience &

4850:

explains how to use a disambiguating term in parens to avoid name conflict, nowhere does it say that such terms must

2850: 1943: 1936: 57: 7161:

Is there any official policy or consensus on articles for political candidates? Someone has been poking around the

6891:

Good point, , but the intention is to draw this to the attention of people who aren't looking for the small print...

5468: 3861:. Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author." 7610:

He's 14, he's got acne, he's got a lot of problems with authority ... and he's got an encyclopedia on dar interweb.

7544: 7358:

category is empty, the articles that they are looking for are under the more current "Danish_sport_shooters", so a

7263: 6975: 3584: 3495: 2700:

now and none of them was a redirect. So either new pages are not showing redirects, or people are not making many.

9321:"In 2005, the agency hat 1997 affiliates and looked back at a history of 1492 years." Good luck with the bot... -- 9002:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Not_everything_can_be_verifyalbe_from_.22reputable_sources.22

5129:

shouldn't have even been started then, since we're now judging people by their IP addresses and user names now. --

4827:

Do not use a prefix with a colon. Do not use a parenthesized topic area unless it is to distinguish it from other

8417:

IANAL, but as far as I understand, public domain is not a license and does not work the way you think it does. --

5522:

vandalism of WP can be eliminated entirely, but this is not the point. My point is that experience--- at least,

4548:

to contain original research. But the parts that explain the background of the topic tend to be in a format that

3899: 3721: 2963:

page, how would you ever know when you don't look? Do bears really shit in the woods when no one is watching? --

1536: 83: 35: 17: 8232:, for example.) And it looks awfully unfriendly if someone is just trying to find out more about, oh, say, the 5447:

Saying "sorry, we've prevented you from doing X" is a very negative way to start someone's experience of a site.

5425:

since one must create a new (sub-)page as part of teh AfD process. The rules have always been than an anon user

5275:

Could an advocate of the position that users identified by IP addresses alone should be allowed to create pages

8881: 7475: 7393: 7273: 6505: 4525:

read through our Hurricane Katrina articles. It is posible to tell almost to the day when people lost interest.

2868:

meaninfull contribution anyway, and they would use a different computer if they really wanted to add something.

1219:

how about a mechanism that alerts a randomly selected admin that a lightly-watched article has been touched...

94: 7208: 6910: 6453:

was deleted - because, despite the disclaimer, it basically told the other side to sit down and shut up. With

2575:

It's bound to be off somewhat, but at least it's based on something. Any thoughts on what these numbers mean?

9413: 8154:

They aren't open about their personal biases but are willing to edit articles that are trying to remove bias

7369:

category is empty, the articles that they are looking for are under the more current "Firefly_planets", so a

6788: 6423:. This should help to end the edit war. If this works well, it may be helpful for other disputed situations. 4291: 3016:

moderately well educated and intelligent) and (ii) the vehemence with which such additions are then defended.

1995: 1592:

Hey, don't look at me! You're the dude(tte) who is currently responsible for consensus being not policy. ;-)

1157: 7876:

you'll be a little Jimbo of your own, and just hope that the right people will accept your benevolent rule.

7299:

Resolved. Attempting to access "Category:Danish_shooters" will redirect to "Category:Danish_sport_shooters".

7094:

privilages would the credentialed contributors then have? I have no idea! but it'd be shiny and exciting!!!

6294:

3)There are many good articles started by anonymous users that may have not be created at all without them.

3237: 1395: 9366:

Well, it says on that page feel free to add options, since that's how brainstorming works. There's also a

9019: 8834:

blocks, which eventually leads to the side that's better at gaming the rules "winning", which isn't really

8626: 7156: 7072:

This is more question to Wikimedia developers. Such feature would need software support implemented first.

6996: 6865: 6471: 6441: 3997:

Skimming the references cited in the Knowledge article, the source of the $ 200.000 seems to be this quote

3770: 1998:: So we can build a better encylopedia without capricious interference, we should know what rules apply. ( 1187: 62: 9260:

is stirring again. Please drop by, read the newly revamped projet page, and discuss your opinions on the

6300:

5)It is not a good first experience and would not encourage people to log in and use Knowledge regularly.

3975:

That was the only one that he has referred to specifically so far. I'm continuing the conversation though

1618: 1503: 9407: 9169:

Enginering notation? have never heard about it. But if it's specified as 'billion', how much is it then?

9127: 8793: 8450:

to contribute if you did not want your material to be widely and freely copied, or words to that effect.

7515:

the subject of a serious policy proposal that has already gained support and is seeking to be enacted, or

7126:. The wikitionary community had no clue as to the alledged rogue's past behavior at wikinews.(please see 5074: 4509:

A thought prompted by this - we have a lot of very good articles on such events... but they're very good

3751: 3709: 2640:

If this is an experiment why does the message given to IPs no longer mention it is a temporary measure ?

1990: 5767:

To end on a slightly more positive note: I presume that this change means that the WP board is at least

3211:

Rembeber, things have multible classification, so you can follow "Islamic banking" in any of this ways:

2682:

Any idea what proportion of these are redirects? I know at one point I was creating dozens at a time...

7569: 3745: 1838: 1518: 86:. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either 8203:

If a non-registered user attempts to create a new page, they now see a notice that begins as follows:

5252:

like 2 seconds and its free. If you want to write a new article, get an account. seems simple to me.--

3817:

does create user and user talk pages for an anonymous editor, that anonymous editor is able to reply.)

2622:

means that it's encyclopedic information, which still hasn't been turned at least into a proper stub.

7400: 7243: 7172:

Politically, I don't care for either candidate. But I'd like to keep things clean on both sides. --

6807:

Just my suggestion to reduce misunderstanding, misuse and misrepresentation of Knowledge content. ...

6541: 6347: 6143:

above, I did not mean to imply that the WP Board, sysops, or admins, should be prevented from taking

4727: 4694: 3576: 3401: 3352: 3315: 3208:

And that is what i propose, multiple classification, and also being explicit and ordered about it :)

2806: 1700: 8186:

I can appreciate that. Though you can understand that I would appreciate a solution even more. :-\

6397:, redirected the article on the basis that it was a POV fork and there was no consensus to keep it. 1287:

and not in every article about that country. This is a separate topic, aside the articles' contents.

8689: 8602:

It's not that it's unfair to readers; it's that it requires submitters to make a false declaration.

7605:

Now a picture of the body behind the "Hive Mind" of "collective intelligence" begins to take shape.

7494: 6743:

Perhaps this observation may help your efforts: The site may possibly be making illegal use of the

6416: 4900: 4847: 4832: 4761: 3829: 3484: 3453: 1526: 1486: 1251:

Hello everyone; I'm not registered here but still I think that I can make my little contributions.

1206:

It's been proposed before. The concern was that it would just tell vandals where defense was lax.

3183:

Christianity/Christian studies/Christian philosophy/Christian view of Humans/Christian view of Men

9016: 7344:(note the capitalization) that was empty. Attempting to do a #REDIRECT did not work in this case. 6468: 6438: 5195: 4784:, which is what happens now. I think this can of worms is much smaller than Babajobu fears. --- 3946: 3269: 3166: 2906: 2696:

Hmmm... must not be many, I don't think I saw any in that sample. I tried the first 30 links in

1545: 1407: 9245: 2871:

How you find the vandalizers is up to you, but once you find them it is clear what must be done.

7512:

Generally, it shouldn't. We generally create namespace pages only for matters that either are:

7147: 7099: 6880: 4855:

would not expect this to be an article about a band. A similar rationale could IMO apply here.

4455: 4364: 4311: 4242: 4166: 4130: 4088: 4058: 3980: 3925: 2863:

Proxy server you say? Well ban the proxy server, proxy IPs should not be allowed to edit either

1264: 29: 7681: 6318:

2)If an anonymous user vandalizes more than five times, ban that person from making articles.

2618:

means that the created page has been turned at least into a proper stub since it was created.

7901: 7377: 6186:

seems to me to reside at the core of the WP experience. That might be worth keeping in mind.

5546: 4888: 4497: 4466: 4434: 3646: 3138: 1935:

Following considerable discussion concerning selective POV suppression on Talk:NPOV, a draft

1912: 1889: 1852: 1737: 1625:

is not policy, and I suspect this is because it's mostly details of various ways to obtain a

1507: 1469: 8362:

This new rule is much stronger. In order to place something under the GFDL, you must first

6938:

is that they are expected and looked to be doing do in good faith, to build an encyclopedia.

6646: 6325: 4776:

is with the concept itself, and not the name applied to the concept, the dispute will go to

9188: 8305: 7913: 7523:

That said, you can create pages for anything you like - just watch out for the MFDers. :-)

7462: 7456:

No, just edit any article that refers to such a category to refer to the real category. --

7431: 7269: 7192: 7173: 7073: 7043: 7009: 7002: 6827:

Knowledge:Village pump (policy)#Notice of discussion about possible policy proposals at RfC

6757:

author of the Register articles seems to find the idea of Knowledge offensive somehow. The

6744: 6586: 6537: 6450: 5207: 5101: 4736: 4731: 4683: 4481: 4441: 3937: 3758: 3717: 3628: 3572: 3397: 3374: 3348: 3311: 3276:

I'm confused as to why certain liceses are banned... Firstly, the non commercial license: "

3253:

do it everywhere... What do you think, can i continue doing it? (Zora, im not asking you)--

3150: 3142: 2803: 2747: 2606:

are those that shouldn't have been created (including pages that have since been deleted),

1844: 1549: 1499: 1478: 1234:

I suppose one could make it an admin-only function, although that would limit its utility.

1220: 7788:"Knowledge is indeed, as its supporters claim, a phenomenal source of pop culture trivia." 5322:

can tell you that a large portion of the pages created are candidates for deletion. Check

5096:. If it doesn't work, or it meets with disapproval, it will go away. We'll see, I guess.-- 4360: 2540:

all users were creating 1,274,580 pages/year – 636,195 (49.92%) good, 638,385 (50.08%) bad

8: 9421: 9322: 9261: 9032: 8955: 8721: 8591: 8581: 8462:

It still says all that. There's an additional one-line message higher up as well, now. --

7999: 7952: 7917: 7881: 7623:

Knowledge is losing good editors at an alarming rate, but who can blame them for leaving?

7425:

what should happen in all the relevant cases is not easy, let alone implementing it. --

6872: 5959:

responsible for far more than their fair share of bad edits. And the table presented by

5931: 5104: 5033: 4896: 4459: 4424:

Wikipedia_talk:Picture_of_the_day#Please:_let.27s_discuss_refraining_from_crediting_names

4020: 3825: 3710: 3631: 3554: 3509: 3072: 2653: 1711:), and it's only the specifics that are guidelines, at the top of the consensus page. -- 1696: 1655: 1622: 1522: 1341: 1335: 1314: 1284: 9133: 8144:

I think it would be a good idea to block anons from editing disputed articles because:

6821: 5990:

does not entail free denial of responsibility for what you do and say in a public forum.

4053:

What do you think? even though i dont have EXPRESS permission, should i post the image?

2537:

logged in users were creating 568,305 pages/year – 397,120 (71%) good, 171,185 (29%) bad

1695:

Do we need a policy page just for that? We could do that, and move much of the current

9081: 8803: 8783: 8454: 8342: 8229: 7027: 6558: 5488: 5434: 5323: 5191: 4859: 4723: 4663: 4400: 4280: 4229: 3468: 3382: 2902: 2730: 2687: 1830: 1456: 1352: 1294: 1252: 9367: 9238: 8827: 8825: 4831:

articles describing the same term in different topic areas; IIRC, this is policy (see

3191:

that its not there, instead of it having some name you couldent gues or seach for :)

9208: 9177: 9148: 8544: 8463: 8430: 7736: 7713: 7144: 7095: 6931:

Knowledge itself, is an encyclopedia. It depends upon users to add valid information.

6906: 6877: 6869: 6784: 6609: 6329: 5380: 4989: 4372: 4238: 4162: 4126: 4084: 4054: 3976: 3921: 3874: 3334: 3243: 3161: 2717: 2586: 1873: 5340:

Naturally....the point was to provide examples of quality pages submitted by anons.

3215:

Religion/Islam/Islamic studies/Islamic Jursiprudence/Islamic economy/Islamic banking

2941:

I suppose you're suggesting that we start by banning the 15 million users on AOL? --

9249: 8107: 7124: 6983: 6934:

Users have a completely free hand to add such information as they see fit, and the

6412: 6382: 5926:

holds that (apparently by some previously unknown law of nature) articles can only

5563:

As another illustration of the magnitude of the problem, I have also been tracking

5417: 5384: 5319: 5290: 4592: 4570: 4494: 4463: 4451: 3766: 2710: 2697: 1909: 1886: 1849: 1746: 1734: 1733:

Ignoring a guideline is being bold, ignoring policy is potentially disruptive, no?

1659: 1593: 1563: 1541: 1346:

or similar would be great and leave place for naming Lukashenko's response to that.

9241: 8219:

Knowledge has restricted the ability for unregistered users to create new pages...

7326: 7287: 6953:) most clearly state thast only verifiable factual information is relevant anyhow. 5745:

publically discussed.) This page is too inconvenient a forum for user input, IMO.

5499: 9284:

That's a very good idea. Some date formats are already done that way, right? --

8935: 8755: 8561: 8300: 8125: 7931: 7855: 7778: 7771: 7548: 7457: 7426: 7187: 7006: 6892: 6851: 6808: 6645:), because they have long-standing complaints about Knowledge's coverage of them 6591: 6510:

What's the best way to make the community aware of and prepare to defend against

6485: 6059: 5643: 5600: 5564: 5242:

I think you've got it backwards... anonymous users make many good contributions.

5097: 4796: 4628: 4478: 3667: 3624: 3595: 3543: 3529: 2842: 2745: 1967: 1411: 1305: 6916: 6913: 3689:

fully correct and up to date? If so, is that consistent with this injunction?:

3483:

in the past few days. Perhaps issue #2 can be (re-)raised there again, too....

3115:

What Hoary mentioned is not Nupedia. Nupedia is an entirely different concept --

2626:

means created pages that we should have speedied or afd'd, but which we missed.

1410:

about it though. Anyway there was a quick dicussion about external links on the

9417: 9375: 9354: 9345: 9265: 9257: 9231: 9028: 8973: 8959: 8909: 8843: 8835: 8083: 8025: 7877: 7854:

And how were we "avoiding" the "issues" raised in the Register article, again?

7684: 7655: 7127: 6950: 6758: 6573: 6572:

Is the use of the Knowledge logo a violation of copyright, or is it fair use?

6055: 5616:

that about "half" of all WP edits seem to constitute vandalism, but clearly we

5276: 5211: 4946:

This debate is a very good thing. Perhaps it will encourage people to actually

4514: 4426: 4198: 4153: 4115: 4011: 3960: 3842: 1982: 1959: 1802: 1798: 1771: 1362: 1310: 1179: 1171: 8166:, doesn't take more than a minute to create and doesn't violate your privacy. 4367:). It is typical on Knowledge to break up really long articles — for example, 4125:

Do you think we can just treat this as fair use? I dont want to seem pushy =)

2534:

anons were creating 706,275 pages/year – 234,695 (33%) good, 471,580 (67%) bad

1629:

consensus, which we all know is controversial. I don't see a problem here. --

1293:

has this opinion. It is worthwile to mention that Belarus is a member of OSCE.

9192: 9161: 9078: 8898: 8831: 8780: 8451: 8375: 8187: 8167: 8051:

What some call "defamation" others call "information". Consider renaming. (

7969: 7651: 7450: 7336:

one remaining issue I discovered with category redirects. This occurred with

7020: 6720: 6649: 6554: 6352: 5485: 5431: 5422: 5366: 5331: 5295: 5261:

And i do agree with you Kappa that anonymous users make good contributions.--

5181: 5126: 4879: 4856: 4800: 4777: 4744: 4659: 4390: 4226: 4179:. Fair use is a specific legal concept that permits use of copyrighted works 3955:

I am getting a bit curious; would it be possible to see what he has written?

3915: 3650: 3464: 3378: 3116: 2964: 2942: 2925: 2894: 2877: 2799: 2726: 2683: 2614:

are pages created on last Friday which haven't been deleted in the meantime.

1979: 1971: 1960: 1827: 1708: 1452: 1448: 1235: 1197: 1175: 1163: 5880:, at least enough to preserve them from careless or intentional destruction. 5681:

been written (which in my view is the best way to encourage the creation of

5501:). Shouldn't we be using them as a source, rather that the other way around? 4517:

a year ago, and checking the articles are suitably "retrospective" by now...

4225:

for a standard email requesting confirmation of permission to use an image.

9276: 9203: 9172: 9143: 8505:

It is entirely reasonable for a GFDL'd work (i.e. the entire Knowledge) to

8052: 7909: 7760: 7668: 7647: 7638: 7166: 7162: 7114:

Policy needed to alert Knowledge if a rogue admin. is being considered here

6903: 6830: 6779: 6762: 6724: 6458: 6424: 6365: 6255: 6009: 5777: 5458: 5262: 5253: 5234: 5058: 5045: 5029: 4956: 4814: 4781: 4687: 4587:

As a college professor, I have a quick answer for you. Ask your professor

4341: 4321: 4303: 4102: 3905: 3869: 3789: 3736: 3726: 3698: 3534: 3330: 3254: 3229: 3081: 2714: 2641: 1999: 1870: 1866: 1431:

Is this a commmon concensus sort of thing? All these water tower links are

1403: 8240:

article), and here they get this page that's shouting about restrictions.

7930:. You may also want to pen some more guidelines such as the ones above. -- 6411:

template in order to attempt to rectify this. It will be seen as the main

4709:

As a deliberately provocative suggestion, let me advance a possible rule:

9389: 9358: 9313: 9304: 9295: 9285: 9119: 9105: 9090: 9005: 8984: 8418: 8291: 8103: 7412: 6925:

I know this may seem extreme, but I think it's a valid way to handle it:

6766: 6748: 6623: 6496: 5987: 5406: 5299: 5144: 5083: 4932:

touched off a debate about the reliability of information on Knowledge -

4818: 4785: 4765: 4712: 4641: 4603: 4576: 4252:

FINDING THIS A MESS. HOW DO I EDIT AND NOT HAVE SOMEONE WIPE OUT CHANGES?

3888: 3762: 3506: 2898: 1898: 1806: 1758: 1712: 1630: 1576: 1553: 8866:

fired up about removing the accepted system. Let this be the end of it!

7594:".... booooo big bad teecher - I'm not going to skool today. fuck you!!" 6401:

strenuously objected and reverted all of these changes. I'm using a new

5233:

If anon users don't want to get accounts, that's their loss, not ours.--

4256:

Cannot reach anyone....seems badly organized, any people have no email.

4101:

Creative Commons licenses (since those are a bit easier to understand.)

1166:, it's a good idea that's basically been abandoned. So, since I was too 9137: 9114:

What about stuff that approaches the bounds of original reserach. See

8932: 8816: 8812: 8751: 8622: 8557: 8366:. Which means that this change has taken away the right to contribute 7995: 7572:

has to say today about Knowledge's sourcing standards and credibility:

7383: 7182:

I don't know if there's anything specific to political candidates, but

7118:

I recently became aware of an alledged rogue and suspected troll admin.

6776:

vhat seems tu bi the last bastyn ov saniti in tis vorld.</voice: -->

6511: 6306:

7)When you ban out the anonymous users, you ban the good ones as well.

6035: 5960: 5795: 5711:

Shouldn't major policy changes be announced in a prominent place at WP?

5505: 5280: 5243: 4376: 4351: 3249:

What harm does it to sub-set in one or more catgories? Its not like we

3156: 3039: 2782: 2760: 2701: 2666: 2632: 2576: 1946:-- please help improve it, or leave an opinion and contribution on the 1437: 1415: 1207: 9412:

There is currently a proposal to protect all high-risk templates. See

8537:

want to with it, including not being bound by your so-called license."

7316:

Articles added to the Redirect Category instead of the Target Category

7310:

Resolved - the Redirect Category is not listed on the Target Category.

5741:

Where are such WP policy issues publically discussed? (Assuming they

5603:, even when I happen to agree with the political opinions expressed!). 3567:(used when wiring money from one bank to another)? Please comment at 3071:, you know where to find it", but it seems to be dead. Guess why....-- 2287:

mistakes (wrong language, namespace, etc.), should be deleted or moved

9132:

Is there any policy for usage of long or short scale? For example in

9115: 7868: 7823:

This is a compliment. The only proper response is, "Why, thank you."

7745: 7726: 7703: 7672: 7628: 7547:

would be the best place for long/large discussions... (Just a guess)

7184:

Knowledge:What Knowledge is not#Knowledge is not a propaganda machine

6398: 6271:

Is there any reason why User space page creation is also restricted?

5935: 5130: 4526: 4194: 4149: 4111: 4007: 3956: 8327:

And I see that someone has now further improved it. Better yet! --

7820:

CheckUser access. This doesn't seem like an earth-shattering issue.

5620:

about whether half is too much. Also, I guess you would agree that

4650:

I've reused some short summary sections from my MSc dissertation in

3820:

If someone is really bent on editing 'anonymously' from a static IP

2759:

good user, with each of the stages doing less damage and more good.

1267:, but apparently it just made it worse. My main objections are two: 8350:

By editing here, you agree to licence your contributions under the

8122:

Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#CSD_I6_-_A_new_proposal

6961: 6394: 5871:

anon edits in order to protetct the WP from further degradation by

5328: 5177: 4875: 3564: 1951: 8148:

Their edits are often inconsiderate of the history of the argument

7348: 1693:

Decisions on Knowledge are made, as far as possible, by consensus.

8994: 8920: 8237: 7565:

will do!" Here at the village pump, Zoe accused me of "whining."

5755: 5455: 5206:

Maybe we should view Jimbo's action as an experimental stimulus (

3441: 3068: 1399: 1167: 9200:

Doesn't it depends who wrote it if it's in long or short scale?

6774:<voice accent="really awful" mood="somewhat non-serious": --> 8577: 8576:

a given use would necessarily apply. In fact, I could publish

8407:

In which case, this statement in the form needs to be changed.

8271:

See what I mean? Says the same thing, but much more friendly.

7872: 7365:

A person looking for "Firefly_Planets" may not know that while

7354:

A person looking for "Danish_shooters" may not know that while

7239:. In some cases, categories have been "soft redirected" using 5934:

in discussions of Zermelo's objection to Boltzmann's so-called

4368: 3720:- the deliberate recruitment and injection of new editors into 1966:

I'm wondering if it's worthwhile to merge the data for this(to

6110:

statistical study of logs, survey data, whatever seems useful,

5867:, in which we may choose to give up the genuine benefits from 3805:

Turns out anons can't even create their own User pages. Zoe (

9140:, I interpret it as 14200000000000 km, not as 14200000000 km 9048: 6297:

4)Logged in users vandalize just as much as anonymous users.

3788:

above for some related issues. This seems to be a hot topic.

1883:

Is there not an issue here that such taggings are vandalism?

90:

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

8750:

there now -- which of them better suggests the real intent?

8621:

But to your surprise, he says, "I am a devout member of the

7518:

necessitate long-term maintenance or reference of some sort.

4418:

Should photo contributors have their names on the main page?

3200: 2754:

Absolutely. There is definitely the progress from anon-: -->

1691:

part of consensus is very short: the way I'd put it is that

82:

This page contains discussions that have been archived from

8776: 8351: 8338: 7905: 7864: 7406:

puts the redirecting article in a category (for redirects)

6850:

and added my tuppenceworth with some revisions to suit. ...

6309:

8)It doesn't take much work just to erase vandalized info.

5007:

Notice of discussion about possible policy proposals at RfC

4218: 3785:

Notice of discussion about possible policy proposals at RfC

1279:

All articles have the same text! It seems that this man is

8510:

GFDL. Your contributions must not violate any copyright."

5326:

to get some idea. This deletion takes administrator time.

5092:

I agree, but Jimbo has assured everyone that it is only a

8969:

Not everything can be verifialbe from "reputable sources"

8177:

deter them, you haven't seen how persistent they can be.

7991: 7948: 7123:

at wikinews trying to take up an adminship at wiktionary

5586:

In addition, the community should recognize that it is a

4868:

So Knowledge's now going to start outing anonymous users?

2865:

These temporary ban or edit limitation ideas are nonsense

6174:, saying that while truth may ultimately be subjective, 5599:, which I think has been another recurrent problem with 5504:

We should stick to our guns and ignore what media says.

4359:

We have sublinks. I use them all the time. For example,

2555:

12% of good new pages were still unwikified after 3 days

8951:

Knowledge Talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras

8942:

Knowledge Talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras

7119: 4799:. But anyway, maybe I'm overblowing the dangers, here. 4161:

I asked him specifically, and this time he said "yes".

3325:

along the same lines that Finley wrote, Knowledge is a

2861:

If a user vandalizes, ban their account and/or their ip

2134:

good pages, didn't get attention from experienced users

1687:

I thought about that overnight. The issue is that the

8488:

If, as Brion says, it was always the intent that each

8381:

the copyright holder already allows unlimited copying,

7912:(alleged to have occured when he was a student at the 7053: 6765:, but no one called for the Times to be shut down. -- 5588:

huge waste of the valuable time of users of good faith

3865:

WP:TFD#Template:Infobox television (current/past cast)

8923:. As regards to the issue at hand: the terms "Before 8392:

material if you have placed it in the public domain.

7121: 7042:

In reading an article at nature.com about Knowledge (

6974:

Any input on where we go from here is appreciated at

6362:

Knowledge:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV

5279:

some really good pages recently added by such users?

3481:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

3220:

Businesses/Financial services/Banking/Islamic banking

2652:

whether preventing IP page creation has any effect. —

8243:

I think the notice should look something like this:

7235:

Redirected categories are strongly discouraged, see

5713:

Sean said "Jimbo has assured everyone..." --- Sean,

5475:

this policy does to prevent gross problems like the

5069:

new policy against anonymous users creating articles

4697:- A consensus was found on the talk page for moving 3199:

Oh, one more comment: if you browse around a bit at

3080:

A non-wiki wikipedia? that would be scandalous!!!!--

8151:

They often edit without explaining on the talk page

6970:

General consensus reached on semi-protection policy

6326:

what some clowns are now saying about the Knowledge

2552:

8% of bad new pages were left unattended for 3 days

1386:

External Links "spamming" ... especially for cities

9256:Since this problem clearly hasn't just gone away, 8396:able to impose any restrictions through copyright 7900:Perhaps, in light of the recent fiasco concerning 4743:been much more stable with "(term)" in the title. 1939:has been put together on Information suppression. 6312:Therefore, this policy should end! Or you could: 5055:Knowledge talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll 4318:Knowledge talk:Verifiability#Citation format poll 2031:calculated values for all pages created on Friday 1931:Draft policy for comment: Information suppression 1375:the U.S. is not the only country in the world. -- 7001:So, what do we do about accusations of libel on 6846:Thanks for the recommendation: I've gone to the 4654:. I made sure, though, not to put them up until 3716:Due to the persistent and increasing problem of 2602:are values extrapolated from the checked pages. 8995:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Verifiability 8348:This text was added recently to the edit form: 7340:, that was in use. There was another category, 6829:for some current discussion along these lines. 4930:. However, the article later says the incident 4536:From academic assignments to Knowledge articles 3847:Perhaps best to take it up here. Should it be 2594:Hmm... I thought they were self-explenatory :) 1402:, Canada. I found the Knowledge style guide on 9342:Knowledge:User preferences for BCE/CE notation 8802:has this to say about notation of eras in the 7305:Redirect Category added to the Target Category 7237:Knowledge:Categorization#Redirected categories 6141:public discussion in advance of policy changes 5042:Knowledge:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check 3292:Others include all forms of public education, 8638:It would be unethical to sign that agreement. 3681:license policy? E.g. for uploading an image? 8199:Red links and "Page creation limited" notice 7945:Knowledge:List of known defamation incidents 7667:Please clarify and cite your assertion that 7165:article adding in a few bits of support for 5528:wikicruft is displacing high quality content 4758:Slogan: You're either with us, or against us 4279:I placed some pointers in your talk page at 2620:Didn't get attention from experienced editor 1707:policy (with a link to the relevant part of 8120:The relevant discussion is taking place at 6284:1)Some anonymous users contribute greatly. 6139:I should also stress that when I mentioned 3904:This is specifically regarding the article 3501:There currently is a straw poll running at 1396:linking to their website about water towers 8948:I suggest centralizing this discussion at 8370:material written by someone else, even if 5863:But as I see it, we are discussing making 5675:putting it off will only increase the pain 5163:inhibiting constructive additions at all. 5057:: Format of citations and WP:V examples. ( 5013:Knowledge talk:Requests for comment/Roylee 4320:: Format of citations and WP:V examples. ( 3479:another avid discussion has broken out on 6377:Using a new template to avert an edit war 3801:More fallout from the anon editing policy 3364:you cannot take any money for the product 1768:Knowledge:Naming conventions (categories) 1255:has been vandalizing every article about 8815:, but when events span the start of the 8479:provided that certain rules are followed 6637:It looks like the the site is set up by 5044:for some background to these proposals. 5028:There seems to be a related proposal at 4752:There are a few pages that use the word 1797:as needed." New users should understand 8779:. Your commetns and views are welcome. 7215:Knowledge:Village pump (policy)/Archive 6324:Sorry if this is a repeat, but look at 3685:Are the descriptions in the FAQ and at 3290:There's also the educational license: " 3137:The solution to vandalism is to repair 2036: 1247:User vandalizing Belarus-related topics 14: 9344:, which has been dormant since July. - 8446:language than it does now, urging you 7627:Hint: It's not all the bad publicity. 5706:seriousness of the wikicruft problem: 4422:Please contribute to the debate here: 9047:Sometimes official sources conflict. 7588:From which the only thing missing is: 7284:refers to the "new/in use" category. 7280:refers to the "old/unused" category, 7038:Proposal for credentialed contributor 5530:. (In fact, even displacing content 3503:Knowledge talk:Semi-protection policy 3449:What should be done in these cases? 9353:Can that be added to the options on 9000:Discussion is currently going on at 8958:. I'll reply to you there, Aecis. - 8388:You now cannot even contribute your 6512:http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org/ 4934:and by extension the entire Internet 4223:Knowledge:Confirmation of permission 3428:Desired disambiguation Template use? 3263:Copyrights % non commercial licenses 1552:to review the proposed changes. -- 1259:, putting in every article that the 1162:Something needs to be done with the 8773:Knowledge:Restricted image licenses 7846:Repeat of #3. Same answer applies. 7815:True, if somewhat misstated. Only 7560:Wankers, fiddlers, fools and trolls 7228:Category:Animal liberation movement 6240:challenge, but one thing is clear: 5646:) need more protection than others. 4928:suffering a blow to its credibility 4541:benefit Knowledge somehow as well. 4175:Explicit permission does not imply 3725:meatpuppet of the article creator. 3373:Magnus Manske has a decent summary 2021:New pages, Friday, December 2, 2005 1881:Been there, done that myself too. 1619:WP:NOT#Knowledge is not a democracy 1504:Knowledge:Copyrights#Example notice 23: 8223:The problem here is that the user 6381:There was recently an edit war at 6342:What is the WP China naming policy 6287:2)Knowledge is supposed to be the 5011:There is an ongoing discussion at 4701:to this page, for similar reasons. 4652:Freedom of information legislation 4361:Array#Advantages_and_disadvantages 1942:Draft policy for discussion is at 1194:Knowledge:Village pump (technical) 24: 9436: 9237:Hi. Due in large part to recent 7680:The reg does have it out for WP: 7382:Let me know what you think here. 5469:Google News search on "Knowledge" 4674:Qualifying articles with "(term)" 3589:I have created a new template at 1944:Knowledge:Information suppression 1398:in multiple city articles within 1263:and similar things. I reacted by 1261:ellections were not free and fair 8259:We don't have an article called 7545:Knowledge:Centralized discussion 6976:Knowledge:Semi-protection policy 6415:page and contains links to both 5928:improve monotonically in quality 5774:go ahead, make changes, be bold! 3038:more qualified contributors. -- 2585:Well explain the lables first. 1192:This proposal may better fit at 1174:, consider this an intention of 9230:Announcing the reawakwening of 8337:Knowledge edit form notice (re 7908:allegation from the article on 7896:Catalog of defamation incidents 7654:'s Knowledge-bashing Web site. 7056:12:21 (EST), December 15, 2005 5667:this is an essential first step 4493:Yeah, there's that as well. :) 3911:Here's my (two part) question. 2855:Protection policies do NOT work 2709:No, redirects don't show up in 18:Knowledge:Village pump (policy) 8893:. I brought up the same topic 7858:10:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 7781:10:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 7774:10:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 7476:Template_talk:Categoryredirect 7445:Should empty categories (like 7394:Template_talk:Categoryredirect 7392:The basic issues described in 7274:Category:Danish_sport_shooters 6075:Zocky, Of course I agree that 4917:as saying something ambiguous? 3440:The disambiguation heading at 3175:The choise is obvious IMHO :) 13: 1: 9426:23:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 9414:Knowledge:High-risk templates 9393:08:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 9379:08:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 9362:08:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 9349:08:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 9326:07:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 9317:07:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 9308:07:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 9299:07:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 9289:07:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 9280:06:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 9269:06:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC) 9215:15:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 9196:23:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 9184:21:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 9165:21:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 9155:19:25, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 9123:21:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 9109:19:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 9094:19:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 9085:18:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 9056:18:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 9041:10:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 9023:21:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 9009:22:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 8988:21:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 8977:19:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 8963:10:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 8940:PS. It has been suggested at 8938:10:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 8913:10:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 8902:01:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 8885:01:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 8871:02:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 8847:01:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 8786:04:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC) 8760:14:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 8741:04:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 8725:09:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 8675:08:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 8647:It is similarly unethical to 8595:15:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 8566:14:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 8332:05:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 8323:07:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 8311:17:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 8295:02:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 8286:00:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 8276:00:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 8191:07:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 8182:06:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 8171:03:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 8129:14:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC) 8111:00:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 8087:21:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 8029:21:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 7890:10:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 7764:09:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 7749:03:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 7740:18:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 7730:13:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 7717:05:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 7707:04:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 7688:03:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 7676:03:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 7659:00:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 7642:21:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 7632:20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 7551:11:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 7539:20:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 7528:04:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 7507:21:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 7468:20:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 7437:15:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 7416:06:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 7387:05:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 7204:Category redirects, revisited 7198:20:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 7177:14:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 7151:00:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 7134:14:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 7104:09:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 7089:21:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 7077:20:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 7068:20:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 7032:21:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 7013:21:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 6989:04:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 6965:14:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 6921:13:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 6896:16:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 6886:14:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 6855:14:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 6834:12:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 6825:perhaps already overdue. See 6812:09:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 6793:01:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 6770:00:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 6752:23:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 6728:00:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 6653:19:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 6627:00:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 6613:18:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 6595:18:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 6577:17:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 6562:18:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 6545:17:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 6500:10:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 6489:10:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 6475:16:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 6462:09:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 6445:07:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 6428:04:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 6369:17:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 6356:16:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 6337:23:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 6276:01:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 5370:03:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 5062:06:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 5049:19:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 4997:23:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 4975:16:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 4960:10:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 4905:04:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 4882:00:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 4862:01:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 4840:01:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 4822:20:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 4804:21:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 4789:15:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 4769:15:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 4756:in a similar manner, such as 4748:00:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 4716:00:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 4686:- Currently the subject of a 4668:17:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 4645:17:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 4632:16:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 4618:09:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 4607:09:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 4596:05:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 4582:04:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 4530:11:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 4501:17:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 4485:17:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 4470:17:36, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 4445:15:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 4430:23:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 4408:03:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 4403:and linked articles on meta. 4394:03:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 4384:03:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 4355:02:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 4345:00:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 4325:06:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 4307:20:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 4247:18:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 4232:16:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 4202:21:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 4188:19:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 4171:15:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 4157:10:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 4135:07:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 4119:10:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 4106:03:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 4093:01:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 4078:01:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 4063:00:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 4024:22:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 4015:23:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 3985:23:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 3964:22:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 3930:19:08, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 3894:16:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 3881:09:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 3834:17:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 3810:17:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 3793:19:37, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 3777:08:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 3740:19:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 3730:18:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 3702:20:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 3672:07:56, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 3668:Luc "Somethingorother" French 3596:Luc "Somethingorother" French 3549:05:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 3524:for a general overview, then 3488:15:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 3472:00:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 3419:02:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 3405:00:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 3387:00:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 3356:00:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC) 3246:describing what i proposed! 1996:Knowledge:User Bill of Rights 1621:, which is policy. The page 78:Village pump (policy) archive 9134:Voyager 1#Distance travelled 8517:23:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 8467:02:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 8458:13:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 8434:06:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 8422:06:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 8412:04:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 8056:00:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 8003:01:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 7973:00:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 7956:23:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 7935:06:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 7921:00:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 7856:JesseW, the juggling janitor 7811:Ok, responding in order... 7779:JesseW, the juggling janitor 7772:JesseW, the juggling janitor 7549:JesseW, the juggling janitor 6866:Knowledge:General disclaimer 6259:23:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 6063:22:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 6039:12:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 6013:09:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 5799:02:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 5781:01:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 5526:experience--- suggests that 5509:22:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 5492:21:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 5484:acceptable answers forever. 5462:21:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 5437:21:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 5410:23:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 5388:22:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 5348:23:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 5336:22:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 5310:20:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 5284:19:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 5266:19:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 5257:19:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 5247:19:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 5238:19:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 5227:19:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 5215:04:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 5200:03:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 5184:03:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 5171:03:37, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 5148:01:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 5134:00:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 5120:00:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 5110:23:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 5087:22:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 5024:17:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 4296:22:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 4221:. You might want to look at 3654:04:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 3637:00:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 3600:00:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 3580:17:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 3515:21:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 3457:22:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 3338:23:57, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 3319:23:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 3258:02:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 3233:04:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 3146:21:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 3120:17:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 3085:20:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 3076:20:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 3043:04:08, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 2968:00:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 2946:00:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 2929:23:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 2911:23:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 2881:23:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 2846:10:44, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 2823:05:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 2810:11:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 2786:01:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 2777:01:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 2764:22:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 2750:22:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 2735:14:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 2721:02:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 2705:23:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 2692:22:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 2670:18:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 2657:18:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 2645:18:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 2636:18:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 2590:18:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 2580:05:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 2319:all bad pages still existing 2256:bad pages, should be deleted 2009:Some numbers about new pages 2003:16:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 1986:18:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 1955:19:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 1916:13:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 1904:13:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 1893:13:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 1877:13:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 1856:12:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 1833:20:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1817:03:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 1782:03:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 1762:22:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 1750:22:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 1741:20:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 1716:22:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 1663:22:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 1634:14:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 1597:07:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 1580:07:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 1567:07:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 1557:06:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 1531:20:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1511:10:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC) 1461:13:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC) 1441:22:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1380:14:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1366:04:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 1318:16:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 1298:07:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 1257:political parties in Belarus 1239:03:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 1224:21:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 1211:20:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 1201:17:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 1183:03:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC) 7: 8502:Is my objection now clear? 8137:Anon Edit on Disputed Pages 7100:Breathe, Breathe in the air 6455:Template:Ambiguous redirect 5535:which has already crept in. 4262:Who makes edits permanent? 4243:Breathe, Breathe in the air 4167:Breathe, Breathe in the air 4131:Breathe, Breathe in the air 4089:Breathe, Breathe in the air 4059:Breathe, Breathe in the air 3981:Breathe, Breathe in the air 3926:Breathe, Breathe in the air 3752:Knowledge talk:Cite sources 10: 9441: 8768:Limited license for Images 8364:own the copyright yourself 7272:have been resolved. I use 7224:Category:Animal liberation 6941:Users who add information 6178:is something which can be 5593:free to create new content 4335:General Length of Articles 3225:Hoping for more feedback! 3187:Cant find it? Then you'll 2757:name sounds familiar-: --> 2545:Of pages created on Friday 1519:Knowledge:Citing Knowledge 1338:?. In the articles a mere 8882:Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused 8116:CSD images - new proposal 7943:Such a page is now up at 7637:hmm...I see your point -- 7447:Category:British_Shooters 6978:98 to 4 consensus on the 6943:knowingly and maliciously 6421:Economic fascism/Redirect 6348:List_of_railways_in_China 6107:provisional implemention, 4848:Knowledge: Disambiguation 4833:Knowledge: Disambiguation 4728:American terrorism (term) 4695:American terrorism (term) 3665:, and leave it at that. 2851:The solution to vandalism 2612:New pages, still existing 2460: 2394: 2360: 2219: 2103:good pages, properly done 2097: 2069:new pages, still existing 2063: 2056: 2053: 2050: 2045: 2042: 2039: 2029: 2024: 1861:So revert it and leave a 1701:Knowledge:Rough consensus 9246:current guideline in MoS 8690:Flying Spaghetti Monster 8162:Honestly, an account is 7614:Yep. Wikipedias vaunted 7600:Which is terrific stuff. 7342:Category:Firefly_Planets 7338:Category:Firefly_planets 6585:I'm going to agree with 6417:Economic fascism/Article 6385:, due to the outcome of 5549:. I concluded that the 5036:), which is marked as a 4265:WHO RUNS THIS PLACE???? 4043:this part of that email. 3859:Author requests deletion 3851:Author requests deletion 3585:New protection template? 3569:Talk:List of SWIFT codes 9064:What's important is to 6719:a little more clearly, 5612:Deco, I notice that we 3947:Knowledge:Autobiography 3940:image tagging template. 3900:Images, Copyright, Etc. 3645:, it is in use for the 3294:including encyclopedias 3280:non-commercial purposes 3270:Knowledge:Copyright FAQ 3167:Christian denominations 1546:Template_talk:Guideline 1537:Policies and guidelines 9004:, please participate. 8398:that the GFDL does not 7226:. It's a redirect to 6506:Knowledge Class Action 4762:Slogan 'Jesus is Lord' 4739:, because the article 4456:Bradford City disaster 4365:Knowledge:Article size 3945:2.: On the NOR issue; 3649:article for example -- 3496:Semi-protection policy 1980:Sound familiar anyone? 1344:the proccess' fairness 1332:intellectual terrorism 1274:intellectual terrorism 1265:commenting this to him 95:< Older discussions 9136:it says 14.2 billion 8877:another edit conflict 8209:Page creation limited 7902:John Seigenthaler Sr. 7373:would be needed here. 7362:would be useful here. 7294:Redirect doesn't work 7222:I've come upon this: 6391:User:Mihnea Tudoreanu 5903:clean out our cruft.) 5622:rather more than half 4889:User talk:Jimbo Wales 4073:explicit permission. 3647:John_Seigenthaler_Sr. 3559:Should Wkipedia host 3485:William Allen Simpson 3454:William Allen Simpson 3067:I'd say "If you want 2598:are those I checked, 1937:policy for discussion 1766:One example would be 1158:I hear ya BeckJord... 84:Village pump (policy) 9189:Engineering notation 7914:University of Oregon 7157:Political candidates 6997:Libel on talk pages? 6848:Notice of discussion 6451:Template:Twoversions 5842:anonymous edits are 5547:list of recent edits 4737:Islamofascism (term) 4732:Islamofascism (term) 4684:Islamofascism (term) 4272:username BECKJORD 4259:Getting no answers. 3938:Template:Fair use in 3677:What is the current 3663:Template:P-protected 3643:Template:P-protected 3296:, to be educational. 2895:No Original Research 2756:blue link user-: --> 1845:Mary Welsh Hemingway 1550:Template_talk:Policy 1500:Knowledge:Copyrights 1414:. My stance is with 1326:Well, don't call it 1188:New Feature Proposal 9408:High-risk templates 9128:long or short scale 8956:Knowledge talk:Eras 8794:BC/AD versus BCE/CE 8281:Sounds good to me. 7209:Previous discussion 6820:Have a look at the 6387:a vote for deletion 5865:judicious tradeoffs 5034:Knowledge:Footnotes 4460:Great Storm of 1987 3711:Template:Meatpuppet 3565:SWIFT banking codes 2755:red link user-: --> 1991:User Bill of Rights 1697:Knowledge:Consensus 1656:Knowledge:Consensus 1654:Yes, there you go, 1623:Knowledge:Consensus 1336:Politics of Belarus 1285:Politics of Belarus 9017:Christopher Parham 8804:Gregorian calendar 8497:have the authority 8343:considered harmful 6982:. Pretty solid. -- 6469:Christopher Parham 6439:Christopher Parham 6406:Ambiguous redirect 6332:Stevie is the man! 6104:public discussion, 5477:Seigenthaler issue 5365:this new policy. 5342:Christopher Parham 5324:Special:Log/delete 5304:Christopher Parham 5165:Christopher Parham 4992:Stevie is the man! 4913:Or even when he's 4724:American terrorism 4401:Knowledge:Subpages 4281:User talk:Beckjord 4181:without permission 4103:—Steven G. Johnson 3746:WP:CITE - too big? 2817:Christopher Parham 2771:Christopher Parham 2166:all good new pages 1839:Speedy criteria A7 1811:Christopher Parham 1776:Christopher Parham 1502:- see for example 1374: 1253:User:Electionworld 9262:project talk page 9074:Norman Hollenberg 9039: 8997:for background. 8545:Project Gutenberg 8309: 8249:Article not found 8225:may not have been 7888: 7466: 7435: 7278:Redirect Category 7196: 7030: 6919: 6437:and to see talk? 5632:edits for anons.) 5381:Balachandra Rajan 5334: 5075:assume good faith 4658:it was marked... 4373:History of Greece 4294: 4269:ANYONE HOME????? 3892: 3775: 3761:comment added by 3641:There is already 3591:Template:Nprotect 3244:Dominion Theology 3162:Christian studies 2792:Christopher said 2624:Should be deleted 2526: 2525: 2515: 2502: 2449: 2436: 2401:all bad new pages 2208: 2195: 1902: 1495: 1481:comment added by 1451:a web directory. 1412:Toronto talk page 1372: 9432: 9374:being pursued. - 9211: 9206: 9180: 9175: 9151: 9146: 9031: 8921:simple wikipedia 8533:can do anything 8303: 7880: 7568:Here's what the 7537: 7535:Ambush Commander 7505: 7503:Ambush Commander 7495:Branching Topics 7460: 7429: 7405: 7401:categoryredirect 7399: 7248: 7244:Categoryredirect 7242: 7190: 7102: 7087: 7085:Ambush Commander 7066: 7064:Ambush Commander 7026: 6909: 6413:Economic fascism 6410: 6404: 6383:Economic fascism 6334: 6247:usability issues 5818:and high-quality 5570:vandalized state 5519:strongly support 5418:Special:newpages 5327: 5320:Special:Newpages 5291:Special:Newpages 5107: 4994: 4579: 4573: 4452:Kings Cross fire 4286: 4284:≈ jossi fresco ≈ 4245: 4237:I will do that. 4169: 4133: 4091: 4061: 3983: 3928: 3891: 3877: 3872: 3774: 3755: 3634: 3615: 3609: 3546: 3539: 3532: 3512: 3172:</nowiki: --> 2711:Special:Newpages 2698:Special:Newpages 2529:At Friday's rate 2511: 2498: 2445: 2432: 2204: 2191: 2017: 2016: 1901: 1508:Francis Schonken 1494: 1475: 1436:here :) Thanks, 1176:boldness to come 79: 54: 9440: 9439: 9435: 9434: 9433: 9431: 9430: 9429: 9410: 9235: 9213: 9209: 9204: 9182: 9178: 9173: 9153: 9149: 9144: 9130: 9106:Charles Stewart 9091:Charles Stewart 8971: 8798:Currently, the 8796: 8770: 8346: 8201: 8139: 8118: 7898: 7562: 7533: 7501: 7497: 7403: 7397: 7380: 7371:speedy deletion 7351: 7329: 7327:Remaining Issue 7290: 7288:Issues Resolved 7282:Target Category 7276:as an example. 7266: 7246: 7240: 7211: 7206: 7174:Name Not Needed 7159: 7116: 7098: 7083: 7074:Pavel Vozenilek 7062: 7040: 6999: 6980:latest proposal 6972: 6864:Take a look at 6641:(WHOIS tie-ins 6587:Finlay McWalter 6538:Finlay McWalter 6508: 6408: 6402: 6379: 6344: 6330: 5878:we already have 5644:Albert Einstein 5601:Albert Einstein 5565:Albert Einstein 5396:unintentionally 5289:Looking at the 5105: 5079:strongly oppose 5071: 5009: 4990: 4972:216.234.130.130 4870: 4819:Charles Stewart 4797:folk taxonomies 4786:Charles Stewart 4713:Charles Stewart 4699:American Terror 4676: 4642:Charles Stewart 4577: 4571: 4538: 4442:Inebriatedonkey 4437: 4420: 4337: 4314: 4254: 4241: 4165: 4129: 4087: 4057: 3979: 3924: 3902: 3879: 3875: 3870: 3845: 3807:216.234.130.130 3803: 3756: 3748: 3714: 3683: 3670: 3632: 3613: 3607: 3598: 3587: 3573:Finlay McWalter 3557: 3544: 3537: 3530: 3510: 3499: 3430: 3398:Finlay McWalter 3349:Finlay McWalter 3312:Finlay McWalter 3265: 3240: 3153: 3143:216.237.179.238 2891:that's the idea 2853: 2026:pages I checked 2011: 1993: 1964: 1933: 1884: 1867:patent nonsense 1841: 1539: 1476: 1472: 1388: 1355: 1340:OSCE observers 1249: 1221:216.237.179.238 1190: 1160: 1155: 80: 77: 74: 48: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 9438: 9409: 9406: 9404: 9402: 9401: 9400: 9399: 9398: 9397: 9396: 9395: 9382: 9381: 9355:Knowledge:Eras 9334: 9333: 9332: 9331: 9330: 9329: 9328: 9323:Stephan Schulz 9310: 9291: 9258:Knowledge:Eras 9234: 9232:Knowledge:Eras 9228: 9226: 9224: 9223: 9222: 9221: 9220: 9219: 9218: 9217: 9201: 9170: 9141: 9129: 9126: 9112: 9111: 9101: 9100: 9099: 9098: 9097: 9096: 9059: 9058: 9044: 9043: 9025: 8991: 8990: 8970: 8967: 8966: 8965: 8916: 8915: 8888: 8887: 8855: 8854: 8822: 8821: 8795: 8792: 8790: 8769: 8766: 8765: 8764: 8763: 8762: 8744: 8743: 8732: 8731: 8730: 8729: 8728: 8727: 8722:Dragons flight 8712: 8711: 8710: 8709: 8708: 8707: 8698: 8697: 8696: 8695: 8694: 8693: 8680: 8679: 8678: 8677: 8665: 8664: 8663: 8662: 8655: 8654: 8653: 8652: 8649:agree to place 8642: 8641: 8640: 8639: 8633: 8632: 8631: 8630: 8616: 8615: 8614: 8613: 8606: 8605: 8604: 8603: 8592:Dragons flight 8587: 8586: 8582:Dragons flight 8571: 8569: 8568: 8554: 8553: 8549: 8548: 8539: 8538: 8525: 8524: 8472: 8471: 8470: 8469: 8437: 8436: 8425: 8424: 8386: 8385: 8382: 8379: 8345: 8335: 8316: 8315: 8314: 8313: 8288: 8269: 8268: 8264: 8263: 8256: 8255: 8252: 8221: 8220: 8216: 8215: 8212: 8200: 8197: 8196: 8195: 8194: 8193: 8160: 8159: 8155: 8152: 8149: 8138: 8135: 8133: 8117: 8114: 8100: 8099: 8098: 8097: 8096: 8095: 8094: 8093: 8092: 8091: 8090: 8089: 8068: 8067: 8066: 8065: 8064: 8063: 8062: 8061: 8060: 8059: 8040: 8039: 8038: 8037: 8036: 8035: 8034: 8033: 8032: 8031: 8012: 8011: 8010: 8009: 8008: 8007: 8006: 8005: 8000:EngineerScotty 7980: 7979: 7978: 7977: 7976: 7975: 7961: 7960: 7959: 7958: 7953:EngineerScotty 7938: 7937: 7918:EngineerScotty 7897: 7894: 7893: 7892: 7852: 7851: 7847: 7844: 7840: 7836: 7828: 7824: 7821: 7810: 7808: 7807: 7804: 7801: 7798: 7795: 7792: 7789: 7786: 7756: 7755: 7754: 7753: 7752: 7751: 7742: 7710: 7709: 7695: 7694: 7693: 7692: 7691: 7690: 7662: 7661: 7636: 7625: 7624: 7612: 7611: 7607: 7606: 7602: 7601: 7597: 7596: 7590: 7589: 7585: 7584: 7578: 7577: 7561: 7558: 7557: 7556: 7555: 7554: 7553: 7552: 7521: 7520: 7519: 7516: 7496: 7493: 7492: 7491: 7490: 7489: 7485: 7472: 7471: 7470: 7449:) be added to 7442: 7441: 7440: 7439: 7379: 7376: 7375: 7374: 7363: 7350: 7347: 7346: 7345: 7328: 7325: 7324: 7323: 7322: 7321: 7313: 7312: 7311: 7302: 7301: 7300: 7289: 7286: 7265: 7262: 7261: 7260: 7259: 7258: 7257: 7256: 7210: 7207: 7205: 7202: 7201: 7200: 7158: 7155: 7154: 7153: 7148:(spill yours?) 7115: 7112: 7111: 7110: 7109: 7108: 7107: 7106: 7070: 7039: 7036: 7035: 7034: 7007:Keith D. Tyler 6998: 6995: 6993: 6971: 6968: 6957: 6956: 6955: 6954: 6946: 6939: 6932: 6899: 6898: 6862: 6861: 6860: 6859: 6858: 6857: 6839: 6838: 6837: 6836: 6815: 6814: 6805: 6800: 6759:New York Times 6745:Knowledge logo 6741: 6740: 6739: 6738: 6737: 6736: 6735: 6734: 6733: 6732: 6731: 6730: 6702: 6701: 6700: 6699: 6698: 6697: 6696: 6695: 6694: 6693: 6680: 6679: 6678: 6677: 6676: 6675: 6674: 6673: 6672: 6671: 6658: 6657: 6656: 6655: 6632: 6631: 6630: 6629: 6616: 6615: 6604: 6603: 6598: 6597: 6582: 6581: 6580: 6579: 6567: 6566: 6565: 6564: 6548: 6547: 6533: 6532: 6527: 6526: 6521: 6520: 6507: 6504: 6503: 6502: 6482: 6481: 6480: 6479: 6478: 6477: 6378: 6375: 6373: 6343: 6340: 6291:encyclopedia. 6279: 6278: 6273:132.205.44.134 6268: 6267: 6266: 6265: 6264: 6263: 6262: 6261: 6230: 6229: 6228: 6227: 6226: 6225: 6224: 6223: 6212: 6211: 6210: 6209: 6208: 6207: 6206: 6205: 6194: 6193: 6192: 6191: 6190: 6189: 6188: 6187: 6156: 6155: 6154: 6153: 6152: 6151: 6150: 6149: 6130: 6129: 6128: 6127: 6126: 6125: 6124: 6123: 6119: 6118: 6117: 6114: 6111: 6108: 6105: 6092: 6091: 6090: 6089: 6088: 6087: 6086: 6085: 6066: 6065: 6050: 6049: 6048: 6047: 6046: 6045: 6044: 6043: 6042: 6041: 6022: 6021: 6020: 6019: 6018: 6017: 6016: 6015: 5998: 5997: 5996: 5995: 5994: 5993: 5992: 5991: 5971: 5970: 5969: 5968: 5967: 5966: 5965: 5964: 5946: 5945: 5944: 5943: 5942: 5941: 5940: 5939: 5911: 5910: 5909: 5908: 5907: 5906: 5905: 5904: 5888: 5887: 5886: 5885: 5884: 5883: 5882: 5881: 5854: 5853: 5852: 5851: 5850: 5849: 5848: 5847: 5828: 5827: 5826: 5825: 5824: 5823: 5822: 5821: 5806: 5805: 5804: 5803: 5802: 5801: 5786: 5785: 5784: 5783: 5762: 5761: 5760: 5759: 5749: 5748: 5747: 5746: 5739: 5738: 5737: 5724: 5723: 5722: 5721: 5720: 5719: 5700: 5699: 5698: 5697: 5690: 5689: 5688: 5687: 5660: 5659: 5658: 5657: 5650: 5649: 5648: 5647: 5636: 5635: 5634: 5633: 5607: 5606: 5605: 5604: 5597:registed users 5581: 5580: 5579: 5578: 5558: 5557: 5556: 5555: 5539: 5538: 5537: 5536: 5512: 5511: 5502: 5479:. But it does 5465: 5464: 5448: 5445: 5440: 5439: 5391: 5390: 5375: 5374: 5373: 5372: 5355: 5354: 5353: 5352: 5351: 5350: 5313: 5312: 5273: 5272: 5271: 5270: 5269: 5268: 5259: 5230: 5229: 5224:132.205.45.148 5218: 5217: 5208:see this email 5203: 5202: 5174: 5173: 5151: 5150: 5139: 5138: 5137: 5136: 5112: 5070: 5067: 5066: 5065: 5032:(redirects to 5008: 5005: 5004: 5003: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4999: 4981: 4980: 4979: 4978: 4965: 4964: 4963: 4962: 4953:New York Times 4941: 4940: 4939: 4938: 4937:(my emphasis). 4921: 4920: 4919: 4918: 4908: 4907: 4897:TenOfAllTrades 4892: 4869: 4866: 4865: 4864: 4843: 4842: 4811: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4792: 4791: 4772: 4771: 4703: 4702: 4692: 4675: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4637: 4636: 4635: 4634: 4621: 4620: 4599: 4598: 4537: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4521: 4519: 4518: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4488: 4487: 4473: 4472: 4436: 4433: 4419: 4416: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4410: 4357: 4336: 4333: 4331: 4329: 4328: 4313: 4312:WP:V citations 4310: 4301: 4299: 4298: 4275: 4268: 4253: 4250: 4235: 4234: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4173: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4081: 4080: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4027: 4026: 4021:SchmuckyTheCat 4004: 4003: 4002: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3987: 3973: 3967: 3966: 3952: 3951: 3942: 3941: 3901: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3867: 3844: 3841: 3839: 3837: 3836: 3826:TenOfAllTrades 3818: 3802: 3799: 3797: 3780: 3779: 3747: 3744: 3743: 3742: 3713: 3708: 3706: 3682: 3675: 3666: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3617: 3594: 3586: 3583: 3556: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3498: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3475: 3474: 3447: 3446: 3438: 3429: 3426: 3424: 3422: 3421: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3390: 3389: 3371: 3367: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3341: 3340: 3322: 3321: 3264: 3261: 3239: 3238:Please comment 3236: 3224: 3222: 3221: 3217: 3216: 3206: 3205: 3185: 3184: 3170: 3169: 3164: 3159: 3152: 3149: 3139:broken windows 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3122: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3094: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3073:Stephan Schulz 3054: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2977: 2976: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2931: 2922: 2921: 2914: 2913: 2875: 2874: 2872: 2870: 2869: 2866: 2864: 2862: 2860: 2859: 2856: 2852: 2849: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2660: 2659: 2654:Kirill Lokshin 2649: 2648: 2647: 2638: 2610:the opposite. 2572: 2557: 2556: 2553: 2549: 2548: 2546: 2542: 2541: 2538: 2535: 2531: 2530: 2524: 2523: 2516: 2510: 2503: 2497: 2490: 2483: 2476: 2469: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2458: 2457: 2450: 2444: 2437: 2431: 2424: 2417: 2410: 2403: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2392: 2391: 2386: 2381: 2376: 2373: 2370: 2367: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2358: 2357: 2350: 2343: 2336: 2331: 2326: 2321: 2315: 2314: 2307: 2302: 2297: 2294: 2291: 2288: 2284: 2283: 2276: 2271: 2266: 2263: 2260: 2257: 2253: 2252: 2245: 2240: 2235: 2232: 2229: 2226: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2217: 2216: 2209: 2203: 2196: 2190: 2183: 2178: 2173: 2168: 2162: 2161: 2154: 2149: 2144: 2141: 2138: 2135: 2131: 2130: 2123: 2118: 2113: 2110: 2107: 2104: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2095: 2094: 2089: 2084: 2079: 2076: 2073: 2070: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2061: 2060: 2055: 2052: 2049: 2044: 2041: 2038: 2034: 2033: 2028: 2023: 2010: 2007: 1992: 1989: 1963: 1958: 1932: 1929: 1927: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1882: 1840: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1718: 1699:material to a 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1570: 1569: 1538: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1523:TenOfAllTrades 1514: 1513: 1483:202.138.180.35 1471: 1468: 1466: 1464: 1463: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1418:as he stated: 1404:external links 1392:anonymous user 1387: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1354: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1321: 1320: 1301: 1300: 1289: 1288: 1277: 1248: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1241: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1214: 1213: 1189: 1186: 1170:in regards to 1159: 1156: 92: 76: 75: 73: 72: 71: 70: 65: 60: 55: 43: 38: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 9437: 9428: 9427: 9423: 9419: 9415: 9405: 9394: 9391: 9386: 9385: 9384: 9383: 9380: 9377: 9373: 9369: 9365: 9364: 9363: 9360: 9356: 9352: 9351: 9350: 9347: 9343: 9340:. That's at 9339: 9335: 9327: 9324: 9320: 9319: 9318: 9315: 9311: 9309: 9306: 9302: 9301: 9300: 9297: 9292: 9290: 9287: 9283: 9282: 9281: 9278: 9273: 9272: 9271: 9270: 9267: 9263: 9259: 9254: 9251: 9247: 9243: 9240: 9233: 9227: 9216: 9212: 9207: 9199: 9198: 9197: 9194: 9190: 9187: 9186: 9185: 9181: 9176: 9168: 9167: 9166: 9163: 9159: 9158: 9157: 9156: 9152: 9147: 9139: 9135: 9125: 9124: 9121: 9117: 9110: 9107: 9103: 9102: 9095: 9092: 9088: 9087: 9086: 9083: 9080: 9075: 9071: 9067: 9063: 9062: 9061: 9060: 9057: 9054: 9050: 9046: 9045: 9042: 9038: 9036: 9030: 9026: 9024: 9021: 9018: 9013: 9012: 9011: 9010: 9007: 9003: 8998: 8996: 8989: 8986: 8981: 8980: 8979: 8978: 8975: 8964: 8961: 8957: 8954: 8952: 8947: 8946: 8945: 8943: 8939: 8936: 8934: 8930: 8926: 8922: 8914: 8911: 8906: 8905: 8904: 8903: 8900: 8896: 8892: 8891:Edit conflict 8886: 8883: 8878: 8875: 8874: 8873: 8872: 8869: 8863: 8859: 8851: 8850: 8849: 8848: 8845: 8839: 8837: 8833: 8828: 8826: 8820: 8818: 8814: 8809: 8808: 8807: 8805: 8801: 8791: 8788: 8787: 8784: 8782: 8778: 8774: 8761: 8757: 8753: 8748: 8747: 8746: 8745: 8742: 8739: 8734: 8733: 8726: 8723: 8718: 8717: 8716: 8715: 8714: 8713: 8704: 8703: 8702: 8701: 8700: 8699: 8691: 8686: 8685: 8684: 8683: 8682: 8681: 8676: 8673: 8669: 8668: 8667: 8666: 8659: 8658: 8657: 8656: 8650: 8646: 8645: 8644: 8643: 8637: 8636: 8635: 8634: 8628: 8624: 8623:Connochaetean 8620: 8619: 8618: 8617: 8610: 8609: 8608: 8607: 8601: 8600: 8599: 8598: 8597: 8596: 8593: 8583: 8579: 8574: 8573: 8572: 8567: 8563: 8559: 8556: 8555: 8551: 8550: 8546: 8541: 8540: 8536: 8532: 8527: 8526: 8521: 8520: 8519: 8518: 8515: 8511: 8508: 8503: 8500: 8498: 8493: 8491: 8486: 8482: 8480: 8475: 8468: 8465: 8461: 8460: 8459: 8456: 8453: 8449: 8444: 8439: 8438: 8435: 8432: 8427: 8426: 8423: 8420: 8416: 8415: 8414: 8413: 8410: 8405: 8401: 8399: 8393: 8391: 8383: 8380: 8377: 8376:public domain 8374:it is in the 8373: 8372: 8371: 8369: 8365: 8360: 8356: 8355: 8353: 8344: 8340: 8334: 8333: 8330: 8325: 8324: 8321: 8312: 8307: 8302: 8298: 8297: 8296: 8293: 8289: 8287: 8284: 8280: 8279: 8278: 8277: 8274: 8266: 8265: 8262: 8258: 8257: 8253: 8251: 8250: 8246: 8245: 8244: 8241: 8239: 8235: 8231: 8226: 8218: 8217: 8213: 8211: 8210: 8206: 8205: 8204: 8192: 8189: 8185: 8184: 8183: 8180: 8175: 8174: 8173: 8172: 8169: 8165: 8156: 8153: 8150: 8147: 8146: 8145: 8142: 8134: 8131: 8130: 8127: 8123: 8113: 8112: 8109: 8105: 8088: 8085: 8080: 8079: 8078: 8077: 8076: 8075: 8074: 8073: 8072: 8071: 8070: 8069: 8057: 8054: 8050: 8049: 8048: 8047: 8046: 8045: 8044: 8043: 8042: 8041: 8030: 8027: 8022: 8021: 8020: 8019: 8018: 8017: 8016: 8015: 8014: 8013: 8004: 8001: 7997: 7993: 7988: 7987: 7986: 7985: 7984: 7983: 7982: 7981: 7974: 7971: 7967: 7966: 7965: 7964: 7963: 7962: 7957: 7954: 7950: 7946: 7942: 7941: 7940: 7939: 7936: 7933: 7929: 7925: 7924: 7923: 7922: 7919: 7915: 7911: 7907: 7903: 7891: 7887: 7885: 7879: 7874: 7870: 7866: 7861: 7860: 7859: 7857: 7848: 7845: 7841: 7837: 7834: 7829: 7825: 7822: 7818: 7817:page creation 7814: 7813: 7812: 7805: 7802: 7799: 7796: 7793: 7790: 7787: 7784: 7783: 7782: 7780: 7775: 7773: 7767: 7765: 7762: 7750: 7747: 7743: 7741: 7738: 7733: 7732: 7731: 7728: 7723: 7722: 7721: 7720: 7719: 7718: 7715: 7708: 7705: 7701: 7697: 7696: 7689: 7686: 7682: 7679: 7678: 7677: 7674: 7670: 7666: 7665: 7664: 7663: 7660: 7657: 7653: 7652:Daniel Brandt 7649: 7646: 7645: 7644: 7643: 7640: 7634: 7633: 7630: 7621: 7620: 7619: 7617: 7609: 7608: 7604: 7603: 7599: 7598: 7595: 7592: 7591: 7587: 7586: 7583: 7580: 7579: 7575: 7574: 7573: 7571: 7566: 7550: 7546: 7542: 7541: 7540: 7536: 7531: 7530: 7529: 7526: 7522: 7517: 7514: 7513: 7511: 7510: 7509: 7508: 7504: 7486: 7484: 7480: 7479: 7477: 7473: 7469: 7464: 7459: 7455: 7454: 7452: 7448: 7444: 7443: 7438: 7433: 7428: 7424: 7419: 7418: 7417: 7414: 7409: 7402: 7395: 7391: 7390: 7389: 7388: 7385: 7372: 7368: 7364: 7361: 7357: 7353: 7352: 7343: 7339: 7335: 7331: 7330: 7319: 7318: 7317: 7314: 7309: 7308: 7306: 7303: 7298: 7297: 7295: 7292: 7291: 7285: 7283: 7279: 7275: 7271: 7255: 7252: 7251: 7250: 7245: 7238: 7233: 7232: 7231: 7229: 7225: 7220: 7219: 7218: 7216: 7213:(copied from 7199: 7194: 7189: 7185: 7181: 7180: 7179: 7178: 7175: 7170: 7168: 7164: 7152: 7149: 7146: 7142: 7138: 7137: 7136: 7135: 7132: 7128: 7125: 7122: 7120: 7105: 7101: 7097: 7092: 7091: 7090: 7086: 7080: 7079: 7078: 7075: 7071: 7069: 7065: 7059: 7058: 7057: 7055: 7050: 7047: 7044: 7033: 7029: 7024: 7023: 7017: 7016: 7015: 7014: 7011: 7008: 7004: 6994: 6991: 6990: 6987: 6986: 6981: 6977: 6967: 6966: 6963: 6952: 6947: 6944: 6940: 6937: 6933: 6930: 6929: 6928: 6927: 6926: 6923: 6922: 6918: 6915: 6912: 6908: 6905: 6897: 6894: 6890: 6889: 6888: 6887: 6884: 6883: 6879: 6876: 6875: 6871: 6867: 6856: 6853: 6849: 6845: 6844: 6843: 6842: 6841: 6840: 6835: 6832: 6828: 6823: 6819: 6818: 6817: 6816: 6813: 6810: 6806: 6804: 6801: 6797: 6796: 6795: 6794: 6790: 6786: 6782: 6781: 6772: 6771: 6768: 6764: 6760: 6754: 6753: 6750: 6746: 6729: 6726: 6722: 6721:User:Interiot 6718: 6714: 6713: 6712: 6711: 6710: 6709: 6708: 6707: 6706: 6705: 6704: 6703: 6690: 6689: 6688: 6687: 6686: 6685: 6684: 6683: 6682: 6681: 6668: 6667: 6666: 6665: 6664: 6663: 6662: 6661: 6660: 6659: 6654: 6651: 6647: 6644: 6640: 6636: 6635: 6634: 6633: 6628: 6625: 6620: 6619: 6618: 6617: 6614: 6611: 6606: 6605: 6600: 6599: 6596: 6593: 6588: 6584: 6583: 6578: 6575: 6571: 6570: 6569: 6568: 6563: 6560: 6556: 6552: 6551: 6550: 6549: 6546: 6543: 6539: 6535: 6534: 6529: 6528: 6523: 6522: 6517: 6516: 6515: 6513: 6501: 6498: 6493: 6492: 6491: 6490: 6487: 6476: 6473: 6470: 6465: 6464: 6463: 6460: 6456: 6452: 6448: 6447: 6446: 6443: 6440: 6436: 6432: 6431: 6430: 6429: 6426: 6422: 6418: 6414: 6407: 6400: 6396: 6392: 6388: 6384: 6374: 6371: 6370: 6367: 6363: 6358: 6357: 6354: 6349: 6339: 6338: 6335: 6333: 6327: 6322: 6319: 6316: 6313: 6310: 6307: 6304: 6301: 6298: 6295: 6292: 6290: 6285: 6282: 6277: 6274: 6270: 6269: 6260: 6257: 6252: 6248: 6243: 6238: 6237: 6236: 6235: 6234: 6233: 6232: 6231: 6220: 6219: 6218: 6217: 6216: 6215: 6214: 6213: 6202: 6201: 6200: 6199: 6198: 6197: 6196: 6195: 6185: 6181: 6177: 6173: 6169: 6164: 6163: 6162: 6161: 6160: 6159: 6158: 6157: 6146: 6142: 6138: 6137: 6136: 6135: 6134: 6133: 6132: 6131: 6120: 6115: 6112: 6109: 6106: 6103: 6102: 6100: 6099: 6098: 6097: 6096: 6095: 6094: 6093: 6082: 6078: 6074: 6073: 6072: 6071: 6070: 6069: 6068: 6067: 6064: 6061: 6058:debate). .... 6057: 6052: 6051: 6040: 6037: 6032: 6031: 6030: 6029: 6028: 6027: 6026: 6025: 6024: 6023: 6014: 6011: 6006: 6005: 6004: 6003: 6002: 6001: 6000: 5999: 5989: 5984: 5979: 5978: 5977: 5976: 5975: 5974: 5973: 5972: 5962: 5958: 5954: 5953: 5952: 5951: 5950: 5949: 5948: 5947: 5937: 5933: 5929: 5924: 5919: 5918: 5917: 5916: 5915: 5914: 5913: 5912: 5901: 5896: 5895: 5894: 5893: 5892: 5891: 5890: 5889: 5879: 5874: 5870: 5866: 5862: 5861: 5860: 5859: 5858: 5857: 5856: 5855: 5845: 5841: 5836: 5835: 5834: 5833: 5832: 5831: 5830: 5829: 5819: 5814: 5813: 5812: 5811: 5810: 5809: 5808: 5807: 5800: 5797: 5792: 5791: 5790: 5789: 5788: 5787: 5782: 5779: 5775: 5770: 5766: 5765: 5764: 5763: 5757: 5753: 5752: 5751: 5750: 5744: 5740: 5735: 5730: 5729: 5728: 5727: 5726: 5725: 5716: 5712: 5708: 5707: 5704: 5703: 5702: 5701: 5694: 5693: 5692: 5691: 5684: 5680: 5676: 5672: 5668: 5664: 5663: 5662: 5661: 5654: 5653: 5652: 5651: 5645: 5640: 5639: 5638: 5637: 5631: 5627: 5623: 5619: 5615: 5611: 5610: 5609: 5608: 5602: 5598: 5594: 5589: 5585: 5584: 5583: 5582: 5576: 5571: 5566: 5562: 5561: 5560: 5559: 5552: 5548: 5543: 5542: 5541: 5540: 5533: 5529: 5525: 5520: 5516: 5515: 5514: 5513: 5510: 5507: 5503: 5500: 5496: 5495: 5494: 5493: 5490: 5487: 5482: 5478: 5474: 5470: 5463: 5460: 5457: 5453: 5449: 5446: 5442: 5441: 5438: 5435: 5433: 5428: 5424: 5419: 5414: 5413: 5412: 5411: 5408: 5403: 5399: 5397: 5389: 5386: 5382: 5377: 5376: 5371: 5368: 5364: 5359: 5358: 5357: 5356: 5349: 5346: 5343: 5339: 5338: 5337: 5333: 5330: 5325: 5321: 5317: 5316: 5315: 5314: 5311: 5308: 5305: 5301: 5297: 5296:Youth Leagues 5292: 5288: 5287: 5286: 5285: 5282: 5278: 5267: 5264: 5260: 5258: 5255: 5250: 5249: 5248: 5245: 5241: 5240: 5239: 5236: 5232: 5231: 5228: 5225: 5220: 5219: 5216: 5213: 5209: 5205: 5204: 5201: 5197: 5193: 5192:Bunchofgrapes 5188: 5187: 5186: 5185: 5182: 5179: 5172: 5169: 5166: 5162: 5157: 5153: 5152: 5149: 5146: 5141: 5140: 5135: 5132: 5128: 5127:National Pact 5123: 5122: 5121: 5118: 5113: 5111: 5108: 5103: 5099: 5095: 5091: 5090: 5089: 5088: 5085: 5080: 5076: 5063: 5060: 5056: 5053: 5052: 5051: 5050: 5047: 5043: 5039: 5035: 5031: 5026: 5025: 5022: 5019: 5014: 4998: 4995: 4993: 4987: 4986: 4985: 4984: 4983: 4982: 4976: 4973: 4969: 4968: 4967: 4966: 4961: 4958: 4954: 4949: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4942: 4936: 4935: 4929: 4925: 4924: 4923: 4922: 4916: 4912: 4911: 4910: 4909: 4906: 4902: 4898: 4893: 4890: 4886: 4885: 4884: 4883: 4880: 4877: 4874: 4863: 4860: 4858: 4853: 4849: 4845: 4844: 4841: 4838: 4834: 4830: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4823: 4820: 4816: 4805: 4802: 4798: 4794: 4793: 4790: 4787: 4783: 4779: 4774: 4773: 4770: 4767: 4763: 4759: 4755: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4746: 4742: 4738: 4733: 4729: 4725: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4714: 4707: 4700: 4696: 4693: 4689: 4685: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4669: 4665: 4661: 4657: 4653: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4643: 4633: 4630: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4619: 4616: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4605: 4597: 4594: 4590: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4580: 4575: 4574: 4565: 4563: 4559: 4553: 4551: 4547: 4542: 4531: 4528: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4516: 4512: 4508: 4507: 4502: 4499: 4496: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4486: 4483: 4480: 4475: 4474: 4471: 4468: 4465: 4461: 4457: 4453: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4443: 4435:Deleting news 4432: 4431: 4428: 4425: 4409: 4406: 4402: 4397: 4396: 4395: 4392: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4382: 4379:, and so on. 4378: 4374: 4370: 4366: 4362: 4358: 4356: 4353: 4349: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4343: 4332: 4326: 4323: 4319: 4316: 4315: 4309: 4308: 4305: 4297: 4293: 4289: 4285: 4282: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4273: 4270: 4266: 4263: 4260: 4257: 4249: 4248: 4244: 4240: 4233: 4230: 4228: 4224: 4220: 4215: 4214: 4203: 4200: 4196: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4186: 4182: 4178: 4174: 4172: 4168: 4164: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4155: 4151: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4136: 4132: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4117: 4113: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4104: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4090: 4086: 4079: 4076: 4072: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4060: 4056: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4025: 4022: 4018: 4017: 4016: 4013: 4009: 4005: 3999: 3998: 3996: 3995: 3994: 3993: 3992: 3991: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3974: 3971: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3965: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3953: 3948: 3944: 3943: 3939: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3927: 3923: 3919: 3917: 3912: 3909: 3907: 3895: 3890: 3885: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3878: 3873: 3866: 3862: 3860: 3854: 3852: 3840: 3835: 3831: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3811: 3808: 3798: 3795: 3794: 3791: 3787: 3786: 3778: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3753: 3750: 3749: 3741: 3738: 3734: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3728: 3723: 3719: 3712: 3707: 3704: 3703: 3700: 3695: 3694: 3690: 3688: 3680: 3674: 3673: 3669: 3664: 3655: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3635: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3612: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3597: 3592: 3582: 3581: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3550: 3547: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3533: 3527: 3523: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3513: 3508: 3504: 3497: 3489: 3486: 3482: 3477: 3476: 3473: 3470: 3466: 3461: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3455: 3450: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3425: 3420: 3417: 3412: 3411: 3406: 3403: 3399: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3388: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3368: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3354: 3350: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3339: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3323: 3320: 3317: 3313: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3303: 3299: 3297: 3295: 3288: 3285: 3283: 3281: 3274: 3273: 3271: 3260: 3259: 3256: 3252: 3247: 3245: 3235: 3234: 3231: 3226: 3219: 3218: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3209: 3204: 3202: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3192: 3190: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3176: 3173: 3168: 3165: 3163: 3160: 3158: 3155: 3154: 3148: 3147: 3144: 3140: 3121: 3118: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3086: 3083: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3044: 3041: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 2992: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2969: 2966: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2947: 2944: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2930: 2927: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2903:Bunchofgrapes 2900: 2899:Verifiability 2896: 2892: 2888: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2879: 2848: 2847: 2844: 2824: 2821: 2818: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2808: 2805: 2801: 2796: 2791: 2787: 2784: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2775: 2772: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2762: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2748: 2746: 2742: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2719: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2707: 2706: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2689: 2685: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2671: 2668: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2658: 2655: 2650: 2646: 2643: 2639: 2637: 2634: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2617: 2616:Properly done 2613: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2596:Checked pages 2593: 2592: 2591: 2588: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2578: 2573: 2570: 2569: 2567: 2563: 2554: 2551: 2550: 2547: 2544: 2543: 2539: 2536: 2533: 2532: 2528: 2527: 2522: 2521: 2517: 2514: 2509: 2508: 2504: 2501: 2496: 2495: 2491: 2489: 2488: 2484: 2482: 2481: 2477: 2475: 2474: 2470: 2468: 2467:all new pages 2465: 2464: 2459: 2456: 2455: 2451: 2448: 2443: 2442: 2438: 2435: 2430: 2429: 2425: 2423: 2422: 2418: 2416: 2415: 2411: 2409: 2408: 2404: 2402: 2399: 2398: 2393: 2390: 2387: 2385: 2382: 2380: 2377: 2374: 2371: 2368: 2366:deleted pages 2365: 2364: 2359: 2356: 2355: 2351: 2349: 2348: 2344: 2342: 2341: 2337: 2335: 2332: 2330: 2327: 2325: 2322: 2320: 2317: 2316: 2313: 2312: 2308: 2306: 2303: 2301: 2298: 2295: 2292: 2289: 2286: 2285: 2282: 2281: 2277: 2275: 2272: 2270: 2267: 2264: 2261: 2258: 2255: 2254: 2251: 2250: 2246: 2244: 2241: 2239: 2236: 2233: 2230: 2227: 2224: 2223: 2218: 2215: 2214: 2210: 2207: 2202: 2201: 2197: 2194: 2189: 2188: 2184: 2182: 2179: 2177: 2174: 2172: 2169: 2167: 2164: 2163: 2160: 2159: 2155: 2153: 2150: 2148: 2145: 2142: 2139: 2136: 2133: 2132: 2129: 2128: 2124: 2122: 2119: 2117: 2114: 2111: 2108: 2105: 2102: 2101: 2096: 2093: 2090: 2088: 2085: 2083: 2080: 2077: 2074: 2071: 2068: 2067: 2062: 2059: 2048: 2035: 2032: 2027: 2022: 2019: 2018: 2015: 2006: 2004: 2001: 1997: 1988: 1987: 1984: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1962: 1957: 1956: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1940: 1938: 1928: 1917: 1914: 1911: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1900: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1891: 1888: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1875: 1872: 1868: 1864: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1854: 1851: 1846: 1834: 1831: 1829: 1824: 1823: 1818: 1815: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1783: 1780: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1760: 1756: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1748: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1739: 1736: 1731: 1730: 1717: 1714: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1664: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1644: 1635: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1616: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1598: 1595: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1581: 1578: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1568: 1565: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1515: 1512: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1470:about copying 1467: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1439: 1434: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1381: 1378: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1364: 1359: 1345: 1343: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1319: 1316: 1312: 1307: 1303: 1302: 1299: 1296: 1295:Electionworld 1291: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1275: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1240: 1237: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1225: 1222: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1212: 1209: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1199: 1195: 1185: 1184: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1165: 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: 9411: 9403: 9371: 9337: 9264:. Thanks! - 9255: 9236: 9225: 9131: 9113: 9069: 9065: 9034: 8999: 8992: 8972: 8949: 8928: 8927:" and "Anno 8924: 8917: 8890: 8889: 8876: 8864: 8860: 8856: 8840: 8823: 8810: 8797: 8789: 8771: 8752:Steve Summit 8738:66.96.28.244 8672:66.96.28.244 8648: 8588: 8570: 8558:Steve Summit 8534: 8530: 8514:66.96.28.244 8512: 8506: 8504: 8501: 8496: 8494: 8489: 8487: 8483: 8478: 8476: 8473: 8447: 8442: 8409:66.96.28.244 8406: 8402: 8397: 8394: 8389: 8387: 8367: 8363: 8361: 8357: 8349: 8347: 8329:66.96.28.244 8326: 8320:66.96.28.244 8317: 8290:I agree. -- 8273:66.96.28.244 8270: 8260: 8248: 8247: 8242: 8224: 8222: 8208: 8207: 8202: 8163: 8161: 8143: 8140: 8132: 8119: 8101: 7910:Ahmad Rashad 7899: 7883: 7853: 7832: 7816: 7809: 7776: 7768: 7757: 7737:Lotsofissues 7714:Lotsofissues 7711: 7699: 7669:The Register 7648:The Register 7635: 7626: 7615: 7613: 7593: 7581: 7567: 7563: 7498: 7482: 7422: 7407: 7381: 7370: 7366: 7359: 7355: 7333: 7315: 7304: 7293: 7281: 7277: 7267: 7253: 7234: 7221: 7212: 7171: 7167:Chris Carney 7163:Don Sherwood 7160: 7145:Mindspillage 7140: 7117: 7096:TastemyHouse 7051: 7048: 7041: 7021: 7000: 6992: 6984: 6973: 6958: 6942: 6936:quid pro quo 6935: 6924: 6900: 6881: 6873: 6863: 6847: 6802: 6778: 6773: 6763:Jayson Blair 6755: 6742: 6715:Please sign 6610:DJ Clayworth 6531:contingency. 6509: 6483: 6380: 6372: 6359: 6345: 6331: 6323: 6320: 6317: 6314: 6311: 6308: 6305: 6302: 6299: 6296: 6293: 6288: 6286: 6283: 6280: 6250: 6246: 6241: 6183: 6179: 6175: 6171: 6167: 6144: 6140: 6080: 6076: 5982: 5956: 5932:fluctuations 5927: 5922: 5899: 5877: 5872: 5868: 5864: 5843: 5839: 5817: 5773: 5768: 5754:By the way, 5742: 5733: 5714: 5710: 5682: 5678: 5674: 5670: 5666: 5630:illegitimate 5629: 5625: 5621: 5617: 5613: 5596: 5592: 5587: 5574: 5569: 5550: 5531: 5527: 5523: 5518: 5480: 5472: 5466: 5454:would rock. 5451: 5426: 5404: 5400: 5395: 5392: 5362: 5274: 5175: 5160: 5155: 5093: 5078: 5077:" anyway? I 5072: 5037: 5027: 5010: 4991: 4952: 4947: 4933: 4931: 4927: 4914: 4871: 4851: 4828: 4810: 4753: 4740: 4710: 4708: 4704: 4698: 4677: 4655: 4638: 4600: 4588: 4569: 4566: 4561: 4557: 4554: 4549: 4545: 4543: 4539: 4520: 4511:for the time 4510: 4438: 4421: 4338: 4330: 4300: 4274: 4271: 4267: 4264: 4261: 4258: 4255: 4239:TastemyHouse 4236: 4180: 4176: 4163:TastemyHouse 4127:TastemyHouse 4085:TastemyHouse 4082: 4070: 4055:TastemyHouse 4052: 3977:TastemyHouse 3922:TastemyHouse 3920: 3913: 3910: 3906:Stalking Cat 3903: 3858: 3856: 3850: 3848: 3846: 3838: 3821: 3804: 3796: 3783: 3781: 3757:— Preceding 3718:meatpuppetry 3715: 3705: 3696: 3692: 3691: 3684: 3678: 3660: 3620: 3588: 3558: 3536: 3535: 3500: 3451: 3448: 3431: 3423: 3363: 3326: 3304: 3300: 3293: 3291: 3289: 3286: 3279: 3277: 3275: 3267: 3266: 3250: 3248: 3241: 3227: 3223: 3210: 3207: 3198: 3193: 3188: 3186: 3177: 3174: 3171: 3151:Sub-articles 3136: 2990: 2920:information. 2890: 2886: 2854: 2839: 2793: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2587:Lotsofissues 2574: 2571: 2565: 2561: 2559: 2558: 2519: 2518: 2512: 2506: 2505: 2499: 2493: 2492: 2486: 2485: 2479: 2478: 2472: 2471: 2466: 2453: 2452: 2446: 2440: 2439: 2433: 2427: 2426: 2420: 2419: 2413: 2412: 2406: 2405: 2400: 2388: 2383: 2378: 2353: 2352: 2346: 2345: 2339: 2338: 2333: 2328: 2323: 2318: 2310: 2309: 2304: 2299: 2279: 2278: 2273: 2268: 2248: 2247: 2242: 2237: 2212: 2211: 2205: 2199: 2198: 2192: 2186: 2185: 2180: 2175: 2170: 2165: 2157: 2156: 2151: 2146: 2126: 2125: 2120: 2115: 2091: 2086: 2081: 2057: 2046: 2037:created by: 2030: 2025: 2020: 2012: 1994: 1965: 1941: 1934: 1926: 1862: 1842: 1754: 1704: 1692: 1688: 1626: 1617:policy; see 1614: 1540: 1477:— Preceding 1473: 1465: 1432: 1430: 1389: 1360: 1356: 1339: 1331: 1327: 1280: 1273: 1260: 1250: 1191: 1161: 368: 161: 97: 93: 81: 30:Village pump 28: 9338:preferences 8318:Thanks! -- 7131:Methodology 6985:Woohookitty 6917:Eventualist 6914:Darwikinian 6911:Wishy Washy 6519:worthwhile. 6113:assessment, 5988:free speech 5385:Chick Bowen 5300:Noah Brooks 4593:Chick Bowen 4495:Steve block 4479:violet/riga 4464:Steve block 3555:SWIFT codes 3437:templates." 3242:I also saw 3194:Deco wrote 2758:admin-: --> 1910:Steve block 1908:Fair play. 1887:Steve block 1850:Steve block 1747:Kim Bruning 1735:Steve block 1660:Kim Bruning 1594:Kim Bruning 1564:Kim Bruning 1542:Kim Bruning 9138:kilometers 8817:Common Era 8813:Common Era 8706:copyright. 8490:individual 8301:Rick Block 8236:(from the 8126:Gurubrahma 7996:retraction 7932:Gurubrahma 7458:Rick Block 7427:Rick Block 7188:Rick Block 7049:Thoughts? 7003:talk pages 6893:dave souza 6852:dave souza 6822:Disclaimer 6809:dave souza 6717:your posts 6592:Bachrach44 6486:Gurubrahma 6435:some title 6084:required". 6060:dave souza 5957:as a group 5923:registered 5769:discussing 5575:unreliable 5481:something, 4741:really has 4691:recovered; 4629:JamesMLane 4377:Greek food 3619:We should 3611:vprotected 3522:#Rehashing 3157:Christians 2843:dave souza 2608:good pages 2054:logged in 2043:logged in 1613:Consensus 1390:A certain 1353:A question 100:Archives: 51:persistent 9376:GTBacchus 9346:GTBacchus 9266:GTBacchus 9116:The Gates 8974:Askolnick 8960:GTBacchus 8910:FCYTravis 8844:GTBacchus 8627:right out 8299:Done. -- 8084:Askolnick 8026:Askolnick 7869:Bessarion 7833:Knowledge 7685:Jacoplane 7656:FCYTravis 7616:Hive mind 7543:Probably 7264:Revisited 6574:Guettarda 6399:User:RJII 6176:knowledge 6172:knowledge 6145:emergency 6077:enlarging 5983:recommend 5936:H-theorem 5554:articles. 5212:JWSchmidt 5159:fighters 5038:guideline 4427:Borisblue 3687:this page 3494:Proposed 3201:Mathworld 3141:quickly. 2991:suggested 2604:Bad pages 2600:all pages 1983:karmafist 1948:talk page 1517:See also 1433:connected 1408:talk page 1394:has been 1373:America's 1363:VKokielov 1328:vandalism 1311:Johnleemk 1180:karmafist 46:Proposals 41:Technical 9193:Carnildo 9162:Carnildo 9079:Dpbsmith 8899:Elliskev 8452:Dpbsmith 8261:Gas Belt 8234:Gas Belt 8188:LambaJan 8168:LambaJan 7970:Dmharvey 7570:Register 7532:Okay. — 7423:defining 7378:Talkback 7360:redirect 7270:Bug #100 7141:honestly 7022:Katefan0 6650:Interiot 6639:QuakeAID 6555:Tedernst 6395:User:172 6353:novacatz 5696:changes. 5618:disagree 5551:majority 5486:Dpbsmith 5367:Srcastic 5178:User:Zoe 4915:reported 4876:User:Zoe 4829:existing 4801:Babajobu 4780:and not 4745:Babajobu 4660:Shimgray 4558:the same 4546:expected 4458:and the 4454:and the 4177:fair use 3771:contribs 3759:unsigned 3679:official 3465:Tedernst 3379:Shimgray 2943:Carnildo 2795:problem. 2727:Shimgray 2684:Shimgray 1968:WP:RULES 1491:contribs 1479:unsigned 1453:Shimgray 1377:DanielCD 1342:objected 1306:WP:FAITH 1281:lobbying 1236:Dsmdgold 1198:Dsmdgold 58:Idea lab 9368:section 9277:Firebug 9070:comment 8507:contain 8238:Indiana 8053:SEWilco 7926:Go for 7839:anyone? 7761:SEWilco 7488:being." 7349:Summary 7054:csundar 6951:WP:NPOV 6904:Zordrac 6882:phoenix 6831:Andrewa 6780:wwwwolf 6725:Andrewa 6459:Firebug 6425:Firebug 6366:BadSeed 6184:sharing 6148:clears. 6081:assumed 6056:WP:GRFA 5844:helpful 5686:saving. 5679:already 5363:support 5263:Alhutch 5254:Alhutch 5235:Alhutch 5161:without 5059:SEWilco 5046:Andrewa 4957:Andrewa 4515:WP:NEWS 4342:Zeizmic 4322:SEWilco 3790:Andrewa 3737:Uncle G 3727:Firebug 3442:Antioch 3255:Striver 3230:Striver 3082:Alhutch 3069:Nupedia 2715:Cryptic 2642:Robmods 2000:SEWilco 1871:Cryptic 1803:WP:NPOV 1799:WP:GFDL 1772:WP:NPOV 1400:Ontario 1172:WP:AUTO 9418:bainer 9390:Kjkolb 9359:Kjkolb 9314:Kjkolb 9305:SCZenz 9296:Kjkolb 9286:SCZenz 9250:ArbCom 9120:Morris 9082:(talk) 9020:(talk) 9006:Elvarg 8985:Elvarg 8929:Domini 8925:Christ 8661:wrong. 8578:Hamlet 8455:(talk) 8443:change 8419:Improv 8292:Kjkolb 8104:Jmabel 7873:spinor 7451:WP:CFD 7413:SCZenz 7332:There 6907:(talk) 6799:lines: 6789:growls 6767:Kjkolb 6749:Nerd42 6624:Kjkolb 6497:Kjkolb 6472:(talk) 6442:(talk) 6393:, and 6242:layout 6180:shared 5489:(talk) 5473:little 5423:WP:AFD 5407:Kjkolb 5345:(talk) 5332:(talk) 5307:(talk) 5168:(talk) 5145:Improv 5084:Ixfd64 5018:Banyan 4846:While 4817:. --- 4778:WP:AfD 4766:SimonP 4754:slogan 4369:Greece 3916:WP:NOR 3889:Splash 3863:, per 3843:CSD G7 3763:Dan100 3722:WP:AFD 3561:a list 3545:kurity 3268:(from 2893:, see 2820:(talk) 2800:WP:MEA 2774:(talk) 2718:(talk) 2628:On AFD 2560:Note: 2225:on AFD 1976:BJAODN 1972:WP:NOT 1961:WP:ENC 1899:Splash 1874:(talk) 1814:(talk) 1779:(talk) 1759:SCZenz 1713:SCZenz 1709:WP:NOT 1689:policy 1631:SCZenz 1577:SCZenz 1554:SCZenz 1449:WP:NOT 1371:Well. 36:Policy 9357:? -- 9066:state 9049:Ganon 8933:Aecis 8868:Dwain 8523:all". 8464:Brion 8431:Brion 8082:sex." 7951:?) -- 7474:From 7384:Sct72 6785:barks 6777:=) -- 6648:. -- 6168:truth 6036:Zocky 5961:Zocky 5796:Zocky 5715:where 5614:agree 5506:Zocky 5281:patsw 5244:Kappa 5030:WP:FN 4948:learn 4852:never 4815:WP:RM 4782:WP:RM 4688:WP:RM 4656:after 4589:first 4578:speer 4562:wrote 4352:Kappa 4001:lot." 3621:never 3571:. -- 3335:wiser 3331:older 3040:Hoary 2889:Yes, 2802:.) — 2783:Zocky 2761:Zocky 2702:Zocky 2667:Zocky 2633:Zocky 2577:Zocky 2513:(45%) 2500:(55%) 2447:(27%) 2434:(73%) 2206:(63%) 2193:(37%) 2058:total 2047:total 1863:nasty 1755:Which 1627:rough 1438:Mrtea 1416:Krupo 1208:RJFJR 88:start 16:< 9422:talk 9416:. -- 9372:both 9242:wars 9239:edit 9210:Toth 9179:Toth 9150:Toth 9053:Deco 8993:See 8897:. -- 8895:here 8836:NPOV 8777:GFDL 8756:talk 8562:talk 8352:GFDL 8339:GFDL 8306:talk 8283:Deco 8230:lynx 8179:Deco 8164:free 8158:one. 8108:Talk 7906:rape 7865:1473 7746:Wyss 7727:Wyss 7704:Wyss 7700:Porn 7673:Wyss 7639:Link 7629:Wyss 7525:Deco 7463:talk 7432:talk 7367:that 7356:that 7307:Bug 7296:Bug 7193:talk 7139:Oh, 7005:? - 6761:had 6747:. -- 6643:here 6559:talk 6542:Talk 6419:and 6360:Try 6289:free 6170:and 6116:loop 5869:good 5840:some 5683:more 5671:some 5532:plus 5456:+sj 5452:that 5421:via 5298:and 5277:cite 5196:talk 5156:were 5131:Bash 5117:Deco 5098:Sean 5094:test 5021:Tree 4901:talk 4837:Deco 4764:. - 4760:and 4664:talk 4615:Deco 4527:Geni 4498:talk 4467:talk 4405:Deco 4381:Deco 4371:has 4304:Link 4219:GFDL 4199:talk 4195:Thue 4185:Deco 4154:talk 4150:Thue 4116:talk 4112:Thue 4075:Deco 4071:with 4012:talk 4008:Thue 3961:talk 3957:Thue 3876:Toth 3830:talk 3782:See 3767:talk 3651:Rain 3625:Sean 3577:Talk 3526:VOTE 3507:Tito 3469:talk 3416:Deco 3402:Talk 3383:talk 3375:here 3353:Talk 3327:Free 3316:Talk 3251:must 3189:know 3117:Rain 2965:Rain 2926:Rain 2907:talk 2897:and 2878:Rain 2804:mark 2731:talk 2688:talk 2564:and 2562:good 2520:3492 2507:1557 2494:1935 2454:1749 2428:1280 2389:1537 2379:1149 2213:1743 2200:1100 2127:1531 2121:1018 2092:1955 2087:1182 2051:IPs 2040:IPs 1974:and 1913:talk 1890:talk 1853:talk 1807:WP:V 1805:and 1774:is. 1738:talk 1548:and 1527:talk 1487:talk 1457:talk 1315:Talk 1168:Bold 9205:Aza 9174:Aza 9145:Aza 9029:dab 8832:3RR 8800:MoS 8781:DES 8580:by 8448:not 8390:own 8368:any 7992:CDA 7949:AFD 7878:dab 7871:or 7867:or 7827:do. 7408:and 7217:): 7052:-- 7028:mrp 6962:FT2 6878:ath 6514:? 6254:--- 6251:not 5900:not 5873:bad 5776:--- 5743:are 5734:new 5718:WP! 5432:DES 5427:was 5329:CDC 5102:Bla 4857:DES 4726:to 4604:Kit 4482:(t) 4391:Rob 4227:DES 3871:Aza 3855:or 3822:and 3629:Bla 3563:of 3531:Mys 3528:! - 2994:up. 2713:. — 2566:bad 2487:593 2480:234 2473:359 2441:469 2421:379 2407:280 2384:388 2375:353 2369:264 2354:212 2340:130 2187:643 2181:214 2176:135 2158:212 2147:130 2116:513 2112:188 2109:125 2082:773 2078:240 2075:145 1952:FT2 1828:DES 1425:eh? 1164:AMA 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 9424:) 8838:. 8806:: 8758:) 8670:-- 8564:) 8429:-- 8400:. 8341:) 8106:| 7928:it 7766:) 7683:. 7478:- 7453:? 7404:}} 7398:{{ 7334:is 7247:}} 7241:{{ 6791:) 6723:. 6557:| 6540:| 6409:}} 6403:{{ 6364:-- 6256:CH 6010:CH 5778:CH 5756:Sj 5626:do 5524:my 5517:I 5198:) 5143:-- 5106:ck 5082:-- 4955:. 4903:) 4666:| 4662:| 4550:is 4375:, 4290:• 4197:| 4152:| 4114:| 4010:| 3959:| 3918:? 3832:) 3812:) 3773:) 3769:• 3699:CH 3633:ck 3614:}} 3608:{{ 3575:| 3511:xd 3467:| 3452:-- 3400:| 3385:| 3381:| 3351:| 3314:| 3298:" 3284:" 3228:-- 2924:-- 2909:) 2876:-- 2733:| 2729:| 2690:| 2686:| 2414:99 2372:89 2347:82 2334:26 2329:10 2324:16 2311:41 2305:33 2280:90 2274:25 2269:65 2265:11 2249:81 2243:24 2238:57 2234:10 2171:79 2152:82 2143:26 2140:10 2137:16 2106:63 2072:95 2005:) 1970:, 1950:. 1801:, 1705:is 1615:is 1529:) 1521:. 1506:-- 1493:) 1489:• 1459:| 1455:| 1313:| 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:, 9420:( 9202:→ 9171:→ 9142:→ 9037:) 9035:ᛏ 9033:( 8953:. 8754:( 8560:( 8535:I 8531:I 8378:, 8354:. 8308:) 8304:( 8254:. 8214:. 8058:) 7886:) 7884:ᛏ 7882:( 7759:( 7481:" 7465:) 7461:( 7434:) 7430:( 7195:) 7191:( 7025:/ 7010:¶ 6949:( 6874:e 6870:D 6787:/ 6783:( 5459:+ 5194:( 5190:— 5180:| 5100:| 5064:) 4977:) 4899:( 4878:| 4572:r 4327:) 4292:@ 4288:t 3868:→ 3857:" 3849:" 3828:( 3765:( 3627:| 3616:. 3538:e 3333:≠ 3282:. 3272:) 2905:( 2807:✎ 2300:8 2296:5 2293:4 2290:1 2262:3 2259:8 2231:3 2228:7 1525:( 1485:( 1276:. 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 P - Knowledge

Index