Knowledge:Village pump (policy)/Archive R

5070:

have to state why we have a dire need to use this image. If all the image is just going to be used for is a decoration for a userbox, then we will not be able to claim fair use, since it's purpose is purely for decoration and not really illustrating anything that text merely could not. Part of that first test too is if the image will be used for commerical or educational purposes. Since the images are going to be used on templates on userpages, that is not really can be considered educational, since users are telling the world "I am using this product," almost like an endorsement, thus, commericialization has begun. As for test two, it mainly means "the nature of the copyrighted work." That is mainly how old it is, etc. This is probably something that might not be a concern in the userbox images that are fair use, since they are probably going to be logos of companies, which are usually copyrighted. This is mainly a concern for articles. The third test is asking how much of the copyrighted work are we using. Will we get sued over one small icon in a user template, maybe not. But if many of these images exist on our servers and all they are used for are the templates, then something may go down, and it will not be pretty for the Foundation. The 4th test is how much will the competition will lose by using the image. This, I cannot gauge since icons like this appear over the Internet, and logos of companies are used a lot in websites, blogs, etc. But, if people come to us a lot and just take the photos from us, over time, people will lose money over it. That is why we do not have recent photos from the AP or Reuters when reporting on current events. The reason why is that they make their money selling photos, and if we take one from Yahoo News or Google News and slap it on our servers, then the AP and other press agencies will lose money, and that will violate test number four. Pretty much, to sum it up, fair use icons are not a good idea and they should stay out of the user space and user templates. Is this fascism, no. Is this mean ol' admins biting the newbies, no. Is this trying to undermine fair use, no. This is trying to not cheapen the value of fair use by having fair use photos stay where they belong: on the article space, where they are of education value and bring insight to the article. Icons on user spaces, frankly, do not.

3977:

too much into the specific details here (it's not like there is a hierarchy of wikipedias and that one can "appeal" to another language that has decided things differently), but it does raise some interesting questions on a more general level. Suppose, for example, that while it were acceptable in Germany to say someone was gay, and that it was not acceptable in Austria, and that all the admins at the German-language wikipedia were (by some coincidence) Austrian. Or once could imagine some other situation where in the English wikipedia all the admins were Canadian and refused to allow English-language articles which did not have an interwiki link to the French wikipedia. Because of the user-banning and the suppression of criticism of the admins' policies, there does not seem to be an easy way to change such structures. (Indeed, the question is more a question of power than of content, because the same admins get criticized for completely unrelated reasons (as far as subject matter goes), because they repeatedly use similar (heavy-handed) tactics.) How does one deal with a situation in which the cultural standards applied in the wikipedia (enforced by admins) differ from the cultural standards among the language-users as a whole? Indeed, even if German culture did have this or that standard which were being enforced in the German-language wikipedia, what about German-speakers elsewhere (immigrants in the US, or Swiss Germans)? Language and culture do not always overlap completely; the problem is more how power is applied within a certain wikipedian community.--

8218:

Example: JoBlough is merged/redirected into BandX, as he's just a minor unfamous short-term member of the famous band. Various links point to JoBlough, and are specifically about him, not the band. Another user goes and bypasses all those redirects. Then, JoBlough after leaving BandX, becomes hugely famous in his own right (nobody remembers BandX anymore), and yet another user spins-off the JoBlough into its own article again (undoing the redirect). All the links related to JoBlough *still* point to BandX, even though they're not about BandX. Somebody clicks on a link about JoBlough and they go to BandX, and are confused as to why (more confused than a normal redirect, as there's no redirect message). This is a minor issue if JoBlough and BandX are tightly linked (e.g. if you know of one, you know of both). However, sometimes we merge articles into huge lists of loosely related things (we shouldn't but we do). --

6717:

subject in question. Then they just look for any excuse to mess with the information in the page or just mess the page up in general, or the ever popular instant nomination for NPOV dispute or even deletion. Look, just because you don't believe in the stuff doesn't mean you get to decide what belongs on wikipedia or not. If it's something that's notable, then it should have a place, but I've even seen some use this as an excuse for deletion, that it's not notable, but in actuality, it is. Just gets on my nerves. Is there a policy that these kinds of people are ignoring that protects the spiritual/occult articles from this type of rude behavior, or is there not? So that I can point them to the URL the next time I see this behavior happen. Maybe there should be one that's created if there isn't. Also, if this is the wrong place to discuss this, then please redirect me to the proper place...thanks.

6551:

terrorists'" (or something like that). There is no POV problem with attributing the POV to someone who can be cited. Another cite could call them "martyrs" or "freedom fighters". There is no reason why BOTH SIDES of a POV debate cannot be included in an article. But, it is important that ANY assertions made in the article be backed up with citations. Knowledge is not the judge and jury of controversial topics. If something has been reported by a reputable news source it can be mentioned in an article. If the assertion has been refuted by other reliable sources the fact that the assertion has been refuted can also be mentioned. Everything must be stated in a NPOV way. It is not up to us to decide which assertions are correct. This can turn POV edit wars into citation competitions which lead to better articles that are comprehensive and balanced. I have seen this happen. --

5323:

how one editor can create a userbox, copy the content into the Template: namespace, and then create some categories for it. Then the template and categories become almost impossible to delete, even though only one or a few people are using them. Surely there must be a way to regulate this and ask the people to not use a template on his/her userpage? The amount of user boxes is ludicrous, and I really can't see how some of them help contribute to the encyclopedia. (And frankly, yes, I am disgusted at some of the offensive ones, including some that had the use of swastikas.) There must be some way to stop people from rampantly creating useless templates and categories. (And don't get me wrong: I don't have anything against user boxes, having some myself, but I agree that we need some sort of policy regarding this.) Thanks!

7930:(famous movie with a big ending twist) both deal with entertainment where the authors requested the audience not to spoil the big secret with other people that have not yet seen the movie. Knowing the secret detracts from the fun of those entertainment forms. And while we could have a stance of "no secrets here, information wants to be free", or "we'll just put a spoiler disclaimer up", so far the authors of those 2 articles have respected the authors wishes, and refrained from spoiling the surprise here. Which leads me to magical secrets, and my question: With magic tricks, too, the audience has less fun when it knows the secret. And with magic tricks, too, the autor or performer would prefer if people that know the secret wouldn't tell it to everybody else. Yet, for 2260:. Just like full protection, semi is a last resort and I don't think we can assume anything. Will GWB be semi protected longer than it was full protected? Yes. But I don't like this assuming we'll need it to be permanent. We don't know that. For awhile, I like the idea of semi protecting it for 2-3 days, unprotect it and see if the vandalism levels decrease. If we need to then increase the semi protection period further, great. But I don't want to assume the worst. The thing is, we've never had this. 2-3 days might frustrate anons enough so that they will stop vandalising the article as well. We won't know until we try. Let's not assume we'll need it permanently. We don't know that we will. -- 8971:

article in his userspace. I commented that it looks ready to go. But when he tried to move it from userspace to articlespace he got the "you are an anonymous/new user" warning although he was logged in. I could move it for him but I'd rather he did it as my doing it for him would be disenfranchising for him, I want his experience to be positive (he's not very old but he does have some good knowledge and has been well behaved elsewhere online). How long is the delay, or is it edit count based? Thoughts? (admins that want to converse with me can mail me for details, and I will share his email with them if they want to email him about it) Thanks! ++

5108:

a law, but you cannot threaten to do bad things to them if they do not do it. And, with the Internet, you can say what you want, as long as you follow the website host's terms of agreement. Most of the websites have policies against hosting major copyright infringing materials, such as music, logos, paintings, etc. And, while you may wish to blanket yourself in the 1st Amendment, copyright violations still can be prosecuted under the law, dispite what use the logos or stuff they use on their website. So while it might be fine and dandy to include a photo of Senator McCarthy on an article related to his life or with his work on the

8924:. If new users were more likely to create junk, at least having them anon and show up as IP addresses made their articles easier to spot and look over. The new policy strikes me as just being silly hysteria, like taking away nail clippers from people trying to fly on planes. Someone wanting to vandalize anonymously won't be stopped by creating an account. Slowing down account creation or adding delays or Turing tests or other technical measures will create a technological arms race between Knowledge and vandals. I've created probably a few dozen articles anonymously over the years, some of which have become substantial (e.g. 5011:

all users that seek to remove copyrighted images and text, used under fair use laws, from userboxes, thereby adversely affecting and changing innumerable user's personal pages without prior notice or consent, any such actions should be taken as malacious; as they are not required by any US law, damage content lowering its value and by proxy Knowledge's, and effectively vandalize other user's personal userspace, any user, Admin, or other entity who degrades userboxes by removing graphics and replacing it with lesser text, should be construed as the actions of a vandal against Knowledge users, polices and spirit. (also posted at

5297:: Regardless of the outcome of the RfC, Knowledge needs a policy regarding the use of templates for the user namespace as well as the categorization of Wikipedians. For example, should Knowledge allow templates designed for the user namespace which blatantly support particular points of view? Should we allow templates that serve no purpose other than adding humor to user pages? Should we allow categories that divide Wikipedians into political and religious affiliations that can be used for spamming user talk pages? Should we allow categories that serve no purpose except to list users who claim to be 2953:

nonsensical or obscene sentence instead of restoring the good version that is now buried several revisions deep. I've seen it happen far too many times. Or sometimes a revert will accidentally revert legitimate edits along with the vandalism (this is the flipside of a revert that fails to fully revert old vandalism). Constant vandalism creates a state of entropy that hinders legitimate edits or causes them to be lost. It's like a house full of children and pets running around and making a mess and breaking things... things, well, get broken, and good user contributions are sometimes for naught.

2152:

and how long a user has to be around to bypass it should both be partially dependant on how many pages are going to get tagged with this. For instance, if half the encyclopedia winds up semi-protected then it should usually be for very short duration (stopping current vandalism) and have a waiting period of only hours after becoming a user. Or if it is only going to be on the three most vandalized pages then it can stay on for long periods and require a few days of activity to bypass. Et cetera. It'll take some time to sort out how this is going to be used. --

4622:

signature; such a template would have two sections, an "agree" and a "disagree" with a section for people to add their comments about the article content. I think this might (pending experiments to determine if this is potentially true or not) tend to help editors improve the article and would also help to transition to where Knowledge seems to be slowly going, an environment where editing is easy but by no means free with controls in place for vetting both editors and content. User:Ceyockey (

5035:, we have stated that fair use images should only be used inside of the article space, not on user spaces. The userboxes will mostly be used on user pages, and they must not contain any fair use icons/photos/pictures/whatnot. The most of the problems I noticed about userboxes breaking this rule is when it comes to political parties (not ideals), sports clubs, shcools and using X product or website. All attempts should be made to find an icon that is under a free licenses, and the 5220:

see a problem. It is free advertising for the ps2 or photoshop or whatever and I don't think they are going to ever complain about such use. For the firefox userbox, even when a link was provided to mozilla's website saying it is okay to use their logo, said logo was still removed by an admin as "unfree". Unless someone can prove that these images pose a legal threat I suggest we amend the fair use policy to allow userboxes.--God_of War 08:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)(mirrored from

1416:... said it had always handled redirects" and me saying they had been handled that way since RFD raised no objections two months ago? You fail to see the difference between a notice on RFD talk seeking confirmation of SFD handlng redirects in October and SFD's scope expanding "without warning"? It's either deliberate misrepresentation or deliberate obtuseness on your part. As for okaying it with RFD "not really meaning anything", that is a wonderful example of goalpost-moving. 4005:

article, and that they must have e.g. won a major tournament to be considered notable. (next question: what defines a major tournament?). whats the best way to go about this, without vested interest club members jumping in to "save" their precious pages? i see this trickle of articles becoming a major flood very soon. i know there is nn-band and nn-club but how to define exactly what *is* and *isnt* notable with regard to games clubs?

5279:). They were accordingly assigned templates; and they, too, attempted to categorize users. I myself am guilty of creating a few humorous userboxes, although I now regret ever contributing to the disruptive process. Anyway, the silly categories and templates enventually found their way to the deletion process. Most were kept, some were deleted, some were moved, some were redirected. The resulting mess led to the recent creation of 6606:. Anonymous users (those known only by an IP address) cannot edit their own user pages until a logged-in user begins it, or they log in (or sign up) themselves. That is, they cannot start their own user page. This has been caused by an oversight from when the policy restricting anonymous users from starting articles was brought in. I propose we allow anonymous users to be the first to edit their own user pages if they so choose. 1457:), and the title is now in its third form - which is the best of the three so far. Grutness, I think you are too close to the problem, taking a look at your tone here in saying something like "It's either deliberate misrepresentation or deliberate obtuseness on your part" in an incorrect attribution of activity. If you are going to call someone obtuse, send that call my way. User:Ceyockey 00:40, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 2313:

Semi-protection should only be used as a last resort and probably shouldn't ever be used for longer than 24 hours (unless there's something special going on, like a presidential election involving him, which is impossible). The policy states that semi-protection is not meant to "prohibit anonymous editing in general", and by applying semi-protection for long periods of time, that's exactly what it is doing. Thanks!

8939:

easier to trace back to meatspace than a Knowledge handle does--that's how the Seigenthaler prankster got located). Ironically, if the prankster had created an account, he might never have been found without Seigenthaler filing a lawsuit and issuing subpoenas, if WPF is the least bit serious about privacy. The published IP made it easy for a non-admin to figure out where he was, and identify him from there.

3652:

because they have received approval from the community that their judgement in such situations is generally pretty good. Since there is no benefit to the system at large by the use of speedy in these circumstances and since speedy has never been approved for use in these circumstances and given the meaning in part of an RfA, I'm still of the opinion that non-admins should steer clear of those things that

5856:, there's absolutely no point to making articles for books. Furthermore, his habit of citing just the links to books meant that all the author, publisher, and date information was hidden from casual inspection. This can cover up a lot of crufty references, if you're citing from 80-year-old books that have been superceded by later research, or from Time-Life books, or similar dodgy sources. Grump! Snarl! 1372:. As to remerging with TFD and CFD, please note that the SFD page was split out from those two pages so as to ease the load on those pages (with the blessing of people at TFD and CFD), and to make the process of deleting and/or changing stubs much easier and to avoid the possibility of having, say, a category deleted but the template which feeds into it kept. To do it any other way would be ridiculous. 5134:

basis to see if it's usable under local laws), so we have this rule: Keep the amount of unfree material to a minimum, and only use it when it serve a usefull ensyclopedic purpose, and even then only if there are no free alternatives. I think it's a good rule and I see no reason to complicate matters by making exceptions just so people can use unfree images to advertise for stuff on theyr userpage. --

2450:(after three edit conflicts) Of course this is a wiki. True, our goal here is to produce an encyclopedia, but the means we chose to produce it was to make this a wiki, where anyone can edit. If we wanted to use the proven ways of making an encyclopedia, we could have become EB or Nupedia by hiring experts to write articles. Instead, Knowledge was founded. Are we to bite the very hand that feeds us? 7672: 3772:(which is logical to avoid confusion), organize but analyse (which is actually what Oxford recommends), etc... The biggest sticking point would probably be the -our/-or endings, but it might work and would end a lot of petty disputes. Then again, it might end up being like that joke that was circulating about a new "European English" with "simplified" spellings... Opinions? 5537:? One place ought to be picked and then linked from all the other places perhaps, because this is a complex question, with many facets. Personally I don't think this is the place because of the ephemerality, but other than that... just pick one. Thanks again for bringing it up (a fan of userboxes, within reason, they make this place funner-er and people more people-er) ++ 6571: 6734:

having written books that have sold significant numbers of copies, existence of large organizations that subscribe to a particular set of beliefs, etc. That would be a start (for this or any other area); if you think there are notability criteria specific to the occult/spiritual, you might try drafting an essay on the topic in your user space, or even starting a

2338:

permanently, or until the motivation for vandalism stops (e.g. when GWB is long out of office)? Why should we tolerate this or burden editors with hourly monitoring and reversion? Knowledge has almost a million articles — restricting anons and new users to editing 99.999% of them is hardly a draconian policy. If it ever gets to the point where a

5866: 9430:

deleted as per request. So my advice is to speedy delete them, because the other contributions are a form of vandalism, so I am sceptical about the content of those cricket players as well. The reason for the user being anonymous is probably the vandalism since it's a dynamic IP address so a week later you'll see him return with another IP.

7008:. I'd never have joined Knowledge if i had had to register before making my first edit, and this is probably true of quite a few. Vandalism really isn't much of a problem. Especially as we now have semiprotection. it is simply not worth putting off potential good editors in order to reduce a problem which is easy for us to deal with anyway. 3956:

discussed his partner in the media and corrected journalists who called him single.) Criticizing the freezing of the article leads to threats by the sysop that the critical account will be banned, and complaints about such behavior get regularly deleted. Is this something unusual about the German Knowledge or does that happen here, too?--

2823:

going to address this in policy, at the very least, it should be an unspoken rule that no matter what the article is, it should be un-sp'ed on a weekly basis. Semi-protection should not just be slapped on a page and left on indefinetely, there needs to be regular tests that it still needs to be implemented on pages such as GWB. --

6453:

Even more, are there statistics that show that most users of en.wikipedia come from english speaking countries? Or is the majority from around the world, as english is the lingua franca of our times? What stance should a non-native english speaker (such as me) hold when confronted with this motto? I mean, well, yes it

3951:, and sysops there have repeatedly threatened the article with deletion for covering a "trivial" topic. Similarly, the category for LGBT people has been deleted there, as well as a list, and a currently raging debate over whether such lists can be permitted in a wikiportal workspace instead of as a regular article. 3044: 2972:

the cost of vandalism gets to be just too high. They can get around this by creating and slowly using large numbers of accounts, but this would take some sophistication and could also be protected against with other measures. It's not perfect but I think it could make a big difference, even in the long term.

1732:

proliferating their use, and maybe making more misnamed templates based on their experience (and yes, it's a very good thing to be quite anal about the naming of stub templates, I'd much rather memorize 50 classes of stubs than the 1000+ stub types). Also, I am in favour of SFD handling stub redirects,

5082:

genuinely listing a product that you use, for nothing in return, and actual commercial advertising, in which one or more individuals are paid to endorse a product, is tenuous, at best. As you say, the second test is not applicable. Thirdly, when one stops using content under fair use because of what

1815:

from the SFD folks asking if they were stepping on any toes by taking over stub redirects was October 22nd. The last edit to the RFD talk page prior to October 22nd was September 15. The next edit following October 22nd was November 21. During this time, RFD accumulated a rather substantial backlog.

9127:

Others, including me, have proposed it before, but the concern was that articles that are merely enthusiastic or biased towards the person or company will be deleted. However, blatant spam or advertising would have no encyclopedic content whatsoever, not just biased content. I think that the criteria

8252:

I think (I haven't checked it...) that if you end up wityh a chain of multiple redirects, then the system only does the first redirect and subsequent ones don't take effect. Therefore a link to the article is "cleaner". One reason to link to a redirect is if there is a likehood that that the redirect

6716:

I'm getting really tired of the dogma cops on wikipedia that have to attack occult or spiritually related articles. Usually the first thing out of their mouths is them whining about how much crap or nonsense it is, and most of the time they are totally ignorant and clueless on the specific article or

6077:

is both a violation of blocking policy and an ultra-specific warning, specifically warning users not to change the styles on "thousands of royal article files". This has the feel of a warning template that was created for a specific edit war. We have tons of redundant templates: can anyone explain to

5219:

I think we should have a vote to change the policy on fair-use images in userboxes. The only complaint I am hearing is about the legality of such images as they are supposed to be used to illustrate the article. However, If the userbox itself lists the name of the product along side the image I don't

4714:

Thanks Sean. William, there is an option in the program that I was asked to implement that removes excess date links (I didnt even make the logic behind it), users have to conciously turn this option on for it to work. Plus every edit has has to be accepted by the user. The software can be used for a

4288:

Question- are newsworthy people also encyclopediaworthy? Someone that contributed to advancement of mankind such as Enrico Fermi or Thomas Edison etc. are encyclopedia material. People who are newsworthy are people who are insignificant to the masses such as a convicted killer or a man executed at an

4004:

hi, there is a growing trend for games clubs (a.k.a clans or electronic sports teams) to get their own vanity articles on wikipedia. these can rarely be deleted because of organized campaigns by members of a club to keep "their" article. i would like to suggest that not every games club should get an

3651:

Any admin acting on such a closure has to do all the legwork themselves anyway, since the person pressing the delete button is the one taking that responsibility. It's fairly well established that admins are the ones to close anything other than clear-cut keep/merge/redirect/transwiki/similar debates

3185:

I think it would be quite productive if there was an effort to make templates for topics of various types. Obviously, this exists to some degree, in that *most* topics of shared subject matter *usually* have the same headings. However, not only am I suggesting an actual implementation of this process

2940:

mentioned above) are targeted by a single vandal who might get bored or discouraged and move on; George W. Bush however attracts new random vandals all the time. Semiprotecting it yesterday and un-semiprotecting it today will do nothing to discourage the brand-new vandal who will come to the article

2271:

Oh, I agree that we need to have a testing period where we get an idea of how much the vandalism decreases (see my comment above). Of course we shouldn't just semi-protect it and leave it that was forever. I also don't want to assume the worst, but we have many months of data that shows the vandalism

2168:

I've answered this in 4 places now. :) For now, it's just as a test. I'm going to unprotect it tomorrow. Same with Kerry. Right now it's just to see how much vandalism will go down after semi protection. There's still a major bug in it (all users regardless of newness are able to edit), so I think we

1861:

I would like to suggest that this issue needs to be revisited. I understand that the stub-sorting folks have very valid concerns about the proliferation of stub names and the difficulty this brings to the task of sorting stubs. But I also see many stub redirects that are 100% in accordance with the

1851:

However, a few admins (myself included) have taken RFD under our wing and have attempted to revive it back into full health and bring it into some sort of cohesion. It is no longer languishing in a state of disrepair. Admins are once again paying active attention to it, and had the SFD notification

1814:

It is worth noting — and I say this without any trace of accusation or recrimination, as there is no reason why any of this would have been obvious to the casual observer — that RFD was mostly inactive at the time that notification in question was posted on the RFD talk page. The date of the comment

1367:

that you keep accusing others of being. For the record, SFD has handled redirects for the last two months or so. RFD was approached about it, and were asked whether there were any objections to SFD encompassing the redirects relating to stub templates as well. There were no objections from RFD for us

8950:

I think that the new policy should at best be considered experimental. A date should be set, like 30 or 60 days from when it started, after which there should be a discussion and evaluation of how well it's worked. Unless there's concrete evidence that it's doing something worthwhile, it should be

8944:

As it is now, when I want to make a new article, I end up requesting it at AFC and sometimes an article gets made, sometimes not. This stinks. Also, the policy change was a major, heavyweight decision that seems to have been done unilaterally by Jimbo with no process at all. What's up with that?

8680:

Just a few weeks ago, I seem to remember that clicking on a red link would take me to a page with a blank white text box, and a freindly message saying something like "There is currently no article called but you can start writing this article now", and would allow me to create the article. Now I'm

7266:

I have come across on article in VfD that is nearly 3 years old and has close to 1000 edits. I feel compelled to contact many of the contributors and alert them of the VfD nomination - but I also wonder if such solicitation is considered poor etiquette in Knowledge. My messages to these contributors

5639:

tags without an agreement with the other side of the dispute or a proper RfC process is a vandalism. Thus, restoring the image as a measure of fighting the vandalism is exempt from the 3RR. It is a right and indeed a duty of an editor to restore an improperly removed tag despite any violation of the

5528:

Thanks for bringing this up and for the good summary of where we are now and what some of the issues are. I think it would be good to work through to a consensus policy. Is Village Pump the right place though? Or should a new policy RfC be started? Or should it be discussed on the talk pages, either

5152:

because of US law; a lot of the problematic images placed on user pages in the past - particularly the cowbell one - would be legal in the US because they're parody. The idea is that we're trying to build a free-as-in-freedom encyclopedia; fair use images, wherever they're used, are antithetical to

5107:

protect speech and activities that do not violate the law. You can assemble at a location, as long as your not punching and kicing the people next to you. You can say anything in an assembly crowd, except if you scream fire or "I have teh b0mb." You can write letters to people saying you do not like

5081:

The icons are clearly educational, as they are used to educate the wikipedia populace about the likes and dislikes of that user. The purpose and character is to share information with others about oneself, and to offer insight on that person. It is not commercial in character, and the link between

5010:

If and until US Fair Use Laws, as Knowledge seems to be a majority US concern, change to disallow fair use of copyrighted images in a non-commercial and personal display of likes and dislikes, whose sole purpose is to advocate other Knowledge user's of that users preferences and affilations, any and

4370:

Thank you for making it necessary for registration to create an article. I have no doubt in my mind that this will reduce vandalism that is the result of newly created nonsense/spam articles done by anonymous users. I have been saying that user registration should be required to edit articles for a

3966:

I don´t think theres anything wrong with a wiki applying its own cultural standards along with linguistic ones. If in Germany its inappropriate to say someone is gay then so be it. I suspect thats not the case (coincidentally I am in Ulm at the moment :)) but there are very few cross-wiki standards,

3800:

I like the idea - after all, we've already set the punctuation rules for Knowledge English in the Manual of Style, and they seem to work pretty well. I think a reasonable standard for words is that if one has a Knowledge article and the other doesn't, choose the one with the article. That way we can

3406:

was removing all instances of "prophet" in articles relating to Muhammad; I was arguing that an uncapitalized "prophet" was simply descriptive of his role and implied no acceptance of Muhammad as a divinely inspired prophet. As I recall -- and this is not archived, unfortunately -- the consensus was

3354:

I agree with the guideline that states "every article should have a category". I use this template occasionally when I can't fathom what category something should be in and it lacks a category. However, I do think that the template could go away without a lot of impact considering the existence of

2952:

of semi-protection can have a high cost too, because reverting is an imperfect process. Sometimes vandals alter a legitimate sentence into nonsense or obscenity, the next editor fails to catch it, and then some time later a (possibly inexperienced or careless user) comes along and deletes the whole

1731:

The main difference between an article redirect and a template redirect is that you will never be notified that you're using a redirect, and probably will continue to use the redirect since it works so well. People will see the redirected templates when editing articles and start using them, further

1488:

Strongly disagree. SFD was created for three reasons: First, reduce CFD/TFD load (which it performs admirably). Second, to prevent discrepancies such as a stub template being deleted and its category being kept (which it also performs admirably). And third, to keep out votes such as "keep unless the

8970:

Tangentially, I've a question about the above. I'm a believer in writing new articles in userspace for the first few revisions, till there is enough there that it's worthwhile to publish (I am not so keen on one line stubs). I encouraged my son to write an article, so he registered, and created the

8405:

they could be Muslim fundamentalist but they are not Islamic fascist. I would request that Wilikipedia review use of these two term and replace them with Islamic, Muslim, Islamic fundamentalism or Mulim fundamentalist as appropriate. The defination of fascism and fascist should also be reviewed in

8270:

However, there are a lot of exceptions, such as disambiguation pages. Personally, I think that using a nicely named redirect is handy to indicate where a new article would be useful. Unfortunately, the above mentioned bots keep converting the links. We need more policy discussion on this, and it

8064:

Is there any policy regarding articles linking to redirect pages? I seem to remember being told that it is preferable to link to the article that is redirected to, and bypass the redirect, but when this was recently questioned, I was unable to find anything official on it. I’m sure I’ve over looked

8040:

of the story." Even though the surprise was not revealed (and even though I resisted the temptation to flip to the end)I read the whole story tensely anticipating being bowled over by something amazing in that last word. And it was a disappointment, because the build-up had led me to expect more. I

7560:

for insiration. I've tried to make the guidelines broader so that they can be applied to any form of web content, rather than focusing on specifics. To my mind, the goal shouldn't be to set bars to take account of particular examples, but rather to outline existing policy and consensus at various

6972:

Also look at recent changes, you will see a whole host of good anon edits. Making people register will not stop vandalism. Plus vandalism is pretty easy to deal with. Knowledge has grown from nothing to what it is today in a few short years by allowing anon edits. Changing that is a major change in

6512:

and this particular instance: "This is the English language version of Knowledge and this term is appropriate to describe the actions of the terrorists that hijacked the planes." I am not saying that I disagree with the particular user on weather they should be name terrorists or not. I didn't even

6452:

One thing I have encountered a lot wince I have been involved in disputes in wikipedia is the "This is the English Knowledge" motto. I want to ask, does the fact that en.wikipedia is the english language wikipedia mean that what is said here must depict the worldviews of the english speaking world?

5486:

should not be used as part of the userbox template. They were probably some of the reasons why some admins have been deleting them or trying to get rid of them, but we all need to understand that we have to have specific cause and reason to cite an image as fair use, because we are using it for an

5421:

contribute to our goal? No, not really. It might even be offensive to some Cuban revolutionaries. But it is a humorous parody that adds creativity to Jimbo's user space. Likewise, other users should be allowed to add POV elements to their user pages, but should we allow them to create templates and

5091:

by the use of logos and other data, as they were not for sale to begin with, and it is well understood that US copyright law allows for the use of copyrighted logos, as long as they are not used to fraudently induce another that they are that company, or a representative of that company. There are

4053:

IMHO as long as there are projects to catalogue every asteroid, every river and even every French commune, it is a matter of prejudice whether we catalogue every clan or not. Short of defining a policy for clan notability (eg, membership fees, number of members, mentioned in paper), there's nothing

4028:

to be judged on this basis? Rather, the notability should be judged just like it would be for a non-gaming organization. A gaming club that has a large number of members or is highly influential within its particular game genre would probably be notable; a small group that's merely local in scope

3849:

I tried purging use of "tabled" a while back; I really should get back to it. It's something that can always be phrased differently, outside direct quotes, and can cause confusion even when the lingustic context is clear - I always forget which one is the British use! There really isn't anything to

3372:

Avoid monoculture. Use a different peice of software to handle all the discussion of meta-wikipedia affairs. Perhaps something that is not (gasp) a wiki, but something designed for goverment of a wiki. Let us not get caught up in a cycle of blind faith. Let's build some software. Kurt Gödel says

2960:

PS, To really make semi-protection effective, though, we need a way to discourage throwaway registered accounts. Make users go through some 30–60 second non-automatable enter-the-right-answers-to-the-questions procedure to register, which is a one-time very minor inconvenience for legitimate users

2956:

The best way to judge success is to see whether legitimate edits get made to George W. Bush. In recent times, those nearly came to a standstill: substantially all the edits were vandalism and reverts of vandalism. "Anyone can edit" isn't supposed to produce the paradoxical result that the article

2882:

I'd also like childishly to point out that I did say that admins usually managed to self-police by yelling at each other. Well, here you go. It'll work itself out: there will be consensus to have GWB et. al perma-semi-protected or there won't be. If one admin in 740+ thinks "now is enough", then it

2608:

Splash is right. This was a very-widely supported proposal, and was discussed over and over and in great detail on the same talk page where the straw poll occurred. Now, how much of that support "counts" if we start changing the rules agreed to? That's right, the support isn't worth a can of stale

2188:

Well obviously, there's going to be much less/no vandalism while they're sprotected and lots more when they're unprotected (although note that many schools are going on holiday every day now, so vandalism is dropping anyway). I'm not sure what this test is going to demonstrate beyond the obvious...

1642:

This should NOT become referendum on the existence of WP:SFD, which it appears to be shaping up to be. This should be a discussion of how to handle the scope creep, not how to kill an activity and assistive page set that many dozens of people contribute to daily in good faith. User:Ceyockey 03:26,

1346:

be used for redirects because that's what RFD is there for. I apologise for over-reacting slightly with all the 'bad-faith' stuff earlier though, and I hope you don't consider me a vandal from now on. :) This is the right place to discuss policy, not MFD (and nevermind what Ed Poor did, I disagreed

8478:

Right, I found that out the hard way... I went there, found an article that was (IMO) kind of bad-looking and had some questionable wording, spent some time to try to pretty it up, got smacked down. Since the smack-downer is a senior editor I figured, OK, whatever, just take down the RfC so people

8217:

One problem encountered with auto-bypassing of redirects, is redirects to sections/parts of an article. Often there's to little material for a topic to have its own article initially, and is merged in, for the time being, into a much larger article, but later spun-off into its own article later.

5322:

What I'm concerned about is how easily one can create a userbox and dump it in the template namespace. I've been worried about this situation for a long time, but didn't take the initiative to start discussion, something I regret now. Some userboxes are harmless, but what I seriously don't like is

5053:

Why? By what right do you claim to be able to decide that fair use images are allowed only in Knowledge proper, and not on userpages? There is no legal or moral reason to do so. It is purely arbitrary and a stab at the users who help to make Knowledge successful. Wikipedians are not capable of

3976:

I think you are also right that it is not the case that it is inappropriate in Germany to say someone is gay. It is, however, inappropriate in the German wiki to say that because the admins there seem to have different standards than the culture as a whole. I don't think it is appropriate to get

3771:

This will probably go over like a lead balloon, but it's a great idea -- in theory, at least -- so I'm throwing it out there as a suggestion. What if we had a "Knowledge English", which would be a compromise between British/American spellings; for example, practise as a verb and practice as a noun

3697:

The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of

2971:

Regarding the effectiveness of long-term semiprotection, you don't mention the point that a registered user can be blocked out of their account (or if they can't, they should be able to). When someone has to create an account and wait 4 days, just to have it blocked the first time they vandalized,

2811:

I think it should be permanently semi-protected, since it has a frequently reoccurring vandalism problem, but we should also make it abundantly clear to readers that they can leave any suggested changes on the talk page to be implemented by other editors. Consider it a sort of lightweight informal

2741:

IMHO, Knowledge's first responsibility is to its readers, its second to its established editors, and lastly to its newest editors. Permanently emi-protecting pages such as GWB perfectly balances those responsibilities - readers will see much less vandalism, its editors will have a lower workload,

2656:

option left available; two, if "like full protection" it is a last resort, then why do we have it at all if we have full protection? So there must be a reason it exists short of putting in full protection. As such, I feel it is reasonble to interpret it as - if there is historical evidence that an

2571:

I note in particular Dan100 and Steven G. Johnson insisting that the policy says other than it does, and/or that the policy is wrong because they want it to be. Neither of them participated in the discussion, and only Dan100 in the straw poll. Very many people did, we discussed it, we iterated the

2151:

I think we should see how things pan out. Tweak the figure on how long an account has to be active to edit semi-protected pages. See how much vandalism is cut by semi-protection... whether it shoots right back up when the flag is removed... et cetera. How long semi-protection should stay on a page

1736:

I also think that SFD is too overeager to delete redirects at the moment. It's just not that simple. I propose the following compromise: SFD should ease up on getting rid of stub redirects (basically keep everything that isn't ambiguous or just plain wrong), but some kind soul(s) should run a bot

9270:

I'm not sure where to put this, but I'll try here. We have an anon user going round creating new short-stub articles on cricketers on talk pages - as the article page does not exist he cannot create them in the main article namespace. (This user also goes round adding spurious claims that various

8938:

What I'm trying to say is that (at least some) people who edit non-logged-in aren't newbies and aren't too lazy to create accounts, but rather, it's an approach to editing that they cultivate on purpose. ("Anonymous" isn't an accurate term since the public exposure of their IP address makes them

8932:

a registered account which I use when it seems appropriate but mostly I prefer to edit non-logged-in, as a means of "egoless editing". Too many registered users get wrapped up in their contribution lists and user pages about their hobbies and their cats. As Kelly Martin put it, Knowledge is not

7934:, the consensus among wikipedians seems to be "those secrets have to be revealed, a spoiler disclaimer will just do it". What does the general community think about this, is it okay to respect the autor's requests in one field and disregard them in another field? Isn't this an inconsistent state? 7465:

We have a real problem. After posting warnings that the user deletes, then another user posts a warning at the same level, which the user deletes. Basically, without the rule against removing warnings, the warning method doesn't work in the case of persistent problems! You cannot have a 4 level

6733:

Similarly for notability. Not my area, so one in which I would generally not presume to judge, but I'd imagine that criteria for notability should be, for example, having been written about by people other than oneself and one's immediate circle (or a small, logrolling mutual admiration society),

6052:

separate warning messages. This is utterly absurd. With the exception of copyright warnings (which I realize have to be specific for legal reasons, and which should probably be put in a subcategory), we should reduce the total number to a dozen different warnings, maybe two dozen at most. A large

5567:

The top of the page says, "The policy section of the village pump is used to discuss existing and proposed policies." I think policies are supposed to be proposed here and then moved to separate pages if they generate enough interest to warrant further discussion after about seven days. Anyhow, I

5387:

itself, it's trivial for a user to create a single-use custom box. Is there any real distinction between 500 users having a template on their page, and 500 users having a hand-made version of the template on their page? Or are we going to disallow the expression of particular sentiments on user

5133:

Look this is not all that complicated. We are here to make a free content ensyclopedia. Use of unfree images makes it less free (or at least less usefull because anyone outside the US who want to use the content will first have to delete all the fair use stuff, or examine it all on a case to case

5069:

law, there must be four tests to pass in order for an image, o anything for that matter, that is copyrighted could be deemed fair use. As for the userbox images, they will fail test number one since, to be used under fair use, we have to state "the purpose and character of the use." That means we

4621:

I don't really like the "good article" thing either; it smacks of patting ourselves on the back for doing a "good job". My feeling it would be better to create a signable template that says something like "this article is of high quality and helpful" to which anyone passing by could append their

4605:

to be shimming users into viewing certain articles, a la advertisers. The criteria of a "good" article, assuming that the article could be made static for all time, would either be so vague as to cover all articles, or so tight as to list articles as "good" based on technicalities, and ending up

4564:

Following the earlier announcement, a preliminary poll has shown a super majority (14 to 4) in support of a proposal to relax the injunction against galleries to allow galleries with encyclopedic merit. It looks like some such relaxation will in fact become policy, although there are some issues

3955:

gets regularly deleted from such lists, and those who replace him are termed "vandals". Mentioning that a television moderator is gay results in the sentence being removed and the article being indefinitely protected to prevent such mention. (This is not a case of "outing", as the moderator has

3359:. Note that about 50% of the pages I find without categories altogether and 50% only have a stub-template-associated-category; in the latter case a "normal" category is needed as well (which is a generally agreed guideline within the Stub-sorting community) but those pages will not appear on the 3186:

via templates, I'd further argue that the templates could/should include consistent placement of concepts, ideas, links, etc. Groups of stubs/categories could even be templated so that each shares set words except for certain parameters: i.e. could be the start of a template for a living person.

2822:

I'd first like to childishly say "I told you so" to Splash about the lack of addressing protection creep, which has lead us to this discussion. Time limits with increasing amounts of admin concensus implemented in policy would have sorted this out. As for now, it's just a test, and if we're not

2609:

beans at that point, and we're back to square one. Last I saw, it was crystal-clear that we weren't going to leave GWB or any normal page permanently semi-protected (though we might protect 'em for a week at a time, say), and a lot of the support for the proposal actually was contingent on that. —

2222:

Semi-protection is not a means to banish anonymous editors from Knowledge, and it should not be used as such. If you can handle a couple of reverts a day, there's no reason at all to semi-protect. If it's a passing dynamic IP bored schoolkid, then unprotect in the usual 24 hours. If it's a static

8434:

These terms are in some contexts correctly applied to all muslims (see the defs), but that usage would be confusing and should probably be avoided. But the usage of "Islamism" and "Islamist" for "Islamic fundamentalism" and "Islamic fundamentalist" is probably more accurate than fundamentalist,

6727:

These articles are inherently about belief. If they are well-cited as to who holds these beliefs, and what exactly it is that they believe, there should be no problem. If, on the other hand, they are written as if spiritual beliefs are on the same level as belief in magnetic north, then that's a

6550:

To add to this, it is a very difficult position to be in when you are trying to assert an NPOV position in a highly charged environment like a 9/11 article. You can suggest that neutral terms be used like hijacker as well as saying something like "George W. Bush denounced the hijackers as 'evil

6363:

and its subpages in order that they are more neutral in their presentation of news sources. I've chosen a method of presentation that requires calculations based on the populations of various countries and the number of news sources currently collected for those countries. Once I have finished

5617:

IMO all project related stuff including stuff related to userpages should be somehow moved out of the main template (easy) category (would require software changes) and image (again software changes needed) namespaces. a clean seperation between encyclopedia content and management metacontent is

5039:

is a pretty good place to start. If your stuck there, there are people willing to design these icons for you *ahem* and probably will be happy to do it and release it under GFDL or PD. Most userboxes are fine, it is just mainly those that I mentioned earlier are the most problematic, but I still

4014:

I cannot imagine how a gaming clan could possibly be notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Notable enough for a magazine or newspaper, perhaps, but not an encyclopedia. I hesitate to make criteria for them because the criteria would have to be set so that a fair number of gaming clans

3576:

I congratulate Renata3 on finding a clever way to (technically) allow a non-admin to close consensus-delete AfDs. However, it's really no more work for an admin to just close it himself, since any admin who actually enacts the deletion has to go back and verify the AfD result anyway. Encourage

3432:

I took a look at the manual of style. The "the Prophet" distinction seems pretty clear, but how did he derive "the Prophet Muhammad"? We can indirectly refer to Muhammad using "the Prophet," but is the capitalization necessary (or desirable) when Muhammad is explicitly stated? (I realize this is

3340:

It would be useful if a modification could be added that would allow the inclusion of article that only have stub-related categories along with a filter that would allow those to be excluded to obtain a "no categories at all" listing. (this follows from my comment below). User:Ceyockey 02:58, 29

9429:

I have seen this user before and it is always the 210.55.x.x range. He tends to changes names in articles and prefers to changes the names people are married to. In the history I saw a couple of Talk pages being created about cricket players as well which I marked for speedy delete and they got

9137:

Which is generally more likely to be discovered in Afd, not speedy. I think this one is never going to be on Csd, for that one reason - and it is a valid one, however annoying watching adverts go by on Afd can be. OTOH if policy changes, and it can be Csd'd, I will not complain because IMHO the

7511:

Yes, if it's been totally blanked, but what about just having warnings removed? Yes they're in the history, but people might not look there. I think a user talk page is public space, just like an article talk page. Well, not just like, I think it's ok to remove cruft and clean it up, but if you

7098:

I I agree we have a lot of vandalism. But it's very easy to correct. Far too easy for us to think about requiring registration IMO. But the point I'm making above is not that requiring registration is wrong. (Although I feel at the moment that it is) it's that trying to push for registration by

7021:

I would've joined. In fact, if someone doesn't want to join Knowledge because they have to register, they're not very interested in the goal of making a good encyclopedia. Registration is a simple and easy task, you don't even need to check your email for a confirmation message, your account is

5408:

Is there a difference? Yes, there is a considerable difference when the template involves a double transclusion. The WikiProject was doing a good job at reducing double transclusions before it was interrupted by the mass deletions. Anyhow, to rephrase my concerns: I think we need to establish a

4332:

I agree with chaz171. We have too many articles that should be in a newspaper or magazine instead of an encyclopedia. Nobody will care about them in 10 years, let alone 100. If the project survives that long, I suspect they will be removed from the encyclopedia, but not necessarily deleted. --

3421:

I have been extremely active in editing Islam-related articles. However, I am not a Muslim. I would feel extremely uncomfortable typing "Prophet Muhammad". He is not my prophet and I do not honor him as such. I try very hard to be neutral, but I do not want to adopt language that, to me, sounds

3223:

to show articles without a category? My own opinion is that a template is a bad idea as it makes the article look messy, and many articles already have too many templates, but that a category for articles that need to be properly categorised is a good idea, as then people who want to categorise

2986:

which describes an example of what I mentioned above: a high amount of vandalism/revert entropy churn can often be quite harmful. Preventing existing good content from being trashed is just as important as allowing new good content to be created. Semi-protection reduces the former and does not

2944:

As someone has already pointed out above, Knowledge edits are made by human beings, not by anon IPs or monikers. And long-term semi-protection, unlike long-term "full" protection, does not actually prevent any human being in the world from editing the article if they really wish to. That's an

7298:

And lastly, I wouldn't assume that people that work on an article would all vote against its deletion; there are a few articles that I think are not fitting for wikipedia and that's precisely why I pay them such attention. Also, if it's a merge request rather than just a deletion, most people

6618:

I only came across this problem because I forgot to log in for a couple of edits, and wished to redirect the IP's user page to my own. I deliberately attempted to do this while not logged in, so that the edit would be authentic (coming from the same IP, rather than the username), however I was

5189:

You seem to be arguing from a false premise. Fair use images should not be used on user pages because of Knowledge policies, not because of US law. Therefore, their removal is not the vandalism, but rather their placement in the first place. This issue is not a discussion regarding differing

3025:

It's up to every individual wikipedia, but I think the non-com rule might apply to all of them. For an example of how different pediae have different rules, the Japanese wikipedia doesn't allow fair use, as Japan's laws are stricter than America's, and they want to conform both to Japanese and

2337:

I don't really see what the fuss is about. Yes, let's first see whether semi-protection is effective against vandals. But if it is, I wouldn't be surprised if there were few dozen pages on Knowledge that are subject to several vandalisms a day. Why not semi-protect all of them? And why not

2312:

I thought it was agreed on at the policy page that semi-protection would not be used for long periods of time or indefinitely? This is exactly what I was afraid of: once the feature is set up, people will clammor to semi-protect this article virtually forever, and I strongly oppose doing that.

1977:

If a consensus is reached on the second matter, it won't be too important what's decided on the first. When redirects are nominated at SFD, SFD regulars tend to vote delete, and such a vote is either a full consensus of stub-sorters or a "WSS vs. non-WSS" issue (that's how I see what regularly

1675:

should handle redirects - well, we can't just say "all redirects belong on RFD", because by the same reasoning all templates and categories belong on TFD and CFD, respectively. Personally I do not consider it unreasonable to put everything related to stub templates on SFD, including redirects.

2367:

No. The policy page states explicitly that this should not be used long-term or permanently, and semi-protecting such pages is essentially driving out the IP editors and new editors. If you want to stop vandalism, we should just protect all pages and not make this a wiki. A line must be drawn

2761:

Of course protection of George W. Bush be permament, if it's left unprotected, people could come along and add new information to it, since information usually makes George Bush look like a bumbling idiot, the only solution is to leave it protected until the end of his term to insure proper

2208:

I agree with CBD's reasoning. We'll need some time to sort out how this policy affects the articles that are semi-protected. I also think that the Bush article is a unique case, being the most vandalized article on Knowledge. Quite frankly, I don't see much harm in keeping this one article

6494:

be free of any bias, including biases commonly held in English-speaking countries. Please share with us a few examples of where you run into this argument though, it's easy to talk about being NPOV in the abstract, but if you provide a few examples we can take a closer look at the issue.

4862:

to check every edit. This is a very different thing; you can't enforce an actual check in code. And if someone's making a change every two or three seconds, he's spending much more time waiting for the page to load than looking at what he's actually doing. I recall one article where an

5092:

many, many, many websites that use MS logos, Apple, Nike, etc., and they are all well undertood to be protected under the 1st Amdendment. None of the 4 requirements for Fair Use are unmet, and there is no valid reason to hurt inoocent Knowledge users based on a logically flawed premise.

4212:

The banner doesn't assert that Jimbo is the only founder of Knowledge; it simply identifies him as a founder, implying neither that he is the sole founder nor that there are other founders. I don't think anyone can argue that he is not a founder of Knowledge. The statement is very NPOV.

1922:

It has been brought to my attention that my understanding of the situation is mildly in error. RFD did not handle stub-redirects prior to October, when the post was made. Apparently SFD began handling them in June, when SFD first opened its virtual doors. My apologies for the error.

7737:

has again raised the issue of whether there should be a separate policy for American city names, even though most American editors (myself included) have no problem with the existing policy and there was already a vote on this three months ago. Please review the arguments and vote at

6526:

Depends on how the mantra is applied. It should not be used as an excuse to insert POV into an article, but I have used it myself (recently, even) to determine whether to use a word extremely familiar to English speakers or a word almost nobody who speaks English has ever heard. This

8035:

And a story can be "spoiled" even if the twist is not revealed. I once read a story about which I can remember nothing except that the introduction to the story collection, in praising the author's skill, and mentions story in which "the surprise is not revealed until the very last

4168:

Jimmy's argument is that Sanger's contribution is irrelavent since Sanger worked under him. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to think that this logic is equivalent to saying that William Shockley, John Bardeen and Walter Brattain don't deserve credit for making the first

5054:

changing the defintion of fair use, and then continuing to call that "fair use." It's a scam by those of authoritarian tendencies. To alienate users by creating artificial distinctions between what is allowed on different sections of Knowledge is harmful to Knowledge, and wrong.

1953:

Speaking as a fairly long-time anonymous article editor that "came in from the cold" and is trying to be more proactive in using templates and categories, redirects of those are Terribly Confusing! I'd say vigorously delete such redirects (after correcting the uses). Please!

5283:, which has done a remarkable job in cleaning up and standardizing the userbox templates and categories. I applaud them for their quick and effective cleanup. Unfortunately, userbox-related templates, categories, and redirects, etc. were still nominated for deletion. Recently, 8643:

It is used for names in some languages which use the opposite name/surname order as English, to avoid confusion as to which is which (since the surname might be in its original place or might have been moved to the end). However, I think it's normal uppercase, not small caps.

7342:

There's no problem, or at least there only is if you copy the text so closely that it would be considered a derivative work. If you cite the book as a source but describe its conclusions in your own words, it's fine. (I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice blah blah).

9451:

The cricket articles he creates are ungrammatical sub-stubs, however they are verifiably true and not vandalism, and they do helpfully put the cricketer into categories according to the teams he's played for. There are usually a few new articles a day. Look for new pages at

4880:. Because of all the crazy things folks have done with the formatting between the paste and my conversion, the function can't be 100% accurate, so I check every edit (in raw wikicode) before it's posted. Regardless, I still run it at the normal 30-second throttle, because 9046:

The screen does say "you cannot move pages because either you are not logged in or your account is too new", and I validated he's logged in. We'll wait 4 days, because I think moving by copying is not the most optimal way to go. For people that want to see the page, it is

8530:

I myself prefer Ogg Vorbis. The compression is better and of course, like you said, it's open source and not covered by the MPEG patent. The problem is that few programs currently have the ability to record Ogg Vorbis, and I have no conversion utility to convert MP3 file.

8303:, but it is obvious that separate articles will at some point need to be written on the predecessor institutions. If some bot goes around extinguishing all these links, it will have to be undone manually. With the current redirects in place, it is still possible to see at 8029:

opens with a multi-octave clarinet glissando" has at least a little "spoiler" effect if you've never heard the work before. Generally speaking, anyone who wants to experience a work with a completely "unspoiled" perspective should avoid looking up any information about it

2572:

proposal and it eventually received wide support. Please do not dismiss those discussoins and the concerns of other editors with a simple-minded "oh well, if I think it's wrong then it must be wrong, and so I shall ignore it". Because that's not how playing nicely works. -

2467:

I disagree with that analogy, but I'm going to extend it a bit further. How are we to get to work? If we restrict all driving, I guess that leaves most of us with walking or biking. True, we'll get there eventually, but at a much slower pace. Is that what we want? Thanks!

8860:

that page and added the false information, they didn't create a new article. Hopefully now we'll see a drop in joke articles, although registering an account actually increases anonymity, since it hides your IP address. Why not just IP ban anons that vandalise like that?

2847:

Somewhat agree. I like the template's wording but it's much too big and scary. Let's tone it down. I think it would actually help our credibility - in the position of a Knowledge naysayer, I'd be pleased to see some action being taken to protect obvious target articles.

8425:. There's no more reason to say that the words are formed from "Islam" and "fascist" and "facism" than to say that they are formed from "Islam" and "marxism", "marxist", "intergrist", "republicanism", "falangist", "falangism" all these ideology words are formed this way. 7246:, not less. Usernames benefit the editor, at the expense of the site - more resources are required to handled a registered editor, blocking them requires more care and thought, identifying when they are the "same person" is more difficult, etc. Revolucion, have you 4600:

This is just dumb. A good article today can be a bad article tomorrow, and there is no reason to sub-highlight an article as "good" to draw eyeballs, as most people find articles based on their own interests, not on what is "good" or not, and Knowledge's function is

5112:, including his photo on templates adds no educational value and it serves no purpose at all other than pure decoration. We are here to teach other about people like Senator McCarthy, not decorating our userboxes with his photo or logos of X company or Y sport club. 4848:

edit is checked by the user, if you have a problem with people removing dates then take it up with them, as long as it is a guidline it will be an option in the software. I dont know where you get these ideas from, but I hope you stop these slanderous accusations.

8512:

MP3 player/recorder while those patents remain in force. In what is essentially a showing of solidarity, Knowledge made a decision to avoid using an audio format that did not play well with the open source software community. Might I suggest you have a look at

8185:

What exactly are you talking about, why is this a problem? Common sense indicates that in most cases we shouldn't link to a redirect. But there's little harm in doing so. Note that many users work with a "Wiki plugin" that automatically fixes links to redirects.

2223:

school kid, then block them and don't restrict editing at all. Semi-protect should be used for the shortest available length of time: if that is 0 minutes, then that's what's appropriate. I've little feelings about George W. Bush, but I did object to sprotecting

1828:

you will see that the backlog dates to October 20th, two days prior to the SFD notification being placed on the RFD talk page. Which meant that RFD hadn't been under any sort of regular admin scrutiny since before the SFD notification was posted to the RFD talk

8901:(editing implies something was there before), and even, anyone can still create articles . Jimbo's line of argument was that if RC patrollers are less busy with throwing out junk-articles, they will be more likely to detect vandalism to existing articles, too. 7262:

When an article is added to VfD, contributors to that article do not necessarily know of the VfD nomination. If the contributor is busy with other wikitasks or is otherwise distracted from visiting said article, that contributor might not be able to chime in.

7944:

We've never been particularly good at consistency in matters like this. I suspect that if you get people talking about it, hopefully people will go the route of distributing information rather than preserving fun. This is an Encyclopedia, not a tourbook :)

7764:. The new version is intended to be a clearer statement of existing policy, not a change. So far the response has largely been positive - but there are a small number of issues to be addressed before it goes live. Constructive comments would be welcome on 3279:, which states that "every page in the article namespace should belong to at least one category." I don't think adding yet more templates is the best way to go about this, especially with a bot. It would be more useful to simply get more people working on 3882:

I also oppose this ridiculous proposal. That would result in even more of a mess than we have now. I believe PizzaMargherita's proposed solution of special dialect-switching markup (which has been repeatedly debated on the MoS talk page) is the better

8479:

won't waste time on this, but he hasn't (last time I looked)... whatever, I just wish someone would take down the RfC. It's not my place to do it, but people are still going there and wasting their time on an RfC that is not "real"... which is too bad.

5422:

categories for it? If we develop a policy establishing which of the aforementioned reasons are legitimate grounds for deletion, we won't have to have the same discussions over and over in the deletion process for each contested template and category. --

3717:

2. An encyclopedia article should not argue that laissez-faire capitalism is the best social system. It should instead present the arguments of the advocates of that point of view, and the arguments of the people who disagree with that point of view.

2669:

for a good compendium of these type of articles. Not all should be semi-protected. But the existence of that page shows there are pages that are consistently targets and the RC patrollers who use that shared watchlist know well what I'm talking about.

7067:

who "never register for registration-required websites,as a matter of principle". Maybe you think someone who before deciding to leave Knowledge, having made 3849 edits from 2003-08-04 is somone who's "not very interested in the goal of making a good

6539:. In the case of "terrorist" I would favor "hijacker" and try to include some comment about different views about the motives and methods of the hijackers, because "terrorist" by itself is definitely taking sides, which an encyclopedia should not do. 2683:

If that was the intent of the policy, it would say so and people would have been quite clear about that in their comments in the straw poll. It doesn't, adn they weren't. You misunderstand semi-protection's relation to full protection. It can be used

2837:

to be permanently semi-protected, then the current template needs to die. If we're to have a big ugly template up the top of an article (which really doesn't do wonders for our credibility), then there had better be a damned good short-term reason.

1696:

I must say, I don't see and have never seen the point of deleting slightly-misnamed - or better still, merely miscapitalised - redirects as happens on SFD all the time. In the articlespace, creating slightly-misnamed redirects to avoid confusion is

1389:

I fail to see how that disagrees with my statement. The fact that the people on RFD talk agreed doesn't really mean anything; they probably assumed that you'd act in good faith and not delete redirects for not agreeing with your naming conventions.

5005: 1842:. And then he left sometime in early October, leaving RFD without a hand upon the tiller. The SFD notification was posted sometime after he left. Since RFD was generally ignored at this point in time, the SFD notification received no response. 1341:

Well, he was wrong then. I completely agree with you in that something's not going quite right here, but deleting SFD is not the right way to go here. It's a useful tool in deleting the templates and categories at the same time, but it should

1876:

I do think that, given the circumstances under which stub redirects were subsumed under the aegis of SFD rather than RFD, that the process of handling stub redirects should revert back to RFD until such time as a decision has been made to do

9244:, wher ethere has been more of a discussion. the next obvious stage is an RfC, but I frankly don't see any point to that -- Tony has read pleanty of comment on this, and he knows what the views of those who thought this action improper are. 4126:

I think you'll find I was the one who tagged the page as a proposal. As it was originally the page referenced to from the disambiguation MoS, telling people not to use disambiguation pages in certain cases - a change which wasn't discussed.

5648:. I think it is a mistake. There should be explicitly said that an improper removing of Dispute tags is vandalism and its restoration is not covered by the 3RR. With probably a phrase or two about the proper procedure of removing the tags. 4957:

Sorting interwiki links has been carefully and concientiously done by many international editors, and this one program damaged thousands of such pages, sorting by ISO code instead of alphabetically. That's broken by any definition of the

2425:

Re "How are people going to improve these articles if we restrict editing?" How am I going to get from home to work if I'm restricted to driving on the right side of the road? The answer in both cases is "by accepting these restrictions."

4529:

I gather from your user page and such that you're a wee bit on the anti-American side. Well, that and the fact that your message was so incoherent and off topic that I'm tempted to erase it, except someone else might find it humorous. :)

3422:

Muslim. I would like to hear what other, non-involved, Wikipedians think about this matter. If the consensus is against capitalization, then I'd like to know how to change the Manual of Style so that this situation does not arise again.

3367: 7841:

the reason for this proposed guideline. It was developed after experiencing what you may call subterfuges to bypass policy in several lists and the frustration of not being able to do so under current guidelines for content articles.

7205: 6838:

This is a simple proposal with the intention of limiting the need for request for adminship votes - Only two requests for adminship for the same user should be allowed within six months - after which there is a 6 month waiting period.

6753:

The suggestion to start a WikiProject is a good one, I think. I've taken a look at the list of active and inactive Wikiprojects and it doesn't look like a closely related WikiProject has been started. The closest to something like a

2688:

of full-protection when an article has a hard to stop vandal. At present, we have to lock everyone out because of a bored teenager. Now, we don't have to. That's the point. I'll leave others to thrash out GWB, but there is no reliance

2639:

Administrators note that semi-protection should only be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page. In other words, just like full protection, it is a last resort not a pre-emptive

9092:

One thing you should note though is that creating a wikipedia account is infidently easier than creating an account at other websites baisicly you choose a name a password and your good to go, you don't even have to give your Email

7970:

magic tricks; I'm a bit surprised that we have articles that leave out such important information. We presume that our readers are capable of deciding for themselves whether or not–once warned–they want to read the spoilers. See

2657:

article is the object of consistent, unrelenting vandalism due to the either short term or long term attractiveness of the article for vandalism, then it should be semi-protected, and it can be semi-protected indefinitely. To wit,

7099:

adding a template to your userpage is wrong and stupid. The only way to get anything done is by the use of a proper debate. Adding this template is more akin to voting that debating and voting is evil. 12:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

5452:

within specific templates. Apparently such double tranclusions are significantly more demanding of the Wikimedia servers than regular single transclusions are, and they should almost always be avoided. (For more information, see

6694:

They're not particularly convincing and I've put reponses to them all. Not allowing users to edit their own pages is obviously an accidently side effect of changes, and not an intentional policy. Please don't pretend otherwise.

8933:

LiveJournal. Making most of my edits w/o logging in (and with dynamic IP addresses that change frequently) has (for me at least) been a satisfying way of sticking to the task of improving the encyclopedia without self-puffery.

8965: 3317:

is useless, we are making steady progress through the alphabet. More frequent updates and being able to see more than 1000 pages at a time would speed the process, but slowly the entire encyclopedia is getting categorized. -

8290:

In cases where the redirects are obvious candidates for conversion to real articles at a later time, it would be a shame and a waste of future work converting these links to direct links to the current article. Example: the

3868:

I strongly oppose this proposal because I feel it will lead to linguistic favouritism. The existing policy works. The reason people are not responding here is, I suspect, an indication that almost nobody else is interested.

3451: 2387:

It's pointless to even discuss the matter if you're going to fall back on the "it should be policy because that's what the policy says" line of reasoning. Nor have you addressed the point that new editors can still edit :

9072:

The announcement for this was a very long time ago. New users have not been able to make page moves for a long time. The disabling of page creations was a Jimbo decree a couple of weeks ago, somewhere on the mailing list:

8961:

Actually, somebody told me that if you submit many good articles into the articles for creation place, then people might see that anonymous users actually create good articles and won't force you to get a username. --anon

9477:

Probably a problem, but this seems to be attacking it with a hammer. Is there evidence of this going on from more than one user? Can we create a special page instead that hunts for article talk pages without articles? --

3928:

I don't think the proposal would help. However, maybe we should adopt the policy on language my firm has adopted. Namely: "We recommend that British English be used..." (only comment on this if you've spotted the error!)

1614:, to name just a handful. It is only ones that are of little use (and are therefore more likely to be deleted) that ever make it to SFD in the first place. So the high proportion of those deleted isn't really a surprise. 7693:

Please, only if they are redundant to images we already have (with equal or better licence). There is absolutely nothing to gain in deleting unique images simply because of a copyright symbol which can be cropped out.

6009:

as that is intended to contain Reference information. Adding details about specific books would seem to belong in that project, whether details are absorbed in the citations database or become Articles of some sort.

9275:

and cut out the vandalism.) Could the functionality that doesn't allow anons to create articles be extended so that they can't create talk pages (or at least can't create talk pages where the article does not exist)?

3731:. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present 2961:(they won't mind, if we clearly explain upfront the reason why), but a repetitive hassle for multiple-sockpuppet vandals who have to repeat it over and over again each time they burn a sock with a vandalism edit. -- 8591: 6782:

Suggestion: In cases like this, it can be useful to remember (or point out) that Knowledge's purpose is not to establish correctness or value, but to summarize the work of others. Make sure everything you write is

6392:

When the info box was a list of current events in "World, sports, US, GB, India" etc there was no problem of what to do. You changed the links to "December 2005 in sports", "December 2005 in India" etc. However the

5789: 5741: 6867:

Way too much, in my opinion—I've only been on Knowledge for a little more than six months! One month or so might by okay, but I don't think quick renominations after a failed one are so common as to warrant a hard

3989:

Where can I find the relevancy criteria that apply to the English wikipedia? In discussions about deleting articles, how often do relevancy criteria play a role, and how often are decisions made on a case-by-case

3687:

A general purpose encyclopedia is a collection of synthesized knowledge presented from a neutral point of view. To whatever extent possible, encyclopedic writing should steer clear of taking any particular stance

2728:" But what if the historical pattern is that the article is the subject of ongoing (ie. current) vandalism? I've been doing RC patrol going on three years now, and these articles are always hit, and consistently. 7703:

They'll go on IFD because they breach policy. If they get cropped first as replaced with compliant images, then well and good. If not, take it as part of the normal ebb & flow of image addition and deletion.

7299:

wouldn't have a problem with it. Also, keep in mind that VfD are not really votes to begin with; although voting is encouraged, an admin has the last word and may go against the vote outcomes last I checked. --

5240:

Many of you have probably noticed that userboxes have been causing a lot of conflict lately. (I don't know if the problem has been addressed here before, but I couldn't find any discussion on this page or in the

4354:

just because the term got media coverage when Camilla Parker-Bowles married Prince Charles. I believe this is one of the main problems in Knowledge, and there should be a serious and thorough discussion on this.

2941:

for the first time tomorrow. Most of these brand-new vandals are precisely the opportunistic instant-gratification vandals (as opposed to sleeper-account vandals) that semi-protection is designed to discourage.

6941: 6589: 2957:

gets frozen, but that's what was happening in practice. It's still early, but there are encouraging signs that under semi-protection the article is now actually being edited, for the first time in a long while.

8444:

Another data point, though I'm not sure anyone cares, is that yesterday's NY Times included Islamist in a headline. I don't think they'd use it if they thought it was horribly pejorative or linked to facism.--

7361:

Raw information cannot be copyrighted, merely the words or images used to describe it: hence we are free to take the information from copyrighted sources so long as we do the work of describing it differently.

7728: 5968: 4972:

It's apparent to those of us who have been both professional programmers and professional editors that your code was insufficiently tested, and did not conform to any standard of Professional Responsibility.

2352:

I agree with Steven who puts it very well. It's a right royal PITA for RC patrollers (myself included) to have to RV the same ol' dozen or so articles all the time. These should be semi-protected long-term.

9324:

As do I, however I agree with Kappa that they SHOULD be able to create talk pages about already existing articles. However, this seems like a lot of work for the devs, for what seems to be a small problem.

6364:

doing this others (including myself) may want to view the spreadsheet I used in order to make corrections and updates. However, I am unsure as to whether spreadsheets are accepted for upload on wikipedia.

3383:

I don't think your proposal is concrete enough to go any further. Why would we want to use a different piece of software for meta? What kind of software are you talking about? Why would it be more suited?

6947:

This is my only major criticism of Knowledge and upon the institution of the new requirement that users must register before creating articles, I think this may be our opportunity to make the final step.

7309:

Thanks for your advice. i don't want to politicize or campaign, but i do think it is important that contributors know their work may be up for deletion. what they do with that information is up to them.

7292:

If you contact people interested in the article without regard to the content of their edits, this is fine. It's quite common to alert people about pending actions for articles they take an interest in.

7141: 5086:

occur, not what has occurred, you are restricting user rights beyond the actual law based on a purely hypothetical basis. That is not a serious, fact-based objection. Fourth, the company will not lose

3894:

I oppose it, mainly because I don't think we need to - I strongly suspect my grandchildren will be confused by the idea of American and British English as visibly different concepts. Give it time... ;-)

7278:

Is such action wrong? Is it considered campaigning? Are there any rules preventing this? I think it is important that contributors to an article have the right to know that their work is under review.

5688:

on whether or not he's a dictator. We're trying to hammer it out on talk, but I'd appreciate a wider audience as I think the discussion could be useful when applied to the other contentious entries in

4785:

If you made the software, you are responsible for its output, not the poor sap that used it assuming that the rules it followed conformed to consensus. There is no disclaimer of warranty in this venue.

1460:

Spui misquoted me and then said that my correction of what I said didn't change his statement. The misquoting was misrepresentation; the claim that it changed nothing was obtuseness. I stand by that.

7642:

Rule of Thumb point 8 says "Don't put photo credits in articles or on the images themselves; put them on the description page." On that basis, as they currently stand, they look like speedies to me. --

6394: 8237:

Redirect fixing should not be top priority, but bots that scan pages for links to disambiguation pages also have the ability to check redirects, so hey, why not? I know because I've written a bot. —

3377: 5022: 4924:

Plus, any user abusing the software should be removed from the list so they can no longer use it. I have also disabled the date removal thing because I am tired of defending what people do with it.

2062:

Is there a stated/written policy and/or guidelines for Portals in Definitions? What is the intended function/purpose of Portals in Definitions? And what about overlapping and redundant information?

7531:

vandalism. A user page is in public namespace. Therefore I believe that all polices apply just as to article pages and article talk pages. That's how I read it. There's some discussion of it here:

3446:

The Manual of Style permits this, and only uses it as an example in any case; it does not require it. This is a special case of the more general debate over use of honorifics. Current policy is at

3300:

is the way to go, but at the moment it is useless, I am proposing that longer pages get the uncategorised category so at least we can find the more important articles that need to be categorised.

7512:

remove properly-applied warnings it is not OK and legitimately could be seen as vandalizing the page. Also, I put sockpuppet warnings on a user's page (not talk page) that he kept removing... is

6447: 6120:

I don't think it's absurd to have a large number of warning templates, generally. Just chose and use which-ever you see fit. However some you mention should be sent to TfD (if not there already).

7746: 6759: 5782: 5153:

that goal. We make an exception for the article namespace where they're necessary to identify a company or person or such, but in the template and user namespaces, they're purely decorative. —

7597:. They're great photos, but what do we make of the spam on the bottom right of each of them. (Clearly, I think it sucks & they should be deleted, or cropped). Is there a policy on this? -- 6513:

take part in the dispute. Mine is just a, how to say it, "philosophical"(?) question. But I guess that sticking to the "non-bias"-"NPOV"-"good faith" trio I can go on from here. Thank you. --

6469: 8622: 3418:

and discovered a rule saying that it was acceptable to refer to Muhammad as "Prophet Muhammad" or "the Prophet". He feels that this should be the new standard in any Islam-related articles.

1852:

been posted today, rather than two months ago, I suspect the notification would have generated some actual discussion as to the pros and cons of moving stub redirects out of RFD and into SFD.

9407:

talk page without an accompanying article recently. Then again, I haven't done much RC patrol lately, either. So... I don't know. I guess this isn't much of a problem at the present time. --

8608: 7071:

Even if we're only talking about anon. who's only edits are spelling correction. That's better than not having them at all. A lot of feq. editors starts off as spelling correction anon. --

6805: 6134:

Actually I've just speedied the ones that break policy. Policy is set-in-stone, it's not something that can be changed by votes on TfD (let alone by people making it up as they go along!).

3172: 3128: 2704:

I get what you're saying. Smart people can differ on how long we should keep it, and perhaps when we have more data after this week, we can bring that up again. For me - I'm glad that with

1793:

if there were any objections to redirects being taken care of at SFD, where it got no responses one way or another. Also, 3 redirects were nominated for deletion (and later deleted) on the

8467:, which is undergoing edit and redirect attacks. Apparently some people can't discuss the topic and feel the need to hide it or mark it as Rejected while discussion is still under way. ( 7617:

are... Where as normally he'd put that (c) on to prevent casual copying the licence in fact allows (nay, promotes) copying, distribution, derivative works and commercial use of the photo.

3363:. Also, I think that the main question was about "under categorized pages" rather than "uncategorized" ones. That's another matter altogether. User:Ceyockey 20:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 1676:

However, if SFD has some notions about redirects that RFD disagrees with (and I'm not sure as to the specifics), it may be worthwhile to get RFD people involved there for a wider opinion.

8331:

that such quintessential guideline can't be made stable, on the other hand: IMHO this was the right decision, the guideline has been in bad shape for some time - who wants to help out? --

5753: 4586:

I'm not sure how many people have run across the "Good Article" thing that's been going on. I'm a bit uncomfortable with it though I can't really articulate why well yet. Have a look.

4289:

advanced age. These articles are expediting the dwindling reputation of this cite. Perhaps moving insignificant biographies off this cite to another cite or brown filing them.... chaz171

2243:. For the other 99.9999% of our articles, reverting the vandalism isn't a huge task. On this one article, I think we need to concede that it's an exception and should be treated as such. 9197:

about the possibility of adding templates that serve no purpose but to disparage an individual, group of people, or ethnic/religious/racial group to the criteria for speedy deletion. --

8085:

redirects to disambiguation pages: in that case the redirect link should be replaced by a link to the intended page (replacing it by a link to the disambiguation page would be senseless)

4313:. It depends on what you mean by 'newsworthy'. Someone covered in major national or international news media would be encyclopedic. Someone covered in a local gossip paper would not be. 1301:

This isn't a problem with SFD, it's a problem with people who list redirects on SFD when they clearly shouldn't. There should be something that says that it's not meant for redirects. -

9013:

There is a delay of zero, in my understanding. The message didn't include any mention of "new user" for that reason. Positive a cookie hadn't been dropped by the browser or something? -

8601: 7765: 6814: 2833:

I don't have any particular stance on whether pages should be permanently semi-protected or not, as there are good arguments for both sides. However, I feel very strongly that if pages

1221: 3189:

With the correct amount of set text, this could not only be an extremely useful preventative measure against vandalism et al, but also an excellent way of keeping articles consistent.

1220:. However, since SFD is an out-of-the-way page, which most non-stub sorters avoid, these useful redirects are typically deleted because they do not follow naming conventions. See also 8752: 8304: 7577: 6666: 8340: 4967:. Many folks went to your talk page and the AWB talk page and complained, and you did nothing about it while thousands of pages were damaged! Now you (Martin) accuse us of slander? 4425:

I'd like to know that too. I'm fairly certain this is general policy, and I'm fairly sure there is a relevant page, but whenever I want to invoke, I simply cannot find the page... —

4188:

NPOV is for articles. Jimbo considers himself the sole founder of Knowledge, and the banner is from the Wikimedia Foundation, so it doesn't really matter. You could bring this up on

1176:, as a stub type has both a template and a category. This is a rather admirable goal. However, somewhere along the way, a third type of page got included - redirects. Redirects like 9459:

I think we all agree that anonymous users should be able to create new talk pages. The question is whether they should be able to create talk pages of articles that don't yet exist.

6389:. However the infobox links to "Other current events : World - Sci-Tech - Sports ; current events by region ; 2005 developments by topic" remain linked to current "current events". 6110:), but Test6 adds an additional threat that people will be blocked again and for a longer period of time if they vandalize again after coming back. This whole thing is a huge mess. 5448:: And don't forget about the double transclusion caused by many userbox templates. Granted, WikiProject Userboxes has been addressing the issue, but many users transclude the basic 5409:

policy for what is appropriate and what is inappropriate for user templates and categories so that voters on both sides can have a policy to cite in the debates at TfD and CfD. The

7824:

Just apply WP:NPOV and WP:V to lists rigidly. Make sure every list has NPOV inclusion criteria and that every entry is properly sourced. Problem solved - no need for a new policy,

2209:

semi-protected for an extended period of time. As long as the waiting period isn't unreasonable (a few days or so), I don't see much of a problem with the restrictions on editing.

5301:? Basically, we need to establish guidelines for the creation of new user templates and user categories. What types of templates and what types of categories should be allowed? -- 5165:

Yes, we must be conservative with our claims of fair use. Fair-use images should be used as little as possible in the main namespace and only very rarely in the user namespace. --

3938: 8865: 8691: 8041:

still remember the last sentence, which was "What's the use of luggage to a leopard?" (The gimmick is that until the last word you didn't realize that the narrator is a leopard).

1548:

You seem to be engaging in the fallacy that you have a monopoly on common sense. No one does, which is why when we disgree on what is common sense we have to resolve the issue.

9422: 5806: 5734: 5040:

believe that replacing images on userbox templates should not be considered vandalism at all, unless it is obvious vandalism (like a picture of the Democrat logo is replaced by

3625:

I used to close no consensus VfDs when I was a non-admin, but then again, that was before they implemented that rule (and when the backlog of unclosed discussions was huge). --

2790:

Why not just say that a page may not be semi-protected for more than one week, after that the protection is to be removed or extended a maximum of one week, etc. ad infinitum.

9453: 8914: 8687:

I don't mean to come across as rude, but I have no idea where this came from, and it just seems so blatantly against what this site usually does that I had to ask about it. --

8669: 7624: 7171: 7038:

I know registration is easy. But I didn't know that until I registered, and I'm naturally distrusting of web sites that ask for registration - as are lots of other people. --

3943:

Having started editing on the English Knowledge, I eventually found that the German Knowledge contained more "omissions", and concentrated my editing there. The article here

2217: 2127: 1564:

Two fallacies, actually. You seem to assume that all redirects that are found are taken to SFD. Quite a number of redirects that are found are kept. No-one has ever nominated

1363:

If you're going to quote me, SPUI, then tell people what I actually said rather than making things up. Deliberate misrepresentation of a person simply makes you look like the

8401:. Now these terms have been used by many writers to refer to any Islamic organization or any Muslim person. Most of the people with Muslim background have been refered to as 7837:

I wish it was that easy... List are a special type of subset of articles that requires special attention. We do have problems enforcing WP:NV, WP:NOR and WP:V in lists. That

7412: 7498: 6623: 5413:

voters typically say the userboxes are "silly" or "unencyclopedic" or "doesn't" contribute to our goal of buildong an encyclopedia" or "divisive" or "offensive." Well, does

3994: 3960: 2346: 2302: 2827: 2578: 2233: 2145: 6241:

are likely to be kept simply because the people voting on these templates are mainly the small core group of people who find them useful. This includes such templates as

5870: 5298: 2991: 2965: 1798: 9434: 8335: 6762:, which might overlap in a minimal way (partial subtopic overlap). I would suggest that if you want to begin a WikiProject of this kind, classify it under "Religion" at 6639: 4473: 2298:

The George W. Bush article should be semi-protected until he is no longer in office. Seems obvious to me. Until he's gone, that article is a lightning rod for vandalism.

9397: 8448: 7539: 7470: 7399: 6561: 3004:

question! kowiki user can't use non-commercial image? it is worldwide wiki project rule? korean can make a policy for allowing non-commercial image? in kowiki only?? --

2721: 8684:

I'm sorry, but this goes against everything Knowledge supposedly stands for. Why shouldn't I be able to create an article? I always used to, what's changed since then?

5640:

3RR it may cause. I believe it is a common practice and always followed it (even if the tags are against my own POV). Unfortunately, it is not explicitly stated in the

5437: 5399: 4839: 4830: 4709: 4514:

THE GOD OF WAR IS DISALLUSIONED TO SEE YOUR CULUTURE FAIL AND FALTER TO CHOOSE A LANGUAGE - NO MATTER - YE ENIMIES SHALL SOON RIDE FORTH AND CONQUER YOUR PITIABLE LANDS

8983: 8751:

This is new, put in place to help reduce the high rate of vandalism. Anyone can still edit, just not necessarily immediately. Anons can still create new articles, see

8282: 7268: 6419: 6415: 4997: 4853: 1942: 6555: 1985: 8600:

goes live? I don't want to rush things, I just want to be clear as to whether there are any outstanding points, and if so, what they are. Please put any comments on

7818: 4788:

Finally, the argument concerning intent is pretty standard in the legal domain, and I'm sorry that's too esoteric for many to understand. Here's the short version:

3553:

result in delete (such as keep or merge). Is this still true, or is putting up a delete consensus AfD to CSD the latest way for a non-admin to close a delete AfD? --

8366: 7897: 5337: 4273: 3642: 3620: 9388: 9352: 9332: 8555: 8535: 8521: 8126: 7777: 7456: 7352: 5704: 5591: 5519: 5491: 3586: 8508:

are patented (in the US and other countries that recognize software patents), and the licensing terms essentially mean there can never be such a thing as a legal

8243: 8108: 7993:

if need be), but to not include the information anywhere in WP is going against our charter of being an encyclopaedia, and hence a repository of human knowledge.

7876:

which redirect the user automatically to the Knowledge namepace. Rather than a redirect should they be a link on the page using the {tl|selfref}} template, e.g.:

6988:. And vandals are harder to track when they have a hard-to-remember IP address. I wrote the section in this article called "anonymous editing", please read it. -- 6881: 6517: 6499: 8738: 8734: 8439: 8257: 8239: 7863: 7369: 6483: 6196: 5975: 5950: 5915: 5748: 5600:

I tried to copy the relevant bits of this discussion there but everyone should please feel free to refactor as necessary (as if that was necessary to say!)... ++

5180: 4645: 4641: 4631: 4498: 4427: 3435: 2903:

vprotected; noone could edit it (apart from admins), but now just about all editors can — apart from the vandal. And since the bug-fix, the vandal really can't.

1958: 1454: 1243: 1190: 1180: 50: 9471: 8955: 8763: 7093: 7033: 7016: 6543: 6509: 6285:

I agree with Dan100 that having a large number of warning messages is not a problem per se. However, templates that violate policy should obviously be deleted.

6214: 6032: 4817:

require all edits to be accepted by tose using it- Why would Martin lie about that? A couple of incorrectly alphabetized interwiki links do not "break" pages.--

4612: 4431: 3708:

1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that

1705: 9489: 9121: 8884: 7990: 7984: 6609:

If anonymous users are to be deliberately banned from starting their own user page, then this should be a separate policy decision, and not an accidental one.

6229: 5876:

Nevertheless, I am pointing out to a dilemma rather than a set of behaviours by a single user. Is there any guideline or policy that I am not aware of? I mean

5796: 4228: 4058: 4047: 4044: 3071: 2175: 9319: 9250: 9142: 8007: 7938: 7479:

A talk page that has been blanked will still show up as a blue link on the "Discussion" tab, alerting observant editors and admins that foolishness is afoot.

7389: 6699: 6677: 5663: 5366: 4573: 2678: 2068: 8952: 8809: 8784: 8777: 8717: 8471: 8207:

I'm talking about official polivy. The question came up, and I wanted to know if there was policy on it, that's what. I never implied there was a problem. --

7113: 6999: 6799: 6200: 5763: 5715: 5612: 5549: 4696:(trust me, Ian is very kind and will respond to any inquries you have), and I don't see how the cited diffs could be interprated as "breaking" those pages.-- 4534: 4359: 4084: 3439: 3141: 2588:- I've said no such thing. BTW, policy is not set in stone - it can always change. And of course, if it's in the best interests of the encyclopedia, you can 2288: 2266: 2122: 1909: 1157: 9055:, with uppercase P, because it's a ride name, when the time comes). A pointer to the announcment gratefully accepted as I didn't spot it in my searches...++ 8170: 8161: 8135: 7440: 7303: 6310: 6280: 4756: 4735: 4719: 2618: 1790: 9182: 8578: 8483: 8211: 7422:

talk page is not vandalism; a user who does so can be assumed to have read it and if ignoring warnings, will face the consequences. Removing whatever from

7134: 6896: 6824: 6775: 5709: 5414: 5273: 5263: 5255:. Then the userboxes themselves were turned into templates, and the userbox templates began including category tags to automatically categorize user under 5208: 5197: 4547: 4024:

I don't think an organization should be regarded as inherently either notable or non-notable just because it happens to be made up of game players; is the

3840: 3662: 3570: 2518: 2482: 2433: 2107: 2086: 1200: 9234: 9194: 8999:

Are you absolutely positive? Has the restriction been extended to a time-delay? Already knowing the answer, can I read the on-wiki announcement of that? -

8200: 7572: 6912: 6156: 5357: 4984: 4910: 4874:, correctly fixing and linking the non-functional date, but incorrectly unlinking the year; it's hard to argue that this edit was sufficiently "checked". 4808: 4687: 4327: 3530: 3018: 2555: 2397: 2327: 2198: 2163: 2005: 9212: 8862: 8839: 8688: 8532: 8495: 8053: 7333: 7198: 7185: 7165: 6746: 6441: 6426: 6245: 6066: 5937: 5690: 5671: 5454: 5116: 5098: 5074: 5060: 5048: 4928: 4919: 4891: 3873: 3859: 3829: 3793: 3249:

I think categories should only be used when they make sense. Not everything should have a category, and tagging things for that seems like a bad idea. --

2382: 1626: 1473: 1351: 1305: 8113:

It's preferred to link directly to the article because a redirect forces you to load both the redirect and target pages. It's not a big deal, however.--

7997: 7989:

IMHO, preserving the audience's entertainment is not a good reason for not containing some information. Perhaps we can present it in a tactful way (eg,

6289: 6014: 5865:

Thanks for the comment Zora. Yes, I know that Striver has done alot of mess in terms of starting articles I believe they belong to the same category of

4337: 4205: 3402:

We had a discussion here several months ago, in which the question of whether or not the word "prophet" could be used to describe Muhammad. One editor (

3335: 3322: 3304: 3287: 3266: 3253: 3168:

topic that doesn't have a "naming conventions" guideline yet, separate from the more general MoS, which doesn't discuss many "page naming" specifics. --

3113: 3092: 2746: 2251: 1428: 1384: 8663: 8648: 8316: 7960: 7949: 5228: 5160: 5143: 3904: 2736: 2699: 1666: 9280: 9132: 9005: 7075: 6345: 6129: 4897:

True. But if someone is sloppily checking their edits, then it's the fault of the user who's, well, sloppily checking their edits, not the software.--

4679:

Therefore, we should assume that it's misused because of poor quality control by the program author (regardless of intent), and prohibit futher use.

3922: 3388: 3030: 2804: 2362: 1724: 7698: 7675: 7557: 7045: 6718: 6652: 6367:

I am using Open Office so I can upload it in many formats including ones for excel and some open formats. Can anyone advise me on what to do here?

6176: 6143: 5971:- probably better to start a specific NC guideline on books, than making several annexes to other NC guidelines. Who wants to join me on this job? -- 5897: 5860: 5562: 5104: 3981: 3971: 3196: 2889: 2601: 2024: 1690: 1559: 1543: 1519: 1448: 1405: 1287: 9097: 9041: 8410: 6114: 5816:

I've noticed a lot of edit warring regarding the way we treat books. I ask the community to take a look at one of the most representative examples:

4131: 4121: 3502: 3447: 2781: 2766: 1768: 1358: 1336: 1312: 9286:

A lot of anons point out errors by posting on talk pages, they probably wouldn't bother signing up and are likely too timid to edit the main page.

9103: 8993: 8308: 7911: 7633: 7582: 7300: 6833: 6496: 6103: 4555: 4302: 3598: 3149: 3130: 2870: 2842: 2816: 1780: 1748: 1296: 9299: 9290: 9083: 9019: 7855: 7828: 6721: 5943: 4692:

Huh? If you want to know the intent of the person who made those edits, since anyone using the AWB has to approve every edit they make, you could

2976: 9067: 9030: 7734: 7155: 7130:

Where's the template for those of us who believe that anonymous editing should be encouraged, as it's the number-one source of spelling fixes? --

6973:

the way we do things and it simply will not happen just because a few people put a silly template on their user page. 01:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

6966: 4033: 3549:, a well-meaning user closed this AfD as Delete and put it up for a speedy. My latest perusal indicates that non-admins can only close AfDs that 3458: 2852: 2032: 1805: 1270: 9166: 4019: 9371: 8637: 8458: 7917: 7739: 7336: 6955:

or to the History page of any major page that gets a high level of vandalism and you will see the vast majority of vandals are IP addresses. --

6408: 6255: 6074: 4749: 4566: 4346:. It's OK to feel sorry for these people, but they are not special because of this. They simply were in the wrong place in the wrong time. And 4009: 3243: 3161: 1348: 1302: 7229: 4478:

I think the formula was arrived at partly because of a few difficult cases to form the appropriate possessive from. There are countries named

4443: 8780:. I'm really sorry that anons can't make new pages anymore but it does prevent a huge number of junk articles being created as newbie tests. 8311: 8231: 8069: 5821: 4594: 4153:

While this notice clearly was but up with good intent, that Jimmy Wales is the sole founder of Knowledge is disputed and saying that he is a

3542: 3513: 8681:

taken to a page that bluntly says "Article not found" (I actually thought it was a 404 at first) and insists that I create an account. Why?

8222: 6937:

please add {{user anti-anon}} to your user page if you agree with the statement that user registration should be required to edit articles.

7385:'s phrasing of this point is very well-put; it is vital to "do the work" of creating original text rather than making superficial changes. 7314: 7286: 3776: 5476: 5316: 3001:

I am korean user. I use kowiki more. In korea, fair-use idea is not exist. so, I think...why don't use we non-commercial image in kowiki?

6371: 5288: 3455: 3089: 2973: 2849: 2839: 2813: 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: 9228:. I hope something will be done about this. I hope this is where to bring up this issue, because I couldn't think of anywhere else to. 9108:

Sometimes, you get blatant advertising, but as it isn't in CSD, it has to go through 7 days of AfD. Can we just put this up for speedy?

9271:

people are vegans and various non-cricketers have played cricket - so it's all rather odd as to why he doesn't create an account, join

9256: 8324: 8317: 5999: 5833: 4419: 4182: 4040: 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: 9201: 6615:

This seems pretty silly, and I would consider it more of a bug than a policy, but I'm going through the usual wikibureaucracy anyway.

2543:

To extend the analogy even more, in the US we also require that all drivers have a license and auto insurance. These restrictions are

2041:

Wikipedian, so forgive me if I seem to ask obvious questions or questions that have been answered before. (I am also a Platonist, so

8351: 6433:

Okay, I changed the template for December 2005, as was done to previous months before. This 'action item' should find a place in the

5630: 3933: 1225: 403: 399: 395: 391: 387: 383: 379: 375: 371: 201: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 177: 173: 165: 161: 157: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 133: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 109: 105: 101: 6612:

While there is perhaps little benefit to allowing anonymous users to edit their user page, there is no benefit from stopping them.

5848:, who likes to create new articles. He consulted no one else in doing this. IMHO, unless the book is extremely well-known, like the 4523: 2280:

article where permanent semi-protection may be warranted. On any other article, it should only be used for limited periods of time.

1505:

ends up with a conclusion he disagrees with. But every process makes the occasional mistake, and that's no grounds for removing it.

7793:) is being developed in response to concerns that such lists are sometimes used as subterfuges to bypass the Knowledge policies of 6163:

And I've managed to get it down to 117 by redirecting duplicates and removing categories from redirects. I've listed a few more on

5576:. In the meantime, please continue discussion here (unless someone wants to go to the trouble of creating the new page himself). -- 4740:

Also, if you want to know what intentions were, examples include; Me stub sorting about 50% of "Artist" stubs in just a few hours,

4382: 3516: 2276:

semi-protected. The point of my comment (which may not have been as clear as it should have been) was that the Bush article is the

9448:, although not all his edits are vandalism, and not all his vandalism is about vegans. His IP address changes several times a day. 7250:

the material in perennial proposals on this? Because you havn't responded to most of the arguments that have been put forward...

6040: 4342:

I agree also. We have too many articles based on media coverage. For instance, we have one article for each of the victims of the

4015:

could meet the criteria. Until AfD is flooded with them, we might be able to keep more of them out on an individual AfD basis. --

3681: 7547: 6434: 6401: 5242: 3536: 3426: 3331:

Ah, I mistakenly believed that page had stopped being updated altogether, still, it would be great if it was updates more often.

9035:

Ah, of course. That's what it is. I was thinking that the page creation restriction was the problem, when it's not that at all.-

9026:

The delay for page moves is 4 days if I remember correctly. Instead he should just make a new page and copy/paste the contents.

8498: 8299:

were each important Early Modern German universities, merged after the Napoleonic wars. Both titles now redirect to the current

7772: 3698:

view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points.

8272: 7295:

What isn't ok is to contact only people who you think would agree with your own view -- although I've seen that happen as well.

5817: 5597: 5555: 5350:. Be prepared to wait a long time for it to render; I'm seeing a full page of 'User foo' categories at 1600x1200 at the top. — 4095: 3360: 3356: 3297: 3180: 3050: 3008: 67: 9225: 8920:

So has there been any noticible effect making things easier for RC patrol? If anything I'd think the new policy makes things

7194:

I'd *rather* have anon editing - if we require registration then the vandals will just create accounts and be harder to spot.

4101:

Listing a proposal on MfD is a pretty strange and disruptive way to oppose it. I suggest you use the talk page in the future.

3601:. Closing deletes, no matter how obvious, will come back to bite this user if he/she opts to pursue adminship in the future. 9219:), and restored 3 (by different people each time). This should not happen, becuase there is an ongoing discussion, with : --> 9206: 6892:. Quick renominations are generally shot down in short order, and usually don't stay on the RfA page for more than a day. -- 6820:"Talk" is used for historical reasons; since the text on the tab can be changed, the more intuitive "discussion" was used. -- 6810:

This confuses me. Shouldn't either the tab read "talk" or the page names start as "Discussion:Star Wars Trilogy" or whatnot?

4173:

because they worked underneath the CEO of AT&T. Thus logic is not recognized by most people - they all won nobel prizes.

3046:"NPOV was drafted originally for Nupedia by a philosopher". -- Has anyone seen this version or know who this philosopher was? 2011: 1369: 6588:

for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use

6578: 3014:

I'm not sure, but I think the laws of the United States apply to all versions of Knowledge because it is hosted in Florida.

2132:

Or at least, on going? Or should it be turned off soon? And if soon, when? (In case you've not heard, the code implementing

1639:

The characterization of WP:SFD being "broken" is not accurate; I've altered the heading to be more accurate and informative.

8374: 8348: 8341: 7562: 6316: 6025: 5963: 5636: 5534: 5458: 4768:

AWB does not require every edit to be approved by the user. It makes dozens or hundreds of changes with only one approval.

4088: 1773: 9394: 9367: 5925: 3758: 9504: 8871:

No, they created with the junk in it. I still agee with you that we should lift the page creation restriction, however.--

8096: 6296: 5287:

boldly speedily deleted dozens of silly and politically biased userboxes. (Discussion and relevant links can be found at

4949:

enforce a prompt for each and every change on a page, not a blanket acceptance of dozens of changes on the same page; and

87: 7062: 4658:

Martin says (above) that AWB "is not broken, it's not even specifically designed for this task as you seem to suggest."

6593: 5596:

I suspect this will generate enough interest to warrant a separate page so I have created it as Zscout370 suggested at

5190:

interpretations of United States fair use law, but that of Knowledge policy on using copyrighted images on user pages.

4989:

It has been released as a development version. Plus, the only information I could find on inter language order was the

4669: 4283: 3999: 45: 40: 5202:

Why should Knowledge polices apply to both articles and userspace? It seems an unneeded violation of user functions.

4392:

It there actually a naming conventions policy that states that the article title should be in the form of "History of

8267: 7790: 7586: 6629:

Is this for real...? The reasons not to have this done are pretty obvious and numerous. But, hey. Whatever keeps the

4777:

re-sorting (previously correct) interwiki links so that "Esperanto" is alphabetized before "Español" (in both diffs).

3836:

So, which meaning of the verb "to table" should we use, and how do we describe what the other government is doing? --

3203: 1165: 57: 2412:

Re "not make this a wiki..." This is not "a wiki," it is a project that has the serious intention of producing a 💕.

9221: 8656: 7056: 6711: 2393:

been drawn somewhere—users can improve those pages after having an account for a few days. The sky isn't falling.

2133: 1661: 8020:

content in a narrative will, to some extent, "spoil" the enjoyment of watching the work unfold for the first time.

7620:

It's a mindset thing I'd say... Perhaps a bit of helpful discussion & education on the user talk page? Thanks/

7242:, right? Unless Revolucion is advocating requiring real names at a minimum, the proposal is in effect advocating 5867:

Godzilla III, Part 5, Actor X, Screen 43, Time 13h, 59 Minutes, 3 Seconds, 15 crew (members), Director is missing!

9176:

and so need a proper justifiction. a screen shot of the game in an articel about the game, will usually qualify.

8802: 8756: 8616: 7888: 7869: 7553: 6920: 6376: 6045: 5985: 5280: 3207: 83: 35: 17: 8832:

that Knowledge uses to achieve that goal. It can be adjusted and modified as necessary in pursuit of that goal.

8307:

to which of the universities other articles actually intend to link. Direct linking would make that impossible.

7271:

has been nominated for VfD. I saw that you made contributions to this article, so I thought you'd like to know.

2899:

as a proper example of the use of sprotection. A dynamic (thus unblockable) vandal has been hitting it hard. It

9150: 8300: 6763: 6149: 4343: 4025: 3236: 3214: 94: 8065:

some obvious page, but can anyone link me to the answer, either here or on my talk page? Thanks in advance. --

7082:

And I simply don't agree with your assertion that vandalism is not a problem on Knowledge. It's everywhere. --

5969:

Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Proposing_.22Spelling_according_to_first_edition_in_English.22

5251:: Anyway, userboxes started out innocently enough, as informative supplements designed to fit snugly into the 3809:, not yogurt. And this rule is already applied in other ways, like for specialized terms within WikiProjects. 8464: 5928:... but I presume you are looking for something that goes beyond this section of policy, yes? User:Ceyockey ( 5391:

As far as categories are concerned, on the other hand, we are in a much better position; we can simply prune

4990: 4963:

Moreover, there is no reason for us to have to go to each user of your software to chide them for making the

4835:

A couple of dozen bad edits and damaged alphabetization on thousands of pages -- broken by any definition! --

4653: 4436: 1825: 4661:

We have no way of knowing the intent of the author that it's specifically designed for any particular task.

8597: 8059: 7786: 7779: 7761: 7453: 6855: 6755: 4587: 4405: 3165: 2923: 2547:

tougher than our semi-protection policy, yet the vast majority of drivers accept them without any problem.

1497:

performs admirably, and note that those votes were prevalent before the creation of SFD). SPUI has begun a

62: 8092:("Thompson" is the common error and an existing redirect - "Thomson" is the correct spelling of that name) 4872: 4063:

Agreed; I think that User:Stevage is spot-on with his comment. User:Ceyockey 23:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

1866:(particularly in the "Other spellings, other punctuation" category) being deleted or otherwise deprecated. 9419: 9411: 9385: 9377: 9349: 9341: 9316: 9308: 7319: 6930: 5844:

That practice, of setting up an article for every dang book cited in a reference list, was instituted by

5645: 5588: 5580: 5516: 5508: 5473: 5465: 5434: 5426: 5313: 5305: 5177: 5169: 4470: 4462: 4225: 4217: 7102:

Debate has been tried before. All that happens is the admin will direct you to "perennial proposals". --

8279: 7872:

to keep the Knowledge namespace separate from the encyclopedia one. However consider redirects such as

7639: 7467: 5779: 5731: 5659:, who both believed that they were acting in good faith and after blocking decided to leave Knowledge. 5347: 4981: 4836: 4805: 4684: 4142: 3653: 3314: 3280: 3262:

I disagree, I don't think I have ever seen an article that couldn't be put into at least one category.

2092: 2020: 1955: 86:. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either 8079:(what would be the rationale for it?) - I suppose it's some invention of people liking bot operations. 7446: 5006:

Suggestion for Incorporation into Knowledge Rules Regarding Removal of Graphics from Userbox Templates

4993:, in which the alphabetical listing was the most popular choice, hence that's why it sorts like that. 9304:

I agree that anonymous users should not be allowed to create talk pages for non-existent articles. --

9064: 8980: 7493: 7257: 6414:

I am working on the 'Science and technology' section of this type and up to now (as of archiving of

6275: 6224: 5609: 5546: 4673: 4189: 4029:

or consists of a handful of friends getting together of little interest to anybody else wouldn't be.

3766: 3712:

believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.

3615: 3415: 3137: 2239:

Yes, semi-protection should be used on very few article and for limited periods of time...except for

1937: 1904: 1598: 8945:

With all respect to Jimbo, I thought Knowledge had stopped being his personal fiefdom some time ago.

6061:) has said that this category needs to be even bigger (!) Furthermore, some of the warnings violate 9467: 9188: 9048: 8713:

The change happened a few weeks ago, but I saw no news about it. Maybe I'm just out of the loop --

8296: 8131:

Sean, that was the conclusion we reached, but is there anything official on it that you know of? --

7980: 7611: 7585:

has uploaded a bunch of images with visible copyright and advertorial information on them, such as

7348: 7324:

It may be a silly question, but is it OK that copyrighted materials (books, magazines...) could be

7267:

can be phrased in a way so as not campaign - such as "I just wanted to inform you that the article

4976:

Please cease and desist using AWB until its results are tested and proven to conform to consensus.

4800:

Please cease and desist using AWB until its results are tested and proven to conform to consensus.

4387: 3582: 3276: 3228: 2858: 1255:

Completely get rid of SFD. Agree on which page - TFD or CFD - stub types should be discussed on. --

9445: 9128:

should be based on whether there is anything in the article that can be salvaged in a rewrite. --

8089: 4176:

I propose that the text be replaced with something like "Wikimedia chairman" or "Knowledge head".

3192:

Forgive me if this is the wrong section to suggest this, or if this has already been suggested. --

1433:

I had named this section "SFD is broken"; someone else changed it to be more NPOV or something. --

7851: 7814: 7757: 7466:

warning/blocking system where the warnings are removed, as blocks will appear to be arbitrary. --

7450: 7013: 6921: 5811: 5259:. And then, of course, a number of Wikipedians began creating humorous parody userboxes (such as 4693: 4636: 2726:

If an article needs protecting, it's because of a current vandalism problem, not an historic one.

2614: 1838:

My understanding is that the RFD process was administered for a long time largely by one person,

9161: 8728:

Hi, that change is just some sysops edit warring over the site notice. The appropriate place is

7180: 7150: 7108: 7088: 7028: 6994: 6961: 4377: 9408: 9374: 9338: 9305: 8393:

by many neo-conservative and anit-Muslim writers. The same way, they have also coined the term

7426:

talk pages may be vandalism, please ask the user who owns the talk page what they think of it.

6360: 6237:

It is worth pointing out to interested parties that several of the warning templates listed on

6079: 5577: 5505: 5462: 5423: 5302: 5166: 4877: 4668:

of AWB is to mass de-link dates, and to mass de-alphabetize inter-wiki links. For example, see

4459: 4214: 3637: 3565: 3220: 1737:

that replaces the redirects with the proper templates in the articles, as fast as possible. --

29: 6086:? Both of them tell vandals to cut it out immediately or they'll be blocked. We not only have 4771:

For those who have difficulty reading the diffs that I provided, concentrate on a few things:

2983: 9393:

Is this really such a large problem that it requires a software change? Where's the fire?;) —

9263: 8445: 8436: 8363: 8332: 8105: 7708: 7688: 7646: 7601: 7569: 6735: 6674: 6514: 6466: 6029: 5972: 5947: 5908: 5530: 5194: 4591: 4581: 3397: 3169: 2158: 2102: 2081: 8419: 6889: 5792:

for some background discussion and the straw polls. One of the proposals here is get rid of

9337:

Hmm. Maybe we should ask one of them how much work it would require. I'll be right back. --

9139: 8876: 8806: 8760: 8153: 8118: 7931: 7751: 7480: 7366: 7329: 7050: 6873: 6843: 6337: 6262: 6221: 6219:

Indeed, there are decoder rings to keep track of all these! {{testTemplates}} Good grief.

5392: 5329: 5256: 4902: 4822: 4752:

has been correcting typos, many others have been using it as well for a variety of things.

4701: 4520: 4265: 4197: 3602: 2911: 2474: 2374: 2319: 2227:

where the bulk of the anon edits are not reverted and thus they should not be locked out. -

1924: 1891: 1753:

I fail to see the difference. I use article redirects all the time, when they're useful. --

1716: 1657: 1608: 1528:

ends up with a conclusion I (and common sense) disagree with, when it handles redirects. --

1321:, I believe, who said it had always handled redirects and always will handle redirects). -- 5148:

I agree with Sherool. We don't disallow fair use images outside of the article namespace

4915:

The edit you describe must have been done manually, it couldnt have suggested doing that.

4165:

page. What does it say about Knowledge if we tell others to be NPOV but Knowledge is not?

3210:

as two examples where this has been attempted. User:Ceyockey 03:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

1824:

On December 1st, Woohookitty started working on clearing out the backlog. If you look at

8: 9484: 9463: 9414: 9380: 9344: 9329: 9311: 8906: 8879: 8552: 8518: 8292: 8156: 8121: 7976: 7344: 6909: 6876: 6585: 6368: 6354: 6340: 5907:

Yes I have also seen a single user move (book) titles to a title without the "(book)". --

5641: 5583: 5511: 5468: 5429: 5396: 5363: 5308: 5172: 4905: 4825: 4704: 4465: 4351: 4298: 4268: 4220: 4200: 4077: 3629: 3578: 3557: 3368:

Use different software for the mediation of wiki policy, administration, government, etc.

2552: 2285: 2248: 2214: 1719: 1588: 7733:

This has probably come up before, but just in case you haven't heard, some editor named

3140:

before. In the mean while several suggestions were incorporated, and others answered at

2511:

force anyone to walk or bike. Similarly, "semi-protection" still allows anyone to edit.

9248: 9231: 9180: 8836: 8548: 8190: 8141: 8050: 7972: 7430: 7009: 6905:

I agree, this hasn't been a significant problem, and it seems like instruction creep. -

6769: 6673:

of the "pretty obvious and numerous" reasons, but at least enough to be convincing. --

6552: 6305: 5993: 5931: 5902: 5838: 5699: 5660: 5482:

Also, this would be the time to make it clear that images that are claimed to be under

5346:

Admins who want an object lesson in just how many "ludicrous" is should take a look at

4774:

removing (previously correct) date links for 1948 and 1967 (and many others) in Israel.

4625: 4508: 4491: 4409: 4317: 4245: 4071: 3900: 3855: 2733: 2675: 2610: 2515: 2430: 1995: 1863: 1680: 1620: 1554: 1509: 1467: 1422: 1378: 1284: 1210: 9156: 9155:

Are screenshots of video games OK to use in articles or is there a copyright issue? --

8266:"A link going straight to the target is preferred over a link relying on a redirect." 8082:

When is it advisable a redirect be replaced by a straight link? There are some cases:

7175: 7145: 7103: 7083: 7023: 6989: 6956: 4494:. It would be confusing trying to name discrete "Nigerian/Nigerien history" articles.- 4372: 3512:

because in this place it is referring to one specific person not to just a prophet. --

3452:

Knowledge:Manual of Style (biographies)/Proposed interim policy for Honorific prefixes

2627:

Splash and BOGrapes, I would argue that the policy's internal logic is flawed. To wit:

2342:

fraction of Knowledge is semi-protected then it warrants discussion. But now? Pff.

1368:

to handle redirects, so we've been handling redirects. if you don't believe me, check

9272: 9216: 8729: 7994: 7667: 7224: 6811: 6418:) this box was working as expected. Your note alerted me to the fact that the box in 6211: 5354: 5284: 5235: 5221: 5157: 5139: 5036: 5012: 4888: 4416: 4365: 4149:

Please take a moment to read this personal appeal from Knowledge founder Jimmy Wales.

4055: 3968: 3634: 3626: 3562: 3554: 3492: 2798: 2743: 1743: 1578: 1568: 1216:. Redirects that would be overwhelmingly if not speedily kept in their proper place, 8145: 3673:

Does anyone know where Jimbo originally posted this? It seems to have been added to

3577:

Renata3 to participate in non-delete closes, and to pursue adminship at some point.

3084:

He could be referring to himself anonymously, or simply saying "it was drafted by a

8480: 8026: 7705: 7685: 7643: 7598: 7566: 7536: 7409: 7386: 6851: 6743: 6322: 6286: 6172: 6153: 6139: 6125: 6083: 5656: 5573: 5449: 5418: 5381: 5191: 4876:

My own bot has a function to convert old cut-and-pasted tables into invocations of

4487: 4356: 4347: 4241: 4113: 3821: 3790: 3678: 3527: 3411: 3110: 3068: 3047: 2996: 2919: 2866: 2597: 2358: 2261: 2194: 2170: 2153: 2141: 2118: 2096: 2075: 1453:

I changed the title based on input that has since been re-evaluated (see below and

5790:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories

5742:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)/Disambiguation subcategories

4400:

history"? I notice that most of the articles I see are in the form of "History of

1978:

happens). On RFD the audience (if any :) and outcome would probably be different.

9431: 8872: 8149: 8114: 7847: 7810: 7743: 7590: 7405: 7382: 7363: 7311: 7283: 7272: 7251: 6869: 6796: 6333: 6188: 6107: 5568:

will create a proposed-policy page soon, but first I've got some work to do with

5324: 4898: 4818: 4697: 4531: 4517: 4261: 4193: 4087:

since I feel it is instruction/confusion creep. A discussion is also on going at

3948: 3782:

Laik þis? Cəd bē much ēziər to rēd. If yū happən not tū bē literət in Ingliş. --

3773: 3723:

Perhaps the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about

3668: 3015: 2469: 2369: 2314: 2169:

need to wait a bit before making it permanent or even discussing it, honestly. --

1712: 1653: 1498: 3473:. Since Muhammad is believed to have been a messenger of God, we can safely say 2586:

I note in particular Dan100... insisting that the policy says other than it does

9479: 9326: 8902: 8850:

Well said, in my opinion, Dpbsmith. User:Ceyockey 23:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

8228: 8208: 8167: 8132: 8066: 7798: 7607:

The user probably isn't aware what the implications of licencing his photos as

7325: 6906: 6788: 6476: 6382: 6329: 6099: 6095: 5559: 5488: 5252: 5113: 5071: 5045: 4994: 4925: 4916: 4850: 4753: 4732: 4726: 4716: 4294: 4161:. Do we really want a violation of Knowledge principles to be placed on top of 4158: 3674: 3332: 3301: 3263: 3240: 3235:

articles, as there are too many at the moment) using a bot or semi-bot like my

3202:

Some of these already exist as part of WikiProject efforts. For instance, see

2937: 2933: 2896: 2705: 2658: 2548: 2281: 2257: 2244: 2210: 2074:

Please don't delete the whole page when posting here. I cleaned it up for you.

1982: 1758: 1533: 1438: 1395: 1364: 1326: 1260: 1233: 8090:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Socrate&diff=prev&oldid=32485082

7629:

Plus of course you can crop the photo and overwrite (derivative work). Thanks/

3471:

A prophet is a person who is believed to communicate with God, or with a deity

9498: 9245: 9241: 9177: 9094: 9060: 8976: 8833: 8714: 8634: 8407: 8254: 8219: 8187: 8047: 8004: 7935: 7923: 7794: 7681: 7656: 7652: 7427: 7131: 6952: 6893: 6792: 6480: 6438: 6423: 6405: 6386: 6300: 6261:, both of which assert as blockable vandalism things which aren't vandalism. 6238: 6164: 6070: 6058: 5894: 5830: 5694: 5652: 5605: 5542: 5032: 4745: 4741: 4557: 4544: 4314: 4310: 3952: 3944: 3920: 3896: 3851: 3837: 3756: 3523: 3403: 3227:

The reason I ask is that I think it would be a good idea to add the category

2729: 2709: 2671: 2666: 2589: 2512: 2427: 2368:

somewhere - how are people to improve those articles if we restrict editing?

2240: 2224: 1992: 1763: 1677: 1672: 1615: 1550: 1538: 1506: 1490: 1462: 1443: 1417: 1413: 1400: 1373: 1331: 1318: 1280: 1265: 1238: 1217: 1173: 1169: 1158: 8574:

file and convert it to Ogg Vorbis (or MP3 if that's what you want) later. --

6400:

How should this be handled? Whatever is decided should, presumably, go into

2693:

for a permanent protection. It will have to be by consensus and agreement. -

9115: 9110: 8990: 8925: 8633:. Is this a convention wikipedia uses? Should it in fact be done there? -- 8489: 8468: 8359: 8193: 8046:

Anyway, I think the Knowledge spoiler warning is necessary and sufficient.

7660: 7532: 7433: 7219: 7214: 7209: 6634: 6540: 6207: 6111: 6062: 6011: 5845: 5685: 5677: 5351: 5225: 5205: 5154: 5135: 5095: 5057: 5028: 5019: 4885: 4609: 4495: 4413: 4320: 4030: 3546: 3485: 3374: 3193: 3157:

in a week or so - unless there are still fundamental alterations required.

3057: 3039: 3005: 2936:

will probably need some kind of long-term protection. Many articles (like

2793: 2394: 2343: 2299: 2065: 1998: 1739: 1683: 1512: 8592:

Any further comments before the Knowledge:Verifiability rewrite goes live?

7161:

Is this really what Wikiprojects are for? And it isn't going to happen. --

6006: 2507:

restrict all driving to the right side of the road. This restriction does

9198: 9129: 9078: 9036: 9014: 9000: 8660: 8645: 8575: 8509: 8327:

again under {{proposed}} flag. If I'm allowed a personal remark: this is

7966:

template is for. We don't deliberately preserve the surprise for movies

7946: 7802: 7594: 7195: 7162: 6847: 6821: 6784: 6739: 6168: 6135: 6121: 6054: 5569: 4570: 4334: 4102: 4016: 3870: 3810: 3786: 3783: 3741: 3657: 3385: 3319: 3284: 3250: 3027: 2915: 2884: 2862: 2824: 2776: 2694: 2593: 2573: 2354: 2228: 2190: 2137: 2114: 1455:

Knowledge talk:Redirects for deletion#Stub-redirects for deletion, redux.

1293: 6206:

Indeed, are there decoder rings to keep track of all these? Good grief.

1981:

So we should probably discuss the deletion criteria for stub redirects.

9287: 9052: 9027: 8781: 8630: 8514: 8227:

So it seems there is no policy then, guess that answers my question. --

8095:

In the rare cases when the redirect page is eligible for deletion (see

7927: 7908: 7894: 7843: 7806: 7695: 7630: 7621: 6696: 6649: 5803: 5767: 5745: 5719: 4179: 4170: 4128: 4092: 4006: 3991: 3978: 3957: 2988: 2962: 2763: 2095:

has the relevant policy information (if you haven't yet looked at it).

1802: 6397:

does not appear to be a link that can be readily archived each month.

4450:

names, although I'm fairly certain that I've seen articles moved from

3703:

Some examples may help to drive home the point I am trying to make:

9296: 9277: 8697:

You will also note that the blurb at the top of every page now says:

8605: 8551:

has some suggestions, though I have never tried to use them myself.

7825: 7769: 7651:

No that does not make them valid speedies as that is not an entry on

6630: 5857: 4715:

range of tasks, it is designed for no individual task in particular.

4565:

outstanding. Broader participation in the discussion is welcomed at

3930: 3423: 2713: 2015: 1754: 1529: 1434: 1391: 1322: 1279:

Agreed. Merge into TFD; no need to list the categories separately. —

1256: 1229: 9295:

Not on the talk pages of articles that don't yet exist, they don't!

6648:

Could you name some of these obvious and numerous reasons, please? —

2857:

Input from you two (and anyone else of course) would be welcomed at

1970:

whether stub redirect should be nominated for deletion at RFD or SFD

1252:

Send redirects to RFD. Keep redirects when renaming a stub template.

9173: 9056: 8972: 8626: 7072: 6795:, and you are well on your way to building a rock-solid article. -- 5673: 5601: 5538: 5222:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes#Userbox_guidelines

5066: 5013:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes#Userbox_guidelines

4782:

There are many such bad edits, prompting a firestorm of complaints.

3916: 3752: 2113:

I'm sure he didn't mean to blank the page. Don't bite the newbies.

1965:

I think there are two more or less indepenent points to be decided:

1839: 1777: 1702: 1222:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion

8753:

Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2005-12-05/Page creation restrictions

8570:

You should not have to record an Ogg Vorbis file. Simply record a

6667:

Knowledge talk:Allow anonymous users to start their own user pages

5504:

rarely be used on user pages, especially in humorous userboxes. --

5377:

A major issue with userboxes, of course, is that unless we delete

2775:

Oh god, no. Adding new information to article would be terrible. -

2256:

Nope. We can *not* be preemptive. That's why I added that text to

1801:). So considering redirects at SFD is hardly a new development. -- 8989:

Have him wait a few days and he should be able to do it himself.

8776:

Jimbo instituted the "anons can't create pages" policy after the

6766:

but don't give it a parent WikiProject. Regards, User:Ceyockey (

6184:

Wow... I didn't even realize there were so many! I'll stick with

4483: 3806: 3466: 2720:

semi-protected, more useful RC patrol time can be spent on other

8253:

page will get itself converted into an article at some time. --

5824:. In other words, how would we proceed if we have a book called 5651:

The question is somehow related to the problem over blocking of

4147:

I am rather upset by the recent banner at the top of Knowledge:

7044:

Really? Then how do you account for someone like Louis Epstein

5880:! Otherwise, what disambigs (zombies) are set for? Visitors or 5041: 4952:

enforce a 30 second PER CHANGE timeout for speed of page edits!

4260:

But it doesn't say "the", it just says "founder", no article.--

2724:

that is tricker to track down. You mentioned on my talk page "

1973:

what are the guidelines for keeping or deleting a stub redirect

9454:

Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Stephen_Turner/CricketersTalk

7671: 7638:

I will get around to cropping them if I have time. I see that

7561:

places. Feel free to read the new version and comment on the

5944:

Knowledge talk:Naming conventions#Literary works and subtitles

5487:

article, not for just some damn decoration on a ghey userbox.

8856:

I understand about the Seigenthaler controversy, but someone

8358:, in an attempt to break of a small part of the problems re. 7729:

Vote in progress on "City names" guideline in Manual of style

7404:

Is this policy? If yes, is it codified anyplace other than {{

6624:

Knowledge:Allow anonymous users to start their own user pages

5877: 5853: 5849: 5825: 5455:

Knowledge:Transclusion costs and benefits#Double transclusion

4868: 4479: 4371:

long time and I would like this to be finally implemented. --

3802: 3164:(which would become a redirect). Also this is about the last 2717: 2662: 90:

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

9195:

Knowledge talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Attack templates

9138:

articles will eventually be written if the topic is worthy.

6738:(if there is no appropriate existing one to cover this). -- 4412:, rather than "English penny history" or "Cricket history". 4293:

Persistent spelling errors also affect our reputation. ;-0 —

82:

This page contains discussions that have been archived from

8824:

Knowledge is a project to build a 💕. "Anyone can edit" is

6091: 5771: 5744:

for some background discussion and the straw polls. Thanks/

5723: 5109: 4942:

Thank you for disabling the date removal "thing", please:

4864: 7578:

Image with visible copyright information & advertorial

7206:

Knowledge:Wikiproject Wikiprojects are not for campaigning

6490:

The simple answer is, yes, the information presented here

4791:

The intent doesn't matter, and is not an element to prove.

3448:

Knowledge:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_prefixes

1789:

FWIW, when this issue came up a couple months ago, it got

8571: 8505: 7904: 7873: 6531:

the English language Knowledge, which means it should be

3939:

Language-specific facts? Or language-specific relevancy?

3373:

what? Let's take a look at this thing from the outside.

3283:, and perhaps set that page to update more frequently. - 1226:

Knowledge:Deletion review#Various stub template redirects

1168:

was started because stub types were being listed on both

6321:

over at the biff rose page. I think a block is in order.

5942:

See also what has recently been said about subtitles at

4748:) is now able to re-categorise the articles himself and 3410:

The controversy has arisen in another form. One editor,

8494:

How come they're not allowed for audio on Knowledge? --

8075:

There's no page discouraging the use of redirect links

3947:, for example, exists there only as part of an article 3801:

build on previous decisions. So Knowledge English says

2861:, where debates about just this have been taking place 8655:

In fact, it's explained in the article you linked to:

6508:

Well the first example that pops into my mind is from

6448:

Systemic Bias, or else "This is the English Knowledge"

6028:- comments or other forms of collaboration welcome! -- 2136:

has been turned on and George has been so-protected.)

2128:

Should semi-protection of George W. Bush be permament?

1774:

Knowledge:Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F

8657:

Family name#China, Hungary, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam

8596:

Are there any further comments before the rewrite on

6102:

both say the same thing (and both are redundant with

5764:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

5716:

Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)

4257:

I moved everything to the talk page mentioned above.

3142:

Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)

9220:

70% of votes from more than 70 users voting keep at

8966:

Article creation/movement waiting time for new users

8435:

which is an analogous use from Christian theology.--

8097:

Knowledge:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?

8088:

redirect pages of the "common error" type, example:

7659:can be used to make a valid speedy deletion claim! 6940:

Once you do that you will be automatically added to

5961:

See also, just now, my proposal to get started with

5888:

the disambig-wiki-stuff-language-out-of-control§≈ĦζΣ

3522:

There is currently an ongoing discussion of this at

2742:

and only the newest editors will be inconvenienced.

9075:

note that this is not what has affected you, though

8893:can make an account, even a throwaway account, and 7400:

Removing warnings from user talk pages = vandalism.

6604:

Allow anonymous users to start their own user pages

6562:

Allow anonymous users to start their own user pages

4844:(Thanks again Sean) William, you are simply wrong; 1292:

Concur. Nuke SFD. I don't care which it goes to. --

7805:. Your comments and suggestions are most welcome. 6069:threatens to block contributors for violating the 6053:number of ultra-specific warnings were created by 5635:I believe that is a common practice that removing 9215:has been speedily deleted 4 times (3 of which by 7558:Knowledge:Notability (companies and corporations) 6980:I am not arguing the making people register will 5105:First Amendment of the United States Constitution 9496: 6090:basic Test templates, but each one has numerous 5754:Disambiguation of TLA, FLA, 2LA, 3LA, 4LA, 5LA, 3150:Knowledge:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) 3131:Knowledge:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) 7864:Main namespace redirects to wikipedia namespace 6295:I'd recommend coming over and taking a look at 6148:That was not the impression I got from reading 5395:of anything inappropriate on a regular basis. — 4744:(who pretty much single handidly takes care of 4676:. That's just two very high profile examples. 7740:Knowledge talk:Naming conventions (city names) 6942:Category:Wikipedians against anonymous editing 4567:Knowledge talk:What Knowledge is not/galleries 3508:Definitely you should use capitalized prophet 3162:wikipedia:naming conventions (years in titles) 5822:The Assassins: A Radical Sect in Islam (book) 5388:pages, whether in template form or otherwise? 4486:. Both have history articles, suitably named 4439:sets the standard for naming history-related 3735:quite easily from the neutral point of view. 3677:when the policy was moved to here from meta. 3543:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Anathemacious 8805:, if they do not wish to create an account. 7881:{{selfref|In Knowledge, AfD may refer to ]}} 6461:wikipedia, but shouldn't we treat it as the 6078:me what the effective difference is between 5710:Disambiguation subcategory and template poll 5684:A little edit war has been in the making at 4458:with reasons cited in the edit summaries. -- 3597:AFD discussions almost kept me from passing 1412:You fail to see the difference between "... 8828:part of what Knowledge "stands for," it is 8504:The encoding/decoding algorithms governing 7527:To answer the question: I consider that it 5926:Knowledge:Naming conventions#Literary works 5289:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Kelly Martin 4089:Knowledge talk:Disambiguation#Root pages... 3067:But it is Larry Sanger who is saying it... 1317:I tried that, and was swiftly reverted (by 8897:create articles. So yes, anyone can still 8325:Knowledge:Naming conventions (use English) 8318:Knowledge:Naming conventions (use English) 7142:Knowledge:Wikiproject no anonymous editing 6057:, who adamantly defends their use and (on 5869:. Those articles can be categorized under 4884:. AWB should enforce a timeout as well. — 4882:the bot, not me, is doing most of the work 4041:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Urapopstar 3450:, while the proposed interim policy is at 3160:Note that this guideline proposal absorbs 2010:There is an active discussion going on at 6806:Why are "talk" pages tabbed "discussion?" 6395:List of current events articles by region 6359:I am currently working towards rewriting 4606:with a dry, uninformative piece of text. 3692:the stance of the neutral point of view. 3231:to articles that are reasonably big (not 3224:articles can sift through that category. 3136:This has been mentioned on this page and 1651:See my reasons on the MFD debate page. -- 1249:Addendum - I guess I have two proposals: 9262:The following discussion is copied from 9104:CSD: Could blatant advertising be added? 8166:Ah, then we're back to square one! :) -- 6834:Proposal to limit requests for adminship 5988:and not here on the talk page, I believe 4794:The actual results are enough to indict. 3088:", as opposed to some other profession. 7655:. ONLY, I repeat, ONLY the criteria on 6622:Please go here for further discussion: 6435:Knowledge:How to archive Current Events 6422:now is different. I will look at that. 6402:Knowledge:How to archive Current Events 4946:disable the interwiki sort "thing"; and 2033:What is Policy on Portals in Definition 14: 9497: 9266:. Please continue the discussion here: 8459:Knowledge:User Bill of Rights edit war 8389:has been coined by replacing the term 8273:Knowledge talk:Manual of Style (links) 6005:I wonder if everyone here is aware of 5818:The Assassins: A Radical Sect in Islam 5788:I've now moved this to a subpage, see 5740:I've now moved this to a subpage, see 5598:Knowledge:Proposed policy on userboxes 5556:Knowledge:Proposed policy on userboxes 3967:so its really up to the admins there. 1826:the state of the page on December 1st, 1161:scope - why does it include redirects? 8700:From Knowledge, the free encylcopedia 8418:That's not an accurate origin. See: 6929:this discussion has been copied from 6760:Knowledge:WikiProject Spiritual Fauna 5984:by the way, this should have gone on 5892:. Sorry for the RED stuff! Cheers -- 5027:I highly disagree with this idea. At 4965:mistakes programmed into the software 3219:What is the general opinion in using 2389:99.99% of Knowledge, and that a line 2012:Knowledge talk:Redirects for deletion 1711:Totally agree. Redirects are cheap.-- 1370:Knowledge talk:Redirects for deletion 8928:) and edited hundreds of others. I 8623:February 2005 in Hong Kong and Macao 8349:Knowledge:Naming conventions (thorn) 8342:Knowledge:Naming conventions (thorn) 7903:In that case, I'll be bold and edit 7174:really what WikiProjects are for? -- 6984:vandalism. I am saying that it will 6565: 6026:Knowledge:Naming conventions (books) 5964:Knowledge:Naming conventions (books) 5924:This says something to the matter → 5535:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Userboxes 5459:Knowledge:Avoid using meta-templates 4863:AWB-assisted edit changed "May 9th, 4725:P.s. I made the software, not Ian!) 4670:breakage of Knowledge:Disambiguation 2907:is what semi is really good for. -- 7926:(about Agatha Christie's play) and 7328:for articles? Doesn't this violate 6297:Knowledge:Wikiproject_user_warnings 5558:, and just link everyone to there. 3915:It ain't broken, so don't fix it. 3407:that the use of "prophet" was OK. 23: 9440:A few more facts might be useful: 9257:Anon user still creating new pages 9193:There is a discussion starting at 8025:Even a statement like "Gershwin's 7587:Image:Acton Depot March 2002 2.JPG 6073:, which has no support in policy. 4080:for info on this proposed policy. 24: 9516: 8602:Knowledge talk:Verifiability/temp 8268:Knowledge:Manual of Style (links) 7766:Knowledge talk:Verifiability/temp 7445:This is apparently disputed, see 5631:Removing Dispute tags and the 3RR 3204:Knowledge:WikiProject U.S. states 1166:Knowledge:Stub types for deletion 9222:Knowledge:Templates for deletion 7670: 6569: 4813:That's simply not true. The AWB 4192:if you feel strongly, however.-- 2134:Knowledge:Semi-protection policy 1764:don't use sorted stub templates! 1539:don't use sorted stub templates! 1444:don't use sorted stub templates! 1401:don't use sorted stub templates! 1332:don't use sorted stub templates! 1266:don't use sorted stub templates! 1239:don't use sorted stub templates! 9444:The user concerned is known as 8803:Knowledge:Articles for creation 8801:Anons can, just not directly. 8757:Knowledge:Articles for creation 7889:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 7887:In Knowledge, AfD may refer to 7870:Knowledge:Avoid self-references 7661: 7554:Knowledge:Notability (websites) 7548:Knowledge:Notability (websites) 7447:Template_talk:Vblock#User_space 7144:. If you agree, please join. -- 6635: 6046:Category:User warning templates 5986:Knowledge:Village pump (policy) 5500:Agreed. Fair-use images should 3850:be gained by using it, I feel. 3656:tells them to steer clear of. - 3537:Non-admins closing delete AfDs? 3208:Knowledge:WikiProject Biography 2652:One, it will never ever be the 1671:Regarding the issue of whether 1352: 1306: 18:Knowledge:Village pump (policy) 8301:University of Halle-Wittenberg 8148:say anything, so, er, no :).-- 7552:I've pulled down a rewrite at 6764:Knowledge:List of WikiProjects 6150:Knowledge:No binding decisions 5882:redirected nations from google 4344:Columbine High School massacre 4026:United States Chess Federation 3237:User:Bluemoose/AutoWikiBrowser 3181:Templates for Writing Articles 2987:really prevent the latter. -- 13: 1: 9207:Repeated deletion/restoration 8915:23:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 8885:23:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 8866:19:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 8840:16:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 8810:15:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 8785:15:54, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 8764:15:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 8739:16:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 8718:15:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 8692:15:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 8465:Knowledge:User Bill of Rights 8258:22:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 8244:18:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 8232:18:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 8223:15:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 8212:18:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 8201:10:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 8171:08:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 8162:08:12, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 8136:08:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 8127:07:16, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 8109:07:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 8070:06:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 8003:Ok, thanks for your answers. 7956:In general, this is what the 7499:17:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 7471:16:44, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 7457:01:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 7441:22:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 7413:05:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 6215:22:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 6201:18:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 6177:17:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 6144:09:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 6130:09:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 6115:06:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 6041:Knowledge's 142 user warnings 6024:Started a version "0.0.1" of 4991:Knowledge:Language order poll 4548:20:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 4535:08:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 4524:08:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 4446:. I can't find any policy on 4432:20:03, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 4420:19:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 4383:21:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 4328:10:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 4303:05:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 4132:12:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 4122:05:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 4096:01:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 4059:00:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 4048:17:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 4034:13:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 4020:11:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 4010:09:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 3995:14:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 3982:16:26, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 3972:00:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 3961:14:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 3934:20:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 3923:19:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 3905:19:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 3874:04:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 3860:19:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 3841:03:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 3830:21:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 3794:08:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 3784:Sometimes I can't help myself 3777:04:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 3759:19:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 3682:18:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 3663:18:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 3643:18:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 3621:17:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 3587:16:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 3571:16:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 3531:07:12, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 3517:07:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 3503:00:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 3486: 3459:00:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 3440:00:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 3427:00:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 3389:09:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 3378:09:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 3336:00:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 3323:20:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 3305:19:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 3288:19:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 3267:22:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 3254:21:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 3244:20:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 3197:21:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 3173:21:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC) 3114:17:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 3093:22:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 3072:03:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 3051:19:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 3031:18:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 3019:18:26, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 3009:11:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 2992:19:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 2977:22:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 2966:08:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 2890:02:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 2871:10:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 2853:01:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 2843:00:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 2828:21:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2817:20:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2805:20:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2782:17:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2767:17:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2747:20:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2737:18:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2700:17:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2679:17:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2665:come to mind. Take a look at 2619:17:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2602:09:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 2579:17:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2556:20:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2519:20:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2483:17:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2434:17:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2398:16:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2383:16:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2363:16:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2347:16:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2328:16:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2303:16:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2289:16:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2267:16:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2252:15:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2234:15:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2218:15:01, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2199:16:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2176:14:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2164:14:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2146:14:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 2123:11:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 2108:16:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 2087:16:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 2069:16:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 2025:16:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 2006:10:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 1986:12:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 1959:09:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1943:18:17, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1910:13:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1806:04:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1781:01:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 1769:04:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1749:04:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1725:04:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1706:04:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1691:03:47, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1667:03:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1627:00:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 1560:18:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1544:03:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1520:03:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1501:against this page because it 1474:01:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 1449:18:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1429:12:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1406:04:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1385:04:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1359:03:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1337:03:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1313:03:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1297:03:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1288:03:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1271:03:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 1244:03:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 78:Village pump (policy) archive 9490:18:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 9251:20:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 9235:17:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 9202:20:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 9183:23:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 9167:21:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 8598:Knowledge:Verifiability/temp 7918:General "big spoiler" policy 7907:to test the water... Thanks/ 7868:Hi, we have the style-guide 7787:Knowledge:Lists in Knowledge 7780:Knowledge:Lists in Knowledge 7762:Knowledge:Verifiability/temp 7680:Sigh. Yes. I'll put them on 7418:Removing whatever from your 7254:01:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 7252:JesseW, the juggling janitor 6756:Knowledge:WikiProject Occult 6317:Sojombi Pinola 3RR violation 5828:? Please comment! Cheers -- 5249:A brief history of userboxes 4588:Knowledge talk:Good articles 4406:History of the English penny 3493: 3166:wikipedia:naming conventions 1991:I second Conscious's words. 7: 9472:11:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 9435:11:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 9423:02:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 9398:01:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 9389:00:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 9353:23:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 9333:20:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 9320:18:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 9300:18:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 9291:14:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 9281:12:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 9172:Generally these fall under 9143:23:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) 9133:16:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 9122:15:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 9098:00:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 9084:00:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 9068:00:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 9042:23:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 9031:23:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 9020:23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 9006:23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 8994:23:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 8984:23:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 8956:18:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 8664:03:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 8649:03:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 8638:00:10, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 8609:11:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 8579:15:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 8556:14:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 8536:14:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 8522:14:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 8499:13:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC) 8484:11:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 8472:16:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 8449:01:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 8440:21:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 8411:18:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 8367:10:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 8336:00:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 8312:18:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 8283:17:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 8054:19:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 8008:18:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 7998:19:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 7985:18:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 7950:18:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 7939:17:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 7912:17:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 7898:14:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 7856:20:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 7829:20:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 7819:20:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 7773:20:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 7747:21:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 7699:13:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 7676:13:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 7634:11:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 7625:11:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 7573:12:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 7540:10:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC) 7390:15:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 7370:15:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 7353:13:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 7337:13:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 7315:18:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 7304:21:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 7287:19:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC) 7230:03:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 7199:02:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 7186:01:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 7166:22:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 7156:21:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 7135:23:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 7114:21:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 7094:04:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 7076:02:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 7034:04:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 7017:01:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 7000:01:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 6967:00:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 6931:Talk:Criticism of Knowledge 6913:20:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 6897:08:42, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 6882:07:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 6825:16:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 6815:13:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 6800:06:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 6776:03:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 6747:02:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 6722:01:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 6700:05:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 6678:16:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 6653:16:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 6640:11:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 6556:10:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 6544:22:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 6518:22:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 6500:19:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 6484:17:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 6470:17:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 6442:20:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 6427:19:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 6409:17:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 6372:06:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 6346:07:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC) 6311:22:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 6290:22:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 6281:13:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 6230:18:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 6157:22:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 6033:23:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 6015:17:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 6000:01:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5976:13:10, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5951:10:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5938:01:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5916:01:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5898:01:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5886: 5861:00:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5834:00:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5807:22:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 5783:13:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 5749:22:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 5735:14:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 5705:20:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 5664:07:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC) 5646:Knowledge:Three-revert rule 5613:05:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 5592:04:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 5563:23:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5550:23:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5520:05:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5492:04:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5477:04:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5438:17:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5400:08:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5367:08:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5358:05:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5338:04:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5317:03:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5229:03:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 5209:03:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 5198:20:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5181:17:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5161:15:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5144:15:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5117:10:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5099:10:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5075:09:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5061:08:36, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5049:08:26, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5023:08:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4998:11:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 4985:11:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 4929:10:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 4920:10:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 4911:04:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 4892:03:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 4854:00:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 4840:11:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 4831:23:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4809:23:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4757:13:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4736:15:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4729:11:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4720:11:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4710:08:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4688:08:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4646:16:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4632:16:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4613:10:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4595:08:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4574:23:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4499:05:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4474:04:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4360:20:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4338:02:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4274:04:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4240:implies only one - it is a 4229:03:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4206:02:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4183:01:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 4083:I've actually listed it on 4039:You might be interested in 3433:sidestepping the issue). — 3361:Special:Uncategorized pages 3357:Special:Uncategorized pages 3298:Special:Uncategorized pages 3109:Yep you are right, thanks. 1799:log of deletion discussions 10: 9521: 9505:Knowledge failed proposals 9403:I think I've noticed only 9240:I brought the mater up at 7886: 7640:Knowledge:Image use policy 7236:non-logged-in editors are 6669:- maybe this doesn't list 5871:Category:WP:out of control 5348:Special:Undelete/User:N000 4284:Newsworthy = Encyclopedic? 4000:Notability for games clubs 3654:Knowledge:Deletion process 3315:Special:Uncategorizedpages 3281:Special:Uncategorizedpages 3147:So, proposing the updated 2881:<sticks out tongue: --> 2093:Knowledge:Portal namespace 1493:comments on it" (which it 6479:answer your question? -- 6385:has now been archived as 6194:, thank you very much. — 6094:for specific situations. 4190:MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice 3751:Have you asked him? :) 3416:Knowledge Manual of Style 3138:wikipedia:current surveys 9051:(which will be moved to 9049:User:NikolaiP/Tumble bug 8297:University of Wittenberg 7269:insert article name here 7234:You all do realize that 6712:Occult/Spiritual Policy? 6592:or initiate a thread at 5554:Create a new page, like 4556:Galleries on Knowledge ( 3277:Knowledge:Categorization 3229:Category:Category needed 2859:Template talk:Sprotected 9395:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 8670:Knowledge, the 💕 that 8617:Small caps and Surnames 7785:The proposed guideline 7240:than registered editors 7022:created on the spot. -- 6922:Template:User anti-anon 6463:lingua franca wikipedia 6377:Archived Current events 6361:wikipedia: News sources 4637:meta:Article validation 4543:Duely added to BJAODN. 2945:important distinction. 1701:fer crying out loud! - 9151:Video game screenshots 8463:Please keep an eye on 8271:probably should be at 7756:There is a redraft of 6791:, make sure it is not 6619:prevented. allow it . 6328:Please report this at 6080:Template:Blatantvandal 4878:Template:Album infobox 3737: 3720: 3714: 3705: 3700: 3694: 3221:Template:Uncategorized 3215:Template:Uncategorized 1643:24 December 2005 (UTC) 1344:under no circumstances 95:< Older discussions 8778:John Seigenthal thing 8549:Knowledge:Media#Audio 8305:Special:Whatlinkshere 8280:William Allen Simpson 7556:, leaning heavily on 7468:William Allen Simpson 6953:Vandalism in Progress 6535:, not that it should 6332:, not here. Thanks!-- 5884:don't know about the 5780:William Allen Simpson 5732:William Allen Simpson 5531:template_talk:Userbox 5281:WikiProject Userboxes 5065:Under the current US 4982:William Allen Simpson 4837:William Allen Simpson 4806:William Allen Simpson 4685:William Allen Simpson 4654:AutoWikiBrowser (AWB) 3721: 3715: 3706: 3701: 3695: 3685: 3275:I agree, and so does 2984:this Slashdot comment 1956:William Allen Simpson 84:Village pump (policy) 9224:. Check out the log 8708:that anyone can edit 8060:Linking to Redirects 8016:prior revelation of 7991:The Mousetrap ending 7778:Proposed guideline: 7330:Knowledge:Copyrights 5967:, in the context of 5393:Category:Wikipedians 5257:Category:Wikipedians 4858:Rather, the user is 3465:Quick definition of 3153:, to be accepted as 2272:level when the page 8347:I just started the 8293:University of Halle 7593:, all linked to EN 7320:Copyrights question 7006:reduce good editing 6890:m:instruction creep 6537:push an English POV 5762:There is a poll at 5714:There is a poll at 5642:Knowledge:Vandalism 5574:Ducks in a Pram Day 5415:Image:Jimbo che.jpg 4764:I beg to differ: 4664:Unfortunately, the 4437:WikiProject History 4352:Duchess of Cornwall 4078:Knowledge:Root page 3744:, Knowledge founder 3725:what people believe 3341:December 2005 (UTC) 2883:gets unprotected. - 1862:redirect policy at 1574:, for instance, or 8323:Today someone put 8142:Knowledge:Redirect 7973:The Usual Suspects 7451:Christopher Parham 6533:written in English 5766:until 12:00 (UTC) 5718:until 14:00 (UTC) 5446:Additional Comment 4674:breakage of Israel 4492:History of Nigeria 4410:History of cricket 4246:indefinite article 4143:POV at top of page 3805:, not colour, and 3056:Presumably it was 2895:I'd like to offer 2395:—Steven G. Johnson 2344:—Steven G. Johnson 1864:Knowledge:Redirect 1347:with that too). - 9264:Jimbo's talk page 9213:Template:User GWB 9082: 9040: 9018: 9004: 8913: 8730:MediaWiki:Tagline 8705:it used to read: 8423:on Dictionary.com 7854: 7817: 7258:etiquette and VfD 7068:encyclopedia".... 7041: 7004:I believe it will 6860: 6846:comment added by 6793:original research 6789:cite your sources 6773: 6601: 6600: 6067:Template:Mosblock 5997: 5935: 5904: 5840: 5693:. Respectfully, 5691:List of dictators 5618:badly needed imo. 5419:Jimbo's user page 5336: 5037:Wikimedia Commons 4629: 3767:Knowledge English 3661: 2928: 2914:comment added by 2888: 2780: 2698: 2584:Whoa, exuse me - 2577: 2481: 2381: 2326: 2232: 2014:on this subject. 1766: 1623: 1557: 1541: 1470: 1446: 1425: 1403: 1381: 1355: 1334: 1309: 1268: 1241: 9512: 9417: 9383: 9347: 9314: 9189:Attack templates 9118: 9113: 9081: 9039: 9017: 9003: 8905: 8882: 8737: 8735:Ambush Commander 8446:Samuel J. Howard 8437:Samuel J. Howard 8364:Francis Schonken 8333:Francis Schonken 8242: 8240:Ambush Commander 8198: 8159: 8124: 8106:Francis Schonken 8027:Rhapsody in Blue 7975:, for instance. 7965: 7959: 7882: 7846: 7809: 7758:WP:Verifiability 7674: 7665: 7616: 7610: 7497: 7488: 7438: 7227: 7222: 7217: 7212: 7066: 7040:unsigned comment 7039: 6986:reduce vandalism 6879: 6859: 6840: 6787:, make sure you 6767: 6675:Francis Schonken 6637: 6594:the village pump 6573: 6572: 6566: 6515:Michalis Famelis 6467:Michalis Famelis 6343: 6279: 6270: 6260: 6254: 6250: 6244: 6199: 6197:Ambush Commander 6193: 6187: 6084:Template:Test4im 6065:. For instance, 6030:Francis Schonken 5991: 5973:Francis Schonken 5948:Francis Schonken 5929: 5913: 5901: 5890: 5837: 5801: 5795: 5657:User:Ghirlandajo 5586: 5514: 5471: 5450:userbox template 5432: 5386: 5380: 5362:Aaah, my eyes! — 5333: 5327: 5311: 5278: 5272: 5268: 5262: 5175: 5142: 4908: 4828: 4707: 4644: 4642:Ambush Commander 4623: 4592:Samuel J. Howard 4488:History of Niger 4468: 4430: 4428:Ambush Commander 4388:History articles 4350:was forked into 4348:Duke of Cornwall 4325: 4271: 4242:definite article 4223: 4203: 4119: 4116: 4109: 4106: 3827: 3824: 3817: 3814: 3660: 3619: 3610: 3593:Closing obvious 3501: 3497: 3490: 3484: 3438: 3436:Ambush Commander 3170:Francis Schonken 3026:American law. -- 2948:And by the way, 2927: 2908: 2887: 2812:review process. 2801: 2796: 2779: 2697: 2590:ignore the rules 2576: 2478: 2472: 2378: 2372: 2323: 2317: 2231: 2003: 1941: 1932: 1908: 1899: 1791:mentioned at RFD 1762: 1746: 1742: 1722: 1688: 1621: 1613: 1607: 1603: 1599:Jamaica-geo-stub 1597: 1593: 1587: 1583: 1577: 1573: 1567: 1555: 1553: 1537: 1517: 1468: 1442: 1423: 1399: 1379: 1356: 1353: 1330: 1310: 1307: 1264: 1237: 1215: 1209: 1205: 1199: 1195: 1189: 1185: 1179: 79: 54: 9520: 9519: 9515: 9514: 9513: 9511: 9510: 9509: 9495: 9494: 9487: 9415: 9381: 9345: 9312: 9259: 9209: 9191: 9153: 9140:KillerChihuahua 9116: 9111: 9106: 8968: 8880: 8807:KillerChihuahua 8761:KillerChihuahua 8733: 8678: 8629:are written in 8619: 8594: 8492: 8461: 8399:Islamic fascist 8391:Islamic fascism 8384: 8345: 8321: 8238: 8195: 8157: 8146:m:Help:Redirect 8122: 8062: 7963: 7957: 7920: 7891: 7883:, displayed as: 7880: 7866: 7783: 7754: 7731: 7614: 7612:cc-by-sa-2.0-uk 7608: 7580: 7550: 7496: 7491: 7486: 7435: 7402: 7322: 7282:Please advise, 7260: 7225: 7220: 7215: 7210: 7140:I have created 7048: 6925: 6877: 6841: 6836: 6808: 6714: 6597: 6570: 6564: 6450: 6379: 6357: 6341: 6319: 6309: 6278: 6273: 6268: 6258: 6252: 6248: 6242: 6195: 6191: 6185: 6108:Template:Vblock 6071:manual of style 6043: 5990:User:Ceyockey ( 5909: 5814: 5812:Titl(ing) books 5799: 5793: 5760: 5712: 5703: 5682: 5633: 5584: 5512: 5469: 5430: 5384: 5378: 5331: 5309: 5276: 5270: 5266: 5260: 5253:Babel templates 5238: 5173: 5138: 5008: 4906: 4826: 4705: 4656: 4640: 4584: 4571:Charles Stewart 4562: 4511: 4466: 4426: 4390: 4368: 4322: 4286: 4269: 4221: 4201: 4145: 4117: 4114: 4107: 4104: 4074: 4045:216.234.130.130 4002: 3949:de:Kontaktsauna 3941: 3825: 3822: 3815: 3812: 3769: 3671: 3618: 3613: 3608: 3539: 3499: 3482: 3434: 3400: 3370: 3217: 3183: 3134: 3042: 2999: 2932:I suspect that 2909: 2803: 2799: 2794: 2503:In the U.S. we 2476: 2376: 2321: 2162: 2161: 2130: 2035: 2023: 2000: 1940: 1935: 1930: 1907: 1902: 1897: 1744: 1738: 1720: 1685: 1611: 1605: 1601: 1595: 1591: 1585: 1581: 1575: 1571: 1565: 1549: 1514: 1213: 1207: 1203: 1197: 1193: 1187: 1183: 1177: 1163: 1155: 80: 77: 74: 48: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 9518: 9508: 9507: 9493: 9492: 9483: 9464:Stephen Turner 9461: 9460: 9457: 9449: 9438: 9437: 9426: 9425: 9364: 9363: 9362: 9361: 9360: 9359: 9358: 9357: 9356: 9355: 9258: 9255: 9254: 9253: 9208: 9205: 9190: 9187: 9186: 9185: 9152: 9149: 9148: 9147: 9146: 9145: 9105: 9102: 9101: 9100: 9090: 9089: 9088: 9087: 9086: 9044: 9023: 9022: 9011: 9010: 9009: 8967: 8964: 8959: 8958: 8953:71.141.251.153 8947: 8946: 8941: 8940: 8935: 8934: 8888: 8887: 8854: 8853: 8852: 8851: 8845: 8844: 8843: 8842: 8819: 8818: 8817: 8816: 8815: 8814: 8813: 8812: 8792: 8791: 8790: 8789: 8788: 8787: 8769: 8768: 8767: 8766: 8746: 8745: 8744: 8743: 8742: 8741: 8721: 8720: 8711: 8710: 8709: 8703: 8702: 8701: 8677: 8668: 8667: 8666: 8652: 8651: 8618: 8615: 8613: 8593: 8590: 8588: 8586: 8585: 8584: 8583: 8582: 8581: 8563: 8562: 8561: 8560: 8559: 8558: 8553:Dragons flight 8541: 8540: 8539: 8538: 8525: 8524: 8519:Dragons flight 8491: 8488: 8487: 8486: 8460: 8457: 8456: 8455: 8454: 8453: 8452: 8451: 8429: 8428: 8427: 8426: 8406:this context. 8383: 8373: 8371: 8344: 8339: 8320: 8315: 8288: 8287: 8286: 8285: 8263: 8262: 8261: 8260: 8247: 8246: 8215: 8214: 8204: 8203: 8182: 8181: 8180: 8179: 8178: 8177: 8176: 8175: 8174: 8173: 8102: 8101: 8100: 8093: 8086: 8080: 8061: 8058: 8057: 8056: 8043: 8042: 8032: 8031: 8022: 8021: 8001: 8000: 7987: 7977:TenOfAllTrades 7953: 7952: 7932:magical tricks 7919: 7916: 7915: 7914: 7885: 7884: 7865: 7862: 7861: 7860: 7859: 7858: 7832: 7831: 7782: 7776: 7753: 7750: 7730: 7727: 7726: 7725: 7724: 7723: 7722: 7721: 7720: 7719: 7718: 7717: 7716: 7715: 7714: 7713: 7712: 7711: 7583:User:Discomike 7579: 7576: 7549: 7546: 7545: 7544: 7543: 7542: 7522: 7521: 7520: 7519: 7518: 7517: 7504: 7503: 7502: 7501: 7492: 7474: 7473: 7462: 7461: 7460: 7459: 7424:other people's 7401: 7398: 7397: 7396: 7395: 7394: 7393: 7392: 7375: 7374: 7373: 7372: 7356: 7355: 7345:Stephen Turner 7321: 7318: 7307: 7306: 7296: 7293: 7259: 7256: 7244:more anonymity 7238:less anonymous 7202: 7201: 7191: 7190: 7189: 7188: 7138: 7137: 7127: 7126: 7125: 7124: 7123: 7122: 7121: 7120: 7119: 7118: 7117: 7116: 7080: 7079: 7078: 7069: 7042: 7014:Taste the Korn 6975: 6974: 6935: 6934: 6924: 6919: 6918: 6917: 6916: 6915: 6900: 6899: 6885: 6884: 6835: 6832: 6830: 6828: 6827: 6807: 6804: 6803: 6802: 6779: 6778: 6750: 6749: 6730: 6729: 6713: 6710: 6709: 6708: 6707: 6706: 6705: 6704: 6703: 6702: 6685: 6684: 6683: 6682: 6681: 6680: 6658: 6657: 6656: 6655: 6643: 6642: 6599: 6598: 6584: 6583: 6574: 6563: 6560: 6559: 6558: 6553:Samuel Wantman 6547: 6546: 6523: 6522: 6521: 6520: 6503: 6502: 6487: 6486: 6449: 6446: 6445: 6444: 6437:article, yes. 6430: 6429: 6383:Current events 6378: 6375: 6369:Barnaby dawson 6356: 6353: 6351: 6349: 6348: 6318: 6315: 6314: 6313: 6303: 6274: 6235: 6234: 6233: 6232: 6182: 6181: 6180: 6179: 6161: 6160: 6159: 6104:Template:Vbc-t 6100:Template:Test6 6096:Template:Test5 6048:currently has 6042: 6039: 6038: 6037: 6036: 6035: 6019: 6018: 5981: 5980: 5979: 5978: 5956: 5955: 5954: 5953: 5922: 5921: 5920: 5919: 5918: 5874: 5813: 5810: 5786: 5785: 5759: 5752: 5738: 5737: 5711: 5708: 5697: 5681: 5670: 5668: 5632: 5629: 5628: 5627: 5626: 5625: 5624: 5623: 5622: 5621: 5620: 5619: 5525: 5524: 5523: 5522: 5495: 5494: 5443: 5442: 5441: 5440: 5403: 5402: 5397:Kirill Lokshin 5389: 5374: 5373: 5372: 5371: 5370: 5369: 5364:Kirill Lokshin 5341: 5340: 5237: 5234: 5233: 5232: 5216: 5215: 5214: 5213: 5212: 5211: 5187: 5186: 5185: 5184: 5183: 5131: 5130: 5129: 5128: 5127: 5126: 5125: 5124: 5123: 5122: 5121: 5120: 5119: 5101: 5055: 5007: 5004: 5003: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4974: 4973: 4969: 4968: 4960: 4959: 4954: 4953: 4950: 4947: 4940: 4939: 4938: 4937: 4936: 4935: 4934: 4933: 4932: 4931: 4922: 4913: 4811: 4798: 4797: 4796: 4795: 4792: 4786: 4783: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4775: 4769: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4738: 4722: 4690: 4655: 4652: 4651: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4615: 4583: 4580: 4578: 4561: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4538: 4537: 4510: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4396:" instead of " 4389: 4386: 4367: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4340: 4330: 4306: 4305: 4285: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4232: 4231: 4209: 4208: 4144: 4141: 4139: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4073: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4001: 3998: 3987: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3940: 3937: 3926: 3925: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3887: 3886: 3885: 3884: 3877: 3876: 3865: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3844: 3843: 3833: 3832: 3797: 3796: 3768: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3727:, rather than 3675:Knowledge:NPOV 3670: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3614: 3590: 3589: 3579:TenOfAllTrades 3538: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3506: 3505: 3462: 3461: 3443: 3442: 3414:looked at the 3399: 3396: 3394: 3392: 3391: 3369: 3366: 3365: 3364: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3338: 3326: 3325: 3313:I don't think 3308: 3307: 3291: 3290: 3270: 3269: 3257: 3256: 3216: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3182: 3179: 3177: 3133: 3127: 3125: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3097: 3096: 3095: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3062: 3061: 3041: 3038: 3036: 3034: 3033: 3022: 3021: 2998: 2995: 2980: 2979: 2938:Japanese media 2934:George W. Bush 2931: 2897:Japanese media 2893: 2892: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2820: 2819: 2808: 2807: 2791: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2770: 2769: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2706:George W. Bush 2659:George W. Bush 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2622: 2621: 2605: 2604: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2157: 2156: 2129: 2126: 2111: 2110: 2089: 2034: 2031: 2030: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2019: 1975: 1974: 1971: 1967: 1966: 1962: 1961: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1936: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1903: 1889: 1888: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1809: 1808: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1771: 1728: 1727: 1694: 1693: 1669: 1645: 1644: 1640: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1451: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1299: 1290: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1253: 1162: 1156: 92: 76: 75: 73: 72: 71: 70: 65: 60: 55: 43: 38: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 9517: 9506: 9503: 9502: 9500: 9491: 9488: 9486: 9481: 9476: 9475: 9474: 9473: 9469: 9465: 9458: 9456:to find them. 9455: 9450: 9447: 9443: 9442: 9441: 9436: 9433: 9428: 9427: 9424: 9421: 9418: 9413: 9410: 9406: 9402: 9401: 9400: 9399: 9396: 9391: 9390: 9387: 9384: 9379: 9376: 9372: 9369: 9354: 9351: 9348: 9343: 9340: 9336: 9335: 9334: 9331: 9328: 9323: 9322: 9321: 9318: 9315: 9310: 9307: 9303: 9302: 9301: 9298: 9294: 9293: 9292: 9289: 9285: 9284: 9283: 9282: 9279: 9274: 9268: 9267: 9265: 9252: 9249: 9247: 9243: 9239: 9238: 9237: 9236: 9233: 9232:Shardsofmetal 9229: 9227: 9223: 9218: 9214: 9211:The template 9204: 9203: 9200: 9196: 9184: 9181: 9179: 9175: 9171: 9170: 9169: 9168: 9165: 9163: 9158: 9144: 9141: 9136: 9135: 9134: 9131: 9126: 9125: 9124: 9123: 9120: 9119: 9114: 9099: 9096: 9091: 9085: 9080: 9076: 9071: 9070: 9069: 9066: 9062: 9058: 9054: 9050: 9045: 9043: 9038: 9034: 9033: 9032: 9029: 9025: 9024: 9021: 9016: 9012: 9008: 9007: 9002: 8997: 8996: 8995: 8992: 8988: 8987: 8986: 8985: 8982: 8978: 8974: 8963: 8957: 8954: 8949: 8948: 8943: 8942: 8937: 8936: 8931: 8927: 8923: 8919: 8918: 8917: 8916: 8912: 8910: 8904: 8900: 8896: 8892: 8886: 8883: 8878: 8874: 8870: 8869: 8868: 8867: 8864: 8859: 8849: 8848: 8847: 8846: 8841: 8838: 8835: 8831: 8827: 8823: 8822: 8821: 8820: 8811: 8808: 8804: 8800: 8799: 8798: 8797: 8796: 8795: 8794: 8793: 8786: 8783: 8779: 8775: 8774: 8773: 8772: 8771: 8770: 8765: 8762: 8758: 8754: 8750: 8749: 8748: 8747: 8740: 8736: 8731: 8727: 8726: 8725: 8724: 8723: 8722: 8719: 8716: 8712: 8707: 8706: 8704: 8699: 8698: 8696: 8695: 8694: 8693: 8690: 8685: 8682: 8675: 8674: 8665: 8662: 8658: 8654: 8653: 8650: 8647: 8642: 8641: 8640: 8639: 8636: 8632: 8628: 8624: 8614: 8611: 8610: 8607: 8603: 8599: 8589: 8580: 8577: 8573: 8569: 8568: 8567: 8566: 8565: 8564: 8557: 8554: 8550: 8547: 8546: 8545: 8544: 8543: 8542: 8537: 8534: 8529: 8528: 8527: 8526: 8523: 8520: 8516: 8511: 8507: 8503: 8502: 8501: 8500: 8497: 8485: 8482: 8477: 8476: 8475: 8473: 8470: 8466: 8450: 8447: 8443: 8442: 8441: 8438: 8433: 8432: 8431: 8430: 8424: 8422: 8417: 8416: 8415: 8414: 8413: 8412: 8409: 8408:User:Siddiqui 8404: 8400: 8396: 8392: 8388: 8382: 8378: 8372: 8369: 8368: 8365: 8361: 8357: 8353: 8350: 8343: 8338: 8337: 8334: 8330: 8326: 8319: 8314: 8313: 8310: 8306: 8302: 8298: 8294: 8284: 8281: 8277: 8276: 8274: 8269: 8265: 8264: 8259: 8256: 8251: 8250: 8249: 8248: 8245: 8241: 8236: 8235: 8234: 8233: 8230: 8225: 8224: 8221: 8213: 8210: 8206: 8205: 8202: 8199: 8192: 8189: 8184: 8183: 8172: 8169: 8165: 8164: 8163: 8160: 8155: 8151: 8147: 8143: 8139: 8138: 8137: 8134: 8130: 8129: 8128: 8125: 8120: 8116: 8112: 8111: 8110: 8107: 8103: 8099:for criteria) 8098: 8094: 8091: 8087: 8084: 8083: 8081: 8078: 8074: 8073: 8072: 8071: 8068: 8055: 8052: 8049: 8045: 8044: 8039: 8034: 8033: 8028: 8024: 8023: 8019: 8015: 8012: 8011: 8010: 8009: 8006: 7999: 7996: 7992: 7988: 7986: 7982: 7978: 7974: 7969: 7962: 7955: 7954: 7951: 7948: 7943: 7942: 7941: 7940: 7937: 7933: 7929: 7925: 7924:The Mousetrap 7922:The articles 7913: 7910: 7906: 7902: 7901: 7900: 7899: 7896: 7890: 7879: 7878: 7877: 7875: 7871: 7857: 7853: 7849: 7845: 7840: 7836: 7835: 7834: 7833: 7830: 7827: 7823: 7822: 7821: 7820: 7816: 7812: 7808: 7804: 7800: 7796: 7792: 7788: 7781: 7775: 7774: 7771: 7767: 7763: 7759: 7749: 7748: 7745: 7742:. Thanks. -- 7741: 7736: 7735:Serge Issakov 7710: 7707: 7702: 7701: 7700: 7697: 7692: 7691: 7690: 7687: 7683: 7679: 7678: 7677: 7673: 7669: 7666: 7664: 7658: 7654: 7650: 7649: 7648: 7645: 7641: 7637: 7636: 7635: 7632: 7628: 7627: 7626: 7623: 7619: 7618: 7613: 7606: 7605: 7604: 7603: 7600: 7596: 7592: 7588: 7584: 7575: 7574: 7571: 7568: 7564: 7559: 7555: 7541: 7538: 7534: 7530: 7526: 7525: 7524: 7523: 7515: 7510: 7509: 7508: 7507: 7506: 7505: 7500: 7495: 7489: 7485: 7484: 7478: 7477: 7476: 7475: 7472: 7469: 7464: 7463: 7458: 7455: 7452: 7448: 7444: 7443: 7442: 7439: 7432: 7429: 7425: 7421: 7417: 7416: 7415: 7414: 7411: 7407: 7391: 7388: 7384: 7381: 7380: 7379: 7378: 7377: 7376: 7371: 7368: 7365: 7360: 7359: 7358: 7357: 7354: 7350: 7346: 7341: 7340: 7339: 7338: 7335: 7331: 7327: 7317: 7316: 7313: 7305: 7302: 7297: 7294: 7291: 7290: 7289: 7288: 7285: 7280: 7276: 7274: 7270: 7264: 7255: 7253: 7249: 7245: 7241: 7239: 7232: 7231: 7228: 7223: 7218: 7213: 7207: 7200: 7197: 7193: 7192: 7187: 7184: 7182: 7177: 7173: 7169: 7168: 7167: 7164: 7160: 7159: 7158: 7157: 7154: 7152: 7147: 7143: 7136: 7133: 7129: 7128: 7115: 7112: 7110: 7105: 7101: 7100: 7097: 7096: 7095: 7092: 7090: 7085: 7081: 7077: 7074: 7070: 7064: 7061: 7058: 7055: 7052: 7047: 7043: 7037: 7036: 7035: 7032: 7030: 7025: 7020: 7019: 7018: 7015: 7011: 7010:Theresa Knott 7007: 7003: 7002: 7001: 6998: 6996: 6991: 6987: 6983: 6979: 6978: 6977: 6976: 6971: 6970: 6969: 6968: 6965: 6963: 6958: 6954: 6951:Just look at 6949: 6945: 6943: 6938: 6933: 6932: 6927: 6926: 6923: 6914: 6911: 6908: 6904: 6903: 6902: 6901: 6898: 6895: 6891: 6887: 6886: 6883: 6880: 6875: 6871: 6866: 6863: 6862: 6861: 6857: 6853: 6849: 6845: 6831: 6826: 6823: 6819: 6818: 6817: 6816: 6813: 6801: 6798: 6794: 6790: 6786: 6781: 6780: 6777: 6772: 6771: 6765: 6761: 6757: 6752: 6751: 6748: 6745: 6741: 6737: 6732: 6731: 6726: 6725: 6724: 6723: 6720: 6701: 6698: 6693: 6692: 6691: 6690: 6689: 6688: 6687: 6686: 6679: 6676: 6672: 6668: 6664: 6663: 6662: 6661: 6660: 6659: 6654: 6651: 6647: 6646: 6645: 6644: 6641: 6638: 6632: 6628: 6627: 6626: 6625: 6620: 6616: 6613: 6610: 6607: 6605: 6595: 6591: 6590:the talk page 6587: 6582: 6580: 6575: 6568: 6567: 6557: 6554: 6549: 6548: 6545: 6542: 6538: 6534: 6530: 6525: 6524: 6519: 6516: 6511: 6507: 6506: 6505: 6504: 6501: 6498: 6493: 6489: 6488: 6485: 6482: 6478: 6474: 6473: 6472: 6471: 6468: 6464: 6460: 6456: 6443: 6440: 6436: 6432: 6431: 6428: 6425: 6421: 6420:December 2005 6417: 6416:November 2005 6413: 6412: 6411: 6410: 6407: 6403: 6398: 6396: 6390: 6388: 6387:December 2005 6384: 6381:Last month's 6374: 6373: 6370: 6365: 6362: 6352: 6347: 6344: 6339: 6335: 6331: 6327: 6326: 6325: 6324: 6312: 6307: 6302: 6298: 6294: 6293: 6292: 6291: 6288: 6283: 6282: 6277: 6271: 6267: 6266: 6257: 6247: 6240: 6231: 6227: 6226: 6223: 6218: 6217: 6216: 6213: 6209: 6205: 6204: 6203: 6202: 6198: 6190: 6178: 6174: 6170: 6166: 6162: 6158: 6155: 6151: 6147: 6146: 6145: 6141: 6137: 6133: 6132: 6131: 6127: 6123: 6119: 6118: 6117: 6116: 6113: 6109: 6105: 6101: 6097: 6093: 6089: 6085: 6081: 6076: 6072: 6068: 6064: 6060: 6056: 6051: 6047: 6034: 6031: 6027: 6023: 6022: 6021: 6020: 6016: 6013: 6008: 6004: 6003: 6002: 6001: 5996: 5995: 5989: 5987: 5977: 5974: 5970: 5966: 5965: 5960: 5959: 5958: 5957: 5952: 5949: 5945: 5941: 5940: 5939: 5934: 5933: 5927: 5923: 5917: 5914: 5912: 5906: 5905: 5903: 5900: 5899: 5896: 5891: 5889: 5883: 5879: 5875: 5872: 5868: 5864: 5863: 5862: 5859: 5855: 5851: 5847: 5843: 5842: 5841: 5839: 5836: 5835: 5832: 5827: 5823: 5819: 5809: 5808: 5805: 5798: 5791: 5784: 5781: 5777: 5776: 5775: 5773: 5769: 5765: 5757: 5751: 5750: 5747: 5743: 5736: 5733: 5729: 5728: 5727: 5725: 5721: 5717: 5707: 5706: 5701: 5696: 5692: 5687: 5680:in particular 5679: 5675: 5669: 5666: 5665: 5662: 5658: 5654: 5653:User:Mikkalai 5649: 5647: 5643: 5638: 5616: 5615: 5614: 5611: 5607: 5603: 5599: 5595: 5594: 5593: 5590: 5587: 5582: 5579: 5575: 5571: 5566: 5565: 5564: 5561: 5557: 5553: 5552: 5551: 5548: 5544: 5540: 5536: 5532: 5527: 5526: 5521: 5518: 5515: 5510: 5507: 5503: 5499: 5498: 5497: 5496: 5493: 5490: 5485: 5481: 5480: 5479: 5478: 5475: 5472: 5467: 5464: 5460: 5456: 5451: 5447: 5439: 5436: 5433: 5428: 5425: 5420: 5416: 5412: 5407: 5406: 5405: 5404: 5401: 5398: 5394: 5390: 5383: 5376: 5375: 5368: 5365: 5361: 5360: 5359: 5356: 5353: 5349: 5345: 5344: 5343: 5342: 5339: 5334: 5326: 5321: 5320: 5319: 5318: 5315: 5312: 5307: 5304: 5300: 5296: 5292: 5290: 5286: 5282: 5275: 5265: 5258: 5254: 5250: 5246: 5244: 5230: 5227: 5223: 5218: 5217: 5210: 5207: 5204: 5203: 5201: 5200: 5199: 5196: 5193: 5188: 5182: 5179: 5176: 5171: 5168: 5164: 5163: 5162: 5159: 5156: 5151: 5147: 5146: 5145: 5141: 5137: 5132: 5118: 5115: 5111: 5106: 5102: 5100: 5097: 5094: 5093: 5090: 5085: 5080: 5079: 5078: 5077: 5076: 5073: 5068: 5064: 5063: 5062: 5059: 5056: 5052: 5051: 5050: 5047: 5043: 5038: 5034: 5030: 5026: 5025: 5024: 5021: 5018: 5017: 5016: 5014: 4999: 4996: 4992: 4988: 4987: 4986: 4983: 4979: 4978: 4977: 4971: 4970: 4966: 4962: 4961: 4956: 4955: 4951: 4948: 4945: 4944: 4943: 4930: 4927: 4923: 4921: 4918: 4914: 4912: 4909: 4904: 4900: 4896: 4895: 4894: 4893: 4890: 4887: 4883: 4879: 4873: 4870: 4866: 4861: 4857: 4856: 4855: 4852: 4847: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4838: 4834: 4833: 4832: 4829: 4824: 4820: 4816: 4812: 4810: 4807: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4793: 4790: 4789: 4787: 4784: 4781: 4776: 4773: 4772: 4770: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4758: 4755: 4751: 4747: 4743: 4739: 4737: 4734: 4730: 4728: 4723: 4721: 4718: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4708: 4703: 4699: 4695: 4691: 4689: 4686: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4677: 4675: 4671: 4667: 4666:actual effect 4662: 4659: 4647: 4643: 4638: 4635: 4634: 4633: 4628: 4627: 4620: 4619: 4614: 4611: 4608: 4607: 4604: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4593: 4589: 4582:Good Articles 4579: 4576: 4575: 4572: 4568: 4559: 4549: 4546: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4539: 4536: 4533: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4522: 4519: 4515: 4500: 4497: 4493: 4489: 4485: 4481: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4472: 4469: 4464: 4461: 4457: 4453: 4449: 4445: 4442: 4438: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4429: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4421: 4418: 4415: 4411: 4407: 4403: 4399: 4395: 4385: 4384: 4381: 4379: 4374: 4361: 4358: 4353: 4349: 4345: 4341: 4339: 4336: 4331: 4329: 4326: 4319: 4316: 4312: 4308: 4307: 4304: 4300: 4296: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4275: 4272: 4267: 4263: 4259: 4258: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4247: 4243: 4239: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4230: 4227: 4224: 4219: 4216: 4211: 4210: 4207: 4204: 4199: 4195: 4191: 4187: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4181: 4177: 4174: 4172: 4166: 4164: 4160: 4157:violation of 4156: 4151: 4150: 4140: 4133: 4130: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4120: 4111: 4110: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4094: 4090: 4086: 4081: 4079: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4057: 4052: 4051: 4049: 4046: 4042: 4038: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4032: 4027: 4022: 4021: 4018: 4012: 4011: 4008: 3997: 3996: 3993: 3983: 3980: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3970: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3959: 3954: 3953:Truman Capote 3950: 3946: 3945:Gay bathhouse 3936: 3935: 3932: 3924: 3921: 3918: 3914: 3913: 3906: 3902: 3898: 3893: 3892: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3875: 3872: 3867: 3866: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3845: 3842: 3839: 3835: 3834: 3831: 3828: 3819: 3818: 3808: 3804: 3799: 3798: 3795: 3792: 3788: 3785: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3775: 3760: 3757: 3754: 3750: 3749: 3748: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3743: 3736: 3734: 3730: 3726: 3719: 3713: 3711: 3704: 3699: 3693: 3691: 3684: 3683: 3680: 3676: 3664: 3659: 3655: 3650: 3649: 3644: 3641: 3640: 3636: 3633: 3632: 3628: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3617: 3611: 3607: 3606: 3600: 3599:my recent RFA 3596: 3592: 3591: 3588: 3584: 3580: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3569: 3568: 3564: 3561: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3548: 3544: 3532: 3529: 3525: 3524:Talk:Muhammad 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3515: 3511: 3504: 3498: 3496: 3491: 3489: 3480: 3476: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3463: 3460: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3444: 3441: 3437: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3425: 3419: 3417: 3413: 3408: 3405: 3398:Prophet redux 3395: 3390: 3387: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3376: 3362: 3358: 3353: 3339: 3337: 3334: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3324: 3321: 3316: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3306: 3303: 3299: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3289: 3286: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3268: 3265: 3261: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3255: 3252: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3230: 3225: 3222: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3195: 3190: 3187: 3178: 3175: 3174: 3171: 3167: 3163: 3158: 3156: 3152: 3151: 3145: 3143: 3139: 3132: 3129:re-proposing 3126: 3115: 3112: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3094: 3091: 3087: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3073: 3070: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3049: 3045: 3037: 3032: 3029: 3024: 3023: 3020: 3017: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3007: 3002: 2994: 2993: 2990: 2985: 2978: 2975: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2964: 2958: 2954: 2951: 2946: 2942: 2939: 2935: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2891: 2886: 2880: 2879: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2851: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2841: 2836: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2826: 2818: 2815: 2810: 2809: 2806: 2802: 2797: 2789: 2788: 2783: 2778: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2768: 2765: 2760: 2759: 2748: 2745: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2710:Adolph Hitler 2707: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2696: 2692: 2691:in the policy 2687: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2677: 2673: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2655: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2641: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2611:Bunchofgrapes 2607: 2606: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2575: 2557: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2520: 2517: 2514: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2484: 2479: 2471: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2435: 2432: 2429: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2399: 2396: 2392: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2379: 2371: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2345: 2341: 2329: 2324: 2316: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2301: 2290: 2287: 2283: 2279: 2275: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2265: 2264: 2259: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2241:George W Bush 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2230: 2226: 2225:United States 2220: 2219: 2216: 2212: 2200: 2196: 2192: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2177: 2174: 2173: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2160: 2155: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2125: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2109: 2106: 2105: 2101: 2099: 2094: 2090: 2088: 2085: 2084: 2080: 2078: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2067: 2063: 2060: 2058: 2055: 2054: 2048: 2044: 2042: 2026: 2022: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2004: 1997: 1994: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1984: 1979: 1972: 1969: 1968: 1964: 1963: 1960: 1957: 1952: 1951: 1944: 1939: 1933: 1929: 1928: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1911: 1906: 1900: 1896: 1895: 1890: 1887:All the best. 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1878: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1865: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1841: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1827: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1807: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1787: 1782: 1779: 1775: 1772: 1770: 1765: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1747: 1741: 1735: 1730: 1729: 1726: 1723: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1704: 1700: 1692: 1689: 1682: 1679: 1674: 1670: 1668: 1665: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1650: 1647: 1646: 1641: 1638: 1637: 1628: 1625: 1624: 1617: 1610: 1600: 1590: 1580: 1570: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1558: 1552: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1540: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1518: 1511: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1487: 1475: 1472: 1471: 1464: 1459: 1458: 1456: 1452: 1450: 1445: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1427: 1426: 1419: 1415: 1411: 1407: 1402: 1397: 1393: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1383: 1382: 1375: 1371: 1366: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1357: 1350: 1345: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1333: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1311: 1304: 1300: 1298: 1295: 1291: 1289: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1277: 1272: 1267: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1251: 1250: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1240: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1212: 1202: 1192: 1182: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1160: 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: 9482: 9462: 9446:Vegan vandal 9439: 9404: 9392: 9365: 9269: 9261: 9260: 9230: 9217:Tony Sidaway 9210: 9192: 9159: 9154: 9109: 9107: 9074: 8998: 8969: 8960: 8929: 8926:Bill Bradley 8921: 8908: 8898: 8894: 8890: 8889: 8863:82.7.125.142 8857: 8855: 8829: 8825: 8689:82.7.125.142 8686: 8683: 8679: 8672: 8671: 8620: 8612: 8595: 8587: 8533:82.7.125.142 8496:82.7.125.142 8493: 8462: 8420: 8402: 8398: 8394: 8390: 8386: 8385: 8380: 8376: 8370: 8355: 8346: 8328: 8322: 8289: 8226: 8216: 8076: 8063: 8037: 8017: 8013: 8002: 7967: 7921: 7892: 7867: 7838: 7784: 7755: 7752:Verifiabilty 7732: 7662: 7581: 7551: 7528: 7513: 7482: 7481: 7423: 7419: 7403: 7334:212.98.150.6 7323: 7308: 7281: 7277: 7265: 7261: 7247: 7243: 7237: 7235: 7233: 7203: 7178: 7148: 7139: 7106: 7086: 7059: 7053: 7026: 7005: 6992: 6985: 6981: 6959: 6950: 6946: 6939: 6936: 6928: 6864: 6842:— Preceding 6837: 6829: 6812:MattShepherd 6809: 6768: 6715: 6670: 6621: 6617: 6614: 6611: 6608: 6603: 6602: 6576: 6536: 6532: 6528: 6491: 6462: 6458: 6457:the english 6454: 6451: 6399: 6391: 6380: 6366: 6358: 6350: 6320: 6284: 6264: 6263: 6236: 6220: 6183: 6087: 6075:Template:Rn4 6049: 6044: 5992: 5983: 5982: 5962: 5930: 5910: 5893: 5887: 5885: 5881: 5829: 5815: 5787: 5761: 5755: 5739: 5713: 5686:Fidel Castro 5683: 5678:Fidel Castro 5667: 5650: 5634: 5501: 5483: 5445: 5444: 5410: 5294: 5293: 5285:Kelly Martin 5248: 5247: 5239: 5149: 5088: 5083: 5009: 4975: 4964: 4941: 4881: 4875: 4859: 4845: 4814: 4799: 4763: 4750:User:Gflores 4724: 4678: 4665: 4663: 4660: 4657: 4624: 4602: 4585: 4577: 4563: 4513: 4512: 4456:History of X 4455: 4451: 4447: 4440: 4401: 4397: 4393: 4391: 4375: 4369: 4287: 4237: 4178: 4175: 4167: 4162: 4154: 4152: 4148: 4146: 4138: 4103: 4082: 4075: 4054:you can do. 4023: 4013: 4003: 3988: 3942: 3927: 3811: 3770: 3739: 3738: 3732: 3728: 3724: 3722: 3716: 3709: 3707: 3702: 3696: 3689: 3686: 3672: 3638: 3630: 3604: 3603: 3595:no consensus 3594: 3566: 3558: 3550: 3540: 3509: 3507: 3494: 3487: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3420: 3409: 3401: 3393: 3371: 3232: 3226: 3218: 3191: 3188: 3184: 3176: 3159: 3154: 3148: 3146: 3135: 3124: 3085: 3058:Larry Sanger 3043: 3035: 3003: 3000: 2981: 2959: 2955: 2949: 2947: 2943: 2930: 2910:— Preceding 2904: 2900: 2894: 2834: 2821: 2725: 2690: 2685: 2653: 2638: 2585: 2570: 2544: 2508: 2504: 2390: 2339: 2336: 2297: 2277: 2273: 2262: 2221: 2207: 2171: 2131: 2112: 2103: 2097: 2082: 2076: 2064: 2061: 2056: 2052: 2050: 2046: 2040: 2038: 2037:I am a very 2036: 1980: 1976: 1926: 1925: 1893: 1892: 1875: 1794: 1733: 1698: 1695: 1652: 1648: 1619: 1525: 1503:occasionally 1502: 1494: 1466: 1421: 1377: 1343: 1191:US-rail-stub 1181:us-rail-stub 1164: 368: 169: 97: 93: 81: 30:Village pump 28: 9368:a developer 9366:I've asked 8510:open source 8481:Herostratus 8030:beforehand. 7706:Tagishsimon 7686:Tagishsimon 7644:Tagishsimon 7599:Tagishsimon 7567:Steve block 7537:Herostratus 7494:yakkity yak 7410:Garfield226 7387:Monicasdude 6865:Six months? 6736:WikiProject 6355:Spreadsheet 6323:Jonah Ayers 6287:JoaoRicardo 6276:yakkity yak 6154:JoaoRicardo 6055:User:Jtdirl 5911:a.n.o.n.y.m 5797:TLAdisambig 5570:Victor Hugo 5192:Steve block 4357:JoaoRicardo 4244:and not an 4076:Please see 3742:Jimbo Wales 3710:some people 3679:Bensaccount 3616:yakkity yak 3541:Please see 3528:Pepsidrinka 3412:Pepsidrinka 3111:Bensaccount 3086:philosopher 3069:Bensaccount 3048:Bensaccount 2340:significant 2263:Woohookitty 2172:Woohookitty 1938:yakkity yak 1905:yakkity yak 1609:author-stub 1524:SFD almost 9432:KittenKlub 9370:to comment 9327:Greg Asche 9273:WP:Cricket 9157:Revolución 9053:Tumble Bug 8631:Small caps 8515:Ogg Vorbis 8354:guideline 7928:Diabolique 7844:≈ jossi ≈ 7807:≈ jossi ≈ 7744:Coolcaesar 7383:Physchim62 7364:Physchim62 7312:Kingturtle 7284:Kingturtle 7273:Kingturtle 7204:How about 7176:Revolución 7146:Revolución 7104:Revolución 7084:Revolución 7046:12.144.5.2 7024:Revolución 6990:Revolución 6957:Revolución 6907:Greg Asche 6797:DragonHawk 6785:verifiable 6770:talk to me 6719:FistOfFury 6577:This is a 6225:Farmbrough 6007:m:Wikicite 5994:talk to me 5932:talk to me 5768:January 15 5720:January 15 5325:Flcelloguy 4626:talk to me 4532:Jibbajabba 4509:GOD OF WAR 4373:Revolución 4171:transistor 4072:Root pages 3774:Jibbajabba 3729:what is so 3690:other than 3469:would be; 3016:Jibbajabba 2470:Flcelloguy 2370:Flcelloguy 2315:Flcelloguy 2091:I believe 2057:questions. 2051:questions. 1877:otherwise. 1795:second day 1699:encouraged 1654:Rschen7754 1589:movie-stub 100:Archives: 51:persistent 8951:undone. 8676:can edit? 8621:I see in 8309:Tupsharru 8229:Falcorian 8209:Falcorian 8168:Falcorian 8133:Falcorian 8067:Falcorian 7893:? Thanks/ 7563:talk page 7301:Quasipalm 6633:flowing. 6631:serotonin 6586:Consensus 6581:proposal. 6497:Quasipalm 5802:. Thanks/ 5674:Dictators 5661:abakharev 5274:User n00b 5264:User Geek 5236:Userboxes 4560:proposal) 4452:X history 4441:catgories 4366:Thank you 4295:Wahoofive 4091:. Thanks/ 3883:solution. 3526:as well. 3239:. thanks 3155:guideline 2982:PPS, see 2722:vandalism 2714:Knowledge 2549:Carbonite 2282:Carbonite 2245:Carbonite 2211:Carbonite 1983:Conscious 1649:Disagree. 1556:Caerwhine 1211:NYCS-stub 1201:NYCS stub 46:Proposals 41:Technical 9499:Category 9480:nae'blis 9409:Tantalum 9375:Tantalum 9339:Tantalum 9306:Tantalum 9174:Fair use 9095:Deathawk 8834:Dpbsmith 8830:a method 8715:BostonMA 8635:SGBailey 8627:Surnames 8421:Islamism 8403:Islamist 8395:Islamist 8387:Islamism 8381:Islamist 8377:Islamism 8356:proposal 8329:shameful 8295:and the 8255:SGBailey 8140:Neither 8048:Dpbsmith 8005:Peter S. 7936:Peter S. 7684:then. -- 7132:Carnildo 7057:contribs 6894:Carnildo 6888:This is 6868:limit.-- 6856:contribs 6844:unsigned 6728:problem. 6481:SGBailey 6459:language 6439:Awolf002 6424:Awolf002 6406:SGBailey 6301:Wikibofh 6246:Mosblock 5695:Wikibofh 5637:Disputes 5578:Tantalum 5506:Tantalum 5484:fair use 5463:Tantalum 5424:Tantalum 5303:Tantalum 5295:Proposal 5167:Tantalum 5089:anything 5067:Fair use 4871:, 1955" 4867:" into " 4860:prompted 4742:Kbdank71 4731:whoops. 4545:LambaJan 4460:Tantalum 4404:", like 4215:Tantalum 4043:. Zoe ( 4031:*Dan T.* 3990:basis?-- 3917:User:Zoe 3897:Shimgray 3852:Shimgray 3838:Carnildo 3753:User:Zoe 3477:but not 3404:Babajobu 2997:Question 2924:contribs 2912:unsigned 2730:Fuzheado 2672:Fuzheado 2640:measure. 2513:Dpbsmith 2428:Dpbsmith 1840:User:Jnc 1797:of SFD ( 1662:contribs 1616:Grutness 1579:map-stub 1569:car-stub 1551:Caerwine 1463:Grutness 1418:Grutness 1414:Grutness 1374:Grutness 1319:Grutness 58:Idea lab 9420:lluride 9386:lluride 9350:lluride 9317:lluride 9093:adress. 8991:Raul654 8469:SEWilco 8375:Use of 7995:Stevage 7961:spoiler 7799:WP:NPOV 7694:Thanks/ 7663:ALKIVAR 7516:OK too? 7487:Unction 7483:Ξxtreme 7326:sources 6636:Eluchil 6541:Aumakua 6477:WP:NPOV 6330:WP:AN/3 6269:Unction 6265:Ξxtreme 6112:Firebug 6012:SEWilco 5852:or the 5846:Striver 5756:et alia 5589:lluride 5517:lluride 5474:lluride 5435:lluride 5382:userbox 5352:Cryptic 5314:lluride 5243:archive 5226:MSTCrow 5206:MSTCrow 5178:lluride 5155:Cryptic 5136:Sherool 5096:MSTCrow 5058:MSTCrow 5031:and at 5020:MSTCrow 4886:Cryptic 4694:ask him 4610:MSTCrow 4496:gadfium 4484:Nigeria 4471:lluride 4448:article 4414:Zzyzx11 4226:lluride 4127:Thanks/ 4056:Stevage 3969:Stevage 3807:yoghurt 3669:NPOV II 3639:phoenix 3609:Unction 3605:Ξxtreme 3567:phoenix 3547:Renata3 3510:Prophet 3481:, IMO. 3479:Prophet 3475:prophet 3467:prophet 3375:Lilhinx 3194:mwazzap 3006:WonYong 2744:Stevage 2686:instead 2300:Kaldari 2258:WP:SEMI 2066:normxxx 2049:obvious 1931:Unction 1927:Ξxtreme 1898:Unction 1894:Ξxtreme 1740:grm_wnr 1499:crusade 1365:WP:DICK 1349:ulayiti 1303:ulayiti 9485:(talk) 9330:(talk) 9242:WP:ANI 9199:SCZenz 9130:Kjkolb 9112:Sceptr 9079:Splash 9037:Splash 9015:Splash 9001:Splash 8891:anyone 8858:edited 8837:(talk) 8673:anyone 8661:cesarb 8646:cesarb 8576:cesarb 8352:(talk) 8191:adiant 8077:per se 8051:(talk) 7947:Improv 7795:WP:NOR 7709:(talk) 7689:(talk) 7682:WP:IFD 7657:WP:CSD 7653:WP:CSD 7647:(talk) 7602:(talk) 7591:others 7454:(talk) 7431:adiant 7406:vblock 7367:(talk) 7226:(Talk) 7196:Triona 7163:Golbez 6910:(talk) 6848:Triona 6822:cesarb 6740:Jmabel 6579:failed 6492:should 6239:WP:TFD 6189:test-n 6169:Dan100 6165:WP:TFD 6136:Dan100 6122:Dan100 6059:WP:TFD 5895:Szvest 5831:Szvest 5411:delete 5355:(talk) 5158:(talk) 5140:(talk) 5042:Goatse 5033:WP:FUC 4995:Martin 4926:Martin 4917:Martin 4889:(talk) 4851:Martin 4754:Martin 4746:WP:CFD 4733:Martin 4727:Martin 4717:Martin 4569:. --- 4558:WP:NOT 4518:God_of 4417:(Talk) 4335:Kjkolb 4318:adiant 4311:WP:BIO 4155:direct 4017:Kjkolb 3871:Improv 3787:Jmabel 3658:Splash 3551:do not 3514:Snakes 3386:Improv 3333:Martin 3320:SimonP 3302:Martin 3285:SimonP 3264:Martin 3251:Improv 3241:Martin 3028:Golbez 2916:Splash 2885:Splash 2863:Dan100 2825:kizzle 2777:Splash 2762:NPOV-- 2695:Splash 2667:WP:MVP 2594:Dan100 2574:Splash 2516:(talk) 2431:(talk) 2355:Dan100 2229:Splash 2191:Dan100 2138:Dan100 2115:Dan100 2045:always 1996:adiant 1681:adiant 1673:WP:SFD 1526:always 1510:adiant 1491:WP:WSS 1354:(talk) 1308:(talk) 1294:Improv 1159:WP:SFD 36:Policy 9288:Kappa 9028:Kappa 8922:worse 8782:Kappa 8625:that 8397:from 8379:and 8360:WP:UE 8197:|< 8196:: --> 7909:wangi 7895:wangi 7696:wangi 7631:wangi 7622:wangi 7595:pages 7533:WP:UP 7437:|< 7436:: --> 7211:Ilyan 7063:count 6697:Pengo 6650:Pengo 6475:Does 6465:? -- 6404:. -- 6222:Rich 6212:wiser 6208:older 6092:forks 6063:WP:BP 5878:China 5854:Quran 5850:Bible 5826:China 5804:wangi 5746:wangi 5461:.) -- 5332:note? 5299:furry 5084:might 5029:WP:FU 4958:term! 4869:May 9 4846:every 4480:Niger 4324:|< 4323:: --> 4180:Where 4163:every 4129:wangi 4115:ɹəəds 4108:speer 4093:wangi 4007:Zzzzz 3992:Bhuck 3979:Bhuck 3958:Bhuck 3823:ɹəəds 3816:speer 3803:color 3296:Sure 2989:Curps 2963:Curps 2764:1 use 2718:Penis 2663:penis 2477:note? 2377:note? 2322:note? 2274:isn't 2100:roken 2079:roken 2002:|< 2001:: --> 1829:page. 1803:Mairi 1687:|< 1686:: --> 1604:, or 1594:, or 1516:|< 1515:: --> 88:start 16:< 9468:Talk 9373:. -- 9297:jguk 9278:jguk 9226:here 9162:talk 8930:have 8899:edit 8895:then 8873:Sean 8755:and 8732:. — 8659:. -- 8606:jguk 8517:? 8506:MP3s 8490:MP3s 8150:Sean 8115:Sean 8038:word 7981:talk 7826:jguk 7803:WP:V 7801:and 7791:talk 7770:jguk 7589:and 7570:talk 7514:that 7408:}}? 7349:Talk 7248:read 7181:talk 7172:this 7151:talk 7109:talk 7089:talk 7051:talk 7029:talk 6995:talk 6982:stop 6962:talk 6870:Sean 6852:talk 6744:Talk 6665:See 6510:here 6334:Sean 6306:talk 6251:and 6173:Talk 6140:Talk 6126:Talk 6106:and 6098:and 6082:and 5858:Zora 5820:Vs. 5772:2005 5758:poll 5724:2005 5700:talk 5676:and 5655:and 5644:nor 5572:and 5560:Zach 5502:very 5489:Zach 5457:and 5269:and 5245:.) 5195:talk 5150:just 5114:Zach 5110:HUAC 5103:The 5072:Zach 5046:Zach 4899:Sean 4865:1955 4819:Sean 4815:does 4698:Sean 4672:and 4490:and 4482:and 4444:here 4408:and 4378:talk 4309:See 4299:talk 4262:Sean 4194:Sean 4159:NPOV 3931:jguk 3901:talk 3856:talk 3791:Talk 3733:that 3583:talk 3488:Lord 3456:Deco 3424:Zora 3206:and 3090:Deco 3040:NPOV 2974:Deco 2950:lack 2920:talk 2905:This 2867:Talk 2850:Deco 2840:Ambi 2814:Deco 2800:Toth 2734:Talk 2716:and 2676:Talk 2661:and 2654:only 2615:talk 2598:Talk 2592:... 2553:Talk 2545:much 2359:Talk 2286:Talk 2278:only 2249:Talk 2215:Talk 2195:Talk 2142:Talk 2119:Talk 2053:)ous 2047:ask 2039:new' 2016:Demi 1759:talk 1755:SPUI 1713:Sean 1658:talk 1622:wha? 1534:talk 1530:SPUI 1495:also 1469:wha? 1439:talk 1435:SPUI 1424:wha? 1396:talk 1392:SPUI 1380:wha? 1327:talk 1323:SPUI 1285:talk 1261:talk 1257:SPUI 1234:talk 1230:SPUI 1228:. -- 1224:and 1196:and 1172:and 9405:one 9246:DES 9178:DES 9077:. - 9057:Lar 8973:Lar 8903:dab 8877:Bla 8826:not 8759:. 8572:WAV 8220:Rob 8154:Bla 8144:or 8119:Bla 8018:any 8014:Any 7905:AfD 7874:AfD 7760:on 7420:own 7332:?. 7170:Is 7073:KTC 6944:. 6874:Bla 6758:is 6671:all 6338:Bla 6299:. 6256:Rn4 6088:six 6050:142 5672:On 5602:Lar 5539:Lar 5533:or 5417:on 5291:.) 5224:by 5044:). 4903:Bla 4823:Bla 4702:Bla 4603:not 4521:War 4454:to 4266:Bla 4238:The 4198:Bla 4085:MfD 3635:ath 3563:ath 3495:ViD 3233:all 2901:was 2835:are 2795:Aza 2509:not 2391:has 2388:--> 2154:CBD 2059:) 1778:SoM 1745:Esc 1734:but 1717:Bla 1703:SoM 1618:... 1584:or 1465:... 1420:... 1376:... 1281:Dan 1218:RFD 1206:to 1186:to 1174:CFD 1170:TFD 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 9501:: 9470:) 9059:: 8975:: 8881:ck 8861:-- 8644:-- 8604:, 8531:-- 8474:) 8362:-- 8278:-- 8275:. 8158:ck 8123:ck 8104:-- 7983:) 7968:or 7964:}} 7958:{{ 7945:-- 7850:• 7839:is 7813:• 7797:, 7768:, 7704:-- 7615:}} 7609:{{ 7565:. 7535:. 7529:is 7449:. 7351:) 7275:" 7012:| 6878:ck 6858:) 6854:• 6774:) 6742:| 6529:is 6495:-- 6455:is 6342:ck 6259:}} 6253:{{ 6249:}} 6243:{{ 6228:. 6192:}} 6186:{{ 6175:) 6167:. 6152:. 6142:) 6128:) 5998:) 5946:-- 5936:) 5800:}} 5794:{{ 5778:-- 5774:. 5770:, 5730:-- 5726:. 5722:, 5604:: 5541:: 5385:}} 5379:{{ 5330:A 5277:}} 5271:{{ 5267:}} 5261:{{ 5015:) 4980:-- 4907:ck 4827:ck 4804:-- 4706:ck 4683:-- 4639:— 4630:) 4590:-- 4516:-- 4301:) 4270:ck 4213:-- 4202:ck 4118:ɹ 4112:/ 4050:) 3903:| 3899:| 3869:-- 3858:| 3854:| 3826:ɹ 3820:/ 3789:| 3740:-- 3585:) 3545:. 3454:. 3384:-- 3144:. 2926:) 2922:• 2869:) 2732:| 2712:, 2708:, 2674:| 2617:) 2600:) 2551:| 2505:do 2475:A 2375:A 2361:) 2320:A 2284:| 2247:| 2213:| 2197:) 2144:) 2121:) 2043:I 1954:-- 1776:- 1767:) 1761:| 1721:ck 1664:) 1660:- 1612:}} 1606:{{ 1602:}} 1596:{{ 1592:}} 1586:{{ 1582:}} 1576:{{ 1572:}} 1566:{{ 1542:) 1536:| 1447:) 1441:| 1404:) 1398:| 1390:-- 1335:) 1329:| 1283:| 1269:) 1263:| 1242:) 1236:| 1214:}} 1208:{{ 1204:}} 1198:{{ 1194:}} 1188:{{ 1184:}} 1178:{{ 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:, 9466:( 9416:e 9412:T 9382:e 9378:T 9346:e 9342:T 9325:- 9313:e 9309:T 9164:) 9160:( 9117:e 9065:c 9063:/ 9061:t 8981:c 8979:/ 8977:t 8911:) 8909:ᛏ 8907:( 8875:| 8194:_ 8188:R 8152:| 8117:| 7979:( 7852:@ 7848:t 7815:@ 7811:t 7789:( 7668:™ 7490:| 7434:_ 7428:R 7347:( 7221:p 7216:e 7208:— 7183:) 7179:( 7153:) 7149:( 7111:) 7107:( 7091:) 7087:( 7065:) 7060:· 7054:· 7049:( 7031:) 7027:( 6997:) 6993:( 6964:) 6960:( 6872:| 6850:( 6695:— 6596:. 6336:| 6308:) 6304:( 6272:| 6210:≠ 6171:( 6138:( 6124:( 6017:) 6010:( 5873:. 5702:) 5698:( 5610:c 5608:/ 5606:t 5585:e 5581:T 5547:c 5545:/ 5543:t 5513:e 5509:T 5470:e 5466:T 5431:e 5427:T 5335:) 5328:( 5310:e 5306:T 5231:) 5174:e 5170:T 4901:| 4821:| 4700:| 4467:e 4463:T 4402:X 4398:X 4394:X 4380:) 4376:( 4321:_ 4315:R 4297:( 4264:| 4248:. 4222:e 4218:T 4196:| 4105:r 3919:| 3813:r 3755:| 3631:e 3627:D 3612:| 3581:( 3559:e 3555:D 3500:» 3483:« 3060:. 2918:( 2865:( 2792:→ 2613:( 2596:( 2480:) 2473:( 2380:) 2373:( 2357:( 2325:) 2318:( 2193:( 2159:☎ 2140:( 2117:( 2104:S 2098:B 2083:S 2077:B 2021:C 2018:/ 1999:_ 1993:R 1934:| 1901:| 1757:( 1715:| 1684:_ 1678:R 1656:( 1532:( 1513:_ 1507:R 1437:( 1394:( 1325:( 1259:( 1232:( 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 R - Knowledge

Index