Knowledge talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

2791:, I think I was unclear, or perhaps I do not understand your objection. I am not proposing anything different at Afc, nor proposing a new process of source analysis to be created somewhere else; so the review process, in my proposal, would remain entirely as it is now. The only difference would be to recommend that OKA users create a draft translation of no more than a few sentences with impeccable sourcing clearly establishing notability, and submit it. Then, the normal Afc processes would take over. With luck, the draft will be reviewed in a few days, and the OKA editor can pick up the article again in main space, and carry on as before, translating the rest of it. Win-win: a much easier review for the Afc reviewer, a slightly smaller backlog for all the other reviewers, and much faster throughput for the OKA editor. I do not see a downside, here. If you do, please elucidate. 7195:. I mean you had a very minor misunderstanding, and you made a small mistake, but it really wasn't an important one, and my own misunderstandings contributed. I never doubted that the template had been added in good faith, and no harm was done; in fact I think it was helpful, since it's improved some templates, making future misunderstandings less likely. Your actions didn't upset me, and I wouldn't have bothered mentioning the matter on a talk page at all if it weren't that I thought the error might be being made commonly, with wider effects, which is what this discussion is about. I'm sorry for embarrassing you by having the discussion in relation to one of your edits; my only defense is that the discussion would eventually be had in relation to someone's edits (and you've actually taken it really well, and behaved admirably). TL;DR: Really, don't worry about it. 1502:, I understand your point, but my concern is that we need to focus on constructive guidance, such as giving additional sources, ways to delete peacock-promotional language, etc., rather than simply knowing whether a draft was rejected or declined. In this context, 'decline' is a more suitable term for not accepting a submission, whereas 'reject' comes across as more absolute and dismissive, implying 'this can never be accepted'. On another note, reject gives no room for resubmission while decline does, hence if one says their draft was rejected but actually, was declined, it isn't a problem. What they need is how to go further. It can then be a different case if it was actually rejected, then tell the editor that there is no room for resubmission with reasons. Is that a big deal? 3004:

them don't intend to become Knowledge editors (That's how I have perceived AfC in the past three years). There are significantly more submissions than there is reviewing capacity. Reviewing a single draft, if it's supposed to be done right, requires effort worth one hour, at least (ignoring drafts that are obviously unacceptable). I agree that, in general, in an ideal AfC system, the same reviewer should not review an article multiple times. However, given the current situation, I oppose introducing such a policy. I would support a submission limit per draft, i.e., that a draft can be submitted only once in a specified time period, for example, once per week. This would force submitters to improve their drafts rather than resubmitting them with the same obvious errors.

2933:

submitted with no or very few sources it may be impossible without looking externally to tell if they are notable, if more sources are added for the second submit it may become clear that the claims about the subject are not notable. If it's the case I think it is then you did try to ask and have not got a reply. I would suggest either poke the question again (in case it was just missed or forgotten about), ask at the help desk from the button on the reject notice, or add the article in question here. I would say the issue in this presumptive case, is not the multiple reviews but the rejection. If someone else had done the first decline would you not still be asking for clarification on the reject? Cheers

7231: 2633:, which has been pending review for a while. It is 25kb and has 17 citations, most of them in German; in other words, a lot for an Afc reviewer to review. What if I picked the best four sources in English, moved them into the lead (adjusting the lead as needed), and deleted everything else in the draft? That would leave a one-paragraph, seven-sentence, sourced draft with clear notability. My theory is, that in this stub form, the draft would be much more likely to get reviewed quickly, than the draft in its current state. I would be curious what Afc reviewers would think about that. 920: 1239:

has to say that it may or may not be acceptable with more work. Note that the notice posted on the submitters page does not even mention the word decline. The message on the submission does though but explains the issue - people just don't/won't read what it says. A lot of the time submitters ask why a submission was "rejected" when it was declined and I think regardless of what wording is used for a declined draft they will still see, and refer to it, as a rejection, which is what happened in this case.

4647: 3501: 506: 1139:, it seems like the confusion is on your end because you don't quite grasp the AFC process and terminologies. Instead of asking for clarification or seeking help to understand the terms, you jumped to conclusions with your question, implying that the phrases in question only exist in the minds of AFC reviewers. Really?To clarify, "rejection" as it was already explained by Primefac, applies to drafts that are not notable and will not be for the time being, or falls under 474: 2428:(172kb at release). But don't be befuddled—this is an Afc page, and the discussion is about the burden of long drafts on Afc reviewers, which is a real issue worth discussing. But it doesn't apply to you, because it is not how about long drafts should be in general, or when experienced users working outside the Afc system should release their draft or how big it should be. It's also isn't concerned with when I finally get off my duff and release my two-year old 336: 325: 3080: 427: 1330: 4490:'s thinking. I know a good, neutral article improves Knowledge. I know, too, that a poor article that is not susceptible to improvement which is deleted improves Knowledge. I know that a poor article that is improved itself improves Knowledge. I just cannot bring myself to trigger the payment of an invoice to a paid editor for something wrenched into neutrality by others. This may be a minority view, but it is the view I hold. 🇺🇦 318: 6653:

you what to do to get your draft accepted, and provides a means to submit it for review. The implication is that the draft is not acceptable, nor will it be acceptable without independent review. Could we replace this with something that clearly presents AfC review as an option, not as something mandatory, and presents the alternative of moving it to the mainspace yourself? This could seriously reduce the backlog.

385: 367: 1337: 448: 7199: 6718: 1147:. Perhaps, hed suggest that the decline message should exclude Teahouse as where to ai question about the decline to avoid all this confusion, as some editors from there seem to misinterpret AFC wording and try to favor unintentionally non-notable drafts in the name of fighting for new cheated editors. Next time, please ask questions instead of making assumptions or final conclusions. Cheers! 5192: 4711: 5436: 3027:

submitting it lowers that chance – submitters will keep submitting their drafts no matter how bad the drafts are or whether or not these submitters are even aware of their drafts' quality. The result is the huge number of unreviewed submissions. Therefore, I believe that, and unfortunately so that reviewers must retain the right to decline a draft more than once. Best regards, --

1079:" Indeed. This is exactly the problem which I seek to resolve. You've already acknowledged that "there is sometimes confusion", and that there is cultural bias in the jargon being used. You have advanced no argument (except, perhaps one equating to "we have always done it this way") why the status quo offers more benefits than does fixing the issue. 6956:. Deleting solid but uncited content in practice means rejecting new editors ("Wait, it vanished! I put a lot of effort into that, and it still isn't good enough? I give up."); citing it, improving it or promptly tagging it with "cn" actually encourages new editors ("I made a useful edit! Someone noticed and wants to make it even better! Yay, I am 6288:. The latter is currently a redirect but it used to be an article. Is it appropriate to put Db-afc-move on a redirect that has a history? And more broadly, is it appropriate to accept the draft at all, or should it be rejected as "article already exists" and the submitter asked to edit the existing redirect? Thanks 20:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 6622:

because a draft has an AfC tag added does not mean you cannot move to main-space yourself in most cases (unless under community enforcement or paid editing etc). If your happy your articles are now notable and verifiable you can move main-space, or if you want a second opinion can can add to the AfC !queue... but it can take a while. Regards

6950:

because the people reading this article will be people who use these screws, even if I don't fix it myself in a few minutes' time once I've read some sources. The ratio of misinformed to informed editors varies by subject, but even if the misinformed ones are a noisy majority, the statement will get challenged and corrected and cited.

3449:, which includes AfC drafts and seems like a really useful and interactive way to browser AfC submissions! Pages can be filtered and sorted, sort of like the watchlist/recent changes. How should we incorporate links to this? The tab for submissions is squished enough already, and I can't decide where to put it. 6621:

can be used to defend from deletion or draftifying, but it is not meant to encourage creating unsourced articles based on "I have the sources but I've not added them". However I may have just misunderstood your last point and you are just talking about inline citations. Back to your first point, just

4970:

I like the template, it's friendly and welcoming, and conveys many important points succinctly. The one thing I would like to see is making it even clearer when to go to the Teahouse vs. the AfC help desk (general editing questions vs. questions specifically about the review process). We don't get so

4653:

I have gone ahead and accepted the draft. Although I tidied it up and ignored paid editing lifestyle of the creating editor, I'd think she is learning how to promote herself but first, to see others. I also removed the paid tag because it's likely that I rewrote a handful; you may revert if you feels

3419:

that reviewers not do multiple reviews on the same article (unless the creator requests it e.g the reviewer is guiding them). Two things I've seen....one is rejections for article quality issues which are not in the AFC standard. The other (I'm an active NPP'er and just an occasional AFC reviewer)

3055:

That seems like too long to me. I think 10 or 15 minutes might be a more reasonable "worst case scenario" time. The bulk of the time spent during NPP and AFC is checking citations for GNG. If it's REFBOMBed with 100 citations, then just checking the most promising looking ones is probably acceptable,

2607:

I dont think this is a good idea, as it introduces even more process for OKA editors, and could in some cases lead to rejections of the draft. Eg, we translated many "History of Xxx" articles, which only deserve their own article if the main content is long enough. These articles would be rejected if

2154:

problem) with setting a size limit is that it would make it difficult to translate a fully-fledged comprehensive article from another language version, because it would require the translator to first prepare a précis or synopsis of some sort, get that accepted, and only then replace it with the full

6937:

Even wild-west early Knowledge was not much like modern social media. It worked. People fixed stuff that was wrong (more than they do now); the ancient uncited "dog" article was actually pretty reliable, with the single really dodgy statement being the one cited to an inline link. Lots of readers do

6602:

with no sources are likely to be drafted if they still have no sources after an hour of existing, although if still being edited are usually left until they have not been touched for an hour (or more) after the last update. I'm not sure on your third point as you say you realise that articles should

6167:

It says that it's a copyvio in the decline notice so if already deleted when they go to look they will have a reason, so yet another template is a bit overkill. Rather than add another template the copyvio decline message maybe should say something like "some or all of your article may be deleted to

4789:

I wanted to post the template here to gather any feedback other reviewers might have regarding the template, and am hoping that it could be more widely adopted by AfC reviewers. Eventually I'd also like to see an option added to AFCH to leave the welcome message prior to a decline to soften the blow

4781:

In using this template over the past several months I've seen very good rates of engagement from recipients (far above what I usually get with welcome templates) and users have let me know that the resources have been helpful. I've started leaving the welcome message almost always prior to declining

4694:

around 3-4 months ago after noticing the lack of a welcome message suitable for users who have already gone through the process of creating a draft, but still may need help with getting it suitable for mainspace. I've been reviewing drafts at AfC for several years now and included links to resources

4630:

I wonder how much time this editor has taken up indirectly with all the posting here and so much more with all those notified/reading this thread? IMHO if you don't wont to engage with a submitter for whatever reason, just don't. Just leave it for someone who will/wants to review or let it fester in

4176:

If one of us wanted to do the paid editor a favor that they do not deserve, one of us could delete about half of the draft, the most blatantly promotional portions. Then the draft might be acceptable. The paid editor should do that themselves, or forget about it. We, the Knowledge community, have

3223:

Same. I don't think it's a good idea for the same reviewer to decline a draft multiple times, since that can lead to problems if that reviewer's standards are out of step with everyone else's, and also because it encourages submitters to keep hassling the same reviewer every time they resubmit their

1393:

Got any ideas for new terms? I can't think of anything better than decline and reject. Could change the two terms to "fix and resubmit" and "do not resubmit", but then those don't work well as nouns. "Your articles for creation submission has been tagged as 'do not resubmit'" is a bit of a mouthful.

1238:

This comes up semi-regularly but I've not yet seen a suggestion that gets more approval that the status-quo. "Referred for further work" along with similar suggestion is often criticised for suggesting that with further work it will get accepted which is often not true. Declined (or its replacement)

1060:

You know as well as I do that such a thing doesn't exist; the words are different, and have been used to mean different things by this WikiProject for six years now. The fact that one user has come up with (in my opinion) a short and simple way of remembering those differences does not mean they are

6987:

There are some cases where this philosophy works, but in a lot of situations it is better to be safe rather than sorry. I don't write anything in an article if a source doesn't back it up - if it's not verifiable, it doesn't belong on wikipedia, that's just how the site works and how a whole lot of

6949:

The social context matters. For example, anyone who has used confirmat screws must know some basic facts about them, and I can't imagine very many people would make up stories about confirmat screws anyway, and any misinformation about a screw isn't exactly slander, and will probably get fixed soon

6884:

from 2004 is a terrible argument. That was 20 years ago from the very wild-west beginnings of Knowledge and also it was not actually unsourced it had one reference and 12 external links. Yes some editors are experts in an area and can write from knowledge, but there are way more who think they know

6699:

Citing sources is much harder. I just find it slower; new editors often find it difficult. If experienced editors add sources to the new editor's text, or tag it with {{cn}}, then the new editor has made a useful contribution and will probably stick around. Knowledge also has useful new content. If

6027:

We appear to have to stabilised on the number of outstanding, but the more important metric of oldest is down to 2 months. That is amazing on it's own as in the last 9+ years of doing this I don't remember it happening out of an official backlog drive. If we can get down to < 2 months that truly

5352:

Looking back at the discussion in June, the issue was the links to Google and Bing. Google is used in both the Editor resources and Review tools sections but Bing is only used for Reviewer tools. Removing Google from Editor resources helped a little but because the links are also used in Reviewer

4254:

My point is that other editors are likely to feel differently and they will have their own principles that I assume could be argued to be just as valid, e.g. we're here to improve the encyclopedia and blocking a submission on principle prevents others from doing the work to that end and so blocking

4205:

I have done it with unsourced biographies, and I'm pretty sure we could do it here (haven't had a chance to really look at the draft) but if there are large swathes of unsourced or overly promotional material, but the rest of it is sourced, neutral, and demonstrates notability, then just remove the

3322:

I'm going to make a guess. My guess is that you may have moved a draft to mainspace when you thought it ought to be there. That is a good thing, even if you were in good faith error. The request (I hope it was a request) was potentially "When you do this, please tidy the AFC artefacts from the head

2324:

in it, and that targets different pages depending who is looking at the link. For example, when I clicked it, it went to *my* userspace and tried to bring up a page there, which is surely not what you wanted. Feel free to revert my edit if you feel you need to, but I believe this change will allow

2213:

Note to reviewers that, since these are translations from other languages, earwig is useless on these articles if you run it in English. Make sure you run it in the language of the original page. The editors always attribute their translations correctly in edit summaries, so it's easy to find which

2068:

Oh, to be clear, I agree with your above comment. Myself, I'd quickly skim the whole list of sources for reliability rather than spot-checking a subset, but I'd skip over the ones that weren't obviously one way or the other unless I found that was an alarming % of the total. In the end I think that

2034:

Every so often I poke away at a userspace essay about how to get through AfC quickly, and "Article is just really heckin' long" is indeed one of the "Common reasons for delay" I list. I think it's worth letting submitting editors know that longer isn't better, but I think setting a hard limit would

1569:

is this confusion dealt with? If someone comes to TEA with a declined draft and they say "my draft was rejected, help!" do they still receive help, or is the knee-jerk reply from the first helper "your draft was rejected you can't do anything about that"? Like... if someone says the wrong word, and

6652:

less than ten minutes after the draft was created and while it was still being actively edited). But I understood it to mean "I think something is seriously wrong with your article (like an editor COI), and you shouldn't edit it without independent review before it goes in the mainspace". It tells

6532:

tagged it for AFC, three minutes after I had last edited it, so I left it for a while. I've now edited it a bit more, as it was going to expire, but I'm still unsure about what I ought to do next. Am I required to go through the AfC process before moving it into the mainspace? It's not quite ready

5900:

It's at the level that the declines from the older reviews getting resubmitted starts pushing up the daily submits making clearing harder. Also having a smaller !queue encourages some to submit more. It happens in the backlog drives, but then we push through, which is more difficult with a stealth

3329:

AFC welcomes experienced editors finding wheat in the chaff and handling it well, with or without the toolset. The only extra things the toolset gives you when you accept a draft are pleasant "Your draft has been accepted" notes on the submitting editor's talk page, and that it does the tidying up

2951:

as you are an experienced editor and article creator do remember AfC is not mandatory for you (unless you've been paid to work on the article, etc.) So if you think your changes are enough for notability then you could move to main-space yourself (and remove the AfC templates etc). The reviewer or

1995:

the entire draft. For a draft with 140 references, I would probably spot-check maybe 15-20 of them (10%) to see if they're reliable. If they are, then I would check to make sure everything is reasonably supported. If things are more or less supported by more or less all of the references, the page

1305:

I don't think there's too much wrong with the terminology. Yes, it may be that it's no immediately obvious to a newbie, but then neither is the difference between 'page' and 'article', or that between AfC and AfD, or any number of terms of the trade. Until the meaning is explained to you, and then

4911:

I like the template also and will prefer that it'd be navigated easily through the AFC accept and decline buttons just as the TeaHouse invitation check box, which can be auto-unchecked if it already exist. It's good especially when we usually have new unwelcomed users submit drafts daily. Cheers!

4074:

Agree. We cannot accept an overly promotional draft just because it has been declined too many times before. Especially if that draft was composed by a paid editor. Paid editors capable enough to create high-quality articles exist but who ever wrote that draft isn't one of them. I don't feel that

3003:

The problem we've got with AfC is that it's being used in a way it wasn't designed for. Instead of being a place used to improve drafts so they eventually become articles, it has become a place for conflict of interest submissions. Most AfC submitters just want to get their stuff through; most of

2932:

That largely depends, some reviewers try never to do multiple reviews end on end, others do. I do if it's obvious fail (for example: no sources resubmitted still with no sources). Otherwise it depends on the the case, and I would always say first talk to the reviewer in question. If a article was

2763:

for help with source analysis. If we want to make a big push to have folks get source analyses before writing drafts, we should probably put it in our messaging somewhere such as in editnotices and templates. Although in the long run that may be more inefficient/complicated than just submitting a

2716:

For an experienced editor it may be easy enough to look at a lengthy article with lots of sources, pick the bits that establish notability, skip the rest, and still weave it into a coherent draft. But we're seldom dealing with experienced editors, for obvious reasons. Many new editors, meanwhile,

1650:

Andy, look at what I am saying: it's still not bad advising a rejected draft, it can help the editor and may not for the draft anymore. However, Teahouse is to help editors right? It serves as a general help guide to the editors to know what -and-what to do to the drat and subsequent articles. If

6000:

I also care not for the number but I do for the !queue length and in reality they heavily linked. When you accept one that has been waiting several months and then see the submitter disengaged and did no more editing it's easy to see the long queue length is anti editor retention. Which is why I

7132:

If I recall, I was under the impression that "articles for creation" was the process assisting with creating articles in draftspace, and that the template simply gave information on drafts and added shortcuts. I had in my mind that all drafts should have had that template. I guess thought this

5310:

indicating that the rate limit is still showing as an issue for folks trying to submit. Does anyone know if we've made nay progress on fixing that? It looks like the proposed fix was denied (I'll hold off on my thoughts about that...), and I'm not sure if anything better has been thought of to

3026:

thing to do. But who knows that? In my perception, COI submitters who go the fast route – and seek to avoid learning how Knowledge works – will never know. Due to the system's submission incentivisation – not submitting a draft is equal to a 100 per cent chance at the draft not being accepted,

976:

greater distinction between rejection and declination, where the former is a hard "you done fucked up" and the latter is more of a polite thing. Of course, this comes as a native English speaker; anecdotally most of the confusion seems to come from ESL speakers (and even more anecdotally, from

1954:

I agree it would be better we did not get extremely long submissions aimed more about showing notability, but I don't like the limitation to be "one paragraph (80 words maximum)". I would prefer drafts to be up to Start-class rather than Stub-class, I like to see articles 200-1000 words long.

1588:

They get helpful advice, of course. First to clear up the confusion caused by the terminology, and then, to address the reason for the draft not being published. The former, in addition to being an unnecessary cognitive load on the new editors, is an unnecessary burden on Teahouse volunteers.

1497:

Separately, I suggest unchecking Teahouse for editors whose drafts have been reviewed and declined/rejected. What they always ask is about their draft's review and ways to improve it. Both AFC helpdesk and Teahouse should re-examine the draft and corresponding decline or reject messages when

6707:

The rule is, indeed, that the burden of verifiability is on the person who thinks the content should be in the encyclopedia. This is a way of resolving disputes. If someone says that a statement I've added or restored is unverifiable, or removes it as unverifiable, I mayn't just say "Is too

3021:

citing sources doesn't yield a Knowledge-compliant result. Adding sources to such a draft as an "afterthought" isn't going to work, at least that's what I reckon. There is a very high chance that the sources won't support the article as they ought to, thus, the draft is having a hard time

4344:

This one, however, is one where they are taking no real notice of advice. I have no interest in helping them to get paid. I have no longer any interest in assisting this editor, either. If others want her to be able to present her invoice and be paid for it, that is on their conscience.

1651:

someone says "my draft was rejected (though it was declined)", won't you help? If another says "my draft was rejected (though it was rejected)", won't you also help? At this point, I think it is not due for change because it serves as a general term out here: decline equals to reject.

4575:

and based on the DRV, we're probably about to have a long slog with her autobiography. That's what kicked it all up again after a summer hiatus. Happy to help paid editors in general, but not this paid editor. I did so for several months and it got us nowhere but legal threats and

3389:

In general moving AfC drafts to mainspace directly is a bad idea since the vast majority of people who do this are doing so disruptively, so it's reasonably likely someone will assume the same of you. In your case, better imo to avoid AfC entirely, and simply let NPP handle it, as

4482:

The editor is following the rules. They seem to follow them without following through completely and doing 100% of what is suggested (they are free to do so), but the re-askng what they should do. I have an abundance of good faith, but am no longer deploying it actively in their

4220:

We don't have to do it here; it can be done in mainspace by editors that are more generous or have more time for this sort of thing than us. If you don't believe it will be improved, try it sometime, accept something marginal and keep it on your watchlist; you may be surprised.

5176:), specifically implementing the suggestions about making it clearer where to ask questions and linking to the simplified MOS. This version also has a named parameter for the linked article to conform to other welcome templates (hopefully making Twinkle implementation easier). 6210:

I wanted to bring attention to the two top redirect requests that have been stuck at the top of that page for more than a week now, while other topics have already been archived several times. If someone else could quickly re-look over it, that would be great. Cheers :-).

3916:

The org is likely notable, but this is not helped by the paid editor who is failing to heed advice. I'm not interested in helping them get paid. I see them as a promotion only account, but do not feel able to report them as such since I have been trying hard to help them,

7137:, automatically put up that template on some newly created draftspace articles. I assumed that the draft article created by OP did not have it because the bot had made an error, and so I put one in myself. If that was a mistake on my part, then I take responsibility. ( 6307:

is for. The easiest thing to do in this situation may be to move the existing redirect to another title without leaving a redirect, which would then allow you to accept and move the draft to the old title. I can do that for you here if you'd like, or you could make a

1517:

confusion in the first place. I understand where Andy's coming from, but unless someone can come up with a more clear (but still as succinct) way of separating this "decline/reject" issue I think TEA helpers will just have to include the explanation in their answer.

149: 4415:

If I wasn't Involved I'd have blocked her months ago. Gold stars to you Paid is fine but she's literally only here to promote herself and her fellow film workers. She is not here to improve the project and we're not missing anything without her walled garden.

3238:

I'll third that; I personally do not re-review drafts, with the only exceptions really being when something hits the back of the queue twice and I'm the only one that seems to want to deal with it (and I think that's only happened a few times over the years).

5981:

number we're holding steady at, as long as we're holding steady. Psychologically (and somewhat anecdotally) we seem to do better keeping "on top of things" when the queue is 1-2k deep, probably because we see it as "a backlog" but not so much of one that

3297:

We need to have the courage to risk being wrong, to accept borderline drafts, and to allow the community to look at such a draft and make their decision. I'm always disappointed when I have been shown to be wrong, but take that disappointment cheerfully.

3135:

I do think that "conflict of interest submissions" are kinda the entire point of AfC being there; we encourage people to go through AfC if they have a conflict with the subject matter to make sure it's neutral. I will still reject blatant advertisements.

2754:

I think both this and the above section are too complicated and too much a departure from our normal workflows. Our normal workflows are to either just write a draft and submit it and get a notability review that way, or to post a list of sources at the

4989:

Maybe take out the manual of style link to reduce information overload, or replace it with a link to MoS/Layout, which might be more immediately useful to a new user (to know what the bones and structure of a Knowledge article is supposed to look like)

6748:, honestly, I don't think anyone should be adding AfC templates to drafts that are not theirs, unless they've moved them to draftspace themselves as part of page patrolling (as happened to your stub article yesterday - that one I would say is fine). @ 3353:. Whoever warned you in the past was probably mistaken. Since you are autopatrolled though, if you are not confident that what you're moving is a notability pass, you should probably un-autopatrol it after the move to get a second set of eyes on it. – 4432:

If she is following the rules, it doesn't really matter what her motivations are; if we have neutral articles on subjects that we did not have before, the project is improved (not every editor has to contribute more than one or two articles to WP).

4235:

This is true, of course. But on a point of principle, I don't think a paid editor should rely on the community to get their draft/article up to an acceptable state, not 'mainspace editors' any more than AfC reviewers. I for one don't mind providing

2555:, especially if the original is long, consider translating the minimum necessary to pass Afc. A shorter draft has a much higher chance of being reviewed quickly, possibly within 24-48 hours. A typical minimum is three solid references to establish 4548:

Please keep in mind that regardless of advice or even telling them what to do, some of the AfC authors you'll encounter will be unable to follow the advice for whatever reason. I don't know how much it helps to try to figure out why in each case.

2614:

If the main concern is that AfC reviews of long articles is daunting, wouldn't a better solution be to only require from AfC reviewers to check overall notability? I think it would be easier to change the review criteria than what gets submitted

3287:

With regard to being unsure on the notability front, our standing instructions are to accept any draft which we believe has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. That means we are entitled to be unsure, but only

4075:

it's right to waste reviewers' time by writing advertisements disguised as Knowledge articles. Declinging – or even gelevening them – is reasonable. The paid editor must do the work, and if he is unable to do so, the former applies. Best, --

3587:. I believe it is likely to be a comment that was copy/pasted into an external processor, formatted by said processor, and then copied back to Knowledge. If not, I have no idea what it is or why it is there, but the weird formatting on the 4474:

My view is different from yours. I think it's a case of an apparent willingness to take help and advice, but a selective ear for the advice. See my own talk page, the culmination of substantial well delivered, correct advice comes down to

4971:

many general questions at the HD (although we do get some occasionally), but I often see questions at the Teahouse which (I think) would be better asked at the HD. And perhaps also make in this context the point that they should ask at

6938:

have knowledge of subjects they read about, and many start with Knowledge and then learn about a topic in detail, coming back to fix any errors. Unsourced content was and is really valuable as a starting point for sourced content. Even

4362:

Tim, frankly, I reckon that this is dragging you down. I hope you won't perceive this as insolent, but let me give you advice: stop wrapping your head around it. Fellow reviewers have taken sufficient note of the matter. All the best,

4307:

willing to improve promotional drafts may still do so at AfC; drafts can easily be found through the search function. Nobody is prevented from improving promotional drafts by a reviewer not accpeting such drafts, i.e., I disagree with

2805:

The one I can immediately see is that many of the OKA drafts are getting tagged with various maintenance tags by AfC reviewers and NPPers, and if they get accepted through AfC in an abbreviated form, they'll miss that second look. --

3131:

I am more than willing to reject it multiple times if it's blatantly non-notable or deficient. If it's something I personally believe but not super obvious I will usually just leave a resubmit that I don't think passes to a second

6934:

I entirely support the idea that sources make articles better, but there is excellent unsourced content on the wiki, even today (Dog was an example of historical practice; I showed the diff in which it gained its first citation).

6042:

What is depressing is the oldest ones which have not had a first review. A good proportion of these are easy acceptances. A further proportion are just the right side of the border. We need never be shy of dipping into the oldest.

6001:

think AfC should have a max hold time then automatically moved to main-space for NPP... but I know that will never happen. We are here to protect the main project from junk and promotion, but we also demotivate good contributors.

7161:, articles for creation is an optional process for almost everyone, so most draft articles don't need the template. The bot handles most of the drafts that do need it, so there's rarely any reason to add the template manually. -- 7087:

I created Draft:Confirmat screw from my own knowledge, and posted it (and then went looking for sources). There is research to show that new editors also often add content from their own knowedge. Typing up your own knowledge is

6489: 7221: 2530:

I'd like to brainstorm some suggested verbiage to add to translator instructions and would like to hear from Afc reviewers and other interested parties about this. (Note that for OKA translators there is already a section,

1212:

Find an alternate phrase instead of "Declined"; one which actually relates to what is being done - maybe "Referred for further work". I'm not precious about the exact phrase, nor clear whether a single-word verb is needed.

6712:. I have to either add a cite or admit it's unverifiable and leave it out of Knowledge. But, on the other hand, I also may not challenge the verifiability of things I think are verifiable, even if they aren't sourced yet. 5752:(and others). We have had people burn out before, some just disappear, others take a break: so it's important to recognise when to slow down before you burn out.. although I understand the draw of just one more review.... 4631:

the !queue for months. There are plenty of good submissions from good-faith submitters that are awaiting review. This thread has given this submitter so much attention and thus taken it away from those patiently waiting.

6533:

yet, but getting there (contribs very welcome). I've been editing for about two decades, though I don't think I've ever actually used AfC before. Should I avoid using the draftspace in the future, to avoid clogging AfC?

4206:

offending content and accept. Honestly I don't give a rats arse whether someone is getting paid for their edits as long as we can get a reasonable article out of it and they're following our other rules like disclosure.

2396:

I find this whole discussion befuddling. I have, at times, created really long drafts in the process of making a draft thorough and fully fleshed out before moving it to mainspace. I can't be the only one who does that.

971:

We've been using this wording since rejection was brought in to use in 2018. Yes, there is sometimes confusion about the terms, but it is easy enough to clarify as you just indicated above. Personally speaking, I find a

6700:

the new content just disappears, the new editor will be discouraged and go away. It doesn't matter if it was reversibly reverted or draftified; new editors won't know, they often don't realize they have a userpage. See

6544:

was challenging the verifiability of some or all of the article text, or challenging the notability of the topic, or both. I'm not saying my uncited stub was brilliant, but I'm not sure it makes sense to add it to AfC.

2319:

because no editor should change the comment of another, but I think it is justified in this case because I believe it represents your original intent. The problem with the link you posted, is that you included the term

2173:

PS: Open Knowledge Network, that's the 'foundation' I mentioned. (See the talk page of the author of the Tulunid Emirate draft, linked to by KylieTastic, above.) Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what this is? --

1158:

There is no confusion on my part, and no assumptions. I fully understand the process; having both submitted articles via AfC and reviewed and rejected and published others' submissions. The confusion is experienced -

6598:, short answer no, you don't have to use AfC (in most cases). Sometimes people tag drafts so people can submit to AfC because they don't notice it's an experienced user just using draft to draft. New articles like 4451:(as directed, no issue there), there's at least one oppose, and she implements the merger anyway. I think she's poking the edges to see what we'll notice and what she can get away with. To me that's not good faith 2205:

In short, it's a person who has dedicated quite a bit of his time and also money to improving cross-wiki coverage. A rare example of paid editors without COI. They've now created their own wikiproject, which is at

2049:

Oh, don't get me wrong, a huge draft is a daunting task (and I will admit I have skipped pages like that before) but ideally speaking we should be operating a workflow that allows for reviewing long drafts without

3952:

We could just accept it and tag it for all the stuff that's wrong with it, but I'm uncomfortable bout writing a paycheck by doing that. Call me selfish, if you like. I just dislike paid editors who do not learn.

5213:

and helping to grow the encyclopedia. We appreciate your contributions and hope you stick around. I can see you've already started writing draft articles, so here are a few more resources that might be helpful:

4732:

and helping to grow the encyclopedia! We appreciate your contributions and hope you stick around. I can see you've already started writing draft articles, so here are a few more resources that might be helpful:

2339:

That looks intentional as they mentioned the link won't work if user already has a sandbox, and gave alternative link. Looks like user can click it then create a sandbox in their userspace using the template.

1167:

was given. But thank you for confirming my point, that the distinction is internal to AfC. That, no doubt, is why it is often misunderstood by people new to it, and why less ambiguous phraseology will benefit

2952:

anyone else can disagree if they want and take to AfD. Another option to consider is if you move it but want a second opinion, un-patrol it (as you are autopatrolled) and let NPP have a pass at it. Regards

6869:

As the others have said it is not normal to add that tag and yes I can see that it would confuse people into thinking they must use AfC. If anyone is going to tag to help the draft move onto the next step

6603:

be verifiable, (i.e they require sources) but then say "citations are only required for WP:BLPs". The BLP policies require some things to have inline citations, but citations should always be included per

5952: 3022:

demonstrating how the sources indicate notability. The sources must be sought prior to draft creation. Therefore, rewriting large sections of the draft from scratch – not all of it but most of it – is the

2916:

Is it good practice for the same reviewer to review and fail an article repeatedly? Particularly when this goes from 'not enough sources' to sources being added and it then rejected as 'just not notable'.

2854:. However, as they are paid editors that must use AfC for new articles. So if this just get a minimal draft through AfC then expand was encouraged, the question would be is the intent of the AfC check on 6849:, in my opinion, should avoid the helper script and just move it yourself. The helper script is more for when you're acting as an uninvolved reviewer. It gives a draft an official AFC seal of approval. – 6695:

from my own knowledge, and posted it (and then went looking for sources). There is research to show that new editors also often add content from their own knowedge. Typing up your own knowledge is easy.

5747:

Your intuition is correct, they are leading the charge by far and although still processing impressive amounts of submissions they slowed down from the rate in July when they did 2182 reviews! Good work

3262:

TBH, I'm not convinced this one even does demonstrate notability, although I have a few other sources to check first. But the only good archive for this stuff is physical access only and a hundred miles

2858:

just for nobility or for the editing as a whole? Considering the strong opinions on both paid editing and AfC I can see there been strong views on both sides, so it would probably be best to bring up at

2518:

This is a great idea. It might be hard to establish this as general practice among disparate, independent new editors (we can always try), but among one subset of editors, this is eminently doable. The

7253: 3175:

I do not see the vast proportion of those I review as being COI or Paid. The vast majority are real editors wishing to get a draft accepted. Many make a good job of it and get through first time. 🇺🇦

4769:

if you are unsure about anything Wiki related. It's a place where experienced editors answer questions and assist newcomers in the editing process. In addition, please do not hesitate to reach out on

846: 7012:(as in, it must be possible with a reasonable amount of effort to find a source that backs it up). It doesn't have to be referenced (as in, have a little clicky number next to it), apart from in a 1825:

As to the substance of your restoration, I believe the resolution was that the project does not feel that any action needs to be taken, which is why discussion stopped and the thread was archived.

941:

I'd love to know which dictionary makes this distinction. Or does it just exist in the minds of AfC reviewers? If so, please pick better terms, as the confusion between the two phrases quoted is a

4923:

That's kind of what I was thinking, Safari. Either replace the current 'hook on' that invites the User to the Teahouse or an additional one. One step at a time, though. Thanks for creating it @

2588:

Feel free to comment, steal & modify mercilessly, or come up with your own wording. I think this could really reduce Afc's workload wrt OKA editors, while speeding throughput for them. Adding

6514: 1662:

I don't disagree with your former point; but the issue you discuss is not what I am talking about. Your last sentence, however, makes no sense, since AFC folk keep telling us that the two terms

818: 813: 88: 6752:, this was quite a while ago, so maybe you've stopped doing that, but if you haven't - please don't do this anymore. There's no obligation to use AfC and we shouldn't be implying that there is. 4690:

Hey folks - I'm looking to get some feedback on potentially introducing a new welcome template specifically tailored to AfC submitters who have already begun creating draft articles. I created

867: 839: 834: 6755:

I've resubmitted and accepted your article on the screw. My advice here is a weary "if you can't beat them...", I'm afraid: just make sure every stub you create has at least two footnotes. --

7008:

Unreferenced is not the same thing as unverifiable. The "way the site works" (and please remember that you're replying to somebody who has been here for 17 years) is that all content must be

3373:

It was probably someone moaning about not removing the AFC-related templates and tags. Probably worth mentioning but this sounds more like someone complained rather than leaving a nice note.

2527:, thereby reducing the load on Afc reviewers considerably for OKA translations, while simultaneously getting OKA drafts reviewed and released to mainspace faster, in many cases, much faster. 115: 3984:

It could be remedied. I have done about 20% of what is needed, but just don't feel like it. Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but I have had more than sufficient dialogue with this editor. 🇺🇦

6275: 4957:

Definitely a +1 from me, this is pretty much what I envisioned as well. If it'd be possible to slip the welcome message in before the draft accept/decline one is left, that would be best. ~

799: 794: 789: 784: 779: 774: 3257:

That's the sort of thing I'd see as a good general policy. I was wondering if there was anything concrete about it. This was not about any one specific draft, just something that came up.

6364:

The title is now available for you to accept the draft. The cascading deletion of redirects would be unnecessary; there's almost always an available title to move to that can serve as an

5580: 2821:

The only difference would be to recommend that OKA users create a draft translation of no more than a few sentences with impeccable sourcing clearly establishing notability, and submit it

5303: 5307: 97: 5597: 5353:

tools, the issue still remained. SD was hesitant to remove Google and Bing from Reviewer tools. I never use those search links. Do any other reviewers? Any harm in removing them?

2493: 6297: 6226:

That page uses an unusual archive bot that may have custom code. Said custom code may be getting confused by having AfC comments outside the collapse bottom template. Let's see if

2696:

it is my understanding that the proposed process is opt in. So if you are confident the "History of" requires a long submission, that's fine, you would be able to keep doing that.

2155:

version. This isn't a hypothetical problem, either: there are at least a couple of editors working on a stipend or similar for a foundation of some sort, who submit very long, and

2449:

The proposed process would be opt-in, designed to reduce burden of working with coi editors. I could go as far as to say that coi editors do not benefit from writing long drafts.

6449:

of the subject. I found and added a couple of scholarly sources which might hold up a notability claim, but I don't believe the draft demonstrated that the subject passed the

5800: 5327: 826: 529: 84: 1896:

to demonstrate notability before they start a full draft? Maybe it was discussed before I did not have the capacity to check the prior discussions, sorry. Please advise.

52: 6028:

would be impressive. NPP is also having a very solid push at the same time that makes this even more impressive as the two side often peak and trough anti to each other.

1262:

Is there ever a case where an article is "declined" without a prose comment suggesting or implying that further work should be done? If not, the objection seems spurious.

3664:. The redirect was only created in Oct 2022 presumable because typing "Draft categories" was to much, but none of the tools and templates where updated to deal with it. 2601: 860: 762: 758: 754: 750: 746: 742: 738: 734: 730: 726: 722: 718: 714: 710: 706: 702: 698: 694: 690: 686: 682: 678: 674: 670: 666: 662: 658: 654: 650: 646: 642: 638: 634: 630: 626: 622: 618: 614: 610: 606: 602: 598: 594: 590: 586: 582: 578: 574: 570: 6540:, and it was moved into the draftspace and listed for AFC before I'd finished. I got a (template?) notification on my talk page, which I found a bit confusing; I think 5485:

Looks to be working, over the last 12 hours 112 successful submits, 0 captcha and 1 rate limited. Worth reviewing again in a few days just to check but looks positive.

2982:

Since you are a highly experienced editor, may I suggest that there is sufficient notability for it to survive in main space, and that you move it there yourself? 🇺🇦

5335: 4388:

I have stopped, my friend. I was just stating clearly my position. It is in the hands of whoever wishes to handle it. I may not even watch the outcome (bet you I will

2372:, thank you, I've clarified. I've changed link to point to a page which doesn't exist; if sandbox exists, the preload template does nothing, which may be confusing. -- 566: 562: 558: 554: 550: 546: 542: 538: 534: 483: 6220: 3291:

I accepted the draft on that basis. I feel it has a way better than 50% chance of survival. If it is sent for deletion I will remain neutral and watch with interest.

1691:

I was referring to what outside folk will think about: decline equals reject. I don't seem to find what you said is the best to replace. Can I see it here? Thanks.

78: 6386:

discussion if necessary. Also, make sure to target all the related redirects to the new article when you accept it. Let me know if you have any other questions!

2724:

All that said, this OKA group may be an exception, so it could be worth running this by them, and if they're amenable, trying this out on a couple of drafts. --

42: 2629:

No; Afc procedures have evolved over a long period, and that is pretty much a non-starter, imho. As a corollary, though, consider for example, OKA translation

2214:

one they've been working from. I warned them about this a ways back and I don't think I've seen a single copyvio since, but it's always worth a quick check. --

6773: 6202: 6112:

4134 have been edited in the last week, 6691 in the last two weeks and 12559 in the last month.... so lots of potential incomming to re-fill up the backlog :/

5272:

If we think this is a good starting point I can go ahead and move it to the Template namespace and submit requests for AFCH/Twinkle integration. Thanks all!! ~

4312:". And even if others were prevented from doing the work, always keep in mind that someone is getting paid for that work, and it#s not the volunteers. Best, -- 853: 4507:

I wholeheartedly concur with you on this, we have expended so much time on this draft when we could have been helping more deserving volunteer contributions.

2926: 980:

As a minor point, coming in and insulting us straight off the bat is a really good way for us to get defensive; there are better ways to start a discussion.

233: 106: 7235: 7223: 6656:"Verifiable" does not quite mean "cites reliable sources"; it means "reliable sources that could be cited exist". A statement may be verifiable but uncited. 5679:

It had been the silent backlog drive till this post..... I was quite enjoying it even though I haven't had the time as I used to hit the rally big numbers.

4541: 4332: 4141: 4110: 4095: 3071: 7116:

not to do this again on their talk page. I think this is a good example of why AfC is optional. Perhaps we should do a better job of communicating that. –

5524: 3431: 2579:. Aim to get just the minimum needed (plus a bit of safety margin, go ahead and use *four* great citations), keep it short, and that should speed approval. 2532: 68: 5742: 6505:

pages or recently deleted articles wouldn't solve the problem, it seems like an intuitive reminder to exercise caution when making the redirect. Cheers.

6501:

A few times now, users have requested redirect articles be made, and then create the article at that title, bypassing AfC. While reminding reviewers of

5688: 3053:

Reviewing a single draft, if it's supposed to be done right, requires effort worth one hour, at least (ignoring drafts that are obviously unacceptable).

5674: 4410: 4383: 4357: 4160: 3047: 2611:(another risk is that some may perceive this as going around the COI policy which requires that all articles from paid editors be created through AfC). 5724: 4654:

it's awkward and that the tag is still needed. We shouldn't have given much attention to this, as to me and my thinking, it doesn't worth it. Cheers!

2559:, with inline citations to match. A single paragraph, or even two, well-researched, well-cited sentences may be enough. Even very short articles with 2183: 1839:

Not so; there are unanswered questions; and others here have acknowledged the issue, which persists and which is causing unnecessary work for editors

1486: 1457: 1437: 1409: 1367:

In the two days since I raised the matter here, I have seen at east three more editors, at the Teahouse or Help Desk, who are confused by this issue.

1315: 1143:

to thr sight of God and man, and it's given no option for resubmission except in rare cases of re-review. "Decline" means the draft fails to meet the

7175:

Just noting that the bot has specific rules for which pages to add it to, based on things like the age of the draft, user account, and other things.

5617:

We (some) are review are reviewing much more. A quick check says about 8380 in the last 30 days, for a long time AfC has run in the 5000-6000 range.

3368: 1722: 1697: 1686: 1657: 1643: 1508: 1192: 1153: 5761: 4595: 4502: 4462: 4442: 4427: 2872: 2200: 1298: 1248: 5135: 5019: 4904: 4215: 4200: 3471: 2942: 2747: 2135: 2121: 2107: 1306:

it's usually clear; it's called learning the ropes. Of the million things one needs to learn about Knowledge, I don't see this one as a biggie. --

6121: 3517: 3493: 3403: 2961: 1754: 1387: 965: 7170: 6475: 6422: 6408: 6359: 6334: 6266: 5972: 5946: 5848: 5826: 5640: 5626: 4516: 4184:

resubmitted. At about five or six resubmits, we often Reject a draft, and have been known to send drafts to MFD to reduce the waste of our time.

4010: 3996: 3979: 3965: 3947: 3600: 3382: 3122: 2842: 2800: 2779: 2733: 2568: 2523:

team of translators are organized, and if there is a consensus at Afc that this would be a good idea, something about this could be added to the

2297: 2245: 2223: 2168: 1863: 1834: 1816: 1802: 1777: 1609: 1583: 1560: 1233: 1207: 1113: 1099: 1070: 1055: 989: 6564:

My understanding is that topics are required to be notable, and statements are required to be verifiable, but policy is that citations are only

5932:

At this writing, we're now at 1,347. Will this figure reach three digits for the first time in how long? Tune in to this thread and find out. --

5733:. Such volumes can come at a price and may not be sustainable in the long run, but nevertheless due credit to Scribe for the massive effort! -- 5539: 4918: 4821:

Another wonderful idea - unfortunately I'm not entirely sure how the process for that works, likely we'd have to contact a Twinkle maintainer? ~

4794: 4677: 4660: 3310: 3275: 2994: 1527: 6911:, so good to know it already exists. It might be improved by explicitly listing the "move" option, and saying when you should use which option. 6245: 6194: 6177: 6055: 6037: 6010: 5995: 5927: 5910: 5812: 5708: 5390: 5347: 5005: 4984: 4874: 4724: 4640: 3145: 1986: 1968: 7184: 7152: 7027: 6830: 6812: 6789: 5794: 5612: 4975:, not that they post the same question in quick succession at both (and then the general help desk, and the reviewer's talk page, and...). -- 4961: 4890: 3248: 3233: 2901: 2815: 2685: 2487: 2078: 2063: 2044: 6864: 6107: 5868: 5494: 4936: 4294: 4280: 4249: 4069: 4046: 3932: 3764: 3727: 3547: 3531: 3475: 192: 6093: 5895: 5376: 5362: 5291: 5073: 5051: 4303:, accepting promotional drafts gives paid editors an incentive not to do their job right, which, in the long run, does damage to Knowledge. 3342: 3319:

I hope you weren't 'warned off' in such a manner as to leave a nasty taste in your mouth, though it sounds as though you can still taste it.

3187: 3098: 2979:

Having looked at the draft I believe this was an erroneous rejection. I am about to have a conversation with the reviewer to ffer guidance.

2667: 2385: 2363: 2349: 2334: 2263: 2027: 2005: 1949: 1928: 1026: 7211: 7003: 6982: 6902: 6739: 6631: 5782: 5037: 4950: 3894: 3707: 3673: 3577: 3218: 3170: 7081: 6764: 6079: 5853:

Yes it's when the form is opened, which typically occurs on clicking the submit buttons on AfC draft or declined templates, or the one on

5480: 4846: 4825: 4812: 2462: 2444: 2412: 261: 7103: 6953: 5404: 5250:

is where you can seek help from experienced editors. Questions about the draft creation and publishing process should be directed to the

5147: 5128: 5110: 5091: 5057: 4240:, but I won't do their work for them. (In this particular case even advice wasn't always well received, but that's a separate issue.) -- 2709: 2649: 2624: 2470: 1361: 400: 372: 23: 5835:

above. Not 100% sure at what point the opened event is triggered but I believe it's when you get click on the "submit draft" as part of

5466: 4558: 4230: 4032: 3782: 1909: 1035:

difference in dictionary definitions; I asked which dictionary made the distinction which I quoted. I note you have no source for that.

7127: 7054: 6368: 5836: 5428: 5320: 5061: 6588: 6227: 6161: 3644: 1890: 454: 5915:

Yup. Well, I have hit my brick wall for the day. I've being trying hard on the oldest, with a bit of leavening from the newest. 🇺🇦

4532: 4374: 4323: 4132: 4086: 4023:

We don't often delete articles for the flaws identified here. Why do we think it is justified that we decline it (three times now)? ~

3522:

Other than having the first sentence of the draft, does this do anything different than just browsing the AFC submission pages/cats?

3038: 6885:

facts that are wrong. No one apart from another person with knowledge of the subject can tell facts from misunderstandings, errors,

5395:

Be bold, Primefac! :) SD added back the Google links in Editor resources so I suppose you will need to remove them there as well.

5276: 7267: 5817:

Wow. I'm amazed by how much that captcha filter is saving us from being buried in nonsense. What's "opened" mean on that chart? --

4577: 3661: 3420:

is the AFC reviewers on average play it extra "safe" which means that many AFC reviewers have a tougher standard than NPP or AFD.

2911: 5262: 3460: 1959:

do tend to sit in the !queue longer probably due to length (16,915 words) and number of sources (140) and do clog up the process.

1934: 1104:

That's mostly because I wasn't trying; that is not how you phrased your initial post and not what you appeared to be looking for.

1621:"'decline' is a more suitable term for not accepting a submission, whereas 'reject' comes across as more absolute and dismissive" 2827:

as they would be the ones to benefit from it and AFC reviewers probably wouldn't need to be directly involved in the change :) –

7067:

policy, uncited material naturally (and if I'm not mistaken, officially) goes against its very strict expectations/criteria. --

5448: 3622: 6553:, which was entirely appropriate at the time. If an editor who doubted the notability checked, and then either tagged it with 5445: 4471:

My recollection is that the merge was reverted prior to my opinion here to oppose, but my memory is hazy. Yours may be better.

3635:

detects when the article is moved to mainspace and does the right thing so as far as readers are concerned there's no issue. ~

1880: 6886: 5508: 2312: 2126:

Great essay. When it's ready, this should be required reading for anyone about to embark on drafting their first article. --

1886: 3755:

isn't doing that. I don't know if that can be fixed. Even if it can, deleting the redirect seems to be an easier solution. ~

3266:

I wasn't going to move it to mainspace because I don't have the AfC tools and was previously warned off doing one manually.

6136:

If I decline a draft as a copyvio and tick the CSD box it does not seem to notify the creating editor of thge copyvio/CSD.

5240: 5025: 4263:

but that's a judgement call and the way we make that call is to ask ourselves, "Is this something that would be deleted at

167: 6880:

is more appropriate as it gives both routes. As for the other point it is just a terrible idea not to give sources. Using

6579:

It's not that I don't appreciate review, but I seem to be adding to the AfC backlog, and I don't want to waste your time.

5443: 3284:, that it ought to be framed as good advice for which there may be exceptions. Making it a rule would be too prescriptive. 6573: 2567:

are rarely deleted at Afd. Once released to mainspace, you can continue working on it at your leisure. Further tips: see

1859: 1798: 1750: 1718: 1682: 1639: 1605: 1556: 1482: 1433: 1383: 1294: 1229: 1188: 1095: 1051: 961: 284: 6691:

We could of course change policy to make sourcing mandatory. I don't think that would be a good idea, though. I created

6343:. Would I first need to nominate that redirect for speedy deletion, or is that something you can do as part of the move? 1345: 5729:

I haven't looked at any numbers, but my gut feel says a lot of the credit for the recent boost in performance goes to @

5509: 4536: 4378: 4327: 4136: 4090: 3042: 2284:

in draft writing wizard, with a note 'for new editors, this will reduce your writing time by a factor of five or ten'.

6098:

I just checked and there are 47788 drafts (plus 201946 redirects) so only 2.6% of drafts are submitted at the moment.

4051: 3445:, an essay over at Meta opposing old WMF stuff that would've been done by the growth team nowadays. Examples included 7148: 6701: 5173: 5167: 4341:

eventually, after much shenanigans, and after not a small number of hostile posts from them. Even so I accepted that.

3865:

would also need to be updated in the removeFalsePositives() check to also detect these as it currently only supports

3565: 185: 2035:

be obnoxious to some editors and completely prohibitive to others (like the ones DoubleGrazing describes below). --

7076: 6303:

I don't personally think the deletion of redirects with history constitutes the "uncontroversial maintenance" that

5941: 5883:

1,350 seems to be a threshold that refuses to be broken. Every time it gets to 1,351 it races back up again. 🇺🇦

5575: 5417:. That way, it doesn't count as an external link and hence won't trigger captcha! Only Bing needs to be dropped. – 4685: 3584: 3104: 2896: 2482: 2421: 1349: 145: 48: 5551: 2524: 5210: 2425: 391: 142: 5056:

That is a mess! It looks like at some point the shortcuts used were deleted. And what's worse is according to

5235: 4754: 3862: 3798: 3770: 2630: 1442:

Is your proposal to change declined to "Referred for further work"? What do you propose changing rejected to? –

2433:(pls ignore the Afc draft header; that is strictly a test and nothing to do with Afc or when it gets released) 459: 6281: 5010:

I think it's probably more confusing to be directed to a specific part of the MOS than the main MOS page. --

4526: 4368: 4317: 4126: 4080: 3032: 3294:

I see "immediate" as being "in the next few days after acceptance without any significant intervening edits"

2672:

That reminds me, there is no way that I know of to filter new submissions by language of sources, is there?

1881:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:MyPage/sandbox?action=edit&preload=User:Gryllida/NewArticleBLPv1/preload

6525: 5381:

I also have never used them. I say we remove them right now and then see if anyone actually cares/notices.

4790:

new editors might get after their hard work is denied. Any feedback or suggestions are appreciated! Best, ~

490: 347: 269: 251: 178: 6253:, that is the issue, I talked about this with the botop back when I was active at AFCRC. It's intentional. 5693:

Is that like a silent disco? Sorry to make a noise. I was enjoying it too but it is worth shouting about!

5670: 4800:

I like the template. Can the eventual final template be added to the Twinkle Welcome list, please? 🇺🇦

3908: 2429: 930: 902: 6989: 6466: 6399: 6325: 5042:

That does not look good... it has over 10 links too "read more ..." on the actual MOS that are broken.

4590: 4457: 4422: 4117:

Maybe this is an evening versus night perception cultural difference. You'll find the 'gel evening' at

2705: 2681: 2663: 2458: 2381: 2293: 2241: 2023: 1982: 1945: 1924: 1905: 1198:

If you have an alternate suggestion, I'm all ears (and yes, this is a genuine statement, not sarcasm).

885: 395: 5603:

Are we reviewing much more than normal? Or are we just getting fewer new articles for some reason? --

4337:

I have tried to guide this paid editor, a paid editor who does shoddy work. I accepted their draft on

3536:

It's a more intuitive interface that can filter things and generally get to a draft to review faster.

2010:

Yes, yet long draft being written without understanding notability criteria leads to increased author

5951:

The last time we would have been at three digits was in the rebound a few days after it last reached

4196: 3879: 3869: 3835: 3805: 3791: 3736: 3692: 3654: 6714:

In this case I'm not even sure if the verifiability of any of my statements were challenged or not!

3161:. The point was to reduce the prevalence of junk in the article space, not just COI or PAID drafts. 2576: 6519: 4691: 4522: 4364: 4313: 4122: 4076: 3920:

Perhaps someone might take a look at the draft and make a decision. I no longer feel able to. 🇺🇦

3606: 3028: 2089: 247: 4448: 2535:

and that would be the natural place for any new suggestions about this.) Here's my first attempt:

2232:

They can translate a part to demonstrate notability, and after approval they can expand it later.

1915:(I am helping on irc, I have not been formally reviewing for a while, though did that previously) 7248: 6890: 6859: 6818: 6777: 6645: 6604: 6437: 6347: 6340: 6254: 6240: 5738: 5452: 5230: 5116: 5079: 5000: 4980: 4900: 4869: 4749: 4512: 4290: 4245: 4106: 4064: 4042: 4006: 3975: 3943: 3845: 3722: 3573: 3488: 3363: 3117: 3066: 3056:

as analyzing 100 sources for GNG is probably not a reasonable thing to expect a reviewer to do. –

2837: 2774: 2729: 2512:

They can translate a part to demonstrate notability, and after approval they can expand it later.

2179: 2164: 2131: 2102: 1855: 1794: 1765: 1746: 1714: 1678: 1635: 1601: 1552: 1478: 1452: 1429: 1404: 1379: 1311: 1290: 1225: 1184: 1091: 1047: 957: 6688: 2210:. They tend to target GA- and FA-level articles, which is why so many of them are absurdly long. 1163:

experienced, as I said - by the people to whom I referred; not least the individual to whom the

7037: 6908: 6874: 6649: 6615: 6554: 5666: 4856: 3271: 2922: 2823:. Ah, I misunderstood. Sure, that sounds fine. Although maybe that idea should be discussed on 1871: 1144: 6064:

Just for clarification, this number is just drafts submitted for review, not all drafts, yes?

5330:, the mean rate limit hits was 42 times for 173 successes, so clearly still a big issue. Ping 5254:

instead, where you can get assistance directly from reviewers. Don't hesitate to reach out on

296: 7138: 6998: 6898: 6846: 6692: 6627: 6599: 6550: 6537: 6456: 6389: 6315: 6173: 6140: 6117: 6103: 6033: 6006: 5968: 5960: 5906: 5844: 5808: 5757: 5684: 5622: 5490: 5372: 5343: 5297: 5047: 4636: 4585: 4468: 4452: 4417: 3890: 3669: 3614: 3543: 3513: 3456: 3427: 3350: 2957: 2938: 2868: 2760: 2311:

altered your OP above, in order to fix the link so it points to your preload file located at

2196: 1964: 1956: 1244: 1031:

You're welcome to quote the insult you imagine I made, but meanwhile, I didn't say there was

353: 56: 6374:, which is what I did in this case. There's some argument to be made that the disambiguator 5645:

I noticed this today too - exciting! Thanks to those who have put the effort in, especially

5258:

if you have any specific questions. Once again, welcome - I hope you enjoy your time here! ~

3938:

Won't be me, I don't want to get my head bitten off. Someone braver than me is needed... --

3801:(possibly others I'm not aware of?). AFCH would need to remove all the redirects as well as 2188:"a non-profit organization dedicated to improving Knowledge and other open platforms." See: 214: 7166: 7073: 7009: 6960:! I'll copy what they did! And I'll click on the tag and find out how to add a citation."). 6808: 6760: 6676: 6285: 6131: 6089: 5938: 5822: 5636: 5608: 5287: 5200: 5015: 4946: 4886: 4773:

if you have any specific questions. Once again, welcome! I hope you enjoy your time here.

4285:

I've given it a light trim if anyone wants to move it to main space with appropriate tags.

4192: 4054:

makes a good case that the last decline for being egregiously promotional was reasonable. –

3559: 3467: 3446: 3399: 3326:

I really hope it was along those lines, and hope, if it was me(!) it was as polite as that.

3229: 2893: 2851: 2811: 2743: 2564: 2556: 2479: 2219: 2117: 2074: 2040: 887: 60: 6952:

And making it easier for newcomers to productively contribute is really valuable, because

6609:

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material

5078:

I have fixed it. MOS: recently became a namespace, which broke all the MOS:#section links.

4852: 3742:

is to keep drafts unlisted in the category system until a draft is accepted. According to

1513:

Philosophically, probably not a big deal, but I believe the concern here is that there is

8: 7134: 7099: 7091: 7016:. That is all HLHJ is saying; the philosophy described above is just Knowledge policy. – 5720: 4665:

Thank you for resolving this. I disagree but will ignore the whole thing. Probably. 🇺🇦

3815: 3500: 288: 6576:

on this topic a while ago, because new editors are far more affected by this than I am.

1348:

the iconography on the reject talk page message to use the same more emphatic stop icon

1272:"A lot of the time submitters ask why a submission was "rejected" when it was declined" 7239: 7180: 6850: 6825: 6784: 6261: 6250: 6231: 6188: 6155: 6144: 6049: 5991: 5921: 5889: 5790: 5776: 5734: 5702: 5650: 5591: 5535: 5476: 5386: 5316: 5247: 5218: 5143: 5123: 5086: 4991: 4976: 4896: 4860: 4840: 4806: 4766: 4737: 4671: 4581: 4508: 4496: 4438: 4404: 4351: 4286: 4241: 4211: 4154: 4102: 4055: 4038: 4002: 3990: 3971: 3959: 3939: 3926: 3855: 3778: 3713: 3596: 3569: 3527: 3479: 3391: 3378: 3354: 3336: 3304: 3244: 3212: 3181: 3166: 3108: 3092: 3057: 2988: 2880: 2860: 2847: 2828: 2824: 2796: 2786: 2765: 2756: 2725: 2701: 2677: 2659: 2645: 2636: 2597: 2454: 2440: 2377: 2359: 2345: 2330: 2289: 2271: 2259: 2237: 2175: 2160: 2127: 2093: 2059: 2019: 2001: 1978: 1941: 1920: 1901: 1846: 1830: 1812: 1785: 1773: 1737: 1705: 1669: 1626: 1592: 1579: 1543: 1523: 1499: 1469: 1443: 1420: 1395: 1370: 1307: 1281: 1216: 1203: 1175: 1136: 1109: 1082: 1066: 1038: 1022: 985: 948: 240: 206: 2069:

works out to the same result: draft is accepted, maybe with some maintenance tags. --

937:"Rejected means stop, don't go on. Declined means it might be accepted with revision." 7122: 7049: 7022: 5749: 5730: 5646: 5520: 4914: 4656: 4564: 3909: 3825: 3749: 3682: 3629: 3498:

Ah, the problem was me attempting to make it "JS Feed" due to the page requiring JS.

3330:

for you, plus giving you prompts in its user interface for categories, etc etc. 🇺🇦

3316: 3281: 3267: 3154: 3141: 3014: 2969: 2948: 2918: 1693: 1653: 1504: 1149: 995: 6524:

I don't usually use the draftspace, but some months ago I started an article there,

3442: 1760:

Please make sure when you restore discussions from the archive that you remove them

7192: 7158: 7141: 7113: 7013: 6993: 6894: 6749: 6637: 6623: 6529: 6510: 6446: 6216: 6169: 6113: 6099: 6074: 6029: 6002: 5964: 5956: 5902: 5864: 5854: 5840: 5804: 5753: 5680: 5654: 5618: 5486: 5462: 5424: 5368: 5339: 5255: 5043: 4770: 4632: 4572: 4255:

is not furthering the cause of improving the encyclopedia. This is certainly not a

3886: 3743: 3665: 3158: 2973: 2953: 2934: 2864: 2407: 2192: 1960: 1240: 273: 6942:

content is useful, because it tells us we need correct content on that topic, and

6675:

Historically, creating uncited articles has been both common and widely-accepted (

5986:

fixing, but yet isn't so low that folk think they don't need to help out as much.

4310:

blocking a submission on principle prevents others from doing the work to that end

919: 7162: 7068: 6804: 6769: 6756: 6490: 6432: 6418: 6355: 6293: 6203: 6085: 5933: 5818: 5632: 5604: 5400: 5358: 5283: 5251: 5224: 5106: 5069: 5033: 5011: 4942: 4932: 4882: 4743: 4188: 3436: 3395: 3225: 2888: 2807: 2739: 2620: 2572: 2560: 2474: 2215: 2207: 2113: 2070: 2036: 1268:

Isn't that the job of the prose component? The word "Declined" does not say that.

4398:

Insolent? Not at all. Helful and showing empathy is what it is. Thank you. 🇺🇦

3660:

but not the redirect. Also the redirect version does not stop them appearing in

3151:"conflict of interest submissions" are kinda the entire point of AfC being there 7207: 7095: 6978: 6735: 6584: 6541: 6502: 6494: 6309: 5716: 5662: 4722:, and I've been editing here for a while. I wanted to thank you for submitting 4554: 4276: 4260: 4226: 4028: 3760: 3703: 3640: 3537: 3507: 3450: 2308: 1357: 1266:"Declined (or its replacement) has to say that it may or may not be acceptable" 1140: 945:

cause of confusion among new editors commenting at The Teahouse and Help Desk.

881: 7261: 7176: 7064: 6820: 6796: 6779: 6569: 6558: 6450: 6256: 6183: 6150: 6044: 5987: 5916: 5884: 5786: 5697: 5586: 5570: 5531: 5472: 5382: 5336:

MediaWiki_talk:Captcha-addurl-whitelist#Protected_edit_request_on_8_June_2024

5312: 5205: 5139: 5118: 5098: 5081: 4835: 4801: 4759: 4729: 4666: 4568: 4491: 4487: 4434: 4399: 4346: 4264: 4256: 4207: 4149: 4118: 3985: 3954: 3921: 3774: 3592: 3523: 3374: 3331: 3299: 3240: 3207: 3176: 3162: 3087: 3086:. Rejection reverted. I'll leave the rest of this discussion to others. 🇺🇦 2983: 2855: 2792: 2738:

I suspect this will confuse even the OKA editors more than it helps them. --

2697: 2673: 2655: 2641: 2593: 2552: 2520: 2499: 2450: 2436: 2373: 2369: 2355: 2341: 2326: 2316: 2304: 2285: 2275: 2255: 2233: 2055: 2015: 1997: 1991:

Just noting that even if a page is really long, we don't need to necessarily

1974: 1937: 1916: 1897: 1826: 1808: 1769: 1575: 1519: 1199: 1128: 1105: 1062: 1018: 981: 505: 4180:

It is justified for us to decline a draft three or six times if it is being

2721:

of notability, let alone objectively evaluate sources from that perspective.

2278:, I'm not proposing to set a hard limit, only make my linked template above 1464:"maybe 'Referred for further work'. I'm not precious about the exact phrase" 1002:

decline often implies courteous refusal especially of offers or invitations.

7117: 7044: 7017: 6709: 6442: 6383: 6304: 4646: 4181: 3195: 3137: 2654:

Shortening could help a lot. I'd just computer-translate a foreign source.

2551:

When preparing a draft translated from another Knowledge for submission to

2543:

Mathglot's trial #1: suggested translator instructions for rapid Afc review

2250:

Actually, I think this is a great suggestion; I've expanded on this in the

1933:(If the link does not work for you because you already have a sandbox, try 7236:

Knowledge:Village pump (idea lab) § Fix Draftification with a new template

7224:

Knowledge:Village pump (idea lab) § Fix Draftification with a new template

6640:! Should I use the Articles for Creation helper script? Or just Tools: --> 2575:, and avoid the pitfalls listed in Afc reviewer instructions steps 1–3 at 1135:

is too strong a word, although your defensive response is understandable.

6546: 6506: 6212: 6065: 5858: 5658: 5456: 5418: 5331: 5273: 5259: 4958: 4924: 4831: 4822: 4791: 4719: 4338: 4191:, and would have either declined or rejected it if I were the reviewer. 3970:

I have selfishly declined on the grounds that it is overtly promotional.

2417: 2398: 2251: 2159:

heavily referenced, translations from de./ru./fr.wikis (from memory). --

6572:, unless an editor challenges the verifiability/notability. I drafted a 6346:

Or am I making things too complicated? I could just request deletion of

3224:

draft. I do accept drafts I've previously declined reasonably often. --

1278:

reiterates my point - to most people, the two words are close synonyms.

473: 6428: 6414: 6351: 6289: 5396: 5354: 5102: 5065: 5029: 4928: 4786: 4695:

which I've found have been most helpful to submitters from experience.

2693: 2616: 2589: 1260:"criticised for suggesting that with further work it will get accepted" 6803:

need to use AfC, so adding the template there makes perfect sense. --

6799:, this is just for non-confirmed editors though, right? Those editors 5977:

I believe I am in the minority here, but honestly I don't really care

5451:, no external link additions (except toolforge/wmflabs) were recorded 5414: 4187:

In case it isn't obvious, I concur with the declines for being overly

3797:

either need to be removed, updated by a bot, or supported by AFCH and

1973:"200-300" then? They need to not get carried away to write full page. 447: 7203: 6974: 6745: 6731: 6595: 6580: 5060:

it is also being used in the Growth Help panel. The other option is

4550: 4272: 4222: 4101:

A 'gel evening' sounds fun, where can I find one of these parties? --

4024: 3756: 3699: 3636: 1353: 6431:: No problem! I have a bit of feedback for you on this article (and 5955:. What will be first a 3-digit backlog or clearing the monthlies... 426: 5556: 1329: 883: 232:

If you want to ask a question about your draft submission, use the

6453:

when it was accepted. Just things to keep in mind for the future.

6276:

G6 / Db-afc-move deletion of a redirect that used to be an article

5455:, so unconfirmed users should no longer need to enter captchas. – 5308:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submission wizard

2887:--but that's besides the point of this site's ultimate mission. -- 2325:

other users to see the preload page you intended to link. Cheers,

1007:

reject implies a peremptory refusal by sending away or discarding.

5581:

We are about to break through the 1,400 drafts barrier, DOWNWARDS

4447:

That's the issue, I don't think she is. She proposes a merger at

324: 6889:

and lies which IMHO make any unsourced content of little value.

3625:

to have been removed by the script when I accepted the article.

3349:

You can move whatever you want from draftspace to mainspace per

914: 5545: 4941:

Yes, also seconding the replace the Teahouse template idea. --

2884: 2608:

they were submitted as stub, as they would be unjustified fork.

277: 5781:

Probably a bit more reviewing, just going through for example

5530:

Not sure what you mean, it's pretty darn close to "not ever".

1336: 888: 6648:. It seems it is being added to every draft (it was added to 6435:, who reviewed it): none of the sources, except possibly the 6350:(which has no significant history) and move the draft there. 1256:

I'm not surprised. As I say, the confusion occurs frequently.

6943: 4037:

I declined it because it was over promotional paid editing.

1574:

they used the wrong word, do they still try to give advice?

6679:

did it all the time), and it is still permitted by policy.

5191: 4710: 384: 366: 5172:

I got around to making a revised version of the template (

4782:

with AFCH in hopes that submitters don't get discouraged.

1623:- to most people it does not, as I again addressed above. 923:

AFC unreviewed article statistics as of September 23, 2024

268:

In addition to this page, you can give feedback about the

6881: 6680: 6182:

That extra verbiage makes sense. I knew it was me! 🇺🇦

5785:

it looks like about the same number of pages every day.

5585:

This is by ordinary reviewing, not a backlog drive 🇺🇦

4395:

I don't let things here drag me down, nor should anyone.

2850:(WikiProject Okanagan) would be confused ;) it would be 2469:

As a supplement to this discussion, allow me to suggest

1352:. This should help especially if this is an ESL issue. ~ 6528:, because the topic and sourcing looked a bit complex. 4851:

When you're ready to have it added to Twinkle, you can

935:

At the Teahouse, a colleague recently gave the advice:

239:

For questions on how to use or edit Knowledge, use the

6774:

Knowledge:Bots/Requests for approval/Qwerfjkl (bot) 15

6683:, the standard example article, had no cites for over 5831:

The high capture rate was caused by another issue see

5413:

I missed that Google exists on the interwiki map, eg.

4571:

but the merge was not one to proceed with unopposed. @

3732:

Patching AFCH won't fix the redirect. The intent with

2435:. Hope this has satisfactorily unfuddled you. Cheers, 1536:

confusion is inevitable. The concern is that there is

6927:

Uncited but verifiable content can be really valuable

6843:

Should I use the Articles for Creation helper script?

3564:

Anyone know what the 'page info' blurb on top of the

1466:. I have made no proposal to cease using "rejected". 6907:

Thanks to everyone. I was going to suggest creating

5799:

and the submits via the wizard agree with a mean of

4718:

Hello WELCOMEUSER, welcome to Knowledge! My name is

2883:: One of these moments I wish WP comments supported 2494:

Translations: do just a part to establish notability

2189: 2086:

userspace essay about how to get through AfC quickly

1876:Could the new authors be pointed to something like 499: 6893:is what makes Knowledge different to social media. 6536:I also created a mainspace stub article yesterday, 5306:, we're still having a ton of issues brought up at 4259:situation so I assume the basis for the decline is 1807:My apologies, I misread the timestamp of the edit. 4834:Once we have a consensus, that is the route. 🇺🇦 3678:If it doesn't work, we should probably delete the 3323:of the article before you declare your work done." 417:Template:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin) 7259: 4895:Thirding that looks really friendly and useful. 4563:I may be wrong with timing of your decline and @ 3591:makes me think it's not directly related to us. 3472:Knowledge:WikiProject Articles for creation/tabs 3206:once only, and very rarely touch it again. 🇺🇦 3202:a draft once. I usually review it and accept or 2426:Offshoots of Operation Car Wash, rev. 937805602‎ 390:This page is used for the administration of the 134:Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project! 5101:! I didn't know MOS had not been a namespace. 3017:, would be such a situation: composing a draft 398:processes and is therefore within the scope of 457:discussions and keep related topics together, 6561:, it would avoid adding it to the AfC queue. 5518:Can anyone do justice to this draft. Cheers! 3013:The particular case that you have described, 2976:has encapsulated the theoretical answer well. 896:This page has archives. Sections older than 861: 186: 6445:on a quick glance, and many were lacking in 6339:Thank you. The current redirect could go to 5783:Category:AfC submissions by date/August 2024 5136:m:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Mooré 5115:It was a pseudo namespace before, like CAT:. 317: 6206:: redirect requests not archiving correctly 5953:zero @ ~20:22 UTC on the 20th November 2023 5246:If you have general editing questions, the 1889:, used as a preload template, for example, 994:Actually, to answer your asinine question, 414:Knowledge:WikiProject Articles for creation 7234:You are invited to join the discussion at 5837:Knowledge:Articles for creation/Submitting 5552:WP:COIN#Request to give Kseni-kam a leeway 5134:If you're curious why it was changed, see 5062:Help:Introduction to the Manual of Style/1 4740:- ask Wikipedians for general editing help 2533:§ Don't always translate the whole article 868: 854: 193: 179: 2354:If you think so, it's fine to revert it. 346:does not require a rating on Knowledge's 322: 7063:Then again, for pages covered under the 7043:does explicitly list the move option. – 5190: 4709: 4486:I have long been tempted to agree with @ 3662:Category:AfC submissions with categories 918: 5832: 5203:! I wanted to thank you for submitting 2315:. This change of mine is technically a 168: 7260: 6944:motivates the creation of such content 5665:as the big hitters in the last month. 5449:Special:AbuseFilter/examine/1818758338 4746:- ask reviewers for draft article help 4584:, but I'm sure someone will help her. 3650:I believe it removes the full version 2150:While I empathise, the problem (well, 2112:Thanks! I'll finish it... someday. -- 1565:Actually, I have a related question - 906:when more than 6 sections are present. 315: 6644:I think I've seriously misunderstood 6497:articles or recently deleted articles 5550:AfC reviewers might be interested in 2912:Multiple rejections by same reviewer? 2313:User:Gryllida/NewArticleBLPv1/preload 1887:User:Gryllida/NewArticleBLPv1/preload 1734:Restored from archive as unresolved. 7196: 6954:more editors means more factcheckers 6715: 6708:verifiable, verify it yourself" and 4148:I like 'declinging' even more. 🇺🇦 4001:Let the paid editor earn his money. 3787:Any templates that are redirects to 2471:WP:Database reports/Long pages/Draft 2422:War guilt question, rev. 1011491911‎ 468: 460:Knowledge talk:Articles for creation 442: 335: 333: 329: 17: 6988:other guidelines get built up like 5282:Thanks again for creating this! -- 3712:Or we can write a patch for AFCH. – 404:. Please direct any queries to the 352:It is of interest to the following 13: 6493:suggestion: Automatic reminder of 5631:Wow! Sure wasn't me. Go team!! -- 5510:Draft:List of storms named Pulasan 5227:- ask AfC reviewers for draft help 5024:I think many Welcome messages use 2569:Help:Your first article#Notability 2503: 1335: 1328: 14: 7279: 6817:That's true, I forgot about that. 6668:Why uncited content isn't all bad 6382:, but that can be handled with a 6369:R from unnecessary disambiguation 5174:User:Liance/s/afcwelcomerevision2 4730:WikiProject Articles for Creation 4521:Nothing more true can be said. -- 4177:no obligation to the paid editor. 3566:Draft:ExoSat Aerospace Industries 3474:? Seems like a great idea. How's 1764:the archive. In this case I have 900:may be automatically archived by 480:WikiProject Articles for creation 401:WikiProject Articles for Creation 7229: 7197: 6716: 5434: 4645: 4267:?" I beleive the answer here is 3499: 3105:Draft:Logan Henderson (engineer) 3078: 2717:struggle to even understand the 1782:YOU didnlt give me long enough. 504: 472: 446: 425: 383: 365: 334: 323: 316: 7268:Project-Class AfC project pages 5252:Articles for creation Help Desk 5225:Articles for creation Help Desk 4744:Articles for Creation Help Desk 4449:Talk:David_Wicht#Merge_proposal 2012:frustration and reduced success 1075:"used to mean different things 7254:07:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC) 7212:17:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC) 7185:15:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC) 7171:14:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC) 7153:13:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC) 7128:10:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC) 7104:21:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC) 7094:and is really not encouraged. 7082:02:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC) 7055:10:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC) 7028:11:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC) 7004:02:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC) 6983:01:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC) 6903:09:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 6865:07:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 6831:20:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 6813:19:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 6790:19:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 6765:01:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 6740:21:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 6632:20:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 6589:19:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 6515:18:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 6476:21:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 6423:21:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 6409:21:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 6360:21:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 6335:20:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 6298:20:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 6267:16:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 6246:01:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 6221:00:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 6195:17:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 6178:16:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 6162:16:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 6122:08:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 6108:08:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 6094:02:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 6080:02:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 6056:13:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 6038:20:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 6011:11:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 5996:11:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 5973:08:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 5947:07:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 5928:22:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5911:22:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5896:21:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5869:07:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5849:21:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5827:21:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5813:20:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5795:20:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5762:08:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5743:05:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5725:21:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5709:20:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5696:1,399 just flashed past! 🇺🇦 5689:20:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5675:20:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5641:20:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5627:20:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5613:20:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5598:20:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5576:01:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5540:13:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 5525:06:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 5495:14:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 5481:13:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 5467:19:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 5429:18:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 5405:15:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 5391:15:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 5377:15:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 5363:15:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 5348:15:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 5321:12:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 5292:20:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5277:17:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5263:17:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5221:- ask editors for general help 5148:01:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 5129:20:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 5111:20:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 5092:16:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 5074:16:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 5052:14:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 5038:14:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 5020:22:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 5006:22:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 4985:16:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 4962:16:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 4951:16:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 4937:16:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 4919:21:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4905:20:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4891:20:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4875:22:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4847:20:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4826:20:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4813:20:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4795:20:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4678:07:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 4661:02:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 4641:18:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 4596:23:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 4559:20:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 4542:18:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 4517:18:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 4503:18:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 4463:13:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 4443:10:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 4428:02:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 4411:20:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 4384:18:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 4358:17:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 4333:17:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 4295:16:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 4281:16:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 4250:15:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 4231:15:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 4216:12:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 4201:20:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 4161:17:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 4142:09:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 4111:07:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 4096:06:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 4070:22:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4047:20:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4033:20:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 4011:17:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3997:16:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3980:16:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3966:16:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3948:16:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3933:16:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3895:13:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 3863:Module:AfC submission catcheck 3799:Module:AfC submission catcheck 3783:13:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 3771:Module:AfC submission catcheck 3765:12:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 3728:22:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3708:20:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3674:15:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3645:14:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3601:15:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3578:14:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3548:12:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3532:12:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3518:02:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 3494:02:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 2631:Draft:Viticulture in Stuttgart 2463:11:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 2136:12:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 1864:12:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 1835:12:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 1817:12:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 1803:12:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 1778:12:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 1755:12:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 1487:12:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 1415:""Got any ideas for new terms? 1254:"This comes up semi-regularly" 1: 7112:Just to note that I've asked 7014:narrow range of circumstances 6378:is more straightforward than 6282:Draft:Mummification (Bondage) 5471:Thanks for sorting that out. 5026:WP:Simplified Manual of Style 4973:either one venue or the other 4686:AfC-tailored Welcome template 4477:shoudl I do this thing, then? 4052:Theroadislong's draft comment 3461:22:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 3432:18:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 3404:18:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 3383:15:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 3369:11:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 3343:09:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 3311:08:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 3276:23:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3249:22:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3234:22:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3219:21:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3188:21:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3171:20:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3146:18:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3123:11:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 3099:18:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 3072:11:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 3048:18:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 2995:18:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 2962:17:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 2943:17:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 2927:15:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 2902:11:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 2873:10:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 2843:07:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 2816:23:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2801:23:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2780:19:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2748:19:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2734:08:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2710:19:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2686:19:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2668:19:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2650:08:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2625:07:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2602:07:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2488:11:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 2445:05:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2413:02:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2386:02:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2364:18:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2350:21:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2335:21:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2298:02:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2264:07:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2246:02:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2224:16:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2201:15:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2184:15:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2169:15:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2122:04:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2108:00:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2079:19:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2064:17:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2045:16:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2028:02:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 2006:14:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 1987:11:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 1969:11:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 1955:However, I agree things like 1950:10:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 1929:10:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 1910:10:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 1540:- and avoidable - confusion. 259:Put new text under old text. 6526:Draft:Regenerative dentistry 6451:general notability guideline 5195:Thanks for creating a draft! 4765:I highly recommend visiting 4714:Thanks for creating a draft! 3585:Special:Permalink/1245009798 1344:I have taken the liberty of 1017:a lexicological difference. 299: 7: 7133:because I had seen a bot, @ 6549:had already tagged it with 5231:Creating your first article 4750:Creating your first article 3688:and any other redirects to 2525:OKA translator instructions 2430:Draft:French historiography 1723:17:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 1698:17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 1687:16:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 1658:16:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 1644:14:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 1610:16:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 1584:15:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 1561:14:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 1528:13:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 1509:13:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 1498:providing feedback right? @ 1458:03:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 1438:14:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 1410:13:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 1388:13:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 1362:15:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 1316:14:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 1299:14:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 1249:13:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 1234:13:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 1208:12:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 1193:12:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 1154:12:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 1114:12:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 1100:12:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 1071:12:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 1056:12:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 1027:11:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 990:11:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 966:11:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 309: 228:Are you in the right place? 10: 7284: 6702:WP:Encourage the newcomers 5241:Simplified Manual of Style 3610: 2092:? Nice start. I like it. – 289:Ask questions, get answers 204: 7090:That's writing something 6574:user information template 6559:nominated it for deletion 6413:That's great, thank you. 6280:I was planning to accept 6143:probably now deleted and 5236:Referencing for beginners 4760:Knowledge Manual of Style 4755:Referencing for beginners 1666:have different meanings. 378: 360: 250:or request an article at 164:1,229 pending submissions 4785:With encouragement from 4692:User:Liance/s/afcwelcome 2498:Regarding translations, 2090:User:Asilvering/AfCguide 1570:the person helping them 931:Problem with terminology 304: 246:Create an article using 6990:"righting great wrongs" 6891:Knowledge:Verifiability 6704:for the evidence base. 6646:Template:AfC submission 6605:Knowledge:Verifiability 6348:Mummification (bondage) 6341:Mummification (bondage) 6168:remove the violation". 4859:to start the process. – 4853:make a ticket on GitHub 2054:much extra time taken. 1462:What I wrote above was 1417:- Yes, answered above. 7077:egg-throwing coleslaw? 6909:Template:Draft article 6650:Regenerative dentistry 6555:Template:Sources exist 6310:technical move request 5942:egg-throwing coleslaw? 5367:I've never used them. 5196: 4715: 3621:I would have expected 3415:Probably good to just 2897:egg-throwing coleslaw? 2514: 2483:egg-throwing coleslaw? 1350:used on the draft page 1340: 1333: 924: 903:Lowercase sigmabot III 98:Reviewing instructions 6693:Draft:Confirmat screw 6600:Draft:Confirmat screw 6551:Template:Unreferenced 6538:Draft:Confirmat screw 6520:Do I need AfC review? 6141:User:Cmm66930/sandbox 5211:Articles for creation 5194: 4713: 4580:? Fully concur with @ 3611:Tracked in github.com 3607:Category machinations 3583:Removed, original in 2510: 1957:Draft:Tulunid Emirate 1339: 1332: 922: 525:Articles for Creation 411:Articles for creation 392:Articles for Creation 373:Articles for creation 274:creating a new ticket 6447:significant coverage 6286:Mummification (BDSM) 5311:mitigate the issue. 5201:welcome to Knowledge 4578:do you know who I am 4479:" I am paraphrasing. 3698:while we're at it. ~ 3468:Special:NewPagesFeed 3447:Special:NewPagesFeed 2424:(141kb at release); 1996:should be accepted. 494:on 24 December 2018. 485:a WikiProject Report 5833:#Rate limit (redux) 5803:in the last month. 5515:Buongiourno tutti, 4703:AfC welcome message 3466:You propose to add 2561:three solid sources 1872:drafts are too long 1077:by this WikiProject 6149:Or is it me? 🇺🇦 6145:User talk:Cmm66930 5298:Rate limit (redux) 5197: 4716: 3769:Or we just update 3153:- not really; see 2420:, you're not. See 1341: 1334: 1137:User:Pigsonthewing 925: 348:content assessment 283:New to Knowledge? 270:AFCH helper script 252:requested articles 7252: 7126: 7080: 7053: 7026: 6965: 6964: 6958:editing Knowledge 6863: 6776:my bot does this. 6726: 6725: 6474: 6407: 6333: 6244: 6132:AFCH and copyvios 5945: 5780: 5667:Curb Safe Charmer 5328:this month so far 5269: 5268: 5058:this edit summary 5004: 4873: 4778: 4777: 4540: 4382: 4331: 4163: 4144: 4140: 4113: 4094: 4068: 3910:Draft:Film Afrika 3726: 3560:Page info comment 3492: 3367: 3121: 3070: 3046: 2900: 2841: 2778: 2640: 2585: 2584: 2486: 2434: 2252:sub-section below 2190:https://oka.wiki/ 2106: 1456: 1408: 910: 909: 847:Old AFCH requests 498: 497: 467: 466: 441: 440: 437: 436: 433: 432: 420:AfC project pages 305:Table of Contents 262:Start a new topic 203: 202: 150:Random submission 128: 127: 91: 63: 7275: 7246: 7244: 7233: 7232: 7202: 7201: 7200: 7149:contributions!!! 7120: 7071: 7047: 7042: 7036: 7020: 7001: 6996: 6923: 6922: 6879: 6873: 6857: 6855: 6833: 6828: 6823: 6792: 6787: 6782: 6721: 6720: 6719: 6664: 6663: 6620: 6614: 6471: 6464: 6463: 6461: 6459:TechnoSquirrel69 6404: 6397: 6396: 6394: 6392:TechnoSquirrel69 6373: 6367: 6330: 6323: 6322: 6320: 6318:TechnoSquirrel69 6269: 6264: 6259: 6238: 6236: 6191: 6186: 6158: 6153: 6072: 6052: 6047: 5936: 5924: 5919: 5892: 5887: 5861: 5774: 5705: 5700: 5594: 5589: 5574: 5573: 5567: 5566: 5563: 5560: 5523: 5459: 5442: 5438: 5437: 5421: 5180: 5179: 5131: 5126: 5121: 5094: 5089: 5084: 5028:for a starter. 4998: 4996: 4917: 4867: 4865: 4843: 4838: 4809: 4804: 4699: 4698: 4674: 4669: 4659: 4649: 4593: 4588: 4530: 4499: 4494: 4469:Star Mississippi 4460: 4455: 4425: 4420: 4407: 4402: 4372: 4354: 4349: 4321: 4157: 4152: 4147: 4130: 4116: 4100: 4084: 4062: 4060: 3993: 3988: 3962: 3957: 3929: 3924: 3884: 3880:Draft Categories 3878: 3874: 3870:Draft categories 3868: 3860: 3854: 3850: 3844: 3840: 3836:Draft Categories 3834: 3830: 3824: 3820: 3814: 3810: 3806:Draft categories 3804: 3796: 3792:Draft categories 3790: 3754: 3748: 3741: 3737:Draft categories 3735: 3720: 3718: 3697: 3693:Draft categories 3691: 3687: 3681: 3659: 3655:Draft categories 3653: 3634: 3628: 3617: 3590: 3540: 3510: 3503: 3486: 3484: 3453: 3361: 3359: 3339: 3334: 3307: 3302: 3215: 3210: 3198:I am willing to 3184: 3179: 3115: 3113: 3095: 3090: 3082: 3081: 3064: 3062: 3036: 2991: 2986: 2891: 2835: 2833: 2790: 2772: 2770: 2634: 2580: 2539: 2538: 2477: 2432: 2405: 2323: 2100: 2098: 1862: 1853: 1849: 1843:of the project. 1801: 1792: 1788: 1753: 1744: 1740: 1721: 1712: 1708: 1696: 1685: 1676: 1672: 1656: 1642: 1633: 1629: 1608: 1599: 1595: 1559: 1550: 1546: 1507: 1485: 1476: 1472: 1450: 1448: 1436: 1427: 1423: 1402: 1400: 1386: 1377: 1373: 1297: 1288: 1284: 1232: 1223: 1219: 1191: 1182: 1178: 1152: 1098: 1089: 1085: 1054: 1045: 1041: 964: 955: 951: 905: 889: 870: 863: 856: 508: 500: 482:was featured in 476: 469: 462: 450: 443: 429: 422: 421: 418: 415: 412: 396:Files for Upload 387: 380: 379: 369: 362: 361: 339: 338: 337: 330: 327: 320: 217: 195: 188: 181: 172: 170: 158: 139: 138: 136: 83: 47: 18: 7283: 7282: 7278: 7277: 7276: 7274: 7273: 7272: 7258: 7257: 7240: 7230: 7227: 7198: 7040: 7034: 6999: 6994: 6961: 6928: 6877: 6871: 6851: 6826: 6821: 6785: 6780: 6722: 6717: 6669: 6618: 6612: 6522: 6499: 6467: 6457: 6454: 6400: 6390: 6387: 6371: 6365: 6326: 6316: 6313: 6278: 6262: 6257: 6232: 6208: 6189: 6184: 6156: 6151: 6134: 6066: 6050: 6045: 5922: 5917: 5890: 5885: 5859: 5703: 5698: 5592: 5587: 5583: 5569: 5564: 5561: 5558: 5557: 5555: 5548: 5519: 5513: 5457: 5447:. According to 5435: 5433: 5419: 5334:as they raised 5300: 5270: 5199:Hello Example, 5185: 5170: 5168:Revised version 5124: 5119: 5087: 5082: 4992: 4913: 4861: 4841: 4836: 4807: 4802: 4779: 4704: 4688: 4672: 4667: 4655: 4591: 4586: 4497: 4492: 4458: 4453: 4423: 4418: 4405: 4400: 4391: 4352: 4347: 4193:Robert McClenon 4155: 4150: 4056: 3991: 3986: 3960: 3955: 3927: 3922: 3914: 3882: 3876: 3872: 3866: 3858: 3852: 3848: 3842: 3838: 3832: 3828: 3822: 3818: 3812: 3808: 3802: 3794: 3788: 3752: 3746: 3739: 3733: 3714: 3695: 3689: 3685: 3679: 3657: 3651: 3632: 3626: 3619: 3613: 3609: 3588: 3562: 3538: 3508: 3480: 3451: 3443:m:Wikiafication 3439: 3355: 3337: 3332: 3305: 3300: 3213: 3208: 3182: 3177: 3109: 3103:Courtesy link: 3093: 3088: 3079: 3058: 2989: 2984: 2914: 2829: 2784: 2766: 2586: 2550: 2544: 2496: 2399: 2321: 2094: 1874: 1851: 1845: 1844: 1790: 1784: 1783: 1766:already done it 1742: 1736: 1735: 1710: 1704: 1703: 1692: 1674: 1668: 1667: 1652: 1631: 1625: 1624: 1597: 1591: 1590: 1548: 1542: 1541: 1503: 1474: 1468: 1467: 1444: 1425: 1419: 1418: 1396: 1375: 1369: 1368: 1286: 1280: 1279: 1221: 1215: 1214: 1180: 1174: 1173: 1148: 1145:WP:AFCSTANDARDS 1087: 1081: 1080: 1043: 1037: 1036: 996:Merriam Webster 953: 947: 946: 933: 917: 901: 890: 884: 875: 874: 844: 823: 804: 513: 463:redirects here. 458: 419: 416: 413: 410: 409: 406:discussion page 328: 321: 314: 295: 294: 221: 220: 213: 209: 199: 166: 165: 156: 137: 132: 12: 11: 5: 7281: 7271: 7270: 7226: 7222:Discussion at 7220: 7219: 7218: 7217: 7216: 7215: 7214: 7189: 7188: 7187: 7135:Qwerfjkl (bot) 7110: 7109: 7108: 7107: 7106: 7084: 7061: 7060: 7059: 7058: 7057: 7032: 7031: 7030: 6963: 6962: 6933: 6930: 6929: 6926: 6921: 6920: 6919: 6918: 6917: 6916: 6915: 6914: 6912: 6867: 6847:WP:DRAFTOBJECT 6840: 6839: 6838: 6837: 6836: 6835: 6834: 6753: 6724: 6723: 6674: 6671: 6670: 6667: 6662: 6661: 6660: 6659: 6657: 6654: 6642: 6521: 6518: 6498: 6488: 6487: 6486: 6485: 6484: 6483: 6482: 6481: 6480: 6479: 6478: 6384:requested move 6344: 6277: 6274: 6273: 6272: 6271: 6270: 6207: 6201: 6200: 6199: 6198: 6197: 6133: 6130: 6129: 6128: 6127: 6126: 6125: 6124: 6096: 6061: 6060: 6059: 6058: 6024: 6023: 6022: 6021: 6020: 6019: 6018: 6017: 6016: 6015: 6014: 6013: 5930: 5881: 5880: 5879: 5878: 5877: 5876: 5875: 5874: 5873: 5872: 5871: 5772: 5771: 5770: 5769: 5768: 5767: 5766: 5765: 5764: 5727: 5713: 5712: 5711: 5694: 5582: 5579: 5547: 5544: 5543: 5542: 5512: 5507: 5506: 5505: 5504: 5503: 5502: 5501: 5500: 5499: 5498: 5497: 5483: 5411: 5410: 5409: 5408: 5407: 5326:From the uses 5299: 5296: 5295: 5294: 5267: 5266: 5244: 5243: 5238: 5233: 5228: 5222: 5187: 5186: 5183: 5178: 5169: 5166: 5165: 5164: 5163: 5162: 5161: 5160: 5159: 5158: 5157: 5156: 5155: 5154: 5153: 5152: 5151: 5150: 5132: 4987: 4968: 4967: 4966: 4965: 4964: 4955: 4954: 4953: 4909: 4908: 4907: 4881:Seconding. -- 4879: 4878: 4877: 4849: 4816: 4815: 4776: 4775: 4763: 4762: 4757: 4752: 4747: 4741: 4706: 4705: 4702: 4697: 4687: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4643: 4627: 4626: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4622: 4621: 4620: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4561: 4546: 4545: 4544: 4484: 4480: 4472: 4396: 4393: 4389: 4342: 4305:Casual editors 4185: 4178: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4049: 4021: 4020: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4013: 3913: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3846:Draft category 3785: 3618: 3612: 3608: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3561: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3441:I was reading 3438: 3435: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3394:explained. -- 3387: 3386: 3385: 3351:WP:DRAFTOBJECT 3347: 3346: 3345: 3327: 3324: 3320: 3295: 3292: 3289: 3285: 3264: 3259: 3258: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3133: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 2998: 2997: 2980: 2977: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2913: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2818: 2761:WP:AFCHELPDESK 2752: 2751: 2750: 2722: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2670: 2612: 2609: 2583: 2582: 2546: 2545: 2542: 2537: 2516: 2515: 2495: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2447: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2322:Special:MyPage 2302: 2301: 2300: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2211: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2032: 2031: 2030: 1952: 1931: 1884: 1873: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1365: 1364: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1269: 1263: 1257: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1013:So yes, there 1011: 1010: 1009: 1004: 978: 932: 929: 927: 916: 913: 908: 907: 895: 892: 891: 886: 882: 880: 877: 876: 873: 872: 865: 858: 850: 843: 842: 837: 831: 822: 821: 816: 810: 803: 802: 797: 792: 787: 782: 777: 771: 733: 693: 653: 613: 573: 522: 519: 518: 515: 514: 509: 503: 496: 495: 477: 465: 464: 451: 439: 438: 435: 434: 431: 430: 423: 388: 376: 375: 370: 358: 357: 351: 340: 313: 312: 310:Bottom of page 307: 302: 293: 292: 281: 266: 257: 256: 255: 248:Article wizard 244: 237: 223: 219: 218: 210: 205: 201: 200: 198: 197: 190: 183: 175: 174: 163: 160: 159: 153: 152: 148: 131: 130: 129: 126: 125: 123: 122: 118: 113: 111: 104: 102: 101: 94: 92: 82: 75: 73: 66: 64: 46: 39: 37: 30: 28: 21: 16: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 7280: 7269: 7266: 7265: 7263: 7256: 7255: 7250: 7245: 7243: 7242:Novem Linguae 7237: 7225: 7213: 7209: 7205: 7194: 7190: 7186: 7182: 7178: 7174: 7173: 7172: 7168: 7164: 7160: 7156: 7155: 7154: 7150: 7147: 7146: 7145: 7140: 7136: 7131: 7130: 7129: 7124: 7119: 7115: 7111: 7105: 7101: 7097: 7093: 7089: 7085: 7083: 7078: 7075: 7070: 7066: 7062: 7056: 7051: 7046: 7039: 7038:Draft article 7033: 7029: 7024: 7019: 7015: 7011: 7007: 7006: 7005: 7002: 6997: 6991: 6986: 6985: 6984: 6980: 6976: 6973: 6972: 6971: 6970: 6969: 6968: 6967: 6966: 6959: 6955: 6951: 6947: 6945: 6941: 6932: 6931: 6925: 6924: 6913: 6910: 6906: 6905: 6904: 6900: 6896: 6892: 6888: 6883: 6876: 6875:Draft article 6868: 6866: 6861: 6856: 6854: 6853:Novem Linguae 6848: 6844: 6841: 6832: 6829: 6824: 6816: 6815: 6814: 6810: 6806: 6802: 6798: 6794: 6793: 6791: 6788: 6783: 6775: 6771: 6768: 6767: 6766: 6762: 6758: 6754: 6751: 6747: 6743: 6742: 6741: 6737: 6733: 6730: 6729: 6728: 6727: 6713: 6711: 6705: 6703: 6697: 6694: 6689: 6686: 6682: 6678: 6673: 6672: 6666: 6665: 6658: 6655: 6651: 6647: 6643: 6639: 6635: 6634: 6633: 6629: 6625: 6617: 6616:Sources exist 6610: 6606: 6601: 6597: 6593: 6592: 6591: 6590: 6586: 6582: 6577: 6575: 6571: 6567: 6562: 6560: 6556: 6552: 6548: 6543: 6539: 6534: 6531: 6527: 6517: 6516: 6512: 6508: 6504: 6496: 6492: 6477: 6472: 6470: 6462: 6460: 6452: 6448: 6444: 6440: 6439: 6434: 6430: 6426: 6425: 6424: 6420: 6416: 6412: 6411: 6410: 6405: 6403: 6395: 6393: 6385: 6381: 6377: 6370: 6363: 6362: 6361: 6357: 6353: 6349: 6345: 6342: 6338: 6337: 6336: 6331: 6329: 6321: 6319: 6311: 6306: 6302: 6301: 6300: 6299: 6295: 6291: 6287: 6283: 6268: 6265: 6260: 6252: 6251:Novem Linguae 6249: 6248: 6247: 6242: 6237: 6235: 6234:Novem Linguae 6229: 6225: 6224: 6223: 6222: 6218: 6214: 6205: 6196: 6192: 6187: 6181: 6180: 6179: 6175: 6171: 6166: 6165: 6164: 6163: 6159: 6154: 6147: 6146: 6142: 6137: 6123: 6119: 6115: 6111: 6110: 6109: 6105: 6101: 6097: 6095: 6091: 6087: 6083: 6082: 6081: 6078: 6077: 6073: 6071: 6070: 6063: 6062: 6057: 6053: 6048: 6041: 6040: 6039: 6035: 6031: 6026: 6025: 6012: 6008: 6004: 5999: 5998: 5997: 5993: 5989: 5985: 5980: 5976: 5975: 5974: 5970: 5966: 5962: 5958: 5954: 5950: 5949: 5948: 5943: 5940: 5935: 5931: 5929: 5925: 5920: 5914: 5913: 5912: 5908: 5904: 5899: 5898: 5897: 5893: 5888: 5882: 5870: 5866: 5862: 5856: 5852: 5851: 5850: 5846: 5842: 5838: 5834: 5830: 5829: 5828: 5824: 5820: 5816: 5815: 5814: 5810: 5806: 5802: 5798: 5797: 5796: 5792: 5788: 5784: 5778: 5777:edit conflict 5773: 5763: 5759: 5755: 5751: 5746: 5745: 5744: 5740: 5736: 5735:DoubleGrazing 5732: 5728: 5726: 5722: 5718: 5714: 5710: 5706: 5701: 5695: 5692: 5691: 5690: 5686: 5682: 5678: 5677: 5676: 5672: 5668: 5664: 5660: 5656: 5652: 5651:DoubleGrazing 5648: 5644: 5643: 5642: 5638: 5634: 5630: 5629: 5628: 5624: 5620: 5616: 5615: 5614: 5610: 5606: 5602: 5601: 5600: 5599: 5595: 5590: 5578: 5577: 5572: 5568: 5553: 5541: 5537: 5533: 5529: 5528: 5527: 5526: 5522: 5521:Safari Scribe 5516: 5511: 5496: 5492: 5488: 5484: 5482: 5478: 5474: 5470: 5469: 5468: 5464: 5460: 5454: 5450: 5446: 5444: 5441: 5432: 5431: 5430: 5426: 5422: 5416: 5412: 5406: 5402: 5398: 5394: 5393: 5392: 5388: 5384: 5380: 5379: 5378: 5374: 5370: 5366: 5365: 5364: 5360: 5356: 5351: 5350: 5349: 5345: 5341: 5337: 5333: 5329: 5325: 5324: 5323: 5322: 5318: 5314: 5309: 5305: 5302:As discussed 5293: 5289: 5285: 5281: 5280: 5279: 5278: 5275: 5265: 5264: 5261: 5257: 5253: 5249: 5242: 5239: 5237: 5234: 5232: 5229: 5226: 5223: 5220: 5217: 5216: 5215: 5212: 5208: 5207: 5206:Draft:Example 5202: 5193: 5189: 5188: 5182: 5181: 5177: 5175: 5149: 5145: 5141: 5137: 5133: 5130: 5127: 5122: 5114: 5113: 5112: 5108: 5104: 5100: 5096: 5095: 5093: 5090: 5085: 5077: 5076: 5075: 5071: 5067: 5063: 5059: 5055: 5054: 5053: 5049: 5045: 5041: 5040: 5039: 5035: 5031: 5027: 5023: 5022: 5021: 5017: 5013: 5009: 5008: 5007: 5002: 4997: 4995: 4994:Novem Linguae 4988: 4986: 4982: 4978: 4977:DoubleGrazing 4974: 4969: 4963: 4960: 4956: 4952: 4948: 4944: 4940: 4939: 4938: 4934: 4930: 4926: 4922: 4921: 4920: 4916: 4915:Safari Scribe 4910: 4906: 4902: 4898: 4897:Theroadislong 4894: 4893: 4892: 4888: 4884: 4880: 4876: 4871: 4866: 4864: 4863:Novem Linguae 4858: 4854: 4850: 4848: 4844: 4839: 4833: 4829: 4828: 4827: 4824: 4820: 4819: 4818: 4817: 4814: 4810: 4805: 4799: 4798: 4797: 4796: 4793: 4788: 4783: 4774: 4772: 4768: 4761: 4758: 4756: 4753: 4751: 4748: 4745: 4742: 4739: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4731: 4727: 4726: 4721: 4712: 4708: 4707: 4701: 4700: 4696: 4693: 4679: 4675: 4670: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4658: 4657:Safari Scribe 4652: 4648: 4644: 4642: 4638: 4634: 4629: 4628: 4597: 4594: 4589: 4583: 4582:Theroadislong 4579: 4574: 4570: 4566: 4562: 4560: 4556: 4552: 4547: 4543: 4538: 4534: 4528: 4524: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4514: 4510: 4509:Theroadislong 4506: 4505: 4504: 4500: 4495: 4489: 4485: 4481: 4478: 4473: 4470: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4461: 4456: 4450: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4440: 4436: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4426: 4421: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4408: 4403: 4397: 4394: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4380: 4376: 4370: 4366: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4355: 4350: 4343: 4340: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4329: 4325: 4319: 4315: 4311: 4306: 4302: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4292: 4288: 4287:Theroadislong 4284: 4283: 4282: 4278: 4274: 4270: 4266: 4262: 4258: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4247: 4243: 4242:DoubleGrazing 4239: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4228: 4224: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4213: 4209: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4190: 4186: 4183: 4182:tendentiously 4179: 4175: 4162: 4158: 4153: 4146: 4145: 4143: 4138: 4134: 4128: 4124: 4120: 4115: 4114: 4112: 4108: 4104: 4103:DoubleGrazing 4099: 4098: 4097: 4092: 4088: 4082: 4078: 4073: 4072: 4071: 4066: 4061: 4059: 4058:Novem Linguae 4053: 4050: 4048: 4044: 4040: 4039:Theroadislong 4036: 4035: 4034: 4030: 4026: 4022: 4012: 4008: 4004: 4003:Theroadislong 4000: 3999: 3998: 3994: 3989: 3983: 3982: 3981: 3977: 3973: 3972:Theroadislong 3969: 3968: 3967: 3963: 3958: 3951: 3950: 3949: 3945: 3941: 3940:DoubleGrazing 3937: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3930: 3925: 3918: 3911: 3896: 3892: 3888: 3881: 3871: 3864: 3857: 3847: 3837: 3827: 3817: 3807: 3800: 3793: 3786: 3784: 3780: 3776: 3772: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3762: 3758: 3751: 3745: 3738: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3724: 3719: 3717: 3716:Novem Linguae 3711: 3710: 3709: 3705: 3701: 3694: 3684: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3656: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3642: 3638: 3631: 3624: 3616: 3602: 3598: 3594: 3586: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3575: 3571: 3570:DoubleGrazing 3567: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3535: 3534: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3515: 3511: 3506: 3502: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3490: 3485: 3483: 3482:Novem Linguae 3477: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3448: 3444: 3434: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3424: 3418: 3405: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3392:Novem Linguae 3388: 3384: 3380: 3376: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3365: 3360: 3358: 3357:Novem Linguae 3352: 3348: 3344: 3340: 3335: 3328: 3325: 3321: 3318: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3308: 3303: 3296: 3293: 3290: 3286: 3283: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3260: 3256: 3255: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3216: 3211: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3180: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3134: 3130: 3124: 3119: 3114: 3112: 3111:Novem Linguae 3106: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3096: 3091: 3085: 3077: 3073: 3068: 3063: 3061: 3060:Novem Linguae 3054: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3044: 3040: 3034: 3030: 3025: 3020: 3016: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2996: 2992: 2987: 2981: 2978: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2950: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2903: 2898: 2895: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2881:Novem Linguae 2878: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2857: 2853: 2849: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2839: 2834: 2832: 2831:Novem Linguae 2826: 2822: 2819: 2817: 2813: 2809: 2804: 2803: 2802: 2798: 2794: 2788: 2787:Novem Linguae 2783: 2782: 2781: 2776: 2771: 2769: 2768:Novem Linguae 2762: 2758: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2741: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2731: 2727: 2726:DoubleGrazing 2723: 2720: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2669: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2638: 2637:edit conflict 2632: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2622: 2618: 2613: 2610: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2581: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2565:WP:Notability 2562: 2558: 2557:WP:Notability 2554: 2548: 2547: 2541: 2540: 2536: 2534: 2528: 2526: 2522: 2513: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2505: 2501: 2489: 2484: 2481: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2419: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2411: 2410: 2406: 2404: 2403: 2395: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2318: 2317:TPO violation 2314: 2310: 2306: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2282: 2277: 2273: 2272:DoubleGrazing 2269: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2212: 2209: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2191: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2181: 2177: 2176:DoubleGrazing 2172: 2171: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2161:DoubleGrazing 2158: 2153: 2149: 2137: 2133: 2129: 2128:DoubleGrazing 2125: 2124: 2123: 2119: 2115: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2104: 2099: 2097: 2096:Novem Linguae 2091: 2087: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2042: 2038: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1994: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1976: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1953: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1932: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1888: 1883: 1882: 1877: 1865: 1861: 1857: 1852:Pigsonthewing 1848: 1842: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1818: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1791:Pigsonthewing 1787: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1743:Pigsonthewing 1739: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1711:Pigsonthewing 1707: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1695: 1694:Safari Scribe 1690: 1689: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1675:Pigsonthewing 1671: 1665: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1655: 1654:Safari Scribe 1649: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1632:Pigsonthewing 1628: 1622: 1619: 1611: 1607: 1603: 1598:Pigsonthewing 1594: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1568: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1549:Pigsonthewing 1545: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1516: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1506: 1505:Safari Scribe 1501: 1500:Pigsonthewing 1496: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1475:Pigsonthewing 1471: 1465: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1454: 1449: 1447: 1446:Novem Linguae 1441: 1440: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1426:Pigsonthewing 1422: 1416: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1406: 1401: 1399: 1398:Novem Linguae 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1376:Pigsonthewing 1372: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1342: 1338: 1331: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1308:DoubleGrazing 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1287:Pigsonthewing 1283: 1277: 1273: 1270: 1267: 1264: 1261: 1258: 1255: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1222:Pigsonthewing 1218: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1196: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1181:Pigsonthewing 1177: 1171: 1166: 1165:quoted advice 1162: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1151: 1150:Safari Scribe 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1127: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1088:Pigsonthewing 1084: 1078: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1044:Pigsonthewing 1040: 1034: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1005: 1003: 1000: 999: 997: 993: 992: 991: 987: 983: 979: 975: 970: 969: 968: 967: 963: 959: 954:Pigsonthewing 950: 944: 939: 938: 928: 921: 912: 904: 899: 894: 893: 879: 878: 871: 866: 864: 859: 857: 852: 851: 849: 848: 841: 838: 836: 833: 832: 830: 829: 828: 820: 817: 815: 812: 811: 809: 808: 807:Helper script 801: 798: 796: 793: 791: 788: 786: 783: 781: 778: 776: 773: 772: 770: 769: 768:Reviewer help 765: 764: 760: 756: 752: 748: 744: 740: 736: 732: 728: 724: 720: 716: 712: 708: 704: 700: 696: 692: 688: 684: 680: 676: 672: 668: 664: 660: 656: 652: 648: 644: 640: 636: 632: 628: 624: 620: 616: 612: 608: 604: 600: 596: 592: 588: 584: 580: 576: 572: 568: 564: 560: 556: 552: 548: 544: 540: 536: 531: 527: 526: 521: 520: 517: 516: 512: 507: 502: 501: 493: 492: 487: 486: 481: 478: 475: 471: 470: 461: 456: 452: 449: 445: 444: 428: 424: 407: 403: 402: 397: 393: 389: 386: 382: 381: 377: 374: 371: 368: 364: 363: 359: 355: 349: 345: 341: 332: 331: 326: 319: 311: 308: 306: 303: 301: 298: 297: 290: 286: 282: 279: 275: 271: 267: 264: 263: 258: 253: 249: 245: 242: 238: 235: 234:AfC Help desk 231: 230: 229: 226: 225: 224: 216: 212: 211: 208: 196: 191: 189: 184: 182: 177: 176: 171: 162: 161: 155: 154: 151: 147: 144: 141: 140: 135: 124: 121: 120: 114: 112: 110: 109: 105: 103: 100: 99: 95: 93: 90: 86: 81: 80: 76: 74: 72: 71: 67: 65: 62: 58: 54: 50: 45: 44: 40: 38: 36: 35: 31: 29: 27: 26: 22: 20: 19: 15: 7241: 7228: 7143: 7142: 7092:WP:BACKWARDS 7086: 6957: 6948: 6939: 6936: 6852: 6842: 6800: 6710:cock a snook 6706: 6698: 6690: 6684: 6608: 6607:that states 6578: 6565: 6563: 6535: 6523: 6500: 6468: 6458: 6438:Cosmopolitan 6436: 6401: 6391: 6379: 6375: 6327: 6317: 6279: 6233: 6209: 6148: 6138: 6135: 6084:Correct. -- 6075: 6068: 6067: 5983: 5978: 5750:SafariScribe 5731:SafariScribe 5647:SafariScribe 5584: 5549: 5517: 5514: 5439: 5301: 5271: 5256:my talk page 5245: 5219:The Teahouse 5204: 5198: 5184:Revised ver. 5171: 4993: 4972: 4862: 4784: 4780: 4771:my talk page 4767:The Teahouse 4764: 4738:The Teahouse 4725:Draft:Sample 4723: 4717: 4689: 4650: 4565:SafariScribe 4476: 4309: 4304: 4300: 4268: 4237: 4057: 3919: 3915: 3715: 3620: 3568:page is? -- 3563: 3504: 3481: 3440: 3437:NewPagesFeed 3422: 3421: 3416: 3414: 3356: 3317:Andy Dingley 3282:Andy Dingley 3268:Andy Dingley 3203: 3199: 3150: 3110: 3083: 3059: 3052: 3023: 3018: 2970:Andy Dingley 2949:Andy Dingley 2919:Andy Dingley 2915: 2830: 2820: 2767: 2718: 2587: 2549: 2529: 2517: 2511: 2497: 2408: 2401: 2400: 2281:a new option 2280: 2279: 2156: 2151: 2095: 2085: 2051: 2011: 1992: 1895: 1885: 1879: 1878: 1875: 1860:Andy's edits 1856:Talk to Andy 1847:Andy Mabbett 1840: 1799:Andy's edits 1795:Talk to Andy 1786:Andy Mabbett 1761: 1751:Andy's edits 1747:Talk to Andy 1738:Andy Mabbett 1733: 1719:Andy's edits 1715:Talk to Andy 1706:Andy Mabbett 1683:Andy's edits 1679:Talk to Andy 1670:Andy Mabbett 1663: 1640:Andy's edits 1636:Talk to Andy 1627:Andy Mabbett 1620: 1606:Andy's edits 1602:Talk to Andy 1593:Andy Mabbett 1571: 1566: 1557:Andy's edits 1553:Talk to Andy 1544:Andy Mabbett 1537: 1533: 1514: 1483:Andy's edits 1479:Talk to Andy 1470:Andy Mabbett 1463: 1445: 1434:Andy's edits 1430:Talk to Andy 1421:Andy Mabbett 1414: 1397: 1384:Andy's edits 1380:Talk to Andy 1371:Andy Mabbett 1366: 1295:Andy's edits 1291:Talk to Andy 1282:Andy Mabbett 1275: 1271: 1265: 1259: 1253: 1230:Andy's edits 1226:Talk to Andy 1217:Andy Mabbett 1189:Andy's edits 1185:Talk to Andy 1176:Andy Mabbett 1169: 1164: 1160: 1132: 1096:Andy's edits 1092:Talk to Andy 1083:Andy Mabbett 1076: 1052:Andy's edits 1048:Talk to Andy 1039:Andy Mabbett 1032: 1014: 1006: 1001: 973: 962:Andy's edits 958:Talk to Andy 949:Andy Mabbett 942: 940: 936: 934: 926: 911: 897: 845: 827:Participants 825: 824: 806: 805: 767: 766: 533: 524: 523: 510: 489: 484: 479: 405: 399: 354:WikiProjects 344:project page 343: 260: 227: 222: 133: 116: 107: 96: 79:Participants 77: 69: 41: 33: 32: 24: 7191:Thank you, 7159:Not0nshoree 7114:Not0nshoree 6895:KylieTastic 6845:When using 6750:Not0nshoree 6685:three years 6677:Wikidragons 6638:KylieTastic 6624:KylieTastic 6530:Not0nshoree 6170:KylieTastic 6114:KylieTastic 6100:KylieTastic 6030:KylieTastic 6003:KylieTastic 5965:KylieTastic 5957:KylieTastic 5903:KylieTastic 5841:KylieTastic 5805:KylieTastic 5754:KylieTastic 5681:KylieTastic 5655:KylieTastic 5619:KylieTastic 5487:KylieTastic 5415:google:test 5369:KylieTastic 5340:KylieTastic 5338:initially. 5044:KylieTastic 4855:or post at 4633:KylieTastic 4592:Mississippi 4573:KylieTastic 4459:Mississippi 4424:Mississippi 4339:David Wicht 4189:promotional 3887:KylieTastic 3811:so include 3744:KylieTastic 3666:KylieTastic 2974:KylieTastic 2954:KylieTastic 2935:KylieTastic 2865:KylieTastic 2757:WP:TEAHOUSE 2193:KylieTastic 1961:KylieTastic 1241:KylieTastic 1172:concerned. 915:AFC backlog 300:Top of page 146:submissions 43:Submissions 7163:asilvering 7069:Slgrandson 7010:verifiable 6805:asilvering 6770:Asilvering 6757:asilvering 6433:Slgrandson 6086:asilvering 5934:Slgrandson 5819:asilvering 5633:asilvering 5605:asilvering 5284:asilvering 5012:asilvering 4943:asilvering 4883:asilvering 4857:WT:TWINKLE 4121:. Best, -- 3816:Draft cats 3615:Issue #381 3505:Self-trout 3396:asilvering 3226:asilvering 3155:WP:ACTRIAL 2889:Slgrandson 2808:asilvering 2740:asilvering 2563:establish 2475:Slgrandson 2216:asilvering 2114:asilvering 2071:asilvering 2037:asilvering 1702:See what? 1161:frequently 1131:, I think 455:centralise 89:By subject 7144:0nshore's 7096:Cremastra 6940:incorrect 6542:Dan arndt 6503:WP:SALTed 6495:WP:SALTed 5855:WP:SUBMIT 5717:OhHaiMark 5663:OhHaiMark 5453:on submit 4483:direction 3856:Draft cat 3539:Aaron Liu 3509:Aaron Liu 3452:Aaron Liu 3423:North8000 3280:I think, 3159:WP:ACPERM 2972:I think @ 2307:, I have 2270:Besides, 1936:instead) 1768:for you. 1346:improving 840:2017–2018 835:2015–2017 819:2014–2018 814:2013–2014 173:to update 157:2+ months 108:Help desk 34:Talk page 25:Main page 7262:Category 7177:Primefac 7074:How's my 6822:Qwerfjkl 6797:Qwerfjkl 6781:Qwerfjkl 6636:Thanks, 6566:required 6491:WP:AFCRD 6443:reliable 6258:Qwerfjkl 6230:helps. – 6204:WP:AFCRD 6139:Example 5988:Primefac 5939:How's my 5787:Primefac 5715:Thanks! 5532:Primefac 5473:Primefac 5383:Primefac 5313:Primefac 5248:Teahouse 5140:jlwoodwa 5120:Qwerfjkl 5099:Qwerfjkl 5097:Thanks @ 5083:Qwerfjkl 4651:Comment: 4569:Timtrent 4537:Articles 4533:Contribs 4523:Johannes 4488:Primefac 4435:Primefac 4379:Articles 4375:Contribs 4365:Johannes 4328:Articles 4324:Contribs 4314:Johannes 4301:reviewer 4208:Primefac 4137:Articles 4133:Contribs 4123:Johannes 4091:Articles 4087:Contribs 4077:Johannes 3826:Draftcat 3775:Primefac 3750:Draftcat 3683:Draftcat 3630:Draftcat 3593:Primefac 3524:Primefac 3375:Primefac 3241:Primefac 3163:Primefac 3132:opinion. 3084:Accepted 3043:Articles 3039:Contribs 3029:Johannes 2894:How's my 2852:WT:WPOKA 2793:Mathglot 2764:draft. – 2698:Gryllida 2674:Gryllida 2656:Gryllida 2642:Mathglot 2594:Mathglot 2577:WP:AFCRI 2573:WP:THREE 2500:Gryllida 2480:How's my 2451:Gryllida 2437:Mathglot 2374:Gryllida 2370:Mathglot 2356:Mathglot 2342:Indagate 2327:Mathglot 2305:Gryllida 2286:Gryllida 2276:Primefac 2256:Mathglot 2234:Gryllida 2208:WP:WPOKA 2056:Primefac 2016:Gryllida 1998:Primefac 1975:Gryllida 1938:Gryllida 1917:Gryllida 1898:Gryllida 1827:Primefac 1809:Primefac 1770:Primefac 1576:Primefac 1538:frequent 1532:Not so: 1520:Primefac 1200:Primefac 1129:Primefac 1106:Primefac 1063:Primefac 1019:Primefac 982:Primefac 943:frequent 511:Archives 491:Signpost 453:To help 241:Teahouse 207:Shortcut 70:Showcase 49:Category 7193:Onshore 7139:Discuss 6570:WP:BLPs 6441:, look 6376:bondage 6284:but as 5801:178/day 5304:in June 4261:WP:NPOV 3589:<!-- 3417:suggest 3288:unsure. 3204:decline 3196:Zxcvbnm 3138:ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ 3019:without 2885:upvotes 2719:concept 1841:outside 1141:WP:WWIN 1133:asinine 1061:wrong. 998:gives: 977:India). 898:20 days 488:in the 285:Welcome 117:Backlog 57:Sorting 7000:rabbit 6887:hoaxes 6772:, per 6611:. Yes 6547:Charmk 6507:LR.127 6305:CSD G6 6213:LR.127 6190:Faddle 6185:Fiddle 6157:Faddle 6152:Fiddle 6069:BD2412 6051:Faddle 6046:Fiddle 5923:Faddle 5918:Fiddle 5891:Faddle 5886:Fiddle 5860:SD0001 5704:Faddle 5699:Fiddle 5659:Utopes 5593:Faddle 5588:Fiddle 5458:SD0001 5420:SD0001 5332:SD0001 5274:Liance 5260:Liance 4959:Liance 4925:Liance 4842:Faddle 4837:Fiddle 4832:Liance 4823:Liance 4808:Faddle 4803:Fiddle 4792:Liance 4720:Liance 4673:Faddle 4668:Fiddle 4498:Faddle 4493:Fiddle 4406:Faddle 4401:Fiddle 4353:Faddle 4348:Fiddle 4265:WP:AFD 4257:WP:G11 4238:advice 4156:Faddle 4151:Fiddle 4119:WP:G11 3992:Faddle 3987:Fiddle 3961:Faddle 3956:Fiddle 3928:Faddle 3923:Fiddle 3912:- sigh 3338:Faddle 3333:Fiddle 3306:Faddle 3301:Fiddle 3214:Faddle 3209:Fiddle 3200:reject 3183:Faddle 3178:Fiddle 3094:Faddle 3089:Fiddle 2990:Faddle 2985:Fiddle 2861:WT:COI 2856:WP:PAY 2848:WT:OKA 2825:WT:OKA 2706:e-mail 2682:e-mail 2664:e-mail 2502:wrote 2459:e-mail 2418:BD2412 2402:BD2412 2382:e-mail 2309:boldly 2294:e-mail 2242:e-mail 2024:e-mail 2014:rate. 1993:verify 1983:e-mail 1946:e-mail 1925:e-mail 1906:e-mail 530:search 350:scale. 278:GitHub 215:WT:AFC 119:drives 7088:easy. 6995:Recon 6641:Move? 6429:Mgp28 6415:Mgp28 6352:Mgp28 6290:Mgp28 6193:🇺🇦 6160:🇺🇦 6054:🇺🇦 6043:🇺🇦 5984:needs 5926:🇺🇦 5901:one. 5894:🇺🇦 5707:🇺🇦 5596:🇺🇦 5397:S0091 5355:S0091 5103:S0091 5066:S0091 5030:S0091 4929:S0091 4845:🇺🇦 4811:🇺🇦 4787:S0091 4676:🇺🇦 4567:'s, @ 4501:🇺🇦 4409:🇺🇦 4356:🇺🇦 4345:🇺🇦 4299:As a 4159:🇺🇦 3995:🇺🇦 3964:🇺🇦 3953:🇺🇦 3931:🇺🇦 3341:🇺🇦 3309:🇺🇦 3298:🇺🇦 3263:away. 3217:🇺🇦 3186:🇺🇦 3097:🇺🇦 3024:right 2993:🇺🇦 2947:Also 2694:7804j 2617:7804j 2590:7804j 2504:above 1572:knows 1276:again 1274:This 342:This 169:Purge 85:Apply 7249:talk 7238:. – 7208:talk 7204:HLHJ 7181:talk 7167:talk 7123:talk 7100:talk 7050:talk 7023:talk 6979:talk 6975:HLHJ 6899:talk 6860:talk 6827:talk 6809:talk 6786:talk 6761:talk 6746:HLHJ 6736:talk 6732:HLHJ 6628:talk 6596:HLHJ 6594:Hey 6585:talk 6581:HLHJ 6568:for 6511:talk 6469:sigh 6419:talk 6402:sigh 6380:BDSM 6356:talk 6328:sigh 6294:talk 6263:talk 6241:talk 6228:this 6217:talk 6174:talk 6118:talk 6104:talk 6090:talk 6034:talk 6007:talk 5992:talk 5979:what 5969:talk 5961:talk 5907:talk 5865:talk 5857:. – 5845:talk 5823:talk 5809:talk 5791:talk 5758:talk 5739:talk 5721:talk 5685:talk 5671:talk 5661:and 5637:talk 5623:talk 5609:talk 5536:talk 5491:talk 5477:talk 5463:talk 5440:Done 5425:talk 5401:talk 5387:talk 5373:talk 5359:talk 5344:talk 5317:talk 5288:talk 5144:talk 5125:talk 5107:talk 5088:talk 5070:talk 5048:talk 5034:talk 5016:talk 5001:talk 4981:talk 4947:talk 4933:talk 4901:talk 4887:talk 4870:talk 4637:talk 4587:Star 4555:talk 4551:Kvng 4527:Talk 4513:talk 4454:Star 4439:talk 4419:Star 4369:Talk 4318:Talk 4291:talk 4277:talk 4273:Kvng 4246:talk 4227:talk 4223:Kvng 4212:talk 4197:talk 4127:Talk 4107:talk 4081:Talk 4065:talk 4043:talk 4029:talk 4025:Kvng 4007:talk 3976:talk 3944:talk 3891:talk 3875:and 3851:and 3779:talk 3773:... 3761:talk 3757:Kvng 3723:talk 3704:talk 3700:Kvng 3670:talk 3641:talk 3637:Kvng 3623:this 3597:talk 3574:talk 3544:talk 3528:talk 3514:talk 3489:talk 3476:this 3457:talk 3428:talk 3400:talk 3379:talk 3364:talk 3272:talk 3245:talk 3230:talk 3167:talk 3157:and 3118:talk 3067:talk 3033:Talk 3015:Andy 2958:talk 2939:talk 2923:talk 2869:talk 2838:talk 2812:talk 2797:talk 2775:talk 2744:talk 2730:talk 2702:talk 2692:Hi @ 2678:talk 2660:talk 2646:talk 2621:talk 2598:talk 2473:. -- 2455:talk 2441:talk 2378:talk 2360:talk 2346:talk 2331:talk 2290:talk 2274:and 2260:talk 2238:talk 2220:talk 2197:talk 2180:talk 2165:talk 2157:very 2132:talk 2118:talk 2103:talk 2075:talk 2060:talk 2041:talk 2020:talk 2002:talk 1979:talk 1965:talk 1942:talk 1921:talk 1902:talk 1891:this 1831:talk 1813:talk 1774:talk 1762:from 1580:talk 1534:some 1524:talk 1453:talk 1405:talk 1358:talk 1354:Kvng 1312:talk 1245:talk 1204:talk 1110:talk 1067:talk 1023:talk 986:talk 974:much 800:2018 795:2017 790:2016 785:2015 780:2014 775:2013 61:Feed 53:List 7118:Joe 7065:BLP 7045:Joe 7018:Joe 6882:Dog 6681:Dog 6557:or 5546:OKA 5209:to 4927:! 4728:to 4535:) ( 4377:) ( 4326:) ( 4271:. ~ 4135:) ( 4089:) ( 3478:? – 3470:to 3041:) ( 2759:or 2553:Afc 2521:OKA 2368:Hi 2052:too 1854:); 1793:); 1745:); 1713:); 1677:); 1634:); 1600:); 1567:how 1551:); 1515:any 1477:); 1428:); 1378:); 1289:); 1224:); 1183:); 1170:all 1090:); 1046:); 956:); 394:or 276:on 272:by 143:AfC 7264:: 7210:) 7183:) 7169:) 7151:) 7102:) 7041:}} 7035:{{ 6992:. 6981:) 6946:. 6901:) 6878:}} 6872:{{ 6819:— 6811:) 6801:do 6778:— 6763:) 6738:) 6630:) 6619:}} 6613:{{ 6587:) 6513:) 6421:) 6372:}} 6366:{{ 6358:) 6312:. 6296:) 6255:— 6219:) 6176:) 6120:) 6106:) 6092:) 6036:) 6009:) 5994:) 5971:) 5963:) 5909:) 5867:) 5847:) 5839:. 5825:) 5811:) 5793:) 5760:) 5741:) 5723:) 5687:) 5673:) 5657:, 5653:, 5649:, 5639:) 5625:) 5611:) 5571:💬 5554:. 5538:) 5493:) 5479:) 5465:) 5427:) 5403:) 5389:) 5375:) 5361:) 5346:) 5319:) 5290:) 5146:) 5138:. 5117:— 5109:) 5080:— 5072:) 5064:. 5050:) 5036:) 5018:) 4983:) 4949:) 4935:) 4903:) 4889:) 4639:) 4557:) 4529:) 4515:) 4441:) 4390:👀 4371:) 4363:-- 4320:) 4293:) 4279:) 4269:no 4248:) 4229:) 4214:) 4199:) 4129:) 4109:) 4083:) 4045:) 4031:) 4009:) 3978:) 3946:) 3893:) 3885:. 3883:}} 3877:{{ 3873:}} 3867:{{ 3861:. 3859:}} 3853:{{ 3849:}} 3843:{{ 3841:, 3839:}} 3833:{{ 3831:, 3829:}} 3823:{{ 3821:, 3819:}} 3813:{{ 3809:}} 3803:{{ 3795:}} 3789:{{ 3781:) 3763:) 3753:}} 3747:{{ 3740:}} 3734:{{ 3706:) 3696:}} 3690:{{ 3686:}} 3680:{{ 3672:) 3658:}} 3652:{{ 3643:) 3633:}} 3627:{{ 3599:) 3576:) 3546:) 3530:) 3516:) 3459:) 3430:) 3402:) 3381:) 3274:) 3247:) 3232:) 3169:) 3144:) 3035:) 2960:) 2941:) 2925:) 2871:) 2863:. 2814:) 2799:) 2746:) 2732:) 2708:) 2704:, 2684:) 2680:, 2666:) 2662:, 2648:) 2623:) 2600:) 2592:. 2571:, 2506:: 2461:) 2457:, 2443:) 2384:) 2380:, 2362:) 2348:) 2333:) 2296:) 2292:, 2262:) 2254:. 2244:) 2240:, 2222:) 2199:) 2182:) 2167:) 2134:) 2120:) 2088:. 2077:) 2062:) 2043:) 2026:) 2022:, 2004:) 1985:) 1981:, 1967:) 1948:) 1944:, 1927:) 1923:, 1908:) 1904:, 1858:; 1833:) 1815:) 1797:; 1776:) 1749:; 1717:; 1681:; 1664:do 1638:; 1604:; 1582:) 1555:; 1526:) 1481:; 1432:; 1382:; 1360:) 1314:) 1293:; 1247:) 1228:; 1206:) 1195:. 1187:; 1112:) 1094:; 1069:) 1050:; 1033:no 1025:) 1015:is 988:) 960:; 763:58 761:, 759:57 757:, 755:56 753:, 751:55 749:, 747:54 745:, 743:53 741:, 739:52 737:, 735:51 731:50 729:, 727:49 725:, 723:48 721:, 719:47 717:, 715:46 713:, 711:45 709:, 707:44 705:, 703:43 701:, 699:42 697:, 695:41 691:40 689:, 687:39 685:, 683:38 681:, 679:37 677:, 675:36 673:, 671:35 669:, 667:34 665:, 663:33 661:, 659:32 657:, 655:31 651:30 649:, 647:29 645:, 643:28 641:, 639:27 637:, 635:26 633:, 631:25 629:, 627:24 625:, 623:23 621:, 619:22 617:, 615:21 611:20 609:, 607:19 605:, 603:18 601:, 599:17 597:, 595:16 593:, 591:15 589:, 587:14 585:, 583:13 581:, 579:12 577:, 575:11 571:10 569:, 565:, 561:, 557:, 553:, 549:, 545:, 541:, 537:, 532:) 287:! 87:, 59:, 55:, 51:, 7251:) 7247:( 7206:( 7179:( 7165:( 7157:@ 7125:) 7121:( 7098:( 7079:) 7072:( 7052:) 7048:( 7025:) 7021:( 6977:( 6897:( 6862:) 6858:( 6807:( 6795:@ 6759:( 6744:@ 6734:( 6687:. 6626:( 6583:( 6509:( 6473:) 6465:( 6455:— 6427:@ 6417:( 6406:) 6398:( 6388:— 6354:( 6332:) 6324:( 6314:— 6292:( 6243:) 6239:( 6215:( 6172:( 6116:( 6102:( 6088:( 6076:T 6032:( 6005:( 5990:( 5967:( 5959:( 5944:) 5937:( 5905:( 5863:( 5843:( 5821:( 5807:( 5789:( 5779:) 5775:( 5756:( 5737:( 5719:( 5683:( 5669:( 5635:( 5621:( 5607:( 5565:A 5562:F 5559:C 5534:( 5489:( 5475:( 5461:( 5423:( 5399:( 5385:( 5371:( 5357:( 5342:( 5315:( 5286:( 5142:( 5105:( 5068:( 5046:( 5032:( 5014:( 5003:) 4999:( 4990:– 4979:( 4945:( 4931:( 4899:( 4885:( 4872:) 4868:( 4830:@ 4635:( 4553:( 4549:~ 4539:) 4531:( 4525:( 4511:( 4475:" 4467:@ 4437:( 4392:) 4381:) 4373:( 4367:( 4330:) 4322:( 4316:( 4308:" 4289:( 4275:( 4244:( 4225:( 4221:~ 4210:( 4195:( 4139:) 4131:( 4125:( 4105:( 4093:) 4085:( 4079:( 4067:) 4063:( 4041:( 4027:( 4005:( 3974:( 3942:( 3889:( 3777:( 3759:( 3725:) 3721:( 3702:( 3668:( 3639:( 3595:( 3572:( 3542:( 3526:( 3512:( 3491:) 3487:( 3455:( 3426:( 3398:( 3390:@ 3377:( 3366:) 3362:( 3315:@ 3270:( 3243:( 3228:( 3194:@ 3165:( 3142:ᴛ 3140:( 3120:) 3116:( 3107:– 3069:) 3065:( 3045:) 3037:( 3031:( 2968:@ 2956:( 2937:( 2921:( 2899:) 2892:( 2879:@ 2867:( 2840:) 2836:( 2810:( 2795:( 2789:: 2785:@ 2777:) 2773:( 2742:( 2728:( 2700:( 2676:( 2658:( 2644:( 2639:) 2635:( 2619:( 2596:( 2485:) 2478:( 2453:( 2439:( 2409:T 2376:( 2358:( 2344:( 2329:( 2288:( 2258:( 2236:( 2218:( 2195:( 2178:( 2163:( 2152:a 2130:( 2116:( 2105:) 2101:( 2073:( 2058:( 2039:( 2018:( 2000:( 1977:( 1963:( 1940:( 1919:( 1900:( 1850:( 1829:( 1811:( 1789:( 1772:( 1741:( 1709:( 1673:( 1630:( 1596:( 1578:( 1547:( 1522:( 1473:( 1455:) 1451:( 1424:( 1407:) 1403:( 1394:– 1374:( 1356:( 1310:( 1285:( 1243:( 1220:( 1202:( 1179:( 1108:( 1086:( 1065:( 1042:( 1021:( 984:( 952:( 869:e 862:t 855:v 567:9 563:8 559:7 555:6 551:5 547:4 543:3 539:2 535:1 528:( 408:. 356:: 291:. 280:. 265:. 254:. 243:. 236:. 194:e 187:t 180:v

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

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Articles for creation - Knowledge

Index