User talk:Jimbo Wales: Difference between revisions

257::::::Bidgee, this editor has made absolutely ludicrous accusations towards me regardless of fact for weeks, provided NO diffs, provided no evidence and generally will make ''very'' general statements that on the surface, make the accused look very bad, when in fact he himself has been the one attacking editors and supes because his article got deleted. I've been chastised to be civil here and I will. However, the "attacks" staged upon me by this editor (and others in his assocation) are baseless pipedreams designed to make him look like a victim and everyone who doesn't agree with him to be unreasonable cads. He and his group reported me for attacks when they could not silence my opposition to the piece in other ways, reported the admin who came in to "break it up," and has gone around with a general bent on harrassing anyone who doesn't agree with him. I questioned whether he was a sock (did not accuse) because his edits were nearly identical to all the later-discovered sock accounts that were created by the BLP subject himself. Talk about disengeneous! Also, I've refrained from answering all the charges leveled against me because it is a huge waste of time and I have better things to do. If we were involved in a dispute resolution, it would be easy, easy, easy to break down ''every one of his accusations.'' Aside from getting a bit angry at this editor's obviously outrageous behavior, I've done nothing wrong here and came to edit with intent to clean up Wiki because I saw the banner advertising the program this year while I was here as a reader. There has been nothing but assumptions of bad faith on this person's part, and yet he will trot that out like a billy club everytime he has a disagreement with someone. Please check this person's posts, they have been going around the site tagging and harrassing a good number of people and I've wondered actually when the supes were going to get around to doing something about it. Cheers! ] (]) 16:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares 3017:

would have been avoided. Since you raise the issue (somewhat passive-aggressively), I will oblige you with an explanation. When I stated that I was a new editor, that was indeed true. What's also true is that a week or so prior to my first edit as Minor4th, I had created another account -- and someone off wiki was able to identify the real person behind the handful of edits, presumably from information on the user page and the subject I was interested in editing. I have a particular need for anonymity that I will not go into. I abandoned that account and created this one. I have not used the other account since I created this one and don't intend to. My first edits with this account were on the Indian Child Welfare Act, a subject I'm interested in as a practitioner in the field. At the time GregJackP was in the middle of an overhaul of the article, and I offered to collaborate. As it turns out, we have similar interests. I don't know if GregJackP is also a lawyer, but he clearly has a strong interest in legal articles. I found him to be helpful and patient, and I have always found him to be thoughtful in his edits and articulate in his expression of his views. I have essentially followed him around wikipedia, and because of our similar interests we have sometimes edited in the same areas and on the same articles. Our participation on Don Martin and the related drama, however, was coincidental. I responded to an RfC posted on the legal/government/politics noticeboard about the Don Martin lawsuit, with no intention to hang around the article further. Regrettably, however, I was drawn into the drama by responding to various attacks by NineteenNightmares. And here we are today. As far as your comment on the quality of my edits and my proficiency on Knowledge....all I can say is thank you very much. Peace.

2653:

interesting read to parents today, indeed, one source suggests it has timeless observations. But today she can suffer a good faith AfD because we have no immediate reference points for pop culture of the 19th century available to us anymore. Radio dramas of the 1920s are old, but not yet so old, so some living persons can recall their notability, and probably have passed on their memories to children and grandchildren who might edit wikipedia in 2010. But Christine Terhune Herrick first made a splash way back in 1885, and though she remained well known for some time, those who would remember her rise to popularity are all long dead, and the memories passed on about her outside books are consequently weaker. I wonder, who was the Christine Terhune Herrick of 1650? Or 300 B.C.? These people existed and were notable at the time, but are long forgotten, and may be permanently lost if no historical record of them exists. But if there are sources, we can make that information available. People can find that knowledge and draw new parallels from the past to the present and to the future, insights we cannot foresee. That is the potential of wikipedia.</off naive soapbox: -->

4000:

worth- there is a well-recognized problem in Knowledge of Admins being rude, or at best curt, with their responses and many do not see a need to explain their decisions; when confronted with a "wrong" by another user other admins often come to their protection with "this is a non-issue, drop it" and inflict harsh incivility (one AN/I complaint against an admin even rose to the point of harrassment by other admins against the accuser to the point that some had to come back and apologize for their collective behavior and admit that behavior at AN/I by most of them was over the line even though they still agreed the original complaint was unfounded against the original admin), this is natural and happens in many facets of real life, those of a common position often have to protect each other in order to get others to protect them in the future (a quid pro quo if you will, its why a congressman from Albany, NY may vote for a pork project in a district in Sante Fe, NM, he can then reasonably expect a vote for his pork in return with no real discussions ever taking place, this is poli sci 101 stuff).

2755:

did not agree with their arguments on the article we were AfDing, and the article was evetually scrapped. If you have the time, I would suggest you look through this scenario's entirety and you will discover the truth. I'd also say a quick look at the admin's User page should put your mind at ease if you are indeed putting any sort of substance behind these unfounded accusations. I'm afraid the admin will leave Wiki, and honestly even though the admin did not always agree with any one of us, the admin was fair minded and there were other admins involved as well. Responsibility for the ugliness of this thing does not in any way fall on this person, and in fact, the admin did whatever the admin could to try and guide the discussion and answer policy questions. When this group didn't like it, they would argue against the admin even to the point of making this ridiculous notification on

3855:

assocation) are baseless pipedreams designed to make him look like a victim and everyone who doesn't agree with him to be unreasonable cads. He and his group reported me for attacks when they could not silence my opposition to the piece in other ways, reported the admin who came in to "break it up," and has gone around with a general bent on harrassing anyone who doesn't agree with him. I questioned whether he was a sock (did not accuse) because his edits were nearly identical to all the later-discovered sock accounts that were created by the BLP subject himself. Talk about disengeneous! Also, I've refrained from answering all the charges leveled against me because it is a huge waste of time and I have better things to do. If we were involved in a dispute resolution, it would be easy, easy, easy to break down

4393:. It failed for those articles in that the level of vandalism was totally disproportionate to the one or two good edits that were accepted so editors were spending all their time reverting vandalism instead of accepting revisions. Likewise, it made it extremely difficult for established editors to make good edits. However, there are many articles on which it appears to be working or at least the benefits are, so far, outweighing the costs. "Stick to pending changes protection at all costs" is the wrong approach, but evaluating each on its merits as we're currently doing, seems the right approach to me. Clinging onto PC on articles where it's clearly not working is just daft, but it has the potential to bring great benefits by opening articles up while keeping vandalism out of the live version. 4176:

are simply too many bad apples among the admin corp and the occasional good apple that is simply pushed over the edge, that their attitude and actions drive away good editors. It is not the incivility of other editors, it is the incivility of admins and their abuse of power that is the main problem when it comes to civility. Can we please talk about what can/may be done to alleviate this problem? Unfortunately I know it wont go anywhere, we cant even get a consistent and impartial procedure to desysop, why would expect any action on something simple like telling admins to "be nice" or get sanctioned? Regular editors are consistently sanctioned and blocked for not being courteous, we are all completely equal, there is no lesser standard for admins.

289::::Spartaz, can you not read? I'm leaving. I don't care what happens, I just thought that Jimbo should know that good editors are being treated poorly and deciding it is not worth it. That is what my initial post here was about. From the above comments, I would say that it is a problem that admins don't want to admit. ("Move along, nothing to see here") I don't care if anyone supports it or not, Jimbo asked for more info, and I gave it to him. He has the right to know what is going on. Other than that, I am just here long enough to see if he needed anything else. But thanks for emphasizing my point for me. ] ] 17:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 282::::Spartaz, can you not read? I'm leaving. I don't care what happens, I just thought that Jimbo should know that good editors are being treated poorly and deciding it is not worth it. That is what my initial post here was about. From the above comments, I would say that it is a problem that admins don't want to admit. ("Move along, nothing to see here") I don't care if anyone supports it or not, Jimbo asked for more info, and I gave it to him. He has the right to know what is going on. Other than that, I am just here long enough to see if he needed anything else. But thanks for emphasizing my point for me. ] ] 17:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 2614:

of to be given reviewer and rollback without asking for them. All I wanted to do was to make Wiki a better place, to write good articles in an area that had few, and to build an on-line encyclopedia. If this was a paid job, there isn't enough money to make me want to work in an environment where that type of admin can do that to people without being called on it. Wiki has a policy that "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Knowledge-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed" yet she won't respond and not one admin will call her on it. Why should I put up with it?

3437:(ec)Did I? I didn't even pay attention if I did, because its not about me. The article was kept, because notable content always wins out in the long run, no matter who claims its not notable in a given AfD. (Uchitel was originally deleted and then subject to a super drama AfD six months ago. Then it came back, went to AfD again, and was kept. The sourcing kept improving as editors actually did constructive work on it.). If you are going to descend into battles over the the small number of AfDs that deal with potentially marginal BLPs, you need a thick skin. But even most marginal BLPs AFDs are not contentious.-- 3754:

doing that, every comment has been that it was the inappropriate place to take it, without looking at the underlying conduct or our concerns. It is also curious that of those commenting on the RfC, half of those saying to leave it alone and go away are from Australia (which seems like a high percentage to me, based on the number of total users/admins by country) - not that there could be any off-line canvasing. In a conversation with another admin, I was told that it "it is best to not pursue even the most justified grievances"

230::::Bidgee, it was an assumption of bad faith on my part (intentionally) along the same lines as the one Sarah made. I was just curious if I would get questioned about it, while no one questions an admin on similar comments. Why is that? It is also why I said "off-line" - I know that she hasn't done anything on-line. Anyway, thanks for making my point for me. ] ] 17:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 223::::Bidgee, it was an assumption of bad faith on my part (intentionally) along the same lines as the one Sarah made. I was just curious if I would get questioned about it, while no one questions an admin on similar comments. Why is that? It is also why I said "off-line" - I know that she hasn't done anything on-line. Anyway, thanks for making my point for me. ] ] 17:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 2639:

have reviewer rights, so its resume puff at best, let's not go crazy about such "credentials".) You can cite policies about civility all day long, but the fact is, just like in real life, some people are mean. There's no true bosses here, so you have to fend for yourself to a great extent. If not a single person will call someone on their behavior, you either aren't articulating your point of view well enough, or you need to just move on to something else, so you can enjoy things.

2945:

sock-puppetry when people without globalized logins get logged out in half an hour while they're editing and end up submitting under an IP. Nor do I think that it is right to impose any great punishment nor the stigma of "sock puppetry" on irate blocked editors who edit as IPs only to protest the injustice of a block without deception, though I can understand shutting up the IP address with a block if they get annoying enough. The concept of "sock puppetry" should be limited to

1514: 2877:. The accusation remains unresolved and Sarah will not explain why she made the accusation or what evidence supports it, despite polite requests for an explanation. When trying to resolve the issue, Greg has continually been told by other admins to drop it or that he is using the wrong process, and there remains a refusal to address the underlying issue of the accusations by Sarah. She has not responded to the RfC. Please see the discussion here: 1483: 71: 4033:(which I certified as well), I requested that one of the other participants please request that the Sarah (the admin in question) engage in a civil and calm discussion with Greg and me so that we could put the issue to bed and get back to editing. Greg supported my request, but interestingly, the requests have sat there all day unanswered. This RfC is posted at the top of the admin noticeboard. 246:::::It's funny you accuse an Admin not assuming good faith but then you intentionally assume bad faith (The idea is that even if someone ABF (intentional or not), you AGF). Sarah is not an Admin who would intentionally assume bad faith nor intentionally do off-line canvassing and the fact is she is currently busy on other matters (as she has stated on her talk page). ] (]) 17:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 239:::::It's funny you accuse an Admin not assuming good faith but then you intentionally assume bad faith (The idea is that even if someone ABF (intentional or not), you AGF). Sarah is not an Admin who would intentionally assume bad faith nor intentionally do off-line canvassing and the fact is she is currently busy on other matters (as she has stated on her talk page). ] (]) 17:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3541:), but with the process. I have a little different outlook than some of the above posters, not that I think they they are wrong, but everyone perceives things differently (which is just the nature of being human). To get at the process, I do believe that the underlying matter needs to be looked at however, not for action, but to understand the dynamics. I'll try to summarize it concisely below: 273:::In case you didn't notice the list of current RFCs is shown at the top of AN so you are bound to get traffic from there. I'm also curious why you are here? Isn't an RFC enough for you or are you planning to take this to every board and page on wikipedia until you find enough people to support you. Its time for some perspective guys. ] '']'' 17:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 266:::In case you didn't notice the list of current RFCs is shown at the top of AN so you are bound to get traffic from there. I'm also curious why you are here? Isn't an RFC enough for you or are you planning to take this to every board and page on wikipedia until you find enough people to support you. Its time for some perspective guys. ] '']'' 17:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 2720:

like this, not so much for the purpose of direct intervention - that's not usually what I do, although I can help try to mediate a conflict now and then - but from the perspective of policy. That is, I like to ask: what went wrong here and how can situations like this be avoided in the future? But first I need to know what happened. Diffs are always welcome. :-) --

4116:. She accused me of socking for Don Martin, insinuated in one of your diffs that she had evidence, and when asked to explain she chased us off her talk page and has refused to address the accusation. Meanwhile, you and several other admins and editors have piled on with the "drop it" chorus. Perhaps you should participate in the open RfC discussion. 3860:

this person's part, and yet he will trot that out like a billy club everytime he has a disagreement with someone. Please check this person's posts, they have been going around the site tagging and harrassing a good number of people and I've wondered actually when the supes were going to get around to doing something about it. Cheers!

3893:

don't want to admit. ("Move along, nothing to see here") I don't care if anyone supports it or not, Jimbo asked for more info, and I gave it to him. He has the right to know what is going on. Other than that, I am just here long enough to see if he needed anything else. But thanks for emphasizing my point for me.

3970:

resolve this, by acting as a go between or just talking to both parties. Instead, it became apparent that editors are on their own, and the admins will focus on where it should be filed, any mistakes on the part of the editors, etc. What resources exist to help the editor? There is no one to go to for help.

4793:"Knowledge has become home base for a loose worldwide network of pedophiles..." using "chat rooms" and "message boards". But these chat rooms and message boards are all somewhere or another else, because Knowledge doesn't encourage people to get together and bias an article toward their point of view. 4556:

Hi Jimbo. I would ask to stimulate and stimulate the use of alternative (alt=...) text on images in the Knowledge and Global projects. In Knowledge in Portuguese is difficult. My son is visually impaired and want to read the texts. My Wiki-pt adjustments are being reversed. I'm stop edits now. Please

4214:

Indeed. There is no doubt a very different standard for admin behavior compared to editor behavior, different sanctions, different process for dealing with it. In fact, as you said there is not a process for dealing with poor admin behavior -- editors are just told to drop it and are chastised for

4175:

Yes, yes, Sarah did this, someone else did that, to be frank nothing is going to be accomplished by continuing to talk about it because there is no method for dealing with it anyways. Can we get to the heart of the underlying problem that affects all of Knowledge? There are many of us that feel there

4008:

My idea of what should be done- If admins want to continue to make decisions and have additional tools that can be abused to the detriment of other editor's enjoyment then they need to be held accountable outside of their peers. An unfortunate number of Wikipedians see our policies as laws and Admins

2944:

wrong. Lots of people start out editing Knowledge as "anonymous IPs" (to be oxymoronic) before they get an account! And no matter how much certain people want to puff up the definition of "sock puppetry", I refuse to accept that there's anything wrong with that. Nor do I think it's fair to call it

2613:

Milowent, primarily because no one will stand up to her. If Wiki can't come up with some way to effectively control the bully admin-type (since other admins don't seem to have the cajones to do so), why should I stick around? I have no desire to be an admin, but apparently was thought highly enough

4911:

Where FOX and I agree is that Knowledge is open to pedophiles. That's what you get when you make an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If they want to start a 💕 where everyone has to present an identification card and fingerprints and get run through the FBI and local police databases before they

3303:

Actually, I really don't care at this point if I am blocked or banned or whatever else. GregJackP said he was retiring, so following him around won't be an issue in any event, but thanks anyway for your advice. If he stays, then I will likely continue to edit in the same areas. You take care as

3016:

DVdm, thank you for noticing my edits. Perhaps your observation is the reason Sarah thought I was a sock (although inexplicable why she would think I was a sock for Don Martin). If she had simply stated her observations and given me an opportunity to address them, much of this ensuing discussion

2581:

Incidentally, as I stated on the RfC in question -- Greg has been my mentor and was the person who got me excited about wiki in the first place. I don't have a high edit count or long time participation, just a couple of months, but if Greg is discouraged and disillusioned enough to leave, then so

2540:

As long as you allow this type of behavior to be tolerated, you will lose good editors who won't put up with that type of treatment. Most of us have other things we can do, and we don't need the BS. Again, I'm sure I won't be missed, but you might want to ask yourself how many leave without saying

3815:

Bidgee, it was an assumption of bad faith on my part (intentionally) along the same lines as the one Sarah made. I was just curious if I would get questioned about it, while no one questions an admin on similar comments. Why is that? It is also why I said "off-line" - I know that she hasn't done

3770:

process, no one that will guide them or advise them. As a consequence, you're losing editors that you should be encouraging to stay. In my case, it's not worth the time or effort to deal with that type of individual. I'm also sure that I am partially at fault here, but without an open discussion

3765:

It is apparent that one is not to question, in any way an admin, and that other admins are going to stonewall any question or concern about a bullying admin - and there is no way to get past it. Even Arbcom consists of admins. There is no avenue for addressing behavior or concerns without running

3104:

So either file an SPI or be quiet. Make sure and ask for a checkuser, and you can check the IP's with the dates and times of near simultaneous edits and determine that a) we don't use the same computer, b) we're not in the same location, c) our style of writing is different, and d) we also edit in

2847:

Just to clarify a minor point in the above: the request was for a three month block, and Sarah argued that other sanctions should be tried first, as well as arguing that the support votes were coming from involved users. Otherwise the RFC/U seems to have the best summary of GregJackP's concerns. It

2754:

of us for creating such a hostile article environment. The same admin also refused to lift my 24 hour ban that the same complaintants here created by mischaracterizing the dispute (how's that for civility?). Anyway, this one is a good egg and was fair to everyone. The real problem is that the admin

3999:

While I must admit the beginning of this long drawn out discussion was highly interesting at first I quickly got disenchanted with the bickering and only skimmed the last 1/3 of the thread's posts. These are my observations on admin abuse and how it affects a Wikipedian's experience for what it is

3969:

When an editor complains about an admins actions, there is nowhere for them to get help. The other admins all circle the wagons, and stonewall. The suggestions of "drop it" is not appropriate nor helpful. This entire matter could have been resolved so easily if just one admin had offered to help

3892:

Spartaz, can you not read? I'm leaving. I don't care what happens, I just thought that Jimbo should know that good editors are being treated poorly and deciding it is not worth it. That is what my initial post here was about. From the above comments, I would say that it is a problem that admins

3882:

In case you didn't notice the list of current RFCs is shown at the top of AN so you are bound to get traffic from there. I'm also curious why you are here? Isn't an RFC enough for you or are you planning to take this to every board and page on wikipedia until you find enough people to support you.

3859:

Aside from getting a bit angry at this editor's obviously outrageous behavior, I've done nothing wrong here and came to edit with intent to clean up Wiki because I saw the banner advertising the program this year while I was here as a reader. There has been nothing but assumptions of bad faith on

2652:

that went a little like this: "I find articles like that fascinating sometimes. Here is this woman who was known to millions of homemakers in the late 19th century -- she was literally a household name to many. She wrote about raising her son in 1913 in "The Boy and I," which would probably be an

2638:

If you're not enjoying yourself, by all means leave. Mean people are everywhere in real life too, but leaving the Earth is not as easy. If you care about Knowledge and its goals, you should stay. Being an admin is a thankless job anyway from all I've seen; editing is much more fun. (And even I

4903:

have the right to fair and unbiased coverage, and I don't mean the FOX News variety. It is easy for snide commentators to suggest that an encyclopedia shouldn't mention disturbing things like NAMBLA, but I bet that no matter what FOX thinks there are probably millions and millions of mothers who

2999:

Perhaps you could explain further? All I see is that it looks like he downloaded Twinkle and started playing with it to leave a bunch of those ugly little "authoritative-sounding" speedy delete messages. I don't blame him, I blame the tool... (also to me "new here" doesn't necessarily mean "my

2870:

I think there is a more fundamental issue than any of that (which is a bit POV-y). Sarah (an admin) made a number of accusations and criticisms against Greg, not the least of which was an insinuation that a Greg (and I) were additional sockpuppets for Dmartinaus after an SPI with CU had already

2719:

Well, so this is very interesting to me, as I certainly don't like to see anyone with 6,000 edits have such a bad experience. But without diffs or something approaching an NPOV explanation of what happened here, it's hard for me to even get started looking into it. I try to look into situations

2528:

I'm a good editor with over 6,000 edits, 2 GAs, another getting close to GA, and a 4th that might have gone to FA. I do most of my article work in Native American case law and statutes, an area that few are working on or in. I've been on Knowledge since 2006, but lurked for a good while before I

4009:

as police/judges, if this is how they wish to be seen then a "civilian review board" needs to be established of ONLY non-admins to review impartially any and ALL claims put forth to them. If we are more empowered and feel things will at least get looked at fairly the average user will be happier.

3975:

At this point it is no longer productive to discuss this. I don't care - I'm leaving. Jimbo, I answered your question on what happened, but if I stick around, the focus will be on the specific complaint instead of the process and policy problems. So I'm leaving, but will be happy to answer any

3753:

Without any other resources, and without any guidance on how to proceed, I initiated an RfC, believing from the information on the RfC and AN/I pages that the RfC was the less confrontational, as I did not want any sanctions (which the RfC page said it was a "non-binding, informal process"). On

3475:

I've been accused of socking in the past but I don't get offended by it, I just tell them to take it to SPI as I've got nothing to hide but the fact is they never list it. I'm sure Sarah never meant any harm and is infact over the drama but I think everyone needs to move along as going over same

2532:

I'm leaving because I'm not going to participate in a system where an admin can make innuendos, assume bad faith, be rude and misstate facts (i.e. lie), and refuse to talk to editors that attempt to resolve the issue. In fact, she tells them to go away, in rude terms, and refuses to discuss the

4940:

In summary, I feel that FOX, apparently having found no legal support for claims that Knowledge distributes child pornography, is now criticizing us because we allow the description of well-known pedophiles and pedophile political organizations. But it's all too clear that pretending the issue

3835:

It's funny you accuse an Admin not assuming good faith but then you intentionally assume bad faith (The idea is that even if someone ABF (intentional or not), you AGF). Sarah is not an Admin who would intentionally assume bad faith nor intentionally do off-line canvassing and the fact is she is

3105:

different subject areas, despite having similar interests in (some) legal article issues. If you have evidence, submit a case. Otherwise, you're just assuming bad faith on our part and getting close to making personal attacks (i.e., "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence.").

2521:

This doesn't mean a hill of beans as far as the viability of Knowledge, nor do I imagine that anyone will much care. You have a problem with your admin system when an admin can make inappropriate comments, mistate facts, violate several policies, refuse to talk to editors trying to resolve the

3854:

general statements that on the surface, make the accused look very bad, when in fact he himself has been the one attacking editors and supes because his article got deleted. I've been chastised to be civil here and I will. However, the "attacks" staged upon me by this editor (and others in his

3194:

Knowledge (like Knowledge Review's censorship crusade...). If you're prohibiting people from making friends here or agreeing with the people they agree with, that's a whole new level of nuttiness. Personally I think that this whole Sesame street circus sockpuppet meatpuppet duck and all is a

2562:

If you leave, you let the bad guys win. Why not stay and kick some ass? Knowledge has no monopoly on BS. "Admins" are like hall monitors in elementary school, they are just like everyone else, so don't elevate them to the point where they "become" wikipedia in your eyes. You are wikipedia

4258:

I thought it was supposed to be for 2 months. An administrator has decided that it has failed and has shut it down, at least for the Barack Obama article. Is this legal? I thought your decision was to let it go for 2 months? Or should you do a "General McChrystal" on that too independent

2529:

started to edit. I've engaged in numerous debates, won some and lost some, and loved the consensus process. Until now - I have never been treated so rudely by an admin. I won't be editing any more, nor will I be fighting at the university I work at about the reliability of Knowledge.

4215:

insulted as wrong-minded for bothering admins. This abuse of power and we/them mentality will continue to disenfranchise content editors. (see Greg's initial post on this thread) and keep potential new editors away. Have you thought about the citizen review board in any more detail?

4476:, just with the link and text changed. The way it is, it looks like it is in a different position on all computers, but with topicon, you can use "icon_nr=x", which makes it go in the spot you choose, and it makes it so that a row of icons looks pretty much the same on any computer. ~~ 3800:

Why worry about where someone lives? It has nothing to do with the issue at hand (I'm not having a go at you GregJackP but the comment you made really doesn't help). Also there is no canvassing going on. I have been watching this dispute and noted the reverts made on Sarah's page.

4315:

Flagged revisions should have been used in combination with s-protection, not instead of it. That was the problem. Really, the problem is that the foundation isn't just implementing it globally on every article and saying here it is, this part of the service we're providing.

4343:

articles. Part of this trial is to figure out what sorts of article Pending Changes is right for, and as we figure that out, it will be used on certain articles where it will be apparent it isn't the best solution, and a different form of protection will be used instead.

4912:

are allowed to edit... let them start their own and see how that works out for them. But I think it is important for us not to pretend that Knowledge is "child-safe" — that's just not possible, unless you can trust your children not to arrange meetings with pedophiles.

4428:

Can I take your non-response as a "go ahead"? Or did you just miss my question? Here it is again, in case you missed it: Would you mind if I changed your guestbook icon to work with the topicon template? If I'm being annoying by asking this again, I apologize. ~~

2749:

Jimbo, please do not judge the admin being referred to here without taking about two weeks to go through all the posts to deconstruct it. It is a very confusing discussion to try to understand. This admin not only came into a very contentious room, but chastised

3793:

It is also curious that of those commenting on the RfC, half of those saying to leave it alone and go away are from Australia (which seems like a high percentage to me, based on the number of total users/admins by country) - not that there could be any off-line

3382:

That summary is what everyone is butthurt over? Jeebus christmas. Who really cares if someone questions whether someone else is a sock? If you're not a sock, say so, and move on. Unless one is proven to be a sock, this kind of idle speculation happens

3929:, I went on to warn him that his images had no - copyright tags of any kind and were in danger of being deleted. That particular editor continued to create what I would describe as chaos as evidenced above. I suggested AN/I as a question posed to JNW 63: 2759:

Talk page. I believe they also tried to report the admin in an official capacity for discplinary purposes, as they did me, but it was laughed away by the preciding admin. It seems they want to involve you since the standard approach didn't work.

2671:

Didn't mean to imply that reviewer/rollback were important - just to say I didn't care one way or another and one day they just appeared. Thank you for your kind words, most here have been that way, and a pleasure to work with. Good luck.

2983:, he says "I am new to editing wikipedia, so I will take some time looking around and familiarizing myself." From where I am standing, it looks like he took 1 day to become a professional in a mere two hours. I find this extraordinary. 4253: 4357:

I think what Prodego said is accurate. It's a bit like semi-protecting an article that autoconfirmed users are edit warring on and then saying that semi-protection is a failure. It's not a logical conclusion from the evidence.

3674:(not true, everyone that was mentioned in the diffs was notified, including her and others who were likely to disagree with my position), unilaterally stated that there was no threat to contact the media about the BLP subject 2918:. I must say that I am really astonished when I see your highly advanced editing skills, which you seem to have acquired in less than one week. This is truly amazing. Surely you must have been around in read-only mode for a 4334:

article was removed from PC because the amount of vandalism was too great to justify reviewing the revisions to the article, and semiprotection was restored. Another article which similarly had semiprotection reenabled was

4637:

Where do they get the idea to write such bollocks? It's obvious to anyone with half a brain (so that excludes most Fox News viewers) that that story is, at best, a gross over-exaggeration and at worst a work of fiction.

3195:

disgrace to Knowledge, and would miss any operation that even cursorily invoked the black art of "planning" — I think we should openly allow all editors to have multiple accounts and adjust ourselves to that reality.

2522:

issue, and basically bully editors. In this case, at least 4 separate editors pointed out what she was doing was wrong - and she continued. Not a single admin that participated in the discussions stepped forward.

4904:

have never heard that word, and if someone in the apartment building tells them over the washing machine that there's a guy in their floor in NAMBLA, they should be able to look it up here and see what that means.

3363:

What also hurt in that AfD and also its article is that the socks were not clearly discerned until the AfD was just about complete and could be viewed as a Keep. Unsupported claims should never be made in an AfD.

2818:, who supported the deletion, acknowledged that NN has a civility problem but she opposed the proposed block because she said that most of the supporters of the proposal were involved in a dispute with NN 4859:, said that "These Knowledge articles, edited and shared by pedophiles, are nothing but guideposts to get them aroused". I think that a brief examination of any of these articles refutes this outright. 4692:(on their part).. Yea I see that but I don't know if that statement merits nearly enough weight vs. the rest of the article, ya know? They mention it in the beginning... and then go on about how we 4804:. Note that the grand international pedophile conspiracy here consists of — at most — six votes. Anybody on Earth can sign up for an account and have a vote like that. And I'm not convinced 15: 4964: 2804: 4674:

Isn't their statement contained in the article? Like where it says "Sue Gardner, executive director of Wikimedia Foundation, Knowledge's parent organization, said in a statement..."--

4268: 3932:

and I was somewhat surprised in the resulting thread added there, however I also supported a block in hopes of finally cooling 19Nightmares down. This affair is unfortunate...

438: 4274:

Flagged revisions/Pending changes hasn't been shut down - it was found not to work on that article, so it was removed from there. It is, however, active on other articles. -

4502:

Wow, I'm really sounding stuffy, aren't I? I seem to always talk like that to people I've never talked to before... I must do something to stop this! Erm... FORTY-TWO! ~~

4473: 2783: 1474: 204: 148: 3960:

requires an admin to respond to queries on why the did something on Wiki, and there is a clear decision by Arbcom stating the same thing, this is no longer about what

3850:

Bidgee, this editor has made absolutely ludicrous accusations towards me regardless of fact for weeks, provided NO diffs, provided no evidence and generally will make

3421:

and its AfD went. Talk about beat up? You were taking some major league shots as an editor trying to save an article. I've seen punching dummies take less hits. ----

2516: 3926:'s talk page. As JNW is one of the best visual arts editors in wikipedia with more than 40,000 edits, I was shocked by the personal attack and issued this warning: 3608:

My next comment after I realized she was upset was to try and clear it up and make sure that she knew that I was not trying to insult her nor impugn her integrity (

4625:....it would be more credible.... in any case, what they've written is sensationalist drivel - I doubt there are a significant number of pedophiles on Knowledge. 2511: 2493: 348: 3747:. On templating her for not AGF, an admin immediately came to my talk page and wanting to know if I was trying to provoke someone and that I needed to back off 3387:

the time. It should not dissuade editors who like to actually write articles from writing articles. Don Martin is barely notable at best, let's all move on.--

4801: 4066:

Perhaps other participants are reluctant to volunteer to request Sarah to engage in discussion, because Sarah kindly asked you to leave her alone a few times:

3632: 3622: 2793: 4608:

Likewise. Regardless, their viewers will believe it and will be detrimental to Knowledge's rep. There's already been like 3 4chan threads on it already. –

3766:

the risk of putting a target on your own back - a number of editors told me that I was right, but crazy to pursue this. There is no help for editors in the

2914:

Hi Minor4th, I accidentally stumbled on this thing. Being a bit curious about this "insinuation that Greg (and you) were sockpuppets...", I had a look at

3066:

You are welcome. Still overwhelmingly astonished about the switfness of your learning how to effectively use everything meta-Knowledge has to offer, and

3173:

make some case here. Not me. I have no interest in getting you blocked/banned whatsoever. Just giving some advice. Take it or ignore it. Take care too.

2729: 3549: 2838: 2555: 3711: 4963:

I've picked up your comment at an AfD about whether we have enough info on someone to write a reasonable bio, I've had similar thoughts myself. See

4828: 3561: 3553: 3708: 3705: 3695: 3692: 3680: 3678: 3675: 3672: 3669: 3656: 4288: 2769: 160: 93: 3601:

comments to be "disingenuous" - a word I probably shouldn't have used but was meant in the form of the definition to mean "not frank or open."

3504:

Who said I wasn't watching? AfD's can be a mine field and infact some can turn out quite nasty, part of everyones different opinions and ideas.

3771:(instead of the "Move on, nothing to see here" from the admins), I have know way of knowing how to correct them. So I'll "move on." Regards, 3605:

took offense at this (which can be understandable) and stated that it was "really insulting of my integrity as an editor and an administrator."

31: 28: 3869: 3689: 2949:. And as long as Knowledge is open to "anonymous" edits, we must always allow for the possibility that pseudonymous editors have made them. 4067: 3609: 3606: 4704: 4683: 4669: 2872: 2744: 4652: 2871:

confirmed various socks. When asked for an explanation, she refused to provide one and told us to go away and stay off her talk page.

4832: 4407: 4235: 4053: 3941: 3591: 3466: 3430: 3412: 3373: 3358: 3259: 2821:

GregJackP was offended by comments made by Sarah which he interpreted as accusation of socking, and he complained to her about it, see

2695:

to a shed a tear in response to my inspirational speech and declare your undying love and renewed commitment for wikipedia. oh well.--

410: 4632: 4616: 4603: 3446: 3396: 3236: 2903: 2704: 2686: 2666: 2628: 2572: 72: 4543: 4517: 4491: 4459: 3907: 3887: 3527: 2602: 178: 3845: 3830: 3810: 3590:

reviewed the AfD and reclosed as delete. Several editors asked him to reconsider and he self-initiated a DRV to check on consensus

3513: 3499: 3485: 4981: 4919:

A specific claim that they make is that "Knowledge can be accessed unfiltered in public schools across the country". I interpret

4365: 4310: 4185: 2861: 2541:

a word? All it would have taken is for one admin to step forward and point out her (and I'm sure my) faults. Just one. Regards,

2501: 375: 4450:

Sorry, I overlooked it. I'm afraid I don't really understand the question. :) It sounds fine to me, but what does it mean? :-)--

3274: 3185: 3119: 4950: 4170: 4136: 4096: 3671:, that no diffs were provided (not true, 19 diffs were posted), stated that I only notified users that would support my position 3324: 3099: 3037: 2931: 156: 89: 2915: 4325: 4283: 4027:

Camelbinky, you have hit the nail squarely on the head as far as what the real issue is. I like your proposal, but see here:

4992: 4352: 3629: 416: 167: 3204: 3009: 2992: 2958: 2735:

Jimbo, it happens more than Knowledge can probably stand. This topic on your talkpage is resonating on other talkpages. ----

4899:

The broader issue here: do pedophiles have the right to unbiased coverage on Knowledge? It is a misleading question. The

4732:

Nigam said Knowledge is making a conscious choice to abandon its responsibility by hosting an online haven for pedophiles.

4558: 1482: 3157:

Hi Greg. Of course I'm sure that an SPI based on IP, location and style would turn out negative. Nevertheless, looking at

4577: 3927: 3564:

was blocked for 2 weeks and the socks blocked indef. The AfD was initially closed as keep in a process tainted by socks.

2977: 1526: 434: 118: 3920: 3626: 3457:

Then why did you keep interceding in the AfD? And who was the editor who really save it? It was not editors plural. ----

4566: 3345:

Concur, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Admins will often do what Minor has cited. Drop it is not good policy.

4876: 3686: 2453: 2450: 2447: 2439: 2436: 2433: 2430: 2427: 2424: 2421: 2418: 2415: 2412: 2409: 2406: 2403: 2400: 2397: 2394: 2391: 2388: 2385: 2382: 2379: 2376: 2373: 2370: 2367: 2364: 2361: 2355: 2350: 2345: 2340: 2335: 2330: 2325: 2320: 2315: 2310: 2305: 2300: 2295: 2290: 2285: 2280: 2275: 2270: 2265: 2260: 2255: 2250: 2245: 2240: 2235: 2230: 2225: 2220: 2215: 2210: 2205: 2200: 2195: 2190: 2185: 2180: 2175: 2170: 2165: 2160: 2155: 2150: 2145: 2140: 2135: 2130: 2125: 2120: 2115: 2110: 2105: 2100: 2095: 2090: 2085: 2080: 2075: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1122: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1054: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 986: 982: 978: 974: 970: 966: 962: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 938: 934: 930: 926: 922: 918: 914: 910: 906: 902: 898: 894: 890: 886: 882: 878: 874: 870: 866: 4769: 4734:“It’s nothing more than a company that is choosing to ignore the worst kind of exploitation in the world,” he said. 4588: 3748: 3745: 3742: 3739: 3736: 2849: 4444: 2070: 2065: 2060: 2055: 2050: 2045: 2040: 2035: 2025: 2020: 2015: 2010: 2005: 2000: 1995: 1990: 1985: 1980: 1975: 1970: 1965: 1960: 1955: 1950: 1945: 1940: 1935: 1930: 1925: 1920: 1915: 1910: 1905: 1900: 1895: 1890: 1885: 1880: 1875: 1870: 1865: 1860: 1855: 1850: 1845: 1840: 1835: 1830: 1825: 1820: 1815: 1810: 1805: 1800: 1795: 1790: 1785: 1780: 1775: 1770: 1765: 1760: 1755: 1750: 1745: 1740: 1735: 1730: 1725: 1720: 1715: 1710: 1705: 1700: 1695: 1690: 1685: 1680: 1675: 1670: 1665: 1660: 1655: 1650: 1645: 1640: 1635: 1630: 1625: 1620: 862: 858: 854: 850: 846: 842: 838: 834: 830: 826: 822: 818: 814: 810: 806: 802: 798: 794: 790: 786: 782: 778: 774: 770: 766: 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: 566: 562: 558: 554: 550: 546: 542: 538: 534: 530: 526: 522: 518: 514: 510: 506: 5009: 4303: 1615: 1610: 1605: 1600: 1595: 1590: 1585: 1580: 1575: 1570: 1565: 1560: 1555: 1550: 1545: 1540: 502: 498: 494: 490: 486: 482: 478: 474: 470: 466: 462: 458: 454: 450: 446: 442: 3726: 3720: 3717: 3714: 3683: 3612: 4884: 4661:

gets paid $ 2M a year? But I digress. I think such a report merits a statement from the WMF, in my opinion. –

3245:

The passive-aggressive behavior is mind-boggling. Maybe I should just commit seppuku now and be done with it.

2822: 361: 313: 4018: 3930: 3758: 3755: 3639: 4958: 3994: 3865: 3785: 2765: 2582:

am I. I was a part of the same incidents that he is speaking of and I echo his concerns and disappointment.

405: 334: 174: 4472:

template, becuause it makes it easier to have it line up and whatnot. It would pretty much look the same as

2973:

lots of people start out editing Knowledge as "anonymous IPs" (to be oxymoronic) before they get an account!

4976: 4158: 4114: 4085: 4082: 4079: 4076: 4073: 4070: 3723: 2875: 2657:

So, if you leave, what will you be depriving us of? Perhaps just some drama, but perhaps something more.--

4790:

I think anyone can see that FOX is badly biased here, but I suppose it can't hurt to go over the details.

4872: 4856: 3738:

and was told to drop it, without being asked about the matter in detail, just from a cursory quick check

3697:

and since one of these editors is an attorney, I feel confident that he is able to recognize a "threat").

2483: 1532: 396: 111: 3082:

puppet master as far as you possibly can. Surely you do not want to risk getting blocked/banned for the

2848:

should, I guess, also be noted that GregJackP's issue with lack of support from admins stemmed from the

2649: 4423: 429: 338: 2645: 4562: 3916: 3861: 3665: 3618: 3568: 2800: 2761: 2644:

What could be lost if you don't stay? No one knows. Following the recent AfD (nom. withdrawn) of

4968: 4571: 100: 4965:

Knowledge talk:Biographies of living persons#Do we have enough information to write a biography?

3557: 5003: 4848: 4621:

Fox News should probably run an article about the fact that most Wikipedians are members of an

4594:

Fox News is less accurate than Knowledge on balance, but I fear to find if any of it is true.--

4580:? I'm sure you probably have. I think it's just terrible.. everything. Thanks for your time – 2029: 4812:

FOX News could come up with. At this point I think it is fair to ask whether they are merely

4868: 4679: 4647: 4551: 4402: 3495: 3462: 3426: 3408: 3369: 3354: 3232: 2740: 66: 4031: 3956:

I think all the discussion here is missing the main point. While there is no question that

3490:

You weren't there for the show. Even I was scared and I hadn't participated in the AfD. ----

2881: 2829:, and was disappointed that admins who participated on that discussion did not fault Sarah. 4761:

Wow, really? I know what that guy is saying, but I think it's blown out of proportion. –

4330:

The pending changes is system isn't the ideal solution for all articles. In this case, the

4181: 4113:

You forgot the most important diff and the reason for my participation in this discussion:

4014: 3957: 2534: 3190:

You know, I thought the "meatpuppet" policy at least was limited to human recruiting from

8: 4880: 4767: 4702: 4667: 4614: 4586: 4340: 4301: 3989: 3977: 3937: 3902: 3825: 3780: 3254: 3227:

Wow, sad to the bullying continue here. Why not shoot Daffy now and be done with it? ----

3114: 2834: 2681: 2623: 2550: 386: 3915:

As way of explanation of my role, my first encounter with this entire episode came when

4986: 4629: 4599: 4229: 4130: 4047: 3580: 3442: 3392: 3318: 3031: 2897: 2880:. There have been ongoing instances of incivility by Sarah, including edit summaries: 2700: 2662: 2596: 2568: 401: 122: 4370:

As it happens, I'm the admin who protected Obama, but there have been other examples-

4997: 4844: 4622: 4362: 382: 4254:

Flagged Revisions has failed according to an administrator and it has been shut down

4675: 4639: 4469: 4451: 4394: 4028: 3841: 3806: 3560:) was initiated by me and the clerk determined that a CU was needed. As a result, 3509: 3481: 2878: 2721: 357: 16: 4657:

It wouldn't bother me if they didn't have an army of mindless followers. You know

3265:

Perhaps I should have avoided commenting on this. Looks like a wasps' nest. Sigh.

4689: 4279: 4264: 4177: 4010: 3587: 3538: 2857: 107: 4696:

have a neutral point of view on pedophilia... bla bla bla you know the rest. –

4762: 4697: 4662: 4609: 4581: 4292: 4166: 4092: 3982: 3933: 3895: 3818: 3773: 3636: 3491: 3458: 3422: 3418: 3404: 3365: 3350: 3270: 3247: 3228: 3181: 3162: 3158: 3107: 3095: 2988: 2927: 2830: 2789: 2736: 2674: 2616: 2543: 2827: 2462: 1493: 4946: 4852: 4626: 4595: 4217: 4118: 4035: 3659: 3576: 3438: 3388: 3306: 3200: 3019: 3005: 2954: 2885: 2696: 2658: 2584: 2564: 1513: 4157:

The first diff I provided included the reason. When asked to explain, Sarah

2803:

who supported deleting the article of incivility and opened a discussion at

2466: 1497: 47: 4387: 4383: 4375: 4359: 4345: 4331: 3884: 3767: 3655:

Those supporting a block had "a vested interest in silencing an opponent"

4321: 3964:

did or did not do. The problem is that the system and process is flawed.

3837: 3802: 3505: 3477: 3548:

There has been an on-going issue with a BLP article and subsequent AfD (

2468: 1498: 306:

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting

4867:

N.B. I owe some responsibility for this particular rhetoric as I moved

4836: 4808:

of those six voters are necessarily pedophiles anyway. And that's the

4658: 4529: 4503: 4477: 4430: 4275: 4260: 3961: 3701: 3645: 3602: 3598: 3534: 2853: 2815: 3836:

currently busy on other matters (as she has stated on her talk page).

4162: 4088: 3266: 3177: 3091: 2984: 2923: 4942: 3976:

other questions that you have if you'll just leave a message on my

3923: 3346: 3196: 3001: 2950: 2464: 1495: 4840: 4379: 4317: 3816:

anything on-line. Anyway, thanks for making my point for me.

3757:

and to "back off very quickly when I challenge certain people"

4887:

proposal. I regret that this facilitated FOX's abuse, but it

3556:) became involved and used several socks. An SPI without CU ( 2792:

who also supported keeping the article filed an investigation

2469: 1499: 4371: 4336: 2786:

discussion, a user supporting keeping the article used socks

4941:

doesn't exist has never done anything to protect children.

4920: 4557:

help...help. Congratulations, Knowledge is good for world.

4891:

the better name for the article given its current content.

3597:

During the DRV, I made a statement that I believed one of

4030:. Incidentally, on the RfC regarding Greg's complaints 2778:

I will try to summarize the dispute as I understood it:

4339:. The PC trial has not failed - it is still enabled on 3621:

began to throw out baseless accusations, was warned by

4802:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Marthijn Uittenbogaard

2794:

Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Dmartinaus/Archive

54: 3594:. The result of the DRV was to endorse his decision. 3744:, one non-admin suggested a note or uw-agf template 3567:

During this period, a user that supported deletion,

1507: 352: 4648: 4403: 3704:was being unnecessarily confrontational and unfair 3417:BTW, Milowent - I shouldn't have to remind you how 2940:argument keeps turning up in discussions and it's 4820:the news as is their custom, or whether they are 3682:(the subject of the article felt it was a threat 2517:How just 1 bully admin can drive out good editors 3664:Stated that she believed the users mentioned by 2936:I don't understand the overall controversy, but 2799:Users who supported keeping the article accused 364:, where you can send them messages and comments. 3722:, her response was comments like "Martin Gang" 3719:, or asking why she was doing/saying something 3700:Several editors pointed out that they believed 3980:. I'll check it from time to time. Regards, 3533:Jimbo, my concern is no longer the issue with 3072:have essentially followed him around wikipedia 3648:came to the AN/I and immediately stated that: 2477:This page has archives. Sections older than 2444:This manual archive index may be out of date. 4835:, who — they say — speaking of the articles 4935:public school in the country. Who's right? 3175:(Added some emphasis in my previous remark) 4640: 4395: 3728:and the like, deleting without responding. 3592:Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2010 June 18 2533:reasoning for her actions, as required by 327:There are also active user talk pages for 2691:Hmm, your last comment was when you were 1631:Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 3476:ground isn't going to get you anywhere. 3735:I requested admin help on my talk page 3573:User talk:Jimbo Wales#Mission Statement 2151:September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 138: 3572: 2922:long time? If not, congratulations! - 2487:when more than 2 sections are present. 1991:September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 1571:September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 3552:), where the subject of the article ( 2161:September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 2036:December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 2026:December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 2011:November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 1996:September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 1641:Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 4725: 3883:Its time for some perspective guys. 3741:, one admin said no help was needed 3583:issues and received a 24-hour block. 2341:December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 2191:December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 2176:November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 2171:October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 2156:September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 2146:August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 2061:February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 2056:January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 2021:December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 2016:November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 2006:November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 1926:January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 1921:December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 1916:December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 1911:November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 1906:November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 1896:September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 1891:August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 1841:January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 1836:December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 1656:Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 320: 299: 80: 46: 4875:in the course of discussions about 2051:January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 2041:December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 2001:October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 1986:August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 1646:December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 341:. Please choose the most relevant. 203: 192: 166: 154: 147: 134: 99: 87: 13: 2166:October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 2071:February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 2046:January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 1901:October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 1846:February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 1551:August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 298: 296:Revision as of 16:17, 26 June 2010 157:Revision as of 16:17, 26 June 2010 90:Revision as of 15:57, 26 June 2010 35: 5021: 4877:Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition 4346: 2481:may be automatically archived by 2066:February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 1981:August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 1976:August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 1931:February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 1566:July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 1556:December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 1541:October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 4991:You have been brought up on ANI 4824:using purely hallucinatory data. 3628:. This was later moved to AN/I 3304:well and thanks for your reply. 2826:GregJackP opened a RFC on Sarah 2141:August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 1886:August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 1546:April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 1512: 1481: 376:Click here to start a new topic. 3571:(see Mission Statement section 2091:April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 2086:April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 2081:March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 1971:July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 1941:March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 1936:March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 1881:July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 1856:April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 1831:November 20 – December 21, 2009 1771:November 10 – December 10, 2008 1661:Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 1651:From December 22, 2006 blanking 4885:Commons:Commons:Sexual content 4223: 4219: 4124: 4120: 4041: 4037: 3984: 3897: 3820: 3775: 3586:The closing admin of the AfD, 3312: 3308: 3249: 3109: 3025: 3021: 2916:your 50 earliest contributions 2891: 2887: 2676: 2618: 2590: 2586: 2545: 2497: 2356:January 30 – February 10, 2014 2326:November 28 – December 5, 2013 2296:September 24 – October 6, 2013 2136:July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 2076:March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 1851:March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 1791:January 26 – February 10, 2009 1781:December 25 – January 16, 2009 1776:December 5 – December 25, 2008 1736:January 30 – February 28, 2008 1721:December 2 – December 16, 2007 1711:September 14 – October 7, 2007 1706:August 17 – September 11, 2007 1561:March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 1: 4763: 4698: 4663: 4610: 4582: 4293: 3857:every one of his accusations. 3685:, as well as 4 other editors 2947:actual deceptive manipulation 2311:October 28 – November 6, 2013 2281:August 28 – September 4, 2013 2131:July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 2121:June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 2116:June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 1966:July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 1946:April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 1876:June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 1861:April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 1826:October 4 – November 20, 2009 1786:January 15 – January 27, 2009 1766:October 4 – November 12, 2008 1726:December 15 – January 4, 2008 1716:October 28 – December 1, 2007 373:Put new text under old text. 294: 253: 196: 4304: 4259:adminstrator who did that? 3658:, which could be failure to 2126:July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 2111:June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 2096:April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 1961:July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 1956:June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 1871:June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 1741:February 28 – March 11, 2008 1731:January 4 – January 30, 2008 18:Browse history interactively 7: 4873:simulated child pornography 4857:Simulated child pornography 4468:I want to make it fit with 3668:could very well be puppets 3614:). I received no response. 3165:, I think that, unless you 2811:3 month block was proposed. 2106:May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 1951:May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 1866:May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 1821:August 26 – October 3, 2009 1796:February 8 – March 18, 2009 1666:From March 2, 2007 blanking 381:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 10: 5026: 4929:be accessed unfiltered in 2101:May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 1606:April 2006 – late May 2006 194: 136: 5010:01:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC) 4982:19:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4951:03:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC) 4822:making it up from scratch 4770:20:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4705:20:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4684:20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4670:20:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4653:20:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4649:Penny for your thoughts? 4633:20:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4617:20:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4604:19:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4589:19:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4567:17:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4544:15:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC) 4518:04:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC) 4492:03:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC) 4460:10:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4445:05:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4408:19:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4404:Penny for your thoughts? 4366:19:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4353:06:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4326:06:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4311:06:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4284:06:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4269:05:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4236:19:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4186:16:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4171:10:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4137:09:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4097:08:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 4054:23:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 4019:22:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 3995:11:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 3942:17:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3908:17:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3888:17:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3870:16:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC) 3846:17:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3831:17:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3811:17:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3786:16:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3514:15:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3500:15:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3486:15:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3467:15:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3447:15:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3431:15:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3413:15:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3397:15:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3374:14:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3359:14:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3325:20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3275:21:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3260:20:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3237:20:44, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3205:16:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 3186:20:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3169:from each other, someone 3120:20:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3100:20:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3038:19:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 3010:06:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC) 2993:17:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 2959:16:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 2932:14:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 2904:14:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 2862:14:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 2839:13:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 2770:01:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC) 2745:13:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 2730:12:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 2705:06:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 2687:06:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 2667:06:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 2646:Christine Terhune Herrick 2629:05:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 2603:05:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 2573:05:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 2556:04:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 1816:July 12 – August 25, 2009 1761:July 26 – October 4, 2008 1701:July 13 – August 17, 2007 1576:September – December 2005 411:Be welcoming to newcomers 251: 214: 211: 153: 119:Pending changes reviewers 86: 4800:Specific example given: 4455: 3917:User:Nineteen Nightmares 2801:User:Nineteen Nightmares 2725: 2360:Archives not yet dated: 2266:July 31 – August 4, 2013 2221:March 28 – April 6, 2013 1746:March 9 – April 18, 2008 1681:March 11 – April 3, 2007 4923:to mean that Knowledge 4810:most compelling example 4078:, and without comment: 2648:, I had a conversation 2261:June 27 – July 30, 2013 1811:June 10 – July 11, 2009 1751:April 18 – May 30, 2008 1616:July 2006 – August 2006 1586:January – February 2006 314:Start a new talk topic. 85: 4849:Sexual objectification 3797: 3625:and I initiated a WQA 2484:Lowercase sigmabot III 2251:May 27 – June 16, 2013 2236:April 25 – May 8, 2013 2231:April 19 – May 3, 2013 2030:Stop Online Piracy Act 1801:March 18 – May 6, 2009 1756:May 30 – July 27, 2008 1626:Most of September 2006 406:avoid personal attacks 4959:Enough info for a BLP 4869:simulated pornography 4528:So is that a yes? ~~ 3790: 3635:at the suggestion of 3617:Also during the DRV, 2512:Template:Fix bunching 2503:(Manual archive list) 2494:Template:Fix bunching 2291:September 11–22, 2013 1696:June 9 – July 4, 2007 1686:April 2 – May 2, 2007 1636:Most of November 2006 1475:Auto-archiving period 349:Template:Fix bunching 3068:assuming that indeed 2336:December 25–30, 2013 2321:November 20–27, 2013 2286:September 5–10, 2013 2206:February 11–28, 2013 2186:December 15–28, 2012 1806:May 5 – June 9, 2009 1691:May 3 – June 7, 2007 1596:February 2006, cont. 139:→‎Follow-up question 4881:PROTECT Act of 2003 4623:internet hate group 3872:Nineteen Nightmares 3862:Nineteen Nightmares 3666:Nineteen Nightmares 3619:Nineteen Nightmares 3569:Nineteen Nightmares 3074:", I advise you to 2772:Nineteen Nightmares 2762:Nineteen Nightmares 2351:January 25–29, 2014 2346:January 15–24, 2014 2331:December 6–24, 2013 2316:November 7–19, 2013 2306:October 17–27, 2103 2201:February 1–10, 2013 2196:January 13–31, 2013 2181:December 2–15, 2012 169:Nineteen Nightmares 4424:Follow-up question 3349:isn't either. ---- 3167:actively stay away 3076:actively stay away 3000:very first edit") 2963:Wnt, you say that 2301:October 7–16, 2013 2276:August 13–27, 2013 1611:May 24 – July 2006 417:dispute resolution 378: 164: 97: 5012: 4883:arising from the 4845:Child sex tourism 4742: 4741: 3277: 3176: 2796:against that user 2509: 2508: 2504: 2491: 2490: 2446:Future archives: 2271:August 4–12, 2013 2216:March 17–27, 2013 1506: 1505: 397:Assume good faith 374: 346: 345: 319: 318: 293: 155: 88: 68: 5017: 5006: 5000: 4996: 4979: 4975: 4971: 4765: 4726: 4700: 4665: 4650: 4644: 4612: 4584: 4541: 4538: 4535: 4532: 4515: 4512: 4509: 4506: 4489: 4486: 4483: 4480: 4442: 4439: 4436: 4433: 4405: 4399: 4350: 4308: 4299: 4234: 4227: 4221: 4135: 4128: 4122: 4052: 4045: 4039: 4003: 3992: 3987: 3986: 3951: 3946: 3905: 3900: 3899: 3877: 3828: 3823: 3822: 3783: 3778: 3777: 3550:Donald G. Martin 3323: 3316: 3310: 3280: 3264: 3257: 3252: 3251: 3174: 3122: 3117: 3112: 3111: 3036: 3029: 3023: 2971:wrong and that " 2902: 2895: 2889: 2709: 2684: 2679: 2678: 2631: 2626: 2621: 2620: 2601: 2594: 2588: 2558: 2553: 2548: 2547: 2502: 2498: 2486: 2470: 2256:June 17–30, 2013 2226:April 6–19, 2013 2211:March 1–16, 2013 1676:March 5–11, 2007 1516: 1508: 1500: 1486: 1485: 1476: 353: 330:User:Jimbo Wales 321: 300: 201: 200: 199: 187: 182: 163: 145: 144: 142: 129: 115: 96: 69: 60: 59: 57: 52: 50: 42: 39: 21: 19: 5025: 5024: 5020: 5019: 5018: 5016: 5015: 5014: 5004: 4998: 4989: 4977: 4973: 4969: 4961: 4827:Fox News cites 4688:Ha, talk about 4574: 4572:Fox News report 4554: 4539: 4536: 4533: 4530: 4513: 4510: 4507: 4504: 4487: 4484: 4481: 4478: 4440: 4437: 4434: 4431: 4426: 4341:several hundred 4307: 4256: 4216: 4117: 4034: 3990: 3983: 3981: 3903: 3896: 3894: 3826: 3819: 3817: 3781: 3774: 3772: 3633:Giftiger wunsch 3623:Giftiger wunsch 3530: 3305: 3255: 3248: 3246: 3115: 3108: 3106: 3018: 2884: 2852:on his talk. - 2682: 2675: 2673: 2624: 2617: 2615: 2583: 2551: 2544: 2542: 2519: 2482: 2471: 2465: 2456: 2246:May 18–30, 2013 2028:(RFC about the 1671:March 2–5, 2007 1536: 1521: 1502: 1501: 1496: 1473: 423: 422: 392: 342: 290: 283: 274: 267: 258: 247: 240: 231: 224: 207: 202: 195: 193: 191: 190: 189: 185: 172: 170: 165: 159: 151: 149:← Previous edit 146: 137: 135: 133: 132: 131: 127: 125: 105: 103: 98: 92: 84: 83: 82: 81: 79: 78: 77: 76: 75: 74: 65: 61: 55: 53: 48: 45: 43: 40: 38:Content deleted 37: 34: 29:← Previous edit 26: 25: 24: 17: 12: 11: 5: 5023: 4988: 4985: 4960: 4957: 4956: 4955: 4954: 4953: 4938: 4937: 4936: 4914: 4913: 4908: 4907: 4906: 4905: 4896: 4895: 4894: 4893: 4861: 4860: 4829:Hemanshu Nigam 4825: 4795: 4794: 4788: 4787: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4781: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4773: 4772: 4740: 4739: 4736: 4730: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4573: 4570: 4559:189.65.177.161 4553: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4497: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4463: 4462: 4425: 4422: 4421: 4420: 4419: 4418: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4410: 4305: 4255: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4199: 4198: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4188: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4022: 4021: 4005: 4004: 4002: 4001: 3972: 3971: 3966: 3965: 3953: 3952: 3950: 3949: 3948: 3947: 3945: 3944: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3798: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3751: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3729: 3698: 3662: 3650: 3649: 3644:At this point 3642: 3615: 3595: 3584: 3565: 3543: 3542: 3529: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3470: 3469: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3419:Rachel Uchitel 3400: 3399: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3279: 3278: 3240: 3239: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3123: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3014: 3013: 3012: 2907: 2906: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2842: 2841: 2824: 2819: 2812: 2797: 2790:User:GregJackP 2787: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2708: 2707: 2655: 2641: 2640: 2633: 2632: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2576: 2575: 2518: 2515: 2507: 2506: 2489: 2488: 2476: 2473: 2472: 2467: 2463: 2461: 2458: 2457: 2445: 2443: 2442: 2358: 2353: 2348: 2343: 2338: 2333: 2328: 2323: 2318: 2313: 2308: 2303: 2298: 2293: 2288: 2283: 2278: 2273: 2268: 2263: 2258: 2253: 2248: 2243: 2241:May 6–19, 2013 2238: 2233: 2228: 2223: 2218: 2213: 2208: 2203: 2198: 2193: 2188: 2183: 2178: 2173: 2168: 2163: 2158: 2153: 2148: 2143: 2138: 2133: 2128: 2123: 2118: 2113: 2108: 2103: 2098: 2093: 2088: 2083: 2078: 2073: 2068: 2063: 2058: 2053: 2048: 2043: 2038: 2033: 2023: 2018: 2013: 2008: 2003: 1998: 1993: 1988: 1983: 1978: 1973: 1968: 1963: 1958: 1953: 1948: 1943: 1938: 1933: 1928: 1923: 1918: 1913: 1908: 1903: 1898: 1893: 1888: 1883: 1878: 1873: 1868: 1863: 1858: 1853: 1848: 1843: 1838: 1833: 1828: 1823: 1818: 1813: 1808: 1803: 1798: 1793: 1788: 1783: 1778: 1773: 1768: 1763: 1758: 1753: 1748: 1743: 1738: 1733: 1728: 1723: 1718: 1713: 1708: 1703: 1698: 1693: 1688: 1683: 1678: 1673: 1668: 1663: 1658: 1653: 1648: 1643: 1638: 1633: 1628: 1623: 1618: 1613: 1608: 1603: 1598: 1593: 1588: 1583: 1578: 1573: 1568: 1563: 1558: 1553: 1548: 1543: 1537: 1530: 1529: 1523: 1522: 1517: 1511: 1504: 1503: 1494: 1492: 1491: 1488: 1487: 425: 424: 421: 420: 413: 408: 399: 393: 391: 390: 379: 370: 369: 366: 365: 344: 343: 326: 324: 317: 316: 312: 303: 297: 292: 291: 288: 286: 284: 281: 279: 276: 275: 272: 270: 268: 265: 263: 260: 259: 256: 254: 252: 249: 248: 245: 243: 241: 238: 236: 233: 232: 229: 227: 225: 222: 220: 217: 216: 213: 209: 208: 184: 183: 168: 152: 126: 117: 116: 101: 70: 64: 62: 44: 36: 27: 23: 22: 14: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5022: 5013: 5011: 5007: 5001: 4994: 4984: 4983: 4980: 4972: 4966: 4952: 4948: 4944: 4939: 4934: 4933: 4928: 4927: 4922: 4918: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4910: 4909: 4902: 4898: 4897: 4892: 4888: 4886: 4882: 4878: 4874: 4870: 4865: 4864: 4863: 4862: 4858: 4854: 4853:Child erotica 4850: 4846: 4842: 4838: 4834: 4830: 4826: 4823: 4819: 4815: 4811: 4807: 4803: 4799: 4798: 4797: 4796: 4792: 4791: 4789: 4771: 4768: 4766: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4757: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4748: 4747: 4746: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4737: 4735: 4731: 4728: 4727: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4703: 4701: 4695: 4691: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4681: 4677: 4673: 4672: 4671: 4668: 4666: 4660: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4651: 4645: 4643: 4636: 4635: 4634: 4631: 4628: 4624: 4620: 4619: 4618: 4615: 4613: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4601: 4597: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4587: 4585: 4579: 4569: 4568: 4564: 4560: 4552:Accessibility 4545: 4542: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4519: 4516: 4501: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4493: 4490: 4475: 4471: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4461: 4457: 4453: 4449: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4443: 4409: 4406: 4400: 4398: 4392: 4389: 4385: 4381: 4377: 4373: 4369: 4368: 4367: 4364: 4361: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4351: 4349: 4342: 4338: 4333: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4323: 4319: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4309: 4302: 4300: 4297: 4290: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4281: 4277: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4266: 4262: 4237: 4233: 4232: 4228: 4226: 4222: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4187: 4183: 4179: 4174: 4173: 4172: 4168: 4164: 4160: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4138: 4134: 4133: 4129: 4127: 4123: 4115: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4098: 4094: 4090: 4086: 4083: 4080: 4077: 4074: 4071: 4068: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4055: 4051: 4050: 4046: 4044: 4040: 4032: 4029: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4020: 4016: 4012: 4007: 4006: 3998: 3997: 3996: 3993: 3988: 3979: 3974: 3973: 3968: 3967: 3963: 3959: 3958:WP:NOTPERFECT 3955: 3954: 3943: 3939: 3935: 3931: 3928: 3925: 3921: 3918: 3914: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3906: 3901: 3891: 3890: 3889: 3886: 3881: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3858: 3853: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3843: 3839: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3829: 3824: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3808: 3804: 3799: 3796: 3795: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3784: 3779: 3769: 3764: 3759: 3756: 3752: 3749: 3746: 3743: 3740: 3737: 3734: 3733: 3727: 3724: 3721: 3718: 3715: 3712: 3709: 3706: 3703: 3699: 3696: 3693: 3690: 3687: 3684: 3681: 3679: 3676: 3673: 3670: 3667: 3663: 3661: 3657: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3647: 3643: 3640: 3638: 3634: 3630: 3627: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3613: 3610: 3607: 3604: 3600: 3596: 3593: 3589: 3585: 3582: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3566: 3563: 3559: 3555: 3551: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3532: 3531: 3515: 3511: 3507: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3483: 3479: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3468: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3455: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3435: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3420: 3416: 3415: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3401: 3398: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3381: 3380: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3343: 3326: 3322: 3321: 3317: 3315: 3311: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3258: 3253: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3238: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3225: 3206: 3202: 3198: 3193: 3189: 3188: 3187: 3183: 3179: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3121: 3118: 3113: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3085: 3081: 3077: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3039: 3035: 3034: 3030: 3028: 3024: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3003: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2982: 2980: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2948: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2905: 2901: 2900: 2896: 2894: 2890: 2882: 2879: 2876: 2873: 2869: 2868: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2851: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2828: 2825: 2823: 2820: 2817: 2813: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2795: 2791: 2788: 2785: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2771: 2767: 2763: 2758: 2753: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2706: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2685: 2680: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2642: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2634: 2630: 2627: 2622: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2604: 2600: 2599: 2595: 2593: 2589: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2574: 2570: 2566: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2557: 2554: 2549: 2538: 2536: 2535:WP:NOTPERFECT 2530: 2526: 2525: 2514: 2513: 2505: 2500: 2499: 2496: 2495: 2485: 2480: 2475: 2474: 2460: 2459: 2455: 2452: 2449: 2441: 2438: 2435: 2432: 2429: 2426: 2423: 2420: 2417: 2414: 2411: 2408: 2405: 2402: 2399: 2396: 2393: 2390: 2387: 2384: 2381: 2378: 2375: 2372: 2369: 2366: 2363: 2359: 2357: 2354: 2352: 2349: 2347: 2344: 2342: 2339: 2337: 2334: 2332: 2329: 2327: 2324: 2322: 2319: 2317: 2314: 2312: 2309: 2307: 2304: 2302: 2299: 2297: 2294: 2292: 2289: 2287: 2284: 2282: 2279: 2277: 2274: 2272: 2269: 2267: 2264: 2262: 2259: 2257: 2254: 2252: 2249: 2247: 2244: 2242: 2239: 2237: 2234: 2232: 2229: 2227: 2224: 2222: 2219: 2217: 2214: 2212: 2209: 2207: 2204: 2202: 2199: 2197: 2194: 2192: 2189: 2187: 2184: 2182: 2179: 2177: 2174: 2172: 2169: 2167: 2164: 2162: 2159: 2157: 2154: 2152: 2149: 2147: 2144: 2142: 2139: 2137: 2134: 2132: 2129: 2127: 2124: 2122: 2119: 2117: 2114: 2112: 2109: 2107: 2104: 2102: 2099: 2097: 2094: 2092: 2089: 2087: 2084: 2082: 2079: 2077: 2074: 2072: 2069: 2067: 2064: 2062: 2059: 2057: 2054: 2052: 2049: 2047: 2044: 2042: 2039: 2037: 2034: 2031: 2027: 2024: 2022: 2019: 2017: 2014: 2012: 2009: 2007: 2004: 2002: 1999: 1997: 1994: 1992: 1989: 1987: 1984: 1982: 1979: 1977: 1974: 1972: 1969: 1967: 1964: 1962: 1959: 1957: 1954: 1952: 1949: 1947: 1944: 1942: 1939: 1937: 1934: 1932: 1929: 1927: 1924: 1922: 1919: 1917: 1914: 1912: 1909: 1907: 1904: 1902: 1899: 1897: 1894: 1892: 1889: 1887: 1884: 1882: 1879: 1877: 1874: 1872: 1869: 1867: 1864: 1862: 1859: 1857: 1854: 1852: 1849: 1847: 1844: 1842: 1839: 1837: 1834: 1832: 1829: 1827: 1824: 1822: 1819: 1817: 1814: 1812: 1809: 1807: 1804: 1802: 1799: 1797: 1794: 1792: 1789: 1787: 1784: 1782: 1779: 1777: 1774: 1772: 1769: 1767: 1764: 1762: 1759: 1757: 1754: 1752: 1749: 1747: 1744: 1742: 1739: 1737: 1734: 1732: 1729: 1727: 1724: 1722: 1719: 1717: 1714: 1712: 1709: 1707: 1704: 1702: 1699: 1697: 1694: 1692: 1689: 1687: 1684: 1682: 1679: 1677: 1674: 1672: 1669: 1667: 1664: 1662: 1659: 1657: 1654: 1652: 1649: 1647: 1644: 1642: 1639: 1637: 1634: 1632: 1629: 1627: 1624: 1622: 1619: 1617: 1614: 1612: 1609: 1607: 1604: 1602: 1599: 1597: 1594: 1592: 1591:February 2006 1589: 1587: 1584: 1582: 1579: 1577: 1574: 1572: 1569: 1567: 1564: 1562: 1559: 1557: 1554: 1552: 1549: 1547: 1544: 1542: 1539: 1538: 1534: 1528: 1525: 1524: 1520: 1515: 1510: 1509: 1490: 1489: 1484: 1480: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1008: 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 988: 984: 980: 976: 972: 968: 964: 960: 956: 952: 948: 944: 940: 936: 932: 928: 924: 920: 916: 912: 908: 904: 900: 896: 892: 888: 884: 880: 876: 872: 868: 864: 860: 856: 852: 848: 844: 840: 836: 832: 828: 824: 820: 816: 812: 808: 804: 800: 796: 792: 788: 784: 780: 776: 772: 768: 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: 532: 528: 524: 520: 516: 512: 508: 504: 500: 496: 492: 488: 484: 480: 476: 472: 468: 464: 460: 456: 452: 448: 444: 440: 436: 433: 431: 427: 426: 418: 414: 412: 409: 407: 403: 400: 398: 395: 394: 388: 384: 383:Learn to edit 380: 377: 372: 371: 368: 367: 363: 359: 355: 354: 351: 350: 340: 336: 332: 331: 325: 323: 322: 315: 311: 309: 304: 302: 301: 295: 287: 285: 280: 278: 277: 271: 269: 264: 262: 261: 255: 250: 244: 242: 237: 235: 234: 228: 226: 221: 219: 218: 210: 206: 198: 180: 176: 171: 162: 158: 150: 140: 124: 120: 113: 109: 104: 95: 91: 73: 58: 51: 41:Content added 33: 30: 20: 4999:NeutralHomer 4990: 4962: 4931: 4930: 4925: 4924: 4900: 4890: 4866: 4821: 4817: 4813: 4809: 4805: 4733: 4693: 4641: 4576:Did you see 4575: 4555: 4427: 4396: 4390: 4388:Selena Gomez 4384:Taylor Swift 4376:Adolf Hitler 4347: 4332:Barack Obama 4295: 4257: 4230: 4224: 4218: 4131: 4125: 4119: 4048: 4042: 4036: 3912: 3856: 3851: 3792: 3791: 3384: 3319: 3313: 3307: 3191: 3170: 3166: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3070:you merely " 3067: 3032: 3026: 3020: 2978: 2972: 2968: 2967:argument is 2964: 2946: 2941: 2937: 2919: 2898: 2892: 2886: 2808: 2777: 2756: 2751: 2718: 2692: 2597: 2591: 2585: 2539: 2531: 2527: 2523: 2520: 2510: 2492: 2478: 1581:January 2006 1518: 1478: 428: 347: 329: 328: 307: 305: 4676:Cube lurker 4642:HJ Mitchell 4452:Jimbo Wales 4397:HJ Mitchell 3581:WP:CIVILITY 2722:Jimbo Wales 1621:August 2006 358:Jimbo Wales 310:at the end. 205:Next edit → 161:view source 123:Rollbackers 94:view source 32:Next edit → 4987:You on ANI 4837:Pedophilia 4391:inter alia 4178:Camelbinky 4011:Camelbinky 3962:User:Sarah 3919:left this 3794:canvasing. 3588:Balloonman 3492:moreno oso 3459:moreno oso 3423:moreno oso 3405:moreno oso 3403:Nope! ---- 3366:moreno oso 3351:moreno oso 3229:moreno oso 3078:from your 2850:discussion 2816:User:Sarah 2737:moreno oso 1601:March 2006 197:→‎Response 4159:explained 3985:GregJackP 3934:Modernist 3898:GregJackP 3821:GregJackP 3776:GregJackP 3637:Modernist 3562:Dmarinaus 3554:Dmarinaus 3250:GregJackP 3110:GregJackP 3088:Take care 3086:reasons. 2831:Sole Soul 2677:GregJackP 2619:GregJackP 2546:GregJackP 419:if needed 402:Be polite 362:talk page 4879:and the 4833:SSP Blue 4690:WP:UNDUE 4659:this guy 4627:Claritas 4596:Milowent 3978:talkpage 3924:User:JNW 3528:Response 3439:Milowent 3389:Milowent 3347:Bullying 2975:" =: --> 2697:Milowent 2693:supposed 2659:Milowent 2565:Milowent 2524:Not one. 1519:Archives 430:Archives 387:get help 356:This is 215:Line 96: 212:Line 96: 179:contribs 112:contribs 56:Wikitext 4978:Windows 4901:readers 4818:biasing 4814:skewing 4360:Deskana 4348:Prodego 4298:delanoy 4289:Failure 3991:Boomer! 3913:Comment 3904:Boomer! 3885:Spartaz 3827:Boomer! 3782:Boomer! 3256:Boomer! 3163:WP:DUCK 3159:WP:MEAT 3116:Boomer! 3080:alleged 2976:In his 2809:30 days 2683:Boomer! 2625:Boomer! 2552:Boomer! 335:commons 4970:Fences 4855:, and 4841:NAMBLA 4694:should 4380:Eminem 4363:(talk) 4231:• talk 4132:• talk 4049:• talk 3838:Bidgee 3803:Bidgee 3660:WP:AGF 3577:WP:NPA 3575:) had 3506:Bidgee 3478:Bidgee 3320:• talk 3033:• talk 2969:always 2942:always 2899:• talk 2814:Admin 2782:At an 2598:• talk 2563:too.-- 2479:1 days 1479:1 days 128:11,728 67:Inline 49:Visual 4974:& 4926:can't 4764:Tommy 4699:Tommy 4664:Tommy 4611:Tommy 4583:Tommy 4372:Bible 4337:4chan 4276:Bilby 4261:RIPGC 4220:Minor 4121:Minor 4038:Minor 3768:WP:DR 3702:Sarah 3646:Sarah 3603:Sarah 3599:Sarah 3535:Sarah 3309:Minor 3171:could 3084:wrong 3022:Minor 2979:first 2888:Minor 2854:Bilby 2587:Minor 1533:index 1527:Index 439:Index 435:Index 415:Seek 188:edits 186:1,426 143:So... 130:edits 102:Hi878 5005:Talk 4995:. - 4993:here 4947:talk 4921:CIPA 4816:and 4680:talk 4600:talk 4578:this 4563:talk 4474:mine 4470:this 4456:talk 4322:talk 4306:adds 4280:talk 4265:talk 4182:talk 4167:talk 4163:DVdm 4093:talk 4089:DVdm 4015:talk 3938:talk 3866:talk 3852:very 3842:talk 3807:talk 3579:and 3558:here 3539:talk 3510:talk 3496:talk 3482:talk 3463:talk 3443:talk 3427:talk 3409:talk 3393:talk 3370:talk 3364:---- 3355:talk 3271:talk 3267:DVdm 3233:talk 3201:talk 3182:talk 3178:DVdm 3161:and 3096:talk 3092:DVdm 3006:talk 2989:talk 2985:DVdm 2981:edit 2965:this 2955:talk 2938:this 2928:talk 2924:DVdm 2920:very 2858:talk 2835:talk 2807:. A 2766:talk 2757:your 2741:talk 2726:talk 2701:talk 2663:talk 2650:here 2569:talk 404:and 339:meta 337:and 308:~~~~ 175:talk 108:talk 4943:Wnt 4932:any 4871:to 4831:of 4806:any 4225:4th 4126:4th 4075:, 4043:4th 3922:at 3631:by 3385:all 3314:4th 3197:Wnt 3192:off 3027:4th 3002:Wnt 2951:Wnt 2893:4th 2883:. 2805:ANI 2784:AFD 2752:all 2592:4th 2454:186 2451:185 2448:184 2440:183 2437:182 2434:181 2431:180 2428:179 2425:178 2422:177 2419:176 2416:175 2413:174 2410:173 2407:172 2404:171 2401:170 2398:169 2395:168 2392:167 2389:166 2386:165 2383:164 2380:163 2377:162 2374:161 2371:160 2368:159 2365:158 2362:157 1471:251 1467:250 1463:249 1459:248 1455:247 1451:246 1447:245 1443:244 1439:243 1435:242 1431:241 1427:240 1423:239 1419:238 1415:237 1411:236 1407:235 1403:234 1399:233 1395:232 1391:231 1387:230 1383:229 1379:228 1375:227 1371:226 1367:225 1363:224 1359:223 1355:222 1351:221 1347:220 1343:219 1339:218 1335:217 1331:216 1327:215 1323:214 1319:213 1315:212 1311:211 1307:210 1303:209 1299:208 1295:207 1291:206 1287:205 1283:204 1279:203 1275:202 1271:201 1267:200 1263:199 1259:198 1255:197 1251:196 1247:195 1243:194 1239:193 1235:192 1231:191 1227:190 1223:189 1219:188 1215:187 1211:186 1207:185 1203:184 1199:183 1195:182 1191:181 1187:180 1183:179 1179:178 1175:177 1171:176 1167:175 1163:174 1159:173 1155:172 1151:171 1147:170 1143:169 1139:168 1135:167 1131:166 1127:165 1123:164 1119:163 1115:162 1111:161 1107:160 1103:159 1099:158 1095:157 1091:156 1087:155 1083:154 1079:153 1075:152 1071:151 1067:150 1063:149 1059:148 1055:147 1051:146 1047:145 1043:144 1039:143 1035:142 1031:141 1027:140 1023:139 1019:138 1015:137 1011:136 1007:135 1003:134 999:133 995:132 991:131 987:130 983:129 979:128 975:127 971:126 967:125 963:124 959:123 955:122 951:121 947:120 943:119 939:118 935:117 931:116 927:115 923:114 919:113 915:112 911:111 907:110 903:109 899:108 895:107 891:106 887:105 883:104 879:103 875:102 871:101 867:100 360:'s 333:on 5008:• 5002:• 4967:. 4949:) 4889:is 4851:, 4847:, 4843:, 4839:, 4738:” 4729:“ 4682:) 4646:| 4602:) 4565:) 4531:Hi 4505:Hi 4479:Hi 4458:) 4432:Hi 4401:| 4386:, 4382:, 4378:, 4374:, 4358:-- 4324:) 4316:-- 4291:. 4282:) 4267:) 4184:) 4169:) 4161:. 4095:) 4087:. 4084:, 4081:, 4072:, 4069:, 4017:) 3940:) 3868:) 3844:) 3809:) 3725:, 3716:, 3713:, 3710:, 3707:, 3694:, 3691:, 3688:, 3677:, 3512:) 3498:) 3484:) 3465:) 3445:) 3429:) 3411:) 3395:) 3372:) 3357:) 3273:) 3235:) 3203:) 3184:) 3098:) 3090:. 3008:) 2991:) 2957:) 2930:) 2874:, 2860:) 2837:) 2768:) 2743:) 2728:) 2703:) 2665:) 2571:) 2537:. 1477:: 1469:, 1465:, 1461:, 1457:, 1453:, 1449:, 1445:, 1441:, 1437:, 1433:, 1429:, 1425:, 1421:, 1417:, 1413:, 1409:, 1405:, 1401:, 1397:, 1393:, 1389:, 1385:, 1381:, 1377:, 1373:, 1369:, 1365:, 1361:, 1357:, 1353:, 1349:, 1345:, 1341:, 1337:, 1333:, 1329:, 1325:, 1321:, 1317:, 1313:, 1309:, 1305:, 1301:, 1297:, 1293:, 1289:, 1285:, 1281:, 1277:, 1273:, 1269:, 1265:, 1261:, 1257:, 1253:, 1249:, 1245:, 1241:, 1237:, 1233:, 1229:, 1225:, 1221:, 1217:, 1213:, 1209:, 1205:, 1201:, 1197:, 1193:, 1189:, 1185:, 1181:, 1177:, 1173:, 1169:, 1165:, 1161:, 1157:, 1153:, 1149:, 1145:, 1141:, 1137:, 1133:, 1129:, 1125:, 1121:, 1117:, 1113:, 1109:, 1105:, 1101:, 1097:, 1093:, 1089:, 1085:, 1081:, 1077:, 1073:, 1069:, 1065:, 1061:, 1057:, 1053:, 1049:, 1045:, 1041:, 1037:, 1033:, 1029:, 1025:, 1021:, 1017:, 1013:, 1009:, 1005:, 1001:, 997:, 993:, 989:, 985:, 981:, 977:, 973:, 969:, 965:, 961:, 957:, 953:, 949:, 945:, 941:, 937:, 933:, 929:, 925:, 921:, 917:, 913:, 909:, 905:, 901:, 897:, 893:, 889:, 885:, 881:, 877:, 873:, 869:, 865:, 863:99 861:, 859:98 857:, 855:97 853:, 851:96 849:, 847:95 845:, 843:94 841:, 839:93 837:, 835:92 833:, 831:91 829:, 827:90 825:, 823:89 821:, 819:88 817:, 815:87 813:, 811:86 809:, 807:85 805:, 803:84 801:, 799:83 797:, 795:82 793:, 791:81 789:, 787:80 785:, 783:79 781:, 779:78 777:, 775:77 773:, 771:76 769:, 767:75 765:, 763:74 761:, 759:73 757:, 755:72 753:, 751:71 749:, 747:70 745:, 743:69 741:, 739:68 737:, 735:67 733:, 731:66 729:, 727:65 725:, 723:64 721:, 719:63 717:, 715:62 713:, 711:61 709:, 707:60 705:, 703:59 701:, 699:58 697:, 695:57 693:, 691:56 689:, 687:55 685:, 683:54 681:, 679:53 677:, 675:52 673:, 671:51 669:, 667:50 665:, 663:49 661:, 659:48 657:, 655:47 653:, 651:46 649:, 647:45 645:, 643:44 641:, 639:43 637:, 635:42 633:, 631:41 629:, 627:40 625:, 623:39 621:, 619:38 617:, 615:37 613:, 611:36 609:, 607:35 605:, 603:34 601:, 599:33 597:, 595:32 593:, 591:31 589:, 587:30 585:, 583:29 581:, 579:28 577:, 575:27 573:, 571:26 569:, 567:25 565:, 563:24 561:, 559:23 557:, 555:22 553:, 551:21 549:, 547:20 545:, 543:19 541:, 539:18 537:, 535:17 533:, 531:16 529:, 527:15 525:, 523:14 521:, 519:13 517:, 515:12 513:, 511:11 509:, 507:10 505:, 501:, 497:, 493:, 489:, 485:, 481:, 477:, 473:, 469:, 465:, 461:, 457:, 453:, 449:, 445:, 441:, 437:, 385:; 177:| 141:: 121:, 110:| 4945:( 4678:( 4630:§ 4598:( 4561:( 4540:8 4537:7 4534:8 4514:8 4511:7 4508:8 4488:8 4485:7 4482:8 4454:( 4441:8 4438:7 4435:8 4320:( 4318:B 4296:. 4294:J 4278:( 4263:( 4180:( 4165:( 4091:( 4013:( 3936:( 3864:( 3840:( 3805:( 3760:. 3750:. 3641:. 3611:, 3537:( 3508:( 3494:( 3480:( 3461:( 3441:( 3425:( 3407:( 3391:( 3368:( 3353:( 3269:( 3231:( 3199:( 3180:( 3094:( 3004:( 2987:( 2953:( 2926:( 2856:( 2833:( 2764:( 2739:( 2724:( 2699:( 2661:( 2654:" 2567:( 2032:) 1535:– 1531:– 503:9 499:8 495:7 491:6 487:5 483:4 479:3 475:2 471:1 467:G 463:F 459:E 455:D 451:C 447:B 443:A 432:: 389:. 181:) 173:( 114:) 106:(

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