1153:
evidence which has never been adequately provided. (Two old men creating a few shoddy formations in the 1990s is far from adequate) The contents and manner of the
Arecibo crop formation's appearance gives the definite possibility that it was formed by extraterrestrials. The fact that you're trying so hard to remove it by improperly invoking Occam's razor suggests that you're trying to suppress this likelihood from gaining public attention. In fact, after reading all of the back and forths over the years on this article, I think the few editors who have tried so hard to remove this potential extraterrestrial reply to the Arecibo message are suspect of serving something other than the public interest. Why is a small group of edtiors so vested in tirelessly fighting the majority by getting this info removed or slandering it as a hoax? Something is wrong here.
1037:
and both of you started an edit war over constantly re-inserting "hoax" every chance you get, which is considered vandalism in the journals I work with. However, since you and David are the overlords of this particular patch of
Knowledge where what you say goes and not anyone else, enjoy your dominion over being the thought police here. I fervently hope this public record survives long enough for your decisions and actions to be taken to task and that one day you will feel some degree of remorse over what transpired here. I am unhappy about this situation, but I will be willing to make an honest attempt at understanding and forgiving you when that day comes. This will be my last statement on the matter, and I will not make further edits. Go well, and keep a more open mind in the future. You will need it.
932:
pattern indicates knowledge of stable single-stranded RNA patterns that humans don't contain, binary arithmetic, the fact that silicon has carbon-like properties, or that the perpetrators were likely involved in the crop circle created at the same spot a year before (which was a stunning display of fractal and geometric precision never demonstrated by humans at such a scale, let alone in 2001). Both possibilities are statements of extraordinary claims and neither side has the extraordinary evidence to back up their side. It is extremely presumptuous, arigorous, and does a scientific disservice to humanity to take a stance of labeling this situation as solved and completely understood
1833:
496:
475:
601:
580:
690:
290:
269:
238:
888:
1788:
207:
1056:. Nevertheless, all the reasons for labelling the "reply" a hoax are detailed on the page history, Talk page by persons who have been deeply involved, or studied the subject, and there is absolutely no reason you go over them again. Nor is there any reason for you to insult editors, who appear to have far more experience of the subject than yourself. Case closed. Regards, David,
391:
370:
506:
941:
before we allow both sides of a phenomenon to be investigated without bias or censorship? To believe in the possibility of aliens being near/among us is the heresy of our time. It may end up being false (though UFOs are now suddenly not a "hoax" after all), but it may not, and a true scientist/editor must keep an open mind to multiple hypothesis that fit the data.
401:
300:
1404:
No, they don't. I refer you to my comment above, where I point out that there is a single low quality source that claims it is a hoax. I don't and wikipedia doesn't care about your personal opinion on the subject. Calling it a hoax is a claim that requires proof or strong sources claiming it as such.
1051:
With all respect, if you look at the Talk page comments and page history; you will see that the "hoax" line has been discussed comprehensively previously and agreed. No-one but yourself is causing an "edit war". As you will notice, I have personal working experience of his hoax, although this could
1660:
I replied in the noticeboard but for documentation purposes I'll repeat it here: I'm fine with the usage of hoax, I agree with the arguments provided by the other editors. If for some reason the resolution of the dispute already in progress is that we need to change the section title then we can use
940:
Just ask yourself: What if you're wrong about this "hoax" label you're so fond of throwing around? What if extraterrestrials actually made this? Are you prepared for your opinionated editorship to be recorded for the public to see for all time? How many
Galileos and Copernicuses must we persecute
1815:
The word âHoaxâ should be removed in the subheading. There is no evidence to suggest it is a hoax, and indeed, the research carried out by experienced biophysical and aerospace scientists have established it is exceedingly complex and was completed in a matter of hours. It would be inappropriate to
1763:
I think this needs a reference or elaboration. Quantifying degree of organization is a delicate matter. I can add some discussion on this point, but just checking whether the original author of this line had something in mind that I haven't heard of? Probably not, I've researched this topic quite a
1197:
landed on the Moon. Thereâs a plethora of evidence that proves that the Apollo 11 LM landed in the Sea of
Tranquility on the Moon, while contrarily, detractors have no evidence (besides misconceptions) against it. Knowledge doesnât entertain fringe theories when thereâs no evidence supporting them.
1122:
The evidence of it being a hoax should not be hidden in a talk page, it should be in the section where the claim is made. Otherwise the assertion shouldn't be in the title. Just like the assertion of it being an alien response shouldn't exist if there is no evidence for it. Knowledge can describe a
1036:
I am not promoting either direction on this topic. YOU are. I am calling for a balanced and neutral position, which you and David have a serious problem with. I agree this will not be resolved, as I continue to think it is highly inappropriate to insert the biased label of "hoax" in the subtitle,
1021:
It's difficult to overstate how obviously this isn't going to happen. Knowledge is not the place for you to promote muck about crop circles. No, the BBC article is a travel newsblog intended to promote tourist interest in a region and doesn't meet the extremely high standard outlined at WP:REDFLAG.
931:
As a scientist myself, I do not have definitive proof on whether 1) extraterrestrials responded to the
Arecibo message or 2) some humans managed to create two large and incredibly detailed and incredibly precise crop patterns in a single night without being caught or ever admitting to it, where the
1006:
Do I need to include this BBC source and add a sentence and/or phrase at the beginning of the subsection that crop circles are controversial? Unless there is a reliable source detailing who is able to produce hundreds of such intricate patterns quickly in the dark without being caught and how they
927:
certainty of it being a hoax. Such a bar of extreme certainty has not been met. As such, the editors who are consistently adding "hoax" to the title of this subection are inserting their own opinion over a more neutral and balanced representation of a title that only represents what is actually
1152:
When considering the extraordinary evidence of the details of many crop circles, Occam's razor dictates that many (but not all) crop formations are created by something other than humans. To say all formations are created by humans is a very extraordinary claim, and that requires extraordinary
1441:
I haven't touched the article since I received the warning, therefore locking the article is unnecessary. It's clear that you all are dedicated in keeping your opinions in the article as opposed to relaying the facts as presented by the source. It's incredibly disappointing.
1353:
Leaving it there is the editor's own commentary that is not supported by the sources referenced. Multiple editors squatting on the article and taking turns reverting changes while dogpiling on good-faith attempts to improve the article is against the spirit and the rules of
1137:
Crop circles have been shown to be manmade pranks time and time again. People have demonstrated how theyâve made them. Since thereâs no extraordinary evidence otherwise, it should be assumed that this is a hoax like all the other crop circles. Occamâs razor clearly applies.
1313:
This is not sufficient to proclaim it is a hoax in the title. Stick to the facts and leave any speculation to the cause where it belongs. The sources do not support having "Hoax" in the subtitle, to leave it there is just you putting your personal opinion into the matter.
1426:
I'm perfectly fine with the title staying as it is and I agree with you, I just wanted to find a middle ground cause I'm tired of IPs edit warring. I was going to ask for page protection but just saw that you already did. Hopefully that fixes the issue for a bit. -
1273:+1 for "it was a hoax" in some form. I'm not sure it needs to be in this article at all. Other than one persistent IP editor, it's unclear anyone agrees that we should give the claim that "Aliens sent a reply to the Arecibo message" any credence whatsoever.
1701:
Well, dispute has been resolved and "hoax" will remain. Once it is archived and it has a fixed link it should probably be referenced here somewhere (even if it is just as an invisible comment in the section) cause I assume this request will be made again. -
1578:
covers the particulars of crop circles and their reputation as a fabrication is widespread enough to not need repeating outside the main Crop Circle article. I think that title would prevent any further problems with the heading. Also: Alliteration.
1252:
doubt. The SETI statement shows that thereâs no evidence whatsoever that the crop circle was created by aliens, so I donât think itâs misrepresenting the source at all. The burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies.
709:
1189:
came down in a spaceship, mowed some grass in a field, and left, all undetected. Thereâs no extraordinary evidence (or any evidence whatsoever) that the latter is the case. For that reason, itâs automatically assumed to be the former.
1247:
Is there room for doubt? Sure, but thereâs also room for doubt that the
Andromeda galaxy isnât a holographic projection by aliens, or that Elvis Presley didnât fake his death and steal Joe Bidenâs identity. This has to be about
153:
1201:
The second half of your response veers into bizarre conspiracy theories. If you want to believe that
Knowledge editors are covering up the existence of aliens, feel free, but this is no longer a rational debate.
1184:
Iâm a bit confused by your statement that itâs an âextraordinary claimâ to say that the crop circles were created by humans. Itâs an ordinary, plausible claim. The extraordinary claim is the prospect that
1217:
The referenced SETI article itself only says it is "Highly
Improbable" the crop formation has an otherworldly explanation. To call it a hoax so definitively in the subtitle is misrepresenting the source.
1891:
1003:
be hoaxes. This is the kind of standard we should be following here on
Knowledge where readers get a balanced understanding of phenomena, not an editor's single-sided opinion on the matter.
1244:
True, but the article then says âThere is no evidence to suggest an other-than-earthly origin for these graphicsâ, and proceeds to list off the reasons why it couldnât possibly be aliens.
1735:
1335:
Can't we just call it something neutral like "Chilbolton crop circle"? I wouldn't be opposed to it. The content of the section makes it clear SETI doesn't take it seriously. -
1916:
562:
552:
352:
198:
147:
713:
1911:
985:
The BBC's article on this topic in 2021 favors my proposal of balanced, neutral reporting that reports both sides fairly without using biasing labels in the title. (
1936:
1510:
100% the use of hoax. Even by the already dubious standards of crop circles in general, this one is an obvious hoax and reliable sources name it as such. Cheers.
1350:
Make a new thread if you want to propose a different change. The topic is "Editors continually inserting "hoax" in the title of the
Arecibo crop circle subsection".
1492:
I support the use of "hoax", for which we have a reliable source and many editors' support. It's a bit odd that almost all of the support for removing it is from
988:
1886:
799:
528:
342:
971:. Neutrality here is clearly identifying a hoax as such: reliable sources ubiquitously consider crop circles anthropogenic. "Provable" is not our standard.
730:
79:
743:
1901:
1361:
it is a hoax or remove that section from the subtitle. I haven't heard any good reasons for leaving it in yet that isn't people's personal opinions
519:
480:
457:
447:
1881:
818:
44:
1460:. The information is adequately sourced, and falsely claiming that we're enforcing personal opinions isn't going to convince anyone of anything.
920:
Now that two different people have inserted their opinion of "hoax" into the title of the Arecibo crop circle, it's time to get this on record.
1926:
667:
657:
1906:
1896:
1661:
something like "Chilbolton crop circle", but hoax remains the first option (and the one we already have consensus to use, even if a bunch of
85:
1154:
1077:
1038:
1008:
945:
1931:
1921:
1580:
1543:
1443:
1406:
1362:
1315:
1227:
1124:
811:
611:
1574:
I think it's a good change. "Arecibo answer crop circle" is clunky in how it is worded and is redundant with the title of the article.
726:
423:
1107:
750:
1375:
We're not going to accept your goalpost-shifting on standard of proof, and you don't control what gets discussed in this section.
1817:
899:
633:
1226:
Actually, this discussion isn't worth continuing, please disregard the above comment. I'll leave it as-is for archival reasons
313:
274:
99:
30:
168:
1683:
Totally agree with Ivana's coments above. "Hoax" remains the initial choice, in spite of the attempted hijack of the page by
194:
190:
104:
20:
1220:
The word Hoax should be removed from the subtitle, and the text of the section should be changed to better match the source.
923:
Knowledge is an encylopedia, and reputable encylopedias only insert "hoax" into the title of an event if there is absolute,
135:
837:
414:
375:
74:
1857:
template. The article was just protected again, and this time for three months, because of attempts to make this change.
1593:
Apologies for my unbearable nitpicking, but "Chibolton Crop Circle" does not actually contain any alliteration. Cheers.
1852:
720:
702:
249:
1070:
I agree with thr op. You should NOT be inserting Hoax into this. Rhis message has in fact been proven to NOT be a hoax.
1258:
1207:
1143:
1073:
Infact i belive wikipedia (or atleast some of it editors) are guilty of purposely putting false claims to true events.
624:
585:
65:
206:
185:
1287:
Re covering it at all, I think the sources currently in the article establish sufficient weight for some mention.
1692:
1095:
1061:
129:
1007:
could possibly manage it, I am not comfortable swaying the opinions of millions of readers with a biased title.
217:
1461:
1081:
1042:
1012:
986:
949:
854:
511:
1158:
237:
1128:
1845:
1794:
1584:
1547:
1447:
1410:
1366:
1319:
1231:
849:
793:
125:
109:
1111:
495:
474:
1821:
1254:
1203:
1139:
964:
1769:
1301:
The sources in the article do not support the determination it was a hoax at all. There are three listed:
904:
831:
766:
255:
175:
1223:
And please do not reference prior talk pages or different topic, stick to just the discussion at hand.
1742:
1688:
1634:
1565:
1278:
1091:
1057:
786:
1765:
1840:
161:
55:
1542:, were you proposing a change from "Arecibo Answer crop circle hoax" to "Chilbolton crop circle"?
632:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
527:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
422:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
222:
70:
1707:
1670:
1432:
1340:
1304:
1: A news article that proclaims it a "hoax" with no evidence given other than "of course it is"
1598:
1515:
960:
944:
Please reconsider your stance on this issue and the historic repercussions that could result.
737:
524:
51:
141:
1862:
1725:
1649:
1501:
1483:
1469:
1395:
1292:
1027:
976:
968:
756:
305:
219:
1738:
1630:
1620:
1561:
1478:
The article has been protected yet again because of this issue, for six months this time.
1387:
1274:
843:
24:
995:, BBC makes it clear that many consider the circles to be a massive hoax conspiracy but
916:
Editors continually inserting "hoax" in the title of the Arecibo crop circle subsection
779:
689:
600:
579:
406:
1875:
1703:
1684:
1666:
1662:
1626:
1539:
1493:
1428:
1378:
1336:
1310:
3: A SETI article that only says it is "highly probable" the circle is a fabrication.
1717:
1594:
1511:
1090:
No, absolutely not. It's a hoax. Please read all the detailed comments. Thank you,
1053:
772:
616:
714:
National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
1858:
1816:
call it a hoax without the proper citation and conclusion which does not exist.
1721:
1645:
1616:
1575:
1497:
1479:
1465:
1421:
1391:
1288:
1023:
972:
825:
887:
1390:, since reliable sources ubiquitously identify crop circles as anthropogenic.
1307:
2: A news article from a minor website that references the below SETI article.
606:
501:
396:
295:
989:
https://www.bbc.com/travel/article/20210822-englands-crop-circle-controversy
894:
759:
318:
289:
268:
221:
390:
369:
991:) As I pointed out in my edit that mentioned SETI considering it a hoax
1866:
1825:
1773:
1746:
1729:
1711:
1696:
1674:
1653:
1638:
1602:
1588:
1569:
1551:
1519:
1505:
1487:
1473:
1451:
1436:
1414:
1399:
1370:
1344:
1323:
1296:
1282:
1262:
1235:
1211:
1162:
1147:
1132:
1115:
1099:
1085:
1065:
1046:
1031:
1016:
980:
953:
1759:
Claim that the image of the message shifted is "sufficiently organized"
1625:
could you please notify the talk page (and the editors) when you start
419:
1736:
Knowledge:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 246#Arecibo message
418:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
629:
999:
explains that many close to the issue consider most circles to
1782:
882:
231:
223:
15:
1665:
disagree). I don't have more to add on this subject. -
160:
1538:
I believe I may have misinterpreted your suggestion @
893:
A fact from this article was featured on Knowledge's
628:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
523:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1892:
Start-Class Astronomy articles of Bottom-importance
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1779:Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2023
928:known: that a crop circle came into existence.
1764:bit, but it would be interesting if they did.
1464:is fine as a source for something so obvious.
174:
8:
1193:Itâs the same reason we donât say Apollo 11
317:, which collaborates on articles related to
235:
1917:Low-importance Telecommunications articles
1560:as an alternative choice for the heading.
1106:the case is only closed in your mind mate
697:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
675:
574:
469:
364:
263:
1458:A news article that proclaims it a "hoax"
1123:crop circle without making either claim.
1383:calling it a hoax in the section header
537:Knowledge:WikiProject Telecommunications
1912:Start-Class Telecommunications articles
1076:Please remove the word hoax from this.
576:
540:Template:WikiProject Telecommunications
471:
366:
265:
1937:Selected anniversaries (November 2019)
1557:
1457:
7:
1887:Bottom-importance Astronomy articles
993:in a web article that SETI took down
622:This article is within the scope of
517:This article is within the scope of
412:This article is within the scope of
311:This article is within the scope of
710:Missing years and articles in radio
254:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
14:
731:Unknown-importance Radio articles
1831:
1786:
1456:You say yourself above: we have
886:
744:Radio articles needing attention
688:
609:
599:
578:
504:
494:
473:
399:
389:
368:
298:
288:
267:
236:
205:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
1902:Low-importance history articles
662:This article has been rated as
557:This article has been rated as
452:This article has been rated as
347:This article has been rated as
327:Knowledge:WikiProject Astronomy
1882:Start-Class Astronomy articles
838:The History of Rock & Roll
819:Requests for Radio peer review
520:WikiProject Telecommunications
330:Template:WikiProject Astronomy
1:
1927:Low-importance Radio articles
1867:21:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
1826:19:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
1066:11:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
1047:02:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
1032:01:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
1017:00:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
636:and see a list of open tasks.
531:and see a list of open tasks.
432:Knowledge:WikiProject History
426:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
1907:WikiProject History articles
1897:Start-Class history articles
1774:10:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
1148:00:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
1133:22:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
981:20:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
954:20:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
435:Template:WikiProject History
1809:to reactivate your request.
1797:has been answered. Set the
1716:One option would be to use
1357:Add reputable sources that
642:Knowledge:WikiProject Radio
543:Telecommunications articles
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1953:
1932:WikiProject Radio articles
1922:Start-Class Radio articles
1163:02:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
668:project's importance scale
645:Template:WikiProject Radio
563:project's importance scale
458:project's importance scale
353:project's importance scale
1730:19:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
1712:19:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
1697:10:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
1675:21:47, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
1654:21:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
1639:21:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
1603:21:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
1589:21:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
1570:21:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
1552:15:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
1520:20:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
1506:06:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
1488:06:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
1474:02:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
1452:01:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
1437:00:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
1415:00:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
1400:23:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
1371:23:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
1345:22:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
1324:20:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
1297:19:40, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
1283:18:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
1263:03:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
1236:21:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
1116:11:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
1100:12:15, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
1086:23:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
812:Collaboration of the Week
727:Unassessed Radio articles
674:
661:
594:
556:
489:
451:
384:
346:
283:
262:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1747:12:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
1212:05:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
855:Scott Mills (radio show)
512:Telecommunication portal
850:The Museum of Curiosity
1644:Neither of us did so?
1558:Chilbolton crop circle
630:Radio-related subjects
244:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
832:The Howard Stern Show
314:WikiProject Astronomy
199:Auto-archiving period
100:Neutral point of view
1843:for this alteration
105:No original research
1853:Edit semi-protected
1839:please establish a
415:WikiProject History
534:Telecommunications
525:Telecommunications
481:Telecommunications
333:Astronomy articles
250:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1837:Not done for now:
1813:
1812:
1462:WP:THEINDEPENDENT
1255:Opportunity Rover
1204:Opportunity Rover
1140:Opportunity Rover
911:
910:
905:November 16, 2019
881:
880:
877:
876:
873:
872:
869:
868:
865:
864:
800:Unreferenced BLPs
625:WikiProject Radio
573:
572:
569:
568:
468:
467:
464:
463:
363:
362:
359:
358:
349:Bottom-importance
278:Bottomâimportance
230:
229:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1944:
1856:
1835:
1834:
1804:
1800:
1790:
1789:
1783:
1624:
1425:
1382:
890:
883:
757:Midweek Politics
703:Article requests
692:
685:
684:
676:
650:
649:
646:
643:
640:
619:
614:
613:
612:
603:
596:
595:
590:
582:
575:
545:
544:
541:
538:
535:
514:
509:
508:
507:
498:
491:
490:
485:
477:
470:
440:
439:
438:history articles
436:
433:
430:
409:
404:
403:
402:
393:
386:
385:
380:
372:
365:
335:
334:
331:
328:
325:
308:
306:Astronomy portal
303:
302:
301:
292:
285:
284:
279:
271:
264:
247:
241:
240:
232:
224:
210:
209:
200:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1952:
1951:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1872:
1871:
1850:
1832:
1802:
1798:
1787:
1781:
1761:
1689:David J Johnson
1614:
1556:I am fine with
1419:
1376:
1092:David J Johnson
1058:David J Johnson
965:WP:FALSEBALANCE
935:when it is not.
918:
861:
844:American Top 40
647:
644:
641:
638:
637:
615:
610:
608:
588:
542:
539:
536:
533:
532:
510:
505:
503:
483:
437:
434:
431:
428:
427:
405:
400:
398:
378:
332:
329:
326:
323:
322:
304:
299:
297:
277:
248:on Knowledge's
245:
226:
225:
220:
197:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
25:Arecibo message
12:
11:
5:
1950:
1948:
1940:
1939:
1934:
1929:
1924:
1919:
1914:
1909:
1904:
1899:
1894:
1889:
1884:
1874:
1873:
1870:
1869:
1811:
1810:
1791:
1780:
1777:
1760:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1732:
1678:
1677:
1657:
1656:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1490:
1355:
1351:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1311:
1308:
1305:
1302:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1245:
1239:
1238:
1224:
1221:
1218:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1155:108.20.177.124
1104:
1103:
1102:
1078:118.92.107.252
1074:
1071:
1049:
1039:108.20.198.252
1009:108.20.198.252
1004:
946:108.20.198.252
917:
914:
909:
908:
891:
879:
878:
875:
874:
871:
870:
867:
866:
863:
862:
860:
859:
858:
857:
840:
835:
828:
816:
802:
789:
775:
762:
746:
733:
716:
696:
694:
693:
681:
680:
672:
671:
664:Low-importance
660:
654:
653:
651:
648:Radio articles
634:the discussion
621:
620:
604:
592:
591:
589:Lowâimportance
583:
571:
570:
567:
566:
559:Low-importance
555:
549:
548:
546:
529:the discussion
516:
515:
499:
487:
486:
484:Lowâimportance
478:
466:
465:
462:
461:
454:Low-importance
450:
444:
443:
441:
424:the discussion
411:
410:
407:History portal
394:
382:
381:
379:Lowâimportance
373:
361:
360:
357:
356:
345:
339:
338:
336:
310:
309:
293:
281:
280:
272:
260:
259:
253:
242:
228:
227:
218:
216:
215:
212:
211:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1949:
1938:
1935:
1933:
1930:
1928:
1925:
1923:
1920:
1918:
1915:
1913:
1910:
1908:
1905:
1903:
1900:
1898:
1895:
1893:
1890:
1888:
1885:
1883:
1880:
1879:
1877:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1854:
1848:
1847:
1842:
1838:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1808:
1805:parameter to
1796:
1792:
1785:
1784:
1778:
1776:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1758:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1737:
1734:Here you go:
1733:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1709:
1705:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1659:
1658:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1622:
1618:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1586:
1582:
1581:67.149.172.22
1577:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1559:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1544:67.149.172.22
1541:
1537:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1444:67.149.172.22
1440:
1439:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1423:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1407:67.149.172.22
1403:
1402:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1386:
1380:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1363:67.149.172.22
1360:
1356:
1352:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1316:67.149.172.22
1312:
1309:
1306:
1303:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1251:
1246:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1228:67.149.172.22
1225:
1222:
1219:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1209:
1205:
1199:
1196:
1191:
1188:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1125:64.250.205.81
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1072:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1052:be quoted as
1050:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1005:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
987:
984:
983:
982:
978:
974:
970:
966:
962:
958:
957:
956:
955:
951:
947:
942:
938:
937:
936:
929:
926:
921:
915:
913:
906:
902:
901:
896:
892:
889:
885:
884:
856:
852:
851:
846:
845:
841:
839:
836:
834:
833:
829:
827:
824:
823:
821:
820:
814:
813:
809:
807:
803:
801:
798:
796:
795:
790:
788:
784:
782:
781:
776:
774:
771:
769:
768:
763:
761:
758:
755:
753:
752:
747:
745:
742:
740:
739:
734:
732:
728:
725:
723:
722:
717:
715:
711:
707:
705:
704:
699:
698:
695:
691:
687:
686:
683:
682:
678:
677:
673:
669:
665:
659:
656:
655:
652:
635:
631:
627:
626:
618:
607:
605:
602:
598:
597:
593:
587:
584:
581:
577:
564:
560:
554:
551:
550:
547:
530:
526:
522:
521:
513:
502:
500:
497:
493:
492:
488:
482:
479:
476:
472:
459:
455:
449:
446:
445:
442:
425:
421:
417:
416:
408:
397:
395:
392:
388:
387:
383:
377:
374:
371:
367:
354:
350:
344:
341:
340:
337:
321:on Knowledge.
320:
316:
315:
307:
296:
294:
291:
287:
286:
282:
276:
273:
270:
266:
261:
257:
251:
243:
239:
234:
233:
214:
213:
208:
204:
196:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1844:
1836:
1814:
1806:
1795:edit request
1762:
1718:Template:FAQ
1613:
1384:
1358:
1334:
1249:
1200:
1194:
1192:
1186:
1183:
1000:
996:
992:
943:
939:
934:
933:
930:
924:
922:
919:
912:
898:
848:
842:
830:
817:
810:
805:
804:
792:
791:
778:
777:
773:Portal:Radio
765:
764:
749:
748:
736:
735:
719:
718:
701:
700:
663:
623:
617:Radio portal
558:
518:
453:
413:
348:
312:
256:WikiProjects
202:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1576:Crop Circle
1108:77.44.14.68
903:section on
900:On this day
826:Rod Serling
787:Radio stubs
679:To-do List:
246:Start-class
148:free images
31:not a forum
1876:Categories
1849:using the
1818:2.25.78.74
1799:|answered=
1739:Kovcszaln6
1631:Walsh90210
1621:Kovcszaln6
1562:Walsh90210
1354:wikipedia.
1275:Walsh90210
1250:reasonable
961:WP:REDFLAG
1841:consensus
1766:Bollus101
969:WP:FRINGE
895:Main Page
760:Bob Crane
324:Astronomy
319:Astronomy
275:Astronomy
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1195:probably
925:provable
785:Expand:
767:Maintain
708:Create:
203:365Â days
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
1663:WP:SPAs
1595:Dumuzid
1512:Dumuzid
1494:WP:SPAs
1388:neutral
897:in the
738:Cleanup
666:on the
561:on the
456:on the
429:History
420:History
376:History
351:on the
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
1859:Meters
1846:before
1722:VQuakr
1685:WP:SPA
1646:VQuakr
1627:WP:DRN
1617:VQuakr
1498:Meters
1480:Meters
1466:VQuakr
1422:VQuakr
1392:VQuakr
1289:VQuakr
1187:aliens
1024:VQuakr
973:VQuakr
967:, and
794:Verify
751:Expand
721:Assess
343:Bottom
252:scale.
126:Google
1803:|ans=
1793:This
1704:Ăvana
1667:Ăvana
1540:Ăvana
1429:Ăvana
1379:Ăvana
1359:prove
1337:Ăvana
1054:WP:OR
806:Other
780:Stubs
639:Radio
586:Radio
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1863:talk
1822:talk
1770:talk
1743:talk
1726:talk
1708:talk
1693:talk
1687:'s.
1671:talk
1650:talk
1635:talk
1619:and
1599:talk
1585:talk
1566:talk
1548:talk
1516:talk
1502:talk
1484:talk
1470:talk
1448:talk
1433:talk
1411:talk
1396:talk
1367:talk
1341:talk
1320:talk
1293:talk
1279:talk
1259:talk
1232:talk
1208:talk
1159:talk
1144:talk
1129:talk
1112:talk
1096:talk
1082:talk
1062:talk
1043:talk
1028:talk
1013:talk
997:also
977:talk
959:See
950:talk
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1801:or
1001:not
822::
658:Low
553:Low
448:Low
176:TWL
1878::
1865:)
1855:}}
1851:{{
1824:)
1807:no
1772:)
1745:)
1728:)
1720:.
1710:)
1695:)
1673:)
1652:)
1637:)
1629:?
1601:)
1587:)
1568:)
1550:)
1518:)
1504:)
1496:.
1486:)
1472:)
1450:)
1435:)
1413:)
1398:)
1385:is
1369:)
1343:)
1322:)
1295:)
1281:)
1261:)
1234:)
1210:)
1161:)
1146:)
1131:)
1114:)
1098:)
1084:)
1064:)
1045:)
1030:)
1015:)
979:)
963:,
952:)
853:;
847:;
729:;
712:,
201::
193:,
156:)
54:;
1861:(
1820:(
1768:(
1741:(
1724:(
1706:(
1691:(
1669:(
1648:(
1633:(
1623::
1615:@
1597:(
1583:(
1564:(
1546:(
1514:(
1500:(
1482:(
1468:(
1446:(
1431:(
1424::
1420:@
1409:(
1394:(
1381::
1377:@
1365:(
1339:(
1318:(
1291:(
1277:(
1257:(
1230:(
1206:(
1157:(
1142:(
1127:(
1110:(
1094:(
1080:(
1060:(
1041:(
1026:(
1011:(
975:(
948:(
907:.
815::
808::
797::
783::
770::
754::
741::
724::
706::
670:.
565:.
460:.
355:.
258::
195:2
191:1
188::
172:¡
166:¡
158:¡
151:¡
145:¡
139:¡
133:¡
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
