1268:
section on this talk page dating back to the article's prior incarnation and it's current form which shows at some point, the descision was made to repurpose an article from it's specific focus on the 1984 Data
Protection Act to a general article, with greatly lacking information concerning the prior Act, which had been present in the previous incarnation of this article, concerning the history of the 1984 Data Protection Act and the criticism surrounding it's repeal and replacement with the 1998 Data Protection Act, an action which culminates to an act of self-censorship through indirect historical revisionism, removing from the encyclopedia almost all information on the contributions to society of the 1984 Data Protection Act and the criticism from an international body (A significant event thing to ocurr) on an act which shaped the path ahead of us in our advancement into the late 20th and 21st century as a civilisation.
170:
149:
1243:. The section demonstrates how the rules in both acts may be similar at times but differ at others greatly, not just in interpretation or in a mild rewording, but rather a complete rewrite to directly allow activity which was previously a distinct violation of the 1984 Data Protection Act. It also makes mention of the fact this article is about the 1984 act and makes the point of pointing that out, going on to reject the alteration of the article's list of rules on the basis that the proposed changes were descriptive of the 1998 Data Protection Act, which was argued as being not fitting for the pupose of the article. There were no futher counterpoints made in criticism of this reply.
74:
53:
259:
238:
269:
1235:
being proposed for the first time. Though the 1998 Data
Protection Act has similarities and the same name, the fact the original was repealed, establishes the two acts as being distinctly seperate from each other, albiet seperate acts with similarities. However, at the same time, differences which result in the legalisation of actions which under the previous act would have been clear breach of the act.
22:
1553:
1511:
1227:. A four line paragraph which did make mention of criticism of the repeal and the intelligence agency's new rights under the proposed replacement, an example being given from Simon Davies, director of Privacy International, called the plans “a systematic attack on the right to privacy.”. The quote came with a citation, found here
868:
complain to the ICO. 192 hides behind a form they have created to get the information removed however a email to them asking them to remove your details should be ok under the act for them to act however they and other companies like them once you fill this form in or send emails to them still dont remove your details.
1140:
The whole section on what is personal data is nonsense. It is not really a subjective definition. Whilst the subject needs to be identifiable from data held (or likely to be) by the controller, the controller himself does not need to be able to identify. For example if I visit London and get my photo
1267:
This article was on at least one occasion subject to proposals on replacing it's content with content on the 1998 Data
Protection Act. Such proposals were rejected in a direct single post response and no threaded discussion emerged, at least as is evident from the lack of such discussions between a
1214:
After searching for information on the 1984 implementation and observing little or no information with regard to the act, I looked up the talk page here and found that back in 2006 it had been repurposed from an article into a Re-direct to the most recent implementation, the argument being that the
1234:
Key to the importance of raising concern is that the 1984 Data
Protection Act was repealed. It was not ammended. It was not reworded. It was repealed. It was canned in it's entirety and a replacement article was written from scratch, reviewed and implemented in stages, just as if it were a new act
1113:
I have renamed this "Problems of
Interpretation". The previous text stating that it was possible to devise systems which meet the letter but breach the spirit of the Act is simply untrue. Anything which breached the spirit of the Act would necessarily be unfair and accordingly fall foul of the 1st
786:
From you example above, I would say that you would have to register. If you are not sure, then go to the
Information Commissioner's web site and use their on-line checking tool that asks questions as to how you will use the data and then recommends whether or not you need to register. If you are a
762:
Say you want to set up an online company where you need to store peoples addresses (not their credit card details) so you can sent them their items that they purchased. Would that company have to register or can they simply ask the customer that its ok to store their address details and then store
1289:
hidden from the apparent records as first seen on the talk page, after a threaded discussion which may have ocurred, was deleted in it's entirety from the talk page, either as a result of accidental deletion, benelovent intentional deletion to conceal a possible negatively charged flame war or a
941:
The second citation does say "this all seems quite complicated", but this is not the same as a reputation for complexity. The Act does however have a reputation for being confusing and misunderstood. Some more appropriate phrase and citation should be found for it (the ICO has previously said as
825:
However it is important to treat each decision to regsiter on its own merits as the
Statutory Instrument mentioned above caveats a number of points that restricts the use of the information collected. I always recommend that businesses register, even if it is voluntary, as the decision processes
867:
are displaying and selling personally information. The ACT states that the detail holder i.e. YOU, has the right for the information to be removed however such companies such as 192, have stated that you dont have the right to ask them to remove it. In this situtation you will need to send a
1373:
I suggest that no-one can object to proper, encyclopaedic work. You have stated clearly what you propose to do. Assuming, and I have not checked, that there is not already an article on the prior act, you might start that right away, migrating items from this article to it as appropriate, and
1238:
Even further searches the history of content on the Data
Protection Act here on wikipedia revealed futher information, such as a point raised further up on this talk page in a discussion with regard to the points of the act taken straight from the act itself, the section can be seen here;
672:
Hi. This page is always being vandalised, but not really much more than any other page here. Certainly not enough to warrant protection. It is on quite a few editors' watchlists and is usually quickly reverted. Offenders are usually warned, and if they continue they get blocked. --
896:
The ninth principle was added only hours ago, and I have removed it. There are only eight. There is no separate
Principle that data must be obtained in a lawful manner, only that it must be processed lawfully (Principle 1), and for lawful purposes (Principle 2). --
1422:
I was under the impression that jumping in and making substantial reworks of articles was a no-no during the young days as a new wikipedian, but reading what you said, I'll get right on it ^^ After *thinks* two days to look out for any opposition sound about fair?
862:
i.e. you can use a telephone 'Directory
Enquiry' type service to request an individuals home telephone number, which they will readily give but they will refuse to confirm the individuals address or postcode. Then on the other hand companies such as
814:(as later amended). The three main exemptions from registration are: Staff administration; Advertising, marketing and public relations; and Accounts and records. These are called the 'core business purposes' and cover a lot of small businesses. --
1258:
This article was once accepted by editors and used by readers for information on the 1984 Data Protection Act, providing at the very least, sufficent detail on the act. Information which is now lacking or otherwise entirely absent from Knowledge
572:
As far as I am aware this was never going to be law. There is guidance from the about this, and also from the - check the document library. It is still OK to have "opt-out" check boxes, but the wording of the question must be made very clearly.
1392:
And never worry about the possibility of making a fool of yourself and making errors. We've all done that in spades! Nothing is ever lost in Knowledge (XXG), either, so, even if you find you have made a huge mess, that mess can be reverted at a
1222:
As a result, information regarding a law which in turn defined and shaped how we handle information is rather hard to find, being little more than a stub or subtle mention when found following substantial digging. The closest I could find was
1141:
captured clearly on CCTV of Westminster Council, that is personal data, even though no-one in the Council can possibly identify me. I will tidy this up shortly. The real issues lie elsewhere. NB I am a practising DP officer and trainer ... --
1453:
A couple of days is perfectly sensible. The only 'experience hierarchy' here is a mechanical one, intended to help stop vandals. Otherwise everyone is equal. Some folk also take on other responsibilities, but, as editors, all are equal.
1386:, even a bare bones article will survive long enough to be fleshed out. It might be worth waiting a day or so to see if anyone objects, otherwise I would simply works steadily and accurately because no-one has objected.
1478:
It's actually got worst, the 1984 hyperlink now points to a deleted History section of this page! The reason for a separate 1984 page is the ideation of the legislation, together with the reason for its replacement.
1308:
As a result, repealed or not, shouldn't the 1984 Data Protection Act have it's own sub-section on an article regarding UK Legisation on Data Protection or It's own article concerning the 1984 implementation?
220:
581:
This article is really about the Data Protection Act (in general) not just the 1984 version (eg, the 1998 version redirects here). Should it be renamed, or is the naming convention to always include a year?
1296:
Now following that extensive wall of text, the question I ask is Isn't Knowledge (XXG) meant to act as an encyclopedia and not hold bias to current points of view? (See the specific section on this form of
1616:
210:
559:
I once or twice heard that a change in the law was in the works to ban the opt-out boxes on application forms, requiring them to be opt-in boxes instead. Does anyone know what's happened to this law?
1209:
Proposal for Bi-Sectioning of Article into Data Protection Act 1984 and 1998 -/OR/- Creation of Data Protection Act (1984) Article and Dedication of Local Article to Modern Data Protection Act (1998)
538:
8. Appropriate security measures shall be taken against unauthorised access to, or alteration, disclosure or destruction of, personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of personal data.
1611:
186:
1348:
I'd have gone ahead and tried to 'BE BOLD' and made a start on it my self but, I'm still a newbie, so I'm prone to self-destructing my edits, wouldn't be a good thing in this scale of edit ;P
826:
about data use are much more involved if registration is not in place. You will find that 99 times out of 100, the ICO self-check will recommend that registration is probably necessary.
562:
And I still can't understand why, when the electoral registers finally stopped being a total violation of the current DPA, they didn't make the edited register opt-in from the start. --
177:
154:
858:
I removed the following from the end of the first section of the article. A Knowledge (XXG) article is not the place to make this kind of complaint, and this tone is inappropriate.
942:
much, for example). That the 1984 Act was repealed by the 1998 Act is also true, but there is probably a better citation than the legislation itself (a direct link can be found
131:
1606:
121:
439:
a) Neither of these lists of Principles accurately reflects the Principles in the 1998 Act, and at worst both are misleading. They should be copied verbatim from the Act.
1601:
1396:
Being bold wins you friends here provided you always work towards the common purpose of enhancing the encyclopaedia. Making mistakes is just that, making mistakes.
1215:
1984 implementation had been repealed in the past and a new incarnation was brought in to fill the older act's purpose. (See the related discussion from 2006 here:
744:. This allows, but does not compel the ISP to disclose the info. There is another exemption in section 35 which allows disclosure in the case of legal proceedings
97:
1274:
A further assumption can be made from the lack of discussion here on the talk page on such a key change to an article. Showing that this descision was either:-
1290:
malicious intentional deletion to discourage potential opinions being voiced in opposition to the opinion of a percentage of editors or an individual editor.
1160:
The 1984 act listed the following as sensitive areas, stating that information about named individuals should only go into a computer with good reason:
982:
829:
716:
652:
630:
93:
84:
58:
1312:
For example, such an article could also go into detail on the criticism and praise it received along with events that lead to the repeal of the act.
321:
477:
3. Personal data held for any purpose or purposes shall not be used or disclosed in any manner incompatible with that purpose or those purposes.
486:
4. Personal data held for any purpose or purposes shall be adequate, relevant and not excessive in relation to that purpose or those purposes.
169:
148:
1626:
728:
311:
1042:
i would like to know too why we can consider that Databases are more worry than ID cards? thank you for your answers....a french student
1250:
This article was once about the 1984 Data Protection Act specifically and may have linked to an article on the 1998 Data Protection Act.
1075:
1049:
1016:
991:
924:
694:
664:
642:
1486:
740:
are largely exempt from the restrictions on sharing contained in Principle 1 which normally require the individual's permission. See
1631:
1621:
971:
778:
504:
6. Personal data held for any purpose or purposes shall not be kept for longer than is necessary for that purpose or those purposes.
1351:
And also, with a significant edit such as proposed, it should be discussed first (I think that's the policy :o). Here's hoping :D
459:
1. The information to be contained in personal data shall be obtained, and personal data shall be processed, fairly and lawfully.
1103:
841:
802:
33:
1194:
A number of references linking to ico.gov.uk seem to have died. Could someone please help finding the correct pages? Thanks.
1134:
182:
343:
Hi there, can I ask what you think would be the better one of the the principles on the article or the one that I wrote?
282:
243:
983:
http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/data_protection/the_guide/principle_6/correcting_inaccurate_personal_data.aspx
1517:
1383:
1175:
However, in the 1998 act, a fifth sensitive area was added - trade union membership. This should surely go here.
1583:
519:(i) to be informed by any data user whether he holds personal data of which that individual is the subject; and
1279:
made without appropiate discussion first ocurring here on the talk page between editors concerning the change.
724:
39:
21:
1079:
1053:
1020:
995:
698:
1228:
1224:
660:
638:
286:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
73:
52:
1482:
1379:
1122:
1071:
1045:
1012:
987:
959:
790:
774:
766:
690:
1490:
1378:, and use edit summaries well it is likely that others will join in to help you. As long as you maintain
1302:
887:
837:
798:
720:
1199:
1180:
967:
185:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
418:
374:
943:
770:
787:
data controller (in the meaning of the Data Protection Act 1998) then you will need to be registered.
916:
833:
794:
370:
Data should be the minimum required for the purpose and should not be kept any longer than required.
1579:
1095:
603:
627:
I am going to remove the stupid comments put on by IP addresses 217.65.158.119 and 82.22.127.233.
592:
Since the 1984 act has been repealed, perhaps the article should be Data Protection Act 1998Â ? --
1564:
1459:
1401:
1332:
1146:
1130:
1099:
656:
649:
EDIT: Can we have a lock on this page? This page keeps getting vandalised. Or at least ban the IP
634:
452:
law. For future reference, and to show the difference, here are the Principles from the 1984 Act-
1538:
1428:
1356:
1317:
89:
920:
1195:
1176:
963:
932:
873:
611:
1542:
713:
any info on what affect this act has on isp's releasing ip addresses of customers to cops?
745:
741:
1578:
The page mentions the "Durant case", what is this there's no page about it to link to?
1595:
1560:
1455:
1397:
1328:
1298:
1142:
1126:
1587:
1568:
1546:
1494:
1463:
1432:
1405:
1360:
1336:
1321:
1203:
1184:
1150:
1083:
1057:
1035:
1024:
999:
975:
950:
935:
901:
890:
876:
845:
818:
751:
702:
677:
617:
596:
586:
566:
548:
352:
Data must not be aquired and processed unless there is a lawful reason not to do so.
1424:
1352:
1313:
886:
Why does the eight principles of the data protection act have 9 items on the list?
583:
1389:
That you are new makes your rights neither greater nor less than anyone else here.
468:
2. Personal data shall be held only for one or more specified and lawful purposes.
258:
237:
92:
and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the
1032:
947:
898:
815:
811:
748:
674:
607:
593:
545:
268:
981:
The fourth citation no longer points to the correct place, the new location is
1552:
274:
264:
405:
Processed in accordance with the "data subject's" (the #individual's) rights.
563:
1031:
Compared to nothing, maybe. Compared to something better, possibly not. --
355:
Data must be processed withing the rights of the person applying the data.
812:
The Data Protection (Notification and Notification Fees) Regulations 2000
495:
5. Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up to date.
411:
Not transferred to any other country without adequate protection in situ.
367:
Suitable measures should be taken to ensure the safety of presonal data.
1064:
Was there an episode of Yes, Minister about the data protection act?
810:
Exemptions from registration are governed by Statutory Instrument -
687:
Unrelated note: Fixed a grammatical error, 'an' in place of 'a'.
1376:
make it clear on the talk pages of each article what is happening
927:
site) citations don't seem to support the points they are making.
516:(a) at reasonable intervals and without undue delay or expense-
1505:
287:
15:
527:(b) where appropriate, to have such data corrected or erased.
1094:
Sorry, was looking in the totally wrong part of the act! --
195:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
1089:
522:(ii) to access to any such data held by a data user; and
373:
Data should not be transferred to countries outside the
364:
Provision must be made for the correction of data held.
1617:
Low-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
1090:
Item 1 of 'Conditions relevant to the first principle'
864:
88:, which aims to improve Knowledge (XXG)'s coverage of
358:
Data must only be used for specific lawful purposes.
181:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1612:
Start-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
1425:
Terkaal -- <Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!: -->
1353:
Terkaal -- <Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!: -->
1314:
Terkaal -- <Warning! Self-Confessed Newbie!: -->
198:
Template:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
417:according to the page history, this was posted by
1006:please can someone tell me if dpa is a good thing
1114:principle which requires all processing to be
444:b) This page is about the Data Protection Act
361:Personal data must be accurate and up-to-date.
106:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Mass surveillance
8:
1303:Knowledge (XXG):Recentism#Article_imbalance
393:Obtained for specified and lawful purposes.
19:
1480:
448:, and should really be changed to reflect
232:
178:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom
143:
47:
1607:Mid-importance Mass surveillance articles
1327:Do that thing :) It makes perfect sense.
1190:dead links in references under ico.gov.uk
1163:Religious, political and other beliefs;
956:Cool, i'll swap that link over. Thanks.
1246:This shows three things of importance.
882:Why does 8 principles have a list of 9?
234:
201:Politics of the United Kingdom articles
145:
49:
1602:Start-Class Mass surveillance articles
1225:Information_privacy_law#United_Kingdom
109:Template:WikiProject Mass surveillance
1241:Talk:Data_Protection_Act_1998#Neither
396:Adequate, relevant and not excessive.
7:
1217:Talk:Data_Protection_Act_1998#Rename
738:the prevention or detection of crime
513:7. An individual shall be entitled-
280:This article is within the scope of
175:This article is within the scope of
1229:Information_privacy_law#cite_note-7
402:Not kept any longer than necessary.
290:and the subjects encompassed by it.
38:It is of interest to the following
1169:Conviction of a criminal record;
14:
1551:
1509:
1374:creating others. As long as you
917:Staffordshire University DPA FAQ
267:
257:
236:
168:
147:
72:
51:
20:
1502:Edit request on 16 January 2013
316:This article has been rated as
296:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Law
215:This article has been rated as
126:This article has been rated as
1588:14:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
549:14:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
434:I have two points about this -
390:Processed fairly and lawfully.
192:Politics of the United Kingdom
183:Politics of the United Kingdom
155:Politics of the United Kingdom
1:
1104:18:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
1036:13:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
1025:12:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
976:19:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
951:16:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
936:21:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
752:05:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
703:10:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
189:and see a list of open tasks.
85:WikiProject Mass surveillance
1569:11:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
1547:11:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
1495:10:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
1240:
1204:09:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
929:Think we should remove them?
678:10:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
618:05:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
597:22:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
421:at 08:52, 15 September 2005.
1627:Low-importance law articles
1532:to reactivate your request.
1520:has been answered. Set the
1216:
1137:) 18:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
1000:12:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
587:20:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
567:12:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
1648:
1058:21:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
902:14:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
891:14:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
877:23:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
846:11:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
819:13:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
322:project's importance scale
221:project's importance scale
132:project's importance scale
112:Mass surveillance articles
1464:09:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
1433:05:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
1406:11:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
1361:10:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
1337:09:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
1322:09:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
1185:19:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
1151:18:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
1109:Apparent Flaws in the Act
408:Reasonably securely kept.
315:
252:
214:
163:
125:
67:
46:
1632:WikiProject Law articles
1622:Start-Class law articles
1384:ensure they are verified
1380:assertions of notability
1084:01:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
399:Accurate and up to date.
299:Template:WikiProject Law
80:Data Protection Act 1998
1166:Health and sexuality;
386:Personal data must be:
96:, or contribute to the
82:is within the scope of
870:
763:their details securely
28:This article is rated
860:
832:comment was added by
793:comment was added by
769:comment was added by
719:comment was added by
655:comment was added by
633:comment was added by
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
758:When does it apply?
736:Data processed for
604:Data Protection Act
865:http://www.192.com
34:content assessment
1536:
1535:
1497:
1485:comment added by
1139:
1125:comment added by
1074:comment added by
1060:
1048:comment added by
1027:
1015:comment added by
990:comment added by
978:
962:comment added by
921:DPA contents page
849:
806:
782:
732:
693:comment added by
668:
646:
422:
419:User:62.253.245.4
375:European Economic
336:
335:
332:
331:
328:
327:
231:
230:
227:
226:
142:
141:
138:
137:
103:Mass surveillance
90:mass surveillance
59:Mass surveillance
1639:
1555:
1527:
1523:
1513:
1512:
1506:
1138:
1119:
1086:
1043:
1010:
1002:
957:
827:
788:
764:
714:
705:
650:
628:
416:
304:
303:
300:
297:
294:
277:
272:
271:
261:
254:
253:
248:
240:
233:
203:
202:
199:
196:
193:
172:
165:
164:
159:
151:
144:
114:
113:
110:
107:
104:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1647:
1646:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1592:
1591:
1576:
1559:nothing to do.
1525:
1521:
1510:
1504:
1211:
1192:
1172:Racial origin.
1158:
1156:Sensitive areas
1120:
1111:
1092:
1069:
1066:
1008:
985:
913:
884:
856:
854:Bias re 192.com
828:—The preceding
789:—The preceding
765:—The preceding
760:
715:—The preceding
711:
688:
651:—The preceding
629:—The preceding
625:
579:
557:
431:
384:
349:
341:
301:
298:
295:
292:
291:
283:WikiProject Law
273:
266:
246:
200:
197:
194:
191:
190:
157:
111:
108:
105:
102:
101:
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
1645:
1643:
1635:
1634:
1629:
1624:
1619:
1614:
1609:
1604:
1594:
1593:
1580:Railwayfan2005
1575:
1572:
1534:
1533:
1514:
1503:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1394:
1390:
1387:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1349:
1342:
1340:
1339:
1311:
1310:
1307:
1306:
1295:
1294:
1292:
1291:
1285:
1283:
1281:
1280:
1275:
1273:
1272:
1270:
1269:
1263:
1261:
1260:
1254:
1252:
1251:
1245:
1244:
1237:
1236:
1233:
1232:
1221:
1220:
1213:
1210:
1207:
1191:
1188:
1157:
1154:
1110:
1107:
1091:
1088:
1065:
1062:
1041:
1039:
1038:
1007:
1004:
954:
953:
930:
928:
912:
909:
907:
905:
904:
888:217.172.55.251
883:
880:
855:
852:
851:
850:
822:
821:
785:
759:
756:
755:
754:
721:86.133.155.254
710:
707:
686:
683:
681:
680:
624:
621:
600:
599:
578:
575:
571:
556:
553:
552:
551:
542:
541:
540:
539:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
525:
524:
523:
520:
508:
507:
506:
505:
499:
498:
497:
496:
490:
489:
488:
487:
481:
480:
479:
478:
472:
471:
470:
469:
463:
462:
461:
460:
454:
453:
441:
440:
436:
435:
430:
427:
425:
415:
413:
412:
409:
406:
403:
400:
397:
394:
391:
383:
380:
379:
378:
371:
368:
365:
362:
359:
356:
353:
348:
345:
340:
337:
334:
333:
330:
329:
326:
325:
318:Low-importance
314:
308:
307:
305:
279:
278:
262:
250:
249:
247:Low‑importance
241:
229:
228:
225:
224:
217:Low-importance
213:
207:
206:
204:
187:the discussion
173:
161:
160:
158:Low‑importance
152:
140:
139:
136:
135:
128:Mid-importance
124:
118:
117:
115:
77:
65:
64:
62:Mid‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1644:
1633:
1630:
1628:
1625:
1623:
1620:
1618:
1615:
1613:
1610:
1608:
1605:
1603:
1600:
1599:
1597:
1590:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1573:
1571:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1561:Fiddle Faddle
1558:
1554:
1549:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1531:
1528:parameter to
1519:
1515:
1508:
1507:
1501:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1477:
1476:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1456:Fiddle Faddle
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1398:Fiddle Faddle
1395:
1391:
1388:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1329:Fiddle Faddle
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1304:
1300:
1299:Systemic bias
1288:
1287:
1286:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1242:
1230:
1226:
1218:
1208:
1206:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1189:
1187:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1173:
1170:
1167:
1164:
1161:
1155:
1153:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1117:
1108:
1106:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1087:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1076:89.139.19.110
1073:
1063:
1061:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1050:86.206.226.56
1047:
1037:
1034:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1017:84.92.161.243
1014:
1005:
1003:
1001:
997:
993:
992:129.67.48.145
989:
984:
979:
977:
973:
969:
965:
961:
952:
949:
945:
940:
939:
938:
937:
934:
926:
922:
919:) and third (
918:
910:
908:
903:
900:
895:
894:
893:
892:
889:
881:
879:
878:
875:
869:
866:
859:
853:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
824:
823:
820:
817:
813:
809:
808:
807:
804:
800:
796:
792:
783:
780:
776:
772:
768:
757:
753:
750:
746:
743:
739:
735:
734:
733:
730:
726:
722:
718:
708:
706:
704:
700:
696:
695:152.105.21.64
692:
684:
679:
676:
671:
670:
669:
666:
662:
658:
657:Wakimakirolls
654:
647:
644:
640:
636:
635:Wakimakirolls
632:
622:
620:
619:
615:
614:
609:
605:
598:
595:
591:
590:
589:
588:
585:
576:
574:
569:
568:
565:
560:
554:
550:
547:
544:
543:
537:
536:
535:
534:
526:
521:
518:
517:
515:
514:
512:
511:
510:
509:
503:
502:
501:
500:
494:
493:
492:
491:
485:
484:
483:
482:
476:
475:
474:
473:
467:
466:
465:
464:
458:
457:
456:
455:
451:
447:
443:
442:
438:
437:
433:
432:
428:
426:
423:
420:
410:
407:
404:
401:
398:
395:
392:
389:
388:
387:
381:
376:
372:
369:
366:
363:
360:
357:
354:
351:
350:
346:
344:
338:
323:
319:
313:
310:
309:
306:
289:
285:
284:
276:
270:
265:
263:
260:
256:
255:
251:
245:
242:
239:
235:
222:
218:
212:
209:
208:
205:
188:
184:
180:
179:
174:
171:
167:
166:
162:
156:
153:
150:
146:
133:
129:
123:
120:
119:
116:
99:
95:
91:
87:
86:
81:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1577:
1556:
1550:
1537:
1529:
1518:edit request
1487:90.213.9.109
1481:— Preceding
1375:
1341:
1293:
1282:
1271:
1262:
1253:
1212:
1193:
1174:
1171:
1168:
1165:
1162:
1159:
1118:and lawful
1115:
1112:
1093:
1067:
1040:
1009:
986:— Preceding
980:
955:
915:The second (
914:
906:
885:
871:
861:
857:
784:
761:
737:
712:
685:
682:
648:
626:
612:
601:
580:
570:
561:
558:
449:
445:
424:
414:
385:
342:
317:
302:law articles
281:
216:
176:
127:
94:project page
83:
79:
40:WikiProjects
1574:Durant case
1196:Andersenman
1177:ACEOREVIVED
1121:—Preceding
1070:—Preceding
1044:—Preceding
1011:—Preceding
964:CaNNoNFoDDa
958:—Preceding
933:CaNNoNFoDDa
874:Lee Stanley
771:24.66.64.99
689:—Preceding
288:legal field
30:Start-class
1596:Categories
1522:|answered=
742:section 29
275:Law portal
98:discussion
911:Citations
834:Howarthss
795:Howarthss
623:Vandalism
602:Moved to
1557:Declined
1483:unsigned
1143:Eggthang
1135:contribs
1127:Eggthang
1123:unsigned
1096:SG Gower
1072:unsigned
1046:unsigned
1013:unsigned
988:unsigned
972:contribs
960:unsigned
842:contribs
830:unsigned
803:contribs
791:unsigned
779:contribs
767:unsigned
729:contribs
717:unsigned
709:isp data
691:unsigned
665:contribs
653:unsigned
643:contribs
631:unsigned
1393:stroke.
584:h2g2bob
429:Neither
320:on the
219:on the
130:on the
1259:(XXG).
1033:zzuuzz
948:zzuuzz
946:). --
899:zzuuzz
816:zzuuzz
749:zzuuzz
675:zzuuzz
608:Centrx
594:Beardo
577:Rename
555:Opt-in
546:zzuuzz
382:Theirs
36:scale.
1539:Uwhat
1526:|ans=
1516:This
1301:here
1284:-OR-
1068:yes
747:. --
377:area.
339:Merge
1584:talk
1565:talk
1543:talk
1491:talk
1460:talk
1429:talk
1402:talk
1382:and
1357:talk
1333:talk
1318:talk
1200:talk
1181:talk
1147:talk
1131:talk
1116:fair
1100:talk
1080:talk
1054:talk
1021:talk
996:talk
968:talk
944:here
925:OPSI
838:talk
799:talk
775:talk
725:talk
699:talk
661:talk
639:talk
613:talk
564:Smjg
450:that
446:1984
347:Mine
1524:or
1305:))
923:on
731:) .
667:) .
645:) .
606:. —
312:Low
293:Law
244:Law
211:Low
122:Mid
1598::
1586:)
1567:)
1545:)
1530:no
1493:)
1462:)
1431:)
1404:)
1359:)
1335:)
1320:)
1231:.
1219:)
1202:)
1183:)
1149:)
1133:•
1102:)
1082:)
1056:)
1023:)
998:)
974:)
970:•
931:--
872:-
844:)
840:•
805:).
801:•
781:).
777:•
727:•
701:)
663:•
641:•
616:•
582:--
1582:(
1563:(
1541:(
1489:(
1458:(
1427:(
1400:(
1355:(
1331:(
1316:(
1198:(
1179:(
1145:(
1129:(
1098:(
1078:(
1052:(
1019:(
994:(
966:(
848:.
836:(
797:(
773:(
723:(
697:(
659:(
637:(
610:→
324:.
223:.
134:.
100:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
