2408:. If you go down to the section "Deciding to disambiguate", you will see there are three scenarios discussed. The relevant here appears to be the "Michael Dobbs" scenario, where there is one primary topic (/subject), and only one other use (/subject). Searching on the name finds the primary article, which is basically the one most people are more likely to want to find; the other subject is linked directly at the primary article using a "hatnote", *that's* why no disambiguation page is needed. (A "hatnote" is a referral at the top of the article under the subject name - per the "Michael Dobbs" article, "For the American author, see
661:
two
Holland Park students doesn't get across the point that I think you're making that Holland Park was, if not unique, very unusual in its diverse intake, with pupils from very different backgrounds and very different interests. So HP was a model environment for looking at the role of curriculum development in the context of wider educational and social issues (and of course music was a subject area where the issues were particularly highlighted). That doesn't come across in the phraseology (and of course a relevant reference would be needed to show the verifiability of what I've just said off the top of my head).
2491:
political "tool" then it is a very blunt one. The thrust of it is related to my main career in education, especially as an innovator in the use of pop music in education. Only at the end is my recent political activity mentioned and fully referenced, and then with some self-deprecation - and yet no mention of my political affiliation! Far from using this article to "improve my visibility" I do that by keeping in contact with my electorate via newsletters, email and social media (@CllrPaulFarmer). Rather than remove it I have edited your added sentence and await further comments, including those from others.
1953:. Articles are never locked, and you may find that your article stands for long periods of time without changing or that it is completely rewritten. Both of these are perfectly normal parts of article development on Knowledge (XXG). In the latter, if you disagree with the way it is rewritten, the links I've provided will give you avenues to express that disagreement. You may also find the article occasionally vandalized. Although we have a really dedicated group of volunteers who try to watch for and repair that kind of thing swiftly, sometimes such edits do pass, and you are
1701:- "someone whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of articles". Although the guideline says that "many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest", since your interest is entirely yourself (you have been editing this article since February, after you added yourself to various other pages) you are very much in danger of appearing to fall within the second category, the "significant number (who) appear to edit for the purposes of promotion, showcasing and/or advocacy".
1802:
needed to correct; partly because I have so so wanted to get it right. I think I have learned a lot the hard way in the past few days, especially from you, Drmies and SmartSE. Some editors have been kind enough to correct my technical errors, for which I'm grateful. I haven't actually spent from
February on this (I do have a busy life even if I have reduced my workload). I have simply kept an occasional eye on the piece, and joined in again when someone has surprised me with a new version.
2709:'s comments. As I said at the AfD, the subject of the article is notable as an author, but not as a politician. The material on the political career needs to be removed or drastically shortened.The description of the teaching career needs to have its puffery removed. The general style of the article is a good illustration of why it is very strongly advised that people should Not try to put their own Autobiographies into Knowledge (XXG).
378:
354:
2621:
content that appears on
Knowledge (XXG)? Paul, I don't see why identifying myself is relevant to this discussion, and it shouldn't be; I wasn't even aware of your existence until I discovered this article through a keyword search on Google! It is difficult enough for other Wikipedians to make a dispassionate decision when there is there is potential to upset people (namely, you). I trust that you will all make the right decision.
2142:
imperfections that in practice are endemic to a dogmatising structure. It should warn off the well-meaning amateur hoping to contribute potentially useful information before they get an incomprehensible and often inconsistent rulebook thrown at them. And the foolhardy should be made aware that this is an environment in which the nurturing process is as liable to mean having the bowels opened up as it is being proffered a spoon.
220:
270:
252:
508:
196:
134:
106:
2012:(excuse lengthy discourse, I'll go away again after this) Paul, using your own name signalled your good faith. You weren't trying to hide what you were doing, you were simply contributing information you thought was important based on personal knowledge and experience. That shouldn't be a reason for feeling you have to "go underground" (whatever you mean by that, the implications aren't clear).
2246:
work ended up at
Knowledge (XXG) for me to find. I'm quite happy to have it encapsulated in a contextualising narrative as long as that narrative isn't abusive. What concerns me more is how driving away even narrowly focused contributors is liable to deprive me of interesting/useful information. Within the framework of an overall commitment to reliability I can live with "caveat emptor".
388:
2515:
guidelines. We're not here to make our own commentary, but, again, to neutrally summarize what reliable sources say in talking about notable subjects. If a subject editing his or her own article becomes controversial or interesting enough to attract media attention (as sometimes it does), it may be entirely appropriate to note that in the article (as long as it is not given
75:
280:
2300:@Errater, there's always a need to check over your edits for misspellings or other errors and to make sure you put a source for all new material, or the burden falls on someone else. - This is meant as a helpful guide, not at all as a criticism. No matter how careful I think I am, I often find I have made errors when I check over my saved edits a little later. :)
480:
1621:.) One of the reasons that editing on an article related to you is strongly discouraged is that it is hard to be dispassionate when the somewhat brutal process is applied to you or to a subject you hold dear. (You should see the back and forth we sometimes go through getting articles to "featured" status for the front page. A lot of virtual blood is shed. :))
2064:
particularly bothered that Paul wasn't writing about anything else or that you originally included detail that was fairly trivial. That can be sorted over time, there was little that demanded urgent attention. I was glad to have the article's content as a whole available in
Knowledge (XXG) rather than not, and that's the basic point.
2749:, this is really part of the average life cycle of an article. Some have gone through deletion debate repeatedly. In terms of editing, it's really better that you not, unless specific issues are raised. Your name in the edit history alone can be controversial. You've been very cooperative with the community in following our
2116:
Knowledge (XXG) now sees itself forced to evolve in response to the decline in random self-recruitment. Enrolling motivated, well disciplined university students who feel at home in the environment may well be a more reliable recruitment model than relying on less "amenable" lay contributors wanting to do their own thing.
144:
2660:
would follow if nominated again. Those of us who expressed an opinion before are welcome to express an opinion this time; I will certainly do so. I'm sorry if this feels unfair to you, but it's the way the process works. (It's interesting that you characterize the keep decision as hinging on my argument given that
2468:
from being deleted). I am disappointed that
Knowledge (XXG) can be used as a political tool like this (this man obviously used it to improve his visibility for elections). If some local "Bob" wants to elevate himself politically then he should use Twitter or Facebook. Knowledge (XXG) is not a social media tool!
2757:
concerned your response has been exemplary. In the age of
Facebook and other social media sites, a lot of people assume Knowledge (XXG) works the same way - we get emails from people who think that all the time. If the IP chooses to nominate the article for deletion, it will be flagged for probably a
2614:
Why did you choose to ignore this? If I were notable enough and there were public interest in me or one of my works then an article would be written about me or my works. The invisible hand of notability works because public interest, and not committees, affiliated persons or paid contributors decide
2467:
While searching Google I noticed that there was an article called Paul
Stephen Farmer. I also noticed that there was another page User:Paul Stephen Farmer. I then inspected the article's history, and talk page and was disappointed to learn that several editors had approved this article (preventing it
2167:
My own involvement in some "red in tooth and claw" areas of
Knowledge (XXG) has left me undeterred by the violence and duplicity of quite a lot of the routine quality control that goes on here, I'm not an unprepared newcomer. It's just the decision to waste effort elsewhere that's led me to opt out.
2063:
Having lived through the period when
English schools were struggling to adapt to the real world lives of students, I had no doubt that the information about Paul's introduction of a contemporary music curriculum at a school as high-profile as Holland Park was significant and worth including. I'm not
1732:
Smartse has pointed to some of the many issues with this article - which all stem from the "throw enough mud and see how much will stick" approach of adding as much detail as possible, however unimportant or unverifiable. You seem to think that the burden of proof required for you is rather high, but
1479:
article--if the subject is to be given credit for school accomplishments, then the sources should bear that out, but they didn't. Whether there will be anything left is an open question: it is not inconceivable that someone will put this up for deletion in the future. My thanks to the Lady and to MRG
1141:
to review the material to see if they believe that the "original research" tag and the "conflict of interest" tag are warranted. These tags are not meant to be applied punitively, but only if there are present concerns about issues, and regardless of your involvement in the history of developing this
1019:
I think its a shame this article has been edited so much. I would have liked to see more about the subject's recent political activities, and to that end I have added the brief references to the controversies of his period as Arts/Culture cabinet member. Also, wasn't he a Suffolk County Councillor as
951:
Most of the remaining concerns I see with the article can be attributed to "original research." While this may be confusing to article authors when they also happen to be the article subject's, we cannot include information on Knowledge (XXG) that can't be verified to a reliable sources. Where can we
672:
I wouldn't want to put down mention of the council work, which is the sort of "unsung" or at least "very quietly sung" stuff that I personally think Knowledge (XXG) is prone to disregard (I disagree very strongly with WP's rejection of UK Honours system recognition as an indicator of notability), but
668:
You've done a lot to assemble the references and reviews that confirm the notability of the publications. However the reviews don't need to be included in the article itself, the fact that they're there in the reference should be enough to allow judgment of notability. Although a really exceptional
660:
Paul, I think you've done a really good job tightening up the Introduction and the Career sections and that's the way to proceed with the rest. Some of the phrasing is still discursive in a way that, to me, obscures the essence of what I think you're aiming to say. For example, the reference to the
2245:
Another editor I have great respect for (whom I won't name in case my memory misrepresents him) suggested something along the lines that that a reasonable initial guide to notability was someone's wish to find information on the subject at Knowledge (XXG). Personally I'm glad Paul's GCSE curriculum
2193:
Although I still disagree with MRG about the appropriate extent of respect for copyright, it's her patience and willingness to explain rather than demand that's reconciled me to the pragmatic need to respect rules that sometimes verge on the exploitatively nonsensical. I've never been in doubt that
848:
The problem with a COI notice is that it goes beyond warning the reader of a potential conflict of interest, the wording suggests that there are problems with the reliability of the content. Paul has done quite a lot of work to make the article conform to Knowledge (XXG) requirements and it was not
2219:
Music education within the English secondary system in the early 1970s was at a similar crossroads to Knowledge (XXG). Paul Farmer's pioneering effort at Holland Park strikes me as embodying the important effort being made at that time to come to terms with the needs of a curriculum's wider rather
2115:
The aspiration for Knowledge (XXG) to become Academopedia (or at least a brand like Britannica) would be fine if that is what Knowledge (XXG)'s contributors believe it should be. The academic model seems to be sustainable and able to self-renewal through its recruiting system and perhaps that's how
2089:
The admirable aim of trying to ensure that Knowledge (XXG) is as reliable as possible seems to be evolving into an aspiration to satisfy the academicians and provide Knowledge (XXG) with an identity as a quality-controlled brand. The insistence that everything on Knowledge (XXG) must be referenced
1801:
I plead guilty as charged Weakopedia, but there are other ways of looking at my sins. 300+ edits (is it really that many - I haven't counted) partly because I have been asked to make so many changes, and then often been asked to change them back again; partly because I have made so many mistakes I
1760:
My previous advice still stands - it is long past the time where you might start considering other interests on or outside of Knowledge (XXG). If anyone else is interested they will edit the article. If not then it was all a waste of time in the first place. Notability does not spring from having a
1746:
Your question "if you can't prove it is it wrong to include it?" really shows that, despite your nine months and 300-plus edits on this encyclopedia, you still do not necessarily grasp its purpose. It is unsurprising then that people keep coming up with flaws in the article, and for as long as your
1510:
and AFAICT there are no other sources which can be used, much of it should be deleted - for example the entire education section. Another problem we have is that many of the sources (e.g. those listed under ref 1) are only available to the subject, which makes it difficult for other editors to know
871:
Your rather blatant attempt to personalise this debate by repeatedly criticising my motives for what was a simple comment really puts you in the same box as Mr Farmer as far as how much reliability one might ascribe to your ability to interpret site guidleines. Maybe I'll hang on for the opinion of
2607:
The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive,
2514:
a social media tool, but our purpose is to neutrally summarize what reliable sources say about notable subjects, and this article was retained because the community determined on review that it met the inclusion guidelines. I've removed the sentence you added because its inclusion doesn't meet our
1604:
Mr. Farmer, I'm afraid that this is the way working on any Knowledge (XXG) articles goes. We used to have in our footer a warning that anything anybody writes here may be "mercilessly edited". That was softened to avoid scaring people off, but it is true. We try to keep our tempers while doing so,
809:
As a further note, this article was nominated for deletion during a discussion that ended only a month ago, the result of which was 4/3 in favour of retaining the article - a weak keep of ever I saw one, and since there have been limited edits by anyone other than the subject since then (and since
640:
I fully concur with speedy delete on this one. I've been watching it closely for months to see if the editor (apparently the man himself) improves it regarding viable serious references and information of weight. Of course speedy delete might be declined through all the (self-interested) work that
2659:
Deletion debates are publicly listed for seven days, during which all editors are welcome to join in. During those seven days, the article is flagged visibly, so any bypasser with an interest can speak. That is the process that this article followed during its last listing and the process that it
1585:
Whilst I believe the burden of proof being demanded of me is rather high, I am trying hard to keep up with the demands being made (witness my part tongue-in-cheek MA certificate jpg). There has been a huge cull of unprovable facts, which does beg the question "if you can't prove it is it wrong to
1545:
which merely prove that the books exist, but nothing about it being "the first classroom textbook in pop music" that "sales were very poor by comparison" or that "similar but broader modules for 11-14 year olds were developed by Farmer". As a result this entire section (and probably others) fails
838:
Although it's Paul who has made many of the edits here, he's done so in response to suggestions by others who highlighted areas where overall balance, referencing and significance needed dealing with. Much of the editing was left to Paul after he readily acknowledged the substantial flaws in the
828:
That description "a weak keep if ever I saw one" is a tendentious comment if ever I saw one. The central notability point of Paul Farmer's publications was researched and details confirmed by Moonridden Girl and others and I myself have researched and confirmed the references to music curriculum
664:
A one sentence description of Holland Park and later one of Dick Sheppard would be useful. Internal links are useful to someone who's wanting to pursue the subject in depth but brief descriptions are helpful to the reader who needs to be able to understand the context without going wider afield.
558:
This appears to be little more than a Knowledge (XXG)-based CV to advertise the subject's talents. I note from below that it has already been severely pruned by one editor. I shudder to think what it must have read like before (don't have the time to trawl back). I really do wonder if this person
2620:
I motion that this article be re-nominated for deletion, and that other Wikipedians besides those who initially voted and/or were in contact with Paul S. Farmer also be allowed to decide the fate of this article. What do you think? Is this too much to ask for the sake of improving the quality of
2442:
Going on from that, the thought strikes me that "Paul Stephen Farmer" could be identified instead as "Paul Farmer (British music educationalist)" (or something else appropriate/acceptable). That would involve a move of the content to a new article under the new name with a Redirect from the old
2381:
kindly arranged a note at the top of his page to lead to mine, I have never used my middle initial and am known as "Paul Farmer". Would it be too bold to suggest a disambiguation page for us? There are some other notable Paul Farmers, and I would like to be able to start articles about them. Any
1819:
I will try hard and resist the temptation to run in order to stand still. Yesterday I spent the whole day doing that, which is daft. One mistake I made when I first registered was to use my own name - which shows how green I was! I think this may make an SPA look worse than if using a pseudonym.
1774:
Oh, and before you start adding to your personal website, let me tell you that despite MRGs advice it is not a fast-track to getting new info into this article. The guideline she provided was not intended to cover SPAs with a conflict of interest writing articles about themselves. And as a final
1655:
actually be sourced to your personal website. While you cannot use a personal webpage to substantiate anything related to your notability (not for positive critical reception, for instance, or historical significance), we would certainly take your word for it on your education. You can read more
1470:
Well, I am not a hoorayer by choice. I still have serious doubts about notability, and I agree with the cn tags (I didn't place all of them). While I appreciate Mr. Farmer's understanding and cooperation, some of the references added didn't pass muster, and many of them were incomplete or really
1388:
I would imagine that this is a natural result of conflicting recommendations on Knowledge (XXG). The article when first created was, of course, unacceptable under Knowledge (XXG)'s policies (unsourced and a fair amount of original research), but really the kind of thing that somebody not knowing
2490:
What a pity that, unlike me, you refuse to identify yourself, thereby denying the reader any context for your seemingly ill-informed comments. Several editors (all with far more experience of Wiki than you) approved this article (after heavy editing) because it is considered of note. If it is a
2731:
I understood that notability came from having pioneered the use of pop music in school teaching. I am surprised by the brouhaha this article has created, so long after having been accepted by the community following considerable editing. I am happy to edit further along lines suggested by DGG,
1287:
One cool thing about WP is that it make using multiple references, multiple times, easy. If the reference is named, you can easily use it multiple times throughout the content and it will show up one time in the reference section. If the six references support the claim, they can all be used
1978:
You are also welcome to contribute to other articles. We have quite a few that could use assistance, and there have been contributors before you who have started by working on articles closely related to them and found pleasure in moving beyond into general contribution. You are not the first
1355:
Thanks, I guess. I don't know what to say: without any references that I have access to, I cannot accept the "pioneer" part. Likewise, the sourcing for the claims to fame re: music books is poor, in my opinion. The AfD was closed as keep, but this still strikes me as a resume into which every
2037:
What Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be about is access for all so that individuals can contribute the information they know exists and think would be useful to other people. That's presumably what motivated us in the past to contribute. The point of referencing and notability is to ensure
730:
Paul, you seem to have the general idea of how to revise the material appropriately. I've taken the liberty of rephrasing your sentence describing how the exam came to be developed, replacing the narrative of your personal experience with a more detached phrasing that retains the important
2141:
But then Knowledge (XXG) Foundation should be honest about it. It should acknowledge that the notion of universal contribution on an equitable basis is effectively being abandoned. And it should be proactive in acknowledging and dealing with the systematic biases, distortions and other
920:
It's important to remember that creating autobiographies is strongly discouraged, but explicitly not forbidden. The community has never reached consensus for banning the practice altogether. It's also important to remember that new contributors are very unlikely to be aware of even the
669:(and of course warranted) comparison may be worth including, the type of review comment that it's more useful to quote is one that sums up what the subject of the review has achieved informatively, more authoritatively or more succinctly than might otherwise be possible in the article.
952:
read, for instance, that Mr. Farmer attended Chigwell School? I don't see this even on his website. (If it's not important enough to be mentioned on the official biography, it's quite probably not important enough to be mentioned on Knowledge (XXG)...and if we can't source it, it
2587:
which said that this article should be kept because the author had published in OUP, and ignored the fact that the author had a vested interest in the article. Why was it assumed that being published in OUP automatically gives a person enough credibility to be in WP? Look here:
829:
innovation and the parliamentary references. Your outrage suggests you think I needed to add my explicit certification. You could either have read between the lines of my comments or might even have bothered to do a little (very undemanding, I found it) checking of your own.
1183:
Many thanks Moonriddengirl. I keep searching for refs to substantiate claims and am trying to re-balance where possible. Any specific problems I will address if I can. Having started all this off I am keen not to lose all the work, not just of me, but others who have kindly
943:
policy. I also removed some text from the advertisements ("copies of which teachers were said (in the hype of its publicity) to be 'clamoring for'") and (while I appreciate the honesty) the assessment that the "follow up" was a flop, since so far as I can tell, this is
2168:
I'm sticking my oar in here now because I feel an obligation to support the efforts of the people like Moonriddengirl who are still trying to demonstrate that an inclusive/supportive model can be achieved without sacrificing any fundamental principles of integrity.
1207:
Mr Farmer, I'm sorry for Weakopedia's reaction. Patrolling new pages and possible autobiographies can get frustrating very quickly so I understand his reaction but it's not called for. I'd be happy to help assess the neutrality of the article whenever you want.
775:
Yes, I object to you removing a COI notice from an article about yourself that you created entirely by yourself. I find it somewhat bemusing that you would even suggest it. The COI template is there to alert users of this encyclopedia that you wrote this article
1419:
I did some copy edits on the article - adding infobox and carefully changing some wording - but due to time limitations without reading references, so if anything is inaccurately represented, hopefully corrections will be made by someone more informed. Thanks,
931:
is to invite review where there is reason to suspect problems. After review (when a neutral party is satisfied), it should be removed. As the COI guideline notes, "Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered
754:
I'm not an administrator and I don't know what the situation is regarding a Conflict of Interest flag. As far as I'm concerned there's no major issue about neutrality, just a couple of phrases that sound a little bit on the "familiar" side. You could ask
1475:, for instance, is a roundabout way to bring back in non-neutral wording removed from said introduction by other editors. And Mr. Farmer, you can't fault me for removing, for instance, information about the school that doesn't pertain to the subject of
960:
this to his official biography if it seems important enough to him. While we cannot use a subject's own biography to source controversial or important facts about him, we can certainly use it to fill in details such as the primary school he
2677:) 86 articles were nominated for deletion. It sometimes happens that nobody participates in a deletion debate at all, or only one or two people do. This is normal community process. Articles are only deleted if there is consensus to do so.
1891:
thing to do, whether through your username (as you did) or simply a frank admission. You have been completely honest about your identity. In return, you should be able to expect civil and cordial treatment, as is recommended in the
784:
yourself and must be viewed in that light. Has Opbeith done extensive research to show that the uncited material is accurate, or that any of the article is truly notable, or that Mr Farmer hasn't chosen to leave out the "bad" bits?
1936:
That said, once the article has become neutral and acceptable and so long as it does not bear tags that request repair with which you may be able to assist, your best bet is likely to shift into maintenance mode in accordance with
2572:
I am not sure what Paul S. Farmer's motives were for creating this article. His motives are immaterial to the question of whether this article is actually notable. Here then are my arguments for why I think this article should be
1136:
Mr. Farmer, my general recommendation in these cases is to bring the article for neutral review by uninvolved editors at an appropriate noticeboard--given the return of the "conflict of interest" tag, I will ask the volunteers at
1008:
Thanks to all who responded. I have added quite a number of new references and taken Moonriddengirl's advice re changing the tag. Please let me know if any further statements in the article require verification or references.
1718:
when they said it. Mr Farmer, you are no longer a new editor, just one with a narrow enough purpose to mean you have little experience of the encyclopedia overall, so the courtesy afforded new users you cannot continue to
1107:
against policy for people to work on articles about themselves, even if it is strongly discouraged. Having created an article unaware of this issue (and not the first to fall afoul of it), Mr. Farmer has been working hard
2582:
The "community" in this instance included 6 editors: the outcome 2 deletes to 4 keeps. That is a very small sample, don't you think? The three who voted for a keep accepted a specious argument (no offense meant) made by
1610:
2090:
down to the last detail and every detail must be significant is opting for Gruyeropedia for the dedicated information scientist rather than Cornucopedia for the interested browser as well as the motivated researcher.
2811:
1526:, but its sales were very poor by comparison. Alongside Holland Park's 4th/5th year course in pop music, similar but broader modules for 11-14 year olds were developed by Farmer, which were later published as the
234:
1630:
You ask, "If you can't prove it is it wrong to include it?" The answer to this, as far as Knowledge (XXG) is concerned, is yes. We are a tertiary source, and one of our three core content policies is
2841:
2806:
1020:
recently as 2009 but resigned? I would like to see a more honest/rounded picture of his part in local politics. I shall keep an eye with interest and reserve the right to add more if he does not --
1660:. If you aren't sure if your biography on your website can be used to source a fact, you can certainly ask here. You will get opinions, and most people will even provide them politely. Â :) --
229:
120:
1614:
2753:
guidelines and addressing concerns once they are pointed out to you. It is not uncommon for people to accidentally fall afoul of COI before they are aware of the issue, and as far as
2796:
210:
1747:
Knowledge (XXG) career revolves around making yourself look whatever you are trying to make yourself look like your edits will be scrutinised more than others, and quite fairly so.
54:
1238:
Can we really claim "a pioneer in the use of pop music in school music education" with only one reference? I won't reapply the COI tag but that claim certainly jumps out at me.
2816:
2592:. The Misadventures of Winnie the Witch was published by OUP. Does that make it notable? No, not necessarily. Can you see now why the OUP = credibility assumption is incorrect?
2286:
As a newcomer to WP I am amusd by all the attention this article has created. I am howeverr glad to find someone I know of whose article I can (I hope) improve a little bit.--
1606:
793:. The only reason Mr Farmer has gotten noticed is because of a COI conflict on WP, and for that reason the bio is a bit suspect and the COI notice should certainly remain.
2861:
2674:
490:
2851:
2758:
week while the community considers the question of whether sourcing about you demonstrates that you meet inclusion guidelines. It's no reflection on you personally. --
448:
1070:
Apart from being unnecessarily impolite, that doesn't answer my questions. I have added negative references and included further controversy, as suggested and since
2791:
1775:
point, interrupting other peoples talkpage comments really makes for an unreadable and difficult to reply to conversation, so I have replaced your comment. Cheers.
1638:. Two-thirds of our three content policies are about how everything we include must reflect what has been reliably published somewhere else. :) (The third requires
1946:
59:
2831:
330:
2846:
1820:
Having done that I stuck to it with this article. I think in future I shall go under cover, and that may ensure I spread my words rather wider than I have done.
434:
810:
the COI notice was first placed, deleted by Paul, and replaced again) the conditions for having the COI notice have not changed enough to warrant its removal.
336:
1586:
include it?" I will continue trying to improve the piece, but sometimes it feels like running to stand still. Where have all the sympathetic editors gone?! --
673:
cutting out most of the lower level interest stuff has made it easier to appreciate the significance of the music and general education information - thanks!
2781:
839:
original article that was created by him as a novice to Knowledge (XXG) and it's clear to me that the changes he's made have demonstrated his honest intent.
42:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or
1942:
1879:
a guideline. It's good to know the difference between these, as the recommendation regarding choosing a username that does not reveal your affiliation is
458:
2194:
she had a clear overview of the wider purpose at the same time that she was being painstaking over detail. Authority is different from authoritarianism.
1605:
but the fact that this isn't easy is demonstrated by how many user guidelines we've written reminding people to keep their tempers. (Just to name a few,
1522:, co-written by Farmer and Tony Attwood with a first publication in 1978 and reprints in 1979 and 1982. Farmer and Attwood produced a follow-up to this,
2220:
than narrower constituency. Knowledge (XXG) seems now to be moving, with purposeful vehemence at times, in the direction of narrowing its constituency.
162:
34:
701:
Thanks for your time and effort on this Opbeith: very helpful and much appreciated. I shall work on your thoughts this week. User Paul Stephen Farmer
1733:
it is no higher than for any other Wikipedian, just that they aren't writing exclusively about themselves so probably don't take it all so personally.
624:
542:
1502:
There are still major problems with this article stemming from it being written as an autobiography. For something to be included in the article, we
2836:
2821:
1037:
I have exhausted references, as far as I can tell. What else do I have to do to remove the original research tag, and can I just do it myself? --
731:
information. There are still a few other sections of text where you could do the same thing, but overall the article is a lot more coherent now.
306:
166:
994:--pending the placement of proper references for all the content. If anyone disagrees, we can neutrally invite feedback from fresh reviewers at
849:
unreasonable for him to ask (as you might have noted he did, how else do you suggest he approach the issue?) whether the flag could be removed.
2801:
2673:
It isn't unusual for a deletion debate to have a small number of participants. We typically process dozens in a day - for instance, on Friday (
2664:
voiced his first, and more strongly, and is named by several participants as influencing their decision. Maybe you overlooked his signature?)
1714:"The community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject", but they didn't mean knowledgeable about
410:
1868:
1340:
Wow Drmies, you certainly know how to edit! Apart from citations requested, is there anything else you'd like to see included or added? --
161:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
2826:
2786:
2628:
2507:
2475:
708:
1698:
791:
It is not recommended that you write an article about yourself. If you are notable, someone else will notice you and write the article.
2856:
2555:
170:
526:
293:
257:
205:
157:
116:
111:
1635:
759:
to give an opinion since she's familiar with the article and about as objective a person as you'll come across at Knowledge (XXG).
583:
518:
2650:
talks a little bit about how talk pages are organized. I'm afraid that your note above out of sequence is likely to be overlooked.
2386:
Not normally done when there are only two entries. Need three or more Paul Farmers before a disambiguation page would be created.
401:
359:
1389:
local rules might come up with in an effort to create a neutral article. Told he must provide references, Mr. Farmer did. :) --
1255:
The first reference is actually three - should I separate them? Then refs 6-12 support the claim. Your input is most welcome.--
1618:
86:
1634:. We are all forbidden to include information that cannot be proved. This is also discussed in a second core content policy:
2737:
2496:
2362:
2347:
2277:
1842:
1678:
1591:
1574:
1461:
1446:
1345:
1260:
1189:
1079:
1042:
620:
591:
536:
2690:, which will tell you more about the process. You should read the linked policy and the linked steps for how to do it. --
1514:
Finally, close inspection of the referencing reveals that many are not actually backing up the text at all. For example:
1569:
sorry to interrupt but at least the first two sources in ref 1 will be available in libraries or simply back numbers --
486:
1398:
I think that's exactly right - after its initial creation, I BLPProdded it. PSF has been very responsive to requests.
1542:
988:
1980:
1631:
522:
43:
2409:
545:) /Â Template:Connected contributor This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.
2746:
2733:
2492:
2358:
2343:
2273:
1838:
1674:
1587:
1570:
1506:
have reliable secondary sources to back up the information. As the subject has written some of it from his own
1457:
1442:
1341:
1256:
1185:
1075:
1038:
1010:
756:
747:
723:
616:
587:
559:
really is as notable as he seems to imagine he is. Perhaps Warhol's dictum should be amended to "in the future
532:
305:
topics on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
2578:
And this article was retained because the community determined on review that it met the inclusion guidelines.
1103:, do is never tell a good faith contributor "What you could, and certainly should, do is just go away". It is
1052:
What you could, and certainly should, do is just go away. Knowledge (XXG) is not your personal autobiography.
92:
2632:
2589:
2523:
a fact that has attracted significant coverage from reliable sources, it's not something we would include. --
2479:
712:
2377:
I only became "Paul S Farmer" because there was already an article about a much worthier namesake. Although
1408:
2624:
2471:
1456:
This piece is getting smaller and smaller - soon there won't be anything left (hooray I hear some shout)!--
704:
612:
2542:
1657:
1535:
1293:
2420:
helpful. But I wish you luck and courage trying to decide which is the most important/primary subject!
2404:
A more explicit explanation would have been helpful. The specific WP guideline on Disambiguation is at
409:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1901:
1693:
That is one interpretation, but there is of course another. Mr Farmer, of your 300 or so edits to this
1317:
1117:
1780:
1074:
agreed there were "no neutrality concerns". Apart from going away how can I improve this article? --
1057:
877:
815:
798:
568:
53:. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to
1950:
1356:
possible fact, related or unrelated, has/had been poured to beef it up--if you'll pardon my French.
1071:
479:
74:
2759:
2706:
2691:
2584:
2524:
2378:
1984:
1661:
1390:
1168:
1147:
999:
1400:
646:
599:
302:
57:.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see
2516:
1912:
50:
2539:
2448:
2425:
2323:
2305:
2291:
2251:
1559:
1425:
1325:
1275:
1025:
903:
854:
764:
736:
692:
678:
2647:
1908:
1639:
1551:
1138:
995:
440:
1538:
1511:
which parts of the text are properly referenced and which are based on personal knowledge.
1485:
1375:
1361:
921:
recommendations against it at the time they run afoul of the recommendation. The purpose of
285:
149:
2750:
2687:
2417:
2413:
2405:
1938:
1897:
1893:
1884:
1872:
1507:
1113:
945:
940:
786:
2391:
2339:
1776:
1298:
1240:
1210:
1096:
1053:
978:
873:
811:
794:
564:
2534:
I would also draw the OP’s attention to the connected-contributor banner near the top of
2416:. Paul, if you do articles on other notable PFs, excellent, you may find a read through
1915:, "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect."
1289:
608:
Further references to substantiate facts and more qualified statements have been added.
393:
2599:
Our purpose is to neutrally summarize what reliable sources say about notable subjects
1547:
219:
2775:
2716:
642:
595:
935:
There are a few issues I see in the article. For instance, criticism was sourced to
195:
2444:
2421:
2319:
2301:
2287:
2247:
1555:
1421:
1321:
1271:
1021:
968:
925:
899:
850:
760:
732:
688:
674:
377:
353:
2412:." (using an internal link to the second article). Alternatively for infojunkies,
2038:
reliability of that information as realistically as possible and to prevent abuse.
17:
1837:
Thank you for all your efforts, even if I didn't like all of them at the time! --
1370:
BTW, I wouldn't call that a major edit--as far as I'm concerned, it was cleanup.
1481:
1371:
1357:
964:
Since I do not see any neutrality concerns, I would myself support removing the
269:
251:
133:
105:
2387:
383:
275:
139:
1656:
about what kinds of information can be sourced from your personal website at
722:
Entry now largely completed for further comment/advice or comment on deletion
517:
to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
2342:
replaced COI tag previously agreed unnecessary I have asked for COI review--
1320:
and the section beneath, the opening sentence should be neutral and simple.
298:
1651:
That said, some of the information in the article, such as your education,
1270:
Don't know, but I'm pleased to see more controversy and therefore balance--
1611:
Knowledge (XXG):Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
279:
2711:
2661:
936:
872:
anyone who isn't involved and who might be at least a little objective.
2762:
2741:
2720:
2694:
2636:
2562:
2527:
2500:
2483:
2452:
2429:
2395:
2366:
2351:
2327:
2309:
2295:
2281:
2255:
1987:
1846:
1784:
1682:
1664:
1595:
1578:
1563:
1489:
1465:
1450:
1429:
1414:
1393:
1379:
1365:
1349:
1329:
1307:
1279:
1264:
1249:
1219:
1193:
1171:
1150:
1083:
1061:
1046:
1029:
1002:
907:
881:
858:
819:
802:
768:
740:
716:
696:
682:
650:
628:
603:
572:
406:
2608:
promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.
1518:
Out of this course emerged the first classroom textbook in pop music,
898:"repeatedly criticising my motives for what was a simple comment"?
641:
has gone into it - if it is declined then AfD would be appropriate.
1112:
the community to attempt to make sure the article meets standards.
169:. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
2538:
page, which is the appropriate location for notices of the kind.—
1116:
notes the importance of civility, which is, of course, mandated
2732:
particularly if this avoids deletion. I await further advice.
2357:
Following the result of COI review I have removed the COI tag--
687:
Re the introduction, how about adding date and place of birth?
515:
contributor has declared a personal or professional connection
502:
474:
443:
in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
439:
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
68:
49:
from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially
26:
2272:
I'm humbled by this kind attention. Thank you again, both --
1615:
Knowledge (XXG):An uncivil environment is a poor environment
218:
194:
2812:
Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
2463:
Knowledge (XXG) being used as a political/social media tool
1887:
is the actual guideline here. Identifying yourself was the
1441:
Many thanks all for continued patience, help and advice --
1697:, yours have all been about yourself, which makes you an
1480:
for weighing in, and I wish Mr. Farmer a great weekend.
2686:
If you want to nominate this article for deletion, see
1909:
particularly emphasize the need to treat newcomers well
1472:
1114:
Knowledge (XXG):COI#How to handle conflicts of interest
1979:(potential) Wikipedian to inadvertently fall afoul of
1911:, the courtesy afforded new users does not expire; as
1607:
Knowledge (XXG):Staying cool when the editing gets hot
1292:
and independent). You can find more info about it at
2842:
Start-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
2675:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2014 May 30
1550:
entirely and should be removed. Shall I go ahead and
2807:
C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
2443:
name, which you should ask a WP administrator to do.
1945:. Other important material for you to read would be
1867:
The "guideline" I provided is a policy. :) There is
405:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
297:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
746:Does anyone object to my removing the COI preface?
1947:Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons/Help
335:This article has not yet received a rating on the
1288:(although 3-4 is usually enough assuming they're
956:be.) It should be easy enough for Mr. Farmer to
1673:Thanks for your patience and kind advice MRG --
1316:I removed pioneer from the first sentence. Per
974:tag and replacing it with a more specific one--
1943:Knowledge (XXG):Suggestions for COI compliance
2797:Low-importance biography (musicians) articles
2603:From Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines:
563:will have their own Knowledge (XXG) page"...
8:
2817:Politics and government work group articles
1939:Knowledge (XXG):COI#Non-controversial edits
582:I have added back the template for blatant
348:
246:
100:
2862:Articles edited by connected contributors
1885:Knowledge (XXG):COI#Declaring an interest
1142:article should not be here unless there
939:; I've removed this, as it violates our
2852:Low-importance England-related articles
1167:I have listed the matter for review. --
350:
248:
102:
72:
2792:C-Class biography (musicians) articles
230:the politics and government work group
2832:Unknown-importance education articles
2590:The Misadventures of Winnie the Witch
1957:welcome to remove that kind of thing.
315:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Education
179:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Biography
7:
2847:Start-Class England-related articles
1636:Knowledge (XXG):No original research
1139:the conflict of interest noticeboard
584:Knowledge (XXG):Conflict of interest
489:on 31 May 2011 (UTC). The result of
399:This article is within the scope of
291:This article is within the scope of
155:This article is within the scope of
2782:Biography articles of living people
419:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject England
91:It is of interest to the following
1983:, though I won't name names. :) --
1875:, for example, is an "essay", and
1619:Knowledge (XXG):No angry mastodons
1471:simply weren't proper references.
441:project-independent quality rating
25:
506:
478:
386:
376:
352:
278:
268:
250:
142:
132:
104:
73:
32:This article must adhere to the
2705:not surprisingly, I agree with
485:This article was nominated for
453:This article has been rated as
2837:WikiProject Education articles
2822:WikiProject Biography articles
2328:17:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
2310:17:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
2296:16:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
2282:15:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
2256:13:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
1988:12:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
1847:07:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
1785:06:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
1683:14:07, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
1665:13:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
1596:13:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
1579:14:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
1564:11:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
1490:18:17, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
1466:16:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
1451:14:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
1430:13:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
1415:13:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
1394:10:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
1380:20:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1366:20:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1350:17:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1330:16:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
1308:22:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1296:. I can help if you need it.
1280:15:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1265:13:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1250:12:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1220:12:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1194:13:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1172:12:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1151:11:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1084:11:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1062:06:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
1047:17:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
1030:14:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
573:08:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
513:The following Knowledge (XXG)
318:Template:WikiProject Education
182:Template:WikiProject Biography
1:
2802:Musicians work group articles
2453:14:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
2430:13:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
2396:19:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
2352:18:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
1632:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability
1099:what we could, and certainly
413:and see a list of open tasks.
309:and see a list of open tasks.
227:This article is supported by
203:This article is supported by
35:biographies of living persons
422:Template:WikiProject England
167:contribute to the discussion
2646:I've fixed your threading;
2367:18:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
47:must be removed immediately
2878:
2827:C-Class education articles
2787:C-Class biography articles
629:14:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
604:22:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
459:project's importance scale
337:project's importance scale
2857:WikiProject England pages
2410:Michael Dobbs (US author)
1003:13:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
908:11:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
882:11:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
859:11:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
820:06:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
803:06:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
769:18:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
741:20:25, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
452:
438:
371:
334:
263:
226:
202:
127:
99:
2763:10:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
2742:09:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
2721:14:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
2695:13:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
2637:06:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
2615:what should be included.
2563:23:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
2528:18:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
2501:17:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
2484:10:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
1761:Knowledge (XXG) article.
1011:User:Paul Stephen Farmer
757:User talk:Moonriddengirl
748:User:Paul Stephen Farmer
724:User:Paul Stephen Farmer
717:18:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
697:08:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
683:08:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
651:14:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
588:User:Paul Stephen Farmer
425:England-related articles
121:Politics and Government
2318:Point taken Agadant --
1532:
223:
199:
81:This article is rated
2510:, Knowledge (XXG) is
1883:in any way official;
1516:
1498:Comments and concerns
527:neutral point of view
294:WikiProject Education
222:
206:WikiProject Musicians
198:
158:WikiProject Biography
85:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
2648:Knowledge (XXG):Talk
2382:advice appreciated.
2379:User: Moonriddengirl
1528:Longman Music Topics
1146:present concerns. --
578:Conflict of interest
519:conflict of interest
2734:Paul Stephen Farmer
2493:Paul Stephen Farmer
2359:Paul Stephen Farmer
2344:Paul Stephen Farmer
2274:Paul Stephen Farmer
1902:the civility policy
1839:Paul Stephen Farmer
1675:Paul Stephen Farmer
1588:Paul Stephen Farmer
1571:Paul Stephen Farmer
1554:or hold my horses?
1458:Paul Stephen Farmer
1443:Paul Stephen Farmer
1342:Paul Stephen Farmer
1257:Paul Stephen Farmer
1186:Paul Stephen Farmer
1076:Paul Stephen Farmer
1039:Paul Stephen Farmer
946:"original research"
617:Paul Stephen Farmer
533:Paul Stephen Farmer
402:WikiProject England
2519:), but if this is
2334:Further COI review
1508:personal knowledge
726:15.30 7 June 2011
321:education articles
224:
200:
185:biography articles
87:content assessment
18:Talk:Paul S Farmer
2627:comment added by
2474:comment added by
1524:Football Workbook
989:Original research
707:comment added by
632:
615:comment added by
551:
550:
501:
500:
473:
472:
469:
468:
465:
464:
347:
346:
343:
342:
303:education-related
245:
244:
241:
240:
67:
66:
16:(Redirected from
2869:
2639:
2559:
2552:
2549:
2546:
2486:
1981:WP:Autobiography
1716:themselves alone
1413:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1304:
1303:
1246:
1245:
1216:
1215:
1013:August 7th 2011
993:
987:
983:
977:
973:
967:
930:
924:
719:
631:
609:
510:
509:
503:
482:
475:
427:
426:
423:
420:
417:
396:
391:
390:
389:
380:
373:
372:
367:
364:
356:
349:
323:
322:
319:
316:
313:
288:
286:Education portal
283:
282:
272:
265:
264:
254:
247:
187:
186:
183:
180:
177:
163:join the project
152:
150:Biography portal
147:
146:
145:
136:
129:
128:
123:
108:
101:
84:
78:
77:
69:
55:this noticeboard
27:
21:
2877:
2876:
2872:
2871:
2870:
2868:
2867:
2866:
2772:
2771:
2622:
2557:
2550:
2547:
2544:
2469:
2465:
2414:WP:DAB#Hatnotes
2375:
2373:Disambiguation?
2340:User:Skier Dude
2336:
1500:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1399:
1338:
1301:
1299:
1243:
1241:
1236:
1213:
1211:
991:
985:
981:
975:
971:
965:
928:
922:
702:
658:
638:
636:Speedy deletion
610:
580:
556:
507:
424:
421:
418:
415:
414:
392:
387:
385:
365:
362:
320:
317:
314:
311:
310:
284:
277:
184:
181:
178:
175:
174:
148:
143:
141:
114:
82:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2875:
2873:
2865:
2864:
2859:
2854:
2849:
2844:
2839:
2834:
2829:
2824:
2819:
2814:
2809:
2804:
2799:
2794:
2789:
2784:
2774:
2773:
2770:
2769:
2768:
2767:
2766:
2765:
2760:Moonriddengirl
2726:
2725:
2724:
2723:
2707:Moonriddengirl
2700:
2699:
2698:
2697:
2692:Moonriddengirl
2681:
2680:
2679:
2678:
2668:
2667:
2666:
2665:
2654:
2653:
2652:
2651:
2641:
2640:
2617:
2616:
2611:
2610:
2604:
2601:
2594:
2593:
2585:Moonriddengirl
2580:
2574:
2568:
2566:
2565:
2531:
2530:
2525:Moonriddengirl
2504:
2503:
2464:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2435:
2434:
2433:
2432:
2399:
2398:
2374:
2371:
2370:
2369:
2335:
2332:
2331:
2330:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2313:
2312:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2222:
2221:
2206:
2205:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2143:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2117:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2050:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2013:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1985:Moonriddengirl
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1941:and the essay
1925:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1721:
1720:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1686:
1685:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1662:Moonriddengirl
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1599:
1598:
1582:
1581:
1534:Is sourced to
1499:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1391:Moonriddengirl
1383:
1382:
1368:
1337:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1268:
1267:
1235:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1169:Moonriddengirl
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1148:Moonriddengirl
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1072:Moonriddengirl
1065:
1064:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1006:
1005:
1000:Moonriddengirl
963:
962:
950:
949:
934:
933:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
864:
863:
862:
861:
843:
842:
841:
840:
833:
832:
831:
830:
823:
822:
806:
805:
772:
771:
744:
743:
657:
654:
637:
634:
579:
576:
555:
554:Self-promotion
552:
549:
548:
547:
546:
511:
499:
498:
491:the discussion
483:
471:
470:
467:
466:
463:
462:
455:Low-importance
451:
445:
444:
437:
431:
430:
428:
411:the discussion
398:
397:
394:England portal
381:
369:
368:
366:Low‑importance
357:
345:
344:
341:
340:
333:
327:
326:
324:
307:the discussion
290:
289:
273:
261:
260:
255:
243:
242:
239:
238:
235:Low-importance
225:
215:
214:
211:Low-importance
201:
191:
190:
188:
154:
153:
137:
125:
124:
109:
97:
96:
90:
79:
65:
64:
60:this help page
44:poorly sourced
30:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2874:
2863:
2860:
2858:
2855:
2853:
2850:
2848:
2845:
2843:
2840:
2838:
2835:
2833:
2830:
2828:
2825:
2823:
2820:
2818:
2815:
2813:
2810:
2808:
2805:
2803:
2800:
2798:
2795:
2793:
2790:
2788:
2785:
2783:
2780:
2779:
2777:
2764:
2761:
2756:
2752:
2748:
2745:
2744:
2743:
2739:
2735:
2730:
2729:
2728:
2727:
2722:
2718:
2714:
2713:
2708:
2704:
2703:
2702:
2701:
2696:
2693:
2689:
2685:
2684:
2683:
2682:
2676:
2672:
2671:
2670:
2669:
2663:
2658:
2657:
2656:
2655:
2649:
2645:
2644:
2643:
2642:
2638:
2634:
2630:
2629:41.135.15.233
2626:
2619:
2618:
2613:
2612:
2609:
2605:
2602:
2600:
2596:
2595:
2591:
2586:
2581:
2579:
2575:
2571:
2570:
2569:
2564:
2561:
2560:
2554:
2553:
2541:
2537:
2533:
2532:
2529:
2526:
2522:
2518:
2513:
2509:
2508:41.135.15.233
2506:
2505:
2502:
2498:
2494:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2485:
2481:
2477:
2476:41.135.15.233
2473:
2462:
2454:
2450:
2446:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2431:
2427:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2411:
2407:
2403:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2397:
2393:
2389:
2385:
2384:
2383:
2380:
2372:
2368:
2364:
2360:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2333:
2329:
2325:
2321:
2317:
2311:
2307:
2303:
2299:
2298:
2297:
2293:
2289:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2270:
2257:
2253:
2249:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2033:
2032:
2031:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1989:
1986:
1982:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1956:
1952:
1948:
1944:
1940:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1914:
1910:
1907:
1903:
1899:
1898:COI guideline
1895:
1890:
1886:
1882:
1878:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1848:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1786:
1782:
1778:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1731:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1726:
1717:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1671:
1666:
1663:
1659:
1654:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1628:
1627:
1626:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1584:
1583:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1544:
1540:
1537:
1531:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1515:
1512:
1509:
1505:
1497:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1478:
1474:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1412:
1404:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1392:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1314:
1309:
1306:
1305:
1295:
1291:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1248:
1247:
1233:
1221:
1218:
1217:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1173:
1170:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1152:
1149:
1145:
1140:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1122:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1012:
1004:
1001:
997:
990:
980:
970:
959:
955:
947:
942:
938:
927:
919:
918:
909:
905:
901:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
883:
879:
875:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
860:
856:
852:
847:
846:
845:
844:
837:
836:
835:
834:
827:
826:
825:
824:
821:
817:
813:
808:
807:
804:
800:
796:
792:
788:
783:
779:
774:
773:
770:
766:
762:
758:
753:
752:
751:
749:
742:
738:
734:
729:
728:
727:
725:
720:
718:
714:
710:
709:85.210.189.27
706:
699:
698:
694:
690:
685:
684:
680:
676:
670:
666:
662:
656:Tightening up
655:
653:
652:
648:
644:
635:
633:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
606:
605:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
577:
575:
574:
570:
566:
562:
553:
544:
541:
538:
534:
531:
530:
528:
524:
523:autobiography
520:
516:
512:
505:
504:
496:
492:
488:
484:
481:
477:
476:
460:
456:
450:
447:
446:
442:
436:
433:
432:
429:
412:
408:
404:
403:
395:
384:
382:
379:
375:
374:
370:
361:
358:
355:
351:
338:
332:
329:
328:
325:
308:
304:
300:
296:
295:
287:
281:
276:
274:
271:
267:
266:
262:
259:
256:
253:
249:
236:
233:(assessed as
232:
231:
221:
217:
216:
212:
209:(assessed as
208:
207:
197:
193:
192:
189:
172:
171:documentation
168:
164:
160:
159:
151:
140:
138:
135:
131:
130:
126:
122:
118:
113:
110:
107:
103:
98:
94:
88:
80:
76:
71:
70:
62:
61:
56:
52:
48:
45:
41:
37:
36:
31:
29:
28:
19:
2754:
2710:
2623:— Preceding
2606:
2598:
2577:
2567:
2556:
2543:
2535:
2520:
2517:undue weight
2511:
2470:— Preceding
2466:
2376:
2337:
1954:
1905:
1888:
1880:
1876:
1869:a difference
1715:
1695:encyclopedia
1694:
1658:WP:ABOUTSELF
1652:
1548:verification
1533:
1527:
1523:
1520:Pop Workbook
1519:
1517:
1513:
1503:
1501:
1476:
1440:
1339:
1297:
1294:WP:NAMEDREFS
1269:
1239:
1237:
1209:
1182:
1143:
1120:
1109:
1104:
1100:
1036:
1007:
957:
953:
790:
781:
777:
745:
721:
703:— Preceding
700:
686:
671:
667:
663:
659:
639:
611:— Preceding
607:
581:
560:
557:
539:
514:
494:
454:
400:
292:
228:
204:
156:
93:WikiProjects
58:
46:
39:
33:
1913:policy says
1904:. While we
1318:WP:MOSBEGIN
363:Start‑class
2776:Categories
1951:WP:BIOSELF
1777:Weakopedia
1640:neutrality
1336:Major edit
1097:Weakopedia
1054:Weakopedia
874:Weakopedia
812:Weakopedia
795:Weakopedia
750:July 2011
565:Twizzlemas
1894:SPA essay
1184:helped.--
1118:by policy
961:attended.
954:shouldn't
780:yourself
312:Education
299:education
258:Education
176:Biography
117:Musicians
112:Biography
51:libellous
2662:User:DGG
2625:unsigned
2573:deleted:
2540:Odysseus
2472:unsigned
1290:reliable
937:Facebook
705:unsigned
643:Acabashi
625:contribs
613:unsigned
596:Acabashi
561:everyone
543:contribs
487:deletion
2445:Opbeith
2422:Opbeith
2320:Errater
2302:Agadant
2288:Errater
2248:Opbeith
1719:expect.
1556:SmartSE
1552:be bold
1422:Agadant
1410:Shalott
1322:SmartSE
1272:Errater
1234:Pioneer
1022:Errater
996:WP:COIN
900:Opbeith
851:Opbeith
761:Opbeith
733:Opbeith
689:Opbeith
675:Opbeith
457:on the
416:England
407:England
360:England
83:C-class
2751:WP:COI
2688:WP:AFD
2418:WP:DAB
2406:WP:DAB
1955:always
1896:, the
1873:WP:SPA
1482:Drmies
1372:Drmies
1358:Drmies
1302:Yeller
1244:Yeller
1214:Yeller
1121:anyway
1101:should
979:inline
941:WP:BLP
787:WP:COI
525:, and
89:scale.
2717:talk
2388:Yworo
1889:right
1653:could
789:says
778:about
435:Start
2747:Paul
2738:talk
2633:talk
2536:this
2497:talk
2480:talk
2449:talk
2426:talk
2392:talk
2363:talk
2348:talk
2324:talk
2306:talk
2292:talk
2278:talk
2252:talk
1949:and
1900:and
1843:talk
1781:talk
1679:talk
1592:talk
1575:talk
1560:talk
1541:and
1504:must
1486:talk
1477:this
1473:This
1462:talk
1447:talk
1426:talk
1402:Lady
1376:talk
1362:talk
1346:talk
1326:talk
1276:talk
1261:talk
1190:talk
1110:with
1080:talk
1058:talk
1043:talk
1026:talk
998:. --
932:to."
904:talk
878:talk
855:talk
816:talk
799:talk
765:talk
737:talk
713:talk
693:talk
679:talk
647:talk
621:talk
600:talk
592:Talk
569:talk
537:talk
495:keep
493:was
301:and
165:and
2755:I'm
2712:DGG
2597:2)
2576:1)
2521:not
2512:not
2338:As
1881:not
1877:not
1699:SPA
1144:are
1105:not
984:or
969:coi
958:add
926:coi
586:by
529:.
449:Low
331:???
40:BLP
2778::
2740:)
2719:)
2635:)
2499:)
2482:)
2451:)
2428:)
2394:)
2365:)
2350:)
2326:)
2308:)
2294:)
2280:)
2254:)
1906:do
1871:.
1845:)
1783:)
1681:)
1642:.)
1617:,
1613:,
1609:,
1594:)
1577:)
1562:)
1543:10
1488:)
1464:)
1449:)
1428:)
1406:of
1378:)
1364:)
1348:)
1328:)
1300:Ol
1278:)
1263:)
1242:Ol
1212:Ol
1192:)
1082:)
1060:)
1045:)
1028:)
992:}}
986:{{
982:}}
976:{{
972:}}
966:{{
929:}}
923:{{
906:)
880:)
857:)
818:)
801:)
782:by
767:)
739:)
715:)
695:)
681:)
649:)
627:)
623:•
602:)
594:.
571:)
521:,
237:).
213:).
119:/
115::
2736:(
2715:(
2631:(
2558:9
2551:7
2548:4
2545:1
2495:(
2478:(
2447:(
2424:(
2390:(
2361:(
2346:(
2322:(
2304:(
2290:(
2276:(
2250:(
1841:(
1779:(
1677:(
1590:(
1573:(
1558:(
1539:9
1536:8
1530:.
1484:(
1460:(
1445:(
1424:(
1374:(
1360:(
1344:(
1324:(
1274:(
1259:(
1188:(
1123:.
1078:(
1056:(
1041:(
1024:(
948:.
902:(
876:(
853:(
814:(
797:(
763:(
735:(
711:(
691:(
677:(
645:(
619:(
598:(
590:/
567:(
540:·
535:(
497:.
461:.
339:.
173:.
95::
63:.
38:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
