2371:
not see how that is not conducive to resolving the dispute? Moreover, there's another issue here that I've hesitated to bring up, but this has dragged on long enough that I feel I must broach it: I don't think there's any reasonable chance that uninvolved editors are going to support your version. The wording is just so unusual, and the presence of the sound file so unhelpful, that anybody you do manage to bring in to this is going to take one look at the dispute and opt for the status quo. If you want to change the template, I think that this way is the worst way you could go about it. Bring other users here via an RFC, ask them what they think, and if they disagree try to persuade them to your way of thinking through discussion.
2338:
arguments? I've already explained that I've followed several paths towards getting more input here, and those explain my insistence on tersening the ballot with haste. Since I've cancelled my RFCs, I don't feel that frustration, anymore. If YOU feel that this talk page is ready as a ballot, then go ahead and file your premature RFC. The question really hinges on whether you think the guidelines should be written to incorporate what is typical in an election, and that is very terse ballots. As it stands now, the guidelines concerning voting don't hav approval. As it stands now, the guidelines concerning talk pages do not incorporate voting procedures, except for "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal."
2435:
various sizes. I estimate that I could put the main ingredients of this dispute into the eyes of about five thousand people, and if I were lucky, fifty would vote. The problem, dear prophet, is that at this point, I would be forced to receive those votes myself, because I don't hav permission to publish any one else's e-mail address on USENET. Offering to let me publish yours and count the results would've been helpful. So would arguing with the points I make below. Trying to buttress conclusions that you insist on making true is full of methane.
149:
885:
explain the rise in sea levels. Sometimes a perspective in nonsense is informative. In that case, it's showing what is likely (that we're still the cause) by taking an unlikely alternative. Every joke is like a riddle. Where is truth in it, and how much? The full explanation for why "Weasel words suck meaning out of wikipedia." is in piles and piles of essays (and gigabytes of phrase that didn't even make it to wikipedia) about
2939:
1890:. I don't think the comparison is a good one, for a few reasons: first, your position in this is not best likened to that of a judge, but to that of a lawyer for one of the sides, and such a person obviously doesn't have the authority to eliminate evidence because they consider it irrelevant. Second, your removal of the discussion - as both Newbyguesses and I have advised you - violated
2511:
1722:, which starts with direct discussion, then, if that fails, try to get a third opinion or some informal mediation, and then there are steps beyond that (formal mediation, RfC, and arbitration). But most disputes can be resolved if the parties are at all reasonable or responsive to the community, before the more involved steps. Given the lack of
2801:
2742:
114:
1341:
Significance must be one (applicability to anything real is incidental). In applied mathematics, it's arbitrary. In
Physics, a lot of discussion is involved in arriving at an appropriate level of significance. It's usually .97 or greater. In Psychology, there is one number that I hear quoted more often than any other, and that's
2406:
that content disputes are not resolved by voting (and often not resolved at all - har) and because, as I indicated earlier, the poll is itself extremely unclear. I reiterate something I said earlier: at this point, you are essentially left with the choice between resolving the dispute in accordance with
2875:
So someone slaps a "weasel" on an article. Which words/phrase? Where in the article? Based on what geographical lexicon/idiom? If someone thinks that an article has a weasel word/phrase they need to actually identify which word/phrase and where. Also, something that is clear and readily understood in
2635:
Yes. Whenever a sentence isn't understood, it becomes less significant. Metaphors for facts, like "words that suck the life out of words around them, leaving an empty shell", however, mean more. People remember them because they stuck in their brains as inexact sense, and what those metaphors mean in
2626:
Yes. "Foggy" can also be called a sensory term. It is used very frequently for things that people don't understand. Everyday prose is a mixture of both concrete and abstract terms only because most writers use a mixture of words that sound good for what they're writing and mean precisely what they're
2590:
Voter1 Voter2 Voter3 Concrete Terms: U U U Notability: U U U Neutrality: U U U Contains
Equivocation: U U U Audio: U U U Suck or Draw: U U U Terse: U U
2140:
somebody insisted that the results be confounded with argumentative crap. Voters will be more confident of their lacking bias if biased opinions are not on the ballot. I'm not filing a request for comments until the issue of what should be on the ballot is settled. Further to your question, I induced
1705:
Yeah, I noticed the request on
Sarcasticidealist's Talk page and looked into it. Only an admin can protect a page, so only an admin should place a protected template on it as a notice. (Though if an admin forgot to do it, any user could place the template. It is not the template that protects, that's
1458:
Please take this opportunity to establish consensus for language or other changes to this template. When the protection expires, please be sure that changes to the template accurately reflect the consensus established here. Efforts to force through changes without consensus by directly and repeatedly
2434:
seems to do is direct people who want to implement polls into some back office page that nobody views. The first time I used it, someone locked me out of this template. Over three thousand people subscribe to alt.usage.english on google, alone. That doesn't count over fourty thousand news-servers of
2370:
or suggesting alternative means of resolving the dispute in the hopes that you could agree on some process, you went ahead and put up a ballot - one that is unlikely to be understood by other editors, especially if you rob them of context - and declared what the rules would be for this vote. Do you
2019:
of the evidence and show two mock-ups, then describe the differences between them. Do you hav a better method? FWIW, I think I would be right in neither signing it nor posting two of the ballots. OTOH, if I show filled ballots as examples, then people can figure out what the letters mean, as well as
1433:
can have far reaching consequences. This is because category changes – and even more so template changes – can affect a large number of pages with a single edit. Templates, moreover, may have complex source code that can easily be broken by untested changes (which can fortunately be corrected with a
1364:
In sum, even if we don't hav a single document, here, describing standards for notability or significance, all of which are arbitrary, those standards exist. Deleting weasel words or the statements attributed to anonymous authorities has its own pitfalls in bias. It is still the only path for primer
1271:
is not an admission. It's something to be proud of. If people want to hear it more than once, then maybe they'll come to understand what degree of truth is in it. To be sure, jokes are always lies of some kind. In this case, I think it's all in the strength of that one word "suck", that we demand of
1241:
Biased has a bigger problem. You can't read motivation behind obscurant text; you can only guess that it actually and only represents an author's opinion, rather than a faithfully represented line from credible authors. If it is ONLY an opinion or unreliable hearsay, then it's not significant, and I
361:
The weasel image was re-added a while ago; I'd really prefer this template to be as small and non-intrusive as possible (I'd vote for L1AM's suggestion, below). I'd revert to L1AM's design, but there's a lot of intermediate changes, and I don't want to undo things indiscriminately. Does anybody else
2876:
one part of the world may seem to be a weasel in another. Hence there needs to be more reason given as to why the person adding the tag considers a particular part of the article to be a weasel. Any tag without reference to specific words and without specific reasons should be immediately rejected.
2594:
To enter a position, please replase a "U", meaning undecided, with either an "A", meaning abstain, a "Y" meaning yes, or an "N" meaning no. The suck or draw question revolves upon one word in the audio that could be changed to "draw", so it should be either "D", "S", or "A". Identifying yourself at
2429:
Speculation doesn't make weasel words any more authoritative. Backing up weasel words with arguments doesn't make them true, and I'm very tired of your sticking this dispute resolution process in my face, because you are supposed to be part of it, and I've followed your directions against my better
2405:
I can't speak for anybody else, nor am I purporting to. I am making a prediction, and I am doing so with an extremely high level of confidence. Moreover, to extend my prediction, I don't believe that anybody will participate in your poll, both because it's a well-established principle around here
1792:
Yes: it's intended to be used in cases where non-admins believe that an edit needs to be made to a page that they can't edit because it's protected. It calls an admin over to evaluate whether it's appropriate to make the edits in question. Since you weren't requesting that any edit be made to the
1555:
Voting and argumentation are different things. It is good to ignore one while you are doing the other. You'll notice that I've summarized two positions that made it necessary to protect the page. Maybe even that, nor my position as ballot-maker, should be in the ballot as posed. It's gleanable from
1006:
It follows to apply those rules to facts within those articles. For example, the subject of
Gravity in Physics is notable. Statistics about opinions of whether the Sun goes around the Earth or vice-versa are not, because the remaining fact is that they both go around a mutual center of gravity that
2478:
What you missed in the history was that most of it was composed of two guys arguing, and one of them wasn't shooting straight with all of his edit summaries. None of this leads me to believe that it would be worth my while to make a real duet with a soprano instead of a mixed solo. Mountains move,
2280:
Heh. "newsgroup having nothing to do with
Knowledge (XXG)?" Shows what you've cared to research. Wikipedians are in that group. I've answered two questions relating to articles there, and I'm sure that I've missed quite a few more. Maybe there's a category for USENET wikipedians. I'm not filing an
1780:
Well, you see. I broadcast a link on alt.usage.english, which is why I don't like all of this trouble or this mode of insisting that argumentation isn't over. At this point, about three days after my request, it's too late to cancel that post. I'll cancel it anyway, because there are bound to be a
1680:
has been unprotected throughout, and your addition of the template to the page didn't change that. It did get an administrator to the scene (that being me), so you were right on that point. Second of all, you cannot block people (I noticed that you threatened to block
Newbyguesses yourself). As
1356:
On another topic, I don't understand why you are putting bias into this template. It's relevant, and I don't see any way to be sure that weasel words are bias. They indicate that the information might be fabricated or original research, but those don't make it false. Since you can't clearly detect
962:
Weasel words weaken the meaning of a sentence, making what might otherwise be a notable fact into something that looks like fiction. That interferes with notability. Perhaps it tends to be the product of bias, and I think it's more important to attend to results, which are weakened facts; weakened
787:
That wasn't my choice, nor did I hav any details about browser distinctions. In I.E., at 800by600, all it did was make the play button take up two thirds of the width. The easy choice to make was to use features in the ambox template, rather than setting width:10% and height:10%, like I would if I
2225:
So if I'm understanding this correctly, you requested input on this question from a newsgroup having nothing to do with
Knowledge (XXG)? That really isn't how this works. Regardless, you say that you knew nothing about the concept of an RFC before; now that you do, will you consider filing one?
1995:
thot that protecting the page would encourage consensus, and she ignored the fact that she was endorsing one side: Levy, who is empowered to make changes, but has no reason to, since she endorsed his version of the template. Bias was in the result to begin with. How better to tell her another way
1949:
I saw no participation from
Newbyguesses until this unnecessary archiving process showed up. All discussions are automatically and verbosely archived, so I don't see the point behind archiving, anymore. And, as I said, I DID IT, and you can probably find a link to an archive that I made manually.
884:
Why is it so hard to explain that truth is in jokes? The funny part is in our understanding of them. Typically, a comedian will feign total ignorance of something to show you an angle on truth that's hard to see. For example I know this comedian who tried to tell David Suzuki that Whales we saved
731:
We hav here a tendency to egzajerate. Sticking text into the rightward third of the screen was and is not my decision, nor does it change how readable the text is. You'll find less than ten words in a newspaper column. Five is good enough, especially when there's about thirty words of it when ten
3165:
It's the erroneous implication (IMHO fostered by the current tag language) that the placement of a {{who}} tag (for example) somehow mandates textual, specific attribution rather than editorial consideration that I'm attempting to address/correct here...and it can become the subject of some warm
1340:
does not make decisions on the notability of content within an article. In direct terms, it doesn't make decisions. It off-loads them. That's from a long-standing tradition of different standards for different subjects. The document leaves it for projects. In pure mathematics, the
Probability of
2365:
discourages ballots of the sort you've drawn up). Now, there's nothing saying that disputes can't be resolved by means other than those specifically set out in dispute resolution, but deviating from normal procedures should be something that's done with the consensus of all involved. However,
2337:
It's 2:16, AM in
Alberta, BTW, and the last I read about it, you were going about three hours AHEAD of me, so maybe you're getting tired. I am in the extreme night-owl mode, where I function normally for another four hours. Why don't you spend more time explaining why the ballot has to contain
1689:
to draw others' attention?), it is likely to be valuable to people providing input to have the context of the dispute before them. Finally, I have to say that I think the fashion in which you have sought input is likely to be incomprehensible to most people; you might want to work on that.
2057:
That hasn't worked for going on three months. I hav solicited outside opinions. Perhaps there are some hit statistics I can find. What I could do is try to highlight the vote with colour and put it at the beginning of the discussion. Following your recommendations actually prompts me to
1548:'s talk page. Both of you failed to understand my motivation in deleting argumentation that I consider irrelevant, so I've lost motivation to block you. But that could be intentional ignorance, so I've rephrased my motivation in the form of questions, and I want you to answer them, too.
3161:
Well, I think you will concur that non-specific language doesn't inherently reflect "bad writing". It can also reflect consensus chosen language where textual attribution would add nothing to enhance the reader understanding that citation alone can provide...and in a less cumbersome
2693:
Draw. I am able to change one word in the audio to "draw", and I think the beat of my tune will become clear (improve) if I do. I don't feel a lot of motivation to do this, because the best I can do is recruit a soprano to do the other part, and that seems challenjing at the moment.
1551:
I've also decided that archiving talk pages isn't worth the trouble. It's all there automatically archived in the history, so I see a lot of unnecessary trouble in manually creating archive pages and trying to use them. If someone wants to resurrect a thread, then it's all there.
1605:
Useless to me. The next time anything like this comes up or I see a page that takes more than eight seconds to load, I'll copy the link to that particular entry in history, post that link as an archive, and delete any conversation that seems to be either very old or resolved.
1360:
It is not safe to assume bias within an estimated or approximate fact. I can be definite with the way I want to word this template. It is not appropriate for this template to analyze tendencies or equivocate. Either too many statements in the document are foggy, or not.
2648:
No. Taking weasel words out of a statement makes it stronger, so it is not a neutrality issue unless it becomes a series of contrasting facts that different writers offer and try to buttress with guesses about levels of support. Weasel words are not an issue of bias.
665:
Barbaric it might be, and if you call it nonsense, then I'm raising the production value with my synth and adding a beat to put less emphasis on "suck". Nothing was wrong with the template; If the icon for audio is too big, then make it smaller for an ambox, please.
438:
I think that would be ill-advised, as the implementation of the template often comes up in disputes. Consider the neutrality dispute template. The purpose of the templates is to alert readers and editors to potential problems that need fixing, not to label articles.
2702:
Terse. If the template is verbose, then too many people will think that they know how to handle weasel words, when someone who actually read the guideline didn't. Resorting to invoking the template is a either a last resort or insistent training of a newbie editor.
2657:
No. If you can avoid this problem that involves breaking your own rules, then you should. Equivocation, a synonym for weasel words, should be written out of this template. How to remove words that make writing foggy are a tough set of rules to understand, and
1996:
than doing it myself? She and the other participants in deciding to protect the page were orijinally enumerated on the ballot, and I encouraged them to answer, directly. After all this time, none of them hav, so I posed it differently: Voter1, Voter2, Voter3.
1760:
Could you make it clear, then? I could write it in HTML as a form with options and buttons, and then someone would hav to log the results and post them. This form is more convenient. You get to write yourself into the ballot and display a public opinion.
2029:, to solicit the opinions of other editors. I suspect that once you get a few more opinions in, a consensus will be apparent. If not, at that point you may wish to attempt a straw poll, to help clarify things. But I don't think it will be necessary.
1932:
Actually, I did, and I think someone had that archive deleted for some stupid syntactical reason. To repeat myself, manual archives are redundant. They are in history. You could make an archive by linking to the version of a page before a major content
892:
Jokes are a sketch and reminder of what you already know from a perspective that's obviously false. Someone experienced at writing and reading won't need to hear anything more to know foggy prose or what causes it. What to do about it will always be
2479:
and I can haul ass on this contraption called the internet. I remember in particular that "foggy" is "unclear. Who's writing jokes? It just so happens that "vague" is "unclear". Which term among the last three terms in quotation marks is concrete?
2828:
The template says "This article". I don't know if there is a way to modify what that says (I looked at the source, said 1|article... does 2 mean section?), but can we change it to "Article or Section"? It's used on sections as well as articles.
1913:
So, here we are discussing a template that describes and is used to enforce POLICY, and you refer to a GUIDELINE concerning ARGUMENTATION. My action was to delete ALL argumentation to post a vote, and you still haven't told me a better method.
2299:
to resolve a dispute in which you're involved on Knowledge (XXG), this entire exercise is pointless. Your options are to either back away from the dispute, or follow the dispute resolution procedures that are in place. It's up to you.
1671:
I'm afraid that I can't do as you request. First of all, please note that you seem to be under a couple of misconceptions: the template you placed on the talk page does not protect the page. Only an administrator can protect a page.
1352:
So, do statements become more important if they become definite? The Earth very probably revolves around The Sun, or it does. (Both statements are not quite right). You must see that having a definite answer is more valuable.
1119:
My objection is that you're using vague wording (in a template designed to discourage the use of vague wording, no less). As noted above, the added link isn't helpful (because the page lacks relevance to this tag).
2896:? Why use a vague weasely template to say that one or more words somewhere in the article may be a little vague instead of just inviting someone to come clean the article up (or tagging specific words or phrases)?
807:
When someone tells you that your edit broke a page, don't bloody restore it without checking other browsers (not that the IE result was remotely acceptable). And don't add jokes to the article namespace, period.
2966:
I made the above comment over a year ago, then forgot about it. However, I've just come across this template again, and it still looks badly punctuated to me. Could someone please change the comma to a colon?
129:
834:
It must be funnier than the exclamation point. I didn't expect anybody would listen to the way I posted it the first time more than once. I don't remember anyone telling me the same joke twice in a day.
1726:
shown in your efforts here, I suggest educating yourself in general before trying to pull the splinter from your neighbor's eye. Lack of clue can be remedied by listening and reading and learning. --
1041:: "These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." Please stop linking to an irrelevant page. —
198:
2025:
For the sake of readability of this archive, I'll keep my comments brief and consolidated: you ask if I have a better way, and I think I do. Leave the discussion there, for context. File a
1349:
doesn't list them all or link to them, that's a fault in the policy document, not an opposition to the idea that significance is relevant to whether information should be in an article.
2357:
You're quite right that I was getting tired; it's why you didn't hear from me again until now. In answer to your questions, I'm going to try to reframe this. Knowledge (XXG) has a
1718:
should only be done as a last resort, and it better be a good reason, or else you may end up being blocked yourself for disruption. Rather, if you have a problem with a user, follow
1526:
647:
I'm not changing the text. I'm just putting up a 57k VBR ogg that breaks George Orwell's sixth rule in "Politics and the English Language" in place of the exclamation mark. It needs
2452:
This alternative wording was first brought up back in July and has received no support whatsoever; it just makes the template more confusing. As does trying to re-open this poll at
2281:
RFC, here, until the ballot is short, sweet, and simple, nor am I repeating my RFC in alt.usage.english until the same condition is met. I am not a lawyer. That makes me happy.
1685:) that preclude the removal of pertinent conversations. As well, since you are currently seeking outside input on an issue (as an aside, might I suggest that you try using a
1444:
from editing. Before editing templates or categories, consider proposing any changes on the associated talk pages and announcing the proposed change on pages of appropriate
2662:
probably shouldn't go into those rules. If anyone has learned them on their own, I do not want to encourage people to forget those rules by forgetting them in the template.
2640:
about weasel words identifies specific and prolific examples. Even those examples make facts weaker and less significant, so I want notability written into the template.
1408:
I have fully protected the template for now in respect to long-term ongoing dispute about the language that has been carried out primarily, it seems, in the template. As
1801:
Hmm. Well, I thought it was reasonably apparent from the template's page description, but perhaps not. In any event, you know now - no harm done in the meantime. --SI
1748:
No idea. However, as I said above, I think part of the problem (not all of it, certainly) is that the form really isn't clear; I don't think people understand it. --SI
1437:
699:. So, you can see that the tune is aimed at something other than humour. And isn't it also a refrain of Jim Wales to hav the objective of making the internet not suck?
514:
in Safari 3.1.1 (latest version), the Weasel image is a bit too much to the right, obstructing the first 3 characters of each line. Could somebody fix that? Thanks!
420:
This is an interesting point. Could "may" be removed - as the template would carry more weight and have more resonance with users - might receive higher responses.
1116:
No, using wording with which another editor disagrees isn't vandalism. Repeatedly breaking a serious template by inserting an admitted "joke" is. Don't do that.
74:
1137:
To repeat myself, "breaking a serious template" is an egzaJeration, when all it does is display a graphic that's too big, and that's beyond my power to fix.
1098:. This discussion doesn't belong on my talk page. I think my wording is all too clear, and you will need to think about your objection to it more carefully.
2885:
696:
625:
vague attributions. More jenerally, they are vagueness, period. Let's see: vagueness, fuzziness, indetermination, equivocation. "Fuzzy" could be barbaric.
2537:
2521:
2361:; it includes third opinions and RFCs and the like (all of which takes place on Knowledge (XXG), I hasten to add). It doesn't include votes (indeed,
1298:
Your pride in inserting jokes into the encyclopedia (a form of vandalism) is quite troubling, and your remark about "bad girls" was uncalled-for. —
949:
That page deals primarily with determining the notability (or lack thereof) of articles' subjects. It has very little to do with this template. —
80:
1387:
These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles.
39:
3113:
part, but it does not apply in this case as the template is well written. It also does not apply because the guideline only applies to articles.
2636:
practice is quite different and hard to understand. If weasel words hav one hallmark, it's that they make sentences weaker. Knowledge (XXG)'s
485:
2559:
2453:
1073:
577:
2970:
2920:
3109:
applies to articles, which are subject to POV editing, bad sourcing and bad writing. The only part of that which applies here is the
2595:
the top of a column of answers is optional, and it will aid in ascertaining that there were no multiple entries from the same person.
1489:. If consensus is reached for a change, please follow the steps listed at the top of the page for having those implemented. Thanks. --
367:
2525:
2685:. If you find it confusing, then understand that confusion can be a sign of sophisticated thinking. What words make sentences weak?
3061:
1648:
20:
2558:
576:
197:
This template needs a talk link: what's "weasel words" is not always obvious. Problem is referred to above. Now it is marked by
69:
2568:
586:
223:
165:
1820:
It's not apparent from the template's NAME, and I don't see any reason to make it apparent in the template's name. --BrewJay
1774:
Well, yes. Anybody who has any view on the issue is welcome to comment, whether it's on the basis of language or any other.
985:
The page in question is about determining whether subjects are sufficiently notable to have articles in our encyclopedia. —
60:
1926:
If you're going to remove content from a talk page, it should be added into an archive somewhere which you didn't do. --SI
301:
Ok, I've reverted it, since the change was done by a annon user and there reason for changing it was to match the style of
1451:
1417:
766:
I informed you of the problem), all for the sake of an admitted "joke." Please refrain from vandalising the template. —
2211:
To repeat myself, I'm glad that I didn't know a bloody thing about RFC before I've simplified understanding the ballot.
484:
I have to say, I found it hilarious that the template section for weasel words was itself cited for using weasel words.
120:
2415:
2376:
2305:
2231:
2162:
2100:
2034:
1966:
1695:
1545:
681:
This is a serious template that appears in articles. Please stop inserting your "joke" that breaks it. Thank you. —
1580:
2342:, section 1.2. To a ballot, ALL DISCUSSIONS are irrelevant. Filling out a ballot means to the elector, 'CUI BONO?'
2020:
glean why an edit war ensued. I should keep names and results out of the ballot and explain the meaning of letters.
1584:
2945:
2572:
2529:
1393:
2. The template merely states that weasel words often accompany biased information (which is a true statement). —
590:
3139:
The "consensus approval" seems like an especially poor choice to me. Bad writing needs to be fixed or removed.
2667:
2614:
2600:
2491:
2440:
2391:
2347:
2286:
2216:
2157:
I'm afraid that that first link doesn't make any sense to me. If there was an RFC filed, can you link me to it?
2148:
1611:
1563:
1507:
1373:
1319:
1277:
1247:
1197:
1142:
1103:
1061:
1012:
968:
939:
839:
737:
704:
695:
is locked. I'm glad you still find humour in it, because I adapted (found a beat for) an instrumental refrain in
671:
656:
638:
612:
463:
391:
2916:"This article contains weasel words, vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information."
1445:
257:
233:
208:
177:
94:
489:
2974:
2924:
2721:
2919:
To me, the punctuation in this sentence does not look correct. Shouldn't the comma be a colon or something?
2781:
2663:
2610:
2596:
2487:
2436:
2387:
2343:
2282:
2212:
1607:
1559:
1503:
1369:
1315:
1273:
1243:
1193:
1138:
1099:
1008:
964:
935:
835:
733:
700:
667:
652:
634:
608:
548:
459:
387:
2576:
1423:
1346:
1337:
1189:
1095:
1038:
931:
594:
3191:
3144:
3096:
2881:
2772:
2714:
2461:
2411:
2372:
2301:
2227:
2158:
2096:
2030:
1962:
1706:
merely a notice.) There are noticeboards where ordinary mortals (like myself) can request page protection
1691:
1656:
1637:
1592:
1534:
371:
1940:
1429:
50:
2905:
2789:
2681:
Abstain. I recommend that you support my audio, because it is a terse approximation for the coinage of
1460:
856:
The template isn't supposed to be funny; this is a serious encyclopedia. Do you have it confused with
65:
754:
I don't know how the template was affected in your browser, but in mine (Firefox 3), the audio player
3126:
382:
I'm thinking that an egg full of meaning being sucked out to nothing but a shell by a weasel is anti-
1077:
633:
and verifiability policies in, and it doesn't offer the alternative of snipping the whole sentence.
362:
think L1AM's suggestion is better than what we have right now? If not, I'll just leave it as is ...
2901:
2857:
2142:
1992:
1490:
1472:
443:
421:
3106:
3065:
3054:
3050:
3023:
2362:
3008:
2813:
2754:
2095:
filed? From a quick glance through the page's history, it appears not, but I could be mistaken.
544:
425:
183:
99:
1628:
As the discussion page is less than 80K, there is no need to archive yet. Any completed threads
2780:
Minor tweaks to the layout (no wording changes) for legibility and consistency. Code is in the
1368:
Impeding significance is what weasel words do best; it is a problem; it is relevant to policy.
3187:
3140:
3092:
2877:
2457:
2067:
1883:
Why do judges spend a pre-trial period eliminating evidence that is irrelvant to the charges?
1652:
1633:
1588:
1530:
410:
be compromised by weasel words"? The template, at least, should be straight with the facts. --
46:
2339:
1891:
1723:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1682:
1486:
1409:
3012:
3007:
The dutch interwiki can be removed. It is a dead link. The template does not exist anymore.
2893:
2834:
2785:
2729:
1789:
Am I to understand that {{editprotected}} only calls for attention from an admin? --BrewJay
1743:
How long hav I been trying to get people to fill in a voting form that I made up? --BrewJay
411:
386:. Weasel words suck meaning out of facts. I don't see an easy way to illustrate that. Goes.
302:
254:
230:
205:
179:
148:
96:
2659:
2637:
2134:
2092:
2026:
1686:
1482:
1468:
1464:
1441:
3053:
language/guidance itself that can lead to a misinterpretation and/or misrepresentation of
2847:
1673:
1579:—Don't worry about protecting pages or blocking; those responsibilities are entrusted to
1394:
1299:
1219:
1168:
1121:
1081:
1069:
1042:
986:
950:
913:
864:
809:
767:
719:
682:
534:
519:
511:
306:
291:
24:
2431:
2407:
2367:
2358:
2296:
1719:
2203:
A CC is in your e-mail box. I cancelled the message, so you shouldn't be able to see it
1769:
Is it wrong to restrict attention to that from people interested in this language issue?
2991:
2897:
2853:
1886:
I gather you're comparing this situation to your desire to remove past discussion from
886:
692:
440:
3069:
1242:
won't be able to tell if it was biased without a very careful interview of the author.
2809:
2750:
1731:
1632:
go in Archive 1 which still has room, but that would not be required at this time. --
1525:
There has been no further discussion of these suggestions since September. And it is
344:
2208:
857:
1357:
bias from weasel words, I favour removing the mention of bias from this template.
529:
I did a quick fix, maybe somebody can clean it up and make the code correct etc.
2830:
2725:
2682:
2557:
1950:
That was probably deleted, because the last time I saw it, it was red. --BrewJay
1576:
575:
363:
316:
280:
260:
236:
211:
718:
the template (by making it difficult or impossible to read). Don't do that. —
691:
Broken is exajeration for a graphic image that is too big. I would fix it, and
3091:
Comments solicited both here and at MOS talk (if you're so inclined). Thanks.
934:. That's really what weasel words are best at: interfering with significance.
530:
515:
827:
Additionally, your joke sucks. Please refrain from making the template suck.
2987:
278:
Am I the only one wondering why is a browser logo being used in a template?
2627:
writing. "Foggy" is a concrete term, and I prefer it, because it is clear.
181:
98:
1727:
3195:
3148:
3130:
3100:
3016:
2996:
2978:
2928:
2861:
2838:
2817:
2792:
2758:
2733:
2671:
2495:
2465:
2444:
2419:
2395:
2380:
2351:
2309:
2290:
2235:
2220:
2166:
2152:
2104:
2038:
1970:
1860:
Is twenty-four hours out of a likely month a great fraction? -- BrewJay
1735:
1699:
1660:
1641:
1615:
1596:
1567:
1538:
1511:
1493:
1475:
1397:
1377:
1323:
1302:
1281:
1251:
1222:
1201:
1171:
1146:
1124:
1107:
1084:
1045:
1016:
989:
972:
953:
943:
916:
867:
843:
812:
770:
741:
722:
708:
685:
675:
660:
642:
616:
552:
538:
523:
493:
467:
445:
429:
414:
395:
375:
351:
320:
309:
294:
290:
I think it should be reverted back, as I don't think it is appropriate.
284:
265:
241:
216:
1544:
Okay. I've explained this on your talk page. I've also explained it on
621:
I think David Levy missed the mark on what weasel words are. They are
113:
1837:
How long was I allowed to delete irrelevant argumentation? --BrewJay
1866:
A simple no would be sufficient. 1/30th is a small fraction of time.
3049:
IMHO, this boldened text fails to reflect an aspect of the current
2386:
How can you speak for anyone but yourself without taking the poll?
627:
Please remove terms from this article or section that make it fuzzy
1068:
Please do not add nonsense to Knowledge (XXG), as you did to the
3068:
DOES allow for the legitimate use of non-specific language where
383:
366:
19:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC) Is this something with I.M. Weasel?
3178:
biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be
3083:
biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be
3042:
biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be
2933:
2550:
2504:
1798:
Am I likely to find that out before I first use it? --BrewJay
1667:
Request to squelch confusing commentary and dead conversation.
1485:, I've extended the protection to infinite in accordance with
1414:
568:
458:
You can't hav weasel words in the template. That's hypocrisy.
184:
142:
108:
100:
15:
1090:
I could accuse you of the same thing for using wording that
651:
links, though. Hopefully I can see where wp:notability goes.
199:
Category:Templates needing talk links and other improvements
3169:
Perhaps the following might better express your concern?...
2145:
by looking up 3rdO wikipedians and talking to her directly.
1987:
Your view is in a way correct, and in another way not very
629:. A problem with that is that I don't see anywhere to link
2430:
judgement. I tried IRC channels a long time ago. All this
3180:
examined for both verifiability and neutral point of view
2892:
I agree. Aren't there other templates that already say,
2066:
other than I fill out this ballot. You are agreeing with
1647:
Blanking this discussion page again would be against the
3174:
This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that
3079:
This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that
3038:
This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that
3075:
I'd suggest that the tag language might better read...
1383:
1. My "suposition"?! I quoted the bloody page itself:
912:
Kindly keep your jokes out of the article namespace. —
714:
No, "broken" refers to the fact that you've repeatedly
338:
3085:
examined for both verifiability and consensus approval
1529:. A new discussion should be started, if necessary. --
1345:: 0.95. So, there are standards for significance. If
1167:. Doing so for the sake of a "joke" = vandalism. —
1840:I'm not sure that I understand this question. --SI
1681:
for the page itself, we have talk page guidelines (
2871:Useless without specific reference to actual words
1556:history, if someone insists on reading arguments.
1502:Old habits are hard to break. This is not USENET.
930:Your wording, Mister Levy, still fails to link to
3057:and can foster disruptive employment of the tag.
3072:and consensus consideration are both satisfied.
2894:"Hey, someone needs to come fix this article up"
1714:. However, requesting a block on a user through
201:, which implies it will probably be fixed soon.
2366:instead of following the procedures set out in
2297:Knowledge (XXG)'s dispute resolution procedures
305:, which I don't think is a good enough reason.
2582:Please clarify such statements or remove them.
2408:Knowledge (XXG)'s dispute resolution procedure
600:Please clarify such statements or remove them.
1336:I must take issue with your supposition that
341:has been posted, but it is at least once. --
8:
1793:protected page, I removed the template. --SI
2060:my recommendations to ignore the commentary
1314:Please stop making the template equivocal.
1076:. If you would like to experiment, use the
697:High School Confidential (Rough Trade song)
2070:, and you are not justifying it. --BrewJay
1740:Hi Brewjay - in answer to your questions:
1463:, even if not technically in violation of
3030:The template currently reads as follows (
3022:Does template language correctly reflect
2295:Well, if you're not willing to engage in
1781:few Sunday netizens who haven't seen it.
2524:: vague phrasing that often accompanies
2209:This is another way to find such things.
1939:Moreover, such decisions are subject to
2454:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Avoid weasel words
1471:if consensus cannot be reached here. --
1007:is very close to the center of the Sun.
2136:, and I just burned it about two days
2984:I've changed it to a colon. — Martin
2724:to the "languages" toolbox. Thanks !
506:Weasel image obstructs text in safari
7:
1459:editing the template may constitute
758:much of the text. The template was
226:. I'll insert it if nobody objects.
1943:, which you obviously didn't have.
1676:has been protected since August 3;
1421:Being bold in updating or creating
23:for discussing improvements to the
762:, and you did this a second time (
224:Knowledge (XXG):Avoid weasel words
124:
119:This template was considered for
14:
1520:Please feel free to comment here.
314:Thank you, it's much better now.
45:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
2937:
2799:
2740:
2555:
2509:
1843:I answered it for you. --BrewJay
1436:Because of these concerns, many
573:
147:
112:
40:Click here to start a new topic.
1481:After discussing the matter at
402:This template uses weasel words
250:Oh, darn stupid of me! Pardon!
2862:06:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
2850:|section|date=September 2024}}
2839:03:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
2786:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
2617:) 18:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
2571:makes this article or section
1581:Knowledge (XXG) administrators
1469:the dispute resolution process
589:makes this article or section
565:draw meaning out of wikipedia.
1:
2886:11:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
1218:I did; it lacks relevance. —
376:14:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
37:Put new text under old text.
3017:07:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
2906:09:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
2672:18:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
2496:10:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
2466:05:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
2445:06:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
2420:19:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
2410:, or stepping away from it.
2396:19:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
2381:03:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
2352:08:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
2310:07:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
2291:07:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
2236:07:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
2221:07:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
2167:07:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
2153:06:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
2105:06:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
2039:05:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
1971:04:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
1736:17:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
1700:00:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
1661:02:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
1642:23:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
1616:07:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
1597:05:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
1568:04:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
1539:23:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
1467:. Please consider following
1343:nineteen times out of twenty
1272:good vacuums and bad girls.
430:10:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
415:04:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
357:Weasel image: Stays or goes?
337:I'm not sure how many times
2960:to reactivate your request.
2948:has been answered. Set the
2852:and it will say "section".
2759:19:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
2734:16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
2015:My method was to eliminate
1546:user_talk:Sarcasticidealist
352:04:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
321:21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
310:18:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
295:18:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
285:13:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
3216:
3196:11:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
2929:13:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
2818:19:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
2793:18:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
2536:Such statements should be
2359:dispute resolution process
1720:dispute resolution process
1585:Help:Archiving a talk page
1512:17:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
1494:16:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
1476:14:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
1398:13:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
1378:11:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
1338:Knowledge (XXG):notability
1324:06:08, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
1252:02:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
1046:05:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
1039:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
1017:02:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
917:05:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
813:05:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
617:23:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
543:Bring back the Weasel!! --
3149:22:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
3131:19:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
3101:12:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
3064:(and at least thus far),
2997:14:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
2979:12:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
1303:23:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
1282:21:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
1223:23:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
1202:21:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
1172:23:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
1147:21:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
1125:16:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
1108:13:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
1085:12:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
990:23:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
973:22:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
954:16:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
944:13:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
868:23:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
844:22:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
771:23:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
742:22:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
723:16:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
709:12:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
686:12:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
676:11:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
661:05:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
643:06:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
468:05:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
446:22:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
396:06:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
75:Be welcoming to newcomers
2722:fr:Modèle:Contenu évasif
1060:Vandalism (as posted on
553:21:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
539:11:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
524:11:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
494:21:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
266:18:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
242:18:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
217:09:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
1465:the "three revert" rule
1072:page. It is considered
788:were writing the style.
3184:
3089:
3047:
1442:indefinitely protected
1438:heavily used templates
1192:isn't in your "fix"!?
70:avoid personal attacks
3172:
3077:
3044:clarified or removed.
3036:
2784:, just needs synced.
2707:Link to fr equivalent
2653:Contains Equivocation
1863:This one either.--SI
1487:the protection policy
1165:breaking the template
1163:Obscuring the text =
2538:clarified or removed
2093:request for comments
1888:Template talk:weasel
1678:Template talk:Weasel
1649:Talk page guidelines
127:. The result of the
2143:user:moonriddengirl
2027:request for comment
1993:user:moonriddengirl
1961:I hope this helps.
1687:request for comment
1624:Archiving this page
1365:documents to take.
2824:Article or Section
1333:Dear Mister Levy:
81:dispute resolution
42:
3040:often accompanies
3033:
2995:
2964:
2963:
2588:
2587:
2583:
2560:
2546:
2545:
2412:Sarcasticidealist
2373:Sarcasticidealist
2302:Sarcasticidealist
2228:Sarcasticidealist
2159:Sarcasticidealist
2141:participation of
2097:Sarcasticidealist
2091:Has there been a
2068:user:newbyguesses
2031:Sarcasticidealist
1963:Sarcasticidealist
1692:Sarcasticidealist
1456:
1455:
606:
605:
601:
578:
190:
189:
171:
170:
141:
140:
107:
106:
61:Assume good faith
38:
3207:
3123:
3031:
2985:
2955:
2951:
2941:
2940:
2934:
2851:
2807:
2803:
2802:
2777:
2771:
2748:
2744:
2743:
2719:
2713:
2581:
2562:
2561:
2551:
2541:
2513:
2512:
2505:
2133:I filed that in
1434:single revert).
1415:
1080:. Thank you. —
599:
580:
579:
569:
510:When looking at
350:
347:
303:Template:Peacock
264:
240:
215:
185:
162:
161:
151:
143:
126:
116:
109:
101:
16:
3215:
3214:
3210:
3209:
3208:
3206:
3205:
3204:
3129:
3118:
3062:this discussion
3028:
3005:
3003:Interwiki dutch
2953:
2949:
2938:
2914:
2873:
2845:
2826:
2800:
2798:
2775:
2769:
2767:
2741:
2739:
2717:
2711:
2709:
2700:
2691:
2679:
2655:
2646:
2633:
2624:
2619:
2592:
2584:
2563:
2556:
2542:
2535:
2514:
2510:
2503:
2501:Proposed ballot
2062:, just so that
1674:Template:Weasel
1669:
1626:
1522:
1406:
1331:
1070:Template:Weasel
1066:
602:
581:
574:
567:
512:Template:Weasel
508:
404:
359:
345:
342:
335:
276:
251:
227:
202:
195:
193:Needs talk link
186:
180:
156:
125:6 December 2005
103:
102:
97:
87:
86:
56:
12:
11:
5:
3213:
3211:
3203:
3202:
3201:
3200:
3199:
3198:
3185:
3170:
3167:
3163:
3154:
3153:
3152:
3151:
3134:
3133:
3124:
3027:
3020:
3004:
3001:
3000:
2999:
2962:
2961:
2942:
2913:
2910:
2909:
2908:
2872:
2869:
2867:
2865:
2864:
2825:
2822:
2821:
2820:
2766:
2763:
2762:
2761:
2708:
2705:
2699:
2696:
2690:
2687:
2678:
2675:
2654:
2651:
2645:
2642:
2632:
2629:
2623:
2622:Concrete terms
2620:
2618:
2608:
2606:
2589:
2586:
2585:
2566:
2564:
2554:
2548:
2544:
2543:
2517:
2515:
2508:
2502:
2499:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2481:
2480:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2427:
2426:
2425:
2424:
2423:
2422:
2384:
2383:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2332:
2331:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2313:
2312:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2254:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2238:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2118:
2117:
2116:
2115:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2078:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1753:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1668:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1625:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1600:
1599:
1542:
1541:
1521:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1497:
1496:
1491:Moonriddengirl
1473:Moonriddengirl
1454:
1453:
1450:
1419:
1405:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1330:
1327:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1117:
1111:
1110:
1065:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
978:
977:
976:
975:
957:
956:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
890:
887:circumlocution
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
849:
848:
847:
846:
829:
828:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
747:
746:
745:
744:
726:
725:
693:template:ambox
689:
688:
604:
603:
584:
582:
572:
566:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
507:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
486:174.111.242.35
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
451:
450:
449:
448:
433:
432:
403:
400:
399:
398:
358:
355:
334:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
275:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
245:
244:
194:
191:
188:
187:
182:
178:
176:
173:
172:
169:
168:
158:
157:
152:
146:
139:
138:
117:
105:
104:
95:
93:
92:
89:
88:
85:
84:
77:
72:
63:
57:
55:
54:
43:
34:
33:
30:
29:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3212:
3197:
3193:
3189:
3186:
3183:
3181:
3177:
3171:
3168:
3164:
3160:
3159:
3158:
3157:
3156:
3155:
3150:
3146:
3142:
3138:
3137:
3136:
3135:
3132:
3128:
3122:
3116:
3112:
3108:
3105:
3104:
3103:
3102:
3098:
3094:
3088:
3086:
3082:
3076:
3073:
3071:
3067:
3063:
3058:
3056:
3052:
3046:
3045:
3041:
3035:
3032:emphasis mine
3025:
3021:
3019:
3018:
3014:
3010:
3002:
2998:
2993:
2989:
2983:
2982:
2981:
2980:
2976:
2972:
2971:81.159.105.50
2968:
2959:
2956:parameter to
2947:
2943:
2936:
2935:
2932:
2930:
2926:
2922:
2921:86.136.195.64
2917:
2911:
2907:
2903:
2899:
2895:
2891:
2890:
2889:
2887:
2883:
2879:
2870:
2868:
2863:
2859:
2855:
2849:
2843:
2842:
2841:
2840:
2836:
2832:
2823:
2819:
2815:
2811:
2806:
2797:
2796:
2795:
2794:
2791:
2787:
2783:
2778:
2774:
2773:editprotected
2765:Style updates
2764:
2760:
2756:
2752:
2747:
2738:
2737:
2736:
2735:
2731:
2727:
2723:
2716:
2715:editprotected
2706:
2704:
2697:
2695:
2688:
2686:
2684:
2676:
2674:
2673:
2669:
2665:
2661:
2652:
2650:
2643:
2641:
2639:
2630:
2628:
2621:
2616:
2612:
2609:
2607:
2604:
2602:
2598:
2580:
2578:
2577:insignificant
2574:
2570:
2569:Foggy wording
2565:
2553:
2552:
2549:
2539:
2533:
2531:
2527:
2523:
2518:This article
2516:
2507:
2506:
2500:
2498:
2497:
2493:
2489:
2477:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2472:
2467:
2463:
2459:
2455:
2451:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2442:
2438:
2433:
2421:
2417:
2413:
2409:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2393:
2389:
2382:
2378:
2374:
2369:
2364:
2360:
2356:
2355:
2354:
2353:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2311:
2307:
2303:
2298:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2288:
2284:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2273:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2237:
2233:
2229:
2224:
2223:
2222:
2218:
2214:
2210:
2206:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2168:
2164:
2160:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2150:
2146:
2144:
2139:
2135:
2132:
2131:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2125:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2106:
2102:
2098:
2094:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2069:
2065:
2061:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2040:
2036:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2018:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1972:
1968:
1964:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1942:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1884:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1865:
1864:
1862:
1861:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1842:
1841:
1839:
1838:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1800:
1799:
1797:
1791:
1790:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1773:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1742:
1741:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1688:
1684:
1679:
1675:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1623:
1617:
1613:
1609:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1598:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1583:. Otherwise,
1582:
1578:
1577:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1547:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1524:
1523:
1519:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1495:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1474:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1449:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1432:
1431:
1426:
1425:
1420:
1416:
1413:
1411:
1403:
1399:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1385:
1384:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1366:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1348:
1347:wp:notability
1344:
1339:
1334:
1328:
1326:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1304:
1301:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1270:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1224:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1190:wp:notability
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1173:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1126:
1123:
1118:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1096:wp:notability
1093:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1063:
1059:
1047:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
991:
988:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
974:
970:
966:
961:
960:
959:
958:
955:
952:
948:
947:
946:
945:
941:
937:
933:
932:wp:notability
918:
915:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
891:
888:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
869:
866:
862:
860:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
845:
841:
837:
833:
832:
831:
830:
826:
825:
814:
811:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
772:
769:
765:
761:
757:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
743:
739:
735:
730:
729:
728:
727:
724:
721:
717:
713:
712:
711:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
687:
684:
680:
679:
678:
677:
673:
669:
663:
662:
658:
654:
650:
645:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
619:
618:
614:
610:
598:
596:
595:insignificant
592:
588:
587:Foggy wording
583:
571:
570:
564:
561:Weasel words
560:
554:
550:
546:
545:293.xx.xxx.xx
542:
541:
540:
536:
532:
528:
527:
526:
525:
521:
517:
513:
505:
495:
491:
487:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
469:
465:
461:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
447:
444:
442:
437:
436:
435:
434:
431:
427:
423:
419:
418:
417:
416:
413:
409:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
380:
379:
377:
373:
369:
365:
356:
354:
353:
349:
348:
340:
332:
322:
319:
318:
313:
312:
311:
308:
304:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
293:
289:
288:
287:
286:
283:
282:
273:
267:
263:
262:
259:
256:
249:
248:
247:
246:
243:
239:
238:
235:
232:
225:
221:
220:
219:
218:
214:
213:
210:
207:
200:
192:
175:
174:
167:
164:
163:
160:
159:
155:
150:
145:
144:
136:
132:
131:
122:
118:
115:
111:
110:
91:
90:
82:
78:
76:
73:
71:
67:
64:
62:
59:
58:
52:
48:
47:Learn to edit
44:
41:
36:
35:
32:
31:
26:
22:
18:
17:
3188:JakeInJoisey
3179:
3175:
3173:
3141:WhatamIdoing
3120:
3114:
3110:
3093:JakeInJoisey
3090:
3084:
3080:
3078:
3074:
3059:
3048:
3043:
3039:
3037:
3029:
3006:
2969:
2965:
2957:
2946:edit request
2918:
2915:
2874:
2866:
2827:
2804:
2779:
2768:
2745:
2710:
2701:
2692:
2689:Suck or Draw
2683:weasel words
2680:
2656:
2647:
2634:
2625:
2605:
2593:
2573:unverifiable
2567:
2547:
2530:unverifiable
2522:weasel words
2519:
2486:
2428:
2385:
2336:
2205:in the group
2204:
2147:|BrewJay]] (
2137:
2063:
2059:
2016:
1988:
1938:
1925:
1887:
1779:
1759:
1677:
1670:
1629:
1627:
1574:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1543:
1461:edit warring
1457:
1446:WikiProjects
1435:
1428:
1422:
1407:
1386:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1342:
1335:
1332:
1329:Significance
1313:
1268:
1188:Explain why
1164:
1091:
1067:
963:notability.
929:
858:
763:
759:
755:
715:
690:
664:
648:
646:
630:
626:
622:
620:
607:
591:unverifiable
585:
562:
509:
407:
405:
368:65.43.182.46
360:
343:
336:
315:
279:
277:
252:
228:
222:Found this:
203:
196:
153:
134:
128:
19:This is the
3176:may reflect
3111:bad writing
3081:may reflect
2912:Punctuation
2844:Just write
2720:Should add
2532:information
2207:, anymore.
1991:. You see.
412:Munchkinguy
135:not deleted
2950:|answered=
2644:Neutrality
2631:Notability
1933:reduction.
1710:or blocks
1527:not a vote
1424:categories
1404:Protection
1395:David Levy
1300:David Levy
1220:David Levy
1169:David Levy
1122:David Levy
1082:David Levy
1062:User talk:
1043:David Levy
987:David Levy
951:David Levy
914:David Levy
865:David Levy
861:cyclopedia
810:David Levy
768:David Levy
720:David Levy
683:David Levy
631:notability
307:Danielnez1
292:Danielnez1
130:discussion
3107:WP:WEASEL
3066:WP:WEASEL
3055:WP:WEASEL
3051:WP:WEASEL
3024:WP:WEASEL
2898:Banaticus
2854:Debresser
2638:guideline
2520:contains
2363:WP:NOVOTE
1941:consensus
1914:--BrewJay
1430:templates
1074:vandalism
732:will do.
623:typically
441:⟳ausa کui
339:this joke
274:Iceweasel
166:Archive 1
83:if needed
66:Be polite
27:template.
21:talk page
3162:fashion.
3121:Critical
2878:J'ai osé
2810:CapitalR
2751:Jac16888
2591:U
1587:. HTH --
1094:link to
1092:does not
422:Wisdom89
346:Jreferee
154:Archives
121:deletion
51:get help
3166:debate.
3060:As per
2782:sandbox
2664:BrewJay
2611:BrewJay
2597:BrewJay
2488:BrewJay
2458:NewbyG
2437:BrewJay
2388:BrewJay
2344:BrewJay
2340:WP:TALK
2283:BrewJay
2213:BrewJay
2064:someone
1989:helpful
1892:WP:TALK
1724:WP:CLUE
1716:WP:AN/I
1712:WP:AN/I
1708:WP:RfPP
1683:WP:TALK
1653:NewbyG
1634:NewbyG
1608:BrewJay
1589:NewbyG
1560:BrewJay
1531:NewbyG
1504:BrewJay
1412:notes:
1410:WP:BOLD
1370:BrewJay
1316:BrewJay
1274:BrewJay
1244:BrewJay
1194:BrewJay
1139:BrewJay
1100:BrewJay
1078:sandbox
1009:BrewJay
965:BrewJay
936:BrewJay
893:tricky.
836:BrewJay
756:covered
734:BrewJay
701:BrewJay
668:BrewJay
653:BrewJay
635:BrewJay
609:BrewJay
460:BrewJay
388:BrewJay
2848:Weasel
2831:Vistro
2726:Calimo
2660:WP:AWW
2526:biased
1483:WP:ANI
1037:Quoth
760:broken
716:broken
364:Gaurav
333:Weasel
317:Reinis
281:Reinis
255:Rursus
253:Said:
231:Rursus
229:Said:
206:Rursus
204:Said:
25:Weasel
3034:)...
3009:itsme
2954:|ans=
2944:This
2698:Terse
2677:Audio
2432:WP:DR
2368:WP:DR
2138:after
1630:could
1575:User:
764:after
531:Paluv
516:Paluv
378:Kinz
133:was "
79:Seek
3192:talk
3145:talk
3127:Talk
3097:talk
3070:WP:V
3013:talk
2992:talk
2988:MSGJ
2975:talk
2925:talk
2902:talk
2882:talk
2858:talk
2835:talk
2814:talk
2805:Done
2790:talk
2755:talk
2746:Done
2730:talk
2668:talk
2615:talk
2601:talk
2492:talk
2462:talk
2456:. --
2441:talk
2416:talk
2392:talk
2377:talk
2348:talk
2306:talk
2287:talk
2232:talk
2217:talk
2163:talk
2149:talk
2101:talk
2035:talk
1967:talk
1732:talk
1696:talk
1657:talk
1651:. --
1638:talk
1612:talk
1593:talk
1564:talk
1535:talk
1508:talk
1440:are
1427:and
1374:talk
1320:talk
1278:talk
1269:Joke
1248:talk
1198:talk
1143:talk
1104:talk
1013:talk
969:talk
940:talk
863:? —
840:talk
738:talk
705:talk
672:talk
657:talk
639:talk
613:talk
563:suck
549:talk
535:talk
520:talk
490:talk
464:talk
426:talk
392:talk
384:PETA
372:talk
68:and
2952:or
2575:or
2528:or
2017:all
1728:Abd
649:two
593:or
408:May
123:on
3194:)
3147:)
3125:__
3115:BE
3099:)
3015:)
2990:·
2977:)
2958:no
2931:.
2927:)
2904:)
2888:)
2884:)
2860:)
2846:{{
2837:)
2816:)
2808:--
2788:-
2776:}}
2770:{{
2757:)
2749:--
2732:)
2718:}}
2712:{{
2670:)
2603:)
2494:)
2464:)
2443:)
2418:)
2394:)
2379:)
2350:)
2308:)
2289:)
2234:)
2219:)
2165:)
2151:)
2103:)
2037:)
1969:)
1734:)
1698:)
1659:)
1640:)
1614:)
1595:)
1566:)
1537:)
1510:)
1452:”
1448:.
1418:“
1376:)
1322:)
1280:)
1250:)
1200:)
1145:)
1106:)
1015:)
971:)
942:)
859:Un
842:)
740:)
707:)
674:)
659:)
641:)
615:)
551:)
537:)
522:)
492:)
466:)
428:)
394:)
374:)
137:".
49:;
3190:(
3182:.
3143:(
3119:—
3117:—
3095:(
3087:.
3026:?
3011:(
2994:)
2986:(
2973:(
2923:(
2900:(
2880:(
2856:(
2833:(
2812:(
2753:(
2728:(
2666:(
2613:(
2599:(
2579:.
2540:.
2534:.
2490:(
2460:(
2439:(
2414:(
2390:(
2375:(
2346:(
2304:(
2285:(
2230:(
2215:(
2161:(
2099:(
2033:(
1965:(
1894:.
1730:(
1694:(
1655:(
1636:(
1610:(
1591:(
1573:@
1562:(
1533:(
1506:(
1372:(
1318:(
1276:(
1246:(
1196:(
1141:(
1120:—
1102:(
1064:)
1011:(
967:(
938:(
889:.
838:(
808:—
736:(
703:(
670:(
655:(
637:(
611:(
597:.
547:(
533:(
518:(
488:(
462:(
424:(
406:"
390:(
370:(
261:★
258:☺
237:★
234:☺
212:★
209:☺
53:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
