242:
result but there were several users who objected to the inability to make alternate proposals. This restricted version is only meant to be used in a similar situation, where multiple, widely attended previous RFCs over an extended period of time had failed to come to a consensus. If you go for this format on the first attempt you will be seen as trying to force your desired outcome. In fact I was accused of that by many at the PC RFC. Apparently I have the ability to control the minds of hundreds of other
Wikipedians, and force them with my devilish trickery into endorsing my preferred position. Expect that sort of thing to happen to you to. I can't stress it enough that you and your alleged motivations will be attacked no matter how carefully you proceed.
254:
still be people who will hate what you have put together, but you will be able to honestly say that the questions were reviewed before being posted. The biggest objection I got was that the questions were leading. Puzzlingly, when I asked where users thought they were being led they seemed reluctant to say. The few that did say contradicted one another, so I took that to mean that they were projecting their own opinions and imagining a hidden subtext that really was not there. Sometimes getting helpful feedback on this project can be extremely difficult, although getting unhelpful angry ranting feedback is a piece of cake. Anticipating objections is an important part of structuring your RFC, but remember you can't please everyone.
159:
366:
61:
271:
382:
Once you are less annoyed by it, take a look back at the process and see if you can determine why a concrete result was not achieved. Was it the structure, the timing, some unexpected event, or is the community just not able to make up its mind about this? Don't rush into a new process. Give it time. In a few months or even a year maybe try again, using what you learned from this process to inform how the next process will work.
218:
328:
38:
869:
373:
Success in this context is a result, any result, even if it is not the one you would have preferred. If you have a result, you have succeeded and you should be proud of that. If it wasn't the result you wanted, don't throw a fit about it. Remember that consensus can change, maybe at some point in the
278:
Before you go live with your RFC put some thought toward who will be administrating the process and closing it when it is complete. It won't be you, you are too involved. Consider recruiting a closer or even a team before opening the RFC. Try to find trusted users or admins who have not expressed any
253:
a scientific process. An important lesson I learned from the never-really-got-anywhere civility enforcement RFC is to find some way to have the questions reviewed by a group of at least four or five users before proceeding. Get their feedback on the questions and alter them as appropriate There will
149:
Be prepared to be involved with your chosen issue for a long time. Even fairly minor RFCs are usually left open for thirty days. For big policy changes you can expect the process to take significantly longer, even years, to accomplish. The first RFC may not get anywhere or may require multiple phases
343:
You did all that planning beforehand to try and avoid problems later, but don't begin for a second to believe you have prepared for every contingency. Be flexible if the situation changes during the course of the RFC. Even though you created it, it is not yours. If the community wants it changed, it
260:
There are not any actual rules that dictate how an RFC is structured. If you think you have a better idea than any of these, put it together, maybe have a few people you trust to be fair and honest look it over and give feedback. Who knows, you might end up changing the very way we approach decision
1272:
381:
failure mind you, but the issue is not resolved and so the community has failed to address the issue. I warned you this might happen. Walk away for a minute if it is making you angry. Either do something else on-wiki or, better yet, turn the computer off and do something else entirely for a while.
286:
If you have any type of hard data you plan to use, find one of those users who loves creating graphs and see if you can get them to make some using your data. Quantifiable data is the best way to combat some of the more ridiculous criticism you are about to be subjected to and graphs make your RFC
248:
A series of questions are presented and users are asked to create their own subpage and supply their answers to as many as they like. I really like this format as it is non-confrontational, but some users will be appalled that you did not use scientific methodology to construct the questions, as if
73:
Forget it. You will never draft the perfect policy RFC. It can't be done. Somebody in this world will think that it sucks, and will tell you so in the most snide, condescending way they can manage. If you can't handle that stop reading right here. You'll only end up feeling sad and rejected, and I
336:
This is the part where you and your motivations will begin to be attacked. Don't say I didn't warn you. Be sure to point out whatever steps you took before the RFC opened. If you have dedicated coordinating admins advise everyone of who they are. Don't argue with people who accuse you of acting in
322:
to like it for whatever reason. Maybe they don't like the way consensus is going and want to derail the process, or maybe they just don't understand the nuances, or they have a new idea they like better even though your RFC is already open, or maybe they just like to complain. Remember you can't
229:
You present your idea and ask users to either support or oppose it with brief statements. This can be good for establishing basic levels of support but it is lacking in nuance. Straw polls are often accompanied by an open discussion to overcome this issue. A straw poll by itself is unlikely to be
101:
Really think about it. Really. Is it stupid? Be open to the possibility that you may have had a stupid idea. It happens. You may be really wrong about what the community thinks about the issue you are trying to address. You may have identified a real problem but come up with a solution that won't
295:
Stop for a moment and consider one last time the possibility that your idea is stupid, or badly out of step with what the community expects, or just unworkable. Try to look at it with fresh eyes, as if you were arriving at the RFC as a skeptic. Remember that you are about to open yourself up to
241:
competing proposals. Guess what? No consensus was found. For the 2012 Pending
Changes RFC I came up with a more restricted version of this format, where only three, mutually exclusive positions were presented and adding of new positions was not permitted. This worked in that it forced a usable
212:
You present your proposal and ask people to comment on it. Hopefully they do so. This is the simplest form of RFC. It works reasonably well for content issues or minor policy changes but for big issues it can rapidly become a tangled, repetitive mess. If you are anticipating a large volume of
1239:
312:
If questions arise about the format, (and they almost certainly will no matter which you have chosen) they should be discussed on the talk page. Explain the structure and why you chose it, but don't let yourself get drawn in to a long debate about it unless it is clear that
145:
Now that your proposal is developed you are ready to prepare it to be presented it to the community. Remember that although you have a goal in mind the point of the RFC is to determine what the community thinks of the proposal, not to push through your desired result.
924:
236:
Multiple positions are presented and the community is asked to endorse statements they agree with. Depending on the nature of the issue this can work well or can be very, very messy. When we tried to come up with a community de-admin ship proposal we wound up with
109:
Ok, now take that idea and follow it through. What is it intended to accomplish? What is needed to implement it? Who would be responsible for enacting it? Are there any technical issues with the software? Will the WMF even let you do it? Is it legal in the United
549:
1024:
674:
440:
879:
356:
Hopefully there is not much left to do. If you had a closer or closers lined up beforehand the ball is in their court now. If it was a particularly long and contentious discussion it maybe a while before there is a close posted. Be patient.
1094:
317:
portions of users are objecting instead of participating. There will always be a few who will argue about how whatever format you have chosen is not good. Do your best to assuage their concerns but remember that some people don't
1049:
1134:
624:
122:
Don't try to just type something up in a few minutes. Take your time. Write it, read it, walk away, read it again, fix it, read it again, start over, walk away again, and so forth. Keep it up as long as you need to.
669:
189:, that is while either you yourself or the issue you wish to discuss are the subject of ANI drama, an ArbCom case, etc. People will assume "sour grapes" and be less willing to support the ideas, or even discuss it.
56:
on any policy issue likely to be controversial or divisive. With a few pointers to guide you from the store of my own experience with such processes you can overcome these fears and take on the truly tough issues.
1089:
994:
183:
while there is already an RFC or other policy discussion going on that is closely related to the subject you wish to discuss. Seeming over-eager or impatient about your RFC is a good way to derail it yourself.
136:
Consider the order in which you present information carefully. Is it wiser to explain the change or the intended effect first? Try re-arranging the order and see if it is more compelling one way or the other.
102:
actually help. You may have been tired, cranky, or drunk when you thought up the idea and when you think about it the next morning it suddenly reveals itself to be a bad idea. Be sure that at the very least
308:
State your case, make sure you have been clear about what it is you propose. If it is a poll or a position statement RFC add your endorsements. Then do your best to shut up and let the community discuss the
1199:
1189:
634:
484:
1287:
724:
77:
For your own good, just accept things the way they are and go back to whatever it was you were doing before you lost your mind and decided you wanted to change something important on
Knowledge (XXG).
664:
1099:
949:
734:
539:
1029:
391:
754:
929:
919:
854:
779:
1119:
659:
347:
Relax. The hard part is (probably) over. Go do something else for a while, don't check the RFC every time there's a new post, once every day or so is all the attention it needs.
374:
future the community will be more receptive to your preferred result. For now you have a consensus, so the community has benefited from your efforts and that is a good thing.
1164:
604:
489:
283:
can help you recruit such users. Discuss with them exactly what their responsibilities will be during and after the RFC. Have them review everything again before going live.
133:"Be specific" does not mean "describe what would happen in every conceivable situation." Express the general idea. The details will almost certainly evolve over time anyway.
849:
296:
months of gratuitous verbal abuse and wild accusations for the sake of this process. Still feels like a good idea? You're dumber than I thought, go ahead and open the RFC.
1064:
584:
1179:
1139:
1074:
1109:
814:
749:
1194:
1034:
979:
864:
614:
1282:
1124:
844:
809:
534:
150:
spanning a long period. You are trying to make a big change here, be realistic with yourself: it is not going to happen overnight, if it even happens at all.
769:
959:
46:
I have created several of the more widely attended and controversial RFCs of the past. Learn from my mistakes. Or turn back now if you want life to be easy.
1079:
944:
81:
Still here? You sure? You know your idea is terrible, you should be be blocked for even suggesting it, and your proposal reads like it was written by a
166:
In a perfect world it would make no difference when you open your RFC. Then again, in a perfect world we wouldn't need it to begin with. Things to avoid:
1328:
903:
859:
574:
1159:
1144:
1114:
95:
It is best to have a specific, concrete idea to start from. Just opening the doors and saying "let's have a discussion" rarely yields useful results.
1129:
504:
158:
1229:
1044:
1039:
794:
1209:
1054:
829:
719:
689:
684:
365:
1174:
819:
744:
427:
1244:
824:
699:
694:
609:
884:
479:
400:
340:
The worst thing you can do is try to argue with every single user who does not fully support your position. So, as a reminder, shut up.
1219:
1013:
934:
679:
579:
173:. That would be late November through early January. People are busy at this time. Also a lot of them are drunk and/or cranky. Drama
1104:
1059:
874:
709:
494:
1204:
1069:
914:
784:
739:
599:
523:
469:
304:
Exactly what you should be doing during the RFC is of course context specific, but there are some general ideas to keep in mind.
1277:
954:
834:
799:
644:
594:
939:
839:
774:
649:
629:
569:
205:
RFCs are a fairly open framework, and various types of structure can be used. Some of the ways you can format an RFC follow.
1234:
1169:
1149:
764:
759:
639:
564:
559:
554:
789:
474:
1154:
964:
729:
453:
1184:
969:
619:
60:
1084:
974:
704:
589:
420:
162:”I say old chap, now that we’re good and sauced, let’s discuss Knowledge (XXG) policy.” “Capital idea old sport!”
984:
989:
804:
654:
126:
Be clear about what would change and why it should change. Be specific, but not insulting or condescending. Be
113:
Now that you know what it is you are actually trying to accomplish you are ready to try and write a proposal.
499:
213:
responses this probably is not the way to go unless you are planning it as the opening of a multi-phase RFC.
17:
870:
User:Vanished user 909146283013/Follow the WP:EPISODE guideline and make AfD easier for articles that don't
197:
on it during such times, just keep it on a user subpage or something until the time is right to "go live".
23:
436:
1323:
1303:
544:
413:
1224:
270:
1240:
User:MichaelQSchmidt/The general notability guide versus subject-specific notability guidelines
714:
925:
User:ASCIIn2Bme/Verifiability and plagiarism are the hammer and anvil of astute wikilawyers
230:
seen by the community as a sufficient process for gaining approval of major policy changes.
53:
1214:
280:
1273:
Assume the assumption of the assumption of the assumption of the assumption of bad faith
550:
User:Aspening/Just because something is unflattering doesn't mean it should be deleted
1317:
464:
64:
users calmly discussing a policy proposal with the helpful individual who advanced it
1025:
User:HowardBGolden/Abuse of the
General Notability Guideline in Deletion Discussions
675:
User:HowardBGolden/Abuse of the
General Notability Guideline in Deletion Discussions
880:
User:ViperSnake151/Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (Human
Readable Version)
1306:
category page has many more, listed below the subcategories section on the pages.
217:
327:
1095:
Knowledge (XXG):Don't assume lasting significance for instances of self-harm
177:
goes up during this period. Bad time to try and make an important decision.
1050:
User:Chrislk02/anarticleaboutaschoolthatcantfindagermanteacherisnotnotable
369:
Whether you got what you wanted or not, its time to celebrate your success
1135:
User:Mike Cline/Imagining a new way to look at the question of
Notability
625:
User:Emmette
Hernandez Coleman/Deleting redirects to facilitate searching
82:
274:
admins keeping disruptive users from derailing a promising policy RFC
1090:
Knowledge (XXG):Don't assume lasting significance for crime articles
995:
User:Vincentvikram/Always keep context in mind when arguing claims
405:
364:
326:
269:
216:
157:
85:
with a brain injury, right? Are you sure you want to keep going?
59:
1200:
User:Geo Swan/Evaluating notability for lesser prizes and awards
396:
about one of the events that prompted the creation of this essay
1261:
1011:
901:
635:
User:Geo Swan/opinions/editing Fahd al
Jutayli while before Afd
521:
485:
User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters/Academic and artistic biographies
451:
409:
32:
735:
User:NawlinWiki/List of things that will get speedily deleted
540:
User:AleatoryPonderings/Systemic bias in deletion discussions
725:
User:Mike Cline/The
Inclusionist's Guide To Deletion Debates
1190:
User:PorkchopGMX/Popularity doesn’t always equal notability
1100:
User:MalwareSmarts/Don't confuse non-notability with a hoax
1030:
User:Philtweir/Academic communities articles and notability
670:
User:Hijiri88/Don't call yourself or others "inclusionists"
331:
User:Cmanson 69 thinks you have some bad ideas in your head
279:
strong opinions on the issue being discussed. A posting at
950:
User:SMcCandlish/Discretionary sanctions 2013–2018 review
755:
User:Puzzledvegetable/DINC alone is not a reason to keep
1165:
User:Davidwr/No topic deserves to be in Knowledge (XXG)
920:
User:Alexia Death/Community Court for community issues
855:
User:Tothwolf/rescued essays/AfD: formula for conflict
780:
User:Robofish/Thoughts on inclusionism and deletionism
1120:
User:League Octopus/Club notability tables (and test)
665:
User:Hijiri88/Don't call other editors "deletionists"
660:
User:Hiding/Points to note regarding deletion debates
605:
User:Davidwr/Choosing SPEEDY, PROD, or AFD deletion
490:
User:This is Paul/Articles concerning criminal acts
337:
bad faith. You aren't, right? So just ignore them.
1065:User:Czarkoff/essays/Businesses are rarely notable
1288:Nomination of Knowledge (XXG) for speedy deletion
1140:User:Davidwr/Inherent Notability as a slang term
1075:User:ReaderofthePack/Common notability arguments
930:User:ASCIIn2Bme/What "no consensus" really means
130:polite and specific in your proposal language.
106:, as the proposer, are positive that it is not.
74:honestly don't want to see that happen to you.
1110:User:Anon126/Explaining notability to newcomers
960:User:Orlady/Getting your way at Knowledge (XXG)
815:User:SoWhy/Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion
750:User:SMcCandlish/Notability and Deletion policy
1195:User:RoySmith/essays/Presumption of Notability
1035:User:Robert McClenon/Acceptance of Biographies
980:User:The Bushranger/Lob a grenade and run away
865:User:Ultraexactzz/Time-delayed Speedy Deletion
615:User:Eire2020/WP:On the subject of deletionism
585:User:The Bushranger/Don't move articles at AfD
1125:User:ArsenalFan700/Indian Football Notability
845:User:Tisane/Allow viewing of deleted articles
810:User:SoWhy/Before tagging for speedy deletion
535:User:Mangojuice/Administrators are not slaves
421:
8:
770:User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to A7
249:determining consensus for policy changes is
1080:User:Lagrange613/Coverage is not notability
945:User:Beeblebrox/The perfect policy proposal
377:"No consensus" is basically a failure. Not
193:This isn't to say you cannot or should not
24:User:Beeblebrox/The perfect policy proposal
1258:
1180:User:Herostratus/"Notable people" sections
1008:
898:
860:User:Ultraexactzz/Sorting Deletion Debates
575:User:Bibliomaniac15/A guide to closing CFD
518:
448:
428:
414:
406:
1160:User:Brainy J/No Exceptions to Notability
1145:User:Robert McClenon/Internet celebrities
1115:User:AliveFreeHappy/Notability (firearms)
1130:User:Phil Sandifer/History of notability
505:User:Steve Smith/Semi-protection of BLPs
1230:User:ReaderofthePack/YouTube notability
1045:User:Masem/Alternate Take on Notability
1040:User:Alex Noble/AFC is about notability
850:User:Tisane/Don't delete users' résumés
795:User:Simon Dodd/Some AFD considerations
88:All right, let's get down to business.
1210:User:Esquivalience/Essay on notability
1055:User:ReaderofthePack/Author notability
830:User:Syrenka V/Protection not deletion
720:User:Mike Cline/Archimedes was deleted
690:User:K50 Dude/Essay on Speedy Deletion
685:User:Jh12/School articles and deletion
401:Knowledge (XXG):Policy writing is hard
52:Many users shy away from initiating a
1175:User:Glades12/Notability is temporary
820:User:Spartaz/Rescuing Deleted Content
745:User:Northamerica1000/Eager to delete
7:
1245:User:voorts/The spectrum of coverage
825:User:Stifle/Delete unless cleaned up
221:Graffiti seen at a recent straw poll
885:User:Yunshui/Deletion for beginners
480:User:Kirill Lokshin/Professionalism
1220:User:Fleets/sandboxWPRL notability
935:User:GTBacchus/A recurring problem
680:User:Isomorphic/Essays/Deletionism
610:User:Davidwr/Deleting GA+ articles
31:
1329:User essays on dispute resolution
1105:User:Basket of Puppies/Editorials
1060:User:Gryllida/BiographyNotability
904:User essays on dispute resolution
875:User:Vermont/essay/AfD Filibuster
710:User:Martijn Hoekstra/what is AfD
700:User:Lenticel/Deletion isn't Evil
695:User:KGirlTrucker81/What G1 isn't
495:User:Mattinbgn/BLP considerations
1205:User:RoySmith/Three best sources
1070:User:Northamerica1000/Churnalism
915:User:AGK/Arbitration and content
785:User:RoySmith/Three best sources
740:User:NeoFreak/Essays/Deletionism
600:User:Northamerica1000/Churnalism
470:User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem
36:
955:User:Guy Macon/One against many
835:User:Terrariola/Delete the junk
800:User:Seraphimblade/Deletion FAQ
645:User:Ginkgo100/Speedy deletions
595:User:Champion/Deletion is cheap
580:User:Buddy431/AFD isn't cleanup
940:User:Jnc/Astronomer vs Amateur
840:User:The Cunctator/Deletionism
775:User:Ritchie333/The Dumpy test
650:User:Graymornings/Have a heart
630:User:Fl/Reports/RevisionDelete
570:User:Balloonman/CSD G10 survey
1:
1235:User:Seraphimblade/sandbox2/3
1170:User:Esquivalience/Notability
1150:User:Joe Decker/IsThisNotable
765:User:RileyBugz/G11 and drafts
760:User:Randy Kryn/Rule of thumb
640:User:Ginkgo100/AFD philosophy
565:User:Balloonman/CSD G1 survey
560:User:Balloonman/CSD A7 survey
555:User:Balloonman/CSD A1 survey
985:Knowledge (XXG):Unblockables
790:User:Sebwite/Mock Afd Series
475:User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP
1155:User:Trackinfo/sandbox/NHSL
965:User:Robert McClenon/Crisis
730:User:Mr.Z-man/on fixing CSD
1345:
1185:User:Uncle G/On notability
970:User:RGloucester/Sanctions
620:User:Elaragirl/Deletionism
1300:
1268:
1257:
1085:User:Bahamut0013/deletion
1020:
1014:User essays on notability
1007:
975:User:Skomorokh/First rule
910:
897:
705:User:Livitup/Deletion FAQ
590:User:Spartaz/Closing AFDs
530:
517:
460:
447:
1283:Letters from the editors
990:User:AGK/AE improvements
805:User:Shereth/Deletionism
655:User:Hellboy2hell/Delete
258:The brilliant new format
44:This page in a nutshell:
524:User essays on deletion
500:User:SirFozzie/BLP-Lock
18:User:Just Step Sideways
370:
332:
275:
222:
210:Unformatted discussion
163:
65:
368:
330:
273:
220:
161:
63:
545:User:Angela/Deletion
171:The "holiday season"
98:Is your idea stupid?
1225:User:Moray An Par/b
234:Position statements
54:request for comment
454:User essays on BLP
392:Piece I wrote for
371:
333:
276:
223:
164:
66:
1311:
1310:
1296:
1295:
1253:
1252:
1003:
1002:
893:
892:
513:
512:
246:The questionnaire
50:
49:
22:(Redirected from
1336:
1259:
1009:
899:
715:User:MBisanz/AfD
519:
449:
442:
430:
423:
416:
407:
323:please everyone.
141:Planning the RFC
40:
39:
33:
27:
1344:
1343:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1307:
1292:
1264:
1263:Humorous essays
1249:
1215:User:Fleets/RLN
1016:
999:
906:
889:
526:
509:
456:
443:
434:
388:
363:
361:Did it succeed?
354:
302:
293:
268:
203:
156:
143:
120:
91:
80:
71:
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1342:
1340:
1332:
1331:
1326:
1316:
1315:
1309:
1308:
1301:
1298:
1297:
1294:
1293:
1291:
1290:
1285:
1280:
1278:Avoid headings
1275:
1269:
1266:
1265:
1262:
1255:
1254:
1251:
1250:
1248:
1247:
1242:
1237:
1232:
1227:
1222:
1217:
1212:
1207:
1202:
1197:
1192:
1187:
1182:
1177:
1172:
1167:
1162:
1157:
1152:
1147:
1142:
1137:
1132:
1127:
1122:
1117:
1112:
1107:
1102:
1097:
1092:
1087:
1082:
1077:
1072:
1067:
1062:
1057:
1052:
1047:
1042:
1037:
1032:
1027:
1021:
1018:
1017:
1012:
1005:
1004:
1001:
1000:
998:
997:
992:
987:
982:
977:
972:
967:
962:
957:
952:
947:
942:
937:
932:
927:
922:
917:
911:
908:
907:
902:
895:
894:
891:
890:
888:
887:
882:
877:
872:
867:
862:
857:
852:
847:
842:
837:
832:
827:
822:
817:
812:
807:
802:
797:
792:
787:
782:
777:
772:
767:
762:
757:
752:
747:
742:
737:
732:
727:
722:
717:
712:
707:
702:
697:
692:
687:
682:
677:
672:
667:
662:
657:
652:
647:
642:
637:
632:
627:
622:
617:
612:
607:
602:
597:
592:
587:
582:
577:
572:
567:
562:
557:
552:
547:
542:
537:
531:
528:
527:
522:
515:
514:
511:
510:
508:
507:
502:
497:
492:
487:
482:
477:
472:
467:
461:
458:
457:
452:
445:
444:
435:
433:
432:
425:
418:
410:
404:
403:
398:
387:
384:
362:
359:
353:
350:
349:
348:
345:
341:
338:
325:
324:
310:
301:
300:During the RFC
298:
292:
289:
267:
266:Administration
264:
263:
262:
255:
243:
231:
215:
214:
202:
199:
191:
190:
184:
178:
155:
152:
142:
139:
119:
116:
115:
114:
111:
107:
99:
96:
70:
67:
48:
47:
41:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1341:
1330:
1327:
1325:
1322:
1321:
1319:
1305:
1299:
1289:
1286:
1284:
1281:
1279:
1276:
1274:
1271:
1270:
1267:
1260:
1256:
1246:
1243:
1241:
1238:
1236:
1233:
1231:
1228:
1226:
1223:
1221:
1218:
1216:
1213:
1211:
1208:
1206:
1203:
1201:
1198:
1196:
1193:
1191:
1188:
1186:
1183:
1181:
1178:
1176:
1173:
1171:
1168:
1166:
1163:
1161:
1158:
1156:
1153:
1151:
1148:
1146:
1143:
1141:
1138:
1136:
1133:
1131:
1128:
1126:
1123:
1121:
1118:
1116:
1113:
1111:
1108:
1106:
1103:
1101:
1098:
1096:
1093:
1091:
1088:
1086:
1083:
1081:
1078:
1076:
1073:
1071:
1068:
1066:
1063:
1061:
1058:
1056:
1053:
1051:
1048:
1046:
1043:
1041:
1038:
1036:
1033:
1031:
1028:
1026:
1023:
1022:
1019:
1015:
1010:
1006:
996:
993:
991:
988:
986:
983:
981:
978:
976:
973:
971:
968:
966:
963:
961:
958:
956:
953:
951:
948:
946:
943:
941:
938:
936:
933:
931:
928:
926:
923:
921:
918:
916:
913:
912:
909:
905:
900:
896:
886:
883:
881:
878:
876:
873:
871:
868:
866:
863:
861:
858:
856:
853:
851:
848:
846:
843:
841:
838:
836:
833:
831:
828:
826:
823:
821:
818:
816:
813:
811:
808:
806:
803:
801:
798:
796:
793:
791:
788:
786:
783:
781:
778:
776:
773:
771:
768:
766:
763:
761:
758:
756:
753:
751:
748:
746:
743:
741:
738:
736:
733:
731:
728:
726:
723:
721:
718:
716:
713:
711:
708:
706:
703:
701:
698:
696:
693:
691:
688:
686:
683:
681:
678:
676:
673:
671:
668:
666:
663:
661:
658:
656:
653:
651:
648:
646:
643:
641:
638:
636:
633:
631:
628:
626:
623:
621:
618:
616:
613:
611:
608:
606:
603:
601:
598:
596:
593:
591:
588:
586:
583:
581:
578:
576:
573:
571:
568:
566:
563:
561:
558:
556:
553:
551:
548:
546:
543:
541:
538:
536:
533:
532:
529:
525:
520:
516:
506:
503:
501:
498:
496:
493:
491:
488:
486:
483:
481:
478:
476:
473:
471:
468:
466:
465:User:DGG/bios
463:
462:
459:
455:
450:
446:
438:
431:
426:
424:
419:
417:
412:
411:
408:
402:
399:
397:
395:
390:
389:
385:
383:
380:
375:
367:
360:
358:
352:After the RFC
351:
346:
342:
339:
335:
334:
329:
321:
316:
311:
307:
306:
305:
299:
297:
290:
288:
284:
282:
272:
265:
259:
256:
252:
247:
244:
240:
235:
232:
228:
225:
224:
219:
211:
208:
207:
206:
200:
198:
196:
188:
187:Under a cloud
185:
182:
179:
176:
172:
169:
168:
167:
160:
153:
151:
147:
140:
138:
134:
131:
129:
124:
118:Your proposal
117:
112:
108:
105:
100:
97:
94:
93:
92:
89:
86:
84:
78:
75:
69:Prerequisites
68:
62:
58:
55:
45:
42:
35:
34:
25:
19:
394:The Signpost
393:
378:
376:
372:
355:
344:will change.
319:
314:
303:
294:
285:
277:
257:
250:
245:
238:
233:
226:
209:
204:
194:
192:
186:
180:
174:
170:
165:
148:
144:
135:
132:
127:
125:
121:
103:
90:
87:
79:
76:
72:
51:
43:
1324:User essays
1304:User essays
437:User essays
291:Last chance
287:look good.
181:Overlapping
1318:Categories
1302:Note: The
227:Straw poll
239:seventeen
128:painfully
386:See also
309:matter.
261:making.
110:States?
83:macaque
439:
201:format
175:always
154:timing
315:large
281:WP:AN
16:<
379:your
320:want
251:ever
195:work
441:(?)
104:you
1320::
429:e
422:t
415:v
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
