User talk:Anne Delong/AfcBox

459:

place, I'm going to go ahead and make the assumption that they aren't going to be really knowledgeable on reliable sources. Knowledge editors are more than competent at using search engines, in general, and those who participate in the AfC projects certainly know policy. I understand that it can be time-consuming and frustrating to have AfCs listed that are non-notable, but at what expense do we limit public requests for articles? Let my opinion be taken with a grain of salt, though, and feel free to push me off my soapbox, as I do not help to create articles, I merely nominate them for deletion and revert vandalism. --

664:

article, basic formatting errors, and so-on. Then, the bot could either decline the article and offer helpful links for the editor to make adjustments to the article or make necessary changes to the article and change the status to "Articles waiting for review". Any articles that are not clean cut denials, the bot should do what it can and then change the status to "Articles waiting for review".

1039:

added through AfC. Schools have a similar status I think, except it needs to be proven that they exist. . I think that we should be exempting any of these three categories from having sources, by adding another question. If the user answers no to the reliable sources question, we ask if its about a school, town/village or newspaper, and direct them to the next step if they answer yes.

954:

Hmmm... if all of the submissions went through the filter page being suggested, then every one of them would be claiming to have references, so there may be not need for a category. In any case, this is something that would only work as an addition to the original proposal, so if this means you like the proposal please indicate so at the top of the page. Thanks! —

1345:

that those working AfC submissions to help more articles up to par and through the gate, that's a big win. I can imagine that all three of those will be factors. To my mind, a primary metric for "winning" is "more articles mainspaced, assuming equivalent quality." Figuring out that we want to track some information on this is an excellent suggestion, Anne. --

1295:

gadget that will do all of these things would be the better option and could even offer the editor an additional sidebar "AfC toolbar" offering them links to sources and ways to test their own project (such as doing a copyvio scan that tells them "The highlighted words/phrases are too close to the words on {these sources}, please try and reword them in

1430:. What is needed is pop-up box (or web page, whichever does the job must efficiently) which asks the submitter to make one of several choices, and then does the appropriate action as listed on the flow chart. We are trying to get the submitters to pay more attention to adding references, and to put them in before they submit. — 74:

graphics. As you can see, the proposed procedure would NOT check to see if there were references (pretty tricky to implement without error), but the editor would have to be totally confused or actively lie or to get the article submitted without any. Users who did this repeatedly could easily be picked out for special attention.

1206:

A: BO has made a couple of good points in his comment above. "Referencing for beginners" is not a policy page and should be useful to new users, so I'm fairly confident in this option, but perhaps in the case of Option C - "I've looked and I can't find any", sending users off to WP:Notability is not

1038:

As far as my understanding of notability goes for these topics, geographical features (like towns and cities) do not need any source to be added, as long as they are not hoaxes. Many articles already exist without any sources, as finding a reliable one can be difficult for most of those which will be

1000:

as long as they are consistent. My personal opinion, as someone who for long had the job of teaching students to use references in whatever arbitrary style a professor or a journal chose to require, is that we put much too great an emphasis of reference format, as distinct from reference quality. The

826:

There is no requirement that ref tags be used for referencing--it is just one of the many possible methods. It's the one most commonly used here, and the one we recommend, but if someone uses parenthetical references properly, there is no reason for them to be converted, and no reason for there to be

1371:

I think that the talk has died down on this proposal, and the votes are mostly positive. I have made some adjustments to satisfy some concerns, hopefully, and offered to keep an eye on the category added to the articles of those who don't choose to submit so that we can tell if it's working or just

1061:

Personally, I don't support the promotion of unsourced articles. I've seen hoax village articles. You're right, however, that high schools are generally considered to be notable by default, as well as populated places. I'm not sure I recall that newspapers do or don't, but I'll take your word on it.

663:

The alternative to this (which I think we should probably consider if it is feasible first), is to add a new section to the submission template of something like "Request for submission of article" of which a bot could go through and check for citations, possible links to the article, links from the

655:

JavaScript is the better alternative (and that is what I think the request for a new extension would turn into, "do it with JavaScript or a bot"). In order for anything to "popup" and require input from the user, some kind of scripting is required. This would mean that the user would have to import

637:

I don't know enough about how the original submission template is added. Does it require Javascript? A web page needs to be generated with six links, four of which include info as to what page the user was trying to submit, so that if they choose options A or F the user's article page is displayed

476:

Anything which helps new editors submit articles in a state in which they are more likely to be kept is a huge bonus for new editor engagement and retention. Anything which improves the AFC process and helps our AFC volunteers is to be embraced. I'm sure it won't be perfect on day 1, and I'm sure we

378:

Strongly discouraged, yes! There are enough exceptions that the author should be able to submit the article unreferenced, though strongly discouraged. A person could say, I'm putting in what I have in the hope others will add to it--which is why "unreferenced' is not cause for deletion. That's not

1411:

So what you need from me is: The bot should check if a newly submitted article contains a reference, and if not, it should do something? This is very simple task. Can you explain to me 1) when the bot should check it (I suppose for every new article?) 2) what action should it take in case there are

1020:

A: It's my understanding that although schools, newspapers, geographical features, etc., do not necessarily need references to pass the notability test (as pointed out above by BigPimpinBrah), they still need references to back up facts that are in the article and to show that they actually exist.

458:

with appreciation for the author and the concept, as I think that this will discourage people from not only making requests for non-notable articles, but from making requests for articles in general. I understand the need for reliable sources - I really do - but if a user is using AfC in the first

413:

Since this is an addition to the Afc submission process, it doesn't affect mainspace at all. The point of the proposal is to prevent all of the unreferenced articles in the Afc. If you think that it's okay for Afc articles to be submitted without references, you should vote against this proposal,

1449:

there is approval for this in general. There is not agreement on the specifics. I see some degree of consensus for something like "this is theb est I can do, or all that is appropriate." . Better have in in afc than added in desperation to mainspace becauser they can;t figureo ut the right answer.

1149:

they do need some sort of source to show existence, but it just has to be reliable enough for the purpose. It does not have to be independent if it is in some manner official or otherwise assumed to be genuine. . But in fact for such basic things as geography we normally simply add a source; which

872:

I do think this would happen. I think you could probably add a sentence or so to the script that would help. " Have you included citations to independent, reliable sources in your article? (Generally books, newspaper or magazine articles from reputable publishers, rather than social media pages

799:

It would be nice if this could be done, but I have been reviewing a lot of submissions which appear NOT to have to references but really do, such as those were the ref tags are left out or messed up, those where the user forgot the http://, and those with only offline resources who listed them but

340:

I like the idea but I don't think it is realistic. Newbies who are not adding sources have one of several issues and this check is not addressing these. I think that this point has been missed by a number of voices here. I believe that ony 2% have simply forgotten about putting in citations but in

1344:

I think it would also be useful to track total accepted submissions per time period. If this discourages (I doubt it will) "Fred is my best friend in second grade" biographies, that's not a problem. If discourages articles with serious potential that's a real problem. If it saves enough effort

73:

This is a proposal to insert a new section (either a web page or a pop-up box) into the Afc submission procedure to encourage new Afc acticle submitters to add reliable sources. It would reduce the number of articles that would be rejected immediately for being unsourced. I apologize for the poor

1294:

No, it would not be difficult to transclude such a category in the last stage of template before submission, although I still think trying to do it with templates and forced page reloads is ugly, messy, and not user friendly which will deter people from using the AfC. I still think a JavaScript

968:

A: One more thing - although in my proposal I said "citations to reliable sources", if the submitters had just added some references at the bottom of the page and hadn't yet learned to insert them as citations, I think it would still be an improvement and we wouldn't chide the submitters for not

936:

Q: So, what if we put all of the ones that claim to have references into a category, and/or have a kind of "intermediate" template, that reviewers can go through real quick and say "yes has references" or "no does not, warn user about lying", without checking credibility, or reviewing the actual

554:

Yes, some will; it won't always work, but rather than just ignoring something, the user would have to actively LIE to submit a sourceless article. It would help separate those who are just inexperienced (we can teach them) from those who are intentionally noncompliant (administrators could take

1278:

A: BO is right that there should be a process in place to tell if the process is working as intended. Would it be difficult to add a line of code that would add a Category:Potential Afc submissions not submitted, and add that to the user's article if they got that far and chose not to submit?

953:

A: This might be a good idea, although I think right now there is a bot that removes categories in Afc articles, so that might be a complication. I am beginning to wish I hadn't used the word "lie"; perhaps we could suggest that they misunderstood and direct them to Referencing for Beginners.

300:

Fundamentally our biggest problem with article creation, here and elsewhere, is that we don't actually give editors the information they need to write an article that will survive before they write it. This is the very first attempt I've seen to correct that. Well done!

1121:

Ahh, indeed. Another example of a case where we generally don't force an independent source--generally we'll take a university biography of a prof holding a named chair as meeting WP:ACADEMIC #5 (assuming the institution looks correct for the critieria, etc.)

341:

most cases the newbies simply lack the skills required to provide (inline) citations. Sending them to a policy pages is not going to fix this either - I am actually worried that this will just backfire and reduce new article creation success rates.

1279:

Interested reviewers could browse the category and see if there are potentially acceptable articles being missed; I would be willing to do this for a few weeks and make a report, unless you think it would be better for someone else to do it. —

827:

any warning. There are also informal ways of expressing references, as in . John smith, according to his obituary om p.100 of the February 30, 2000 New York Times, was .... -- which not only is an adequate reference but proves notability.

1150:

can be as little as a link to the community's web page. That would not be independent and reliable enough to meet the GNG, but it is when only existence must be proven. Don't confuse the technical requirements of the GNG with Notability.

1315:

Whether the tech people end up implementing this with page loads or with one kind of software or another, I still think that the category would be useful as a means of checking to see what effect it is having on the submitters.

1207:

the proper response. There are two very different reasons why users can't find sources when they have looked for them (1) there aren't any and (b) the user doesn't know where to look. What if this were split into two choices :

233:

but include an exception under option c for articles that don't necessarily require independent sources, i.e. schools, long-standing newspapers (seems to be the consensus anyway), and probably a few others I haven't thought of

908:

Indeed. But I'm not sure I'd take a twitter account as a source for the claim of a Richard Feynman Professor of Physics, or what have you. A university bio? No question, I pointed out PROF C5 somewhere below myself.

1378:

I wonder if one of you might take it on. Peterb wrote a couple of weeks ago that he might help once we sorted it out. mabdul has shown some interest and made suggestions. Technical 13 suggested Writ Keeper.

988:

Agreed, except it is not a matter of teaching them to do better, it is not necessary to teach them at all if they express the references in any format whatever as long as they can be identified.

894:

As pointed out below, independent sources are not strictly necessary for some categories of articles, such as those covered by WP:PROF or elsewhere where the alternatives to the GNG apply.

814:

Perhaps it could be checked for ref tags and if not present, send a warning to the user that refs are not apparent or are incorrectly configured, which would also be useful feedback. • • •

344:

So if this extra step is added I suggest to set it up as A/B engagement test first and get a measurement on the results. If testing proves this as an efficient measure I will support it.

1397:

Hi, thank you for your work on this. I will now read the whole discussion and once it is clear to me what exactly the bot is supposed to do, we can go on with brfa and implement this.

477:

will improve the process quickly in use. None of that will happen if we don't take the first step. Thanks for the well targetted idea, and the thought that has obviously gone into it.

855:

For sure, some will (okay, many...). But those who do are one step ahead of the ones who don't know what a reference is (or submit their mothers as references). One step at a time!

1062:

I also don't think that "go find a source" is an unreasonable request, if the author can't find a source for their material, I have to ask, what did they write the article from? --

652:

It could be done server-side, however, that would require writing a PHP extension and getting Knowledge to adopt it, which due to the specific nature of it I doubt would happen.

1001:

advice I and others give to beginners is to put in references however you please, as long as you put them in. reference format is one of the unnecessary hurdles to editing.

1251:(with an optional link to go there anyways if they want). FYI, yes, there is a merge discussion going on and there is overwhelming support for this merge at this time. 1135:

Even if notability is assumed, as in the case of professors, I believe that a reliable source is still needed to prove that the subject is legitimate, and not a hoax. —

785:

I'm suggesting it probably should do that. It would likely be less complex than you think and any errors would default to the article being submitted for human review.

858:

Per the above comments of mine, these could be detected, the article declined if it relies solely on these references, and a helpful link to what reliable sources are.

602:

actually reading all the statements. It might not help all the users, but it will give the users an idea of what's absolutely essential for our articles - references

162:- This will bring about a streamlining of the AfC process, and remove a lot of bad AfCs we see today. Will also relieve the help desk from quite a few questions. 638:

again with no submission template added, and for options D or E the link would be to the submission process that now exists. Couldn't that be done server side? —

678:

Would there be any need for a "pop up"? Couldn't the submit button lead to a link to a regular web page with links, and the user clicks on one of the links? —

564: 867: 660:

at very least UNLESS we wrote it as a gadget and got Knowledge to implement it as a default. Then it would be "turned" on by default for everyone.

710:

non-user-friendly and would deter people from using AfC. Also, using templates and page reloads would leave you unable to know the answer to "

1299:. Thank you"). I think something like that would actually encourage people to use the service just for the extra tools at their disposal. 1382:

I myself have never done anything like this, and although I can program in C++ and Java, I don't think these skills will help me here. —

1237:

What if they select *"I've looked for sources, but I am a new editor and would like suggestions as to where to find them." we offer them

1089:

sources, since the question in the box is "Wait! Have you included citations to independent, reliable sources in your article?". --

577:- please try to assume good faith. AfC is here to serve newbies not to make liars out of them or to ban them for noncompliance. :( 944: 1021:

Perhaps someone who knows could comment on this. The proposal already exempts disambiguation pages, categories, and lists. —

59:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

497:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

285: 144: 598:

I agree that the wording was not the best chosen, but what she meant was that We would know when a user clicks on yes

1044: 607: 464: 433: 402: 167: 148: 105: 79: 1426:

Thanks for responding, Peterb, but no, that is not what is wanted here. Please look at the proposal itself, at

1469:

Hi Anne, I think the ideas here would be a useful contribution to the discussion about Draft-space procedures.

43: 877:

for more detail.)" This might be too much, but I think we can hint to well-meaning editors what we actually

397:

How about adding unreferences articles is allowed only when an article goes into AfC, and not the main space?

1427: 1215:"I've looked for sources, but I am a new editor and would like suggestions as to where to find them." -: --> 1094: 239: 123: 66: 706:

While it technically "could" be done with templates and multiple page reloads, I feel that method would be

1375:

Technical 13 offered to do some scripting on this, but on reflection remembered that it is his exam week!

1335: 1304: 1256: 863: 790: 719: 669: 657: 202: 1435: 1387: 1321: 1284: 1241: 1221: 1140: 1090: 1026: 974: 959: 937:

article? That would make it easier to find these liars before having to do a full review of an article.

818: 805: 779: 774:

My proposal does not suggest that. It would be very complex - and error prone, too. Maybe someday... —

732: 683: 643: 582: 560: 523: 419: 362: 349: 235: 183: 91: 17: 1211:"There aren't independent sources. I'm promoting a subject that is new and/or as yet unknown." -: --> 800:

didn't create citations. I believe that your idea, while a good one, would be trickier to implement. —

1455: 1349: 1170: 1155: 1126: 1066: 1040: 1006: 913: 899: 885: 603: 460: 446:

I do not think it is a good idea, but I think it remains permissible. We should add with a warning. ~

429: 398: 384: 305: 163: 101: 75: 1030: 39: 84:

I have added another choice (D) because some were worried that new editors would give up too soon.

1474: 256: 119: 1234:

The first should discourage a lot of the spammy things and fringe guys, and maybe that's okay.

1331: 1300: 1252: 859: 786: 764: 715: 665: 627: 277: 197: 140: 1431: 1383: 1317: 1280: 1217: 1136: 1022: 970: 955: 815: 801: 775: 760: 728: 697: 679: 639: 578: 556: 544: 519: 509: 484: 415: 358: 345: 323: 180: 87: 35: 1451: 1417: 1402: 1346: 1167: 1151: 1123: 1063: 1002: 910: 895: 882: 845: 380: 302: 938: 538: 1470: 1248: 874: 252: 218: 1478: 1459: 1439: 1421: 1406: 1391: 1351: 1339: 1325: 1308: 1288: 1260: 1225: 1172: 1159: 1144: 1128: 1098: 1068: 1048: 1010: 978: 963: 948: 915: 903: 887: 821: 809: 794: 736: 701: 687: 673: 647: 611: 585: 527: 513: 487: 468: 437: 423: 406: 388: 366: 352: 330: 307: 292: 269: 260: 243: 225: 209: 186: 171: 154: 133: 127: 109: 95: 47: 1271:

Q. How can we tell if this is discouraging editors from creating articles at all?

693: 479: 316: 839: 539:

Q: Won't users just ignore it as they have done to suggestions in the template?

1413: 1398: 1212:

WP:Notability or something less daunting if someone knows of such a page, and

755:

Q: Will a bot check the article for references to see if there really are any?

132:

Support, provided a better way of achieving the same goal isn't done first.

1216:

Tea House or New Contributor's Help Page (I hear they may be combined). —

840:

Q: Won't users just add unreliable sources such as Facebook and Twitter?

70:. Please indicate your supporting/opposing views and/or concerns below- 1199:

Q. What if new users are confused and discouraged by reading policies?

38:, this RfC is closed with near unanimous support for the proposal. - 379:

a good way to work, but we've gotten many good articles that way

712:

Did the user perform some other action such as leaving the page?

1330:

As do I. This can be done as easily either way in my opinion.

428:

Ah. I confused AfC and article creation wizard. Carry on.

217:

if it is technically non-taxing to the system. Good job!

357:(I added two new questions below to expand on this.) — 998:

we do not change references from one form to another

100:

Adding an RfC tag to generate wider community views.

507:

I added the fact that there are also templates. ;-)

1465:

Resuscitate this for the new Draft-space processes?

1016:

Q. Are there some articles that don't need sources?

873:like Twitter or other self-published sources, see 1247:or something similar before sending them to the 315:I've said it elsewhere, but what the heck... 8: 251:with inclusion of good suggestions below. 881:by reliable sources to good effect. -- 692:@Anne Delong – My thoughts exactly. – 414:since that's what is happening now. — 7: 1368:Dear Pterb, mabdul and Writ Keeper: 55:The following discussion is closed. 27:Voting for approval of this proposal 1085:Please note I did specifically say 24: 996:There's even a MOS policy, that 932:Q: Can we do it with categories? 722:) sometime, 27 April 2013 (UTC) 502:General discussion and questions 493:The discussion above is closed. 1372:scaring off potential editors. 324: 317: 286: 278: 270: 203: 198: 1: 1479:09:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC) 1015: 622:Q: Will Javascript be needed? 518:Thanks, mabdul, good catch. — 82:) 21:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 1275:(as suggested above by BO) 1203:(as suggested above by BO) 875:identifying reliable sources 298:Jumping up and down support 1494: 1340:21:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 1326:21:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 1309:15:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 1289:14:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 1261:15:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 1226:14:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 1099:15:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 1069:15:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 1049:04:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 1031:03:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 979:03:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 969:knowing the difference. — 964:00:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 949:01:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC) 888:15:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 868:15:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC) 822:07:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 810:19:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC) 795:15:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC) 737:01:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 702:23:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC) 688:19:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC) 674:15:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC) 648:14:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC) 612:13:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 586:12:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 565:14:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC) 528:14:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC) 514:07:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC) 376:Support with modifications 367:14:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 353:12:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC) 331:15:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 308:15:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 293:13:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 261:07:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 244:02:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC) 226:19:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 210:12:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 187:07:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 172:01:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 155:00:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 128:13:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC) 110:01:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC) 65:The proposal is posted at 495:Please do not modify it. 488:12:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC) 469:13:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC) 57:Please do not modify it. 48:15:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC) 1460:21:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 1440:09:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 1428:User:Anne Delong/AfcBox 1422:07:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 1407:07:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 1392:00:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 1352:02:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC) 1173:02:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC) 1160:21:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 1145:02:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 1129:01:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC) 1011:21:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 916:02:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC) 904:21:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) 438:23:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 424:23:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 407:21:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 389:20:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC) 96:00:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC) 67:User:Anne Delong/AfcBox 658:Special:MyPage/skin.js 215:Support Implementation 18:User talk:Anne Delong 656:the script to their 268:Looks good to me! - 179:per Davidwr. • • • 543:(as suggested by 58: 816:Peter (Southwood) 512: 224: 181:Peter (Southwood) 153: 152: 56: 34:Per a request at 1485: 1471:Roger (Dodger67) 1246: 1240: 941: 508: 486: 482: 328: 321: 290: 282: 274: 253:Roger (Dodger67) 223: 221: 207: 205: 200: 138: 137: 1493: 1492: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1467: 1412:no references. 1366: 1273: 1244: 1238: 1201: 1041:TheOriginalSoni 1018: 947: 939: 934: 842: 757: 624: 604:TheOriginalSoni 541: 504: 499: 498: 480: 478: 461:Jackson Peebles 430:TheOriginalSoni 399:TheOriginalSoni 219: 196: 164:TheOriginalSoni 102:TheOriginalSoni 76:TheOriginalSoni 61: 52: 51: 50: 29: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1491: 1489: 1466: 1463: 1452:'DGG (at NYPL) 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1365: 1364:Implementation 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1328: 1297:your own words 1272: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1229: 1228: 1213: 1200: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1152:'DGG (at NYPL) 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1017: 1014: 1003:'DGG (at NYPL) 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 943: 933: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 896:'DGG (at NYPL) 841: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 828: 756: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 727:Good point. — 661: 653: 623: 620: 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 614: 591: 590: 589: 588: 568: 567: 540: 537: 535: 533: 532: 531: 530: 503: 500: 492: 491: 490: 471: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 447: 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 392: 391: 381:'DGG (at NYPL) 372: 371: 370: 369: 342: 334: 333: 310: 295: 263: 246: 228: 212: 189: 174: 157: 130: 62: 53: 40:Nathan Johnson 33: 32: 31: 30: 28: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1490: 1481: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1464: 1462: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1419: 1415: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1380: 1376: 1373: 1369: 1363: 1353: 1350: 1348: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1286: 1282: 1276: 1270: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1243: 1236: 1235: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1214: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1204: 1198: 1174: 1171: 1169: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1157: 1153: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1127: 1125: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1091:BigPimpinBrah 1088: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1070: 1067: 1065: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1050: 1046: 1042: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1033: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1013: 1012: 1008: 1004: 999: 987: 986: 985: 984: 983: 982: 981: 980: 976: 972: 966: 965: 961: 957: 951: 950: 946: 942: 931: 917: 914: 912: 907: 906: 905: 901: 897: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 886: 884: 880: 876: 871: 870: 869: 865: 861: 857: 856: 854: 853: 852: 849: 847: 825: 824: 823: 819: 817: 813: 812: 811: 807: 803: 798: 797: 796: 792: 788: 784: 783: 781: 777: 773: 772: 771: 768: 766: 762: 754: 738: 734: 730: 726: 725: 724: 723: 721: 717: 713: 709: 705: 704: 703: 699: 695: 691: 690: 689: 685: 681: 677: 676: 675: 671: 667: 662: 659: 654: 651: 650: 649: 645: 641: 636: 635: 634: 631: 629: 621: 613: 609: 605: 601: 597: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 587: 584: 580: 576: 572: 571: 570: 569: 566: 562: 558: 553: 552: 551: 548: 546: 536: 529: 525: 521: 517: 516: 515: 511: 506: 505: 501: 496: 489: 485: 483: 475: 472: 470: 466: 462: 457: 454: 453: 445: 439: 435: 431: 427: 426: 425: 421: 417: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 404: 400: 396: 395: 394: 393: 390: 386: 382: 377: 374: 373: 368: 364: 360: 356: 355: 354: 351: 347: 343: 339: 336: 335: 332: 329: 327: 322: 320: 314: 311: 309: 306: 304: 299: 296: 294: 291: 289: 283: 281: 275: 273: 267: 264: 262: 258: 254: 250: 247: 245: 241: 237: 236:BigPimpinBrah 232: 229: 227: 222: 216: 213: 211: 208: 206: 201: 194:Looks good.. 193: 190: 188: 184: 182: 178: 175: 173: 169: 165: 161: 158: 156: 150: 146: 142: 135: 131: 129: 125: 121: 120:FoCuSandLeArN 117: 114: 113: 112: 111: 107: 103: 98: 97: 93: 89: 85: 81: 77: 71: 69: 68: 60: 49: 45: 41: 37: 26: 19: 1468: 1448: 1381: 1377: 1374: 1370: 1367: 1332:Technical 13 1301:Technical 13 1296: 1277: 1274: 1253:Technical 13 1242:Find sources 1205: 1202: 1086: 1019: 997: 995: 967: 952: 935: 878: 860:Technical 13 850: 843: 787:Technical 13 769: 765:Technical 13 758: 716:Technical 13 711: 707: 666:Technical 13 632: 628:Technical 13 625: 599: 575:actively LIE 574: 549: 542: 534: 494: 473: 455: 375: 337: 325: 318: 312: 297: 287: 279: 271: 265: 248: 230: 214: 195: 191: 176: 159: 115: 99: 83: 72: 64: 63: 54: 1432:Anne Delong 1384:Anne Delong 1318:Anne Delong 1281:Anne Delong 1218:Anne Delong 1137:Anne Delong 1087:independent 1023:Anne Delong 971:Anne Delong 956:Anne Delong 802:Anne Delong 776:Anne Delong 729:Anne Delong 680:Anne Delong 640:Anne Delong 557:Anne Delong 545:Someguy1221 520:Anne Delong 416:Anne Delong 359:Anne Delong 88:Anne Delong 1347:j⚛e decker 1168:j⚛e decker 1166:Ayup. -- 1124:j⚛e decker 1064:j⚛e decker 911:j⚛e decker 883:j⚛e decker 846:Ritchie333 844:(asked by 759:(asked by 626:(asked by 326:talk to me 303:j⚛e decker 940:gwickwire 555:action).— 199:TheStrike 160:Certainly 36:WP:AN/RFC 1249:Teahouse 573:Comment 220:GenQuest 145:contribs 945:editing 600:without 474:Support 338:Comment 313:Support 272:Fumitol 266:Support 249:Support 231:Support 192:Support 177:Support 134:davidwr 116:Support 761:mabdul 708:really 694:Ypnypn 510:mabdul 481:Begoon 456:Oppose 319:Pol430 149:e-mail 1414:Petrb 1399:Petrb 204:Σagle 16:< 1475:talk 1456:talk 1436:talk 1418:talk 1403:talk 1388:talk 1336:talk 1322:talk 1305:talk 1285:talk 1257:talk 1222:talk 1156:talk 1141:talk 1095:talk 1045:talk 1027:talk 1007:talk 975:talk 960:talk 900:talk 879:mean 864:talk 806:talk 791:talk 780:talk 763:and 733:talk 720:talk 698:talk 684:talk 670:talk 644:talk 633:A: 608:talk 583:Talk 561:talk 524:talk 465:talk 434:talk 420:talk 403:talk 385:talk 363:talk 350:Talk 288:cont 280:talk 257:talk 240:talk 168:talk 141:talk 124:talk 106:talk 92:talk 80:talk 44:talk 851:A: 770:A: 550:A: 147:)/( 143:)/( 1477:) 1458:) 1438:) 1420:) 1405:) 1390:) 1338:) 1324:) 1307:) 1287:) 1259:) 1245:}} 1239:{{ 1224:) 1158:) 1143:) 1122:-- 1097:) 1047:) 1029:) 1009:) 977:) 962:) 909:-- 902:) 866:) 848:) 820:: 808:) 793:) 782:) 767:) 735:) 714:" 700:) 686:) 672:) 646:) 630:) 610:) 581:| 579:BO 563:) 547:) 526:) 467:) 436:) 422:) 405:) 387:) 365:) 348:| 346:BO 301:-- 259:) 242:) 234:-- 185:: 170:) 126:) 118:: 108:) 94:) 46:) 1473:( 1454:( 1434:( 1416:( 1401:( 1386:( 1334:( 1320:( 1316:— 1303:( 1283:( 1255:( 1220:( 1154:( 1139:( 1093:( 1043:( 1025:( 1005:( 973:( 958:( 898:( 862:( 804:( 789:( 778:( 731:( 718:( 696:( 682:( 668:( 642:( 606:( 559:( 522:( 463:( 432:( 418:( 401:( 383:( 361:( 284:| 276:| 255:( 238:( 166:( 151:) 139:( 136:/ 122:( 104:( 90:( 86:— 78:( 42:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index