User talk:BDD/Archive 24 - Knowledge (XXG)

1530:. I'm certainly fine with the outcome, as it was my original proposal, but I do find it odd that you determined no consensus but nevertheless went ahead and retargeted anyway, and worry others may as well, or even consider it out of bounds. I agree with you that it was not the forum for reassessing consensus on whether ranked-choice voting is a synonym for instant-runoff voting, I meant to present a simple question: should this redirect target where the hyphenated version does? I only brought it to RfD because there was past debate about its target (though I suppose that reopened the content discussion). I understand why the other redirects were added to the discussion, but that really changed or at least broadened the question of the RfD, from keep/retarget to where to target. I think there really was a rough consensus to retarget, even though some of the !votes and comments were a little confusing, leaving the larger question for another time and place, as you argue. The real problem is 3174: 917: 536: 3261: 4773: 31: 2500:

that you have reasons that may well involve events that ArbCom is required to keep out of public view. If the latter is the case, please just say so. I am not asking for a peek behind the curtain and I recognize there are good reasons for lack of transparency. If this is the case, I think the discussion I posted may be slightly misleading and would like to at least acknowledge that. Thank you and best wishes for the New Year.

2793:. This is a long ways off from needing arbitration—but that's not a bad thing! I think it's reasonable to say there's consensus on the talk page for such a change, but it's not beyond question, and I'm sure Czello is acting in good faith. The most comprehensive talk page discussion dragged out over a few years, and subsequent attempts at change have been unfocused, and sidetracked by attempts to label the party far right. A 4726: 4376: 4077: 3692: 3506: 3414: 3122: 2907: 2697: 406: 614: 4522: 4462: 4199: 1054: 1583: 3853: 2371: 1301: 123: 3473: 1168: 1158: 4131: 2365: 964: 2377: 1479:"The size of the empire on this list is defined as the area of dry land it controlled at the time, which may differ considerably from the area claimed. For example: in the year 1800, European powers collectively claimed about 20% of the Earth's land surface that they did not effectively control. Where estimates vary, inputs are ranked by the lowest estimate." 3463: 4686: 2964: 4428: 3383: 3348: 2863:, multiple errors make for a strong deletion argument, while single errors such as this one (transposing two adjacent letters) comes down to individual judgment. Everyone in the discussion made valid arguments, so there's no way I'd rule a "delete' on a redirect with simply a 2-2 split (if I found it worthy of deletion, I'd vote myself rather than 316: 2624: 475: 4640:

concern left, except perhaps that I would like an admin to watch the talk pages of the accounts that are going to be active (as the unblocking admin would normally do). Sorry for all the questions; it's neither your nor my fault that the process here is a bit untransparent, it just means that I have to ask if I want to know. Thanks,

4664:

I typed that previous response out on mobile, so I hope it didn't seem too curt. Just know that what you're asking for is a normal part of the unblock process. We decline many more appeals than we accept, and even an unblock is neither a repudiation of the blocking admin nor a blessing of the blocked

3070:

Report abuse of power. Dear BDD, I suspect and administrator is committing abuse of power, I need to know how to report this. She is deleting pages that don't meet speedy deletion criteria and giving the users that ask to get the info they got deleted in order to fix it in a very rude manner, in some

1561:

can sometimes really make a difference, but I don't think that that's the case here; regardless of your position on how to treat the term, there's no logical case for treating its capitalization and punctuation variants differently. I think you would've been fine to BOLDly retarget the one, but can't

836:

looked quite nice, though. This resembles a dilemma in the library world, specifically how to catalog and where to place a work. The article layout as it stands now is better for the reader who wants to learn about multiple Rameau operas; leading with the infobox is better for the reader specifically

4665:

user's conduct. And while a decline is final in that there's really no other place for a blocked user to turn, an appeal is not a "get out of jail free" card that immunizes the user against further sanctions. In fact, one user we unblocked earlier this year was blocked by the community not long after

4313:

Notably, this case does not involve BLP concerns whatsoever. It is also not about a list that risks becoming a memorial. However, as I said in the discussion, I'm not opposed to deletion as a second choice. If there's consensus not to mention him, fine, but let's not have the left hand and the right

1483:

but I read very good articles on wikipedia, but this list clearly needs a good correction, or a good justification, because it denies all the facts of the story, which diminishes the credibility of those who will read it, and then there is another one thing, they use the same source for all empires,

2499:

BDD, I'd like to ask you what disruption you think will be allowed if the DS for AP2 covers 1980-present versus 1988-present. I would like to hear your reasoning, considering that there have been no editors sanctioned in the last four years for violations of the DS in the years 1980-1988. I'm sure

4639:

A regular unblock request only succeeds if the blocked party recognizes that they did something wrong, why it was wrong, and that there's a need to avoid said wrong in the future. I just wondered whether this had happened here with regard to the cite-spamming. I trust now that it did, so I have no

4309:

approach. The fact is we have a redirect that says to readers, "Knowledge (XXG) has content about this person." Do we? Yes, but if he isn't mentioned, we're really putting the onus on the reader to decipher that. Was he the pilot? The survivor? A medical examiner? The status quo just suggests some

1673:

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails as part of the induction process. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty

1476:

I spoke on the talk page and I was completely ignored, but the numbers are not in accordance with what is studied in college, I think that instead of looking for secondary sources of politicians, it should focus, what the documents say, written by people from the time of each empire, and of course

1019:

and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion

869:

Aha, I missed the navbox at the bottom. Having both that and the top-right navbox didn't make much sense, so I think Primefac was right to remove the latter. I think readers expect navboxes at the bottom, but I wish we had some reliable data on how they use navigational templates. I know infoboxes

764:

was the edit in question, I understand a bit more. It sounds like you are approaching this fine—there was the issue of the potentially misleading edit summary, which I'm sure was not done in bad faith, and you're adding infoboxes or not with sensitivity towards other editors. We can't ask for much

160:

opens for nominations on 1 December. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or

3564:

of the feedback we've received and also a preview of some of what we expect to happen next. We hope that the second phase, a presentation of draft recommendations, will proceed on time in June or early July. You will be notified when this phase begins, unless you choose to to opt-out of future

2561:

Hey there, I found you on the list of admins willing to provide copies of deleted articles. I am currently writing bios of notable economists and am planning to do Oliver M. W. Sprague next, but noticed that the article about him has been deleted a couple of years ago according to

2263:

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to retain the CheckUser and Oversight permissions, remain active on cases accepted before their term ended, and to remain subscribed to the functionaries' and arbitration clerks' mailing lists following their term on the committee. To that effect:

1336:. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them 3916: 1398:

As of 09:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 663 requests (18 from 2019) since 1 January and there were 52 requests awaiting completion on the Requests page. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 494 (see monthly progress graph above).

3946: 199: 3976: 4546:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

4486:

1366: 145: 3846: 1382: 1294: 116: 3905: 3669:

and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a

2518:

At this point, I'm not considering anything non-public. I may well endorse a 1988 cutoff, but share the concerns of others that excluding Reagan might be going too far. I do appreciate the work you put into your analysis. Let's see how things play out.

3939: 3766:, you should use the AfC submission process on this draft. There is a blue button that says "Submit the draft for review!" towards the top that you can click. At a glance, it seems fine, but note that Knowledge (XXG) is not an acceptable source—see 1542:. In retrospect, perhaps I should have BOLDly retargeted then started a discussion about the larger issue (which I intend to bring up shortly), but with this redirect's particular history I erred on the side of RfD. Thanks for your efforts. Cheers, 3561: 1214: 1204: 189: 3969: 2276:

Outgoing arbitrators are eligible to remain active on cases opened before their term ended if they wish. Whether or not outgoing arbitrators will remain active on any ongoing case(s) will be noted on the proposed decision talk page of affected

4587:? I spent about three full days going through these accounts' edits to decide which edits needed to be reverted and which ones were actually constructive, and even went through a spat and misunderstanding about this with another editor where 2755:

on the basis there is 'no consensus'. The edit in question is changing the description of party's position on the political spectrum from 'centre-right' to 'centre-right to right-wing' to include the broad range of factions in the party.

2317:*Congratulations; I' m glad you will be there to replace me (and that goes for the other new people also). We may overlap on one case. and if there's one think I like, it's giving advice. . Especially when I'm safely out of the war zone. 4620:

Hi, yes, we did look into the particulars of the case. Of course, we can’t give any guarantees that there won’t be future problems, in this case or in any. If there are, the usual procedures can be followed. Thank you for your vigilance.

3931: 4595:). In short, since these accounts were very disruptive and created a lot of work for those cleaning up behind them, I would like to know whether there's any guarantee that they will not return to their old cite-spamming ways? Regards, 2409: 665:

I haven't voted yet, and things may still change. As said, for me no candidate is "impossible" this time - which is a first. You probably know that I feel the case - "my" first and last - suffered from too wide a scope. I didn't know

1379:: this ran from 18 to 24 October, and focused on articles tagged for copy-edit in July and August 2020, and all Requests. Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors copy-edited at least one article. 21 articles were claimed for the blitz. 211: 4172:

and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself.

3961: 1506:, which could be very valuable, but Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to engage in it. However, if you've been taught something different in college, the sources your instructors use could be valuable in improving our article. -- 183: 4305:. I already modified my RfD comment based on your previous links. (The ANI discussions, IMO, are about 90% editor behavior, 10% about this issue at best.) It's all well and good to have our discussions, but I do insist on a 1312: 3860: 2676:

I did delete it in 2016, yes. You should be able to see a link to the deletion discussion in the deletion summary. Since that was a while ago, I wouldn’t necessarily object to a new article or redirect at that title.

2585:. Yes, I'm willing to do so. Would you like it restored to mainspace, draft space, or a user subpage? It's not obviously unsuited for mainspace, but you may want to check external links and otherwise tidy up first. -- 1097: 4550:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

4490:

3924: 1353: 210:: From 16 to 22 August, we copy edited articles tagged in June and July 2020 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 37 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available 134: 741:

Thank you for looking. No, recent editing. I didn't add an infobox because that's a featured article, and I wasn't sure about the author's stance. Did you check out #Donizetti on my talk? You could also look at

1374: 3885: 3875: 1387:: Of the 18 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and together claimed 134 articles. At the close of the drive, 67 fewer articles were in the backlog and we had dealt with 39 requests. 1337: 1327: 223: 205: 162: 157: 3954: 3594:

and wondered if maybe the other direction is a more neutral term? I agree that it would be good to be consistent in our terminology, but celebrity just feels slightly more breathless to me? Got there from

667: 3892: 173: 4338:'s talk page too. The types of additions have varied but the outcomes haven't varied. They are either don't list or no consensus. In the case of the latter, that has meant the previous consensus stand. 2416:

page. I know I said that "pansexual, non-binary, and asexual characters are not on that page." However, looking back, I realized that statement was incorrect, because I was actually thinking about the

3050:

I think this would be very unlikely to succeed, given that the full committee just reviewed a case with further claims against Paradise Chronicle. I don't think we would amend the case in this way. --

1081:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 3671: 567: 558: 1487: 2533:

Thank you for your reply. I personally haven't seen much Reagan-era disruption, which was part of the reason I started looking into the logs. I will wait on the rest of the committee's input.

4039: 3881: 1477:

there is a variety of old maps and land names, which say the conquests more accurately, what do you think of that? if it is not based on land conquest, what is it? The list starts off badly:

1443: 347: 282: 2825: 2405: 1308: 1067: 130: 1663: 1562:

fault your decision to defer to a discussion. It looks like participants didn't really get into the issue of the variants per se, instead commenting on the underlying content question. --

1527: 4436: 324: 4215: 3391: 1371:: 67 fewer articles had copy-edit templates by this month's close. Of the 27 editors who signed up, 15 copy-edited at least one article, and 124 articles were claimed for the drive. 793:

Yes, probably we'll always have to live with such disagreements, and can only hope that they'll be cordial and that everyone can accept that their view won't always carry the day. --

1332:

opened for nominations on 1 December and will close on 15 December at 23:59 (UTC). Voting opens at 00:01 the following day and will continue until 31 December at 23:59, just before

557:, for resurrecting articles and nurturing some in infancy, for guilded copy-editing and dealing with redirects for discussion, for willingness to arbitrate, - librarian, you are an 3356: 454: 3320: 779:

Thank you ;) - The question, though, was about infobox "squabbles" not being recent, and now we had this recent Rita (and others). It looks better now than yesterday, though. --

350:. I think it would be silly to prolong the discussion. Others have lost interest because the needed clarification was achieved. Please close and allow us to "turn the page"! -- 2844:

voter said. This is a case where discretion based on common sense is expected and I think that this redirect should be deleted now. When possible, please review it. Thanks,

2310: 4314:

hand working at cross purposes. I'm perfectly willing to see the redirect deleted. I hope you will consider the reader's perspective and be open to having him mentioned. --

3196:

Hi BDD. Would you mind taking a look at this Teahouse question? I boldly moved the page since it seemed like it would be a non-contentious move based upon what you did for

651:

I very much appreciate the kind words. I'd like to think I'd be your #8 :), but have faith in your judgment and that of all voters in this election. Best of luck to all. --

3566: 1677:

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.

4150: 4146: 2362:

Congratulations, BDD - we're looking forward to great things from you and our other new arbs!! Try not to feel pressured despite having WP's world on your shoulders.

3995:

since 1 January. The backlog has fluctuated but remained in control, with a low of 52 tagged articles at the end of January and a high of 620 articles in mid-June.

1659: 4668:

I'll keep an eye out, and I'm sorry for the trouble the initial conduct caused you. While ArbCom is not perfect, rest assured that we don't unblock capriciously. --

2425: 2421: 2413: 1655: 2804:. Arbitration is a last-resort measure, and successful requests for arbitration need to demonstrate other attempts at resolving the dispute. I hope this helps. -- 1539: 1502:

I checked your comment on the article talk page too, but I'm not sure exactly what information in the article you think is wrong. It sounds like you're proposing

4060: 2960:

page is generated by a script from time to time, so this will be overwritten at the next time it's run unless we actually change the link in the decision itself

1273: 1408:

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Seasonal tidings and cheers from your GOCE coordinators:

4533: 4473: 2763:, there are more contributors favouring such a change. Additionally, from looking at similar pages which have been the subject of similar disputes, such as 4335: 4285: 2341: 2135: 997: 3560:. We are truly appreciative of the range of feedback we received and the high quality discussion which occurred during the process. We have now posted a 2417: 240:

As of 01:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 532 requests since 1 January and there were 38 requests awaiting completion on the

4244:

The consensus is we don't name the dead or survivors of aviation disasters unless they have a WP article. Here are just some of the many discussions-

228:

Jonesey95 was chosen to continue as lead coordinator, assisted by Baffle gab1978, Tdslk, Twofingered Typist, and first-time coordinator Puddleglum2.0.

4733: 3020: 1531: 4351:

Fair enough. While I still think such consensus sometimes needs to yield to other concerns, you've convinced me that we're best off with deletion. --

4120: 2957: 1001: 993: 953: 413: 3743: 3021:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan/Proposed_decision#Why_no_sanction_against_Paradise_Chronicle

2914: 1887: 1632: 3618:, I don't love "celebrity" either. I prefer we be consistent, but in hindsight, I wish I had pushed to change to "personality" back then. Moving 1000:

how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the

3640:, and obviously personality won't work there. Maybe Celebrity really is what we're looking for. Every synonym besides personality is worse. :D 3591: 1743: 4328:

There have been other discussions too, I just don't recall them. We've had whole lists, partial lists, one survivor, one dead local politician

4220: 4154: 2268:

Stewards are requested to remove the permission(s) noted from the following outgoing arbitrators after 31 December 2020 at their own request:

4157:, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under 2031: 4420: 3375: 3340: 3129: 308: 4056: 3596: 2183: 2129: 1654:

Before you can be subscribed to any mailing lists or assigned CheckUser or Oversight permissions, you must sign the Wikimedia Foundation's

1458: 1119: 328: 297: 3998:

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators

3360: 841:. Both have some appeal, but the latter seems self-evidently the better approach, given than the article is about the specific opera. -- 247:

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators

4543: 2884:

I understand, and think "supervoting" (when done properly) is sometimes necessary and useful. I likely won't relist it, thanks anyway,

2566:, "Creations by banned or blocked users". Would you mind providing me of a copy of the article to (hopefully) save me some work? Best, 178:: An uncorrected typo (even copy editors make copy editing mistakes!) led to an eight-day "leap blitz" from 14 to 21 June, focusing on 4142: 3304: 2662: 1983: 1839: 1491: 182:

and articles tagged in May. 19 participating editors claimed 54 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available

4483: 4334:. In those two ANIs, the complaintant had next to no support for adding that one person. Which reminds me, we have that plane crash- 1024:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the 4560: 4500: 2231: 1935: 542: 4287:. Most of those discussions took place in the last two years. There is one exception- the cockpit crew of the aircraft(s) involved. 4268: 2870:

That said, if you'd like to start a new RfD for this redirect individually, you may proceed, and I won't consider it disruptive. --

2801: 2794: 1670:

agreements listed in the instructions. If you have signed but your username is not listed on the noticeboard, please let me know.

150:: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today! 4579:. These accounts were blocked for suspected sockpuppetry, but I wonder: did the Arbcom appeal also take into account the serious 2087: 1881: 1791: 3909:: 28 editors completed 324 copy edits totalling 714,902 words. At the end of the drive, the backlog had reached a record low of 4703: 4654: 4609: 4332: 4269:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aviation/Aviation_accident_task_force#Here_we_go_again-_Munich_air_disaster

4052: 3744:

https://bn.m.wikipedia.org/%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%81%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BF%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AE%E0%A6%B2_%E0%A6%AC%E0%A6%B8%E0%A7%81

3040: 3026:

I believe that all of this combined with the ISIS accusations should have given Paradise Chronicle a minimum 1 year topic ban.

2542: 2509: 1737: 1454: 1115: 293: 3622:

is probably the first step. I agree that "Internet personality" is a bit squishy too, but I can't think of anything better. --

1090: 973: 381:

Thanks. I just commented there too, asking a question of you, and also a question of the editor who opposed such a hatnote. --

2025: 4584: 4282: 1503: 4169: 4138: 4124: 3859:

Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, our first newsletter of 2021, which is a brief update of Guild activities since

3086: 2177: 605: 3200:

back in 2013. If, however, the move was improper in anyway, then let me know and I'll try to cleanup any mess I made. --

2840:. This is a clearly redundant redirect, and when typing "Shiva" the misspelled option doesn't even show up, as the other 2063:

All incoming arbitrators have elected to receive (or retain, where applicable) the CheckUser and Oversight permissions.

1021: 2764: 2760: 2604: 2153: 1628:

and welcome to the 2021 Arbitration Committee. This is the first part of your induction onto the Arbitration Committee.

4537: 4477: 3098: 3802: 1977: 1833: 1102: 4210: 980: 1205:

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Candidates/BDD/Questions#Questions_from_David_Tornheim

4780: 3036: 2989: 2779: 2225: 2141: 1929: 626: 38: 4329: 4306: 1658:

and the OTRS users confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information (L45), and your name must be listed on the

3674:

with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.

3399: 2081: 1785: 4591:

edits were being blindly reverted because I was reinstating edits made by socks (see the explanation at my talk

4209:

has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the

1558: 198:

drives. Of the 38 people who signed up, 30 copyedited at least one article. Final results and awards are listed

4831: 4826: 4814: 4809: 4801: 2123: 1905: 1535: 1405:

this roundup of the year's activity at the Guild is planned for publication in late January or early February.

1259: 1226: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 1078: 332: 4274: 3770:. Rather than cite the Bengali Knowledge (XXG) article, I suggest using the same references here. Note that 3666: 3364: 2950: 2748: 2390: 1761: 546: 3300: 3074: 2658: 1005: 916: 3798: 3308: 3280: 3071:

cases borderline offensive to people that just want their original text to review it and fix it. Thanks

2666: 2448: 2433: 2368:

You'll have plenty of support, praise and more than your share of criticism. What more could an arb want?

2049: 1893: 860: 816: 784: 751: 710: 692: 675: 642: 634: 579: 496: 3557: 2864: 2771:

has previously engaged in an edit wars over this, so I thought it best to seek arbitration immediately.

1647: 1643: 855:

Thank you, and it it doesn't take any opera knowledge ;) - look again, and perhaps also at the bottom. --

4228: 4213:

guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at

4205: 4190: 3752: 2790: 2775: 2201: 1749: 4580: 4383: 2374:

And Happy Holidays to you! Drink plenty of eggnog with lots of rum...or better yet, forget the eggnog!

1662:. If you haven't signed the agreements, please do this promptly. Instructions for signing can be found 1349: 194:: Over 750,000 words of articles were copy edited for this event, keeping pace with the previous three 4439:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

4250:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Northwest_Airlines_Flight_255#Should_Cecelia_Cichan_be_mentioned_by_name

3394:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

3359:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

1484:

which is even more serious, can you help or improve the list so that it becomes more reliable? Thanks.

327:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.

4084: 3884:

normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Have your say and show support

3395: 2555: 2037: 1875: 1035: 825:

Why thank you! I hope you won't regret it when I say I have very little opera knowledge, though as a

1719: 1625: 1178: 1061: 244:. The backlog of articles tagged for copy-editing stood at 433 (see monthly progress graph above). 4698: 4649: 4604: 4592: 4343: 4292: 3237: 3205: 3186: 2539: 2506: 2189: 2118: 2001: 1857: 1731: 1591: 1255: 1237: 1222: 388: 357: 4746: