851:, I am unsure about how to read the paragraph on "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". It seems to say more than just admonishing editors to look for themselves before rejecting (which given the number of AiC is, in practice, unrealistic anyway). I wonder if it is meant to encapsulate the kind of judgement we are talking about earlier – for instance that an OSA publication is probably reliable in stating the society's own officers, and that more reliable proof of that (presumably in some filing) is sure to exist.
425:
evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.
625:. I don't understand why the Optical Society bio was not considered 'independent of the subject'. Just because she was past president? Surely not! I suppose if the president was a dictator and took over the web pages to make a false claim that she was president? Hold on a moment, that does not make sense! And is it really true, as seems to be suggested, that 'official biographies' are not RS? Where do the rules say that? (update: I see this has already been brought up in the section above) --
449:
media report on such membership surely would rely on the society's own statement, seeing that it would be impossible to verify membership, or office-holders, independently of the society itself. Similarly, I do not think it would make sense to, say, not take the Nobel
Foundation's official statement of who received a particular Nobel Prize as unreliable. Clearly this is an issue that needs to be discussed, and that goes much further than this single judgement call.
448:
I've wondered about both of these things as well. I fully understand why we do not accept self-reporting on issues that might even be slightly subjective. But a major, and established, society, reporting on who is or isn't a member, or a fellow, or an officer, is surely a reliable statement? Even a
385:
As a previous
Knowledge contributor, I understand the reason. We are only online collaborators and we make edits and actions based on available information. At that time, nobody knows she will become an award winner. Knowledge doesn't create news. It's the media and science society's fault that let
542:
Hi Brian, we did meet at Lindau, and directly afterwards under less pleasant circumstances here on
Knowledge when you protested (successfully) the inclusion in your WP lemma of an image of you I had taken at Lindau. Regarding your question: The notability criteria are part of Knowledge's official
868:
Brian: I think the question is a bit different. This is not about whether or not your edits to your own bio were appropriate, but whether your bio in its original state had enough external, reliable sources to verify its information. Knowledge, by official policy, does not rely on experts. So in
326:
in your essay, and wish I'd read it earlier. It would probably be worthwhile adding it to the article talk page page header in a nice box, don't know how to code that so if any stalkers agree please add it! The list to the header needs updated, so I'm aiming to do that but the formatting looks a
1340:
Couple of thoughts – "Watchful
Wikipedian" doesn't seem to know how to check who's an admin, and Dawn Bazely says she's "seen lots of similar pages that were approved for MALE academic biologists whom I know WITHOUT such supporting references that are not flagged." Are there really that many
829:
Bradv: Not redundant, in the sense that not every OSA fellow is also an OSA president, of course. But in a similar situation when it comes to sources, in that the main source for that is the OSA website. I agree with Brian
Josephson though in that it doesn't make much sense to exclude the web
424:
The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors
408:
I'm honestly confused by the notion that an organization's own statement of its membership is not a reliable source, regardless of external verification. Indeed, what would that "independent" verifier rely on other than the organization's claim? IOW, an organization is and must be the
1017:
Update: I have now a written a proposal for updating the
Knowledge notability guideline for academics to state that institutions (such as the OSA) should be considered reliable sources for prizes, fellowships etc. they award, as well as for information about who their officers are:
496:
Hi Bradv, not sure how overwhelmed you are with this matter, but I was wondering why your essay only mentions criterion 3, not criterion 6 ("The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society.") for
1375:
Sorry, my mistake. Bradv has been active on
Knowledge for 10 years, 8 months and 21 days, and has made 21,338 edits. He has extended confirmed user, page mover, new page reviewer, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker, and autoconfirmed user rights. He is not an administrator.
982:
Herewith adjusted, see above. Perhaps you will now similarly withdraw your assertion that 'that judgement says more about me than it does about them', which I'm sure is equally against WP policy (and I see that the editor concerned has accepted that judgement, FWIW)?
869:
principle, even if you write about your own life, you should give an independent reliable source (such as a newpaper article). The reason Bradv rejected the original Donna
Strickland draft was based on this very criterion: it did not cite reliable souces.
508:
question. I do see the points you make in your essay, and consider some of the media coverage unfair and even hypocritical, the latter where it comes from the same journalists that did not cover
Strickland themselves in the past years.)
1215:
You have to take the perspective that she is talking about w'pedia in general terms, just using the current fuss as a pretext for doing this. If you don't wish to look at it from that perspective, that's fine, that's your
1152:
A very perceptive article, e.g. "What hinders students far more than the technical side is
Knowledge’s editing culture. Many of their contributions got reversed almost immediately, in what is known as a “drive-by deletion"
662:
requires that information such as this be verified by an independent source, and being on the board and a past president is about as far from independent as possible, isn't it? I will note also that our article on
386:
scientist not being known for such a long time. Knowledge just reflect what it is but cannot change it. If the society had pay enough attention to those female scientist, Knowledge will definitely have their pages.
432:
The ins and outs of Knowledge's editorial decisions and policies can be confusing to outsiders, but it's not hard to see why people would be skeptical of claims that this case was not at least partially sexist.
86:
Thanks. Feel free to fix any further embarrassing typos yourself if you're so inclined. In my defense, I got second-degree burns to my left hand the day this news broke, and have had some difficulty typing.
565:
I discreetly refrained from referring to that sequel! My question was not about the notability criteria, but about what essay you were referring to when you said 'the points you made in your essay'. --
899:
Actually, that other issue (appropriateness of my edits to my own bio page) was raised as well, to the extent that someone flagged the bio page with a very visible insert at the top. Fortunately an
1279:, so maybe a fair point that we hold WP to higher standards than common journalistic practice. The same journalists who failed to publish any articles about Donna Strickland before this month. . .
1234:
is (poorly informed) criticism of Knowledge, she should have checked the facts first. The subject's not Donna Strickland, her article's just what we call a "coatrack" to hang criticisms on. . .
220:, I really wonder if any of these media outlets that are now criticizing Knowledge ever bothered to write a news article about Strickland themselves. It's easy to criticize from the bleachers.
761:, I was not aware of that, thank you. We have come a long way since 2003, but we clearly have more work to do if people are still attempting to use Knowledge as a means of self promotion.
199:
made zero effort to create or promote a BLP for Donna Strickland, and even Strickland's fellow physicist, the indefatigable Dr Wade, failed to include her among Wade's 270 pages. Rather,
925:
for pointing it out here. I am doubly humbled by the professor's condescension. Now I shall slink off and nurse my damaged ego beneath a homespun dunce cap. I have been put in my place.
524:
Hi Markus, I think we met at Lindau once, did we not? You refer to an essay mentioning various criteria, but I haven't been able to locate it. Can you or anyone else provide a link? --
1185:
Is it possible, I wonder, that your critical comment might have been motivated by your not liking her comments on w'pedia's "editing culture", with which I am all too familiar myself?--
667:
has been tagged with notices of conflict of interest and sourcing issues for about 18 months, meaning that there is precedent for the opinion that the OSA website is not an appropriate
389:
Here is no point to blame Knowledge or an editor. It is nothing about gender bias. People should understand how Knowledge works. We cannot predict future and we cannot create coverage.
290:
As time progresses, the reporting seems to be getting more accurate, and more focused on broader problems with gender bias in physics, in academia, and in the media in general.
1101:
1255:
A pejorative term for the boring, preppy mainstream girls who come to hardcore shows and basically just hold their boyfriend's jackets while they're in the pit
203:
blames Knowledge's "continuing bias against women in science." Yep, as usual, it's all down to our malignant misogyny and culture of male privilege. Right.
183:
boosts Knowledge's "Women in Red" project and reports, "Some editors are writing one to three Knowledge entries for women in science every day." For proof,
744:, and it wasn't he who did so. I'm not sure Professor Josephson ought to be considered an authority on Knowledge bios being "independent of the subject."
1076:
116:
1128:
1019:
1202:, anyone who just spouts their opinion without even trying to learn anything about what really happened doens't deserve to be listened to.
800:
729:
1390:
I've checked your point as per WP:indentation (see history for detail), but nevertheless a little politeness would not be a bad thing.--
1137:
1431:
Continuing your abusive words, I see. But I think it's high time this thread was concluded and we got on with more important things.--
1171:
that she wrote her widely circulated WaPo op-ed "without having seen" the Knowledge draft in question. Oh, the hubris of academicians!
1080:
830:
publications of established institutions, or societies, when it comes to simple statements of fact concerning those same institutions.
1052:
501:. By that, I think that her year as president of the OSA should have qualified Strickland as notable, even without the fellowship.
504:(Disclosure/background: I'm in the process of writing an article about the Strickland issue, but with a focus on the more general
351:
which annoyingly still doesn't seem to have corrected its article. Anyway, thanks for all the work and hope it works out well, .
621:
I've now studied that essay, and the real issue would seem to be the meaning attached to the term 'independent source', as in
1354:
Presumably there are. I'd be surprised if she would have said that if she had not encountered examples of such personally.--
110:"These discussions happened on my talk page, the talk page of the new article, and various other talk pages related to AfC."
623:
I took a look at the sources to see if they supported the claims, and if they were reliable and independent of the subject
1259:
A term used to describe a woman with a loose nature, someone who has seem many men's coats hung outside/inside their door
278:
1110:
1061:
972:
903:
editor saw what had happened and reverted it. If you look at the history of my bio page you can see what happened. --
767:
708:
677:
296:
266:
226:
168:
139:
93:
191:
about physicist Jess Wade who "writes 270 Knowledge pages in a year to get female scientists noticed." No mention by
1027:
874:
658:
I am not aware of any consensus that a certain level of reliability of a source negates the need for independence.
604:
552:
547:. (Those are the notability criteria for biographies of academics; there are other criteria for other categories.)
514:
505:
454:
438:
1436:
1395:
1359:
1299:
1266:
1221:
1190:
1158:
988:
944:
908:
808:
790:
630:
586:
570:
529:
370:
1247:
Your 'coatracks' are pretty regular practice in journalism, so your criticism about this is a bit over the top.
478:
246:
160:
1129:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/08/why-nobel-winner-donna-strickland-didnt-have-wikipedia-page/
1141:
702:
You're correct, criteria #6 would also apply, but in this case isn't it completely redundant to criteria #3?
365:
It's not clear me what your complaint is, but if you have one send it to guardian.readers@theguardian.com. --
962:"? Making judgements of that nature about other editors says more about you than it does about them, and is
599:
Thank you for your discretion, then! And yes, we are on the talk page of the essay in question, as you say.
107:
I'm sorry to hear about your hand. Best wishes for a speedy recovery. It's not an embarrassing typo, but→
310:
283:
472:
464:
434:
394:
335:
239:
Have any of the media outlets covering this incident reached out to you for comment? Seems odd that the
1023:
870:
697:
600:
548:
510:
450:
398:
243:
mentions you by name, and other outlets mention you indirectly, but I haven't seen recent statements.
1432:
1420:
1406:
1391:
1381:
1355:
1346:
1331:
1295:
1284:
1262:
1239:
1217:
1199:
1186:
1176:
1154:
1133:
984:
955:
940:
930:
922:
904:
804:
786:
782:
749:
721:
653:
626:
582:
566:
525:
366:
356:
208:
124:
76:
58:
40:
1020:
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#Proposal_for_addition_to_specific_WP:PROF_notability_criteria
664:
257:
1276:
1323:
1250:
1231:
1088:
1048:
918:
468:
1424:
1399:
1385:
1363:
1349:
1335:
1319:
1303:
1287:
1270:
1242:
1225:
1210:
1194:
1180:
1168:
1162:
1145:
1115:
1092:
1066:
1031:
992:
977:
948:
934:
912:
878:
812:
794:
772:
753:
713:
682:
634:
608:
590:
574:
556:
533:
518:
483:
458:
442:
374:
359:
301:
271:
251:
231:
212:
173:
144:
128:
98:
80:
62:
44:
1416:
1377:
1370:
1342:
1327:
1280:
1235:
1172:
1105:
1056:
967:
926:
762:
758:
745:
725:
703:
672:
352:
291:
261:
221:
217:
204:
163:
134:
120:
88:
72:
54:
36:
17:
544:
498:
1075:, that's a redlink to me. I'd be interested in reading it. You might be interested in
803:, from which they will then see that criticism of my edits is entirely out of place.--
1205:
963:
848:
778:
659:
417:
390:
740:. His page stood for nearly four years before anyone bothered to decorate it with a
311:"Why didn't Knowledge have an article on Donna Strickland, winner of a Nobel Prize?"
279:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/science/donna-strickland-nobel-prize-physics.html
1097:
1084:
741:
668:
347:
341:
196:
1326:'s draft submission. Something she conveniently failed to note in her WaPo op-ed.
413:
authoritative source of its own membership. This might need explicit recognition.
939:
Sorry to hear about your situation — you were after all trying to do your best.--
543:
policy; you can find them by following the wikilink I provided, namely this one:
307:
Hi Bradv, sorry to hear about your hand and hope it's healing well. Didn't spot
1072:
1051:
has written a very thoughtful and well-written article about this incident at
119:, which is easily overlooked among "various other talk pages related to AfC."
1100:, yes, that was moved when the Signpost was published. The article is now at
1415:
Professor, I am losing patience with your foolishness. Please knock it off.
161:
https://observer.com/2018/10/wikipedia-nobel-prize-physics-donna-strickland/
581:
I've found it myself now, it is the user page connected with this one. --
115:
I recommend specifically linking to the lengthy and lively discussion at
1341:
articles on male biologists waved through AfC without references? . . .
917:
Sadly, it is true. I recognized instantly when he reverted my edit that
284:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/nobel-prizes-women-gender-1.4847608
785:, who considers that I have been editing my wiki page responsibly.--
781:
and on my credentials as wiki editor, since his CoI notice has been
1411:
Politeness? Oh, right. Like recently on this very talk page when
1294:
In some respects higher, in others definitely not so high.--
333:
confused me for a minute, you were probably well aware it's
1261:. What interesting things one learns from the internet! --
1257:, but that doesn't sound right either, and neither does
1412:
921:
is more intelligent than I. But thanks to the esteemed
777:
I suggest KalHolmann not be considered an authority on
737:
733:
260:, no, I have not been contacted by any media outlets.
463:I've mentioned this elsewhere in a discussion with
1249:I can't locate your definition of the term. The
422:
404:Organizations on their own members - Suggestion
736:yet did not acquire its first inline citation
1102:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/2018-10-28/Op-ed
1053:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Next issue/Op-ed
381:We cannot know something that hasn't happened
8:
966:. I would ask you to retract your comment.
429:Which would seem to pertain in this case.
1131:
799:And I do recommend that people follow the
720:For context, it may be worth noting that
1322:that Bradv made "the right response" to
1077:User:Andrewa/if the rocket's gonna crash
71:sources are not required for WP:PROF."
1230:Exactly! Like all these articles, the
959:
467:, but the relevant policy for this is
7:
1081:User:Andrewa/what use is Knowledge
24:
801:link that KalHolmann recommends
492:Academic notability Criterion 6
187:links to a July 2018 story at
1:
1413:you impugned my intelligence.
1124:You made the Washington Post!
327:hassle so may take some time.
1425:20:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
1400:20:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
1386:19:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
1364:19:16, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
1350:19:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
1336:18:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
1304:19:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
1288:19:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
1271:19:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
1243:18:50, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
1226:18:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
1211:18:13, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
1195:17:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
1181:17:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
1163:17:04, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
1146:16:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
1116:16:53, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
1093:16:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
345:which shares the website of
309:Ed Erhart (4 October 2018).
1253:defines it in these terms:
1067:00:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
1032:12:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
993:16:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
978:16:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
949:16:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
935:16:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
913:16:03, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
879:11:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
813:10:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
795:09:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
773:23:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
754:23:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
714:22:45, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
683:22:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
635:19:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
609:19:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
591:19:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
575:18:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
557:18:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
534:17:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
519:14:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
484:19:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
459:14:36, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
443:04:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
399:22:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
375:20:47, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
360:20:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
302:17:11, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
272:16:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
252:05:56, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
232:20:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
213:20:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
174:19:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
145:18:29, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
129:18:24, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
99:18:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
81:18:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
63:18:04, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
45:18:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
1462:
53:that The Optical Society"
1169:admits via Twitter today
671:for OSA-related topics.
471:, and there's the essay
380:
117:WikiProject Women in Red
49:"claiming I should have
783:reverted by editor Roxy
33:considered considerable
1318:In a follow-up tweet,
427:
336:The New York Observer
1320:Dawn Bazely concedes
738:until September 2007
315:Wikimedia Foundation
665:The Optical Society
155:More media coverage
27:Proofreader remarks
730:he actively edits,
329:On a minor point,
1148:
1136:comment added by
35:media attention"
1453:
1410:
1374:
1275:Was thinking of
1251:urban dictionary
1209:
1113:
1108:
1064:
1059:
1044:Signpost article
975:
970:
960:more intelligent
901:more intelligent
770:
765:
734:in December 2003
711:
706:
701:
680:
675:
657:
506:expert retention
465:Eponymous-Archon
435:Eponymous-Archon
325:
323:
321:
299:
294:
269:
264:
229:
224:
195:, however, that
171:
166:
142:
137:
96:
91:
31:"This draft has
1461:
1460:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1433:Brian Josephson
1407:Brian Josephson
1404:
1392:Brian Josephson
1368:
1356:Brian Josephson
1296:Brian Josephson
1263:Brian Josephson
1218:Brian Josephson
1203:
1200:Brian Josephson
1187:Brian Josephson
1155:Brian Josephson
1126:
1111:
1106:
1062:
1057:
1046:
985:Brian Josephson
973:
968:
956:Brian Josephson
941:Brian Josephson
923:Brian Josephson
905:Brian Josephson
805:Brian Josephson
787:Brian Josephson
768:
763:
722:Brian Josephson
709:
704:
695:
678:
673:
654:Brian Josephson
651:
627:Brian Josephson
583:Brian Josephson
567:Brian Josephson
526:Brian Josephson
494:
481:
406:
383:
367:Brian Josephson
319:
317:
308:
297:
292:
267:
262:
249:
227:
222:
169:
164:
157:
140:
135:
94:
89:
29:
22:
21:
20:
18:User talk:Bradv
12:
11:
5:
1459:
1457:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1366:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1248:
1125:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1045:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
964:against policy
953:
952:
951:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
797:
717:
716:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
614:
613:
612:
611:
594:
593:
578:
577:
562:
561:
560:
559:
537:
536:
493:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
482:
477:
473:WP:INDEPENDENT
405:
402:
382:
379:
378:
377:
328:
305:
304:
287:
286:
281:
275:
274:
258:FallingGravity
250:
245:
237:
236:
235:
234:
177:
176:
156:
153:
152:
151:
150:
149:
148:
147:
113:
112:
111:
102:
101:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1458:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1408:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1372:
1367:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1348:
1344:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1207:
1201:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1138:174.88.42.233
1135:
1130:
1123:
1117:
1114:
1109:
1103:
1099:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1065:
1060:
1054:
1050:
1043:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1024:Markus Pössel
1021:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
994:
990:
986:
981:
980:
979:
976:
971:
965:
961:
957:
954:
950:
946:
942:
938:
937:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
915:
914:
910:
906:
902:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
880:
876:
872:
871:Markus Pössel
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
850:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
814:
810:
806:
802:
798:
796:
792:
788:
784:
780:
776:
775:
774:
771:
766:
760:
757:
756:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
718:
715:
712:
707:
699:
698:Markus Pössel
694:
693:
684:
681:
676:
670:
666:
661:
655:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
619:
618:
617:
616:
615:
610:
606:
602:
601:Markus Pössel
598:
597:
596:
595:
592:
588:
584:
580:
579:
576:
572:
568:
564:
563:
558:
554:
550:
549:Markus Pössel
546:
541:
540:
539:
538:
535:
531:
527:
523:
522:
521:
520:
516:
512:
511:Markus Pössel
507:
502:
500:
491:
485:
480:
476:
474:
470:
466:
462:
461:
460:
456:
452:
451:Markus Pössel
447:
446:
445:
444:
440:
436:
430:
426:
421:
419:
414:
412:
403:
401:
400:
396:
392:
387:
376:
372:
368:
364:
363:
362:
361:
358:
354:
350:
349:
344:
343:
338:
337:
332:
316:
312:
303:
300:
295:
289:
288:
285:
282:
280:
277:
276:
273:
270:
265:
259:
256:
255:
254:
253:
248:
244:
242:
233:
230:
225:
219:
216:
215:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
179:
178:
175:
172:
167:
162:
159:
158:
154:
146:
143:
138:
132:
131:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
109:
108:
106:
105:
104:
103:
100:
97:
92:
85:
84:
83:
82:
78:
74:
70:
65:
64:
60:
56:
52:
47:
46:
42:
38:
34:
26:
19:
1258:
1254:
1216:privilege.--
1167:Dawn Bazely
1132:— Preceding
1127:
1049:GreenMeansGo
1047:
919:Roxy the dog
900:
732:was created
622:
503:
495:
431:
428:
423:
415:
410:
407:
388:
384:
348:The Guardian
346:
342:The Observer
340:
334:
330:
318:. Retrieved
314:
306:
240:
238:
200:
197:Women in Red
192:
189:The Guardian
188:
184:
180:
69:independence
68:
66:
50:
48:
32:
30:
1277:WP:COATRACK
1417:KalHolmann
1378:KalHolmann
1371:Dave souza
1343:dave souza
1328:KalHolmann
1281:dave souza
1236:dave souza
1232:WP:SUBJECT
1173:KalHolmann
1104:. Cheers.
927:KalHolmann
759:KalHolmann
746:KalHolmann
469:WP:PRIMARY
353:dave souza
218:KalHolmann
205:KalHolmann
121:KalHolmann
73:KalHolmann
55:KalHolmann
37:KalHolmann
320:8 October
1324:Campbpt0
1206:zchrykng
1134:unsigned
728:, which
420:states:
391:Guoyunhe
339:and not
331:Observer
241:Observer
201:Observer
193:Observer
185:Observer
181:Observer
1098:Andrewa
1085:Andrewa
847:As for
726:own BLP
545:WP:PROF
499:WP:PROF
479:Gravity
247:Gravity
849:WP:NRV
779:WP:CoI
660:WP:NRV
418:WP:NRV
416:Also,
133:Done.
67:"that
1073:Bradv
742:WP:RS
16:<
1437:talk
1421:talk
1396:talk
1382:talk
1360:talk
1347:talk
1332:talk
1300:talk
1285:talk
1267:talk
1240:talk
1222:talk
1204:{{u|
1191:talk
1177:talk
1159:talk
1142:talk
1107:Brad
1089:talk
1079:and
1058:Brad
1028:talk
989:talk
969:Brad
945:talk
931:talk
909:talk
875:talk
809:talk
791:talk
764:Brad
750:talk
705:Brad
674:Brad
631:talk
605:talk
587:talk
571:talk
553:talk
530:talk
515:talk
455:talk
439:talk
411:only
395:talk
371:talk
357:talk
322:2018
293:Brad
263:Brad
223:Brad
209:talk
165:Brad
136:Brad
125:talk
90:Brad
77:talk
59:talk
51:know
41:talk
1208:}}
958:, "
724:'s
1423:)
1398:)
1384:)
1362:)
1345:,
1334:)
1302:)
1283:,
1269:)
1238:,
1224:)
1193:)
1179:)
1161:)
1153:--
1144:)
1091:)
1083:.
1055:.
1030:)
1022:.
991:)
983:--
947:)
933:)
911:)
877:)
811:)
793:)
752:)
669:RS
633:)
607:)
589:)
573:)
555:)
532:)
517:)
475:.
457:)
441:)
433:--
397:)
373:)
355:,
313:.
211:)
127:)
79:)
61:)
43:)
1439:)
1435:(
1419:(
1409::
1405:@
1394:(
1380:(
1373::
1369:@
1358:(
1330:(
1298:(
1265:(
1220:(
1189:(
1175:(
1157:(
1140:(
1112:v
1087:(
1063:v
1026:(
987:(
974:v
943:(
929:(
907:(
873:(
807:(
789:(
769:v
748:(
710:v
700::
696:@
679:v
656::
652:@
629:(
603:(
585:(
569:(
551:(
528:(
513:(
453:(
437:(
393:(
369:(
324:.
298:v
268:v
228:v
207:(
170:v
141:v
123:(
95:v
75:(
57:(
39:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.