348:
instance, the story about Dr. Levine's pressure to remove minimum age requirements for treatment has been reported by The
Economist, The New York Times, The Hill, and The Telegraph, all of which are recognized as reliable sources per WP:RSP. I have not included mentions from lesser-known outlets, focusing only on highly reputable ones. Moreover, this issue sparked public debate, as evidenced by op-eds in prominent outlets like The Washington Post, The NYT, and The Guardian. While op-eds aren’t considered reliable sources themselves, and while not RS, their presence indicates the topic has garnered significant attention. Furthermore, the U.S. administration responded to the NYT reports by denying its involvement, strongly suggesting it may have been Dr. Levine’s personal initiative. Adding to this, the U.S. Congress Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services has launched an investigation, seeking documents related to health officials' interactions with WPATH based on the NYT's reporting. All these factors point to a significant controversy covered by numerous reliable sources.
308:, which has more viewers. I do think Economist doesn't distinguish clearly between opinion and fact, but maybe there's a better way of saying so; "exclusively in editorial voice" seems a bit off to me. Incidentally, it's not true that the current description makes the Economist not suitable for use here, just that attribution is needed. It's a very reputable publication, and most topics that aren't bursting at the seams with reliable non-opinion sources should probably include any relevant Economist commentary.
196:
33:
1547:
289:(XXG) policies and general consensus. I would like to have some guidance on this, as it seems the longer this difference in opinion continues without admin guidance, the more agitated the disagreeing user(s) are becoming, and the goal here is progress and updating the article, rather than getting in to a back and forth. What would be your advice in this situation? Should I raise this question at WP:RSP again?
1144:
575:
1280:
344:
to discern which parts of an
Economist article are news reporting and which are commentary. Consequently, the cited Economist report should not be dismissed under RSOPINION. With this understanding, I believe the RSP entry needs to be updated to reflect the community’s stance. What would be the best way to go about making this change?
499:
Regarding the
Economist article about the Hopkins University reports. The opinions at WP:NPOVN about the inclusion of this information are split almost equally. I think if the involved editors cannot reach an agreement, maybe it is worth asking the larger community to weigh in? Looking over at WP:DR,
351:
The user opposing the inclusion of this material claims it is already covered in the SOC8 article, but I have not been able to find it there. Moreover, it seems unlikely that a story reported in 2024 would be included in discussions of reports from 2022, which are referenced in that article. My final
442:
The entire controversy revolves around the involvement of this particular official, Dr. Levine, in influencing WPATH's decisions, which is documented by multiple reliable sources. How can this removal be justified when it has already been established that these sources are valid and notable? Is this
396:
I assume you're looking for a version that mentions Levine's advocacy specifically. Since other editors feel content about the SOC is better suited to its own article, have you considered expanding there first? It would be reasonable, I think, to assess how due the content is at SOC before assessing
343:
Hi there! Apologies for reaching out again, but I would greatly appreciate some further experienced guidance on the dispute resolution process. The recent discussion at WP:RSN resulted in a consensus that not every
Economist article should be considered an opinion piece, and that it is up to editors
288:
Previous wording appeared to suggest that The
Economist published both regular articles and editorial pieces. I don't see that The Economist article in question is identified as an opinion piece on The Economist website, and blanket dismissal of all Economist articles is in my view against Knowledge
1416:
I apologize im not sure I know how to do that.... do you mind starting a talk there or can we discuss here? Im interested to hear your thoughts... I know its a work in progress with a long way to go, but I am trying my best to honor the contributions of others and not delete them so trying to add
390:
This version of the protocol gives no specific age limits for treatments, emphasizing the need to decide individually for each patient. An earlier draft would have required several years of transgender identity before an adolescent could begin treatment. After criticism from transgender advocates,
765:
Wow, "edit warring" and accusing me to be someone. I reverted an Edit which is more accurate than the cited source that was there about "Epirus is the northwestern area of ancient Greece" while it talked about modern Greece, i'm not edit warring but i'm reverting an edit which has a better source
274:
is an opinion piece, because WP:RSP also states that "The
Economist publishes exclusively articles in editorial voice with no byline". Referring to this statement - on tone and writing, some editors consider every Economist article to be an opinion piece, and therefore not suitable for use in
347:
Additionally, the argument that news reports are unacceptable based on WP:MEDRS was also not upheld, as WP:MEDPOP provides a clear exception. This leaves us with objections based on WP:DUE. I am wondering, how many reliable sources are generally required to establish that a topic is DUE? For
852:
But why am i "Edit warring" when i'm simply reverting a better option for that page? May i please know it? And how am i supposed to Edit or Revert more accurate things without "edit warring"? At this point i just should stop editing since none of my edit or reverts seems to be useful and is
1502:. Glad to see you started a discussion. It's looking pretty fresh, so I'd prefer to see local discussion proceed further before feeling like an outside voice is necessary. If the other participant doesn't get back to you by about a day from now, I'd suggest pinging them a reminder.
438:
Initially, the concern raised was about the reliability of the sources cited, such as The
Economist, on the WPATH page. However, it seems that the underlying issue, according to what i see in the reversion, might be more about the content itself rather than the validity of the
646:
Heya, I have no idea how this works, but this article is missing a pretty important section on the controversy surrounding his deposition. When I write it up do you mind letting me ping you to take a look at it to make sure I'm covering a sensitive topic like this correctly?
1342:
Hey, just wanted to drop a quick note of thanks for your note on the talk discussion. I try to hold back, but sometimes it can get exceedingly frustrating when having to rehash the same things over and over, so thanks for your note on the tone :)
600:
496:, First off, thanks for all the assistance you provided so far, much appreciated. I'm generally alright with the present wording at SOC article. I proposed some minor tweaks for precision, you may wish to check them too.
1059:
in main space. I actually wanted to create it in my user space. Waqar moved it to drafts, but I would really prefer it to remain in my user space without a redirect from a draft page. Can you move it to my user space?
1420:
I just feel like if someone put their hard work into writing something I should try to work around it so it just seems to take longer. anyway.....ill wait until you start a convo "ping" lol on some other area thanks
524:
for a change is a common outcome of discussions, in which case we typically follow the principles of status quo against the inclusion of the proposed additions. That is the basis of most editing on
Knowledge (XXG).
1382:
Hello- just circling back with you because you reversed some work I contributed to the
African American History page. Im a bit unclear from your comment what the concern is?? Can you help me better understand?
1225:, and welcome to Knowledge (XXG). If you have a background as a translator, your experience will be very useful here. You may want to get started by translating articles that exist on other language Wikipedias.
798:
edit warring. Even though you only reverted once, it was participation in an edit war over that version. I'm not going to sanction for it, but if this pattern continues, you are likely going to be blocked or
567:
435:
I see that User:Raladic has removed the mention of Dr. Levine, and the reference to The
Economist has also been removed, despite the community confirming that it is a reliable source.
500:
I see that requests for comment are mentioned as an option to request community-wide input on article content. Do you think I should try it to get the discussion out of the deadlock?
612:
1472:
352:
question is: what would be the best way to request opinions on the assertion that the issue of external influence on WPATH's decision-making is already covered in another article?
1528:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers&oldid=prev&diff=1246529603&markasread=326648016&markasreadwiki=enwiki
1483:
concerning content that may not adhere to Knowledge (XXG)'s policy of NPOV. I hope you have time to contribute to that discussion. Thanks in advance for your help on this.
117:
governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues
518:
further after a point has been discussed at one, or in this case three (article talk, NPOVN and RSN), separate venues is not a way to find another series of discussions.
275:
Knowledge (XXG). In my opinion, that certainly contradicts the strong community consensus that The Economist is generally reliable, which was reached at the last RFC:
1316:
1097:
Thank you. I was hoping to leave no redirect from the draft page since it was created unintentionally. This was also the reason why I did not move myself.
80:
1558:
1511:
1407:
1367:
1246:
1191:
1120:
1088:
1036:
985:
895:
839:
812:
711:
675:
466:
406:
378:
317:
941:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
86:
1476:
509:
487:
452:
427:
364:
335:
624:
938:"the cited source on "Epirus being the northwestern area of ancient Greece" seems to refer to modern Greece rather than ancient Greece"
271:
868:
781:
123:
genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed
976:
A restful sleep and a nice family weekend morning. I blocked the user for 48h for the edit warring. Hope to look at the SPI soon.
747:
620:
505:
483:
448:
423:
360:
331:
294:
1206:
Hello my dear friend. I want to write an article. Please allow me to make an article because I have translated many articles.
418:
thank you for the consideration, and the advice. Per your suggestion, I added the information with attribution to the sources
39:
1111:
Sorry. I misread that "without". The redirect is at least potentially useful to someone else, and it's relatively harmless.
962:, seeing Firefangledfeathers hasn't been active for a couple of hours and might be getting a good night's sleep, hopefully.
286:
1143:
298:
1398:
This is the sort of thing I'd prefer to discuss at the article talk page. If you start a discussion, fee free to ping me.
611:
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself
561:
1535:
1327:
70:
1229:
has info on this process. Whether you're translating an article or creating a brand new one, you'll want to start in
74:
501:
479:
444:
419:
356:
327:
290:
911:
a "small adjustment with a better source". Also, this user is almost certainly a sock, the SPI can be found here:
592:
Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
56:
457:
I think the best next step is talk page discussion. Feel free to ping me and I should be able to get to it soon.
387:
If I'm reading the article talk page discussion right, the thing the other editor said was at the SOC article is
521:
276:
242:
1550:
1503:
1399:
1359:
1238:
1183:
1112:
1080:
1028:
977:
887:
849:
831:
804:
703:
667:
493:
475:
458:
432:
415:
398:
370:
340:
309:
263:
1226:
266:
I would like to check with you with regards to the discussion at NPOV board where you commented. According to
1531:
1488:
856:
769:
534:
470:
410:
382:
321:
1168:
912:
684:
Perfect! I added the section, as well as wrote out some information on the talk page that may be relevant
515:
864:
826:, based on a quick look, I'm not seeing the connection as obvious. If you have evidence, please file at
777:
1449:
just making a not here to let you know I started a topic over there ...awaiting your feedback thanks !
1234:
936:
I've reverted them. Now, I might not know a lot about Epirus, but I find it very hard to believe that
969:
951:
693:
652:
278:
Also, in that RFC, I don't see any consensus for the wording about The Economist publishing articles
32:
1450:
1436:
1422:
1384:
1013:
741:
282:
in editorial voice. Checking through history, I see that this wording was introduced by one user:
1532:
Tag me if you are responding to my content or wish to notify me, because I may not be subscribed.
1480:
1454:
1440:
1426:
1388:
1102:
1065:
639:
248:
1230:
1079:. So moved. I believe you have all the user rights necessary to enact such moves in the future,
83:, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles
1348:
1179:
1164:
919:
755:
530:
800:
1499:
1484:
879:
860:
791:
773:
244:
195:
100:
and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes
1056:
827:
305:
267:
1260:
1211:
963:
945:
689:
663:
648:
635:
355:
I really appreciate your time and any advice you can provide on these matters. Thank you!
883:
1024:
1009:
737:
175:
151:
91:
1098:
1076:
1061:
1048:
595:
Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points.
147:
1562:
1539:
1515:
1492:
1458:
1444:
1430:
1411:
1392:
1371:
1352:
1331:
1264:
1250:
1215:
1195:
1172:
1124:
1106:
1092:
1069:
1040:
1017:
989:
971:
953:
923:
899:
872:
843:
816:
785:
759:
715:
697:
679:
656:
628:
246:
1344:
1158:
Appreciation for all your Motivation within Knowledge (XXG) Community TriosLosDios
1008:
Thanks for your help. It was easier than I thought. I'd not created a page before.
915:
823:
751:
526:
163:
1237:, which will happen once you've made 10 edits and been around at least four days.
589:
Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
397:
how the expanded/altered version there should be summarized at the WPATH article.
270:, The Economist is considered generally reliable. However some editors argue that
1417:
relevant content and put events in chronological order gets a bit more difficult.
1233:. You won't be able to create a new page in our main article space until you're
134:
586:
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin.
1256:
1222:
1207:
112:
49:
1479:. I am looking for an editor to look at an edit request I recently posted at
685:
574:
130:
103:
61:
120:
gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them
97:
45:
1279:
731:
1481:
Talk:Len Blavatnik#NPOV problems in the Intro and Sanctions sections
156:
the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour
730:
Hello, the user whom you recently p-blocked is now edit-warring at
126:
66:
post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people
38:
This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as
1310:
New user script for easily searching The Knowledge (XXG) Library
249:
189:
27:
20:
Contentious topics awareness notices (reviewed July 29, 2024)
1278:
907:. Note the edit summary is dishonest, that edit is anything
573:
1435:
when I clicked the "talk" button it routed me back here
326:
Much obliged for the comment, I will follow your advice.
1527:
959:
937:
905:
734:
436:
369:
I'll be able to check out the discussions later today.
283:
1473:
Category:Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions
1471:
Hi there, nice to meet you. I found your name on the
702:
I'll be able to check it out in the next few hours.
142:
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed
830:(you can ping me, and I'll check it out if I can).
478:ok great, I will follow your input on this matter.
1304:The Hindu Group joins The Knowledge (XXG) Library
1330:on behalf of The Knowledge (XXG) Library team --
1288:
686:https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Joseph_Al-Zehlaoui
391:this provision was removed in the final release.
736:. Also almost certainly a sock of the indeffed
553:New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive
388:
8:
1358:Thanks for holding back and stepping back!
854:
767:
15:
1477:Knowledge (XXG) talk:No original research
285:, who referred to his own comments here:
1027:. Congrats on your first page creation!
1152:The Knowledge (XXG) Motivation Barnstar
886:. If you have any questions, ask them.
443:not an example of tendentious editing?
766:than the ones that were cited before
87:complementary and alternative medicine
7:
1276:
81:living or recently deceased people
14:
1055:I accidently created the article
1545:
1142:
194:
31:
1475:list, and noticed you again at
942:The Oxford Classical Dictionary
1563:14:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
1540:14:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
1516:02:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
1493:13:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
1459:20:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1445:20:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1431:20:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1412:19:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1393:19:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1372:14:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1353:14:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1332:16:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1265:21:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
1251:16:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
1216:15:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
1196:00:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
1178:What a kindness! Many thanks,
535:20:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
510:16:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
488:09:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
471:12:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
453:12:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
1:
1378:African American History Page
1298:Issue 64, July – August 2024
1173:21:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
1125:13:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
1107:13:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
1093:13:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
1070:09:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
1041:01:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
1018:17:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
958:Edit warring continues. I've
428:10:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
411:01:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
383:12:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
365:08:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
109:Eastern Europe or the Balkans
1273:Books & Bytes – Issue 64
1057:Direct sum (polytope theory)
568:September 2024 Backlog Drive
69:the English Knowledge (XXG)
1290:The Knowledge (XXG) Library
1227:Knowledge (XXG):Translation
990:15:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
972:12:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
954:12:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
924:11:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
900:13:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
873:12:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
844:12:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
817:12:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
786:11:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
760:11:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
716:16:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
698:16:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
680:01:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
657:19:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
629:17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
598:Interested in taking part?
336:17:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
322:13:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
299:12:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
1579:
1328:MediaWiki message delivery
621:MediaWiki message delivery
304:I would suggest asking at
139:post-1978 Iranian politics
1467:NPOV on Len Blavatnik BLP
1148:
1141:
1051:(09:03, 9 September 2024)
853:considered edit warring
610:
572:
1317:Read the full newsletter
1255:Thanks my dear friend.
904:And still edit-warring
884:the edit warring policy
642:(19:13, 26 August 2024)
1307:Wikimania presentation
1283:
882:, please read through
578:
393:
272:this Economist article
52:, or related conflicts
1530:. It was a misclick.
1282:
577:
75:article titles policy
57:Arab–Israeli conflict
502:Sean Waltz O'Connell
480:Sean Waltz O'Connell
445:Sean Waltz O'Connell
420:Sean Waltz O'Connell
357:Sean Waltz O'Connell
328:Sean Waltz O'Connell
291:Sean Waltz O'Connell
1551:Firefangledfeathers
1504:Firefangledfeathers
1400:Firefangledfeathers
1360:Firefangledfeathers
1239:Firefangledfeathers
1184:Firefangledfeathers
1113:Firefangledfeathers
1081:Firefangledfeathers
1029:Firefangledfeathers
1004:statutory city help
978:Firefangledfeathers
940:when the source is
888:Firefangledfeathers
850:Firefangledfeathers
832:Firefangledfeathers
805:Firefangledfeathers
704:Firefangledfeathers
668:Firefangledfeathers
494:Firefangledfeathers
476:Firefangledfeathers
459:Firefangledfeathers
433:Firefangledfeathers
416:Firefangledfeathers
399:Firefangledfeathers
371:Firefangledfeathers
341:Firefangledfeathers
310:Firefangledfeathers
264:Firefangledfeathers
106:, broadly construed
1284:
1135:Re: Barnstar Award
640:Joseph Al-Zehlaoui
579:
178:
96:discussions about
40:contentious topics
1334:
1294:Books & Bytes
1162:
1161:
875:
859:comment added by
788:
772:comment added by
618:
617:
255:
254:
188:
187:
183:
182:
169:
1570:
1549:
1548:
1325:
1296:
1146:
1139:
1138:
966:
948:
570:
562:New pages patrol
557:
556:
250:
198:
190:
179:for those areas.
35:
28:
16:
1578:
1577:
1573:
1572:
1571:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1546:
1524:
1469:
1380:
1340:
1323:
1322:
1320:
1300:
1285:
1275:
1204:
1175:
1137:
1053:
1006:
964:
946:
728:
688:please advise!
644:
566:
555:
522:WP:No consensus
516:WP:FORUMSHOPing
260:
258:NPOV Discussion
251:
245:
203:
184:
79:articles about
71:Manual of Style
21:
12:
11:
5:
1576:
1574:
1566:
1565:
1523:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1468:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1447:
1433:
1418:
1379:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1339:
1336:
1314:
1312:
1311:
1308:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1286:
1277:
1274:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1203:
1202:Create article
1200:
1199:
1198:
1163:
1160:
1159:
1155:
1154:
1149:
1147:
1136:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1052:
1047:Question from
1045:
1044:
1043:
1005:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
929:
928:
927:
926:
847:
846:
821:
820:
819:
727:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
643:
634:Question from
632:
616:
615:
608:
607:
606:
605:
596:
593:
590:
587:
581:
580:
571:
554:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
519:
497:
490:
440:
430:
394:
385:
353:
349:
345:
338:
259:
256:
253:
252:
247:
243:
241:
238:
237:
205:
204:
199:
193:
186:
185:
181:
180:
173:
167:
166:
161:
159:
157:
154:
152:fringe science
145:
143:
140:
137:
124:
121:
118:
115:
110:
107:
101:
94:
92:climate change
89:
84:
77:
67:
64:
59:
53:
36:
26:
23:
22:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1575:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1466:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1419:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1337:
1335:
1333:
1329:
1321:
1319:
1318:
1309:
1306:
1303:
1302:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1281:
1272:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1235:autoconfirmed
1232:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1176:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1157:
1156:
1153:
1150:
1145:
1140:
1134:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1114:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1058:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1003:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
974:
973:
970:
967:
961:
960:reported them
957:
956:
955:
952:
949:
943:
939:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
925:
921:
917:
913:
910:
906:
903:
902:
901:
897:
893:
889:
885:
881:
878:
877:
876:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
851:
845:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
797:
793:
790:
789:
787:
783:
779:
775:
771:
764:
763:
762:
761:
757:
753:
749:
746:
743:
739:
735:
733:
725:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
700:
699:
695:
691:
687:
683:
682:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
660:
659:
658:
654:
650:
641:
637:
633:
631:
630:
626:
622:
614:
609:
603:
602:
597:
594:
591:
588:
585:
584:
583:
582:
576:
569:
565:
563:
559:
558:
552:
536:
532:
528:
523:
520:
517:
513:
512:
511:
507:
503:
498:
495:
491:
489:
485:
481:
477:
474:
473:
472:
468:
464:
460:
456:
455:
454:
450:
446:
441:
437:
434:
431:
429:
425:
421:
417:
414:
413:
412:
408:
404:
400:
395:
392:
386:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
367:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
339:
337:
333:
329:
325:
324:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
302:
301:
300:
296:
292:
287:
284:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
257:
240:
239:
236:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
206:
202:
197:
192:
191:
177:
171:
165:
162:
160:
158:
155:
153:
149:
148:pseudoscience
146:
144:
141:
138:
136:
132:
128:
125:
122:
119:
116:
114:
111:
108:
105:
102:
99:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
82:
78:
76:
72:
68:
65:
63:
60:
58:
54:
51:
47:
44:
43:
41:
37:
34:
30:
29:
25:
24:
18:
17:
1554:
1525:
1507:
1470:
1403:
1381:
1363:
1341:
1324:
1315:
1313:
1293:
1289:
1287:
1242:
1205:
1187:
1165:TriosLosDios
1151:
1116:
1084:
1054:
1032:
1023:No problem,
1007:
981:
908:
891:
855:— Preceding
848:
835:
808:
801:topic banned
795:
768:— Preceding
744:
729:
707:
671:
645:
619:
601:Sign up here
599:
560:
462:
402:
389:
374:
313:
279:
261:
208:
200:
164:the Troubles
1526:Thanks for
1500:C at Access
1485:C at Access
880:Lumbarschen
861:Lumbarschen
792:Lumbarschen
774:Lumbarschen
726:Lumbarschen
280:exclusively
135:Afghanistan
1231:draftspace
965:soetermans
947:soetermans
914:. Thanks.
690:Hydronym89
664:Hydronym89
649:Hydronym89
636:Hydronym89
113:Falun Gong
50:Azerbaijan
1522:Reversion
1025:Seananony
1010:Seananony
738:Arbe21Â 21
174:be given
98:infoboxes
1559:contribs
1512:contribs
1451:RFAvaria
1437:RFAvaria
1423:RFAvaria
1408:contribs
1385:RFAvaria
1368:contribs
1326:Sent by
1247:contribs
1192:contribs
1121:contribs
1099:MWinter4
1089:contribs
1077:MWinter4
1062:MWinter4
1049:MWinter4
1037:contribs
986:contribs
896:contribs
869:contribs
857:unsigned
840:contribs
813:contribs
782:contribs
770:unsigned
748:contribs
712:contribs
676:contribs
666:. Sure!
467:contribs
439:sources.
407:contribs
379:contribs
318:contribs
201:Archives
131:Pakistan
104:COVID-19
62:abortion
1345:Raladic
916:Khirurg
824:Khirurg
752:Khirurg
527:Raladic
170:should
46:Armenia
1338:Thanks
828:WP:SPI
794:, you
732:Epirus
306:WP:RSN
268:WP:RSP
176:alerts
133:, and
1257:ZZ510
1223:ZZ510
1208:ZZ510
613:here.
168:They
127:India
1555:talk
1536:talk
1508:talk
1489:talk
1455:talk
1441:talk
1427:talk
1404:talk
1389:talk
1364:talk
1349:talk
1261:talk
1243:talk
1212:talk
1188:talk
1169:talk
1117:talk
1103:talk
1085:talk
1075:Hey
1066:talk
1033:talk
1014:talk
982:talk
920:talk
892:talk
865:talk
836:talk
809:talk
778:talk
756:talk
742:talk
708:talk
694:talk
672:talk
653:talk
625:talk
531:talk
514:No,
506:talk
484:talk
463:talk
449:talk
424:talk
403:talk
375:talk
361:talk
332:talk
314:talk
295:talk
150:and
73:and
55:the
1498:Hi
1221:Hi
1180:TLD
909:but
796:are
750:).
662:Hi
638:on
492:Hi
262:Hi
172:not
1561:)
1557:/
1538:)
1514:)
1510:/
1491:)
1457:)
1443:)
1429:)
1410:)
1406:/
1391:)
1370:)
1366:/
1351:)
1292::
1263:)
1249:)
1245:/
1214:)
1194:)
1190:/
1182:!
1171:)
1123:)
1119:/
1105:)
1091:)
1087:/
1068:)
1060:--
1039:)
1035:/
1016:)
988:)
984:/
968:.
950:.
944:.
922:)
898:)
894:/
871:)
867:•
842:)
838:/
815:)
811:/
803:.
784:)
780:•
758:)
714:)
710:/
696:)
678:)
674:/
655:)
647:--
627:)
533:)
508:)
486:)
469:)
465:/
451:)
426:)
409:)
405:/
381:)
377:/
363:)
334:)
320:)
316:/
297:)
232:,
228:,
224:,
220:,
216:,
212:,
129:,
48:,
42::
1553:(
1534:(
1506:(
1487:(
1453:(
1439:(
1425:(
1402:(
1387:(
1362:(
1347:(
1259:(
1241:(
1210:(
1186:(
1167:(
1115:(
1101:(
1083:(
1064:(
1031:(
1012:(
980:(
918:(
890:(
863:(
834:(
807:(
776:(
754:(
745:·
740:(
706:(
692:(
670:(
651:(
623:(
604:.
564:|
529:(
504:(
482:(
461:(
447:(
422:(
401:(
373:(
359:(
330:(
312:(
293:(
234:7
230:6
226:5
222:4
218:3
214:2
210:1
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
