User talk:Sarastro1/Archive 15

2029:, I'll reply here to avoid another digression on the FAC page. I suspect this is a conversation best held in a more public place as it seems rather important and would apply to more than just this FAC. I'll say straight away that I have not read the article too closely (and I'm already regretting becoming involved in it). With a historian's hat on, I'd 100% agree with you for "Big History" where opinions and fashions change. My particular joy is sub-Roman Britain and the "Coming of the Saxons" (or possible "Not-Coming of the Saxons") which would be the textbook example of how 19th century (and around three-quarters of the 20th century) history books should be avoided, and bells rung while someone shouts "unclean". But the kind of article that we're discussing here is not something that has had the same amount of analysis and rethinking. If (and stressing again, I've not looked at all carefully) the old books are simply relating what is in the original source, and no-one has had a rethink about what that means... would that not be acceptable? Especially if there is nothing in the newer works that contradicts it? For something like this, which is a bit of a curious historical backwater, there won't be 3,000 articles discussing the possible dates it might have occurred (And I'm asking in an abstract sense, rather than worrying too much about this particular case). Finally, I completely agree about primary sources not always being from the period in question. However, in this case, the earliest source is 1792 (used 8 times), 437 years after the events. I think describing this as primary would be a stretch. But (to repeat myself, which I've probably done a lot anyway), I have not looked into this closely enough to have any strong opinions on this particular case. 2044:

but I am VERY familiar with the abuse of the period by Victorian family historians - and how the Victorian (and earlier) historians need to be very much viewed very very carefully. You can't always know when one of them is distorting things without actually going into the sources and comparing things. I fear that too many editors on wikipedia think that "history is easy" and "I can do this, even if I've never had any training in history, because how hard can it be?". This is why I avoid using ANY primary sources in my historical articles, and I do not use anything before about 1900 (unless I KNOW it's safe - which generally means J. Round and some Freeman). And *I* am trained on this .. I studied the Anglo-Norman period in both undergraduate and graduate level classses under a medievalist who specialized in the period. It's way to easy for me to see how folks can easily mess up ... hell, *I* can mess up in periods outside my competence. I fear too many folks are edging into "writing history" rather than "writing an encyclopedia". I think we do a disservice to other editors when we don't take concerns about the age of sources seriously. And we certainly do a disservice to our readers when we don't base our articles on the best sources. If that means we don't cover some stuff some guy in 1842 or so covered, so be it. There's a reason history has moved ON from that sort of history writing... we shouldn't be repeating it.

1993:

similar to what you do when I review, but with a caveat I'll come to shortly) and it is a case, in my view, of being too over-demanding. If you go looking for problems, you will find problems; other people may not see it the same way, and in fact they may not be actual problems at all... perhaps it's more a case of a reviewer finds what they want to find. Third, I'm sure it's not your intention, but it does seem like you are hunting down SchroCat and attempting to find fault in his articles. It is making for a somewhat tense atmosphere, which I'm not sure helps anyone and does not improve any articles (and makes for long, messy FACs). From my experience, he is a bloody good writer, and knows his way around sources. Spending time checking his use of sources does not seem like a constructive use of anyone's time. I've also always found that if ever something is missing from his articles, he is always willing to find what is needed. And this comes back to my point about doing similar reviews to you: I tend to focus on new nominators or those who have not been around FAC much. I've found a couple recently which have had huge issues with sourcing. I wonder would you be better focussing more on these? It might create a little more goodwill. And there are certainly other articles out there that need the kind of forensic examination that you bring to a review.

1626:, with the greatest respect, if you are introducing errors when making your edits, that hardly seems particularly helpful. Perhaps I'm wrong, but errors of fact seem rather more important than errors of grammar/phrasing/flow. This is an encyclopaedia after all. Feel free to correct any of these reintroduced errors, although I would question whether they are errors or stylistic preferences; however, perhaps you see something I do not, and it is quite likely you know more about this sort of thing than I do. I will not argue or revert. As you may have seen elsewhere (and I myself only just saw today), there is some irritation in "FAC-land" at this pre-TFA copyediting. I would question how necessary this process is, but that is just my opinion and I will cheerfully accept being in the minority. However, your edits undoubtedly introduced factual errors and moved the article away from its sourcing; this, rather than any sense of entitlement or ownership, seems to be behind some of the irritation expressed elsewhere. I apologise if I came (or come) across as less-than-polite or grumpy; it has been a long day and I was not especially wanting to have to get involved in this tonight. I won't be offended if you jump back into the article, or politely or otherwise tell me to go forth and multiply! 1740: 858: 756:, "a fairly mediocre cricketer who captained England because he was an amateur. He may have been good, but an unfortunate injury at the height of his powers effectively ended his career. But the real interest is that he was a fascist. No, really. He probably tried to set up fascist groups in Australia while he toured there as captain in the 1920s. On the other hand, he was highly supportive of Indian cricket when few others were, but was (very) indirectly involved in the clash between the cricket establishment and opposition to Apartheid in South Africa. A bit of a mixed bag really, and quite hard to get a hold of."! -- 1153:

section on the side, the slightly altered script is named User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck-sb.js (just add "-sb" before the ".js"). Finally, both versions should now also store the page state (whether reference errors/warnings are "hidden" or "shown"). The state persists between page loads and between the browser closing and reopening (unless cleared by the user, for example by deleting data in your browser's cache etc.). Huge thanks to User:Evad37 for much coding help. If you have any questions or problems, please drop me a line. Thanks again. ♦

706:, a "cricketer who was incredibly controversial in his time. Mold played cricket for Lancashire and England in the 1890s and was one of the best bowlers of his time. But towards the end of his career, he was "found guilty" of cheating: he was judged to throw rather than bowl the ball, which then, as now, was a huge slur on someone's sportsmanship. There had been whispers for years, but opinion remained divided. His career was very publicly and humiliatingly brought to a close in 1901 and he faded away."! -- 913: 724:, "a Yorkshire cricketer who played before the First World War, setting some pretty unrepeatable records and impressing everyone with what a nice chap he was. He was a very good all-rounder who was one of the first cricketers to deliberately make a cricket ball swing when it was bowled; this is currently the number one weapon in top-level cricket. He later became a very respected coach who worked successfully with both Eton schoolboys and very rough-and-ready Yorkshire cricketers."! -- 1681: 1817:

to have been a rather unhappy chap... mainly because of his uncle, to be fair. Although David Foot's biography of Hammond seems to imply that Duleep had syphilis on top of everything else... I'm not sure how reliable that is, and is probably based on his usual gossipy chats with 1930s Gloucestershire players. Plus, it doesn't name him so couldn't be used even if we were so inclined. (And don't get me started on Foot being a little loose with facts and evidence...)

437:

previous FAC are not short which is my explanation for that. I have been able to address reviewers concern when they actually give the article a detailed, legitimate review instead of stating they don’t like it without specifics passages mentioned. My problem is having it sit there and not be even looked at except when I ask people to look at it. All my attempts except for the ones related to Hawaii civil war soldiers have met the same fate. My last attempt at FAC

673: 31: 996: 1473: 1383: 778: 1981:, OK I think I see what you're getting at. I'll say straight away that I don't think I agree with you, and I'd say this looks like acceptable use of sources, but I understand your viewpoint. Just to be clear, how would you put this information together? How would you write it? Or would you say it is impossible? I think if I saw how you'd write it, it might help me understand you even better. 1895:) nearly two thousand, hastened towards the scene of strife with an uproar of ferocious cries and threats. 'Slay, slay,' 'Havock and havock,' 'Smite fast and give good knocks,' were amongst the exclamations with which the rural folk encouraged one another as they moved at double-quick up the High Street in rear of the 'black dismal flag,' which was their only and terrifying banner.(see 1871:: "Late in the day of 11 February, up to 2,000 people from the countryside came in the western gate of the town to join the townsfolk, waving a black banner and crying: "Havac! Havoc! Smyt fast, give gode knocks!" cited to Morris (2001, p 54) and Jeaffreson (1871, p 232), with note: "The use of "Havoc" was possibly the earliest in English. cited to Hall (1983, p 56)" 2013:

aren't primary is not necessarily correct - they may not be primary but they probably aren't what we'd consider excellent secondary sources either. And given the subject matter Hall is covering, if there are bad reviews (and it sure looks like F&F uncovered one at least), then we should probably use the scholarly works that cover Wycliffe, not a popular history.

1903:

free themselves from the convulsive paroxysm in the narrow streets. Friars from the various abbeys tried to bring peace by thrusting the crucifix between battering combatants, crying out "Pax vobiscum! Pax vobiscum ("Peace be with you"). They were driven back to their monasteries by the blows of both sides."

1832:

been very sudden. I haven't read the biography either, and only know what I've read about him from Cardus and Thomson. I think it was Thomson who wrote that if Duleep had only remained fit for another month until the end of the 1932 season, then Sussex might well have won the Championship that year. JH (

2119:

I'll be honest, I thought I didn't know that much about Close. But when I started thinking about it, I do have quite a lot on his Yorkshire career. Probably more than enough to be honest. All I'm really missing is detail about his sacking, but I could probably cobble something together as it's hardly

2043:

I haven't dug deeply into the exact article either. It's not my area of study - frankly I don't pay much attention to things past about the accension of Henry III, and my main interest is really the 11th and 12th-century in England, so I'm not as familiar with the sources that would be involved here,

1984:

Regarding the original use of havoc, I take your point. My inclination would be, in the footnote, to say "according to Hall, blah blah earliest use". And if I were writing it, I might then say that the OED gives a different date of origin. But I don't think the earth will spin off its axis if neither

1950:

PS Hall I might add is attempting to write a popular book, just before the barroom brawl brakes out, he also says, "Some of the customers at the tavern rolled dice, others played chess. Young Oxford girls sometimes served the ale and at intervals vanished upstairs with a customer to console him if he

1816:

I don't really have much on Duleep. There's bits in Ranji's biography (and I really must get back to Ranji one day, if I can find the time and enthusiasm), but I don't have the biography of Duleep that came out a few years ago. I can't say I've ever found him as interesting as his uncle, and he seems

1245:

I'm not so active on Knowledge (XXG) these days, but in the past months I've been working on the Hylton article. Les Hylton was the prewar West Indies Test match bowler who was hanged for murder in the 1950s. It's a sad story' one which I would like to bring to a larger readership if possible. If you

951:

Hi. Ages ago you left a note on my talk page pointing at the sandbox work you'd done on Colin Blythe some time before. I'm thinking about dropping the stuff you'd done in on the article and using it as a way of building on the latter part of his life. I can do the military stuff without a problem and

416:

Sorry I've been swamped IRL for the last month or so and I'm just getting up to speed again. The only advice I can give is the usual: open a peer review and invite some reviewers (maybe those who've commented on previous FACs or some who know how FAC works) to take a look. The other option is to look

1917:

Conclusion: The sentence A has "2000" (found 2, but not in), "western gate" (also in 2, but not in 1), "hooded" (in 1, but not in 2), "Havac, Havoc, Smyt fast, give gode knocks!" (in 1 but not in that phrasing or order in 2, or 3; Aside: This is a late Middle English cry rendered by an antiquarian

1650:

most important. So is grammar/phrasing/flow when the idea of TFA is to present the "best" articles WP has to offer. This is why I (and others) volunteer to go over the articles beforehand. Most of the edits I made to this article were adding missing WP links, punctuation, adding captions etc... Some

1607:

Thank you for correcting the errors I made because of my lack of a deep understanding of the game of cricket. It's very unfortunate that you feel: "The rest does not seem an improvement, and it is easier to revert than to go through extracting minor wording changes". In my estimation that is not the

2012:

I suggest both of you read my comment on the FAC, where I approach the subject of sources from a historian's (and source reviewer's) viewpoint. In short, I deplore relying on pre-20th-century and newspaper articles for a historical event. And the view that the sources from the 18th and 19th century

1222:

Nothing as such, it's more a note to remind myself. Periodically, we ask for spot checks of sources, usually from new nominators but also if there has been a gap between nominations. I could have requested one for Planar transmission line, but I think we'd had more than enough review! Next time, I

644:

I’m sorry you feel that way. However, Casliber thought there were valid points in the oppose as well, and found one or two issues. But even if we disregard that oppose, one support after a month and little activity recently did not suggest that consensus was likely to emerge. Had this been a newer

553:

I’ve only time for a quick reply, but there is no 2 week rule like the one you mention. The (ideal) maximum time should be 2-4 weeks, 6 weeks is usually long enough that an article is archived if consensus is not reached. This article has been open more than 9 weeks. At that stage, it’s better for

233:

I've done all the updating I'm going to do for that article. The areas that had been poorly updated before were the ones lacking sources, so that should be better too. I haven't done the thorough copy-edit pass I promised, but another 10 days or so and I'm home free regarding my real-life work, so

1906:

Analysis: 1) Morris has the black flag, the hooded yokels numbering the thousands and "'Havac! Havoc! Smyt fast, give gode knocks!" and caveating for the quality of the source 2) Jeaffreson has two thousand, "Slay, slay, 'Havoc and havock, 'Smite fast and give good knocks," and the black dismal

1902:

3) Hall(1983, p56) says, "At that time the farmers and artisans outside of Oxford, their work over for the day, broke through the gates shouting "Slay, slay, havoc, havoc," introducing a new word, havoc, into the English language. The clerks, unconcerned with the history of the language, tried to

1831:

Fair enough. I knew that Hammond was supposed to have had syphilis, but had only known about Duleep's TB. I think it was supposed to be TB, but my memory could be at fault. I'd definitely never heard anything about syphilis, though. Whatever it was, the attack that ended his cricket seems to have

436:

I don’t think it’s mentoring that I need. From the people who’ve I asked, they have supported the FAC in the past. Three supports, two comments, and one opposing user who did not give me specifics to improve the article besides saying prose is not engaging. It’s a highly niche topic and unlike my

1992:

I would just make three points here. First, I think your view of sourcing differs from that of most people. I would say you're in a distinct minority, but I may be wrong. Second, doing this as you are doing it, I think it is inevitable that you may find the occasional cloudy area (I do something

1152:

Sorry to bother you again. After the addition of a toggle option in the tab atop the page, one editor requested a revised version in which the toggle link appears in the "Tools" section of the page's left sidebar. So now there are two versions of this tool. If you prefer the links in the Toolbar

628:

based on three grammar mistakes in the lead, which comprises 5% of the article. I will not be re-nominating the article at FAC. After 2½ years' work, being made to nominate the article again because of such flimsy opposition feels like a bit of a piss take. But then Knowledge (XXG) needs another

205:

does not actually support the statement "Sega rereleased the soundtrack to celebrate the Sonic franchise's 20th anniversary"because the itunes listing doesn't say WHY Sega released it. It does say it's the 20th Anniversary but it cannot support a reason for the rerelease that isn't given. It's a

1842:

I don't really believe that it was anything other than TB. The poor chap had a lung removed. That Hammond biography is a very strange book. Poor Duleep though... if he HAD remained fit for another month, he might well have died because he'd almost certainly have gone to Australia undiagnosed.

790:

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1645:

Thank you for your candid response. Again, I regret these wording changes introduced unintentional errors. I sincerely hope you do not find any more. This is why the "primary" editor is notified pre-TFA to ensure these instances, if they happen, are caught. Obviously errors of fact

306:, "a cricketer in the 1920s and 1930s, regarded as one of the best cricketers of all time, becoming captain of England and being the first former professional to captain the side. He was a moody so-and-so and not especially popular but had a few interesting things happen to him"! -- 354:), I think "hagiography" rather than "biography" would better describe this new book. I've not read it all, but a few furtive peeks in the local bookshop indicate that it is far from being a critical study; the title rather gives the game away. But it may well be a decent read. 1988:

I've no real problem with Hall being populist, as long as he is making sense and is respectable and reliable. That doesn't make him unsuitable to use; I've used many such books (which I will admit made my teeth clench as I read them, but which were still useful).

1918:

of the late Restoration period for those are what we have, and described in a modern source. Who was recording this in that spelling? They were spoken words after all.) Then we have the footnote which says "possibly the earliest in English. But 3) says it

115:

You can see why I quit doing source reviews. I didn’t call it a juvenile work, I noted that worldcat classifies it as one. And speaking of actually looking at things closely, I do adore being called a he. I also note that nothing about the iTunes source was

1246:

can find a little time in your busy schedule, I would greatly value any comments you care to make, particularly on the cricketing side but also on any other aspect that strikes you. You may recall that a few years ago we combined forces to bring the

2104:, and I have plenty of Somerset histories, but I am lacking on the Yorkshire side of things, which is obviously a hefty bulk of his career. No worries if you aren't interested, but if you fancy a look in, anything help would be greatly appreciated. 2068: 445:

is because of the same formula that have worked in the past on my other successful FAC. I will start a peer review on White and hopefully that would garner some potential reviewers who can help me with the review process in another push.

421:

and see if someone will work on the article with you. I know that you don't really need mentoring as you have 4 previous FAs, but if this one is proving a bit of a hurdle, it might be that a co-nomination would help attract some review.

1426: 818: 1884:, these unnerving yokels plundered the students' hostels, scalped a number of chaplains, attracts a procession of friars, buried several scholars in dung-hills and virtually depopulated the University." (see 1132:

The installed script will add a tab to the drop-down tab at the top, located between the 'watchlist star' and the search box (using the vector.js skin). The tab toggles between "Hide ref check" and "Show ref

441:(I received communication from an Rapa Nui scholar that it was a great article) garnered one image review which is prompting me to almost give up on FAC at this point now. The only reason why I’m nominating 178:

I quite like "I'm female!" personally. Though I suppose subtle is better. Boring but better! Incidentally I've been presumed female a few times on here. Not quite sure what to make of that, on any level...

471: 464: 1075:

I would support an RfC that required alt text for featured articles, I just have not made the time to create it. I will get alt text on all the images, and closed captioning on the video, at some point.

438: 1996:

I'm happy to continue discussing any of this, and feel free to ignore anything I've said, cheerfully or otherwise. But I think this is certainly a discussion better held away from the FAC page for now.

1410:. 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 802:. 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 2134:

I've already started going through what's there. I'm working on the article live, rather than in a sandbox elsewhere. Feel free to just jump in with anything if you've got the time and inclination.

394:

I’m getting extremely discouraged by the FAC process. I’ve nominated William Pūnohu White three times and each time there has been no consensus or lack of comments. Any advice on how to get it pass?

287:

Also, could I ask you to check to ensure the placement in career runs and career centuries remains accurate and update the article accordingly? I'd do it but I don't have access to CricketArchive.--

680: 554:

the FAC to be archived. But this isn’t a case of only having one chance. There is a mandatory 2 week cooling off period, then you can renominate the article and ping anyone who reviewed before.

96:, an article that I nominated and improved from a 9 line article to FAC, has been re-classified as an "older nomination". Would you kindly determine if the timing is right to be FA? Thank you. 1865:

Sarastro1, Here is one example. Sorry for the longish quotes, but they are important for understanding the context in which the sources say what they say. Please bear with me this one time.

1175:. My problem was certainly no basis for an oppose, or to delay the promotion of what is an excellent article - I just don't like having someone edit war when I'm trying to help them! Cheers - 2100:

article. Initially, I'm aiming to run through sourcing what is there, trimming out the rubbish and finding sources for what looks okay, and then see where it leaves me. I have the biography,

1396: 1891:

2) Jeaffreson (p 232) has: But before the disappearance of daylight the contest was decided by the villagers, who, having entered the city by the West Gate in a compact mass, numbering (

1582:. A lot of work has gone into the page since, and I wondered if you'd be able to review the page again in light of those comments and advise on progress toward FA standard. Many thanks. – 214:

problem. You can say that "in May 2011 a 20th Anniversary edition of the soundtrack was released." which the website would correctly support ... but not what it currently is supporting.

1356: 1139:

and change User:Lingzhi/reviewsourcecheck to User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck (add the "2" after User:Lingzhi). Please do drop me a line if you have any problems or suggestions. Tks. ♦

1097:

It used to be required but, without looking it up to be certain, I believe it became a little controversial and so we are left in the current situation where it is up to individuals.

1880:

1) Morris (1983, p 54) has: "thousands of wild country folk came screaming in, thronged and hooded, carrying a black flag and crying: 'Havac! Havoc! Smyt fast, give gode knocks!'

534:

have still failed the FAC due to lack of many reviewers? Or should Vedant have posted the message "I will do that tonight" on the FAC page, that could have delayed the closing? --

578:; the article improved a lot over the course of the FAC, but obviously still needs some work. What aspects of it do you think need to be fixed before it can be ready to go? -- 269: 1304: 1914:

Both the OED and Websters Unabridged say the earliest attested usage in English for havoc is in 1419 (OED) and 15th century (Webster's). But the riot took place in 1355.

1651:

of my wording changes were an attempt to make the article a cohesive read. Please understand our sole aim is to improve the encyclopedia, not cause annoyance. Regards

372:

on this one. Hagiography pretty much covers it and there's nothing new in there that isn't covered by Mason and Howat. I got around half-way through it and gave up.

1024: 1029: 164:: Darn, you fixed your typo before I could make a wig joke. Anyhow, you could try something relatively subtle, like "Talk to her" for your User Talk link. -- 1020: 1534: 1355:

for September 7, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at

1303:

for 27 May 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at

645:

nomination, I would happily have left it open longer. Many articles take a couple of attempts to pass, and I do hope that we see you at FAC again.

1329:

is showing a date from 2010. I've no idea why that's the case. Are you time traveling? ;) Just kidding, but I do wonder what happened. Thanks! --

268:

for June 17, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at

1448: 955:

I'm just checking if you'd mind me doing that? I know you're not around all that often, but I won't be in a major rush to do this. Thanks.

832: 2120:

lacking coverage! I can't promise anything, but let me know when you are thinking of starting and I'll try to cobble something together.

1758:

Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free.

1739: 625: 1125: 1538: 1013: 952:

the memorial and so on I have plenty on as well. I doubt it'll be as well done as your stuff, but it would be a way of starting.

930:

Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free.

1444: 1118: 857: 828: 1907:

flag. and similar caveating about the reliability of the source 3) Hall has, "Slay, slay, havoc, havoc" and the bit about the

1419: 811: 130:

I know... I don't blame you at all. In all honesty, if someone had scripted it, it couldn't have been a more perfect example.

72: 67: 59: 1526: 1484: 1462: 92:

I see that the FAC page mentions you and Ian as "determine the timing of the process for each nomination". I also see that

589: 1885: 1779:

Hi. I don't monitor my WP e-mail account, so if you reply to my mails, just drop me a line on-wiki to notify me. Cheers.

1530: 1656: 1613: 1802:. I happened to have cause to look at it today, and it currently is sadly inadequate for such an important figure. JH ( 1254:

in operation rather than a formal PR, and perhaps you could add any comments you have there. I would be most grateful.

1431: 960: 823: 1190:

I realised what had happened, and I wasn't treating it as an oppose. Not a problem at all, just one of those things!

530:

had only one comment left to solve, all on the day before the FAC got archived. Even with three support votes, would

202: 1957: 1928: 38: 1334: 1513: 1273:

I replied to your email at the email address I have for you. Let me know if you don't receive anything. Cheers!

1592: 1136: 470:

I can see that you're not around much at the moment, but if you get a chance, anything more you can suggest at

1407: 799: 1922:

the earliest, and the OED says it wasn't! Can we write such a sentence in a tertiary source? I think not.

1652: 1623: 1609: 1326: 1211: 956: 1578:, hope you are well. At the start of this year you left some very helpful comments on the FA nomination of 1480: 1466: 521: 1259: 1061: 1043: 761: 743: 729: 711: 693: 541: 359: 311: 1542: 1896: 1978: 1952: 1923: 600:

If you can give me until the middle of next week, I'll take a good look and see what needs to be done.

1951:

lost his money at dice or at chess (of course, she made certain he had at least a few groats left)."

1560: 1330: 241: 101: 2092:

I know that you're not really around here much these days, and you're probably not after a project.

1680: 1390: 786: 2125: 2034: 2002: 1848: 1822: 1631: 1583: 1250:

article to FAC – without any mention of Hylton although we covered his two Test series. There's a

1228: 1195: 1102: 975: 650: 634: 605: 559: 491: 427: 377: 184: 135: 47: 17: 1798:

If by any chance you're looking for another cricket biography to improve, could I suggest that of

1403: 795: 368:

Very, very delayed reply here as I'm just emerging from hibernation... I'm inclined to agree with

2072: 2049: 2018: 1784: 1763: 1715: 1312: 1251: 1247: 1206: 1180: 1157: 1143: 935: 888: 451: 399: 219: 149: 121: 912: 672: 207: 2071:, if you can offer anything more or conclude it, before the nomination gets stale. Thank you. 1911:

word "Havoc," (in its form as an interjection, I might add, meaning "Devastate!" or "Destroy!"

1550: 1509: 1364: 1255: 1057: 1039: 757: 739: 725: 707: 689: 584: 536: 369: 355: 307: 292: 277: 1415: 807: 2076: 1833: 1803: 1438: 1278: 1084: 340: 321: 169: 144:

I’m thinking of adding a parenthetical “(I’m female!)” to my sig ...do you think it’d help?

1496: 1418:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1411: 1352: 1300: 1205:

Sarastro, I'm not following your closing comment. What is it you want me to do next time?

810:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 803: 510:

I thought FACs only get archived if at least two weeks pass without any activity. In fact,

418: 265: 159: 1556: 995: 753: 621: 442: 235: 97: 211: 2121: 2030: 1998: 1844: 1818: 1642: 1627: 1579: 1575: 1224: 1191: 1098: 1053: 971: 646: 630: 601: 555: 503: 487: 423: 373: 180: 131: 93: 2140: 2129: 2110: 2080: 2052: 2038: 2021: 2006: 1962: 1933: 1852: 1837: 1826: 1807: 1788: 1766: 1719: 1660: 1635: 1617: 1597: 1564: 1495:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, pages may be

1452: 1368: 1338: 1315: 1282: 1263: 1232: 1216: 1199: 1184: 1160: 1146: 1106: 1091: 1065: 1047: 979: 964: 938: 892: 836: 765: 747: 733: 715: 697: 654: 638: 609: 594: 563: 547: 495: 480: 455: 431: 403: 381: 363: 344: 325: 315: 296: 281: 247: 222: 188: 173: 152: 139: 124: 105: 2045: 2026: 2014: 1780: 1759: 1711: 1308: 1239: 1176: 1154: 1140: 931: 884: 447: 411: 395: 351: 303: 261: 253: 215: 145: 117: 2135: 2116: 2105: 1799: 1360: 1344: 721: 579: 475: 288: 273: 1382: 777: 2097: 2086: 1813: 1296: 1288: 1274: 1079: 703: 234:

I'll be able to become much more active again if I don't get to it before then.

165: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1124: 1749: 922: 575: 1692:

May 2020 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from

350:

As the co-author of the Constantine article, (and the current expander of

1608:

case. By doing so you are also introducing errors. So it goes, I guess.

1549:

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the

1422:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

814:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

512: 1693: 1400:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1135:

with displaying the errors as the default option. You may need to edit

1351:

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as

1325:

Hello. I thought I should give you a heads up that your signature in

472:

Knowledge (XXG):Peer review/Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979/archive1

465:

Knowledge (XXG):Peer review/Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979/archive1

2096:... just in case you are interested, I'm starting to work over the 486:

I should be around a little more now, I'll certainly take a look.

1435:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add 439:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates/Riro Kāinga/archive1

335:

Just a "heads up" that a new biography has just been published:

1425:

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review

817:

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review

25: 869:

May 2019 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!

474:

would be a great help ahead of a future Featured nomination.

1471: 1123: 526: 620:

I am registering my disappointment that you took seriously

1357:

Knowledge (XXG):Today's featured article/September 7, 2019

1121:

has been update to add the option to toggle it on or off.

574:

Hey Sarastro1, I'd like to take up your offer of help on

1394:

is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All

1056:, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. -- 1537:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

1519:

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing

1406:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

1172: 798:

is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the

517: 1502:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

1223:

might ask for spot checks. That's all the note means.

270:

Knowledge (XXG):Today's featured article/June 17, 2018

1305:

Knowledge (XXG):Today's featured article/May 27, 2019

679: 337:Connie: The Marvellous Life of Learie Constantine 629:Featured Article more than I need one, so... 8: 665: 1675:A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! 852:A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! 1377: 994: 990: 671: 664: 1678: 855: 1737: 1052:Please check out "Happy" once more, for 910: 1508:notice, but please explain why in your 1882:If we are to credit the old chronicles 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 616:Crown Jewels of the UK FAC nomination 7: 2067:Hey, just a friendly reminder about 1553:of each individual file for details. 1391:2019 Arbitration Committee elections 970:That's fine with me. Help yourself. 787:2018 Arbitration Committee elections 518:agreed to give further comments soon 2069:the nomination you left a review at 1408:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration process 800:Knowledge (XXG) arbitration process 1497:deleted for any of several reasons 1487:because of the following concern: 1374:ArbCom 2019 election voter message 771:ArbCom 2018 election voter message 626:Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom 24: 1893:if the chroniclers may be trusted 1522:{{proposed deletion/dated files}} 1505:{{proposed deletion/dated files}} 1007:Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht 260:This is to let you know that the 1738: 1679: 1381: 1030:begin it with music and memories 911: 856: 784:Hello, Sarastro1. Voting in the 776: 256:selected as TFA for 19 June 2018 29: 1491:unused, low-res, no obvious use 1429:and submit your choices on the 1119:User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck 1117:Hello, just a note to say that 821:and submit your choices on the 748:07:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC) 698:07:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC) 264:article has been scheduled as 1: 2141:11:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC) 2130:07:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC) 2111:22:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC) 2081:12:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC) 1789:23:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC) 1767:16:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 1720:07:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC) 1661:13:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC) 1636:21:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC) 1618:21:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC) 1453:00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC) 1295:This is to let you know that 1264:18:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC) 1233:12:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC) 1217:22:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC) 1200:19:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC) 1185:19:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC) 965:00:02, 29 December 2018 (UTC) 939:17:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC) 893:21:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC) 837:18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) 766:08:17, 23 December 2019 (UTC) 734:18:29, 7 September 2019 (UTC) 655:13:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC) 639:01:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC) 610:22:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC) 595:23:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC) 564:06:52, 6 September 2018 (UTC) 548:06:06, 6 September 2018 (UTC) 2053:21:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 2039:20:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 2022:20:27, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 2007:20:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 1963:18:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 1934:18:02, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 1853:22:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 1838:22:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 1827:20:52, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 1808:20:24, 19 January 2020 (UTC) 1598:00:38, 3 December 2019 (UTC) 1565:01:02, 2 December 2019 (UTC) 1161:08:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 1147:16:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC) 1107:23:18, 13 January 2019 (UTC) 1092:23:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC) 1066:14:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC) 980:13:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC) 1985:of these things are done. 1541:allows discussion to reach 1369:06:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC) 1048:07:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC) 496:10:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC) 481:10:00, 19 August 2018 (UTC) 456:11:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC) 432:23:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC) 404:19:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC) 382:23:30, 17 August 2018 (UTC) 2159: 1533:exist. In particular, the 1445:MediaWiki message delivery 1316:23:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC) 1283:22:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC) 829:MediaWiki message delivery 1744: 1527:proposed deletion process 993: 917: 670: 570:Offer of help on Tetricus 364:22:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC) 326:08:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC) 316:07:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC) 248:02:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC) 223:23:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC) 189:23:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC) 174:23:35, 4 April 2018 (UTC) 153:23:30, 4 April 2018 (UTC) 140:23:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC) 125:23:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC) 106:02:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC) 1443:to your user talk page. 1353:today's featured article 1339:20:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC) 1167:Planar transmission line 1137:Special:MyPage/common.js 716:06:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC) 390:FAC William Pūnohu White 345:15:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC) 266:today's featured article 297:23:29, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 282:22:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 1493: 1476: 1299:has been scheduled as 1252:talkpage review thread 1128: 339:by Harry Pearson. JH ( 1489: 1485:proposed for deletion 1481:File:Herbert Page.jpg 1475: 1467:File:Herbert Page.jpg 1404:Arbitration Committee 1388:Hello! Voting in the 1321:Peter Vincenti ga nom 1127: 796:Arbitration Committee 42:of past discussions. 1539:files for discussion 1514:the file's talk page 1327:this nomination page 752:Thank you today for 720:Thank you today for 661:Precious anniversary 320:Congratulations!JH ( 2102:Cricket's Lionheart 738:Seven years now! -- 667: 18:User talk:Sarastro1 1653:Twofingered Typist 1624:Twofingered Typist 1610:Twofingered Typist 1531:deletion processes 1477: 1420:arbitration policy 1248:Learie Constantine 1129: 812:arbitration policy 331:Learie Constantine 201:And I'm sorry but 1979:Fowler&fowler 1954:Fowler&fowler 1925:Fowler&fowler 1772: 1771: 1728: 1727: 1463:Proposed deletion 1459: 1458: 1347:scheduled for TFA 1291:scheduled for TFA 1025:thanks and praise 1002: 1001: 957:Blue Square Thing 944: 943: 901: 900: 686: 685: 163: 85: 84: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2150: 2138: 2108: 1960: 1955: 1931: 1926: 1742: 1735: 1734: 1683: 1671: 1670: 1667:Merry Christmas! 1595: 1590: 1554: 1524: 1523: 1507: 1506: 1474: 1442: 1385: 1378: 1113:toggle ref check 1089: 1087: 1082: 998: 991: 915: 908: 907: 904:Happy Saturnalia 860: 848: 847: 844:Merry Christmas! 780: 702:Thank you today 675: 668: 592: 587: 582: 546: 544: 529: 515: 478: 415: 244: 238: 157: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2158: 2157: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2136: 2106: 2090: 2065: 1958: 1953: 1929: 1924: 1863: 1796: 1777: 1733: 1723: 1722: 1705: 1704: 1698: 1697: 1669: 1605: 1603:Arthur Gilligan 1593: 1584: 1572: 1548: 1535:speedy deletion 1521: 1520: 1504: 1503: 1472: 1470: 1436: 1376: 1349: 1331:MrLinkinPark333 1323: 1293: 1271: 1243: 1169: 1115: 1085: 1080: 1078: 1073: 1036: 1035: 1017: 1016: 988: 949: 906: 896: 895: 878: 877: 871: 870: 846: 841: 840: 781: 773: 754:Arthur Gilligan 663: 618: 590: 585: 580: 572: 542: 535: 525: 513:Numerounovedant 511: 508: 476: 468: 443:James Wood Bush 417:at the list at 409: 392: 333: 258: 242: 236: 231: 113: 90: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2156: 2154: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2089: 2084: 2064: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2055: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1915: 1912: 1904: 1900: 1889: 1862: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1829: 1795: 1792: 1776: 1773: 1770: 1769: 1755: 1754: 1745: 1743: 1732: 1731:Io Saturnalia! 1729: 1726: 1725: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1685: 1684: 1677: 1668: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1649: 1639: 1638: 1604: 1601: 1580:Lewis Hamilton 1571: 1570:Lewis Hamilton 1568: 1545:for deletion. 1525:will stop the 1469: 1460: 1457: 1456: 1427:the candidates 1397:eligible users 1386: 1375: 1372: 1348: 1342: 1322: 1319: 1292: 1286: 1270: 1267: 1242: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1203: 1202: 1168: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1114: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1072: 1069: 1033: 1032: 1012: 1011: 1005: 1003: 1000: 999: 989: 987: 984: 983: 982: 948: 945: 942: 941: 927: 926: 918: 916: 905: 902: 899: 898: 882: 881: 880: 879: 875: 874: 873: 872: 868: 867: 866: 862: 861: 854: 845: 842: 819:the candidates 782: 775: 774: 772: 769: 684: 683: 677: 676: 662: 659: 658: 657: 617: 614: 613: 612: 571: 568: 567: 566: 532:Mullum Malarum 507: 504:Mullum Malarum 500: 499: 498: 467: 462: 461: 460: 459: 458: 391: 388: 387: 386: 385: 384: 332: 329: 302:Thank you for 300: 299: 257: 251: 230: 227: 226: 225: 198: 197: 196: 195: 194: 193: 192: 191: 112: 109: 94:WestJet Encore 89: 86: 83: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2155: 2142: 2139: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2118: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2109: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2088: 2085: 2083: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2070: 2063:Aftermath FAC 2062: 2054: 2051: 2047: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2020: 2016: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1994: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1980: 1976: 1964: 1961: 1956: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1935: 1932: 1927: 1921: 1916: 1913: 1910: 1905: 1901: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1878: 1877:Explanation: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1870: 1866: 1860: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1835: 1830: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1815: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1793: 1791: 1790: 1786: 1782: 1774: 1768: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1756: 1753: 1751: 1746: 1741: 1736: 1730: 1724: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1695: 1687: 1686: 1682: 1676: 1673: 1672: 1666: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1647: 1644: 1641: 1640: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1615: 1611: 1602: 1600: 1599: 1596: 1591: 1589: 1588: 1581: 1577: 1569: 1567: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1552: 1546: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1517: 1515: 1511: 1500: 1498: 1492: 1488: 1486: 1482: 1468: 1464: 1461: 1455: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1440: 1434: 1433: 1428: 1423: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1405: 1399: 1398: 1393: 1392: 1387: 1384: 1380: 1379: 1373: 1371: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1346: 1343: 1341: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1320: 1318: 1317: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1290: 1287: 1285: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1268: 1266: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1241: 1240:Leslie Hylton 1238: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1215: 1214: 1210: 1209: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1166: 1162: 1159: 1156: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1145: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1126: 1122: 1120: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1090: 1088: 1083: 1070: 1068: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1050: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1034: 1031: 1027: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1015: 1009: 1008: 997: 992: 985: 981: 977: 973: 969: 968: 967: 966: 962: 958: 953: 946: 940: 937: 933: 929: 928: 925: 924: 919: 914: 909: 903: 897: 894: 890: 886: 864: 863: 859: 853: 850: 849: 843: 839: 838: 834: 830: 826: 825: 820: 815: 813: 809: 805: 801: 797: 792: 789: 788: 779: 770: 768: 767: 763: 759: 755: 750: 749: 745: 741: 736: 735: 731: 727: 723: 718: 717: 713: 709: 705: 700: 699: 695: 691: 682: 678: 674: 669: 660: 656: 652: 648: 643: 642: 641: 640: 636: 632: 627: 624:'s oppose to 623: 615: 611: 607: 603: 599: 598: 597: 596: 593: 588: 583: 577: 569: 565: 561: 557: 552: 551: 550: 549: 545: 540: 539: 533: 528: 523: 519: 514: 506: 505: 501: 497: 493: 489: 485: 484: 483: 482: 479: 473: 466: 463: 457: 453: 449: 444: 440: 435: 434: 433: 429: 425: 420: 413: 408: 407: 406: 405: 401: 397: 389: 383: 379: 375: 371: 367: 366: 365: 361: 357: 353: 352:Leslie Hylton 349: 348: 347: 346: 342: 338: 330: 328: 327: 323: 318: 317: 313: 309: 305: 304:Wally Hammond 298: 294: 290: 286: 285: 284: 283: 279: 275: 271: 267: 263: 262:Wally Hammond 255: 254:Wally Hammond 252: 250: 249: 245: 239: 228: 224: 221: 217: 213: 209: 204: 200: 199: 190: 186: 182: 177: 176: 175: 171: 167: 161: 156: 155: 154: 151: 147: 143: 142: 141: 137: 133: 129: 128: 127: 126: 123: 119: 110: 108: 107: 103: 99: 95: 87: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2101: 2093: 2091: 2066: 1995: 1991: 1987: 1983: 1974: 1973: 1919: 1908: 1892: 1881: 1868: 1867: 1864: 1800:Duleepsinhji 1797: 1794:Duleepsinhji 1778: 1747: 1703:All the best 1688: 1674: 1606: 1587:Formula One 1586: 1585: 1573: 1551:page history 1547: 1529:, but other 1518: 1510:edit summary 1501: 1494: 1490: 1478: 1430: 1424: 1401: 1395: 1389: 1350: 1345:George Hirst 1324: 1294: 1272: 1256:Brianboulton 1244: 1212: 1207: 1204: 1170: 1131: 1130: 1116: 1077: 1074: 1058:Gerda Arendt 1051: 1040:Gerda Arendt 1037: 1028: 1019: 1010: 1006: 1004: 954: 950: 920: 876:All the best 865: 851: 822: 816: 793: 785: 783: 758:Gerda Arendt 751: 740:Gerda Arendt 737: 726:Gerda Arendt 722:George Hirst 719: 708:Gerda Arendt 701: 690:Gerda Arendt 687: 619: 573: 538:Kailash29792 537: 531: 509: 502: 469: 393: 356:Brianboulton 336: 334: 319: 308:Gerda Arendt 301: 259: 232: 114: 91: 78: 43: 37: 2098:Brian Close 2087:Brian Close 1432:voting page 1297:Arthur Mold 1289:Arthur Mold 1171:Thanks for 824:voting page 704:Arthur Mold 586:Consermonor 203:this source 36:This is an 1861:An example 1750:Saturnalia 1557:FastilyBot 1416:topic bans 1307:. Thanks! 1014:Happy 2019 923:Saturnalia 808:topic bans 681:Six years! 622:MarchOrDie 576:Tetricus I 522:canvassing 237:Giants2008 116:addressed. 98:Vanguard10 79:Archive 15 73:Archive 14 68:Archive 13 60:Archive 10 1869:Example A 1834:talk page 1804:talk page 1643:Sarastro1 1576:Sarastro1 1543:consensus 1483:has been 1479:The file 1412:site bans 804:site bans 631:Firebrace 591:Opus meum 341:talk page 322:talk page 2122:Sarastro 2046:Ealdgyth 2031:Sarastro 2027:Ealdgyth 2015:Ealdgyth 1999:Sarastro 1845:Sarastro 1819:Sarastro 1781:Factotem 1760:Ealdgyth 1712:SchroCat 1710:Gavin / 1628:Sarastro 1555:Thanks, 1309:Ealdgyth 1225:Sarastro 1208:Spinning 1192:Sarastro 1177:SchroCat 1155:Lingzhi2 1141:Lingzhi2 1099:Sarastro 1071:Alt text 972:Sarastro 932:Ealdgyth 885:SchroCat 883:Gavin / 666:Precious 647:Sarastro 602:Sarastro 556:Sarastro 488:Sarastro 448:KAVEBEAR 424:Sarastro 412:KAVEBEAR 396:KAVEBEAR 374:Sarastro 216:Ealdgyth 208:WP:SYNTH 181:Sarastro 146:Ealdgyth 132:Sarastro 118:Ealdgyth 111:And,.... 2137:Harrias 2117:Harrias 2107:Harrias 1694:Krampus 1439:NoACEMM 1361:Wehwalt 1054:a smile 581:Iazyges 524:), and 477:Harrias 289:Wehwalt 274:Wehwalt 39:archive 2073:isento 1959:«Talk» 1930:«Talk» 1814:Jhall1 1512:or on 1301:WP:TFA 1275:Johnlp 1158:(talk) 1144:(talk) 1133:check" 1086:(Talk) 1081:Kees08 1021:a time 921:Happy 543:(talk) 527:Aoba47 419:WP:FAM 166:RL0919 88:Timing 1975:Reply 1269:Email 1213:Spark 947:Bythe 370:Brian 212:WP:OR 16:< 2126:talk 2077:talk 2050:Talk 2035:talk 2019:Talk 2003:talk 1897:here 1886:here 1849:talk 1823:talk 1785:talk 1775:Mail 1764:Talk 1748:Io, 1716:talk 1657:talk 1632:talk 1614:talk 1594:wiki 1574:Hey 1561:talk 1449:talk 1402:The 1365:talk 1335:talk 1313:Talk 1279:talk 1260:talk 1229:talk 1196:talk 1181:talk 1173:this 1103:talk 1062:talk 1044:talk 1023:for 986:2019 976:talk 961:talk 936:Talk 889:talk 833:talk 794:The 762:talk 744:talk 730:talk 712:talk 694:talk 651:talk 635:talk 606:talk 560:talk 520:(no 516:had 492:talk 452:talk 428:talk 400:talk 378:talk 360:talk 312:talk 293:talk 278:talk 243:Talk 220:Talk 185:talk 170:talk 150:Talk 136:talk 122:Talk 102:talk 2094:But 1920:was 1909:new 1648:are 1465:of 272:.-- 229:FAR 160:TPS 2128:) 2079:) 2048:- 2037:) 2017:- 2005:) 1977:: 1851:) 1836:) 1825:) 1806:) 1787:) 1762:- 1718:) 1659:) 1634:) 1616:) 1563:) 1516:. 1499:. 1451:) 1441:}} 1437:{{ 1414:, 1367:) 1337:) 1311:- 1281:) 1262:) 1231:) 1198:) 1183:) 1105:) 1064:) 1046:) 1038:-- 978:) 963:) 934:- 891:) 835:) 827:. 806:, 764:) 746:) 732:) 714:) 696:) 688:-- 653:) 637:) 608:) 562:) 494:) 454:) 430:) 402:) 380:) 362:) 343:) 324:) 314:) 295:) 280:) 246:) 218:- 187:) 172:) 148:- 138:) 120:- 104:) 64:← 2124:( 2075:( 2033:( 2001:( 1899:) 1888:) 1847:( 1821:( 1783:( 1752:! 1714:( 1696:! 1655:( 1630:( 1612:( 1559:( 1447:( 1363:( 1359:— 1333:( 1277:( 1258:( 1227:( 1194:( 1179:( 1101:( 1060:( 1042:( 974:( 959:( 887:( 831:( 760:( 742:( 728:( 710:( 692:( 649:( 633:( 604:( 558:( 490:( 450:( 426:( 414:: 410:@ 398:( 376:( 358:( 310:( 291:( 276:( 240:( 210:/ 183:( 168:( 162:) 158:( 134:( 100:( 50:.

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

Index