500:
on "Right to Work". I will try to get to that when I have time. Overall, I would make two points: (1) Liberal bias is in fact a problem on
Knowledge. We can't put our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist. (2) If you say that a comment stating liberal bias is a character attack, then any comment suggesting an article change could be a character attack, in that it implies that the previous work of editors was not optimal. I don't think we need to be that thin skinned. In fairness to Knowledge, I would also make a few points: (1) I find that all the attacks of bias that Conservapedia makes are generally mistaken (evolution, etc). (2) I have seen some solid improvement in removing Knowledge bias, in part based on my input. If you go back far enough in my contribution history, you will find me commenting on the "Climate Change" articles. As a result, the article "Attribution of recent climate change" is now much stronger. It has been improved along the lines I suggested. In any case, I thank you for the positive tone of your above comment. --
548:
I don't want you to receive replies which lead to dead ends. The issue of so-called liberal bias is one which is raised often and it regularly leaves editors flummoxed and despondent when the issue forms the basis of a required edit. I don't doubt that some sort of bias exists, and my guess would be that the bias somewhat reflects a combination of the demography of the editorship and the general bias inherent in the world's media. If such biases lead to errors in factual accuracy, imbalance in tone or undue weight in an article, then you're right, that's a problem. Your problem with raising liberalism outright as the basis for an edit is going to be that the editorship at large is going to perceive that as an effort to swing the article in the opposite direction, which is almost always going to cause defensive objection. Therefore, direct editing and tactful communication is definitely your best bet if your aim is to improve the encyclopedia. Hope I haven't overstepped the mark in saying all the above. Just off for lunch now. Talk soon.
964:, but when anyone (not just you) suggests that we add something that is not clearly stated in a source (in this case, a diagnosis of "pathological liar"), I think it's important to remind everyone (not just you) that we can't make such a synthesis. If reminding us of a policy is a "cheap shot", then I'm guilty, but it's not a cheap shot nor was it intended to be. I understand why your misinterpretation led you to take offense, but it was not based in the reality of my comments. And I would ask you not to jump to conclusions about another editor's intentions. Unless that editor makes a
365:
150:
764:
738:
994:
791:
668:
453:
realize that arguing against liberal bias using specific examples is pointless on
Knowledge. This is because the Knowledge policy (including due weight) is written in a way that is vague enough for the overwhelming number of liberal Knowledge editors to always have their way. WP:CONSENSUS will always end up in favor of liberal bias, due to the political leanings of the vast majority of Knowledge editors. --
1111:
1028:. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Knowledgeâs norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Knowledge administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
824:. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Knowledgeâs norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Knowledge administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
620:
485:
believe that your drive and determination is an asset to the project and Iâd like to see your efforts reap results, while avoiding some common hurdles. Iâm not the most experienced editor around but am happy to be of assistance should you require it; including reviewing the pages which you pointed out as having biased issues. Have a great day and many thanks once again.
258:
202:
547:
to be bold and that you are welcome to make suggestions and comments on the talk pages. You have not acted outside of the privileges which are granted to you as an editor. That being said, having been here long enough, I know roughly what sort of response you'll get from the above mentioned diffs and
499:
I would argue that saying that a certain section is too lengthy is in fact a specific criticism, which is what I did on "Waiting for
Superman". On "Right to Work", I was responding to a similarly non-specific comment by another user, not initiating a new section myself. I can in fact also be specific
125:
Westwind, I noticed some time ago that you dropped by the Lurita Doan talk page and commented on POV concerns there. I (along with others) tried to make some NPOV edits to reflect what was reported and verifiable in the mainstream media. However, there is at least one editor that seems interested in
484:
no I am not stalking you. I have noticed that you are very dedicated to editing certain types of articles and I did look at your contributions page, which is not uncommon and I noticed a pattern of your pointing out âliberal biasâ. I have commented on your contributions thusly because I genuinely
452:
Liberal bias is a defect in the article, just like any other defect. Liberal bias is not more nefarious than any other deviation from due weight. Saying that an article has a liberal bias is not an attack on the editor's character. It is pointing out a problem with the article. But I have come to
421:
The editors who wrote the article won't like being called biased liberals. They volunteered their time too, in order to put the text up there. While I'm sure that the people who wrote it will agree that there is room for improvement, they might well become unduly defensive if it appears that the
1222:
The deletion of the other comment was inadvertent, in my attempt to delete my comment. I would be interested in knowing what you think I should have done, once I had written the comment and then quickly decided to delete it. Should I have left it up so that your wrath and dire warning could be
425:
The more specific you are on the talk page about which changes need to be made, the easier it is to collaborate. Saying, "add a period at the end of "this" sentence" will get done within hours or even minutes on a popular article. Saying "this article sucks", will probably never effect a
592:
Hi, Hope you are doing well, I wanted to thank you for your contributions to the Talk:ShinzŠAbe. I really enjoyed reading it and it's unfortunate that there is Anti-Abe Bias. Even if doesn't get changed, I'm sure myself and others would continue to enjoy your future articles : )
767:
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message
684:
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called
336:. Could you please check it and give your suggestions to improve it including to improve its English wordings. You can input your suggestions into the talk page of the sandbox page. I am really grateful to you (!!) for your valuable opinions in that
542:
Thanks for your reply. I have read WP:BOLD carefully, and you are right that in situations where a pending dispute resolution is in progress, an RfC, for example, its not always great to edit an article directly. It's also true that you are not
340:
and your efforts finding out and providing many important reliable sources. Your attitude and your frank/honest manner let me feel the spirit of the freedom and democracy, though at beginning we had some different view on several points. Thank
955:
I'm afraid you seriously misunderstood my comment. I, in no way whatsoever, suggested that you said we "should synthesize our own conclusions". It had nothing to do with you personally. I was just pointing out an important part of
713:
573:. Following an editor around across unrelated articles and always making counter-comments can skate dangerously close to violating this policy. I never follow another editor around making counter-comments on unrelated articles. --
273:
to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that directly relates to the subject of the article. If the content in question involves images, you have the option to
406:- and others like them you seem to want article change, but have gone about it by offering speculations about the political alignment of the people who wrote the existing text. Some brief points regarding this
1207:
It was live for about 8 minutes, that's not an immediate "deletion". Plus you deleted a comment by another user which I reverted and then looked closer at what you had done there. Simply stop your personal
433:
possible that this results in biases, particularly with groups ready to champion their causes in our pages. This is normal and you are encouraged to be a part of the process which rectifies these issues.
972:
and seek clarification before making a false accusation of "cheap shot". It's possible to disagree with a suggested edit without personalizing it toward the editor who make the suggestion. Thanks.
106:
Was this conference, and the controversy surrounding the move to Texas, covered by any third-party media? If so, might I suggest that information from those media be added to the article? --
1062:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics
855:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics
705:
698:
690:
686:
429:
Articles go through a period of growth. They are always editable all the time. What they say now, may well indicate a reflection of society's attitude toward a particular subject. It
1071:
481:
See point 3. Also, while you might not mean it as an attack it may be taken as such. Expediting your required changes can in part be accomplished by having editors on your side.
640:
1059:
Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.
864:
279:
935:
895:
1162:
I would also say that sarcastically implying that someone has insider information is a form of personal attack. Maybe you should have a talk with
Martinevans123.
630:
745:, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about
1123:
746:
742:
749:, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message
163:
77:
716:. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
275:
266:
83:
126:
a re-write that seeks to minimize her tenure as GSA chief and the Hatch Act troubles that dogged her (as with many other Bush appointees).
930:
890:
129:
I was hopeful that you might spend some time, in the near future, on a return-trip to the Doan article and have a look around. Thanks.--
437:
Thanks for contributing. I'll look at the articles you aren't happy with and see if there's room for improvement - there probably is.
90:
26:
960:
that many editors, even experienced ones, sometimes aren't very aware of. You may very well have an excellent understanding of
709:
270:
922:
No problem. If you have any questions regarding the
Liancourt Rocks feel free to ask me anytime. I'll be happy to answer. --
467:
BTW, are you stalking me? I don't see your name as having previously posted on the talk pages of either of those articles. --
206:
72:
on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
1119:
53:
528:
And I was in fact bold recently on the "Affirmative Action" article. I am not always simply writing on the talk pages. --
777:
758:
643:, which somehow else rather got by just about everyone else on here, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons. Congrats!
38:
923:
883:
694:
1003:
1128:
58:
1078:
871:
134:
33:
22:
977:
180:
156:
149:
111:
65:
130:
1224:
1194:
1193:
You must have a lot of free time to care about something I wrote and immediately deleted. Get a life.
1163:
1149:
909:
574:
529:
515:
501:
468:
454:
422:
reason another editor wants to edit it is because of the perception of flaws in their moral character.
306:
237:
570:
337:
69:
1067:
908:
Thank you. I think my comment is fairly neutral and made with the intent of improving the article.
860:
648:
639:
For correctly identifying the incorrect information on the main page related to the DYK Nomination
295:
214:
210:
73:
364:
1095:
601:
48:
29:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
1213:
1184:
1138:
382:
333:
218:
418:
workflow is the front line in ensuring that collaboration results in changes to article text.
973:
726:
674:
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.
553:
490:
442:
226:
107:
1009:
805:
799:
346:
329:
305:
What about swear words like hell, damn, shit, fuck, etc? Shouldn't those be removed? --
644:
411:
283:
262:
993:
790:
667:
1090:
969:
961:
957:
597:
415:
43:
1209:
1180:
1134:
1074:. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the
867:. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the
378:
1013:. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and
809:. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and
1024:
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as
820:
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as
721:
549:
486:
438:
222:
1110:
342:
514:
Also, read WP:BE BOLD carefully. It is not recommended in all situations. --
1052:
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
848:
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
1232:
1217:
1202:
1188:
1171:
1157:
1142:
1099:
981:
942:
917:
902:
731:
652:
619:
605:
582:
557:
537:
523:
509:
494:
476:
462:
446:
386:
350:
314:
299:
245:
230:
189:
138:
115:
96:
278:
Knowledge to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the
257:
201:
776:. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
757:. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see
328:
I have done the draft of the RfC for the naming issue of the article
282:
to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
680:
imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
332:
and its related articles and posted the draft in a sandbox page
265:. I noticed that you removed topically-relevant content from
166:
at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
148:
1133:. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.
88:
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --
1177:
741:
You have recently made edits related to articles about
403:
400:
1070:or you may learn more about this contentious topic
1046:
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
863:or you may learn more about this contentious topic
842:
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
217:. If you would like to experiment, please use the
1039:, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
1019:imply that there are any issues with your editing
835:, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
815:imply that there are any issues with your editing
774:imply that there are any issues with your editing
755:imply that there are any issues with your editing
1049:follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
1031:Within contentious topics, editors should edit
845:follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
827:Within contentious topics, editors should edit
213:. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be
155:Hello, Westwind273. You have new messages at
209:legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
8:
1148:What personal attack? I don't see anything.
410:You can edit the encyclopedia yourself. per
1000:You have recently edited a page related to
797:You have recently edited a page related to
704:For additional information, please see the
689:is in effect. Any administrator may impose
121:POV editors are back on Lurita Doan article
701:, when making edits related to the topic.
569:I do suggest being careful not to violate
236:I only delete profanity. Is that wrong? --
64:I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
1124:Talk:2024 Haneda Airport runway collision
377:Thank you for contributing to Knowledge!
1176:The talk pages have a history you know?
693:on editors who do not strictly follow
80:, or ask your question and then place
267:Talk:Aggregate Nutrient Density Index
7:
1043:adhere to the purposes of Knowledge;
839:adhere to the purposes of Knowledge;
706:guidance on discretionary sanctions
395:Editing and collaboration practices
987:Introduction to contentious topics
784:Introduction to contentious topics
747:living or recently deceased people
743:living or recently deceased people
14:
1109:
992:
951:"Cheap shot" at Elizabeth Holmes
789:
762:
736:
666:
618:
363:
256:
200:
1122:on others again, as you did at
1068:arbitration clerks' noticeboard
1055:refrain from gaming the system.
861:arbitration clerks' noticeboard
851:refrain from gaming the system.
653:20:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
97:04:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
732:22:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
300:05:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
139:21:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
34:The five pillars of Knowledge
1100:16:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
778:Knowledge:Contentious topics
759:Knowledge:Contentious topics
606:22:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
351:20:38, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
315:21:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
190:04:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
92:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
54:How to write a great article
25:to Knowledge! Thank you for
583:21:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
387:14:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
246:03:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
1257:
1233:01:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
1218:23:18, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
1203:21:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
1189:20:59, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
1172:19:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
1158:19:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
1143:07:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
699:page-specific restrictions
571:WP:HARASSMENT#WIKIHOUNDING
231:04:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
624:
617:
558:04:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
538:03:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
524:03:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
510:03:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
495:02:55, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
477:01:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
463:01:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
447:00:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
416:the bold, revert, discuss
371:A Tesla Roadster for you!
362:
356:A Tesla Roadster for you!
271:Knowledge is not censored
1228:
1198:
1167:
1153:
1066:you may ask them at the
1007:, a topic designated as
982:14:14, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
913:
859:you may ask them at the
803:, a topic designated as
578:
533:
519:
505:
472:
458:
310:
241:
116:19:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
21:Hello, Westwind273, and
968:toward you personally,
943:03:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
918:03:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
903:03:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
710:Arbitration Committee's
687:discretionary sanctions
157:ESanchez013's talk page
1131:without further notice
153:
1004:ArabâIsraeli conflict
152:
1129:blocked from editing
695:Knowledge's policies
211:Talk:C-130 Herculesâ
102:United Church of God
325:Hello Westwind273,
74:Knowledge:Questions
1038:
1034:
1026:contentious topics
1018:
834:
830:
822:contentious topics
814:
773:
754:
321:Draft for the RfC
164:remove this notice
154:
39:How to edit a page
27:your contributions
1036:
1032:
1016:
970:assume good faith
966:direct accusation
832:
828:
812:
771:
752:
658:
657:
641:Beulah Ream Allen
392:
391:
334:User:Lvhis/dn RfC
196:Vandalism warning
192:
1248:
1120:personal attacks
1113:
1098:
1083:
1077:
996:
940:
928:
900:
888:
876:
870:
793:
766:
765:
740:
739:
670:
661:Important Notice
622:
615:
614:
367:
360:
359:
292:
289:
286:
260:
204:
187:
183:
176:
171:
167:
95:
93:
87:
1256:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1107:
1094:
1087:
1086:
1081:
1075:
997:
989:
953:
936:
924:
896:
884:
880:
879:
874:
868:
800:Liancourt Rocks
794:
786:
763:
737:
730:
719:
718:
671:
663:
613:
590:
397:
358:
330:Senkaku Islands
323:
290:
287:
284:
254:
198:
186:
181:
174:
173:
168:
161:
146:
123:
104:
91:
89:
81:
59:Manual of Style
12:
11:
5:
1254:
1252:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1160:
1118:; if you make
1106:
1103:
1057:
1056:
1053:
1050:
1047:
1044:
1037:constructively
1020:
998:
991:
990:
988:
985:
952:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
853:
852:
849:
846:
843:
840:
833:constructively
816:
795:
788:
787:
785:
782:
775:
756:
724:
672:
665:
664:
662:
659:
656:
655:
636:
635:
625:
623:
612:
609:
589:
586:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
526:
512:
482:
465:
435:
434:
427:
423:
419:
396:
393:
390:
389:
374:
373:
368:
357:
354:
322:
319:
318:
317:
253:
250:
249:
248:
207:delete or edit
205:Please do not
197:
194:
178:
175:Mr. E. SĂĄnchez
170:
160:
147:
145:
142:
122:
119:
103:
100:
70:sign your name
62:
61:
56:
51:
46:
41:
36:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1253:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1130:
1126:, you may be
1125:
1121:
1117:
1114:This is your
1112:
1104:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1085:
1080:
1079:Ctopics/aware
1073:
1069:
1065:
1060:
1054:
1051:
1048:
1045:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1029:
1027:
1022:
1014:
1012:
1011:
1006:
1005:
995:
986:
984:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
950:
944:
941:
939:
934:
933:
929:
927:
921:
920:
919:
915:
911:
907:
906:
905:
904:
901:
899:
894:
893:
889:
887:
878:
873:
872:Ctopics/aware
866:
862:
858:
850:
847:
844:
841:
838:
837:
836:
825:
823:
818:
810:
808:
807:
802:
801:
792:
783:
781:
779:
769:
760:
750:
748:
744:
734:
733:
728:
723:
717:
715:
711:
707:
702:
700:
696:
692:
688:
682:
681:
679:
669:
660:
654:
650:
646:
642:
638:
637:
634:
633:
632:
626:
621:
616:
610:
608:
607:
603:
599:
594:
588:Anti-Abe Bias
587:
585:
584:
580:
576:
572:
559:
555:
551:
546:
541:
540:
539:
535:
531:
527:
525:
521:
517:
513:
511:
507:
503:
498:
497:
496:
492:
488:
483:
480:
479:
478:
474:
470:
466:
464:
460:
456:
451:
450:
449:
448:
444:
440:
432:
428:
424:
420:
417:
413:
409:
408:
407:
405:
402:
394:
388:
384:
380:
376:
375:
372:
369:
366:
361:
355:
353:
352:
348:
344:
339:
335:
331:
326:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
303:
302:
301:
297:
293:
281:
277:
272:
268:
264:
259:
252:November 2013
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
234:
233:
232:
228:
224:
221:. Thank you.
220:
216:
212:
208:
203:
195:
193:
191:
185:
184:
165:
158:
151:
143:
141:
140:
136:
132:
127:
120:
118:
117:
113:
109:
101:
99:
98:
94:
85:
79:
75:
71:
67:
60:
57:
55:
52:
50:
47:
45:
42:
40:
37:
35:
32:
31:
30:
28:
24:
19:
18:
1127:
1116:only warning
1115:
1108:
1089:
1088:
1063:
1061:
1058:
1030:
1025:
1023:
1008:
1001:
999:
965:
954:
937:
931:
925:
897:
891:
885:
881:
856:
854:
826:
821:
819:
804:
798:
796:
735:
720:
703:
683:
677:
675:
673:
631:WikiChevrons
629:
627:
611:WikiChevrons
595:
591:
568:
544:
436:
430:
414:. Following
398:
370:
327:
324:
280:welcome page
255:
199:
179:
169:
144:New Messages
131:Happysomeone
128:
124:
105:
78:my talk page
76:, ask me on
63:
20:
16:
15:
1225:Westwind273
1223:justified?
1195:Westwind273
1164:Westwind273
1150:Westwind273
1084:template.
1010:contentious
974:Sundayclose
938:Starlit Sky
910:Westwind273
898:Starlit Sky
877:template.
806:contentious
575:Westwind273
530:Westwind273
516:Westwind273
502:Westwind273
469:Westwind273
455:Westwind273
307:Westwind273
269:. However,
261:Hello, I'm
238:Westwind273
182:Talk to me!
108:JeffBillman
1208:attacks.--
1105:March 2024
1064:procedures
857:procedures
66:Wikipedian
44:Help pages
1033:carefully
829:carefully
712:decision
697:, or the
691:sanctions
645:TomStar81
404:this diff
401:this diff
338:talk page
276:configure
263:SummerPhD
215:vandalism
172:âSigned:â
68:! Please
708:and the
676:It does
598:AGTepper
545:required
162:You can
49:Tutorial
17:Welcome!
1210:Denniss
1181:Denniss
1135:Denniss
426:change.
412:WP:BOLD
379:Gg53000
219:sandbox
188:âatâ:â
23:welcome
962:WP:SYN
958:WP:NOR
932:of the
926:Shadow
892:of the
886:Shadow
722:clpo13
550:Edaham
487:Edaham
439:Edaham
341:you!--
223:BillCJ
84:helpme
1091:Andre
1015:does
811:does
770:does
751:does
343:Lvhis
1229:talk
1214:talk
1199:talk
1185:talk
1168:talk
1154:talk
1139:talk
1072:here
1035:and
1002:the
978:talk
914:talk
865:here
831:and
727:talk
714:here
649:Talk
628:The
602:talk
579:talk
554:talk
534:talk
520:talk
506:talk
491:talk
473:talk
459:talk
443:talk
383:talk
347:talk
311:talk
296:talk
242:talk
227:talk
135:talk
112:talk
1017:not
882:--
813:not
780:.
772:not
761:.
753:not
678:not
399:In
291:PhD
288:mer
285:Sum
1231:)
1216:)
1201:)
1187:)
1179:--
1170:)
1156:)
1141:)
1096:đ
1082:}}
1076:{{
1021:.
980:)
916:)
875:}}
869:{{
817:.
651:)
604:)
596:--
581:)
556:)
536:)
522:)
508:)
493:)
475:)
461:)
445:)
431:is
385:)
349:)
313:)
298:)
244:)
229:)
177:/
137:)
114:)
86:}}
82:{{
1227:(
1212:(
1197:(
1183:(
1166:(
1152:(
1137:(
976:(
912:(
729:)
725:(
647:(
600:(
577:(
552:(
532:(
518:(
504:(
489:(
471:(
457:(
441:(
381:(
345:(
309:(
294:(
240:(
225:(
159:.
133:(
110:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
