798:
possibility that there could be errors introduced by inexpert interpretation of NRIS database info (and there are no likely errors of that sort, for this one). That one has been "processed", in a good way. There's no use for
Knowledge (XXG) readers to include alarming notice that the article may contain errors. There needs to be a way to opt out of the explicit tagging, i.e. don't tag if a certain category is already included, or include the tag but have a switch so that it does not display. For Dudemanfellabra's purposes, if he wishes to identify NRIS-only items including the Ridge Trail one, he can still do that, using the category or other indication that indeed there is just the NRIS source used. --
1188:
48:
1056:, that there is a problem. That article has two references, but there are also a lot of comments on the page. In fact, the first place the "<!-" string shows up is right after the "==Historic sites==" header for a simple editorial comment. Farther down the page a reference is included, and then there are some other text comments below. Because the ref is technically between a "<!-" and a "-: -->
675:
find single-sourced articles? One option might be to parse the wikitext of each page and look for spans with class="db-cmVmZXJlbmNlLQ", which I believe applies to all references (correct me if I'm wrong). If that string appears more than once in the parsed HTML, throw the page out. Parsing the wikitext, though, will probably increase the run time of the bot drastically. Trade-offs.
981:
According to how the bot is set up, though, simply finding one more ref (e.g. GNIS or some history page) and adding it to the text in these articles (not even adding new information) will allow the user to remove the tag on that geographical article and not get reverted by the bot. I don't think this
977:
I agree that initially tagging the geographical/not-strictly-NRHP articles is the way to go to bring them out of obscurity, but I also agree that
Doncram has a point that the articles don't technically "rely almost entirely on the NRIS". It is kind of a conundrum, but I don't see any other way around
827:
The tag is to label all articles which are sourced only to NRIS, regardless of the availability of other sources. The Ridge Trail article is sourced only to NRIS; ergo, it should be tagged. When other sources become available and are added to the article, the tag will be removed. If you couldn't find
778:
Would it be possible to modify the regex (which is what I assume you're using?) to only count refs which are not commented out? Apparently
Doncram included the commented refs in multiple articles he created where the NRHP nomination form was not online. If an article like Ridge Trail doesn't show up,
708:
The wikitext doesn't include the span class, so I'll code annother exception for the sfn tag, the talk pages exception mentioned above and the "National
Register of Historic Places listings in" exception and start the list generation again. We'll continue whittling down the exceptions untill all are
1194:
Editors bringing the project cannot get a consensus in the project that would be most affected by this task. Withdrawing this request until such time that the project can clean it's own house or a consensus of all the editors is established as there is a no-win situation that the bot's actions will
873:
To
Hasteur, there are indeed multiple NRHP articles where there exists a commented-out reference. And if the bot could include these it should. Then editors can manually review, and remove the tag where it is not helpful, such as in the Ridge Trail example, and somehow indicate that the bot should
1171:
Of note, one of the thing we're missing at this point for a full live run is an authorization by the Bot
Approval Group for a test/full approval. Before too long we're probably going to want to flag down a BAG member to get a trial authorization. Just giving you a realistic idea on where we are on
1111:
After this process, numrefs should be the total number of refs that are not inside comments. If that can be easily translated to Python, maybe try that? If you would like, I could probably work up a script that fetches the wikitext of a given page and does that so that you could look at actual code
1074:
I aborted the list run. I'm going to have to come up with some way of looking at the context of the comment. How about this: Count the number of reference tags (initial regex). Do a second regex to extract terminated comments. For each matched comment, if there's a ref tag in it, deduct 1 from the
1004:
On a different subject, the bot still seems to be missing a lot of articles. The word "church" only appears in 300 titles on the new list, which seems really low considering that an editor wrote articles on most of the churches on the NRHP and nearly all of them are only referenced to the NRIS. See
967:
As the editor who will probably end up fixing most of them, I don't have a problem with tagging community (and other non-NRHP) articles with this template. While it's not the original intent of the template to tag these, if an article on a non-NRHP topic only has a reference to the NRIS, it almost
952:
Please feel free to establish/negotiate a consensus for what criteria the bot should be excluded on, but in the BOTREQ discussion I seem to recall a request that if the tag was removed without fixing the problem, the bot was supposed to re-tag. I could see a change to the NRIS-only template that
674:
I'm pretty sure we don't need to tag a featured article as relying on a single reference. I realize coding exceptions is a pain (it always is), but I really think that any tag like this should be made an explicit exception. Maybe instead of hard-coding these exceptions, there is some other way to
649:
tags. Coding in all these exceptions is a royal pain. I'm inclined to leave the sfn tag off the list to encourage more standardized citing as the majority of the pages are showing up with ref tags than not. But it's the WP:NRHP's call as to which citing/referencing versions they'd like to use.
1035:
where .*? matches zero or more characters (selecting the minimum characters necessary to match the pattern)) has immensely slowed down the throughput of the list generation. The bot is processing them as fast as possible. I'm also running a back end log of every single transclusion and if it
347:
Your list seems to be full of a lot of WP:NRHP's list articles, which should not be tagged with this template (although my guess is that all of them have multiple references anyway). This could be achieved by putting an exception in for any page that has "National
Register of Historic Places
797:
Not so. The tagging can be useful to direct editor attention to articles that can be improved. The Ridge Trail article is one where the tag should not be applied, because an editor has already reviewed the article and searched for additional references (and found none) and considered the
978:
it. Allowing people to remove the tag and replace it with something like refimprove would open the door to people simply removing the tag on articles about actual NRHP listings and bypassing the system. In other words, allowing one exception for these articles opens the door to abuse.
903:
another, but an alarmist message about the NRIS is NOT helpful on many of these. It would seem ridiculous, in fact, on many of these articles. There needs to be a way to opt out of the NRHP-focused tagging. Note WikiProject NRHP does not own every article that has a reference to
664:
Note: I've since added another reference to the
Portageville article, in case anyone's confused by why it was considered a correct hit. Sorry for messing up the example, but I want to get the non-NRHP articles out of the way sooner rather than later so they don't clog the category.
1130:(which uses the "match as few characters as possible method) is how I'm thinking of implementing the search for terminated comment list. Then it's a simple string search to see if the string <ref is anywhere inside. I believe in the "customer integration" aspect of
1172:
getting the bot task approved, because I'd prefer not to have the bot's full authorization revoked because we went around the BAG on this task. Because the page edits so far have been to the bot's own user space we don't have to secure major authorization.
1057:", the regex triggers a positive. What needs to be adjusted (although my regex skills are not that great) is to make sure that the "end comment" string matches the "begin comment" string, i.e. the ref is commented out and not just between two comments.
1089:
Sounds like a good algorithm to me. If I might ask, how do you plan on extracting terminated comments? I don't know Python, but in
Javascript (my language of choice) what I would do is treat the entire wikitext as one big string. Then I would
264:
Initially, there will be a great many pages evaluated due to a backlog of pages that qualify under this criterion. Afterwords, the bot will still crawl all the pages and re-evalute ones that have recently become eligible for the maint tag.
1051:
Not sure if you're still generating the list or not, but you may want to abort it and come up with a better regex or other method of finding commented out references. It appears from the very first article on the generated list,
599:
While I'm making suggestions, can the code be written to exclude talk pages (or anything outside of article space, for that matter)? Apparently a bunch of talk pages have transclusions of NRISref for some reason.
736:
your prefered example doesn't show up on the list. When I peaked in I saw that there's a commented out reference in the text. I am unsure how you and the project would like to handle exceptions such as these.
475:
I'm still doing the list population with (No more than 1 ref tag). I'll do annother pass excluding the GR meta-template. Once we get the logic for identifying a qualifying page, the addition should be simple.
682:). If the article has more than one ref, regardless of what the second/third/other refs are, it shouldn't be tagged. To be honest, while the Portageville article technically meets the criteria, that's not even
1112:
instead of the pseudocode above. If what you're planning on doing works, though, feel free to ignore this comment haha. Just trying to help as much as possible. Thanks again for all you're doing for WP:NRHP!--
751:
Based on how long generating the qualified list takes, when the bot comes along to tag, it's going to re-verify that the page is still valid (nobody snuck in during the night and improved the page).
686:
the type of article we're looking for haha. It would be fine to tag it because it needs more sources regardless (and wouldn't be counted anyway by the script we use to update project statistics at
1103:
Generate an array of strings using StartArray and EndArray which would then include all of the comments as elements of an array, e.g. CommentsArray=wikitext.substr(StartArray,EndArray-StartArray).
953:
reduces the commentary about errors from the database and pushes a "Additional sources are needed for verification" angle. But that's a discussion to have at the template, not on this bot task.
1148:
I realized that refs that are commented out are just a special subset of the refs overall. I did some coding from my tablet and started the list generation. We'll see if this works better.
913:
Consider an article about a geographical place, that has plenty of text but no explicit footnotes, and has a correct statement that "Such-And-Such House, on 4th Street, is listed on the U.S.
366:. There are probably on the order of thousands out there haha, and I'm not willing to scour the encyclopedia looking for them (in fact, that's kind of the purpose of making the bot do it).--
678:
Pretty much what we're looking for are very short stubs that only have one reference tag to the NRIS (and not necessarily just using the NRISref template, as I said in the original post at
1254:
443:
is showing up on the list, even though it has eight references. My immediate suspicion is that it's an issue with named refs, since I think every reference in that article is named.
297:
Working off the pagegenerator-search logic to find the records I need to see. Also trying to come up with positive and negative test cases for verification. More details soonish.
546:
498:
549:
is on there too, and its second reference isn't named. Either it's not catching the additional references at all, or it's an issue with references that span multiple lines.
501:
is on there too, and its second reference isn't named. Either it's not catching the additional references at all, or it's an issue with references that span multiple lines.
328:
Ping as this will be the location for the bot request. If you could point me at some examples where the page should be tagged, that would be great. I've compiled a list (
1036:
evaluated as include/not. I'll post the log to a pastebin so those who want the absolute list of which pages were in the NRIS-ref list can eat to their hearts content.
1006:
623:
as a correct (and appropriate) hit. I'm having the base identification process run overnight to help us identify any further refinements to the procedure.
917:", with NRIS reference fully and accurately supporting that. We have to be able to over-rule the tagging, by use of a hidden category or somehow. --
1018:
There's somewhere like 54k transclusions of the NRIS template. I'm going to try some tweaks to the code to move into additional pages of results.
21:
359:
1134:, so having active customers who can provide feedback to help refine the process allows all of us to feel like we're making forward progress.
854:
Besides, if the original editor couldn't find any other sources, how exactly did they verify that there weren't any errors in the NRIS info?
440:
1096:
In a repeat loop, find all instances of "<!--" via wikitext.indexOf() and store their index locations in some array, call it StartArray.
914:
513:
is in the category too, and its other reference has a ref tag, is on one line, and isn't named. I'm not sure what the issue with that is.
558:
407:
tags. Technically these don't evaluate as refs in the strictest sense (becasue the ref doesn't match the pattern <ref*</ref: -->
423:
394:
Ok, my understanding is Flag down any page where the only true reference on the page is the NRSIref tag. I did some poking and found
380:
Herp a derp... I did a search of the content of the page and not a list of transclusion of the template... Stand by for a better list
88:
883:
Out of the identified articles, it is clear to me that many about geographical places or persons should indeed get some tag, perhaps
83:
422:
Yes. And also exclude any other template that does something similar to GR. A good place to look for these exceptions might be
153:
982:
is too much to ask, and it actually improves the encyclopedia outside of WP:NRHP, which is good community outreach IMO :).--
928:
809:
691:
363:
141:
118:
1106:
Run through the array and check to see if "<ref" appeared in any
CommentsArray. If it does, subtract one from numrefs.
585:
Ok, that's enough errors to cause me to abort the fact finding run. I'm coding some more to try and refine the list.
103:
452:
I'll check how the page showed up, but the pattern I set would match named references as well as unnamed references.
1131:
1009:, for example; that's not on the list but is only sourced to the NRIS (and doesn't have commented-out references).
1117:
1065:
987:
833:
784:
699:
431:
371:
1060:
That's the only article I looked at, but where there's one, there's bound to be others. Just letting you know.--
687:
1222:
1204:
1181:
1157:
1143:
1121:
1084:
1069:
1045:
1027:
1013:
991:
972:
962:
933:
858:
837:
814:
788:
772:
746:
718:
703:
669:
659:
638:
632:
604:
594:
561:
517:
505:
485:
461:
447:
435:
417:
389:
375:
341:
165:
1053:
554:
329:
620:
98:
1236:
40:
897:
315:
93:
1113:
1061:
983:
829:
780:
733:
695:
510:
427:
367:
307:
208:
78:
1218:
1075:
overall ref count. If the reduced count of refs is 1 (meaning just the NRIS) then add to the list.
887:
236:
to see if there are other reference tags. If there are no references that are not NRIS based, add
159:
679:
250:
147:
1010:
969:
940:
855:
758:
666:
601:
550:
540:
514:
502:
492:
470:
444:
402:
319:
239:
251:
Knowledge (XXG):BOTREQ#Bot_to_tag_articles_only_sourced_to_National_Register_Information_System
1200:
1177:
1153:
1139:
1080:
1041:
1023:
958:
923:
804:
768:
742:
714:
655:
628:
590:
481:
457:
413:
395:
385:
337:
135:
17:
352:
231:
1187:
1033:
Adding the "commented out refs" regex (matches the patern <!-.*?<ref.*?</ref: -->
59:
1211:
1248:
269:
1195:
be either reverted or called as against consensus as soon as it begins the tag run.
426:, although most of them probably don't have any overlap with NRHP articles anyway.--
1196:
1173:
1149:
1135:
1076:
1037:
1019:
954:
947:
918:
799:
764:
738:
710:
651:
644:
624:
586:
477:
453:
409:
381:
362:). Any ideas why? One example of a page that should be tagged with the template is
333:
323:
311:
130:
348:
listings" in the title. Your list seems not to include any of the pages on which
217:
641:
shows up on the list because there are zero canonical ref tags, but a bunch of
244:(and date it) to indicate that there's an effective "single source" problem.
694:--articles about places that are actually listed on the National Register.--
619:
Ok, simplified the logic in determining a match. So far I've found
779:
the bot really is useless to find what we actually want to find.--
690:), but really we're looking for articles like the aforementioned
1229:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1235:
To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at
195:
39:
To request review of this BRFA, please start a new section at
828:
sources, you probably shouldn't have created the article.--
755:: Make sure to add a exception to the list generation if a
332:) that shows every invocation that starts with {{NRISref
183:
177:
171:
113:
108:
73:
1093:
Count the number of references, call that var numrefs.
1255:
Withdrawn Knowledge (XXG) bot requests for approval
547:
Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural National Historic Site
499:
Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural National Historic Site
408:. Should the GR tags be accepted as an exclusion?
248:Links to relevant discussions (where appropriate):
33:The following discussion is an archived debate.
1127:comment_list = re.findall('\<\!--.*?--\: -->
709:happy before I use the list to do the tagging.
1007:Immanuel Lutheran Church (Murdo, South Dakota)
8:
228:To evaluate articles that have at least one
968:certainly has referencing issues anyway.
398:which only has one canonical <ref: -->
7:
1100:" and put the positions in EndArray.
915:National Register of Historic Places
441:Kauffman's Distillery Covered Bridge
194:01:18, Wednesday September 4, 2013 (
262:Estimated number of pages affected:
424:Category:Specific-source templates
28:
202:Automatic, Supervised, or Manual:
45:The result of the discussion was
1186:
46:
1223:22:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
1205:22:48, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
1182:16:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
1158:17:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
1144:16:31, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
1122:16:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
1099:Do the same thing for "--: -->
1085:15:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
1070:15:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
1046:12:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
1028:22:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
1014:21:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
992:22:22, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
973:21:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
963:19:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
934:19:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
859:21:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
838:19:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
815:19:00, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
789:18:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
773:17:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
747:16:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
719:04:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
704:03:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
670:03:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
660:02:59, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
633:02:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
553:00:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
545:Disregard my original theory.
497:Disregard my original theory.
222:Customized pywikipedia (soon)
1:
692:Ridge Trail Historic District
605:01:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
595:00:38, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
562:00:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
518:00:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
506:00:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
486:00:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
462:00:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
448:00:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
436:23:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
418:23:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
390:22:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
376:22:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
364:Ridge Trail Historic District
342:01:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
763:tag is already on the page.
1271:
1132:Agile software development
1232:Please do not modify it.
639:USS Massachusetts (BB-2)
358:is transcluded, though (
36:Please do not modify it.
1054:Williams Air Force Base
330:User:HasteurBot/NRSIref
1192:Withdrawn by operator.
621:Portageville, New York
283:Already has a bot flag
1209:Closing per botop. —
52:Withdrawn by operator
22:Requests for approval
511:Valley Lee, Maryland
209:Programming language
18:Knowledge (XXG):Bots
270:Exclusion compliant
226:Function overview:
1221:
944:
874:not again re-tag.
637:Hrm... Problem.
544:
496:
474:
396:Belmont, New York
295:Function details:
213:Python/Pywikibot
1262:
1234:
1214:
1210:
1190:
1129:
951:
938:
931:
926:
921:
902:
896:
892:
886:
812:
807:
802:
762:
648:
538:
490:
468:
406:
357:
351:
327:
243:
235:
188:
187:
50:
49:
38:
1270:
1269:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1230:
1212:
1126:
1114:Dudemanfellabra
1062:Dudemanfellabra
984:Dudemanfellabra
945:
929:
924:
919:
900:
894:
890:
884:
830:Dudemanfellabra
810:
805:
800:
781:Dudemanfellabra
756:
734:Dudemanfellabra
696:Dudemanfellabra
688:WP:NRHPPROGRESS
642:
428:Dudemanfellabra
400:
368:Dudemanfellabra
355:
349:
308:Dudemanfellabra
305:
303:
256:Edit period(s):
237:
229:
133:
129:
124:
63:
47:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1268:
1266:
1258:
1257:
1247:
1246:
1242:
1241:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1104:
1101:
1097:
1094:
1058:
1031:
1030:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
979:
908:
907:
906:
905:
878:
877:
876:
875:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
820:
819:
818:
817:
792:
791:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
676:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
488:
466:
465:
464:
392:
302:
299:
123:
122:
116:
111:
106:
101:
96:
91:
86:
81:
76:
74:Approved BRFAs
71:
64:
62:
57:
56:
55:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1267:
1256:
1253:
1252:
1250:
1240:
1238:
1233:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1207:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1193:
1189:
1184:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1110:
1105:
1102:
1098:
1095:
1092:
1091:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1012:
1011:TheCatalyst31
1008:
993:
989:
985:
980:
976:
975:
974:
971:
970:TheCatalyst31
966:
965:
964:
960:
956:
949:
942:
941:edit conflict
937:
936:
935:
932:
927:
922:
916:
912:
911:
910:
909:
899:
889:
882:
881:
880:
879:
872:
871:
870:
869:
860:
857:
856:TheCatalyst31
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
839:
835:
831:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
816:
813:
808:
803:
796:
795:
794:
793:
790:
786:
782:
777:
776:
775:
774:
770:
766:
760:
754:
749:
748:
744:
740:
735:
720:
716:
712:
707:
706:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
673:
672:
671:
668:
667:TheCatalyst31
663:
662:
661:
657:
653:
646:
640:
636:
635:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
606:
603:
602:TheCatalyst31
598:
597:
596:
592:
588:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
563:
560:
556:
552:
551:TheCatalyst31
548:
542:
541:edit conflict
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
519:
516:
515:TheCatalyst31
512:
509:
508:
507:
504:
503:TheCatalyst31
500:
494:
493:edit conflict
489:
487:
483:
479:
472:
471:edit conflict
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
450:
449:
446:
445:TheCatalyst31
442:
439:
438:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
420:
419:
415:
411:
404:
397:
393:
391:
387:
383:
379:
378:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
354:
346:
345:
344:
343:
339:
335:
331:
325:
321:
320:TheCatalyst31
317:
316:Coal town guy
313:
309:
300:
298:
296:
292:
290:
287:
284:
280:
278:
275:
272:
271:
266:
263:
259:
257:
253:
252:
249:
245:
241:
233:
227:
223:
221:
219:
214:
212:
210:
205:
203:
199:
197:
193:
189:
185:
182:
179:
176:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
132:
128:
120:
117:
115:
112:
110:
107:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
80:
77:
75:
72:
70:
66:
65:
61:
58:
53:
44:
42:
37:
31:
30:
23:
19:
1231:
1228:
1208:
1191:
1185:
1170:
1128:',page_text)
1032:
898:No footnotes
752:
750:
731:
683:
572:
304:
294:
293:
288:
285:
282:
281:
276:
273:
268:
267:
261:
260:
255:
254:
247:
246:
225:
224:
216:
215:
207:
206:
201:
200:
191:
190:
180:
174:
168:
162:
156:
150:
144:
138:
126:
125:
68:
60:HasteurBot 4
51:
35:
32:
1034:.*?0-!: -->
218:Source code
192:Time filed:
888:refimprove
399:tag but 2
301:Discussion
220:available:
204:Automatic
184:ANI search
178:rights log
166:page moves
154:edit count
114:rights log
104:page moves
759:NRIS-only
680:WP:BOTREQ
240:NRIS-only
172:block log
127:Operator:
109:block log
1249:Category
559:Creation
555:Reaction
360:See here
286:(Yes/No)
274:(Yes/No)
142:contribs
84:contribs
20: |
1237:WT:BRFA
1197:Hasteur
1174:Hasteur
1150:Hasteur
1136:Hasteur
1077:Hasteur
1038:Hasteur
1020:Hasteur
955:Hasteur
948:Doncram
765:Hasteur
739:Hasteur
732:Hrm...
711:Hasteur
652:Hasteur
625:Hasteur
587:Hasteur
478:Hasteur
454:Hasteur
410:Hasteur
382:Hasteur
353:NRISref
334:Hasteur
324:Nyttend
322:, and
312:Doncram
232:NRISref
131:Hasteur
41:WT:BRFA
684:really
258:Daily
1215:KNOWZ
904:NRIS.
89:count
16:<
1219:TALK
1213:HELL
1201:talk
1178:talk
1154:talk
1140:talk
1118:talk
1081:talk
1066:talk
1042:talk
1024:talk
988:talk
959:talk
834:talk
785:talk
769:talk
753:Note
743:talk
715:talk
700:talk
656:talk
629:talk
591:talk
482:talk
458:talk
432:talk
414:talk
386:talk
372:talk
338:talk
291:Yes
279:Yes
211:(s):
160:logs
136:talk
119:flag
99:logs
79:talk
69:BRFA
925:ncr
893:or
806:ncr
645:sfn
573:−
196:UTC
148:SUL
94:SUL
1251::
1203:)
1180:)
1156:)
1142:)
1120:)
1083:)
1068:)
1044:)
1026:)
990:)
961:)
930:am
920:do
901:}}
895:{{
891:}}
885:{{
836:)
811:am
801:do
787:)
771:)
761:}}
757:{{
745:)
717:)
702:)
658:)
647:}}
643:{{
631:)
593:)
484:)
460:)
434:)
416:)
405:}}
403:GR
401:{{
388:)
374:)
356:}}
350:{{
340:)
318:,
314:,
310:,
242:}}
238:{{
234:}}
230:{{
198:)
1239:.
1217:▎
1199:(
1176:(
1152:(
1138:(
1116:(
1079:(
1064:(
1040:(
1022:(
986:(
957:(
950::
946:@
943:)
939:(
832:(
783:(
767:(
741:(
713:(
698:(
654:(
627:(
589:(
557:•
543:)
539:(
495:)
491:(
480:(
473:)
469:(
456:(
430:(
412:(
384:(
370:(
336:(
326::
306:@
289::
277::
186:)
181:·
175:·
169:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
134:(
121:)
67:(
54:.
43:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.