Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fromowner

2331:), and notably is no longer in use in those instances. Your edit-tab comparison doesn't compute. The edit tab is part of the interface. Infobox images are not. The comparison to stub tags isn' even very solid, since those appear unobtrusively at the end of the article. The Fromowner stuff is more comparable to dispute/cleanup tags, but (note carefully) the only surviving members of that class of template are for severe article problems - neutrality, factuality, lack of references or questionable reference reliablity, warnings that the article is about a current and ongoing event and so may be out of date or change radically at a moment's notice, and so on. They are messages that either alert editors that there is (allegedly) a very serious problem with the article, and/or (more importantly) alert 2070:: I don't know if you're just exercising your sense of humor again, but will assume not. Have you tried modifying the MoS? It is actually quite difficult to get consensus on MoS modifications, because even the slightest change can have cascading effects on tens of thousands of articles. MoS is pretty solidly consensus-built and slowly, carefully evolving, unlike this new idea which, while it has its "this is cool!" supporters, also has well-reasoned opposition, whose points have not been addressed here at all. Lots of "keep it, me too" !votes that fail to answer the opposition's policy- and established-guideline-couched concerns do not make an actual "keep" consensus. PS: This quasi-proposal is not "a system", it's a draft system that has not been properly proposed. — 3077:- I can't say that it should be deleted based on any particular policy, but I think that it does make pages look ugly. It's basically saying 'this page isn't done yet' and could appear on tens of thousands of biography pages; I appreciate the aim, but personally I'd rather that Knowledge (XXG) looks like a completed work at any particular point in time whenever possible. Of course, it is not in the slightest 'completed' and never can be, but there's a difference between putting up 'under construction, please help' signs until some point is reached, and making every revision a completed work in its own right. It's just a stylistic thing though, I know, and so I wouldn't want to specifically stand in this idea's way. -- 2752:. Good idea for a Knowledge (XXG) that does not have mirrors or DVD or print editions of its articles, bad idea for ours. We will soon have thousands of articles that use this image, which makes absolutely zero sense in a printed version or on a DVD. It is unfortunate that metadata/asking people to contribute works a lot better if done on the article page than on the talk page, but it must be done in a way that does not look idiotic for reusers. If the image is just used instead of a normal image, it will be hard to wrap it in selfref CSS, so perhaps the image should be replaced by a notice just like the stub tag. Metadata in article space is only acceptable if it is trivial to filter out. 1492:. I see no reason why adding this picture to articles will mean we get more free content uploaded - quite the opposite. It suggests that articles are somehow incomplete without photographs- they are not. Why spoil an otherwise good article by adding a huge "We have no photo of this person" image to it? It is needless self-reference and undermines the quality of our articles. These sorts of comments about our articles belong on the talkpage. By making it seem really important to get images, we probably encourage people to bend the rules- upload dubious fair use, claim copyright images as their own etc. 1021:. Given that one of the things needed in order to get it to work was to get the devs to turn on the relivant extention for en preventing it from being found would have been kinda tricky. I was advertyised at the village pump and I kinda assumed people would find it through articles. 6) It is a new style of upload system not previously used on en (because it wouldn't really work without the extention being swtiched on) and the protection would fall under the high traffic interface pages bit. Much like the main page or the mediawiki namespace pages. 3056:, this is no more a violation of ASR than stub tags. It's a sign that says "we don't have an image, you can help!" just like stub tags say "this article could use expansion, you can help!" I have some quibbles with the way it's structured (wording could be better, would prefer to allow choice of free licenses like cc-by instead of forcing by-sa) but the concept of it is pretty nifty and an excellent solution to complaints about illustration of living people. "what you can't use a promo photo?" "no we need a free photo, anyone can add one!" 1191:-style'? I beg your pardon? What gave you the impression that I was using a so-called "traditional phrase"? If I say that something reminds me of the web ca. 1996 I very well mean 1996, not 1997, and not 1995, all of which are quite distinct in style in my mind from having actually been there and done it. To use your phrasing, you do seem to fail to see the problem. When I raise an issue of presentation - a p.r. problem, to put it into different terms - you can't convert that as if by magic into a Knowledge (XXG) fact of life with a 1121:: Um, no it wouldn't. A well-written bot could do that in very short order. Let's not be silly. The very strong likelihood of that happening is a large part of why we're here in MfD. Just in the space of two hours doing some stub and flag template cleanup on a rather random part of the article namespace, I ran across this pseudo-image more times than I can count. It's unbelievably annoying, and gives WP the feeling of not an encyclopedia but a 1996-style "UNDER CONSTRUCTION <insert silly "men at work" icon here: --> 1195:. Yes, all WP articles are potentially "under constrution" in a sense, but we also strive to get them to, and keep them at, featured article status, when the global WP community says, after a pretty darned strenous peer review, "you know, this article has really just nailed it." As I think you are well aware, the "UNDER CONSTRUCTION" I'm talking about is a message that "this is broken; try again in 3 months, or, well, really don't bother." It's the 1042:. 4) That's a good thing, because such involved editors actually understand the licensing requirements of WP image far more so than noobs, in the vast majority of cases. 5) OK, I don't really care about the name all that much. It seems counterintuitive and likely to confuse, but is the very least of the concerns raised. 6) I do no at all buy the "high traffic" protection rational. There is no "high traffic" protection rationale at 159:; while we do tolerate some of those in the form of stub tags and dispute/cleanup templates, they are ones have that have been subject to very broad community input (as a class; not on a template-by-template basis) and collectively found to be a good idea. But this particular foray into that territory has absolutely no consensus at all (it can't - it's hasn't been discussed by much of anyone; it's own documentation doesn't even 105: 1238:

see that I spend quite a bit of time futzing about in infoboxes. It seems to me that you simply think it is harder to write a bot than it really is. But all of this is totally beside the point. As already noted, the clear intent of this Fromowner business is to slap these faux images all over the place, and that is what people are objecting to here. Doesn't matter whether it's done by a bot or not. —

1584:) were steps taken to confirm the identity of the uploader? Also the uploader clearly states "This photo should be used for the Knowledge (XXG) profile of David Miliband." which seems to state that only Knowledge (XXG) can use it, contradicting the GNU and CC-ShareAlike licenses on the image page. Uploaders cannot make demands as to how their photo is used if it is to be GDFL compatible. 1087:. I honestly don't and have not seen a reason for these. First off, free images of well-known people are probably the hardest images to get, which actually hurts this since newer users who see this probabyl don't have useful free images lying around. Second, Knowledge (XXG) is not IMDb, which isn't part of the policy but maybe it should be. Third, even I admit this vote is partially a 3565:(edit conflict) Actually,no. All of the XfDs are interpreted to mean "discussion" not "deletion" despite some of their extant Knowledge (XXG):-space names for now. AfD, for example, regularly entertains merge and userspacing discussions, not just deletions. The entire thrust of this MfD has been userspacing, though this seems somehow to have been lost on a lot of commentators. — 3025:: I case I've not been clear enough on this, my concern is with the imagecruft, not the underlying technology; as said elsewhere I don't really care where that lives; it appeared in the nomination, marginally, as apparently connected, but I gather that it has functionality of interest to Mediawiki and Commons people; great. Don't userfy (or delete) that part. — 2547:

10-fold or worse increase in uploads of unusuable images that image-patrolling admins are going to have to deal with, but let's see what the community says as a whole, in whatever venue. The results here already aren't all that encouraging. The "keep" !votes are generally non-substantive, or at least fail to address the concerns being raised, and in their "

635:

consensus can simply be gained by everyone thinking that's a neat idea and carrying it forward. As above if there are issues with the use (and I certainly would hate to see this overused) it seems to me that we should perhaps try discussing and addressing those issues rather than just dumping the whole thing (throwing the baby out with the bathwater) --

3666:, at the very least. If it helps the project and attracts productive contributors, I don't see a cause to delete it. Particular problems and questions as to exact use and placement can pretty safely be taken care of elsewhere, I think. As far as this lengthy discussion goes, I see Herostratus and Mindspillage have both brought up some good points. – 1875:, an unattractive alternative to the 1x1 blank, implies the necessity of images, does nothing to guarantee the accuracy of the "free" determination (as noted above), conflicts with established policies and processes, lacks guidelines as to how pervasive its implementation is intended to be, and falls short of many of the 329:, since either will allow the community to reaffirm that we don't add nonencyclopedic stuff to article after article, provided that the image is removed from the articles and deleted for now so that it can't be mistakenly used again during the RFC/proposal, unless and until there is actual consensus that such an invasive 3211:: Simply asserting that it doesn't look ugly doesn't make it so. It's a subjective issue, and clearly multiple parties here do think it looks ugly. This is beside the point, however. The objections raised are largely substantive, dealing not with the looks of it, but the message it sends, the fact that it is a 2443:. Nothing about this debate has anything at all to do with code, but with effect. I've already said this one way or another about half-a-dozen times. I'm not sure anything further need be said. A lot of people have raised serious, logical concerns at the MfD, while the supporters' arguments largely consist of 584:-- they are almost unused in article space (and, indeed, replacing the remaining invasive images with the 1x1 blank is probably preferable). Furthermore, virtually all placeholder image use that I sampled was to meet the requirements of templates whose image options are not (or originally were not) optional. 1466:, I don't think it needs to be tagged as an essay, I don't think it needs to be tagged as a proposal, I don't think it needs to be tagged as a guideline, I don't think it needs to be tagged as policy: it is merely a process by which we get free images whichk, while it is not perfect, is no less perfect that 3425:- per Kelly Martin, lol. For all the given reasons above: useful to help people find the photo. It also encourages people to upload free content about themselves, perhaps. Even more, I've been able to use the page in the past to find important photos that were lacking, and to go upload them from flickr. 3215:

transgression that (unlike stub tags) does not have WP community consensus as a good exception, the fact that it will appear again and again and again and thus almost certainly irritate readers, etc. These concerns remain unaddressed. Asserting that it is a "good idea" doesn't make it so. Numerous

3108:

and for general uglification of pages. If this was changed into a policy proposal, I'd be against that too. It's very distracting to see this image within the body of an article. There are already links to edit the page and upload a file on every Knowledge (XXG) page. The fact that it’s a nifty bit

1002:

Here goes. 1.) It was listed for community discussion at the village pump 2.) it is within policy. ASF doesn't cover it nor does anything else. It is in keeping with the foundation's mission statement ("The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is a nonprofit charitable organization dedicated to encouraging the

313:

Those parts appear to have nothing to do with the problem at issue here (the placeholder images and the instructions that encourage their use all over the place), and may have other functions, so are not part of nomination. They were observed to be possibly related, but I am striking them to be clear

233:

as even a temp- or semi-protection justification, and with an edit summary that claims that this stuff is part of some new Knowledge (XXG) file upload system, which appears to be nonsense, or else is a very big secret, or really means "my one-person idea for a new Knowledge (XXG) file upload system".

2433:

is about such placeholder images! The fact that you also have some code in the background doing more complicated things, which is undisputedly the case, is what is irrelevant. The fact that previous attempts at spreading the use of such things have failed is strong evidence that the community does

1237:

As I said, yes I am aware of the variety of infobox image coding, and I know quite well that is limited. It shouldn't take more than a few hours to account for every major variation in the bot, and another afternoon to clean up the stragglers. I've already said this. Check my edit history; you'll

1167:

infobox (at least in the two categorizations defined so far), so arguments that this wouldn't really happen are either a) nonsense or b) militate against the implementation of this, as a self-defining failure before it even begins. Take your pick. Either it won't work, in which case we're done, or

949:. I read this information a few weeks ago, and I was left scratching my head. It just doesn't make any sense to do things this way. And yes, while it will encourage people to upload, we already have an issue with too many non-free images, and the (largely) clueless masses won't make the distinction. 385:

such collaboration-boxes on the talk page. Furthermore, it employs the use of placeholder images, which Knowledge (XXG) does not otherwise employ. In short, it is a vast cirumvention of community input on a fundamental change to policy in many respects: image use, article-space metatemplating, and

773:

Most accepted policies typically have not gone through a proposal phase (consensus building or other) period. :-P Herostratus said nothing about bold being "do as thou wilt", so you are attacking a strawman. To continue your analogy, apparently you are having trouble computing, because you have not

727:

issue, and maybe it is. However, I've had it pounded into my skull that the proper purpose of policy is simply to document actual practice, and policy is created by practice. Whether this is so or not I can't say, but maybe it is. Therefore the policy is being created by this editor being bold. I'm

634:

Applying the image policy and discussions to these images seems nonsense to me, as everything it's the spirit which is important and I doubt very much those pages anticipated this. When a new idea comes along it isn't mandatory to run around and hold a poll or a discussion before moving it forward,

3169:

So, what is our goal here? What are we doing here? It is part of our mission to encourage the development and contribution of more free-content encyclopedic works. We already have many similar appeals to the reader to help us out—see the plethora of "citation needed" tags for an example. That this

2664:

deals with the Foundation's needs when it comes to policy formulation. Anyway, I think we're talking past each other here. I've never claimed that g12 did harm or that everything that becomes a policy or guideline in an unusual way does harm. What I'm saying is that deploying these instructional

434:

Please note the nomination is "delete or userfy", not "delete", and policy/guideline conflicts have been raised. Are you arguing for keeping as an unlabelled pseudo-guideline in WP-namespace, for keeping labelled as an Essay in WP-namespace, or keeping in Userspace? PS: Please see the previously

3412:

Let people know we are looking--be obvious about what our goals are. Make it known that we are a work in progress. That is, after all, the essence of Knowledge (XXG)--we are building a repository of free knowledge and there is plenty more work to be done. Let's invite people to join us by sharing

2546:

Ah, so the entire plan hasn't been subject to such discussion at all. I thought as much. If VP had actually seen the image detritus being proposed... Well, let's just see. I have my own opinion that this is invasive, nonencyclopedic, and just kind of beggarly, as well as certain to result in a

559:

as discouraging them. From WP:IUP, "Images should depict their content well (the object of the image should be clear and central)." Similarly, from WP:IMAGE, "Images must be relevant to the article they appear in and be of sufficient notability (relative to the article's topic)." Additionally,

3657:

I don't see how this damages the project. I do see several ways in which this could benefit the project, encouraging users with free content to submit it and helping them to get involved. The self-references issue is (in my eyes) probably the most valid concern at hand, but we regularly do host

3596:

It's great to see someone experimenting with a new idea to get us more free content. If it doesn't work out we can always remove it later, but it seems very knee jerk to automatically jump on the idea before it's had a real chance to prove itself. I love that it's really visible and a clear

2263:

Actually I did, and I wonder why you ask if I did. I have observed that, but I don’t think that this is a wacky or a one-person (or, it is not now a one-person) idea. ATT was, although arguably an improvement, superfluous to NOR, V and RS; there is nothing for which Fromowner supercedes.

1780:

1037:

1) . Let's see how well what was proposed matches what has been implemented, how broad and long the community response was, and how positive. 2) All sorts of things could be considered in keeping with the very vague and broad mission statement while still conflicting with policies and

2721:

In order to pull off this hack I had to go endure a healthy stabbing from Brion since the license selector wasn't localized on enwiki. Because the concerns raised here are related to project policy and not anything technical there is nothing for the developers to say on this matter

1602:

google search to confirm the names mentioned existed and were in the right place. the uploader had the option to select a wikipedia only licsence and didn't do so. The upload system asks people to name the article the image should be in whish I assume was what the person was

1355:

3224:, and given the costs of doing things this way (all the problems already noted), a very strong case can be made that it certainly not worth it at all. I could go on, but most of what you write here has already been addressed several times elsewhere in the debate. — 3141:

people will. This happens with the standard upload screen, too. (Should we get rid of that, too?) And the fromowner screen gives a lot clearer and more helpful explanation than a lot of other places on Knowledge (XXG) than no, we only want the images that are really

3385:: I'm not sure what you mean. While I kept the nomination LINE itself short, every single one of those shortcuts was used in long form in the rationale. Maybe try reading more fully before reacting. Did you have anything actually substantive to add, or just this " 3662:, a category I'd say this seems to fall under. Technical concerns regarding the page's implementation and issues with protection seem entirely irrelevant to this discussion. The "it's never been discussed" argument seems to be moot, as well -- we're discussing it 1142:-style "UNDER CONSTRUCTION" notices when dealing with the media? so 1996 would be a step forward (placeholders are hardly a 1990s thing). Most wikipedia articles are still under construction so unless you object to truth in presenitation I fail to see a problem. 2109:: Look by all means. The entire point of running things through a proposal process is for people to look and comment, and for discussion to ensue and for a consensus to be built. That's not happened here. Instead, its simply been implemented and deployed. — 1158:

unusual hold-outs that couldn't be reasonably bot-handled is so small, and their range so obscure, that that final sweep-up could be handled manually. I'm not sure why you are trying to convince me (or whomever) that this wouldn't be a WP pandemic. The clear

1612:

Geni, the account was created only to upload that photo and has never edited again since. Someone could have created it in the name of the Flickr uploader. And I think the condition as to how we use the image is fundamentally incompatible with a free license.

986:) quite clearly states that only images "you have created" should be uploaded. This is even more clear than the regular upload page. We will always have people who upload with an incorrect license, c/p copyrighted text, etc. There's no way to prevent it. --- 673:

1937:. If you look at the print version of a page with the image, it becomes completely useless. Stub tags are wrapped in the correct CSS so they don't appear in print versions. Can the image be wrapped in a selfref or other noprint CSS wherever it is used? 676:

There's no evidence that discretion is being used; it is clear that the intent (so far) is for this sort of WP self-referential pseudo-image to appear on every photoless bio and building/structure article on the system, and likely more of them later. —

2479:

The code is part of the system and it appears to be the entire system is up for deletion. Placeholder images have not spead widely (ok that isn't true other than the one the album people use they haven't spread widely). Fromowner appears to have done

3188:

visual cues that we are a freely-editable work-in-progress.) And it clearly doesn't look like one in many areas. Why then shouldn't we use that to our advantage and ask our readers for help in the specific areas we need it, especially as most of the

1815:

Keep in WP space as an option that can be used, for 3 months, call it what you will. Then revisit the issue and see if it's working, or not. Despite my concerns with the proposal, I don't think this an experiment just for the heck of it. Regards,

386:

the image upload process itself. If that were not sufficient reason for concern, the system has been locked into place by the creating editor's admin priveledges in apparent contravention of page-protection policy. Anything this expansive needs to

2125:

So? There have been few actionable objections until now and they mostly consist of claims of unencyclopedic-ness and ugly print versions; the latter I am (and it appears others) are prepared to deal with and the former can be fixed technically.

3686:

Um, this has to be the most misguided proposal ever made on a free project. No, don't delete them, reform them, or anything else. They state the "free" part of our mission very effectively and that's pretty much why we're here: to make a 💕.

606:: Exactly. What was a kluge is being extended against extant consensus to be a new "standard practice"; there are good reasons that it wasn't standard practice to begin with. It's not like this is the first time the idea has ever come up. — 3503:

Indeed not. Please note that I did not respond at all to several recent !votes that actually provided logically defensible rationales. Pretty good food for thought some of them were, and please note that I've been arguing for userspacing and

1567:

Ah yes that one has been bothering me but I can't prove it one way or the other. Quite a complex lie if it isn't true (incerdeantly the background is almost certianly not genuine since I suspect it would put the sitter in the middle of the

2851:

A steady flow of free images come by without this, this will encourage people to upload copyrighted images obliviously, the author seems to enjoy defending it to the death instead of listening to people, and everything the nominator said.

2656:: Yes, but you appeared to be making two points, one about CSD and another about the Foundation; I was responding to what I perceived of as the second: other than Jimbo occassionally acting in his official Wikimedia Foundation role (as at 213:

and similar things to talk pages.) As an aside, it is arguably also malnamed, as "Fromowner" doesn't mean much of anything I would bet to anyone but the author. It is uncategorized (other than as an MFD), as if it is the opposite of the

2438:

proponents: "But, but, we've put a lot of work into this!" By way of analogy, if I write a complicated automated system for insulting people, the fact that there is a lot of code behind it doesn't make it any less a transgression of

1979:

Its not a very good idea. It should of been discussed before it was implemented. It implies that the only images that can be used on wikipedia are free images, while fair-use images are completely legal, with policy, and helpful.

1220:

Hmm you don't pay much attention to the mailing list do you? No matter the archives are searchable. Also appears you don't deal with olypic atheletes much and have you any idea how many different ways there are to code for image

1038:

well-established guidelines; that's not really an argument at all. Being within the mission statement != being within policy (which in turn != being within community consensus more broadly.) 3) Irrelevant; these pages are not

2307:, following your self-edit above: MoS is indeed a guideline, one of the most solid we have. But it's not what I'm relying on. MOS#Images doesn't address this, because no one thought it needed to (and is cleary doesn't), given 417:

Seems a reasonable concept, in this case If there are issues I'd prefer to see them openly discussed and worked through before considering deletion. As to policy, can't say I recall the policy prohibiting place holder images.

3041:

I don't want to be rude.. but you've edited this page28 times so far, can some of the rest of us have a chance to talk? Wiki might not be paper, but people don't have the time or patience to read a mile of one mans position.

1106:

If they are hard to get we need to maximise the number of people who are looking for one. No PD lisence to keep things simple. It isn't an infor box it is an image and putting it on 100K articles would take rather a long

1199:

being sent. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether WP ever declares an article "finished" and thus uneditable, which of course it does not. Please do not conflate the two concepts. They do not relate at all. —

3146:

here. One advantage of this system is that it places all the images uploaded under it in a particular category to make it easier to evaluate the images. Which is how we know it's gotten a steady stream of free ones,

2970:

proposal. People overuse the word "policy" without usually meaning to. And if, with work and compromise, it can't survive the guideline proposal process, it does not deserve to and shouldn't be implemented. —

2603:

nope couldn't get people interested in csd#g12 either. Doesn't appear to have caused any problems so far. Foundation constantly has problems with geting people interested in various policy stuff before they do

3240:

You're damn right that it's a subjective issue, so how in the world is your lonely opinion that it's "ugly" a valid reason to delete?! You've just conceded your own point, apparently without realizing it.

1993:

um fair use images of living people are pretty widely accepted as a no no except in rather extream cases. If you select fair use of living person in upload menu it automaticaly lists the resulting image for

3089:. It appears this needs to be a proposal and get some discussion before being fully implemented. Until this has been amply discussed, we might as well leave it open to see if it has any positive effects. - 2323:. Do you really think you were the first person to come up with the idea of a placeholder image? Or using what would normally be a graphical presentation to deliver a textual message? I mean, come on, 1908:

Comment: The nomination was for "delete or userfy", not just "delete"; it's not a binary choice. :-) That said, I have no problem with this being closed early and re-addressed in the venue you suggest. —

752:

is quite a bit more subtle than "do as thou willt". PS: No one is editwarring. Policies do not go through a consensus-building proposal phase simply because there is editwarring. <fzzt spark pop: -->

2291:

than the edit tab although I generaly compare it to stubs). Now we can play the who is a better rule lawyer game if you like but aparently that kind of thing is frowned upon by those higher up the chain.

3170:

one happens to be shaped like a silhouette does not make it different in nature. It's asking to reader to improve the article by contributing information, visual information rather than a reference.

2862: 2024:- While I understand and appreciate the reasoning behind the proposal, it does violate Knowledge (XXG)'s style guide, and generally doesn't seem appropriate, especially since there's already the {{ 1549:, note the background. Now have a look at this older photo of her from the Labour Party website. See a similarity? It seems very likely the photo uploaded is a newer official Labour party photo. 1091:

vote, because I don't. Fourth, I dunno why they distinctly avoid the PD license, but that makes me a bit uncomfortable. Lastly, are we really going to put this infobox on over 100,000 articles?--

1138:

have you any idea how much of a mess our current infobox templates are? programing a bot to cope with all the varations would be quite a trick. You are aware that the tradtional phrase is 199

2010:. I think it's a brilliant idea, maybe it could be edited to include fair use images. But I don't think it does any harm, just about anyone can find an image that could be used as fair use. 2826:

We should be doing this for non-free images. There is a feature request in bugzill that when implimented would probably change the CSS class on images based on a directive on the image page

3131:

See Kusma's comment above. Minor implementation issues should not bar a good idea. The technical issues you are concerned about can be worked out; bring those up and someone will fix them.

3532:

them. If you want to reform them, you need to have the discussion somewhere else. Since you, as the nominator, don't actually want the Fromowner system deleted, this MFD is invalid. --

3007: 1898: 394: 1764:

for now. This seems like a bad idea to me, but I don't think it would hurt to give it a try. That should prove the matter one way or the other and save us guessing about it. Regards,

3216:

parties here have given reasons that it is not a good idea, and all the "me too" !votes in the world do not address those concerns. "It's worked so far"? Well of course there will be

205:

and other WikiProject templates. There seems to be a uniform and long-standing consensus that such article improvement doo-dads belong on article talk pages, not articles (Cf. recent

2896:

two of the pages utilise the language system not one. While it isn't what the language system is designed for commons did it first and the devs could have stoped it if they wanted to.

402:

It's too early (I think) to see if it really works, but we need to try something to have people upload free content images instead of non-free images they found on the web somewhere.

182:

in effect even if not in intent. (The same could possibly be said of the form taken by this page and some of its subpages, which are in monstrously-huge boldfaced "yelling" text.)

3386: 2548: 1339:

I have little to add to the discussion and, while I know that XfD is not a vote, I would like to comment that I agree with the above opinions in favour of keeping this programme. --

178:

noise. It would also drive everyone nuts because eventually it would appear on potentially every single article in WP that doesn't have an infobox picture. As such it is clearly

588: 2434:

not want WP to look like MySpace\Tribe.net, and for good reasons. You seem to be missing the whole point raised here, and in effect falling back on the failed argument of the

2090:

So basically you mean that people commenting here shouldn't look if they think it's a good idea but vote no because it's not properly adressed and goes against a guideline????

807:

is unfortunate, since it is at least as much about guideline formation as Policy-per-se formation. I was just using shorthand, but I see that it was too ambiguous to do so. —

803:

have indeed going through formal or informal proposal processes and a great deal of consensus building. I apologize for using "policy" in the over-broad sense; the name of

1444:

I think it does meet several of the criteria for being a {{tl:policy}}, but some of them only weakly. (Else I would have already closed the MFD and marked as such :-P ) --

560:

that reference provides a specific course of action when an image would be valuable, but is not available: "If you cannot find a suitable image, you can make a request at

2567:

Umm I had to get clearence from the devs so zero disscussion would be tricky. I kicked it around in various places but no one seemed too interested in talking about it.

1883:

works. To that end, I'm no longer advocating deletion, which would foreclose on this system's chances and circumvent process itself. Instead, I think this is the

475:

I don't follow the question. Userfy it the same way you userfy a template or any other non-article. Couldn't care less what they are called personally. How about

314:

that that was a comment, while the nomination consists, and has the entire time, of three pages and two images (identified so far). Updated: 05:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

1879:. In short, I feel it is a solution in search of a problem, but it is clear that there are many editors here who do not agree with me. That's fine, too, its how 1676:

this system. We've also got nl.wikimedia working on more mechanisms like this. Also suggest admonishing the nominator for proceduralism over practicality, blatant

2726:, except that a future version of our upload page will hopefully be more dynamic and flexible. If you ask they might wish to respond as Wikimedians, however. -- 653:

However, discretion should be used (i.e. don't use this on the main page, don't use it on articles in which a free image is unlikely to ever be uploaded). ---

2703:: And satisfying the dev people that you aren't going to break something in a technical way doesn't mean that what you're planning to do will be useful. — 69: 3438: 3490:

Wow, are you seriously going to nitpick at every single person who disagrees with you? Have you stopped hating what Knowledge (XXG) stands for yet? --

1920: 639: 617: 509:: I don't see what the point is. What do you need to test, since you already know it works? If it came down to it, there could perhaps be a page at 1279:

says that GFDL is sufficient. MFD is not a majority vote system, so your "vote" does not stand, since you never had one in the first place eh? ;-) --

2687:

Developer clearance? I thought you might have gotten that. Can you link to that, or have someone like Brion attest? (There's an exception clause on

2327:, of (mis)using infobox imagespace as a "please upload pics" WP self-ref exhortation has already been tried before, as cited above (see comments by 1187:

While I could be talking to a temporal peer, I get the sense I'm not. I've been building the web since it existed. 'The tradtional phrase is 199

3159:

Sure, it's kind of an ugly hack. But it works. If this is your objection, suggest a replacement that is better and accomplishes the same purpose.

1017:

only targets quite involved editors. Fromowner is mean to target readers. 5.)The "Fromowner" name was largely acidental and follows the style of

3153:

If you see somewhere this was applied that it shouldn't be, where there shouldn't be a picture, take it off, same as with a misapplied stub tag.

1056:, under the "system administration" rationale given there. And protection it is not for pre-emptive protection of new pages just because they 519:

I really don't care what goes where, I care about these problematic image placeholders showing up in hundreds, and soon thousands, of articles.

2213:

I think we can confidently say that Knowledge (XXG) is not going to implement a proposals-only system for the gratification of SMcCandlish. --

1578: 749: 2339:

driving, and that, by overwhelming consensus, belongs on the article's talk page. That is why article assessments, needs-infobox tagging,

47: 565: 248: 164: 17: 1154:

Yes, I am aware, and I'm also countervailingly well aware that the image-related code in infoboxes only takes a few forms; the number of

982:

The problem of people uploading non-free images as free is certainly a problem. However, the fromowner upload page (which is linked from

2036:- just look at this MfD. If this can be justified and supported through a Village Pump proposal, however, I would support the decision. 905: 2164:

I don’t care that it is unencyclopedic :-) that’s how. Its something I’m prepared to deal with in order to try to maintain a 💕. --

1064:

would be an insane free-for-all if that were justification enough for protection of any kind, much less permanent, full protection. —

439:; we tolerate very view instructional/exhortatory types of messages in articles (stub tags, and dispute/cleanup templates, period.) — 2527: 436: 156: 73: 3364:

per highly relevant comments by Kat Walsh. And a rotten tomato for the nominator for offering alphabet soup as a deletion reason.

3298:

is mostly full of stuff in the various deletion lines (mostly no source) Other than that there is stuff I'm really uncertian about.

2770:

given that both would likely have to rip out "fair use" images and stub notices I doubt removeing the image would be a major effort.

2624:

gets involved it is usually because of a tricky legal issue that the community isn't largely aware of; this is not the case here. —

2817:

This is a good point, and something that should be looked into. This would also remove most people's objections here, I think. --

728:

all for it. If other editors want to fight it out in an edit war, though, it will have to go to being a proposed policy. I guess.

715:

This may be a necessary byproduct of The Foundation's strict image policy. If we're going to have a decent on-line encyclopedia

719:

and need them badly. This will get us at least some more pictures, I would think. Now, the questition of whether this should be

2350: 210: 561: 77: 2287:

has nothing to say about this. no policy covers this because no one knew that it could be done (It is no more a violation of

170:

Despite this lack of consensus, its proponent(s) have been installing this bogus un-image on hundreds of articles. Next, as

2665:

placeholder images does harm, and as this becomes subject to broader community input, even more people will be saying so. —

476: 269: 253: 778:. (AKA, you have not acquired all all the information, guidelines, and processes required to understand what's going on) -- 564:

so that another contributor might find or create a suitable image." There does not appear to have been any discussion at

139:

It's a proposal to fill all empty bio (and other, including structure/building) infobox "|image=" lines with <ahem: -->

745: 552: 573: 297: 259: 144: 3706: 371:

This entire situation makes me very uncomfortable. Essentially, this system appears to be a unilateral effort to move

36: 1060:"high-traffic" (or massively transcluded, heavily edit-warred, or some other genuine protection rationale) some day. 1046:. I think you may be misreading and overextending the rationale for protecting massively-transcluded templates like 514: 171: 3691: 3681: 3649: 3627: 3605: 3576: 3540: 3519: 3498: 3485: 3466: 3452: 3429: 3417: 3400: 3373: 3352: 3339: 3320: 3306: 3286: 3273: 3249: 3235: 3200: 3177:

contains a selection of vetted free images uploaded through the process (24 of them, at the time of posting), while

3113: 3096: 3081: 3069: 3046: 3036: 2995: 2982: 2953: 2944: 2932: 2900: 2891: 2882: 2873: 2856: 2833: 2821: 2808: 2774: 2761: 2730: 2714: 2695: 2676: 2648: 2635: 2608: 2594: 2571: 2562: 2534: 2517: 2484: 2470: 2417: 2404: 2381: 2368: 2295: 2268: 2258: 2217: 2196: 2168: 2159: 2130: 2120: 2097: 2081: 2054: 2040: 2014: 1998: 1984: 1969: 1946: 1856: 1843: 1820: 1806: 1768: 1748: 1727: 1718: 1690: 1648: 1635: 1626: 1607: 1597: 1572: 1562: 1540: 1522: 1505: 1474: 1448: 1435: 1384: 1367: 1343: 1332: 1303: 1294: 1283: 1270: 1249: 1225: 1211: 1179: 1146: 1133: 1111: 1097: 1075: 1025: 990: 977: 959: 937: 914: 876: 853: 838: 818: 782: 764: 732: 701: 688: 657: 532: 497: 484: 463: 450: 422: 409: 356: 91: 2335:

that the article may not be dependable. "Please upload a free image" doesn't fall into either camp. It is part of

493:

Err you can't call special pages from userspace pages so that wouldn't work.incerdently 4 lines of sig is too long.

305: 909: 795:: That's not actually a straw man at all; I am commenting on self-evident behavior, not statements. Most accepted 289: 265: 3184:

Knowledge (XXG) is not a finished product; it shouldn't look like one. (If anything, I'd like to give the reader

568:

to determine consensus for this parallel implementation. There are, admittedly, a number of placeholder images (

111:

This thing has been around almost silently since last month, and is a largely one-editor effort. It has not been

1890: 104: 1681: 577: 3299: 3220:

valid results from this; let's not be silly. A paltry 24 images after 2 months is clear evidence that this is

3174: 2915: 1515: 1088: 970: 2799:: any information that only makes sense to people who can edit the wiki should be removed by ?printable=yes. 2028:}} talkpage mechanism for requesting images for articles. The proposal was also not discussed (at least, not 3705:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a

3094: 1546: 1323:. Fits in very well with the mission of Knowledge (XXG) and the foundation, and quite well done in my view. 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a

1527:

But we can't know that these images wouldn't have been uploaded had the "Fromowner" mechanism not existed.

3688: 3616: 3602: 3369: 3197: 3004: 2914:— This is the best shot we have at getting new free content for our freely redistributable encyclopedia. 2861:

Haveing an upload tag appears to encourage people to upload copyvios and questionable fair use stuff (see

2328: 1895: 585: 391: 2866: 2688: 983: 510: 243: 148: 61: 3676: 3645: 3426: 3295: 3178: 1965: 1288:

My !vote, sorry :P or my opinion, whichever. okay then, if GFDL is sufficient why have two copyrights?--

569: 2879: 2853: 3640: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below.

3349: 2888: 2265: 2165: 2127: 2045:

Wait, you're advocating the removal of a system to get free images, because it doesn't comply to the

1817: 1765: 1471: 1381: 1340: 199: 2444: 1956:. An excellent idea that should be discussed and modified through consensus rather than deleted. -- 3065: 3061: 1620: 1591: 1556: 1534: 1499: 775: 3328:: How is it highly valuable? To date it has produced only two dozen potentially usable images! — 3078: 2661: 2621: 2448: 556: 342:

Apologies for the length of this MfD nomination, but the case is weird and multifile-complicated.

3302:

isn't that heavily vetted and should not be viewed as a garentee that something is not a copyvio.

3090: 2784: 2094: 897: 406: 2413:

so comments with regards to pure placeholdes are irrelivant. It is a bit more complex than that.

1872: 1782: 1709: 1677: 3282:

well the silhouette is based on an image NASA sent into space so it is unlikely to be that bad.

3621: 3365: 3194: 2941: 2343: 2241: 2025: 1789: 1418: 1011: 850: 581: 375: 333: 215: 189: 3212: 3105: 2456: 2312: 2145: 1380:

I think that it should be kept in its current form. I think that no change is necessary. --

1061: 1043: 230: 3668: 3568: 3511: 3477: 3444: 3392: 3331: 3265: 3227: 3028: 2992: 2974: 2950: 2818: 2706: 2692: 2668: 2627: 2586: 2554: 2509: 2462: 2396: 2360: 2250: 2214: 2188: 2151: 2112: 2073: 2051: 2011: 1912: 1835: 1798: 1740: 1724: 1687: 1645: 1445: 1427: 1359: 1327: 1300: 1280: 1276: 1264:

Alright. I'd prefer that it were a PD license as opposed to the others, so my vote stands.--

1241: 1203: 1171: 1125: 1067: 1003:

growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual content").3) "yelling text" seem

929: 868: 810: 779: 756: 729: 680: 609: 524: 513:

that was an outline of what the proposal is, with the extant material at that page moved to

442: 348: 83: 3505: 2657: 2440: 2435: 2354: 2308: 2288: 2284: 2234: 1934: 1876: 804: 326: 322: 206: 175: 116: 112: 2804: 2757: 1942: 1424:? Despite the fact that I've already demonstrated that it is being mistaken for policy? — 3344:

Um, am I missing something? It has only produced two dozen potentially usable images....

2319:, as I said in the nomination. "No one knew that it could be done?" Please. This is a 2316: 1582: 179: 3129:"What about Knowledge (XXG):Avoid self-reference? Or isolating it in the print version?" 3463: 3109:

of code and that people use it to upload useful images don’t outweigh these arguments.

3057: 2878:"System"? That's a bit rich - it's two pages, one of which abuses the language system. 2792: 2037: 1713: 1615: 1586: 1551: 1529: 1494: 1467: 1408: 1289: 1265: 1092: 1039: 1004: 276:, there is an actual image there, similar in wording to the above one, but even uglier. 127: 3636: 3317: 3110: 3043: 2830: 2727: 2091: 1961: 1871:

I've re-evaluated my opinion somewhat. I still have the same concerns: that this is

1832:

So who's going to clean up 10,000 articles when this proves to be a dreadful idea? —

1050: 636: 419: 403: 339:

replacement tactic is appropriate (however, I think the odds of that are very slim.)

3348:

That's great! Why don't we let it run longer and see how many more we get! :-D --

459:

how exactly were you planning to userfy the mediawiki pages in any meaningful sense?

2783:

The stub notices are already tagged for removal, while the image is not. Check out

987: 953: 847: 698: 654: 2791:. The printable version has no stub tag. I would like to see the same happen with 2551:" nature have undermined themselves as comments are being struck and reversed. — 1981: 1324: 799:

descend from Jimbo and the Foundation, so I don't see your point. Most accepted

3524:

So I can shut down this MFD right now as "nominator withdrawal", correct? You

1018: 256:- whatever that means (are we in the Deutschewikipedianischweltanschauung now?) 3414: 3193:

of the site are not generally editors and wouldn't think to do so themselves?

2800: 2753: 1938: 835: 155:), illustrated to the right here. This is clearly a blatant transgression of 3533: 3491: 3303: 3283: 3242: 2925: 2897: 2870: 2771: 2645: 2605: 2568: 2531: 2481: 2414: 2378: 2292: 1995: 1853: 1632: 1604: 1569: 1519: 1222: 1143: 1108: 1022: 974: 494: 460: 123:(which is why I'm bringing it here instead of RfC.) It is not tagged as an 3613:

Anything that raises awareness of the Free Image cause is worth the while.

2991:

Same difference. The whole "proposed Foo" meme needs to Die Die Die. :-P --

2357:

over the last week or so) all go on the talk page, not the article page. —

1785:(or to experiment just for the heck of it.) We warn 1000 noobs a day with 229:, a clear conflict of interest, in the absence of anything cognizant under 2233:: I have no idea what you mean here. Did you not notice what happened to 2237:? Have you observed that wacky one-person ideas generally end up with a 1957: 1545:

Actually I also doubt that some of those are really free. Take a look at

1192: 2940:

This could be useful, it's at least worth having a discussion about. --

2887:

Semantics. Any actionable objections in response to Geni's reponse? --

2620:: Unless I've missed something, you don't represent the foundation. If 2144:: How on earth can you "fix technically" that this is is unencyclopedic 237:

The files collectively subject to this MfD are (that I know of so far):

3181:

has the images still waiting to be looked over by an experienced user.

2827: 1461: 2788: 2185:

dealing with it. "It" is already happening or we wouldn't be here. —

1168:

it will, in which case the issues raised here have to be addressed. —

517:; then you could use the other bits and not be in userspace. Repeat: 381:

to article space, despite the community's increasing tendency to keep

2829:. It could also be used for this purpose. Feel free to code it. :) -- 3462:- I stumbled across this and thought, "wow, this is a great idea!". 3441:

and its subcategories already serve this purpose quite well. :-) —

1631:

I don't read it as a condition given the context of the upload form.

787:

Also, the length of your sig suggests something along those lines:-P

3000:

Elimination of the "proposed Foo" meme could always be proposed...

137:

as a result. What it is, and is for, aren't instantly apparent:

2377:

not the first placeholder but the functionality behind it is new.

834:

and propose it as a policy proposal, see what consensus decides.

390:

at the pump, not with live implementation via uneditable pages.

3699:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

3474:: By what rationale? "Me too" XfD arguments are meaningless. — 2796: 2583:: And that is a very strong sign that this isn't a good idea. — 2865:). On the other hand the fromowner system got things like this 3135:"But people will just be confused and upload non-free images!" 2863:

Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:AutoReplaceable_fair_use_people

2050:. Hmmm, could we perhaps edit the style guide instead? :-) -- 103: 3346:

it has produced two dozen potentially usable images! Yahoo!

1708:

That's quite harsh languags for someone who didn't violate

151:, but works when used as an image, and can be gotten to by 3151:

This gives the impression that everything needs a picture!

2457:"I think it's a good idea so normal process doesn't apply" 3658:

self-references, including links to sister projects, and

308:- may or may not actually be closely associated with this 300:- may or may not actually be closely associated with this 292:- may or may not actually be closely associated with this 3660:

especially invitations to expand, fix, or check articles

551:

Regarding image placeholders, I read certain aspects of

3254:

Please re-read. I just said that "ugly"/"beautiful" is

273: 152: 134: 51: 2644:

um g12 is copyvio deletion. Nothing to do with office.

1852:

Orphanbot could do it. Dito CommonsDelinker in theory.

133:, and is worded as if it were policy or a guideline — 3258:

substantively among the points being raised. So, um,

147:(which is a bizarre redirect to a text page, namely 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1933:. The method definitely violates our style guide 1732:Either that or I have a quirky sense of humor ;-) 3709:). No further edits should be made to this page. 969:we've got a few free images through the system 926:RockMFR's "keep" comment was self-rescinded. — 865:RockMFR's "keep" comment was self-rescinded. — 225:And, finally, the page has been perm-protected 119:or otherwise invited for community discussion, 3439:Category:Knowledge (XXG) requested photographs 3316:Highly valuable and encourages free content. 1695:If it's being used, it has consensus. Period! 1581:. Given the image is available on Flickr (see 321:In closing, I'd be okay with this becoming an 163:a talk page (and it's not a /doc thing, it is 8: 3601:to get involved and start contributing. -- 1887:to discuss the issue at all, and suggest we 435:cited policy/guideline pages, in particular 167:, intended to be a stand-alone document). 121:yet is being deployed as if it had consensus 1778:Clarification requested, and reply comment: 2049:? <Picks jaw back up off the floor: --> 282:Some other bits that seem to refer to it: 172:users Astrokey44 and 32X have pointed out 3413:their images, and not only their words. 3157:This is an abuse of the language system! 2526:The documentation bit was brought up on 1299:Two copyrights? Do you mean CC-BY-SA? -- 750:Knowledge (XXG):Be bold in editing pages 566:Knowledge (XXG) Talk: Requested pictures 98:Delete or userfy, with its subcomponents 2148:"noise" in an encyclopedia article?! — 1783:disrupt Knowledge (XXG) to make a point 249:Knowledge (XXG):Fromowner documentation 165:Knowledge (XXG):Fromowner documentation 45: 18:Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion 2789:Johanngeorgenstadt (printable version) 1644:So go ask! Go on, you know you can. -- 1579:Image:David Miliband 11 April 2007.JPG 580:), but -- except for the non-invasive 477:User:Geni/MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fobuild 2528:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy) 1514:we do get more free content uploaded 1275:PD isn't available in all countries. 437:Knowledge (XXG):Avoid self-references 157:Knowledge (XXG):Avoid self-references 135:it is being actively mistaken as such 44:The result of the debate was keep. — 7: 1877:guidelines for policy implementation 174:, this pseudo-picture is flagrantly 3528:bring things to MFD if you want to 555:and the non-policy but often-cited 3124:First, to address the opposition: 2797:Claire Forlani (printable version) 2459:. I think that says something. — 1404:Really? Without even being tagged 562:Knowledge (XXG):Requested pictures 70:Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia 24: 2949:No way. Policy proposal==dead. -- 270:Knowledge (XXG):Fromownerbuilding 254:Knowledge (XXG):Fromownerbuilding 3002:(I'm sorry, I couldn't help it.) 2032:) before implementation, and is 1402:Further clarification requested: 746:Knowledge (XXG):Ignore all rules 553:Knowledge (XXG):Image use policy 3437:: In case you had not noticed, 2351:Category:Place of birth missing 515:Knowledge (XXG):Fromowner/Draft 211:Category:Place of birth missing 651:Keep. Seems like a great idea. 195:and the "|needs-photo=yes" of 1: 3619:, your friendly neighborhood 888:Per RockMFR and Herostratus. 268:- another weird redirect, to 266:Image:Replace this imageb.svg 260:Image:Replace this image1.svg 145:Image:Replace this image1.svg 3464:-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 1894:where it probably belonged. 1795:and related to not do so. — 668:Clarification requested, and 298:MediaWiki:Uploadtext/fobuild 290:Template:Multilicensefobuild 262:- the offending pseudo-image 3389:" and a personal attack? — 2938:Refactor as policy proposal 185:Next, it is redundant with 3726: 2933:18:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2901:18:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2892:17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2883:17:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2874:16:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2857:16:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2834:19:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2822:12:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2809:11:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2775:11:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2762:08:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2731:23:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2696:12:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2572:11:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2563:08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2535:01:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2518:00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2382:11:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2369:08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2296:02:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2218:13:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2131:12:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2121:08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2098:07:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2082:00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 2055:23:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 2041:22:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 2015:18:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1999:18:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1985:18:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1970:14:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1947:06:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1921:00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 1899:02:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1821:23:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 1807:00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 1769:00:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 1749:00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 1728:23:28, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1719:23:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1691:23:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1649:23:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1636:23:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1627:23:30, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1608:23:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1598:23:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1573:23:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1563:23:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1541:23:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1523:22:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1506:22:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1436:09:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 1385:08:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 1368:00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 1344:22:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1333:22:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1304:12:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 1295:23:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1284:23:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1271:23:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1226:11:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 1212:08:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 1180:08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 1147:02:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 1134:00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 1112:21:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1098:21:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 1076:00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 1026:20:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 991:03:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 978:20:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 960:17:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 938:08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 915:16:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 877:08:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 854:16:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 839:16:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 783:12:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 774:installed the appropriate 765:00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 733:15:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 702:01:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 697:I've changed my mind. --- 689:00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 658:15:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 640:13:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 618:00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 589:11:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 498:11:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 485:07:25, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 464:01:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 451:00:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC) 423:10:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 410:08:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 395:08:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 357:07:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 306:MediaWiki:Licenses/fobuild 92:07:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 57:12:53, May. 4, 2007 (UTC) 3410:Another very strong keep: 3383:Request for clarification 2689:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus 1577:I'm also concerned about 984:Knowledge (XXG):Fromowner 511:Knowledge (XXG):Fromowner 244:Knowledge (XXG):Fromowner 149:Knowledge (XXG):Fromowner 68:Blatant transgression of 62:Knowledge (XXG):Fromowner 3702:Please do not modify it. 3300:Category:Fromownerviewed 3175:Category:Fromownerviewed 3173:And it's worked so far. 2916:Category:Fromownerviewed 2504:Clarification requested: 2445:"I like it" and "me too" 1516:Category:Fromownerviewed 1353:Clarification requested: 971:Category:Fromownerviewed 432:Clarification requested: 32:Please do not modify it. 3692:12:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3682:02:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3650:02:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3628:02:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3606:22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC) 3577:13:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3541:12:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3520:11:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3508:not actual deletion. — 3499:02:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3486:01:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3467:17:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC) 3453:01:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3430:17:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 3423:Yet another strong keep 3418:16:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 3401:01:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3374:15:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 3353:01:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3340:01:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3321:15:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 3307:17:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 3287:01:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3274:11:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3250:02:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3236:01:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 3201:15:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 3114:14:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 3097:10:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 3082:17:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 3070:10:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 3047:06:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 3037:05:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 3008:03:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 2996:03:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 2983:01:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 2954:00:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 2945:00:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 2715:01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 2677:05:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 2649:04:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 2636:03:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 2609:03:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 2595:01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 2485:04:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 2471:03:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 2418:03:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 2405:01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 2283:MOS is a guideline and 2269:02:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 2259:01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 2197:11:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 2169:02:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 2160:01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 1889:redirect discussion to 1857:03:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 1844:01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 1712:in the slightest, no?-- 1547:Image:Sianjamesmain.jpg 1475:01:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC) 1449:01:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 1250:01:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 819:01:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 533:01:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 2431:This entire discussion 1830:Clarification request: 557:Knowledge (XXG):Images 153:bypassing the redirect 109: 3472:Clarification request 3023:Clarification comment 2449:"it doesn't actually 2329:User:Serpent's Choice 2034:clearly controversial 723:*could* be seen as a 107: 74:Avoid self-references 2867:Image:GemmaWard1.jpg 1680:abuse and for being 1119:Strong reply comment 753:DOES NOT COMPUTE! — 108:The offending image. 2337:article improvement 2305:Interjected comment 1277:m:Foundation issues 1163:of it is to affect 115:, nor subject to a 3296:Category:Fromowner 3198:(spill your mind?) 3179:Category:Fromowner 3163:But it looks ugly! 2924:that it works. -- 2785:Johanngeorgenstadt 1670:admonish nominator 947:Very strong delete 327:guideline proposal 110: 78:Disruptive editing 3648: 3003: 2691:which applies) -- 2353:and its ilk (see 1873:instruction creep 1734: 1701: 1698: 1697:unless it doesn't 789: 748:, the meaning of 231:protection policy 3717: 3704: 3680: 3673: 3644: 3626: 3571: 3538: 3514: 3506:proposal process 3496: 3480: 3447: 3395: 3334: 3268: 3247: 3230: 3031: 3005:Serpent's Choice 3001: 2981: 2978: 2977: 2930: 2713: 2710: 2709: 2671: 2630: 2593: 2590: 2589: 2561: 2558: 2557: 2516: 2513: 2512: 2465: 2403: 2400: 2399: 2367: 2364: 2363: 2348: 2342: 2257: 2254: 2253: 2246: 2240: 2191: 2158: 2155: 2154: 2119: 2116: 2115: 2080: 2077: 2076: 1919: 1916: 1915: 1896:Serpent's Choice 1842: 1839: 1838: 1805: 1802: 1801: 1794: 1788: 1747: 1744: 1743: 1730: 1716: 1696: 1693: 1625: 1596: 1561: 1539: 1504: 1434: 1431: 1430: 1423: 1417: 1413: 1407: 1366: 1363: 1362: 1330: 1292: 1268: 1248: 1245: 1244: 1210: 1207: 1206: 1178: 1175: 1174: 1132: 1129: 1128: 1095: 1074: 1071: 1070: 1055: 1049: 1016: 1010: 956: 952: 936: 933: 932: 913: 902: 900: 895: 875: 872: 871: 817: 814: 813: 785: 763: 760: 759: 717:we need pictures 687: 684: 683: 616: 613: 612: 586:Serpent's Choice 531: 528: 527: 483: 480: 449: 446: 445: 392:Serpent's Choice 380: 374: 355: 352: 351: 338: 332: 274:bypass the redir 204: 198: 194: 188: 132: 126: 90: 87: 86: 34: 3725: 3724: 3720: 3719: 3718: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3707:deletion review 3700: 3669: 3667: 3614: 3567: 3534: 3510: 3492: 3476: 3443: 3391: 3330: 3264: 3243: 3226: 3027: 2979: 2973: 2972: 2926: 2711: 2705: 2704: 2667: 2626: 2591: 2585: 2584: 2559: 2553: 2552: 2514: 2508: 2507: 2461: 2401: 2395: 2394: 2365: 2359: 2358: 2349:, and now even 2346: 2340: 2255: 2249: 2248: 2244: 2238: 2187: 2181:Except, you're 2156: 2150: 2149: 2117: 2111: 2110: 2078: 2072: 2071: 1917: 1911: 1910: 1891:WP:RFC/POLICIES 1840: 1834: 1833: 1803: 1797: 1796: 1792: 1786: 1745: 1739: 1738: 1714: 1614: 1585: 1550: 1528: 1493: 1432: 1426: 1425: 1421: 1415: 1411: 1405: 1364: 1358: 1357: 1328: 1290: 1266: 1246: 1240: 1239: 1208: 1202: 1201: 1176: 1170: 1169: 1130: 1124: 1123: 1093: 1072: 1066: 1065: 1053: 1047: 1014: 1008: 954: 950: 934: 928: 927: 912: 898: 896: 891: 889: 873: 867: 866: 815: 809: 808: 761: 755: 754: 685: 679: 678: 614: 608: 607: 529: 523: 522: 481: 447: 441: 440: 378: 372: 353: 347: 346: 336: 330: 222:to be found". 202: 196: 192: 186: 130: 124: 100:(as nominator): 88: 82: 81: 66: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3723: 3721: 3712: 3711: 3695: 3694: 3684: 3652: 3630: 3608: 3597:invitation to 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3420: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3377: 3376: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3310: 3309: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3167: 3166: 3165:No it doesn't. 3160: 3154: 3148: 3132: 3122: 3121: 3116: 3099: 3084: 3072: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 2986: 2985: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2935: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2894: 2845: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2837: 2836: 2812: 2811: 2793:Claire Forlani 2778: 2777: 2765: 2764: 2750:Isolate better 2746: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2718: 2717: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2651: 2639: 2638: 2612: 2611: 2598: 2597: 2575: 2574: 2565: 2544:Reply comment: 2538: 2537: 2521: 2520: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2474: 2473: 2451:violate policy 2421: 2420: 2408: 2407: 2385: 2384: 2372: 2371: 2325:this very idea 2299: 2298: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2101: 2100: 2085: 2084: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2018: 2017: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1988: 1987: 1973: 1972: 1950: 1949: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1902: 1901: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1859: 1847: 1846: 1824: 1823: 1810: 1809: 1772: 1771: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1703: 1702: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1575: 1509: 1508: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1468:Special:Upload 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1439: 1438: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1347: 1346: 1336: 1335: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1235:Reply comment: 1229: 1228: 1215: 1214: 1182: 1152:Reply comment: 1101: 1100: 1089:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 1081: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1040:Special:Upload 1035:Reply comment: 1029: 1028: 1019:Commons:Upload 1005:special:upload 996: 995: 994: 993: 980: 964: 963: 962: 943: 942: 941: 940: 918: 917: 908: 882: 881: 880: 879: 857: 856: 841: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 823: 822: 821: 768: 767: 742:Reply comment: 736: 735: 709: 708: 707: 706: 705: 704: 692: 691: 670:reply comment: 661: 660: 647: 646: 645: 644: 643: 642: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 622: 621: 620: 594: 593: 592: 591: 546: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 501: 500: 488: 487: 473:Reply comment: 467: 466: 454: 453: 426: 425: 412: 397: 369:Amended below. 319: 318: 317: 316: 310: 302: 294: 280: 279: 278: 277: 263: 257: 251: 246: 227:by it's author 176:unencyclopedic 102: 101: 65: 59: 56: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3722: 3710: 3708: 3703: 3697: 3696: 3693: 3690: 3685: 3683: 3678: 3674: 3672: 3665: 3661: 3656: 3653: 3651: 3647: 3642: 3638: 3634: 3631: 3629: 3624: 3623: 3618: 3612: 3609: 3607: 3604: 3603:Siobhan Hansa 3600: 3595: 3592: 3591: 3578: 3575: 3572: 3570: 3564: 3563: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3542: 3539: 3537: 3531: 3527: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3518: 3515: 3513: 3507: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3497: 3495: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3484: 3481: 3479: 3473: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3465: 3461: 3458: 3454: 3451: 3448: 3446: 3440: 3436: 3435:Reply comment 3433: 3432: 3431: 3428: 3427:64.178.96.168 3424: 3421: 3419: 3416: 3411: 3408: 3407: 3402: 3399: 3396: 3394: 3388: 3384: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3360: 3354: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3338: 3335: 3333: 3327: 3326:Reply comment 3324: 3323: 3322: 3319: 3315: 3312: 3311: 3308: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3294: 3293: 3288: 3285: 3281: 3275: 3272: 3269: 3267: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3248: 3246: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3234: 3231: 3229: 3223: 3219: 3214: 3210: 3209:Reply comment 3207: 3206: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3199: 3196: 3192: 3187: 3182: 3180: 3176: 3171: 3164: 3161: 3158: 3155: 3152: 3149: 3145: 3140: 3136: 3133: 3130: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3120: 3117: 3115: 3112: 3107: 3103: 3100: 3098: 3095: 3092: 3088: 3085: 3083: 3080: 3076: 3073: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3052: 3048: 3045: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3035: 3032: 3030: 3024: 3021: 3020: 3009: 3006: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2994: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2984: 2976: 2969: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2955: 2952: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2943: 2939: 2936: 2934: 2931: 2929: 2923: 2922: 2917: 2913: 2910: 2902: 2899: 2895: 2893: 2890: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2881: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2872: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2855: 2850: 2849:Strong delete 2847: 2846: 2835: 2832: 2828: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2820: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2810: 2806: 2802: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2776: 2773: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2748: 2747: 2732: 2729: 2725: 2724:as developers 2720: 2719: 2716: 2708: 2702: 2701:Reply comment 2699: 2698: 2697: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2678: 2675: 2672: 2670: 2663: 2660:), generally 2659: 2655: 2654:Reply comment 2652: 2650: 2647: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2637: 2634: 2631: 2629: 2623: 2619: 2618:Reply comment 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2610: 2607: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2596: 2588: 2582: 2581:Reply comment 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2573: 2570: 2566: 2564: 2556: 2550: 2545: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2536: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2519: 2511: 2505: 2502: 2501: 2486: 2483: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2472: 2469: 2466: 2464: 2458: 2454: 2452: 2446: 2442: 2437: 2432: 2428: 2427:Reply comment 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2419: 2416: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2406: 2398: 2392: 2391:Reply comment 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2383: 2380: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2370: 2362: 2356: 2352: 2345: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2315:and arguably 2314: 2310: 2306: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2297: 2294: 2290: 2286: 2285:WP:MOS#Images 2282: 2281: 2270: 2267: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2252: 2243: 2236: 2232: 2231:Reply comment 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2219: 2216: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2198: 2195: 2192: 2190: 2184: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2170: 2167: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2153: 2147: 2143: 2142:Reply comment 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2132: 2129: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2114: 2108: 2107:Reply comment 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2099: 2096: 2093: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2083: 2075: 2069: 2068:Reply comment 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2056: 2053: 2048: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2039: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2020: 2019: 2016: 2013: 2009: 2006: 2005: 2000: 1997: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1986: 1983: 1978: 1975: 1974: 1971: 1967: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1952: 1951: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1929: 1928: 1923: 1922: 1914: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1900: 1897: 1893: 1892: 1886: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1869: 1858: 1855: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1845: 1837: 1831: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1822: 1819: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1808: 1800: 1791: 1784: 1779: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1770: 1767: 1763: 1760: 1759: 1750: 1742: 1736: 1735: 1733: 1729: 1726: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1717: 1711: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1700: 1692: 1689: 1685: 1684: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1664: 1663: 1650: 1647: 1643: 1637: 1634: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1624: 1623: 1619: 1618: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1606: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1595: 1594: 1590: 1589: 1583: 1580: 1576: 1574: 1571: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1560: 1559: 1555: 1554: 1548: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1538: 1537: 1533: 1532: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1507: 1503: 1502: 1498: 1497: 1491: 1488: 1487: 1476: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1463: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1450: 1447: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1437: 1429: 1420: 1410: 1403: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1386: 1383: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1369: 1361: 1354: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1345: 1342: 1338: 1337: 1334: 1331: 1326: 1322: 1319: 1318: 1305: 1302: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1293: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1269: 1263: 1251: 1243: 1236: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1227: 1224: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1213: 1205: 1198: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1183: 1181: 1173: 1166: 1162: 1157: 1153: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1127: 1122:"web page. — 1120: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1113: 1110: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1099: 1096: 1090: 1086: 1083: 1082: 1077: 1069: 1063: 1059: 1052: 1045: 1041: 1036: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1027: 1024: 1020: 1013: 1006: 1001: 998: 997: 992: 989: 985: 981: 979: 976: 972: 968: 967: 966: 965: 961: 958: 957: 948: 945: 944: 939: 931: 925: 922: 921: 920: 919: 916: 911: 907: 903: 901: 899:Magnus animum 894: 887: 884: 883: 878: 870: 864: 861: 860: 859: 858: 855: 852: 849: 846:per RockMFR. 845: 842: 840: 837: 833: 830: 829: 820: 812: 806: 802: 798: 794: 793:Reply comment 791: 790: 788: 784: 781: 777: 772: 771: 770: 769: 766: 758: 751: 747: 743: 740: 739: 738: 737: 734: 731: 726: 722: 718: 714: 711: 710: 703: 700: 696: 695: 694: 693: 690: 682: 675: 671: 669: 665: 664: 663: 662: 659: 656: 652: 649: 648: 641: 638: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 619: 611: 605: 604:Reply comment 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 596: 595: 590: 587: 583: 582:1x1 blank PNG 579: 575: 571: 567: 563: 558: 554: 550: 549: 548: 547: 534: 526: 520: 516: 512: 508: 507:Reply comment 505: 504: 503: 502: 499: 496: 492: 491: 490: 489: 486: 478: 474: 471: 470: 469: 468: 465: 462: 458: 457: 456: 455: 452: 444: 438: 433: 430: 429: 428: 427: 424: 421: 416: 413: 411: 408: 405: 401: 398: 396: 393: 389: 384: 377: 370: 367: 365: 361: 360: 359: 358: 350: 343: 340: 335: 328: 324: 315: 311: 309: 307: 303: 301: 299: 295: 293: 291: 287: 286: 285: 284: 283: 275: 271: 267: 264: 261: 258: 255: 252: 250: 247: 245: 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 235: 232: 228: 223: 221: 217: 212: 208: 201: 191: 183: 181: 177: 173: 168: 166: 162: 158: 154: 150: 146: 142: 136: 129: 122: 118: 114: 106: 99: 96: 95: 94: 93: 85: 79: 76:and arguably 75: 71: 63: 60: 58: 55: 53: 49: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 3701: 3698: 3689:Tony Sidaway 3670: 3663: 3659: 3654: 3632: 3622:MessedRocker 3620: 3610: 3598: 3593: 3573: 3566: 3535: 3529: 3525: 3516: 3509: 3493: 3482: 3475: 3471: 3459: 3449: 3442: 3434: 3422: 3409: 3397: 3390: 3382: 3366:Kelly Martin 3361: 3345: 3336: 3329: 3325: 3313: 3270: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3244: 3232: 3225: 3221: 3217: 3208: 3190: 3185: 3183: 3172: 3168: 3162: 3156: 3150: 3143: 3138: 3137:Well, sure, 3134: 3128: 3123: 3118: 3101: 3086: 3074: 3053: 3033: 3026: 3022: 2967: 2942:Tim4christ17 2937: 2927: 2920: 2919: 2911: 2880:81.77.73.180 2854:81.77.73.180 2848: 2749: 2723: 2700: 2673: 2666: 2653: 2632: 2625: 2617: 2580: 2549:per whomever 2543: 2503: 2467: 2460: 2450: 2430: 2426: 2393:: Um, so? — 2390: 2336: 2332: 2324: 2320: 2304: 2230: 2193: 2186: 2182: 2141: 2106: 2067: 2046: 2033: 2029: 2021: 2007: 1976: 1953: 1930: 1907: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1829: 1777: 1761: 1731: 1694: 1682: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1621: 1616: 1592: 1587: 1557: 1552: 1535: 1530: 1500: 1495: 1489: 1459: 1401: 1352: 1320: 1234: 1196: 1188: 1184: 1164: 1160: 1155: 1151: 1139: 1118: 1084: 1057: 1034: 1007:lately? 4.) 999: 946: 923: 892: 890: 885: 862: 843: 831: 800: 796: 792: 786: 741: 724: 720: 716: 712: 672: 667: 666: 650: 603: 518: 506: 472: 431: 414: 399: 387: 382: 368: 363: 362: 344: 341: 320: 312: 304: 296: 288: 281: 236: 226: 224: 220:doesn't want 219: 184: 169: 160: 140: 138: 120: 97: 67: 46: 43: 31: 28: 3671:Luna Santin 3641:Dudesleeper 3569:SMcCandlish 3512:SMcCandlish 3478:SMcCandlish 3460:Strong Keep 3445:SMcCandlish 3393:SMcCandlish 3362:Strong keep 3332:SMcCandlish 3314:Strong Keep 3266:SMcCandlish 3228:SMcCandlish 3222:not working 3029:SMcCandlish 2993:Kim Bruning 2975:SMcCandlish 2951:Kim Bruning 2912:Strong keep 2819:Kim Bruning 2707:SMcCandlish 2693:Kim Bruning 2669:SMcCandlish 2628:SMcCandlish 2587:SMcCandlish 2555:SMcCandlish 2510:SMcCandlish 2463:SMcCandlish 2429:: What?!? 2397:SMcCandlish 2361:SMcCandlish 2251:SMcCandlish 2247:on them? — 2215:Kim Bruning 2189:SMcCandlish 2152:SMcCandlish 2113:SMcCandlish 2074:SMcCandlish 2052:Kim Bruning 2047:style guide 2012:Wolfmankurd 1913:SMcCandlish 1885:wrong forum 1836:SMcCandlish 1818:Ben Aveling 1799:SMcCandlish 1766:Ben Aveling 1741:SMcCandlish 1725:Kim Bruning 1688:Kim Bruning 1666:Strong keep 1646:Kim Bruning 1446:Kim Bruning 1428:SMcCandlish 1360:SMcCandlish 1321:Strong keep 1301:Kim Bruning 1281:Kim Bruning 1242:SMcCandlish 1204:SMcCandlish 1185:Postscript: 1172:SMcCandlish 1126:SMcCandlish 1068:SMcCandlish 930:SMcCandlish 869:SMcCandlish 811:SMcCandlish 780:Kim Bruning 757:SMcCandlish 730:Herostratus 681:SMcCandlish 610:SMcCandlish 525:SMcCandlish 443:SMcCandlish 400:Strong keep 349:SMcCandlish 200:WPBiography 84:SMcCandlish 3350:Iamunknown 2889:Iamunknown 2266:Iamunknown 2166:Iamunknown 2128:Iamunknown 1472:Iamunknown 1382:Iamunknown 1341:Iamunknown 801:guidelines 674:Userspace? 180:disruptive 64:+ subpages 3664:right now 3536:Cyde Weys 3494:Cyde Weys 3318:Cary Bass 3245:Cyde Weys 3195:Kat Walsh 3058:Night Gyr 2968:guideline 2928:Cyde Weys 2662:WP:OFFICE 2622:WP:OFFICE 2038:Nihiltres 1994:deletion. 1715:Wizardman 1291:Wizardman 1267:Wizardman 1094:Wizardman 776:libraries 272:; if you 3637:Jaksmata 3111:Jaksmata 3044:Gmaxwell 2966:Well, a 2831:Gmaxwell 2728:Gmaxwell 2344:Reqphoto 2321:web site 2242:Rejected 2092:Garion96 2026:reqphoto 1790:uw-test1 1710:WP:WOTTA 1683:not wiki 1678:WP:WOTTA 1464:response 1460:Further 1419:Proposal 1193:handwave 1058:could be 1012:Reqphoto 797:policies 744:As with 721:deployed 404:Garion96 376:Reqphoto 334:Reqphoto 216:One Ring 209:to move 190:Reqphoto 113:Proposed 3599:readers 3574:‹(-¿-)› 3517:‹(-¿-)› 3483:‹(-¿-)› 3450:‹(-¿-)› 3398:‹(-¿-)› 3337:‹(-¿-)› 3271:‹(-¿-)› 3233:‹(-¿-)› 3213:WP:SELF 3191:readers 3106:WP:SELF 3079:Mithent 3075:Comment 3034:‹(-¿-)› 2980:‹(-¿-)› 2712:‹(-¿-)› 2674:‹(-¿-)› 2633:‹(-¿-)› 2592:‹(-¿-)› 2560:‹(-¿-)› 2515:‹(-¿-)› 2468:‹(-¿-)› 2402:‹(-¿-)› 2366:‹(-¿-)› 2333:readers 2313:WP:SELF 2256:‹(-¿-)› 2194:‹(-¿-)› 2157:‹(-¿-)› 2146:WP:SELF 2118:‹(-¿-)› 2079:‹(-¿-)› 1931:Comment 1918:‹(-¿-)› 1841:‹(-¿-)› 1804:‹(-¿-)› 1746:‹(-¿-)› 1737:Heh. — 1723:O:-) -- 1568:river). 1433:‹(-¿-)› 1365:‹(-¿-)› 1247:‹(-¿-)› 1209:‹(-¿-)› 1197:message 1177:‹(-¿-)› 1131:‹(-¿-)› 1073:‹(-¿-)› 1062:WP:RFPP 1044:WP:PROT 988:RockMFR 935:‹(-¿-)› 874:‹(-¿-)› 848:ElinorD 816:‹(-¿-)› 762:‹(-¿-)› 699:RockMFR 686:‹(-¿-)› 655:RockMFR 615:‹(-¿-)› 530:‹(-¿-)› 482:‹(-¿-)› 479:. Or 448:‹(-¿-)› 354:‹(-¿-)› 89:‹(-¿-)› 3635:, per 3633:Delete 3617:Signed 3530:delete 3387:me too 3102:Delete 2658:WP:ATT 2441:WP:NPA 2436:WP:ATT 2355:WP:CFD 2309:WP:ENC 2289:WP:ASR 2235:WP:ATT 2095:(talk) 2030:enough 2022:Delete 1982:Yaanch 1977:Delete 1935:WP:ASR 1622:scribe 1603:doing. 1593:scribe 1558:scribe 1536:scribe 1501:scribe 1490:Delete 1462:YA RLY 1329:(talk) 1161:intent 1156:really 1085:Delete 851:(talk) 805:WP:HCP 725:policy 576:, and 407:(talk) 364:Delete 218:: "It 141:things 117:WP:RFC 3415:Danny 3144:yours 3119:Keep. 2921:proof 2801:Kusma 2754:Kusma 2317:WP:DE 1966:email 1939:Kusma 1470:. -- 1409:Essay 1221:size? 1165:every 1107:time. 955:demon 924:Note: 886:Keep: 863:Note: 836:Wooyi 713:Keep. 388:start 143:like 128:Essay 48:freak 16:< 3677:talk 3655:Keep 3646:Talk 3639:. - 3611:Keep 3594:Keep 3526:only 3370:talk 3304:Geni 3284:Geni 3260:Huh? 3218:some 3186:more 3147:too. 3139:some 3104:per 3087:Keep 3062:talk 3054:Keep 2898:Geni 2871:Geni 2805:talk 2795:and 2787:vs, 2772:Geni 2758:talk 2646:Geni 2606:Geni 2569:Geni 2532:Geni 2506:. — 2482:Geni 2455:and 2415:Geni 2379:Geni 2293:Geni 2008:Keep 1996:Geni 1962:talk 1954:Keep 1943:talk 1881:wiki 1854:Geni 1762:keep 1674:love 1672:. I 1668:and 1633:Geni 1605:Geni 1570:Geni 1520:Geni 1223:Geni 1144:Geni 1109:Geni 1051:fact 1023:Geni 1000:keep 975:Geni 844:Keep 832:Keep 578:here 574:here 570:here 495:Geni 461:Geni 415:Keep 207:CfDs 161:have 52:talk 3256:not 3091:Mgm 2918:is 2604:it. 2480:so. 2183:not 1958:Tom 1699:;-) 1617:WjB 1588:WjB 1553:WjB 1531:WjB 1496:WjB 1414:or 1325:Mak 904:∵ 637:pgk 420:pgk 383:all 325:or 323:RfC 3687:-- 3643:· 3372:) 3262:— 3241:-- 3068:) 3066:Oy 3042:-- 2807:) 2760:) 2447:, 2347:}} 2341:{{ 2311:, 2264:-- 2245:}} 2239:{{ 2126:-- 1968:) 1964:- 1945:) 1793:}} 1787:{{ 1686:-- 1422:}} 1416:{{ 1412:}} 1406:{{ 1054:}} 1048:{{ 1015:}} 1009:{{ 572:, 521:— 418:-- 379:}} 373:{{ 345:— 337:}} 331:{{ 203:}} 197:{{ 193:}} 187:{{ 131:}} 125:{{ 80:— 72:, 3679:) 3675:( 3625:. 3615:— 3368:( 3093:| 3064:/ 3060:( 2869:. 2803:( 2756:( 2530:. 2453:" 1960:( 1941:( 1518:. 1189:5 1140:5 973:. 951:^ 910:γ 906:φ 893:~ 366:. 54:) 50:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Miscellany for deletion/Knowledge (XXG):Fromowner - Knowledge (XXG)

Index