Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Valued pictures

863:. My opposition to the project comes from a different area. As I see it, the parallel Featured Article/Good Article/A Class/B/etc. process is about aspiring to create the best work possible. The aim in creating a GA is to have this as a station towards FA status. There's the possibility of improvement (in the large majority of cases), as the work can be improved by the editors. That simply isn't there for most Valued Pictures, not without large amounts of work or creating a new version of the same image - it very rarely happens. Thus VP is seen as an end in itself. I don't think this is a good thing. I strongly believe that Knowledge (XXG) as a project should aspire to excellence, not merely what is good. If it should be highlighted and celebrated, as VP does, it should be because it is our best work. Otherwise, I have minor concerns about its impact on FPC - it houses a few items which I really think should have been featured pictures but which were rejected over trivial matters. And I note that it has not received the support of a community of editors. 2991:"Because VP is actively harming efforts to persuade archives and museums to release encyclopedic material"... can this be clarified? I find it difficult to believe that one section within Knowledge (XXG) could do such harm... what does this mean and can it be explained concisely? Are the archives and museums holding Knowledge (XXG) to ransom? And why does it matter to them if Knowledge (XXG) categorises them under "featured" or "valued"? My understanding of "featured" is that it is based on several technicalities such as visual beauty. My understanding of "valued" is that it refers to how these images are used and that an image does not have to be visually stunning. Perhaps I am incorrect or may not have explained that in the best way but I still don't understand why VP is so venomous to FP and why it must be reduced to extinction. -- 1897:(ec) The outcome of that exercise is easy to summarize: a rather aggressive recruitment campaign has been going on for months, among certain FPC regulars, to 'remind' nominators that 'VP exists'. These reminders were often left on the FPC pages themselves while the discussion was open and the outcome was by no means certain. Occasionally that's a fair response when a nominator was genuinely new to FPC and unfamiliar with standards, but it went quite a bit beyond that and 'reminded' existing regulars who knew about both programs perfectly well, and gave the appearance of an attempt to shunt material away from FP. This occurred despite the fact that the site already has plenty of other material that would have made perfectly good VPs. It's debatable whether any FPCs were actually sunk that way, but it certainly was off-putting. 1373:(outdent) What matters is that we show them featured images that relate to the content of their collections. This is one of the reasons I've submitted a steady trickle of historic Dutch subjects for consideration at FPC: Gerard is talking to archives in The Netherlands. He can then explain POTD. For images that became POTD within the right time frame our volunteers can pull up the stats.grok.se stats for Knowledge (XXG)'s main page on the day an image ran. Our network of volunteer negotiators covers five continents (not a lot of people, but spread out). Now I'm not at liberty to disclose all their names or locations, but it happens that the POTD from April 20 is very useful to one of them. That received 6.3 million page views, 3891:: The entire point of assessment is to improve our content, the prize for the highest levels of improvement being wiki-wide recognition and a shot at a spot on the main page. Therefore, any image that can be a VP can be an FP too. Thus this entire avenue is unneeded. Why should those who look for quality images worthy of recognition settle for less than featured status? I challenge anyone told to take their image to VP to return with the image to FPC and push to get picture to FP status. Anything worth having is worth working and fighting for. As General Eisenhower observed on D-Day, the thrust should be towards "full victory, nothing else." 885:, for example, was nominated for delisting because it no longer meets the Featured Picture Criteria. Numerous pictures taken by the so-called "digital photographers" have been nominated for delisting as well. Pictures are nominated for delisting all the time! It's nothing special. When someone feels a picture no longer meets FPC, they nominate it for delisting. Regardless of whether Valued Pictures exists, that picture doesn't meet FPC. Is VP worth keeping? Right now, I cannot say. But it's simply not true that anyone is using VP "to shunt important history and science off the main page". 2333:. Rather than wish him luck with his application, the honors student turns around and says, "Dude, Ivy League? With your grades? Have you thought about say, a state school, instead?" While state schools are not bad at all, there are a number of private colleges that most students would choose to attend over them. This is somewhat akin to that. Let us readapt the metaphor. Pretend our relatively bright student only applied to Columbia. Say after the declination to Columbia is received, the honors student offers to write him an application to say, a second-tier college. 330:, per Durova. We are primarily an encyclopedia, and our content should be informative. While that does not mean we can't also be pleasant to look at, if we have to choose between being informative and being attractive, we should choose being informative. Featured Pictures, parallel to Featured Articles, should be the definitive pictures for our encyclopedia. Imagine a project that would try to give a status to "those articles that are encyclopedic and informative, but not pretty to look at", and remove them from Featured Articles because of this. -- 3045:, which I "censored" to be safe for work and family. I wonder if he knows that POTD does skip over certain images. While Knowledge (XXG) isn't censored in general, the main page does not post (for lack of a better word) filth for the 7 million viewers per day to see. I invite him to explain why he expected the head of a penis to end up on the main page for a full day. I assume good faith that he knows exactly what he's talking about and is extremely familiar with FPC guidelines, but this example does lead to a question or two. 1238:

historic images of great quality successfully featured even after the launch of VP. Some which lack the quality, such as the titan image currently being nominated for delist, can be valued pictures. This way their value is in no way undermined and it ensures that they get a favourable placement in their respective articles. If museums have high quality, high res images then these will, by default not be nominated in VPC and will be promoted as featured pictures. It is only the lower quality images that VPC is all about --

1977:

and IMO the value of the image should have been the most important criteria of images selection for FP status. I do not take personally your opposing of my images. Of course it does not matter, if images have been published elsewhere. I am sure that more than half of National Geographic Magazine images would have been rejected by FP reviewers. Does it mean there's something wrong with the National Geographic Magazine images ? No, IMO it is rather something wrong with FPC process here on Knowledge (XXG).

1150:

main page, they may release large amounts of encyclopedic material to WMF. But if their material is likely to be shunted off into a corner--which is what VP is--then those institutions turn elsewhere. Within the last six months the University of Dresden and the Bundesarchive released hundreds of thousands of encyclopedic images to Commons. I don't know how to say this more plainly: valued pictures makes it harder to gain access to material from institutions of their caliber.

1505:

sooner than this). The facts are that this dialog is taking place with someone who posted several unretracted personal attacks, who mistakenly asserted that this nomination was an act of vengeance upon himself, and who declared his departure from the page--only to return to it in less than a day. These circumstances create legitimate doubts whether good faith dialog is actually occurring, or whether the other party to this conversation would be persuaded by anything.

2918:, I really don't understand what the fuss is about here... why can't FPC and VPC exist? Is it not the closest images and their usage have to the article system of GA and FA? Obviously not the exact same and that isn't necessarily the best way to try to explain it but is this being deleted because it is causing insurmountable grief at FPC or because it has suffered from very little contributions? If it is the latter I fear greatly for 363:

historically significant in themselves, not just in what they are showing, aren't like that. Editing doesn't improve them, it destroys them. You know, that Declaration of Independence would look better if the first guy hadn't signed his name so large, like he was showing off or something, let's make that smaller. And that recording of Neal Armstrong's speech when walking on the moon - we all know he meant to say "One small step for

2293:

waited until a current FPC had completed and then posted an invitation to VPC at the nominator's user talk. Or to have browsed articles for existing high quality images that had never been nominated--what a delightful surprise that would have been for editors who never suspected their work was worthy of notice. Any of those alternatives would have guaranteed that FPC was not affected; yet the most aggressive route was pursued.

48:, take it to the talk pages too, I'd say :-) For a variety of reasons, this proposal has probably generated more heat than light - keep talking about the evolution of both projects on the talk pages, I'd say, with particular attention to smooth running without any project undermining any other (this is self-evident regardless of whether or not that applies to this situation, about which I haven't really formed an opinion). 3913:

pictures get nominated and approved, while many not so good pictures are not. It all depends on what people comment on the particular nomination, as there are absolutely no guidelines. Yes, the guidelines could be created and fixed, but that wouldn't help the many many images already approved or rejected at VPC, so I believe we need to delete this and if someone can formulate ideas to improve it, more power to them. —

424:- when a featured picture is not "good enough" any more, it is still a picture that featured. When the opinion is that a picture should be and could be better, then find a better scan of an original and have it restored. If it is just a photo, there might be a version of a higher resolution we could ask for. However, in the final analysis removing the label of featured picture is a lie because they featured. 3558:. The VP and FP criteria are very similar: the only difference is that FPs must be better quality and more attractive than VPs, and FP is a way of recognising that. Since FPs are by definition better quality and attractive than VPs, they are put on the main page. I realise that some historical/scientific images are both irreplacable and low quality; that doesn't mean they can't be featured, as the 2922:... VPC may not be a perfect system but it has basic ideals which can be improved, particularly through a discussion such as this. I am left with the impression that FPC is getting into a bit of a sulk because it senses it has a dangerous rival from a relatively new and much smaller project which FPC wishes to wipe out instead of both VPC and FPC working together to sort out their differences... -- 2518:

point: the initiation of wiki projects requires no more support than the energy of a handful of motivated volunteers; it has clearly has that much and looks to me to have set about things with the very best intentions. In any case, as SmokeyJoe points out immediately below, lack of broad consensus and defined purpose in the project, should that be the case, is simply not a reason for deletion. --

3362:. The reason for the existence of the idea is not a bad one. Having said that, I can see how it would seem to discriminate against older, historical images. It is a valid criticism that any sort of "recognition" of this type which does seemingly discriminate against older images has serious flaws. If those flaws cannot be addressed, then it would be not unreasonable to tag it as historical. 2493:

navel-gazing which might actually produce something positive and (even) address the historical image "quality vs EV" bugbear. VPC simply hasn't had the chance to garner the legitimacy necessary to sway issues of such fundamental importance to the project, so this definitely isn't a sensible way to address them. Let's end this now and concentrate efforts where they are most needed. --

3299:, per Diliff and others. The principle of the valued pictures project is a good one (both as an incentive to restore very high EV images with limited technical quality and as an incentive for photographers who aren't quite at FP level in terms of skill and/or equipment), and I don't think the 'works against efforts to free up historical source images' argument holds much water.-- 955:

deletion without so much as a comment at VPC Talk and/or FPC Talk. She is certainly aware that this is what would be expected by regulars at those projects, so this nomination strikes me as a bit underhanded (yes she did put a deletion template on the WP:VP mainpage itself). However, I for one only found this discussion through a link provided at FPC Talk by another regular. --

1542:

and difficult (or impossible) to reproduce at a higher quality. I am on the board for Wikimedia UK and am working towards similar goals as gerard and if an archive were willing to provide us with copies of a one of a kind image that couldn't be easily reproduced, then surely such images deserve to be FP's if they were encyclopedic but prehaps not good quality images.

3064:

questions, and an editor who fears to expose his work and family to that type of topic perhaps ought not to be commenting to it and risking questions. At any rate, that is irrelevant to this MfD. If there was any reason to mention it other than to cast unwarranted doubts upon Mr. Meijssen's professionalism, you are welcome to discuss it further at user talk.

3125:

like. This picture of a penis is special because I would not have recognised it as such and as such it has an extremely high encyclopaedic value. I think I made that argument at the time. The notion that a detailed picture of a penis automatically makes it pornography is foreign to me. Having pictures like this particular one is extremely educational.

3630:, except I'd probably prefer it to say "very difficult" rather than "impossible." (Relevant text: "If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed." Actually, I'd strike the "sometimes" as well, it's redundant with "may.") I don't think that it's that major a change. 1327:

their archives, so you better pass it." That's not how this community works. It seems there are many things that keep historical images from reaching the main page (the voting process, the POTD backlog, etc), last of which is VPC. With the Nagasaki image, that could have sat at VP until somebody restored it; call it a proving ground similar to

3752:, which this stoled that name of. Obviously, VP here is more of a "Good Image", almost-but-not-quite-FP program. And being that's what it is, why not combine the two? Personally, I don't understand why each project feels the need to create all these redundant processes. Anything to avoid working on the articles, I guess... 1972:

confident of it. Well here's the reason: 43 featured picture candates have been referred to VPC while their candidacies were underway. Knowledge (XXG) has only 70 VPs, which suggests that active FPCs have been the principal recruitment ground for the VP process. Bear in mind a quote from the very earliest of these:

1090:

encyclopedia. We should focus on encyclopedic value first and technical quality better. The idea that the best image mankind has taken of Titan or an example of the only time in history humans used atomic weapons in anger should be relegated to second string because they are a little grainy is way out there for me.

3721:. VP and FP serve different goals. I would like to see some proof that the VP process is hindering the obtaining of museum archives (for example, communication from a museum representative voicing his/her concerns that material may not make the Main Page because it might get shunted into VP instead). 3579:

before they are nominated for FP - that way a consensus can emerge as to which they should become, and improvements can be made before they reach the full-blown FP nom, when there is often no chance to edit images before so many votes have been cast that it makes it unlikely that the edit will become

3524:

The argument regarding image archives being dissuaded from releasing their images to the Wikimedia Foundation is confusing to me. If the Featured Pictures process does not change as a result of the Valued Pictures process being available—as I said above that it should not—then I don't see why Valued

2663:

MfD is for deletion debates. The core issue here seems to be the continuance of this program, not the deletion of whatever results it has produced and the entire record of its existence. I take no position on the substantive issue, but debates should take place in the proper venue. If deletion is not

2621:

and are looking for something to blame. As many people have already said, this is not the fault of VPC at all. If VPC is going to fail, let it fail by failing to get the community participation. Besides, most of the votes of 'delete' have come from those who have not participated in either FPC or VPC

2517:

Well, the potential for misuse is inherent in any wiki. However, any potential for misuse of FP lies wholly within the FPC project, and always has. No amount of restating this is going to make a project which, by your own assessment has next to no support, somehow powerfully nefarious. Re your second

2393:

Please be more civil with your edit summaries. It isnt a case of burning out your opponent until they dont argue back anymore. And we arnt discussing the entire community here, it is a select few. Everyone accepts everyone is human, it is for that very reason that we are having this discussion. Those

2269:

per above, The author would have gotten much more in focus if he was side on to the bug. I'd nominate it at WP:VPC though," which offers encouragement to keep trying, especially for new contributors. These examples offer little to convince me. I don't believe VPC is sinking FPC; I believe FPC has its

1976:

I am not sure in what format to respond all the points you've made, but I'll try to respond at least some. IMO VP project should not have even been introduced here at all, if FPC had encyclopedic value of the image in the first place and quality in the last, if at all. Knowledge (XXG) is encyclopedia

1800:

I would like to politely and respectfully request that the complainant provide two or three FPCs that definitely had a chance to pass, but that clearly failed due to the existence of VPC: it can be due to claims of "this would be better for VP", or questions of quality, etc. I don't really care about

1376:

which may influence the decision of a historical society about whether to release their material. Gerard and I have been talking about these efforts for months, and for unknown reasons most of the FPC regulars either haven't been reading those posts or don't take them seriously. Don't know why that

1133:

My point is that an image with great encyclopaedic value and a few technical faults is our best work if no better image exists. It should not be set aside into a special category that never sees the front page. It should be featured. VP only encourages the delisting of encyclopaedic images. Our front

954:

The above few users make cogent and unbiased arguments - I don't feel the same about the nomination itself which, as regular at FPC, reads to me as a misrepresentation of the truth. Also, while I'm unclear about the typical process here, I'm also concerned that the nominator put the VP project up for

937:

for now at least. There are several shortcomings at VP, sure, but enough to delete..? I don't think so. The nom simply isn't persuasive, judging by citations of conflict, and I'm frankly surprised at the number of deletionists they appear to have attracted; the project is very young, has barely had a

3852:

Sigh. I thought so too, and certainly agree they should be disregarded. Not only they are the least to expose experience, it can also be dangerous to the project. I could simply vote here with my signature, log out and vote, go to another computer and vote, and perhaps use my cell phone to vote. But

3667:

IMO, the 'odd idea' that we're trending against EV comes directly from Durova. She lit the fire and then fanned the flames with discussions such as this. As you are probably aware, I've brought up a similar issue with her as you have mentioned here ("EV + IMAGE QUALITY = FP" is the basic formula for

3602:

Basically agree with those who say that Good articles are meant as both a waypoint to Featured Articles as well as a convenient stopping place for topics of narrow subject matter. That doesn't apply to images - very few images are "improved" in the way articles can be, and the narrow subject matter

2790:

part - I didn't even know this existed until now. The criteria seem to be very poorly defined, particularly the "most educational work" one. From reading it, it sounds like the picture has to be especially occasional, but then looking at the actual valued pictures, the only real criteria seem to be:

2763:

More than that, VP harms volunteer efforts to gain access to more images. Think of the Nagasaki nuclear cloud image: if you're negotiating with a Japanese museum, it's very persuasive to tell the curators that one of their images could get selected as a featured picture and get millions of views on

2463:

Under #5: "A picture's encyclopedic value is given priority over its artistic value." ←As it stands, artistic value ≠ image quality. If that is what is requested, then a consensus needs to be gained regarding a change to WP:FP?. That is not my problem and I don't believe that the standards are being

1777:

Knowledge (XXG)'s best interests aren't served by setting up new image processes to ape text processes; our needs are different. And what we need foremost is access to more material: most libraries etc. don't provide ready access to images the way they do to their text collections. So our priority

1089:

Images that are featured cannot be valued? Wtf? This all smacks of process and it seems this process has been wonked already. The whole idea that our second string of images should focus on encyclopedic value while our first string should focus on technical quality is not in keeping with us being an

969:

The links provided in the nomination itself demonstrate that this proposal was far from hasty: it was discussed openly since the start of the year. The nomination was posted in the proper place, and the page's creator notified, as is standard procedure. Please withdraw the unwarranted accusations.

708:

it the first time (oh, irony). It's oh-so-much more meaningful now. I'm going to no longer respond on this page lest we get into another 100,000 word argument that brings you to another boycott I'll be blamed for (what could be next? - it's like playing Carmen Sandiego), but I would request that you

655:

your comments ("failed to read the image description"), which with me, is never the case; it seems to be your trademark "easy excuse" when running a crusade against a non-existant cabal over minor—if not trivial—issues. I don't care if the Nagasaki or Titan images ever become VPs. I voted in a way I

642:

I stand behind each comment posted here and feel that they actually enhance my argument that this is poor timing. You didn't address any of my points (such as the 9 examples I gave as to why VPC is a good thing, or the fact that I respect historical images, but only when their restored quality meets

525:

a net negative, but definitely a positive. This comes along at a very poor time. I'm worried that VPC is being used as a scapegoat for failed FPCs and, should VPC be deleted, we will notice that either 1. nothing changes; 2. if they do, it would have more to do with the current FPC restructuring; or

3653:

be mitigated in exceptional circumstances. This is purely to keep the bar high, ensuring that featured pictures actually are the very best we have to offer; it has to be this way for "featured" to have any meaning. Where has this odd idea come from that there's some kind of trend against EV at FPC?

3648:

EV. We probably have tens of thousands of irreplaceable images, many of them historical, many of which lack anything sufficiently compelling or arresting, or that are informative and descriptive enough to mark them out as "special". A very long-standing consensus for FPs is that we narrow this down

3517:

If that is happening, then there is something wrong with the Featured Picture process. But sometimes there are images which cannot be Featured, and would never be Featured, but still have high encyclopedic value. I do not see the harm in having an alternative process whereby these sorts of images

3164:

that of healthy penis, even though you claim it as such. But no matter what, a penis on the main page still wouldn't fly. Also, starting a sentence with "As you may not know..." is considered insulting in my culture, especially when one is just requesting your input and clarification on a situation

3124:

FYI I am GerardM, in my culture being only called by the surname is considered insulting. Given the way you bring something that is completely unrelated to this subject can be considered a personal attack. As you may not know, there are good reasons why people should know what a healthy penis looks

1222:

Durova is exactly right. Currently I am negotiating with two museums and one archive in The Netherlands that are now considering making large image donations to WMF. They are very motivated by the chance at getting something selected for Knowledge (XXG)'s main page, and the valued picture program

1210:

This website is an encyclopedia; our actions have to be governed by the encyclopedia's best interests. VP actively harms those best interests by hampering our negotiations to gain important illustrative content. That affects many thousands of pictures and thousands of articles, because the chance

902:

Even if VPC didn't exist, I would definitely list many of these "high EV" images simply because of quality or lack of effort. Durova is desperate to create a backlog of POD with images that are "important", which is extremely not relevant to what FP is about. VPC is not shunting historic images, it

367:

man", so let's edit that in. And that darn Zapruder video of JFK being shot, it's all grainy, you can't even see the bullet bouncing around, let's make that clearer with a bit of modern CGI reconstruction. Until you do all that, sorry, that document, and recording, and video, just don't qualify for

3017:

The answers to your questions are already posted in great detail above. This discussion is already long and hard to read; repetitions here would only worsen that problem. Would gladly discuss this on the talk page, and if something arises that has not already been expressed then will cross post.

2365:

like that. In fact, it's like the kid that tries out for varsity and doesn't make it, but is offered a spot on JV instead. The kid deserves a spot on JV, but tried for varsity hoping he'd make it (unrealistic dream). He didn't. Life is tough. But at least in this case, there is a backup, which can

2258:

Ah, I didn't expect so many. These are all FPCs that mention "VPC" or "valued picture". I'm coming to realize that one will most likely not be able to prove that VPC is negatively affecting FPC, unless noms that clearly show such a case exist. Almost every oppose that includes "Try VPC" does so as

1541:

Well we may as well point out the various calls of "wouldnt this be better as a VP" at several FP delist requests. It shows a clear lack of understanding of the purpose of FP and the fact that FP's do not have to be the highest quality if they are limited (prehaps just a single image) in existence

938:

chance to establish its credentials as an image assessment process and has expressly avowed an avoidance of the sort of prejudice against historical noms that COM:VI might have been guilty of; finally, the timing of this proposal is spectacularly inappropriate given the current situation at FPC. --

769:

It is unfortunate that this person believes this nomination is about him; that perception is mistaken. Other people also made similar assertions about shunting encyclopedic FPs over to VPC. None of the others added an element of time in a contradictory manner, so there was no need to quote them.

2729:

The problem is that this lower level is being used for encyclopedic value and the higher is being used for technical quality. While that is great for a photography studio, we are an encyclopedia. Perhaps a tiered system is a good idea, but this particular incarnation has its priorities backwards.

2459:

Under #1: (is of high technical standard): "Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed." ←This essentially implies that restoration is

1745:

the system? Of the 70 or so valued images we have, all of them have astounding encyclopedic value but are they all truly worthy of being featured? VP has recognized images which would otherwise have gone noticed. Instead of seeing the cup half empty why don't we try to give more exposure to VP as

1326:

promotion for the image to actually hit the main page? A skilled negotiatior for WMF will leave these caveats out and just argue based on "main page" possibility. It seems you want it to be a situation where you open a nom, make a statement like, "We really need this to gain access to the rest of

1237:

Durova, I think you and many others here who do not usually contribute to FPC and VPC misunderstand the purposes and the difference between the two projects. FP is reserved for high quality and encyclopedic images, while VP for lower technical quality but equally encyclopedic images. We have many

1149:

The reason a VP can't be an FP is because most historic source files are held in institutional collections, and those institutions are under no obligation to release high quality digital scans of their material. If they perceive a chance of seeing a few items their collection on Knowledge (XXG)'s

660:

I offered a possible solution, nom'ing at VPC. I didn't say that was the only solution, just one solution that I thought makes sense; I would be just as happy if the outcome was solely the loss of the FP star. I propose that we halt this MFD for the time being, fix FPC, sit on this for a bit, and

362:

It's highly debatable whether editing historically significant pictures is "our best work", which is what "Featured" is supposed to mean. Sure, if we're trying to display a photo of a mosquito larva we crop, and color balance, and refocus until it shows what we want it to show; but items that are

3912:

need a visual equivalent to GAs. However, as it stands now, VP is a complete farce and it would need a complete reboot to make it better. I have been around VP noms here and there just to see what it was about, but came to the conclusion that there is absolutely no set criteria and many very bad

3063:

Mr. Meijssen has European sensibilities about the human body. Such subjects are discussed without embarrassment in his culture. Standards at FPC and POTD are slightly different. Two of my nominations have been featured, although they will not be selected for POTD. Mr. Meijssen had legitimate

2979:

All of the information you seek is posted above. GerardM is Gerard Meijssen, chairman of Open Progress. His name and organization are easy to Google. Open Progress is currently negotiating with three institutions. The results could exceed the size of last winter's 800,000 image donation from

2492:

It should also be patently obvious by now that the key issues in this deletion proposal are ones which need to be resloved at FPC, and not problems arising as a result of the presence of VPC. They are issues that would certainly exist even if VPC did not. FPC is in the process of some protracted

1504:

The chairman of the Open Progress Foundation has affirmed that this is exactly true, page traffic stats have been provided, and a referral to the University of Dresden donation has been provided. That should be enough to satisfy any reasonable concerns (which ought to have been articulated much

1134:

page should be an example of how encyclopaedic we are, not a demonstration of how technically perfect images can be. If anything we should have a page off to the side for very nice looking images that lack encyclopaedic value not the other way around. Encyclopaedia first, pretty pictures second.

3192:

Regarding the penis image you brought up, that is also something we must consider. I agree, we should not have that kind of pornography. Knowledge (XXG) is one of the largest sources of information for schools in which is innapropriate for 18-. As for Durova, it isn't a single person's decision

3128:

There are also good arguments why historical pictures and particular restored high quality pictures should be featured. The "valued picture" thing is a misnomer because it provides no material benefit. As the existence of the "valued picture" category is used as an argument not to feature, this

2473:

I would concur that there may be an issue with WP:FP?, especially since there are more details to the caption (which is, unfortunately, typically ignored to much of an extant) than there is to EV. But like I said, this requires a change to the system. As of now, the criteria are quite clear and

2292:

Yet if it were really intended as encouragement, it would have been much more encouraging to have culled through five years of FPC archives, and to have surprised the nominees of those closed nominations with the compliment of a third party nomination to the new program. Or to at least to have

1474:

That's a very odd way of approaching the matter. It's as if I'm having a conversation with someone who supposes that ignoring a problem makes the problem unimportant or untrue. I don't know how to have a productive dialog with that, because the actual challenges don't disappear when an editor

1294:

Our two most prolific contributors of historic FPs both want to close VP, and GerardM who posts above is chairman of the Open Progress Foundation, a nonprofit organization that expands global access to free information. His statements about the harm VP does are very much worth taking to heart.

1038:

Even after the launching of VP, many historic images have been featured. There is absolutely no conspiracy to keep historic images being featured. The delist nominations being considered have terribly poor quality and it is normal for images of low technical quality to be delisted, be it macro,

2743:

A tiered system works for articles because, technically, any article should be able to be improved up to FA status with enough work. With photos, that's not the case. There's only so much processing one can do to improve the quality of a picture. Also, GA and FA are both quality standards. Any

2440:

There is an issue with high EV images being nudged towards VP simply because of poor quality, when their EV is clearly great enough to grant it leniencey in terms of quality. However this leniency is simply not being granted despite it being clearly mentioned in the FP requirements. It is this

2244:

Actually I specifically culled the ones that merely mentioned VP randomly. The list would be considerably longer if I had done as you assert. Although it remains possible that a small number might have been screened better. Bear in mind, several FP regulars were accusing me of falsehood and

1971:

posted by Muhammad above) to which I responded "Not confident of that assertion: have you done a survey of how many FPC noms went downhill after someone canvassed the nom for VPC?" No FPC regular has asked him to verify his assertion, but several have demanded that I substantiate why I am not

1432:

We discuss clickthroughs of course, but that's a different conversation. It's surprising to see you challenge the basic veracity, though. Yes, we are talking to archives. Yes, these factors do matter. We've been posting about it for months, and if you had doubts it would have been far more

2328:

Wadester, I think that Durova has a valid point here. If I got an "oppose, try WP:VPC" at their FPC, I too would be somewhat disappointed and annoyed that I was feeling somewhat belittled. This is somewhat akin to a senior high school class sitting down some time around January, after all the

1860:

Indeed. The onus is on the accuser to substantiate her claims. I made this point earlier and it has not been answered. This page has a number of very poorly-informed statements in support of deletion and the original complaint has not been developed, merely restated with increasing amounts of

1317:

idea that it does exist. And I kind of doubt that somebody sits down with them and explains all the picture programs across en:wiki, commons, and other wikis. Many of these images could fail at en:wiki FP, but become FPs at Commons, but not en:wiki, or VIs or QIs at Commons, or VPs here; does

382:

It's also debatable whether editing = manipulation. Restoration is a very different activity to the hyped examples you provide. Intention is everything, and sympathy with original detail in restoration is the opposite to your description. Removing dust and scratches from photographs is normal

1572:

that are historical (and meet FP size requirements), were nominated by the same people that are complaining here, which implies they believed they weren't up to FP quality. As for the Triton and Nagasaki examples, they are completely incidental (in fact, coincidental). I want to see evidence

131:

I worried that this process would become a ghetto to shunt highly encyclopedic material off the main page. Now that's on the verge of happening: the digital photographers who dominate featured picture candidates are embarking upon a drive to delist the most important scientific and historic

1740:

I remember there were two images (of some American massacre of Native Americans) and you may remember, I supported them and said VP was not for those images simply because they were of sufficiently high quality. I don't know of any other and even if there may be some few, then why not

2588:

I won't be going thru all the noms but many of them have little EV hence their failure. The aphids has poor quality and as a macro photographer, I know better quality can be produced. BAsically what I am trying to point out is VP offers encouragement and recognizes images which

2617:. At first I didn't have a strong opinion about this proposal as I haven't been heavily involved in VPC in the past but the more I read, the more I realise that this is not really about VPC - It's about a couple of individuals in FPC that have felt marginalised by the 'system' 2048: 2687:

per Deranged bulbasaur. Also, as mentioned, a lot of the issues raised here seem to be more about FP than VP. VP may be floundering, but it's young and deserves a chance to succeed (or fail). And it should do so based on its merits, not because of problems with FP.

2575: 2555:. Keep, reform, archive, as per talk page (where are the discussions?), but we don't delete project organisational efforts. "program was instituted without broad consensus and its purpose was never clearly defined" is definitely not a reason for deletion. -- 2008: 2791:

its the main or one of the main images in the article and it isn't crap. If it is kept, it really needs some better defined, less subjective criteria to determine educational value, as that's really the only criterion it has that isn't just a technicality.

2168: 3543:

knew that historical and technically difficult images must have those factors taken into account when it comes to judging quality at Featured Pictures. The presence or absence of a Valued Pictures process should have no effect on that longstanding rule.

2401:

This seems more like an issue towards Wadester, which isn't relevant to this proposal. Please keep it off the proposal page (or discuss at his talk page instead) because claims like these flood the page as done at many FPC pages. I'm quite tired of them.

691:

If we sit back now, and allow him to 'fix' FPC according to that agenda, many of the site's most encyclopedic featured images will get demoted. That damage to our FP structure would be difficult to repair: when VPC gets misused this way VPC needs to go.

3987:

Please provide evidence. I'm sick of hearing this, and yet I see nobody provide diffs to verify "interfering". I don't see you participate (or atleast not that much) in FPC, so how do you know it is interfering FPC? Maybe you just look above and agree?

2088: 1985:

Fair disclosure: very early on, while I was trying to give the VP program a fair chance, I made three of these referrals myself. A wikicookie for the first person who reads this list closely enough to tell which those were. Bottom line: I certainly

630:

failed to read the image description for Saturn's moon Titan. Before this nomination opened he was also offered coaching in restoration, a process with which he is unfamiliar. His estimates regarding feasibility of restoration are not trustworthy.

789:← Hmm, this discussion seems to have become quite heated. I think it's best for everyone to take a step back and have a cup o' tea. We're all working in good-faith here, so it'd be great if we could work together to come to a solution. Thanks all, – 1258:

Is that statement a typographical error? I have contributed the most FPs of any Wikipedian and several VPs. Having also contributed multiple featured articles etc. it may be possible that experience brings a broader understanding of site mission:

144:

has a serious backlog. More mainpage time for digital photography would be good for a few digital photographers, but is it really in keeping with the encyclopedia's mission to shunt important history and science off the main page? Resoundingly,

3155:

Though I would point out that if you didn't notice the difference between the penis mentioned and, say, your own (as a Western-raised individual, I assume you're male), I wonder what your review process is at FPC (that, or I wonder if you should

3926:

Yes, I agree there have been nominations that I agree they shouldn't have been promoted. I've already made my evaluation criteria myself, actually. The criteria itself needs some changes. If kept, I would certainly start a discussion about it.

2370:

pass at VPC, which will offer a less harsh learning experience (indeed, praise) and a way to work one's way up to FP quality (or at least keep a potential nominator interested in the process). It's not nearly as negative as you seem to think.

2043: 845:

Could we please remain civil, no personal attacks, talk about the subject at hand, and leave the conflicts at FPC out unless they're strictly relevant here (which some are). I'm not saying this has happened here, but let's avoid it, please.

1444:

I think it's great that you're trying to get archives to open up, and I'm sure main page time is a great selling point. I'm just not sold on the issue of VP being the iceberg that sinks FP. And just to point out: I very much agree that it

1558:

is what's "destroying" FPC, and supposedly has been for a while; I'm waiting for failed noms that clearly failed due to the VP suggestion, or VPs that should be FPs, but aren't due to quality concerns raised in an FP nom. Interestingly,

1553:

Well those calls came as legitimate opinions (interpretations of the FPC criteria) from respectable regulars here; you may be a board member, but this is still a community. But the argument here is that "this would be better as a VP" in

2128: 1919:

anything. We are avid members of the project and want to see it continue. Your argument has yet to grow from basic hypotheticals and (linkless) "I remember when..." examples. Therefore there's no proof that VP is actually a negative.

2038: 2053: 2764:

Knowledge (XXG)'s main page. They want their side of the history to be seen too. When a museum says yes, WMF gains thousands of highly valuable images. It makes no sense to hinder that just to have a bureaucratic wiki-program.

2213: 2028: 1599:

I'm not trying to smite you with me being a WMUK director, nor undermine the community. I know how this works, I have been here for a while. I'm saying that those very interpretations of the FPC criteria are flawed and wrong.

1563: 1874:

Agreed. I believe this process is flawed and should have just been brought up at WT:VPC as a possibility in the future. No deletion suggestions seemed to have been made in the discussions given, and all the discussions are

1179:

Because FPs get a turn on Knowledge (XXG)'s main page, which receives on average 7 million page views per day. That's the kind of exposure museum curators dream of, and it motivates them to release encyclopedic material.

703:

I figured this was a vendetta against me specifically, but didn't want to be so bold as to say it publicly, at least not until you did first. Tho I like how you requote a quote you already quoted; probably assuming nobody

2948:

Because VP is actively harming efforts to persuade archives and museums to release encyclopedic material. The chairman of the Open Progress Foundation and a board member of Wikimedia UK both support this deletion nom.

880:

Hi. I just wanted to say that the statement "the digital photographers who dominate featured picture candidates are embarking upon a drive to delist the most important scientific and historic photographs" is not true.

2203: 2023: 1569: 2058: 882: 553: 235: 133: 2960:

How is it "harming efforts to persuade archives and museums to release encyclopedic material"? And I'd like to see sources for your dubious claim of the OPF. Apparently you refused to respond to Wadester above.

1318:

somebody explain that to the possible donors? Probably not. Then there's also the issue that WP:FPC is a community program. Does the WMF negotiator also sit down and explain that the community has every right to

1191:

Durova, I understand your concern, but we just can't have the important pictures at our lead. If VP on the main page was a suggestion, people would just cry that it isn't our best work. So who can we understand?

743:

Oh, and if it does come to deletion, I would suggest keeping WP:Valued pictures as historical out of respect for the dedicated users who did nominate images, vote on them, and earn the template on those images.

2198: 2138: 3418:

A lot of the argument seems to come from mentions of VP or VPC in active FPC or delist noms. How about we just make that illegal? The motive behind the move wasn't meant to be evil, but if it fixes things...

2018: 3952:. The idea is sound. If it is being used to pull certain images out of the FPC process, then that is a bad thing, but we don't delete the speedy deletion criteria just because they are sometimes misapplied. 1691:- has a tendency to shunt high EV pictures to it. They are nearly impossible to restore without degrading the integrity of the original, and thus impede both the efforts of restorationists who can clean up 2581: 2153: 2013: 2811: 1912: 2163: 2118: 3457:

I know ideas along these lines have been floating around for a while. FPC has it's flaws, and it would be nice to have something for good pictures that aren't quite FPs. I would support renaming it to

2148: 2103: 2093: 985:

the start of the year (Dec & Jan). The last discussion took place on 28 Jan, more than four months ago. Maybe you should have brought this up again before going straight to MFD. While you may have

137: 2193: 246:. Durova herself has raised the bar at FPC, and users now hold historical images to those expectations. I believe historical images need restoration before going to FPC now. VPC is a great place for 3042: 2569: 2183: 2003: 2456:

FP, but to house an image until it is upgraded or restored (i.e. to continue to recognize it until it can be fully recognized). In reading over WP:FP?, I find that Criteria 1 and 5 add to my case:

1433:

productive to have shared them openly and provided timely opportunity to address the concerns, rather than either ignoring these priorities or mistaking them for misrepresentations and falsehoods.

1938:

Durova has yet to provide evidence. I don't recall any "shunting", and Wadester's links were not placed there to shunt anything away. It is a simple form of advising newcomers about the project.

578:

Remember, these FPs were nominated way before VPC existed, and passed mainly (in this case only) on their EV. Maybe its time we "demote" some of our lower-quality FPs and fill up VPC with them...

2098: 989:

at WP:VP, you did not post at WP:VPC, which is where most users go. Few go to WP:VP when wanting to check out the noms. I'll assume good faith that was a legitimate mistake. Thanks to MER-C for

2366:

still offer him some semblance of what was originally desired. For your example, we're most likely speaking of a newbie. Most likely, their suggestion won't pass. But many times, a failed FPC

2133: 2108: 152:

Knowledge (XXG) is not in need of a visual analog to 'good articles'--not when it keeps astronomy and history off the main page. Nominating this process for deletion as the contributor of

1709:

As a regular, I can safely say that no images have been shunned as yet. I wonder at how effective these deletions can be when unrelated and unconcerned parties make uninformed decisions. --

2460:

expected. A technically superior image is one that corrects issues with an original version in a way that does not destruct the original and preserves the original character of the image.

2178: 2078: 1769:

1. The boundary between VP and FP was never clearly defined. It was always vulnerable to misuse, as a ghetto project. There's no clear way to prevent that other than ending the program.

469:

Good eye about PPR. Ten Pound Hammer seems to have gotten a little overeager there. Picture peer review is a fine program, unrelated to the VP problem. Have removed PPR from the list.

239: 3603:

issue that articles have doesn't apply. If a picture has great encyclopedic value, that should be enough for FP; FP should not be a beauty contest about resolutions and imperfections.

2226:

of these images are very poor in quality but high EV, which brings us back to why VP exists. If you can't pull out any evidence of shunting, then it can't be claimed as dangerous to FP.

1966:

Took a while to assemble. This is a response to the assertion "As a regular, I can safely say that no images have been shunned as yet." (<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="

1059:

The problem is unrealistic expectations by people who never work with historic images, and the harm that does to our negotiations to gain access to better material. Valued pictures has

2083: 2073: 1909: 116:

The valued picture program was instituted without broad consensus and its purpose was never clearly defined. It was, at best, a solution in search of a problem. And has consistently

2814: 2245:

demanding prompt response. "Fast, cheap, or good: pick any two" as they say in business. My labor is volunteered, so you toggle the two remaining options. Submitted in good faith.

3626:

To clarify, my remark is mostly applicable to historic images which are far more likely to have the "extremely hard to improve upon" attribute. That is, the existing criterion 1 of

2113: 344:

In fact, when it comes to unrestored historical images, being a VP is analogous to being a GA. A little more work and you can get that star. Would you now suggest we delete WP:GA?

2744:

article can become a GA or an FA, regardless of how encyclopedic it is. VP isn't especially concerned with quality, only usage. Even GA requires that the article be well-written.

2143: 2441:

misunderstanding that is causing the problems. Until that misunderstanding is sorted, VP should not be used as a dustbin for the sort of FPC's discussed and the process halted.

2208: 2188: 2173: 2158: 2033: 1660: 3320:

to avoid such a selective use of the term "valued". Any image on the English Knowledge (XXG) that contributes positively to the articles in which it is used should be valued. –

2506:

On the contrary, the potential for misuse is inherent in the valued pictures program. It was initiated with minimal support and serves no useful function. It is bureaucracy.

1990:

safely say that no FPC nominations have failed because of VP. Nor, IMO, can anyone else make that blanket assertion responsibly. Please post responses to the MfD talk page.

1566: 90: 2123: 1560: 709:

show more maturity, refrain from conjuring up so many unfounded and unsupported conspiracy-theory claims, and stop trying to make yourself out to be some sacrosanct martyr.

85: 3766:

I assume you forgot to log in; you only have 8 edits total, meaning unless you log in, this comment will most likely be disregarded in the final decision-making process.

2068: 2063: 3234:

is not automatically pornographic; consider, for example, medical textbooks. I agree, however, with you and Durova that this is a matter beyond the scope of this MFD. –

100: 95: 3691: 2849:

Everything except the Signpost article (I don't read the Signpost) was just a minor mention. Did you ever consider actually proposing it somewhere before starting it?

1813:

nom'ed "just so it can go to VP" and I AGF that the other is the same case (correct me if I'm wrong, Muhammad). All I ask is that these be clear and notable examples.

110: 1453:

until it's too late (I just never saw this as a pressing issue in the past nor worth getting involved in since it didn't seem to hold much weight at the time). :-)

506: 105: 3575:

Specifics aside, an image should not fail FP because VP exists - the criteria have not changed. What I think is needed is for more images to be put through

3694:, also has high enc (and is a pretty rare shot imo), but again, doesn't have the required image quality for a FP. I'd be opposed to upgrading all VP to FP. 3572:

here - in my opinion, it fails this because of the dust, scratches etc. The window reflections are obviously not removable, so they are tolerable in an FP.

2474:"interpretation" can be kept to a minimum. My points above follow with the criteria and as of now, meet the expectations of the community that set them up. 2337:

Do you see the difference? Also, "have you run out of arguments?" was rather unnecessary, can I ask you to please not do something like that again? Thanks.

498: 2895:, on the provision that it be turned into maybe "Good images" instead, a way to classify images that aren't "as good" as FP, but still are quite good. 247: 2259:

encouragement to keep up with the -picture process (be it featured or valued). If VPC didn't exist, then a typical oppose (random example) would be "

1516:

Durova still ignores requests for legitimate evidence regarding her claims (that VP is killing FP). That's all I ever seem to need to say. She even

1115:

to nominate a FP if it's EV is already acknowledged. If VP was to go away, we'd just throw out delisted high EV FPs without further acknowledgment.

1831:

The editor who offered assurance that "no images have been shunned as yet" has been invited to substantiate that claim. The ball's in his court.

1772:

2. The purpose of the VP program was never well defined. "It's like good articles for images" was the slogan, but that doesn't have much meaning.

192:

per above. Never minding the slight bias that Durova has, I agree with all of his points. Note that the subpages should be added to this MFD too.

1377:

is; for months there's been a Dresden FP highlighted at my user page in thanks for the University of Dresden's donation. This is quite serious.

1161:

And may I beg how FP has the "better access" than VP? Just a day in our main page, that is all. Everything else is hidden just as much as VP is.

3559: 1274:

Sorry, yes a typo for your case. But my points still stand. Just look at the FPC page and see how well the two historic pictures are doing. --

75: 1393: 1263:. VP actively harms our efforts at gaining access to encyclopedic images. Processes that damage the overall encyclopedic mission need to go. 3473:, rationale essentially seems to be "I prefer featured pictures to valued pictures, therefore valued pictures has no value". I disagree. 656:

thought was correct. Durova, I am allowed to have an opinion, and I opined that I don't believe either of them should keep their FP stars.

665:

if someone thinks this issue is severely, negatively affecting FPC (with strong evidence), go through with it. How does that hurt things?

526:

3. something may change, but nobody will be able to definitively say whether it was the deletion of VPC or the restructuring of FPC (i.e.

80: 17: 3753: 2335:(For those who understand the American college application process, just play along; I know there are impossibilities being stated here) 1861:

hyperbole. Crucially, we have not been shown any "active hindrance" to the process of attracting new collections to the encyclopedia. --

530:). I think we should wait on this until FPC is fixed first, then we can revisit this issue. That's probably the only fair thing to do. 70: 3402: 1778:

needs to be opening doors. And when slavish imitation of GA becomes an active hindrance to that goal, then we need to change course.

3644:

It's a laudable sentiment but that particular criterion is one of several which have to apply in order to qualify an image as having

3564:

On the other hand, obvious improvements which can be made should be made before an image becomes an FP, or else it clearly fails the

1879:

The arguments here boil down to hypotheticals, theoreticals, and evidence-less statements. I'm not at all confident in this process.

4023: 2868:

I didn't start it and had no part of the initiation. I jumped on the bandwagon after it began, and liked being part of the project.

1729:

Not confident of that assertion: have you done a survey of how many FPC noms went downhill after someone canvassed the nom for VPC?

502: 494: 441:

The situation at WP:FPC is somewhat concerning and this is simplying compounding the problem. It is clear that there is a net loss.

3668:

featured pictures, and EV alone does not necessarily justify FP) and she has twice deigned no response to me even when prompted...

2222:

These are not valid to what I was looking for. You seem to have pulled random noms that involve mentioning of VPC. As you can see,

3687: 600:

Do you see this a an FP or a VP? I believe the fact that the argument against it being delisted boils down to EV. But that's not

3525:

Pictures should have any effect on the willingness of an archive to release their images to us. Their images would still have

220:- Since this is being used to inappropriately deny historic pictures Featured Picture status, it is doing more harm than good. 3157: 2599: 1752: 1715: 1656: 1280: 1244: 1045: 518: 4028: 4001: 3978: 3961: 3940: 3917: 3900: 3866: 3847: 3829: 3813: 3795: 3779: 3761: 3738: 3703: 3681: 3662: 3639: 3621: 3612: 3593: 3548: 3533: 3495: 3477: 3465: 3449: 3432: 3406: 3391: 3371: 3350: 3333: 3308: 3273: 3247: 3217: 3206: 3185: 3138: 3095: 3070: 3058: 3024: 3012: 2986: 2974: 2955: 2943: 2910: 2881: 2863: 2844: 2833: 2805: 2770: 2758: 2738: 2722: 2697: 2679: 2653: 2635: 2608: 2564: 2526: 2512: 2501: 2487: 2447: 2415: 2384: 2352: 2317: 2299: 2283: 2251: 2239: 1996: 1951: 1933: 1903: 1892: 1869: 1855: 1837: 1826: 1784: 1761: 1735: 1724: 1704: 1683: 1621: 1606: 1594: 1548: 1536: 1511: 1499: 1481: 1469: 1439: 1427: 1383: 1344: 1301: 1289: 1269: 1253: 1232: 1217: 1205: 1186: 1174: 1156: 1142: 1128: 1098: 1069: 1054: 1030: 1006: 976: 964: 946: 927: 916: 894: 872: 855: 831: 818: 800: 776: 764: 738: 698: 678: 637: 617: 591: 569: 548:

Unfortunately, the timing of the demotion nominations and Wadester's recent statements pushed this issue. Note the quotes:

543: 475: 464: 447: 433: 416: 391: 377: 357: 339: 312: 294: 283: 229: 210: 183: 168: 57: 3259: 3147:, for that matter) offended you by using your last name, my apologies; though the English Knowledge (XXG) is dominated by 2998: 2929: 2718: 1328: 1111:

keep VP. FP already includes EV and quality, while VP is only EV that doesn't meet quality standards for FP. So there is

3677: 3038: 2665: 2631: 687:

Maybe its time we "demote" some of our lower-quality FPs and fill up VPC with them...wadester16 05:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

4043: 3165:(it negatively questions the intelligence of the one who the phrase is pointed at). I only bring you up because Durova 63: 36: 510: 261: 123: 121: 3458: 3317: 1399: 3819: 2593:

anyway. For what its worth, many of the nominations that Durova linked above, she was also one of the opposers. --

2980:

Germany's Bundesarchiv. We've been talking about this work for months. If you have further questions, ask him.

2594: 1968:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:MarkS/XEB/live.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css&dontcountme=s

1747: 1710: 1652: 1275: 1239: 1040: 411: 685:(ec) Here Wadester complains that the timing is poor, but in the demotion nominations he calls the timing ripe: 3660: 2714: 2524: 2499: 2345: 1867: 1676: 944: 868: 851: 389: 53: 3748:

if kept. Calling it "valued images" causes confusion with what that means on Commons. VP here is nothing like

3690:, it has high enc (tail length and juvinile riding on back), but is definately not a FP for lighting reasons. 3757: 4042:

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

3699: 3491: 3346: 3172:

you many times in her arguments, apparently equating you with the paragon of FPC reviewers. You're welcome,

2903: 2693: 1063:

for that purpose. By defeaturing the bombing of Nagasaki, we reduce the chances of getting better material.

890: 486: 250: 35:

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

3267: 3006: 2937: 798: 253: 3539:

Let me just note that even though I have virtually no involvement with Featured or Valued Pictures, even

1396: 29:

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

4019: 3569: 3367: 3580:

an FP (regardless of whether the edit is an improvement or not). Perhaps greater integration with the

3230:(intent to sexually excite the recipient of the stimulus). Depiction of explicit sexual subject matter 2263:

per above, The author would have gotten much more in focus if he was side on to the bug," rather than "

453: 3254: 2993: 2924: 3841: 3807: 3773: 3426: 3341:, these processes seem like they could exist in parallel. Second choice would be to mark historical. 3179: 3089: 3052: 2875: 2827: 2647: 2481: 2378: 2311: 2277: 1927: 1886: 1849: 1820: 1588: 1530: 1493: 1463: 1421: 1338: 1000: 758: 732: 672: 611: 585: 563: 537: 490: 406: 351: 277: 1392:

the views the main page got that day—still a sizeable 15,000 views, but less than half the count of

3957: 3896: 3655: 2560: 2519: 2494: 2338: 2330: 1862: 1700: 1669: 939: 864: 847: 384: 383:

practice in their presentation and a perfectly standard and legitimate part of image processing. --

264: 153: 49: 3826: 3792: 3732: 3695: 3635: 3608: 3589: 3487: 3304: 2898: 2854: 2796: 2749: 2689: 1019: 886: 643:

my expectations ) and when someone disagrees with you (or at least when I do), you either assume

556:

about "demoting" lower quality FPs (which were promoted mainly on EV before VPC existed) to VPC.

514: 267: 3627: 3264: 3003: 2934: 2919: 1402: 712: 2049:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/File:ShimadaK2007Sept09-MentosGeyser_DSC_3294++.JPG

1577:, not semi-off-topic additional claims that get us off track from the original complaint. See, 3995: 3974: 3934: 3860: 3397: 3322: 3236: 3134: 2731: 1486:

My eyes are not closed; we just have differing opinions. As stated below, I request evidence.

1405: 1228: 1135: 1091: 791: 527: 429: 308: 225: 2838:

Since there was never much support in the first place then maybe it wasn't such a good idea.

2709:, with FA being the highest. Why shouldn't we have multiple levels of quality assessment for 2622:

and seem to be taking the nominator's word for it all, and I'd take it with a grain of salt.

1107:

Chillum, you don't seem to understand why a VP can't be a FP, which brings us down to why we

627:

Wadester demonstrated little understanding of the Nagasaki historical context, and apparently

141: 4016: 3674: 3363: 2628: 2009:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/Swine Flu Masked Train Passengers in Mexico City

373: 335: 3785: 3576: 1411: 1389: 3836: 3802: 3768: 3421: 3174: 3148: 3084: 3047: 2870: 2822: 2642: 2476: 2373: 2306: 2272: 2169:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Invitation_to_the_Inauguration_of_Barack_Obama

1922: 1881: 1844: 1815: 1802: 1583: 1525: 1488: 1458: 1416: 1333: 995: 960: 753: 727: 667: 606: 580: 558: 532: 346: 272: 3581: 1842:

I disagree. This is your MFD. The ball never left your court. I'm only asking for three.

202: 2089:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/File:Rembrandt The Hundred Guilder Print.jpg

3953: 3892: 3474: 3462: 2640:

Amen to your last sentence. I was wondering what woodwork all these users came out of.

2556: 1696: 921:

See below: VP actually damages efforts to gain access to more and better source files.

805:

Durova, may I ask why you brought up Titan? I don't recall any mentions of VPC there.

3914: 3823: 3789: 3724: 3631: 3618: 3604: 3585: 3545: 3530: 3300: 2851: 2793: 2746: 1805:

is on the complainant and I'm not convinced by the given examples, both of which are

1408: 647:("...demonstrated little understanding of the Nagasaki historical context"... see my 2044:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Western_tent_caterpillars_and_their_tent

723:

and my opinions specifically, so I see this as a tainted process from the beginning.

3990: 3970: 3929: 3855: 3385: 3380: 3200: 3195: 3130: 3079: 3034: 2968: 2963: 2409: 2404: 2233: 2228: 1945: 1940: 1224: 1199: 1194: 1168: 1163: 1122: 1117: 910: 905: 812: 807: 425: 304: 221: 1746:

well so that museums would be willing to release their images for that as well? --

3617:

That would be a significant change in the scope of the Feature Picture process.

2129:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Wallowing_Behavior_of_American_Bisons

3669: 3445: 3342: 3212: 3065: 3019: 2981: 2950: 2839: 2765: 2623: 2507: 2443: 2294: 2246: 2039:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Lilium_longiflorum_(Easter_Lily).JPG

1991: 1898: 1832: 1779: 1730: 1616: 1602: 1544: 1506: 1476: 1434: 1378: 1313:

release images to WMF because en:wiki VP exists. More likely, these places have

1296: 1264: 1212: 1181: 1151: 1064: 971: 922: 826: 771: 693: 632: 470: 443: 369: 331: 289: 178: 163: 157: 3749: 3440:

per Durova's well-reasoned nomination. This process serves no good purpose. --

3252:

How did my comment get turned into a debate about pornography and penises... --

2054:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/File:US100000dollarsbillobverse.jpg

1615:

a member of the community, and has a very solid understanding of FP standards.

823:

The topmost of the three quotes from Wadester occurred at the Titan nomination.

719:

an issue. Then go through the steps. Durova admits to this being an issue with

2214:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Komodo_dragons_video.wmv.OGG

2029:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/File:Hoverfly_September_2007-7.jpg

956: 461: 3396:

He probably means historical images. Like the one of the Nagasaki bombing. --

1374: 3908:—I disagree with the nominator on one point: I believe that Knowledge (XXG) 3800:

Isn't that a general rule everywhere? We don't allow IPs to vote in FPCs...

715:

move until things are fixed at FPC, and wait and see if this issue is still

460:

PPR as it isn't part of the valued picture process. No comment on the rest.

201:

if fixed. I wouldn't mind changing it to "Good images" or somesuch, so that

3818:

You kidding me? RFA is (or should be) the only exception. Besides cases of

242:

along. Note the difference: the quality—and not the technical quality, the

256:(until they're restored, and at that point can be nom'ed at FPC). It also 2204:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Bonasa-umbellus-001.jpg

2024:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Edward_VIII_abdication_papers

993:

WP:VPC so people would actually know about this (that's how I find out).

2059:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/USS Iowa turret explosion II

883:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Nagasakibomb.jpg

405:

per the nom. It's being used as a path down from FP—a net negative. —

236:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Nagasakibomb.jpg

134:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Nagasakibomb.jpg

2329:

admissions are in. One relatively bright senior says he had applied to

903:

is simply acknowledging high EV images that are low in quality for FP.

2199:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/File:Brown_Treecreeper.jpg

2139:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/File:White-faced_Heron.jpg

234:

I think that may be a bit exaggerated. For example, I may have nom'ed

3461:

or some other name as well, but I don't feel strongly about that. --

3441: 2019:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/File:NottMemorialPano.jpg

1801:

the reason, just so long as VPC is the clear reason for failure. The

3649:

further by requiring a certain level of detail and refinement which

2154:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Mantis_shrimp_from_front

2014:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Aphids_on_Christmas_Rose

2164:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Obama_official_portrait

2119:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Moringa_oleifera_flower

3853:

that discussion should take place else. Let's be on topic here...

3511:

be failed just because the Valued Pictures process is available.

2304:

You're faulting an entire community for being human. Nicely done.

2149:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Erythrism_in_a_katydid

2104:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Ryan_Cisterna_Home_Run

2094:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Wounded_Knee_aftermath

604:

FPC is about; on the other hand, that's mainly what VPC is about.

138:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/delist/Titan globe.jpg

3969:

Purpose is less than clear and seems to be interfering with FPC.

3486:, It is encouragement to photograph difficult, but enc subjects. 2184:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Map_of_Idaho_counties

2004:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Homeless_man_in_Tokyo

368:

Featured. Just a little more work, and they can get that star. --

4036:

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

2194:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Boyd's_Forest_Dragon

3834:

Then suggest the change. Otherwise, welcome to the real world.

3568:

criterion. I have to admit that I am thinking specifically of

2099:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Fox_Tor_on_Dartmoor

3822:

there should be no reason to disregard comments/votes of IPs.

3129:

argument is best put aside by removing this category. Thanks,

2134:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Pachypodium_lealii

2109:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Ellis_Island_video

1309:

I don't buy the claim that musuems and sources of images will

1449:

more productive to brings things up as they go along and not

1322:

promote their images? Or that it could take more than a year

156:: Valued Pictures has had its chance, and is a net negative. 2179:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Surviving_Herero

2079:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Anne_Frank_House

1611:

Seddon is also the nominator of four featured pictures. He

711:

Cliffnotes: I suggest holding off on this rash, timely, and

240:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured picture candidates/Crossroads Baker

2084:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Renal_Corpuscle

2074:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Dried_mushrooms

1695:

images, and those that find the images in the first place.

2114:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/_Punaluu_Beach

1915:. Your conspiracy theory is very wrong. We don't do it to 3518:

can be highlighted, along with other images that perhaps

3075:

Thank you for your input, but I asked for his response.

2209:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Emma_Goldman

2189:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Paul_Oglesby

2174:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Willy_Brandt

2159:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Paul_Oglesby

2034:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Sky_lanterns

3169: 3166: 3144: 2817: 2705:... we have different levels of quality assessment for 2265: 2144:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Beck's_Mill

1978: 1967: 1517: 1450: 990: 986: 824: 725:

But, have fun anyway, and best of luck to all on this.

705: 689: 652: 648: 644: 628: 621: 595: 573: 196:, his otters and a clue-bat • 18:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 128: 125: 91:

Knowledge (XXG):Valued picture candidates/February-2009

3654:

EV is the whole point of it, more so now than ever. --

3151:-raised users, where using your surname is considered 2664:

a possible outcome, then the discussion is misplaced.

2394:

sorts of statements dont move this discussion forward.

2124:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Film_audio

1455:< I assure that wasn't meant to be sarcastic. : --> 1410:. Since then, the viewership has dropped back down to 86:

Knowledge (XXG):Valued picture candidates/January-2009

3529:

of being Featured on the Main Page, would they not?

2069:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/CalnePigs

2064:

Knowledge (XXG):Featured_picture_candidates/Car_crash

1223:

is making these negotiations more difficult. Thanks,

101:

Knowledge (XXG):Valued picture candidates/April-2009

96:

Knowledge (XXG):Valued picture candidates/March-2009

111:

Knowledge (XXG):Valued picture candidates/June-2009

1581:is what it's like to read comments with evidence. 106:Knowledge (XXG):Valued picture candidates/May-2009 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 4046:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3692:File:Magpie chasing Brown Goshawk (Immature).jpg 3378:And may I ask what you mean by "older images"? 2576:Swine Flu Masked Train Passengers in Mexico City 2572:has questionable EV, which is why it is failing. 44:The result of the discussion was no consensus, 3222:Pornography is defined by a combination of con 4013:– belt-and-braces idea, not well-considered. 3193:though, so a better place would be FPC talk. 8: 270:for the FP star, but still have massive EV. 299:Based on some comments below, I think that 288:See my comment below Wadester's main post. 3211:Agreed. Let's keep this on topic please. 2578:also questionable EV and quality problems. 3784:Hmmm, and why would that be? This is not 3600:Mark as historical, upgrade all VP to FP. 1307:breaking promise to make a needed comment 76:Knowledge (XXG):Valued picture candidates 3226:(explicit sexual subject matter) and con 3160:)—I'll also point out that the image is 3316:per Mostlyharmless; if kept, rename to 303:would be more appropriate than delete. 81:Knowledge (XXG):Valued picture criteria 18:Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion 2361:I disagree and would argue that it is 1388:To be fair, the actual image received 71:Knowledge (XXG):Valued pictures thumbs 3041:on my wall a while back regarding an 1211:at one FP motivates large donations. 7: 3566:is among Knowledge (XXG)'s best work 1018:. Process cruft; redundant to FP. 140:. Possibly the impetus is because 3507:Featured Picture candidate should 2788:instituted without broad consensus 2786:per nom. I have to agree with the 1331:. But you won't give it a chance. 1261:Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia 24: 746:Damn, I broke my promise... okay 528:too many variables and no control 3688:File:Trichosurus vulpecula 1.jpg 260:old images by hosting ones that 4014: 2850: 2792: 2745: 2672: 2666: 209:, his otters and a clue-bat • 64:Knowledge (XXG):Valued pictures 1: 3459:Knowledge (XXG):Good pictures 3318:Knowledge (XXG):Good pictures 2452:The push towards VP isn't to 750:I won't edit this page again. 3522:be Featured but are not yet. 3503:. I am of the opinion that 238:for delist, but also helped 1039:landscape or historical. -- 4066: 3584:would help achieve that. 2713:as well? "Valued"... meh. 205:has an image counterpart. 154:over 200 featured pictures 4029:09:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 4002:00:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 3979:00:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC) 3962:11:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 3941:23:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 3918:23:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 3901:19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 3867:00:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 3848:23:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 3830:20:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 3814:20:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 3796:18:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 3780:13:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 3762:09:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 3739:05:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 3704:01:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC) 3682:13:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 3663:04:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 3640:21:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 3562:make allowances for that. 2810:Unfamiliarity isn't from 2584:good EV but poor quality. 2464:misinterpreted on my end. 1766:The reasons why not are: 1666:Delete/Mark as historical 1475:closes his eyes to them. 162:17:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 58:10:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC) 4039:Please do not modify it. 3622:22:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 3613:22:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 3594:16:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 3549:12:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 3534:12:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 3496:11:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 3478:10:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 3466:05:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 3450:22:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 3433:14:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 3407:02:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC) 3392:16:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3372:16:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3351:13:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3334:04:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3309:03:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3274:22:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 3248:07:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3218:03:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3207:00:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3186:07:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3139:06:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3096:06:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3071:00:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3059:00:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3025:00:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 3013:23:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2987:22:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2975:22:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2956:21:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2944:21:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2911:21:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2882:23:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2864:22:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2845:21:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2834:20:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2806:19:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2784:mark historical/rejected 2771:22:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2759:19:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2739:19:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2723:19:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2698:15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2680:10:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2654:18:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2636:09:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2609:05:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2582:Aphids on Christmas Rose 2565:05:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2527:14:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC) 2513:23:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2502:09:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2488:08:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2448:01:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2416:03:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2385:08:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2353:01:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2318:01:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2300:01:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2284:01:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2252:01:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 2240:01:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 1997:00:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 1952:22:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1934:22:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1908:I assume you mean these 1904:22:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1893:22:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1877:from January or earlier. 1870:22:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1856:21:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1838:21:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1827:21:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1785:20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1762:20:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1736:20:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1725:20:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1705:18:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1684:01:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 1661:16:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1622:02:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 1607:00:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 1595:00:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 1549:00:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 1537:23:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1512:23:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1500:22:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1482:21:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1470:21:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1440:20:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1428:19:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1384:19:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1345:17:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1302:17:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1290:17:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1270:16:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1254:16:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1233:16:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1218:16:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1206:16:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1187:15:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1175:15:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1157:15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1143:16:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1129:15:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1099:15:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1070:15:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1055:13:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1031:12:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 1007:00:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 977:13:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 965:08:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 947:06:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 928:15:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 917:06:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 895:06:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 873:06:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 856:05:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 832:05:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 819:05:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 801:17:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 777:14:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 765:06:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 739:06:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 699:06:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 679:05:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 638:04:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 618:04:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 592:05:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 570:05:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 544:04:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 476:03:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 465:03:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 448:01:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 434:21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 417:21:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 392:22:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 378:18:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 358:06:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 340:20:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 313:13:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 295:04:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 284:04:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC) 230:18:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 211:23:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC) 184:18:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 169:17:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC) 32:Please do not modify it. 4024:Africa, Asia and the UN 3527:exactly the same chance 2270:own inherent problems. 1809:noms, one of which was 552:Indeed. See my comment 3750:Commons' Valued images 2661:Procedural speedy keep 485:I think examples like 3570:File:Nagasakibomb.jpg 2570:Homeless_man_in_Tokyo 981:No, it was discussed 651:) or that one didn't 1523:providing evidence. 1084:Delete or mark as '' 2331:Columbia University 1653:Shoemaker's Holiday 244:restoration quality 3967:mark as historical 3889:Mark as Historical 1649:Mark as historical 142:picture of the day 132:photographs. See 3883:Arbitrary break 3 3736: 3680: 3330: 3326: 3244: 3240: 3158:visit your doctor 3037:took the time to 2909: 2634: 2606: 2591:would have failed 2547:Arbitrary break 2 2336: 1759: 1722: 1456: 1308: 1287: 1251: 1078:Arbitrary break 1 1052: 751: 521:show that VPC is 4057: 4041: 4027: 3998: 3993: 3937: 3932: 3863: 3858: 3844: 3839: 3810: 3805: 3776: 3771: 3737: 3730: 3727: 3672: 3429: 3424: 3388: 3383: 3328: 3324: 3272: 3270: 3262: 3257: 3242: 3238: 3215: 3203: 3198: 3182: 3177: 3153:more respectful. 3092: 3087: 3068: 3055: 3050: 3022: 3011: 3009: 3001: 2996: 2984: 2971: 2966: 2953: 2942: 2940: 2932: 2927: 2908: 2906: 2896: 2878: 2873: 2862: 2842: 2830: 2825: 2804: 2768: 2757: 2736: 2677: 2671: 2650: 2645: 2626: 2600: 2510: 2484: 2479: 2412: 2407: 2381: 2376: 2348: 2334: 2314: 2309: 2297: 2280: 2275: 2249: 2236: 2231: 1994: 1948: 1943: 1930: 1925: 1901: 1889: 1884: 1852: 1847: 1835: 1823: 1818: 1782: 1753: 1733: 1716: 1679: 1619: 1591: 1586: 1533: 1528: 1509: 1496: 1491: 1479: 1466: 1461: 1454: 1437: 1424: 1419: 1381: 1341: 1336: 1306: 1299: 1281: 1267: 1245: 1215: 1202: 1197: 1184: 1171: 1166: 1154: 1140: 1125: 1120: 1096: 1067: 1046: 1027: 1022: 1003: 998: 974: 925: 913: 908: 829: 815: 810: 794: 774: 761: 756: 745: 735: 730: 696: 675: 670: 635: 614: 609: 588: 583: 566: 561: 540: 535: 473: 414: 409: 354: 349: 326:, second choice 292: 280: 275: 208: 207:Ten Pound Hammer 195: 194:Ten Pound Hammer 181: 166: 160: 34: 4065: 4064: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4050: 4044:deletion review 4037: 3996: 3991: 3935: 3930: 3885: 3861: 3856: 3842: 3837: 3808: 3803: 3774: 3769: 3725: 3722: 3455:Keep and reform 3427: 3422: 3405: 3386: 3381: 3360:mark historical 3314:Mark historical 3268: 3260: 3255: 3253: 3213: 3201: 3196: 3180: 3175: 3090: 3085: 3066: 3053: 3048: 3020: 3007: 2999: 2994: 2992: 2982: 2969: 2964: 2951: 2938: 2930: 2925: 2923: 2904: 2897: 2876: 2871: 2840: 2828: 2823: 2766: 2732: 2648: 2643: 2549: 2508: 2482: 2477: 2410: 2405: 2379: 2374: 2346: 2312: 2307: 2295: 2278: 2273: 2247: 2234: 2229: 1992: 1946: 1941: 1928: 1923: 1899: 1887: 1882: 1850: 1845: 1833: 1821: 1816: 1803:burden of proof 1780: 1731: 1677: 1617: 1589: 1584: 1531: 1526: 1507: 1494: 1489: 1477: 1464: 1459: 1435: 1422: 1417: 1379: 1339: 1334: 1297: 1265: 1213: 1200: 1195: 1182: 1169: 1164: 1152: 1136: 1123: 1118: 1092: 1080: 1065: 1023: 1020: 1001: 996: 972: 923: 911: 906: 827: 813: 808: 792: 772: 759: 754: 733: 728: 694: 673: 668: 633: 612: 607: 586: 581: 564: 559: 538: 533: 471: 412: 407: 403:Mark Historical 352: 347: 324:Mark historical 301:Mark Historical 290: 278: 273: 206: 193: 179: 164: 158: 67: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4063: 4061: 4052: 4049: 4048: 4032: 4031: 4007: 4006: 4005: 4004: 3982: 3981: 3964: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3921: 3920: 3903: 3884: 3881: 3880: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3870: 3869: 3850: 3742: 3741: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3597: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3498: 3481: 3468: 3452: 3435: 3412: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3401: 3375: 3374: 3353: 3336: 3311: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3276: 3190: 3189: 3188: 3126: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3098: 3029: 3028: 3027: 2913: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2847: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2741: 2726: 2725: 2700: 2682: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2586: 2585: 2579: 2573: 2567: 2548: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2461: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2396: 2395: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2356: 2355: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2287: 2286: 2255: 2254: 2217: 2216: 2211: 2206: 2201: 2196: 2191: 2186: 2181: 2176: 2171: 2166: 2161: 2156: 2151: 2146: 2141: 2136: 2131: 2126: 2121: 2116: 2111: 2106: 2101: 2096: 2091: 2086: 2081: 2076: 2071: 2066: 2061: 2056: 2051: 2046: 2041: 2036: 2031: 2026: 2021: 2016: 2011: 2006: 2000: 1999: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1936: 1895: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1770: 1686: 1663: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1597: 1573:regarding the 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1146: 1145: 1102: 1101: 1079: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1033: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 949: 932: 931: 930: 897: 875: 865:Mostlyharmless 858: 848:Mostlyharmless 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 803: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 741: 625: 624: 623: 597: 575: 480: 479: 478: 450: 436: 419: 400: 399: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 316: 315: 213: 186: 114: 113: 108: 103: 98: 93: 88: 83: 78: 73: 66: 61: 50:Privatemusings 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4062: 4053: 4047: 4045: 4040: 4034: 4033: 4030: 4025: 4021: 4018: 4012: 4009: 4008: 4003: 4000: 3999: 3994: 3986: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3980: 3976: 3972: 3968: 3965: 3963: 3959: 3955: 3951: 3948: 3947: 3942: 3939: 3938: 3933: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3919: 3916: 3911: 3907: 3904: 3902: 3898: 3894: 3890: 3887: 3886: 3882: 3868: 3865: 3864: 3859: 3851: 3849: 3846: 3845: 3840: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3828: 3825: 3821: 3820:sock puppetry 3817: 3816: 3815: 3812: 3811: 3806: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3794: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3778: 3777: 3772: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3759: 3755: 3754:71.155.237.68 3751: 3747: 3744: 3743: 3740: 3734: 3729: 3728: 3720: 3717: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3696:Noodle snacks 3693: 3689: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3679: 3676: 3671: 3666: 3665: 3664: 3661: 3659: 3658: 3652: 3647: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3629: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3620: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3610: 3606: 3601: 3598: 3596: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3578: 3573: 3571: 3567: 3561: 3557: 3554: 3550: 3547: 3542: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3535: 3532: 3528: 3521: 3516: 3515: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3499: 3497: 3493: 3489: 3488:Noodle snacks 3485: 3482: 3479: 3476: 3472: 3469: 3467: 3464: 3460: 3456: 3453: 3451: 3447: 3443: 3439: 3436: 3434: 3431: 3430: 3425: 3417: 3414: 3413: 3408: 3404: 3403:contributions 3399: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3390: 3389: 3384: 3377: 3376: 3373: 3369: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3354: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3340: 3337: 3335: 3332: 3331: 3319: 3315: 3312: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3298: 3295: 3294: 3275: 3271: 3266: 3263: 3258: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3246: 3245: 3233: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3216: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3205: 3204: 3199: 3191: 3187: 3184: 3183: 3178: 3171: 3168: 3163: 3159: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3127: 3123: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3097: 3094: 3093: 3088: 3081: 3078: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3069: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3057: 3056: 3051: 3044: 3040: 3036: 3033: 3030: 3026: 3023: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3010: 3005: 3002: 2997: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2985: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2973: 2972: 2967: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2954: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2941: 2936: 2933: 2928: 2921: 2917: 2914: 2912: 2907: 2902: 2901: 2900:ViperSnake151 2894: 2891: 2883: 2880: 2879: 2874: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2861: 2860: 2858: 2853: 2848: 2846: 2843: 2837: 2836: 2835: 2832: 2831: 2826: 2819: 2816: 2813: 2809: 2808: 2807: 2803: 2802: 2800: 2795: 2789: 2785: 2781: 2778: 2777: 2772: 2769: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2756: 2755: 2753: 2748: 2742: 2740: 2737: 2735: 2728: 2727: 2724: 2720: 2716: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2701: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2690:Makeemlighter 2686: 2683: 2681: 2678: 2675: 2669: 2662: 2659: 2655: 2652: 2651: 2646: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2633: 2630: 2625: 2620: 2616: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2607: 2604: 2598: 2597: 2592: 2583: 2580: 2577: 2574: 2571: 2568: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2553:Do not delete 2551: 2550: 2546: 2528: 2525: 2523: 2522: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2511: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2500: 2498: 2497: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2486: 2485: 2480: 2472: 2471: 2462: 2458: 2457: 2455: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2446: 2445: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2417: 2414: 2413: 2408: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2397: 2392: 2391: 2386: 2383: 2382: 2377: 2369: 2364: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2354: 2351: 2349: 2342: 2341: 2332: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2319: 2316: 2315: 2310: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2298: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2285: 2282: 2281: 2276: 2268: 2267: 2262: 2257: 2256: 2253: 2250: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2238: 2237: 2232: 2225: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2215: 2212: 2210: 2207: 2205: 2202: 2200: 2197: 2195: 2192: 2190: 2187: 2185: 2182: 2180: 2177: 2175: 2172: 2170: 2167: 2165: 2162: 2160: 2157: 2155: 2152: 2150: 2147: 2145: 2142: 2140: 2137: 2135: 2132: 2130: 2127: 2125: 2122: 2120: 2117: 2115: 2112: 2110: 2107: 2105: 2102: 2100: 2097: 2095: 2092: 2090: 2087: 2085: 2082: 2080: 2077: 2075: 2072: 2070: 2067: 2065: 2062: 2060: 2057: 2055: 2052: 2050: 2047: 2045: 2042: 2040: 2037: 2035: 2032: 2030: 2027: 2025: 2022: 2020: 2017: 2015: 2012: 2010: 2007: 2005: 2002: 2001: 1998: 1995: 1989: 1984: 1980: 1979: 1974: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1953: 1950: 1949: 1944: 1937: 1935: 1932: 1931: 1926: 1918: 1914: 1911: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1902: 1896: 1894: 1891: 1890: 1885: 1878: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1868: 1866: 1865: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1854: 1853: 1848: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1836: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1825: 1824: 1819: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1799: 1796: 1786: 1783: 1776: 1771: 1768: 1767: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1760: 1757: 1751: 1750: 1744: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1734: 1728: 1727: 1726: 1723: 1720: 1714: 1713: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1687: 1685: 1682: 1680: 1673: 1672: 1667: 1664: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1650: 1647: 1646: 1623: 1620: 1614: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1605: 1604: 1598: 1596: 1593: 1592: 1587: 1580: 1576: 1571: 1568: 1565: 1562: 1557: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1547: 1546: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1535: 1534: 1529: 1522: 1519: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1510: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1498: 1497: 1492: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1480: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1468: 1467: 1462: 1452: 1448: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1438: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1426: 1425: 1420: 1413: 1412:single digits 1409: 1407: 1403: 1401: 1397: 1395: 1391: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1382: 1375: 1372: 1346: 1343: 1342: 1337: 1330: 1325: 1321: 1316: 1312: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1300: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1288: 1285: 1279: 1278: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1268: 1262: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1252: 1249: 1243: 1242: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1230: 1226: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1216: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1204: 1203: 1198: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1185: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1173: 1172: 1167: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1155: 1148: 1147: 1144: 1141: 1139: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1127: 1126: 1121: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1100: 1097: 1095: 1088: 1087: 1082: 1081: 1077: 1071: 1068: 1062: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1053: 1050: 1044: 1043: 1037: 1034: 1032: 1028: 1026: 1017: 1014: 1008: 1005: 1004: 999: 992: 988: 984: 980: 979: 978: 975: 968: 967: 966: 962: 958: 953: 950: 948: 945: 943: 942: 936: 933: 929: 926: 920: 919: 918: 915: 914: 909: 901: 898: 896: 892: 888: 887:Makeemlighter 884: 879: 876: 874: 870: 866: 862: 859: 857: 853: 849: 844: 841: 833: 830: 825: 822: 821: 820: 817: 816: 811: 804: 802: 799: 796: 795: 788: 778: 775: 768: 767: 766: 763: 762: 757: 749: 742: 740: 737: 736: 731: 724: 722: 718: 714: 707: 702: 701: 700: 697: 690: 688: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 677: 676: 671: 664: 659: 654: 650: 646: 641: 640: 639: 636: 629: 626: 622: 620: 619: 616: 615: 610: 601: 598: 596: 594: 593: 590: 589: 584: 576: 574: 572: 571: 568: 567: 562: 555: 550: 549: 547: 546: 545: 542: 541: 536: 529: 524: 520: 516: 512: 508: 504: 500: 496: 492: 488: 484: 481: 477: 474: 468: 467: 466: 463: 459: 455: 451: 449: 446: 445: 440: 437: 435: 431: 427: 423: 420: 418: 415: 410: 404: 401: 393: 390: 388: 387: 381: 380: 379: 375: 371: 366: 361: 360: 359: 356: 355: 350: 343: 342: 341: 337: 333: 329: 325: 322: 314: 310: 306: 302: 298: 297: 296: 293: 287: 286: 285: 282: 281: 276: 269: 266: 263: 259: 255: 252: 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 232: 231: 227: 223: 219: 218: 214: 212: 204: 200: 197: 191: 187: 185: 182: 176: 175:Strong delete 173: 172: 171: 170: 167: 161: 155: 150: 148: 143: 139: 135: 130: 126: 124: 122: 119: 112: 109: 107: 104: 102: 99: 97: 94: 92: 89: 87: 84: 82: 79: 77: 74: 72: 69: 68: 65: 62: 60: 59: 55: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 4051: 4038: 4035: 4010: 3989: 3966: 3949: 3928: 3909: 3905: 3888: 3854: 3835: 3801: 3767: 3745: 3723: 3718: 3656: 3650: 3645: 3599: 3582:Graphics Lab 3574: 3565: 3563: 3555: 3540: 3526: 3523: 3519: 3513: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3483: 3470: 3454: 3437: 3420: 3415: 3398:Patar knight 3379: 3359: 3355: 3338: 3321: 3313: 3296: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3194: 3173: 3161: 3152: 3083: 3077:Mr. Meijssen 3076: 3046: 3032:Mr. Meijssen 3031: 2962: 2915: 2899: 2892: 2869: 2856: 2855: 2821: 2798: 2797: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2751: 2750: 2733: 2710: 2706: 2702: 2684: 2673: 2667: 2660: 2641: 2618: 2614: 2602: 2595: 2590: 2587: 2552: 2520: 2495: 2475: 2453: 2442: 2403: 2372: 2367: 2362: 2343: 2339: 2305: 2271: 2264: 2260: 2227: 2223: 1987: 1975: 1939: 1921: 1916: 1880: 1876: 1863: 1843: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1797: 1755: 1748: 1742: 1718: 1711: 1692: 1688: 1674: 1670: 1665: 1648: 1612: 1601: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1555: 1543: 1524: 1520: 1487: 1457: 1446: 1415: 1332: 1323: 1319: 1314: 1310: 1283: 1276: 1260: 1247: 1240: 1193: 1162: 1137: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1093: 1085: 1083: 1060: 1048: 1041: 1035: 1024: 1015: 994: 982: 951: 940: 934: 904: 899: 877: 860: 842: 806: 793:Juliancolton 790: 752: 747: 726: 720: 716: 710: 686: 666: 662: 657: 605: 603: 599: 579: 577: 557: 551: 531: 522: 482: 457: 442: 438: 421: 402: 385: 364: 345: 327: 323: 300: 271: 257: 243: 216: 215: 198: 189: 188: 174: 151: 146: 127:As early as 117: 115: 45: 43: 31: 28: 3646:exceptional 3560:FP criteria 3520:may someday 3364:John Carter 3358:, possibly 2615:Strong keep 1036:Strong keep 900:Strong keep 483:Strong Keep 3678:(Contribs) 3232:on its own 3170:referenced 2632:(Contribs) 1404:, or even 1086:rejected'' 1061:zero value 413:Wartenberg 251:unrestored 3954:J Milburn 3893:TomStar81 3475:Lankiveil 3463:Ned Scott 3143:If I (or 2557:SmokeyJoe 2454:go around 1697:Xavexgoem 645:stupidity 452:Notified 120:conflict. 4017:Treasury 3915:Ynhockey 3838:wadester 3824:Garion96 3804:wadester 3790:Garion96 3770:wadester 3726:howcheng 3632:SnowFire 3628:WP:WIAFP 3605:SnowFire 3586:Time3000 3423:wadester 3301:ragesoss 3176:wadester 3086:wadester 3049:wadester 2920:WP:ITN/C 2872:wadester 2824:wadester 2707:articles 2676:ulbasaur 2644:wadester 2596:Muhammad 2478:wadester 2375:wadester 2308:wadester 2274:wadester 1924:wadester 1883:wadester 1846:wadester 1817:wadester 1749:Muhammad 1712:Muhammad 1585:wadester 1556:FPC noms 1527:wadester 1490:wadester 1460:wadester 1418:wadester 1335:wadester 1277:Muhammad 1241:Muhammad 1042:Muhammad 997:wadester 755:wadester 729:wadester 717:actually 669:wadester 608:wadester 582:wadester 560:wadester 534:wadester 348:wadester 274:wadester 3971:JoshuaZ 3416:Comment 3149:Western 3131:GerardM 3080:GerardM 3035:GerardM 2734:Chillum 2670:eranged 1798:Comment 1521:against 1225:GerardM 1138:Chillum 1113:no need 1094:Chillum 991:tagging 878:Comment 843:Comment 713:pointed 426:GerardM 305:Rlendog 222:Rlendog 129:January 118:created 4011:Delete 3906:Delete 3827:(talk) 3793:(talk) 3746:Rename 3675:(Talk) 3670:Diliff 3657:mikaul 3619:Powers 3577:WP:PPR 3546:Powers 3531:Powers 3438:Delete 3343:Stifle 3214:Durova 3145:Durova 3067:Durova 3021:Durova 2983:Durova 2952:Durova 2841:Durova 2818:trying 2780:Delete 2767:Durova 2711:images 2703:Y'know 2629:(Talk) 2624:Diliff 2521:mikaul 2509:Durova 2496:mikaul 2444:Seddσn 2296:Durova 2266:Oppose 2261:Oppose 2248:Durova 1993:Durova 1988:cannot 1970:": --> 1900:Durova 1864:mikaul 1834:Durova 1807:delist 1781:Durova 1732:Durova 1689:Delete 1618:Durova 1603:Seddσn 1545:Seddσn 1518:argues 1508:Durova 1478:Durova 1436:Durova 1380:Durova 1298:Durova 1266:Durova 1214:Durova 1183:Durova 1153:Durova 1109:should 1066:Durova 1025:DrNick 1016:Delete 987:posted 973:Durova 941:mikaul 924:Durova 861:Delete 828:Durova 773:Durova 695:Durova 634:Durova 517:, and 472:Durova 454:WT:FPC 444:Seddσn 439:Delete 422:Delete 386:mikaul 370:GRuban 332:GRuban 328:Delete 291:Durova 217:Delete 190:Delete 180:Durova 165:Durova 159:Durova 3686:Take 3514:Ever. 3329:ALCON 3269:wicke 3243:ALCON 3008:wicke 2939:wicke 2905:Talk 2619:there 1917:shunt 1913:posts 1693:other 1575:claim 1390:0.25% 1324:after 957:jjron 952:Keep. 649:reply 554:below 462:MER-C 268:small 258:helps 203:WP:GA 16:< 3997:Fari 3975:talk 3958:talk 3950:Keep 3936:Fari 3910:does 3897:Talk 3862:Fari 3758:talk 3733:chat 3719:Keep 3700:talk 3636:talk 3609:talk 3590:talk 3556:Keep 3509:ever 3501:Keep 3492:talk 3484:Keep 3471:Keep 3446:talk 3387:Fari 3368:talk 3356:Keep 3347:talk 3339:Keep 3325:LACK 3305:talk 3297:Keep 3239:LACK 3228:text 3224:tent 3202:Fari 3135:talk 3039:post 2970:Fari 2916:Keep 2893:Keep 2812:lack 2719:talk 2694:talk 2685:Keep 2603:talk 2561:talk 2411:Fari 2368:will 2347:Talk 2235:Fari 2224:many 1947:Fari 1756:talk 1719:talk 1701:talk 1678:Talk 1657:talk 1579:this 1561:some 1451:wait 1406:this 1400:this 1394:this 1329:this 1284:talk 1248:talk 1229:talk 1201:Fari 1170:Fari 1124:Fari 1049:talk 961:talk 935:Keep 912:Fari 891:talk 869:talk 852:talk 814:Fari 706:read 663:then 658:Then 653:read 519:this 515:this 511:this 507:this 503:this 499:this 495:this 491:this 487:this 458:Keep 430:talk 408:Jake 374:talk 336:talk 309:talk 254:ones 226:talk 199:Keep 136:and 54:talk 46:keep 4020:Tag 3992:Zoo 3931:Zoo 3857:Zoo 3786:RFA 3651:may 3400:- / 3382:Zoo 3261:dle 3256:can 3197:Zoo 3167:has 3162:not 3043:FPC 3000:dle 2995:can 2965:Zoo 2931:dle 2926:can 2859:man 2852:Mr. 2801:man 2794:Mr. 2782:or 2754:man 2747:Mr. 2406:Zoo 2363:not 2230:Zoo 1942:Zoo 1910:two 1811:not 1743:fix 1570:VPs 1567:the 1320:not 1311:not 1196:Zoo 1165:Zoo 1119:Zoo 907:Zoo 809:Zoo 748:now 602:all 523:not 265:too 262:are 248:the 4026:─╢ 4015:╟─ 3977:) 3960:) 3899:) 3843:16 3809:16 3788:. 3775:16 3760:) 3702:) 3673:| 3638:) 3611:) 3592:) 3505:no 3494:) 3448:) 3428:16 3370:) 3349:) 3307:) 3181:16 3137:) 3091:16 3082:? 3054:16 2877:16 2857:Z- 2829:16 2820:. 2815:of 2799:Z- 2752:Z- 2721:) 2715:DS 2696:) 2649:16 2627:| 2563:) 2483:16 2380:16 2340:NW 2313:16 2279:16 1929:16 1888:16 1851:16 1822:16 1703:) 1671:NW 1668:. 1659:) 1651:. 1613:is 1590:16 1564:of 1532:16 1495:16 1465:16 1447:is 1423:16 1414:. 1398:, 1340:16 1315:no 1231:) 1029:! 1021:Hi 1002:16 983:at 963:) 893:) 871:) 854:) 797:| 760:16 734:16 721:me 674:16 613:16 587:16 565:16 539:16 513:, 509:, 505:, 501:, 497:, 493:, 489:, 456:. 432:) 376:) 353:16 338:) 311:) 279:16 228:) 177:. 149:. 147:no 56:) 4022:► 3973:( 3956:( 3895:( 3756:( 3735:} 3731:{ 3698:( 3634:( 3607:( 3588:( 3541:I 3490:( 3480:. 3444:( 3442:B 3366:( 3345:( 3327:F 3323:B 3303:( 3265:• 3241:F 3237:B 3133:( 3004:• 2935:• 2717:( 2692:( 2674:b 2668:d 2605:) 2601:( 2559:( 2350:) 2344:( 1758:) 1754:( 1721:) 1717:( 1699:( 1681:) 1675:( 1655:( 1286:) 1282:( 1250:) 1246:( 1227:( 1051:) 1047:( 959:( 889:( 867:( 850:( 428:( 372:( 365:a 334:( 307:( 224:( 52:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Miscellany for deletion/Knowledge (XXG):Valued pictures - Knowledge (XXG)

Index