788:
of which I am currently looking at proposing for deletion as it is a complete work of fiction). At the other end of the scale, as described above, we have a relatively new editor whose edit count consists of a large number of welcomes to new editors â so perhaps misleading them on their knowledge of
Knowledge (XXG), when a new editor might go to them for help (due to the welcome message). Based on comments here, I am coming to the conclusion that we need some sort of health warning on anything that could be construed as a measure of editor experience. Whilst measures do have value (like spotting the new editor, or realising that you are dealing with an editor with a huge amount of experience), they are only indicators. Both new editors and very experienced editors can surprise with characteristics we might not expect.
2567:), I'm curious about best practices for new articles of people and companies involved in high-profile criminal investigations. Within 24 hours of news being released, editors created Knowledge (XXG) articles for Lauren Chen and Tenet Media, both of which primarily focused on the investigation. While Chen had been a public figure prior to the investigation, I had trouble finding RSes with SIGCOV to establish notability without including articles related to the investigation, which runs up against issues regarding Knowledge (XXG)'s policies relating to illegal conduct--especially without a conviction and especially for a BLP. As such, I brought both articles to AFD (see the discussions for
2755:
mobile version of the site, which can be intended behavior on something like wikipedia because we want easy ways to force the mobile version for slow browsers e.g., etc.). The problem then is the copy-and-paste step -- the bare url on your browser's navbar can be the same for both mobile and desktop users if site preference (passed through "m.wikipedia.org") is preserved (which I think it is anyway? I'm not a web dev). For me this can be a minor annoyance on, say, reddit, where many links are posted to the mobile site (I like the mobile site on desktop quite a lot, but having both urls has minor inconveniences like with sorting browsing history).
622:
someone who spends most of their time on
Knowledge (XXG) reading a broad range of existing articles and discussions is very likely going to have a much better grasp of what page curation entails than someone who has spent twice that amount of time adding sourced content to a narrow topic area. Two people who spend the same amount of time making the same number, size and type of edits to the same type of articles can be very differently suited to page curation - for example if editor A's edits are almost all accepted as good by others while editor B's are reverted and/or require extensive fixing by others. Editor B is arguably
1901:
being recognized as offensive, so we switched to some euphemism, which in a few years become offensive to some, so we switched again. In truth, we are just avoiding how the term is used offensively, and replacing one term with another that will also come to be used offensively. That said, I do not choose this as the "great wrong" to right. I will speak up, though, against the trend I've recently seen of changing "plantation" to "forced-labor cotton farm" and similar monstrosities. Saying that slaves were just "forced laborers" is hiding or dimishing the horrors of chattel slavery.
581:
is very little editing of actual article content and even less of finding some sourced material and adding it to an article. So from this I conclude that the measure of edit count is misleading and that the editor in question does not really have the experience to be judging other editors' efforts. Hence the need for more better quality information. With that information available to all, it might make an editor ask themselves "am I the right person for this job?", so providing a self-policing element.
705:
more difficult people in this community. I suspect that many editors, whether they know it or not, have learnt most of their knowledge on
Knowledge (XXG) from other editors with a substantial track record behind them. What worries me in this case is: who will a new editor go to for assistance/guidance? If they go to someone who was their new page reviewer, but that person does not have any depth of experience, that new editor is being short changed.
690:
user permissions can be helpful when looking at someoneâs diff and to ascertain what kind of question to ask someone; but again with emphasis on being kind and effective communicators. In the past, Iâve been chided as a ânew editorâ when I had 500 edits by someone who was abusing their seniority status. Needless to say, they were also blocked frequently for problematic behaviours. ~ đŠ
2045:
multitude of teams they play in. The alternative is a "list of 1890s footballers" type article, which in addition to being an arbitrary categorization, does not solve the GNG justification for the article, and is a list article, which I would argue is more difficult to maintain and generally of worse quality than a stub (especially when entries do not have main articles).
862:
important things than edit count, so I wouldn't have decided to display it prominently. I would probably do reasonably well on the "number of thanks" measure but that's probably just a function of the pages that I tend to edit. There's no real substitute for looking at someone's contribution history and deciding for yourself who the good editors are.
2444:"A later study focused on mekosuchines in general; examining material assigned to Kambara, Baru, the "Floraville Taxon" and what might have either been a juvenile Baru or Mekosuchus; suggests that the group as a whole had collumnar humeri than modern crocodylids with an elliptical rather than rounded crosssection."
2512:
Technicality and prose complexity are independent of whether or not something is a reference book. A Michelin's Guide is a reference book. A children's encyclopedia is a reference book. I don't see how either of the guidelines you link contradict my statement. I fully understand that the lede section
2473:
Nobody is expected to read a
Knowledge (XXG) article, or any encyclopedia article, in its entirety from front to back. It's a reference book. (Knowledge (XXG) is many more things than that, but the encyclopedic style, the piecemeal improvements, the both narrow and wide audience scope, and the nature
2317:
As for whether it impacts something more important like commercial accessibility tools (like screen readers), I don't know. But OP's issue is an important accessibility issue as well, since as most of the emerging and young world is operating exclusively on mobile devices, we want to address their UX
1900:
But I do find substituting "enslaved person" for "slave" grating. Now, I was trained as a linguist and fully understand that a spoken language is a living thing and constantly evolving, but I am also an old fogey and have grown weary of euphemism churning. I have lived through several cases of a term
1812:
As linguistic practices in scholarly and other high-quality sources have just started changing enough for editors to be noticing this, this is probably an area where we need people to keep their brains turned on instead of just trying to find a simplistic rule. I think the best approach will be more
1284:
Something to consider is whether you're talking about edits or editors. In this sample, the 32 editors in the last bucket made an average of 921.8125 edits each, while the 1797 in the lowest non-IP bucket averaged less than 2 each. If you pick a random editor who edited during the period you're more
580:
the edit count (as the only readily available metric) does not make clear that the editor has done very little writing of encyclopaedia content, yet they are welcoming new editors, have offered themselves (on 11 July) for multiple feedback services and are active on approval of draft articles. There
534:
In addition to the points made by Anomie and
Chaotic Enby (with which I agree), your proposed metrics are not reliable indicators of anything relevant: a highly skilled copyeditor will have fewer character additions to their name than someone who writes long, terrible prose. Which of these two edits
454:
The problem with number of articles created is that an editor may be working in an area where most subjects have an article on them already. Some of these may need improvement (sometimes radical improvement), updating or simply expanding from a stub. So this measure favours those who edit in rapidly
2313:
element, which is not rendered by default, but may be picked up accidentally by a bot (not sure for example if AWB's regexp tools default to stop at newlines, or else match "^" to newlines, but imo regexp is inherently a trial-and-error tool, and people who have been using it on WP for a while will
2014:
What would you call such articles? In any case, how can you tell that an article has no hope of being expanded beyond a stub? At least some editors feel that stub articles that have no hope of being expanded don't belong in
Knowledge (XXG) as stand-alone articles, and any useful information in them
1501:
That's fascinating. Is there an "interesting facts about
Knowledge (XXG)" place for this sort of thing to go? I've just sorted the month to date list on "edits" and put percentages on each line of the total number of edits. What that show is that if you have an interaction on a "random edit", it is
970:
Automating such an enquiry is beyond me, but it would be informative to see the results of a bigger sample. This snapshot suggests that there is some equality between the number of inexperienced editors (less than 1,000 edits), moderately experienced editors (1,000 to 10,000) and highly experienced
827:
I do wonder (partly in jest) if the best measure of an editor is the number of times that they have been thanked as a proportion of their total number of edits. In reality, this might be a function of the other editors that they interact with. More seriously, all of these methods of assessments are
787:
That's one of the points that I am trying to make: that measures of editor experience can mislead. I have in mind an argumentative editor who questioned my edits (to "their" articles, of course) based on the fact that I have only created x number of articles (whilst they have created very many, one
707:
In the example given, the editor in question apparently does not read the articles too closely â I have no idea what they are doing, but tagging a short article that says when some died (20 years ago, at a good age) with a BLP warning suggests a superficial approach, as does immediately sticking an
434:
missed one?). It seems hard to get an opinion on how much of an editor's work is in writing new encyclopaedia content of articles â which is the job we are here to do (yes, just like, e.g., a car manufacturer being all about building cars, we do need a lot of support functions to achieve that job).
1729:
that, while not formally closed, basically came to the conclusion that both "slave" and "enslaved person" are acceptable ("slave" is not "outdated language") but that one might be preferable to the other depending on the specific context. In such situations it is almost always a bad idea to change
1505:
But thinking of interactions, that doesn't seem to be my experience. (Latest interaction is reverting some terminology put in by an editor with 261 edits, being reverted, then having to explain on the talk page that the article's source is not an RS and list three high quality sources that support
689:
I think itâs helpful to know whether someone is a ] when giving them feedback on potentially problematic edits. But when people are able to communicate adequately, none of the metrics about previous edit count, areas of expertise concern me. I can be convinced that having certain about edit count,
576:
I thought the brief analogy (above) with a car factory was clear â sticking with that analogy, yes the main task may be building cars, but you still need accountants, cleaners, a marketing department, etc., etc. So I am well aware that
Knowledge (XXG) would not function without lots of tasks other
883:
The thing about the number of edits is you have to remember how few edits is normal. Of the registered editors who edited at all last year (calendar year 2023), half of them had five or fewer edits. Not "five in 2023", but five total, for the whole lifetime of the account. Someone who has just
861:
I don't think that any automatically-generated process can give any meaningful measure beyond knowing that an editor with only a few edits probably hasn't read all the policies and guidelines that old-timers have. I don't use a smartphone to edit
Knowledge (XXG), but know that there are many more
704:
From my experience (and I am talking about positive experiences) the most helpful of editors are those who have added a lot of encyclopaedia content. I attribute that to their understanding of some of the problems in sourcing and explaining an article, and also in how to interact with some of the
433:
Is there a better way of assessing an editor's experience? This is something one might (should?) do before interacting with another editor. (And also something to apply to oneself, now and again.) At present we have (1) edit counts and (2) number of articles created (3) date of first edit (have I
2044:
A basic question, what OP asks, is what to do about historical biographies? For the example footballer above, I suppose you could make articles for each team he played in for each few seasons that include biographies of all footballers, but then you'd be duplicating all those biographies for the
621:
What is it about extensive writing of article content that makes someone uniquely qualified to welcome other editors, offer feedback on articles or determine the quality of a draft? In the passage you quote, "experienced" means "is familiar with
Knowledge (XXG)'s policies, guidelines and norms",
2754:
It seems to me that the root problem you're identifying is that when people in mobile browsers copy-and-paste their url from (some) mobile sites, they get the mobile version of the url, which they then post to some permanent outside forum (and then a desktop user clicks, which takes them to the
507:
Agree with Anomie, especially since "experience" doesn't really translate linearly, someone could be very experienced at writing content but not familiar with "backend" or administrative tasks. Or someone could be very good at writing templates and maintaining code. Or doing mostly WikiGnoming.
2439:
to its current form. Articles can sometimes become so large and complex, they exceed the average audience's time and interest. This is not to say the current article should be trimmed or split, it presumably does a good job. But it's very long and specialist. For example one sentence has:
662:
user right (which gives access to the Page Curation tools) is only granted by administrators, most often at first for a short trial, so there is already every opportunity to check if the user has the experience needed.One does not simply walk in and start patrolling new pages.
626:
experienced because they will likely have been directed to read more policies and guidelines and had more talk page interaction regarding their editing than editor A (whose talk page may consist only of a welcome message). There is no simple metric that can capture this.
641:
Large numbers of edits that welcome new users make a correspondingly large increase in the edit count of a user. These are not edits that increase an editor's knowledge of Knowledge (XXG). This is something that devalues edit count as a useful measure of experience.
1541:
There are also qualitative differences in edits by volume. The 5th edit is more likely to be adding content than the 50,000th edit. High-volume editors tend to be doing semi-automated edits â a Twinkle tag here, an AWB run there, a reference formatting script...
458:
Date of first edit has some use, but there are still editors who started years ago who seem to be unaware of some of the basics, and quite new editors who seem to have got a real good grip of how everything works and produce quality article content.
2658:
So why donât we have a bot, that sweeps edits for en.m.wikipedia links, and changes them to en.wikipedia? Iâm not a coding guy, so I couldnât build this myself, so Iâm bringing it to the Idea Lab, if anyone likes the look, and fancies having a go.
1726:
1804:
I don't think that (non-RFC) discussion needs a formal closing statement. We probably need to have multiple conversations like that, until more editors become familiar with the subject matter. A formal summary tends to discourage future
356:
351:
2015:
should be merged into a higher level article. So, search for reliable sources on the topic; if you cannot find anything useful, explore merging the article into a more inclusive article, convert it to a redirect, or take it to AfD.
2793:
Though none of the bullet points may be changed without a strong consensus, there are obviously gaps to fill (the templates, for example, are a new addition and need refinement) and sentences to be made clearer and more concise.
845:
Do note that on some devices (e.g. my smartphone), an editor's edit count is prominently displayed when looking at an edit, whilst it is not on the computer that I am using now. I think we need to take this into account.
2452:, but that seems different. Anyway, there does seem to be a need for articles on complex topics that are geared to a casual general audience, that are approachable, readable, interesting without sacrificing accuracy. --
1808:
In particular, "both are acceptable" summaries tend to get misused this way: "The rules say that both are acceptable, so my preference is acceptable, and so the rules say we have to do it my way (and never, ever your
2252:
When looking at diffs, it's a pain to scroll through a paragraph taller than my screen to find the one changed word (or comma), not to mention the similarly long paragraphs shown before and after it for context.
1930:
These aren't exactly euphemisms, but I wonder sometimes whether the idea is to grab attention, in the way that an annoying advertisement for used cars is grating but effective at communicating the basic content.
476:
I feel this would give a more useful view of an editor's activity. What is important is that this should be easily visible to anyone (without needing knowledge of some little used method of getting this data).
2786:, but being familiar with the RFCs isn't required (and, as a matter of fact, fresh eyes are encouraged). In short, we had an RFC to determine the specifics of the policy (proposal) which isaacl has summarized
510:
Yes, one could say that only the first one is "pure" editing, but this doesn't mean they're inherently the only one doing valuable work, or that they should be higher in some kind of hierarchy of experience.
2301:
It's fine to put linebreaks inside templates, such as the citation template. If one is really concerned about losing something in the underlying html, then one can enclose a linebreak within an html comment
2496:
that pretty much contradict that. That said, I don't see GreenC's concerns; the lede exists for a reason, and I don't see the problem with the quoted passage, especially with all of the links omitted.
2256:
I would urge editors to insert single line breaks â which are invisible on the page â between sentences, especially after complex refs. Or at least not to go out of your way to remove such breaks!
2448:
One option is to feed it to ChapGPT and ask for a summary in the style of a museum brochure ie. for a "general audience", which is what I thought Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be anyway. There is
1711:
offending people. We want people who read that article to be thinking about the historical subject. We don't want them thinking about whether Knowledge (XXG) uses outdated or offensive language.
2575:). Both discussions quickly filled with keep !votes given the high profile of the case, the vast majority of which do not cite existing policy. I'm curious how to best handle scenarios like this.
601:
Page Curation is a suite of tools developed between March and September 2012 by the Wikimedia Foundation, and greatly improved in 2018 in collaboration with the Knowledge (XXG) community, to help
902:
That's an interesting viewpoint. Doing a very small sample of all recent edits in Knowledge (XXG) (just 20Â â we would need a higher level of automation to get past my patience level), we get:
2204:
Sports biographies have been a particular problem on Knowledge (XXG) where editors mass create them in the hundreds or thousands despite being asked to stop. It got to the point that a
1489:
Running the query for the first half of September, the number of editors in the lower buckets increases much more, while the number of edits in the higher buckets increases much more.
462:
In searching for a useful set of measures, I suggest something that looks at activity in main namespace (i.e. encyclopaedia content). This could be, as a single group of information:
813:
There's no perfect method, of course, but it combines enough information that I find it genuinely helpful. The namespace breakdown pie chart can be particularly illuminating. YMMV.
1989:
1107:
Automating it is not beyond me. đ Caveats: I can't get edit counts for IP edits, and I have to bucket by total current edit count rather than edit count at the time of the edit.
985:
Automating is also beyond me, but I have patience enough to look at the edits for the most recent 100 registered editors making non-bot edits (from 10:13 UTC 15 September 2024).
89:
2787:
2381:
See, the issue is that shortcut isn't memorable, so how can I possibly make the same point as this essay two weeks from now if I can't remember what letters to link the guy?
562:, almost entirely overlapping with my non-gnoming edits (other than deprodding and BLARing). The number of edits in each band tell you nothing about the sort of editor I am.
714:: I think I am trying to make a closely related point, that the metrics we do have can mislead. Perhaps we just need a warning that the existing measures can mislead.
2654:, got me thinking this morning, of how many mobile diffs must be getting thrown up on-wiki every day, and causing the interface changes that Gray flagged up with me.
1093:) was making their 2,863,752nd edit, only two other editors were above 500,000. The average was 82,933 edits (excluding the top 10: 23,597), the median 6,550 edits.
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
1855:, so if editors decide that they have to match, they might need to make them match on the one that won't create an opportunity for complaints about offensiveness.
2622:
2618:
2572:
2568:
1787:
607:
The thoughts here are all about determining what is an "experienced editor"Â â hopefully with that largely being self-policing if the right info is available.
2703:
403:
1832:
1285:
likely to get someone in the lower buckets than if you pick a random edit during the period. It gets more pronounced if we look at a longer time period:
1992:), could be used by editors to find short articles to be made longer, but is crowded by articles that are extremely unlikely to have more information
1524:
60:
1506:
the preferred language.) I suppose that says that the more experienced editors do work that does not really need any attention from the likes of me.
408:
2680:. I use it because I use the desktop site on mobile. Editors who then do click on a mobile diff are just auto-redirected to the desktop site. --
773:, is there any page that gives the impression things like edit count, number of articles created, and date of first edit are meaningful measures?
2319:
361:
2735:
Changing other people's comments is probably a non-starter. That is guaranteed to upset people (e.g. see IndentBot's BRFA). Plus, CONTEXTBOT.
2677:
2668:
2364:
1795:
366:
173:
151:
135:
39:
32:
2617:
apply, you'd do better to advocate for both to be merged to an article on the investigation, as suggested in some of the early comments on
1704:
sound like "It's more important for this article to match the others than to avoid language that I've been told is potentially offensive".
888:
is in the top 1% of all time. We tend to think "Oh, three thousand edits â practically a baby", but almost nobody reaches that level.
344:
334:
1600:
The terminology section itself describes the naming as "dispute". I thought the (slave) disambiguator would be a better choice due to
680:
525:
2941:
162:
25:
2651:
2772:
320:
213:
2531:
I thought your point was that articles aren't supposed to be unspecific and untechnical. I think we actually agree on this thing.
2884:
I guess it's just my tiny little seed. It will add that very little tiny bit. They will all add up and get us there eventually.
2809:
2805:
1791:
203:
2699:
383:
308:
199:. Stalwart "Oppose" and "Support" comments generally have no place here. Instead, discuss ideas and suggest variations on them.
2946:
2780:
This isn't a perfect match for VPI, but it's not concrete enough for VPPROP and isn't a policy proper yet, so can't be on VPP.
2093:
Conversely, if it "will pretty much always be a stub" then widespread coverage in reliable sources is lacking. Our guideline,
53:
2714:
1620:
659:
2902:, I've left a message on your talk page out of care for you. I hope you read it and see it comes from somewhere authentic.
2583:
2647:
2170:
1693:
495:
My first thought is to back up a step and ask why you think we need a measure of editor "experience" in the first place?
1647:
1632:
2559:
Given recent news regarding an investigation into the promotion of Russian propaganda by right-wing media outlets (see
1759:
1697:
130:
is a place where new ideas or suggestions on general Knowledge (XXG) issues can be incubated, for later submission for
1624:
1852:
1607:
Second, only Angela's page was moved. I can easily find other pages still using the (slave) disambiguator, including
441:
lots of short edits because the editor does not prepare a considered piece, check it with a preview, and then add it.
2685:
2059:
This isnât a notability issue. A short article does not make it a deletion-worthy one. Iâm saying we should remove
1514:
976:
877:
851:
833:
793:
736:
719:
647:
612:
586:
485:
2493:
2216:
any sports biography like this that you see where it doesn't have any significant coverage in its listed sources.
2094:
596:
2663:
2232:
1628:
658:
Respectfully, I don't think we need more metrics and ratings and hierarchies of editors. I'll also note that the
885:
318:
306:
127:
2576:
1985:
1616:
810:
731:
recently. I have no idea how meaningful its results are, but it certainly appears better than just edit count.
2205:
1601:
1535:
1988:
will very very very very very likely never be expanded to the 1500 character threshhold. It's stub category (
708:
orphan tag on everything that comes out of draft, which will obviously be the case on making that transition.
2863:
2068:
2016:
2004:
1955:
1902:
1749:
1662:
1575:
1531:
2889:
2852:
2817:
2195:
1936:
1891:
1818:
1716:
1594:
1547:
893:
867:
778:
676:
521:
2843:
I feel like I've been left behind, forgotten, invisible. I made a post then it got removed. See the page
2489:
374:
193:
131:
2870:
with the summary "can't make any sense of this post, unfortunately.", an assessment with which I agree.
1643:
1510:
972:
847:
829:
806:
789:
770:
732:
715:
643:
608:
582:
481:
99:
2827:
2795:
2660:
2217:
1878:
get complaints about "enslaved person" being offensive, so I think we can reasonable predict that we
1651:
2826:
That's a good point. A few others raised the issue of the name, but just cited personal preference.
2783:
2409:
196:
2875:
2760:
2724:
2600:
2538:
2522:
2503:
2479:
2327:
2177:
2142:
2126:
2118:
2084:
2050:
2035:
1921:
1842:
1767:
1735:
1683:
1098:
818:
695:
632:
567:
2610:
2449:
2338:
I would concur it's worth considering a habit of single linebreaks following elaborate citations.
2167:
1981:
Should we put stub templates on articles that will never be able to be expanded to a start-class?
2914:
2743:
2393:
2372:
2350:
2277:
2187:
2163:
2103:
2064:
2000:
1745:
1658:
1608:
2626:
2614:
2208:
determined that sports biographies without significant coverage should be deleted. Feel free to
2113:
Ok, great advice; and so again, what would you do about my example, taking OP's example, above?
2899:
2885:
2848:
2813:
2416:
2292:
2261:
2191:
1932:
1887:
1814:
1712:
1583:
1543:
889:
863:
774:
760:
667:
512:
202:
Wondering whether someone already had this idea? Search the archives below, and look through
2609:
Accept that you failed at this time to make your case for deletion. If you really think that
2209:
1783:
310:
2633:
2460:
1493:
809:, I usually check xtools's Edit Count tool available at the bottom of an editor's contribs.
499:
2309:
The html for a single line break in plain wikitext appears as a newline character within a
2213:
1590:. I attempted to reach them 6 days ago (as of August 30), but they are currently inactive.
2922:
2893:
2879:
2856:
2830:
2821:
2798:
2764:
2748:
2728:
2709:
2670:
2636:
2604:
2587:
2542:
2526:
2507:
2483:
2467:
2420:
2401:
2376:
2358:
2331:
2296:
2282:
2265:
2238:
2199:
2181:
2146:
2130:
2108:
2088:
2072:
2054:
2039:
2019:
2008:
1958:
1940:
1925:
1905:
1895:
1846:
1822:
1799:
1771:
1753:
1739:
1720:
1687:
1666:
1612:
1551:
1518:
1496:
1102:
980:
897:
871:
855:
837:
822:
797:
782:
764:
740:
723:
699:
684:
651:
636:
616:
590:
571:
529:
502:
489:
1673:
1758:
Certainly not without discussion. It's clear that the title is not uncontroversial so a
323:
311:
2871:
2845:
Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (idea lab): Difference between revisions - Knowledge (XXG)
2756:
2718:
2594:
2532:
2518:
2497:
2475:
2323:
2173:
2136:
2122:
2114:
2078:
2046:
2029:
1947:
1915:
1836:
1779:
1763:
1731:
1677:
1636:
1579:
1094:
814:
691:
628:
563:
2513:
is aimed to be read as a cohesive narrative whole... which is why I specified that an
2287:
I wouldn't want to converse anyone unnecessarily, but can't bots detect a blank line?
2025:
1831:
In the specific topic of article titles, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may be a valid argument, as
1813:
obvious in, say, five years. For now, we just need to avoid carving a rule in stone.
578:
2935:
2904:
2867:
2738:
2629:, so you may need to wait for the dust to clear on that before proposing that merge.
2383:
2368:
2340:
2272:
2098:
2060:
1308:
1130:
1090:
769:
And that's no reason to think that you're a better or worse editor than anyone else.
2432:
2412:
2288:
2257:
1866:
get complaints about "slave" being offensive, so we can reasonably predict that we
1642:
The only other pages I could find using the (enslaved man/woman) disambiguator are
756:
2810:
Knowledge (XXG):Perennial proposals#Community-based process for removing adminship
322:
2621:, rather than continuing to push for deletion. Even then I see several claims in
2630:
2564:
2560:
2453:
1490:
577:
than "pure" editing. What I find a problem is that in the example I gave above,
496:
210:
Discussions are automatically archived after remaining inactive for two weeks.
1509:
The month to date table also shows that 9% of the editors do 75% of the work.
2790:. The page tries to convert the sparse bullet points into a proper proposal.
2363:
As it happens, there's already an essay advocating for this exact practice:
1502:
most likely with an editor in the 10,000 to 100,000 band (23% of all edits).
2172:. As far as notability yeah its difficult finding sources for those times.
1762:
needs to be initiated to determine consensus before any title is changed.
332:
1999:
I believe stubs should only be added to articles that can see expansion.
712:
I don't think we need more metrics and ratings and hierarchies of editors
729:
1744:
So should the other pages with â(slave)â is the title should be moved?
1587:
2717:
is a better version that checks if you're using a desktop browser.
2517:
is what should generally not be expected to be read front-to-back.
1538:
would also be suitable repositories for this kind of information.
1657:
Should (enslaved man/woman) replace (slave) as a disambiguator?
2135:
I would just delete it as it seems like indiscriminate trivia.
2077:
If an article is notable, it shouldn't possibly remain a stub.
2306:. These may or may not help with alleviating the diff display.
324:
312:
2806:
Knowledge (XXG):Perennial proposals#Reconfirm administrators
2271:
That will converse the bots as to where the paragraph ends.
138:. Try to be creative and positive when commenting on ideas.
554:? My recent gnoming contributions have ranged in size from
2625:
that sufficient sources exist for that article to counter
2249:
This is a practice request rather than a feature request.
535:
of mine is the greater addition of encyclopaedic content
16:
Section of the village pump where new ideas are discussed
2844:
2436:
1952:
559:
555:
551:
548:
544:
540:
536:
448:
414:
398:
393:
388:
114:
107:
2063:
from articles that will pretty much always be a stub.
1786:. I'd do it, but I have 2 pending ones there already.
1089:
Three editors were making their first edit, 1 editor (
1990:
Category:English football defender, 1890s birth stubs
1788:
Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_228#MOS:SLAVE?
455:
changing subjects where new topics arise frequently.
2190:, there is no mandatory "1500 character threshold".
1882:
get complaints about offensiveness if we choose the
1870:
get complaints about offensiveness if we choose the
1833:
consistency is one of the titles policy's criterions
437:
The problem with edit counts is that this includes:
1672:VPI is for broader idears. You should be opening a
367:
WMF asking for ideas for annual fundraising banners
2474:of citations, suggest you treat it more as that.)
880:. Both account age and number of edits is useful.
828:useful only if we all remember their limitations.
172:and determine whether it has consensus, go to the
2676:One options is for editors to use something like
2623:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lauren Chen
2619:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Tenet Media
1604:, similarly to changing "passed away" to "died".
1309:Breakdown of edits for September 1â14, 2024 (UTC)
444:interminable discussions/arguments on talk pages.
362:Subject-specific notability guideline for species
176:. Proposals worked out here can be brought there.
605:review new pages on the English Knowledge (XXG).
373:For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the
2643:Idea for a bot. If you can work it, go ahead.
1862:be offended; I'm just saying that we already
1536:Knowledge (XXG):Wikipedians#Number of editors
8:
2314:have tested their code on newlines already).
1782:It might be a good idea to put that one on
1532:Knowledge (XXG):Statistics#Edits per editor
1582:, for homogenization. It was reverted by @
2320:Knowledge (XXG):Editing on mobile devices
2166:I found these from Historical newspapers
1730:from one to the other without consensus.
1700:. You will want to write something that
1525:Template:Registered editors by edit count
472:the number of edits grouped in size bands
2555:Re: High-profile criminal investigations
2365:Knowledge (XXG):Newline after references
1696:before writing your explanation for the
1306:
1128:
1002:
909:
665:(Although NPP always needs more people!)
352:Review of the RfA discussion-only period
2028:'s purpose is to remove such articles.
1910:People are replacing "plantation" with
1707:Knowledge (XXG) should generally avoid
1131:Breakdown of edits for 2024-09-14 (UTC)
415:
728:Just for completeness, I chanced upon
711:
600:
1874:convention. Similarly, we currently
1595:User talk:CaroleHenson#Angela (slave)
1574:On June 4, 2024, I moved the article
1527:for percentage/ranking by edit count.
7:
755:Heh, my net byte count is negative.
543:? Is making the same improvement in
466:the total number of characters added
19:
204:Knowledge (XXG):Perennial proposals
141:Before creating a new section, note
2678:User:Ăjarkur/NeverUseMobileVersion
2431:I noticed the recent expansion of
547:better or worse than making it in
450:) or other "maintenance" activity.
447:a focus on page curation (example:
14:
2652:User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing
660:Knowledge (XXG):New page reviewer
1639:, which I based my move off of.
2808:but the contents are more like
2318:concerns. (I enjoyed the essay
480:Any thoughts would be welcome.
2923:15:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
2894:15:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
2880:15:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
2857:15:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
2831:01:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
2822:21:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
2799:23:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
2765:21:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
2749:20:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
2729:21:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
2715:User:Aveaoz/AutoMobileRedirect
2710:20:16, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
2671:10:57, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
2650:, this morning, combined with
2637:11:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2605:11:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2588:01:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2543:11:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2527:02:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
2421:15:56, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
2402:22:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
2377:22:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
2359:12:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1858:NB that I'm not saying anyone
1621:William Gardner (former slave)
1586:on July 3, in which they cite
1552:16:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
1519:13:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
1497:12:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
1103:10:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
981:08:53, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
898:22:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
872:18:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
856:13:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
838:13:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
823:11:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
798:13:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
783:19:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
765:18:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
79:
1:
2593:Semi-protect the nomination?
2508:18:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
2494:Knowledge (XXG):Summary style
2484:18:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
2468:18:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
2332:18:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
2297:23:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
2283:06:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
2266:19:10, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
2239:16:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
2200:17:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
2182:15:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
2147:20:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
2131:19:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
2109:06:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
2095:Knowledge (XXG):Summary style
2089:04:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
2073:01:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
2055:14:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
2040:14:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
2020:13:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
2009:03:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
1959:21:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
1941:19:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
1926:17:28, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
1906:17:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
1896:01:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
1823:01:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
741:18:04, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
597:Knowledge (XXG):Page Curation
429:Measures of editor experience
2942:Knowledge (XXG) village pump
2097:, says it should be merged.
1853:Neutrality in article titles
1648:Ana Cardoso (enslaved woman)
1633:William Green (former slave)
971:editors (10,000 and above).
886:Knowledge (XXG):EXTCONFIRMED
1847:02:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1800:06:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1772:00:22, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
1754:23:08, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
1740:23:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
1721:22:52, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
1688:22:28, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
1667:22:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
1625:John Brown (fugitive slave)
724:16:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
700:14:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
685:14:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
652:16:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
637:13:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
617:12:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
591:12:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
572:12:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
530:11:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
503:11:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
490:11:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
84:
2963:
878:User:PleaseStand/User info
168:If you're ready to make a
97:
2947:Knowledge (XXG) proposals
2915:
2782:This page is a result of
2648:A TP message I woke up to
2394:
2351:
1760:requested move discussion
1629:William Grimes (ex-slave)
1327:Edits per editor per day
1986:John Settle (footballer)
1692:Also, I suggest reading
1617:Fortune (American slave)
357:ArbCom election RFC 2024
174:Village pump (proposals)
152:Village pump (technical)
136:Village pump (proposals)
74:
2773:WP:Admin reconfirmation
2408:Teach the controversy:
1635:. You also didn't move
1576:Angela (enslaved woman)
1570:Angela (enslaved woman)
1004:Sample of recent edits
911:Sample of recent edits
348:is open for discussion.
181:Before commenting, note
2804:The title sounds like
2450:Simple Knowledge (XXG)
1698:requested move process
1593:The following is from
335:Centralized discussion
2828:Sincerely, Dilettante
2796:Sincerely, Dilettante
2427:Length and complexity
2024:As Donald mentioned,
1644:Acme (enslaved woman)
771:User:ThoughtIdRetired
345:request for adminship
163:Village pump (policy)
2577:Significa liberdade
1851:The policy requires
1790:didn't go anywhere.
1652:Peter (enslaved man)
1057:100,001 to 1,000,000
2245:break up paragraphs
1694:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1588:Slavery#Terminology
1311:
1133:
1065:1,000,000 and above
1005:
912:
603:experienced editors
469:the number of edits
2435:that evolved from
2206:discussion in 2022
2164:User:Roastedbeanz1
1977:To stub an article
1792:GrÄbergs GrÄa SÄng
1609:John Punch (slave)
1307:
1129:
1003:
910:
2708:
2693:
2689:
2683:
2580:
1884:(enslaved person)
1727:recent discussion
1468:
1467:
1263:
1262:
1146:Edits per editor
1072:
1071:
1049:10,001 to 100,000
963:
962:
956:100,001 and above
948:10,001 to 100,000
666:
170:concrete proposal
150:issues belong at
75:Table of contents
68:
67:
2954:
2921:
2919:
2913:
2909:
2781:
2751:
2746:
2741:
2721:
2696:
2691:
2687:
2681:
2666:
2597:
2578:
2535:
2500:
2465:
2458:
2400:
2398:
2392:
2388:
2357:
2355:
2349:
2345:
2312:
2305:
2280:
2275:
2235:
2229:
2226:
2223:
2220:
2139:
2106:
2101:
2081:
2032:
1951:
1918:
1885:
1873:
1839:
1680:
1511:ThoughtIdRetired
1324:Edits per editor
1312:
1134:
1006:
973:ThoughtIdRetired
913:
848:ThoughtIdRetired
830:ThoughtIdRetired
807:ThoughtIdRetired
790:ThoughtIdRetired
733:ThoughtIdRetired
716:ThoughtIdRetired
673:
672:
664:
644:ThoughtIdRetired
609:ThoughtIdRetired
583:ThoughtIdRetired
518:
517:
482:ThoughtIdRetired
419:
417:
347:
325:
313:
117:
110:
80:First discussion
20:
2962:
2961:
2957:
2956:
2955:
2953:
2952:
2951:
2932:
2931:
2911:
2905:
2903:
2841:
2779:
2777:
2744:
2739:
2736:
2719:
2665:(Give me info.)
2664:
2645:
2595:
2557:
2533:
2498:
2461:
2454:
2429:
2390:
2384:
2382:
2347:
2341:
2339:
2310:
2304:<!-- --: -->
2303:
2278:
2273:
2247:
2233:
2227:
2224:
2221:
2218:
2137:
2104:
2099:
2079:
2030:
1979:
1945:
1916:
1883:
1871:
1837:
1678:
1613:Abigail (slave)
1572:
1517:
1041:1,001 to 10,000
1009:Number of edits
979:
940:1,001 to 10,000
916:Number of edits
854:
836:
796:
739:
722:
670:
668:
650:
615:
589:
515:
513:
488:
431:
424:
423:
422:
413:
379:
371:
343:
337:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
321:
315:
314:
309:
302:
301:
300:
157:Discussions of
146:Discussions of
126:section of the
121:
120:
113:
106:
102:
94:
17:
12:
11:
5:
2960:
2958:
2950:
2949:
2944:
2934:
2933:
2930:
2929:
2928:
2927:
2926:
2925:
2840:
2837:
2836:
2835:
2834:
2833:
2776:
2769:
2768:
2767:
2752:
2733:
2732:
2731:
2655:
2644:
2641:
2640:
2639:
2607:
2556:
2553:
2552:
2551:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2547:
2546:
2545:
2515:entire article
2446:
2445:
2428:
2425:
2424:
2423:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2361:
2336:
2335:
2334:
2315:
2307:
2299:
2246:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2202:
2184:
2161:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2061:stub templates
2022:
1978:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1943:
1913:
1856:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1810:
1806:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1705:
1637:Caesar (slave)
1602:WP:NOTCENSORED
1580:Angela (slave)
1571:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1539:
1530:Pages such as
1528:
1513:
1507:
1503:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1466:
1465:
1462:
1459:
1456:
1453:
1448:
1447:
1444:
1441:
1438:
1435:
1434:100001â1000000
1431:
1430:
1427:
1424:
1421:
1418:
1414:
1413:
1410:
1407:
1404:
1401:
1397:
1396:
1393:
1390:
1387:
1384:
1380:
1379:
1376:
1373:
1370:
1367:
1363:
1362:
1359:
1356:
1353:
1350:
1346:
1345:
1342:
1339:
1336:
1333:
1329:
1328:
1325:
1322:
1319:
1316:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1261:
1260:
1257:
1254:
1251:
1246:
1245:
1242:
1239:
1236:
1235:100001â1000000
1232:
1231:
1228:
1225:
1222:
1218:
1217:
1214:
1211:
1208:
1204:
1203:
1200:
1197:
1194:
1190:
1189:
1186:
1183:
1180:
1176:
1175:
1172:
1169:
1166:
1162:
1161:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1144:
1141:
1138:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1070:
1069:
1066:
1062:
1061:
1058:
1054:
1053:
1050:
1046:
1045:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1034:
1030:
1029:
1026:
1022:
1021:
1018:
1014:
1013:
1010:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
975:
961:
960:
957:
953:
952:
949:
945:
944:
941:
937:
936:
933:
929:
928:
925:
921:
920:
917:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
881:
850:
843:
842:
841:
840:
832:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
792:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
735:
726:
718:
709:
706:
656:
655:
654:
646:
611:
585:
560:+220,030 bytes
537:+220,030 bytes
532:
509:
505:
484:
474:
473:
470:
467:
452:
451:
445:
442:
430:
427:
421:
420:
411:
406:
401:
396:
391:
386:
380:
378:
372:
370:
369:
364:
359:
354:
349:
339:
338:
333:
319:
317:
316:
307:
305:
304:
303:
212:
208:
207:
200:
184:
178:
177:
166:
155:
139:
134:discussion at
119:
118:
111:
103:
98:
96:
95:
93:
92:
87:
82:
77:
71:
70:
69:
66:
65:
63:
58:
56:
51:
49:
44:
42:
37:
35:
30:
28:
23:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2959:
2948:
2945:
2943:
2940:
2939:
2937:
2924:
2920:
2918:
2910:
2908:
2901:
2897:
2896:
2895:
2891:
2887:
2883:
2882:
2881:
2877:
2873:
2869:
2865:
2861:
2860:
2859:
2858:
2854:
2850:
2846:
2838:
2832:
2829:
2825:
2824:
2823:
2819:
2815:
2811:
2807:
2803:
2802:
2801:
2800:
2797:
2791:
2789:
2785:
2774:
2770:
2766:
2762:
2758:
2753:
2750:
2747:
2742:
2734:
2730:
2726:
2722:
2716:
2713:
2712:
2711:
2707:
2705:
2701:
2695:
2694:
2679:
2675:
2674:
2673:
2672:
2669:
2667:
2662:
2656:
2653:
2649:
2642:
2638:
2635:
2632:
2628:
2624:
2620:
2616:
2612:
2608:
2606:
2602:
2598:
2592:
2591:
2590:
2589:
2585:
2581:
2574:
2570:
2566:
2562:
2554:
2544:
2540:
2536:
2530:
2529:
2528:
2524:
2520:
2516:
2511:
2510:
2509:
2505:
2501:
2495:
2491:
2487:
2486:
2485:
2481:
2477:
2472:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2466:
2464:
2459:
2457:
2451:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2438:
2434:
2426:
2422:
2418:
2414:
2411:
2407:
2403:
2399:
2397:
2389:
2387:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2374:
2370:
2366:
2362:
2360:
2356:
2354:
2346:
2344:
2337:
2333:
2329:
2325:
2321:
2316:
2308:
2300:
2298:
2294:
2290:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2281:
2276:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2263:
2259:
2254:
2250:
2244:
2240:
2236:
2230:
2215:
2211:
2207:
2203:
2201:
2197:
2193:
2189:
2188:Roastedbeanz1
2185:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2168:
2165:
2162:
2148:
2144:
2140:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2128:
2124:
2120:
2116:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2107:
2102:
2096:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2086:
2082:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2052:
2048:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2027:
2023:
2021:
2018:
2017:Donald Albury
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1997:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1984:For example,
1982:
1976:
1960:
1957:
1956:Donald Albury
1954:
1949:
1944:
1942:
1938:
1934:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1911:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1904:
1903:Donald Albury
1899:
1898:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1881:
1877:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1857:
1854:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1844:
1840:
1834:
1830:
1824:
1820:
1816:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1728:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1685:
1681:
1675:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1655:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1640:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1605:
1603:
1598:
1596:
1591:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1569:
1553:
1549:
1545:
1540:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1526:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1495:
1492:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1464:857.60912698
1463:
1460:
1457:
1454:
1450:
1449:
1445:
1442:
1439:
1436:
1433:
1432:
1428:
1425:
1422:
1419:
1416:
1415:
1411:
1408:
1405:
1402:
1399:
1398:
1394:
1391:
1388:
1385:
1382:
1381:
1377:
1374:
1371:
1368:
1365:
1364:
1360:
1357:
1354:
1351:
1348:
1347:
1343:
1340:
1337:
1334:
1331:
1330:
1326:
1323:
1320:
1317:
1314:
1313:
1310:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1258:
1255:
1252:
1248:
1247:
1243:
1240:
1237:
1234:
1233:
1229:
1226:
1223:
1220:
1219:
1215:
1212:
1209:
1206:
1205:
1201:
1198:
1195:
1192:
1191:
1187:
1184:
1181:
1178:
1177:
1173:
1170:
1167:
1164:
1163:
1159:
1156:
1153:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1142:
1139:
1136:
1135:
1132:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1067:
1064:
1063:
1059:
1056:
1055:
1051:
1048:
1047:
1043:
1040:
1039:
1035:
1032:
1031:
1027:
1024:
1023:
1019:
1016:
1015:
1011:
1008:
1007:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
984:
983:
982:
978:
974:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
958:
955:
954:
950:
947:
946:
942:
939:
938:
934:
931:
930:
926:
923:
922:
918:
915:
914:
901:
900:
899:
895:
891:
887:
882:
879:
875:
874:
873:
869:
865:
860:
859:
858:
857:
853:
849:
839:
835:
831:
826:
825:
824:
820:
816:
812:
811:Here's yours.
808:
805:
799:
795:
791:
786:
785:
784:
780:
776:
772:
768:
767:
766:
762:
758:
754:
742:
738:
734:
730:
727:
725:
721:
717:
713:
703:
702:
701:
697:
693:
688:
687:
686:
682:
678:
674:
661:
657:
653:
649:
645:
640:
639:
638:
634:
630:
625:
620:
619:
618:
614:
610:
606:
604:
598:
594:
593:
592:
588:
584:
579:
575:
574:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
550:
546:
542:
538:
533:
531:
527:
523:
519:
506:
504:
501:
498:
494:
493:
492:
491:
487:
483:
478:
471:
468:
465:
464:
463:
460:
456:
449:
446:
443:
440:
439:
438:
435:
428:
426:
418:
412:
410:
407:
405:
402:
400:
397:
395:
392:
390:
387:
385:
382:
381:
376:
368:
365:
363:
360:
358:
355:
353:
350:
346:
341:
340:
336:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
205:
201:
198:
195:
191:
188:This page is
187:
186:
185:
182:
175:
171:
167:
164:
160:
156:
153:
149:
145:
144:
142:
137:
133:
129:
125:
116:
112:
109:
105:
104:
101:
91:
88:
86:
83:
81:
78:
76:
73:
72:
64:
62:
61:Miscellaneous
59:
57:
55:
52:
50:
48:
45:
43:
41:
38:
36:
34:
31:
29:
27:
24:
22:
21:
2916:
2906:
2900:Blackbombchu
2886:Blackbombchu
2849:Blackbombchu
2842:
2839:Left behind.
2814:WhatamIdoing
2792:
2778:
2771:Feedback on
2697:
2692:isinterested
2684:
2657:
2646:
2558:
2514:
2490:WP:Technical
2462:
2455:
2447:
2433:Mekosuchinae
2430:
2395:
2385:
2352:
2342:
2255:
2251:
2248:
2192:WhatamIdoing
1998:
1993:
1983:
1980:
1933:WhatamIdoing
1888:WhatamIdoing
1886:convention.
1879:
1875:
1867:
1863:
1859:
1815:WhatamIdoing
1805:discussions.
1725:There was a
1713:WhatamIdoing
1708:
1701:
1656:
1641:
1606:
1599:
1592:
1584:CaroleHenson
1573:
1544:WhatamIdoing
1446:49.48802198
1417:10001â100000
1221:10001â100000
1033:101 to 1,000
932:101 to 1,000
890:WhatamIdoing
864:Phil Bridger
844:
775:Phil Bridger
623:
602:
479:
475:
461:
457:
453:
436:
432:
425:
209:
189:
180:
179:
169:
158:
147:
140:
128:village pump
123:
46:
2573:Lauren Chen
2569:Tenet Media
2565:Lauren Chen
2561:Tenet Media
1429:8.95124488
1412:2.47902414
1395:0.85919724
1378:0.39346341
1361:0.16130582
1344:0.20482228
85:End of page
2936:Categories
2784:WP:RFA2024
2410:WP:NEWLINE
2311:<p: -->
1996:be added.
1709:needlessly
1461:12006.5278
1400:1001â10000
1207:1001â10000
710:To answer
694:(he/him âą
599:, we find
556:-167 bytes
541:+759 bytes
214:« Archives
161:belong at
2872:Thryduulf
2775:requested
2757:SamuelRiv
2720:Aaron Liu
2611:WP:ILLCON
2596:Aaron Liu
2579:(she/her)
2534:Aaron Liu
2519:SamuelRiv
2499:Aaron Liu
2476:SamuelRiv
2324:SamuelRiv
2279:(discuss)
2174:Timur9008
2138:Aaron Liu
2123:SamuelRiv
2115:SamuelRiv
2105:(discuss)
2080:Aaron Liu
2047:SamuelRiv
2031:Aaron Liu
1948:Aaron Liu
1917:Aaron Liu
1838:Aaron Liu
1780:Thryduulf
1764:Thryduulf
1732:Thryduulf
1679:Aaron Liu
1259:921.8125
1095:Thryduulf
1025:11 to 100
815:Folly Mox
692:Shushugah
629:Thryduulf
564:Thryduulf
375:dashboard
194:consensus
148:technical
132:consensus
100:Shortcuts
40:Proposals
33:Technical
2907:Remsense
2868:Remsense
2740:Qwerfjkl
2627:WP:BLP1E
2615:WP:BLP1E
2488:There's
2413:âTamfang
2386:Remsense
2369:jlwoodwa
2343:Remsense
2289:âTamfang
2274:Hawkeye7
2258:âTamfang
2100:Hawkeye7
1443:692.8323
1426:125.3174
1383:101â1000
1244:62.5563
1193:101â1000
1091:Jevansen
1012:editors
924:0 to 100
919:editors
884:reached
757:âTamfang
681:contribs
669:Chaotic
545:one edit
526:contribs
514:Chaotic
124:idea lab
90:New post
47:Idea lab
2864:removed
2862:It was
2688:ctively
2210:WP:PROD
2065:Roasted
2001:Roasted
1872:(slave)
1784:WP:RFCL
1746:Roasted
1702:doesn't
1659:Roasted
1452:1000000
1409:34.7063
1392:12.0288
1318:Editors
1250:1000000
1202:5.1368
1188:3.4248
1174:1.9538
1160:2.6497
1140:Editors
1017:0 to 10
876:I like
404:archive
394:history
197:polling
115:WP:VPIL
2631:Anomie
2214:WP:AFD
1860:should
1809:way)".
1491:Anomie
1458:432235
1440:450341
1423:559417
1406:344981
1389:177328
1375:5.5085
1366:11â100
1358:2.2583
1341:2.8675
1338:280695
1315:Bucket
1230:17.15
1216:7.982
1179:11â100
1137:Bucket
497:Anomie
159:policy
108:WP:VPI
26:Policy
2456:Green
2228:alien
1880:won't
1876:don't
1674:WP:RM
1451:: -->
1386:14742
1372:92157
1369:16730
1355:53038
1352:23486
1335:97888
1321:Edits
1256:29498
1249:: -->
1241:30027
1227:37833
1213:22996
1199:12467
1157:19515
1143:Edits
552:edits
416:purge
399:watch
2890:talk
2876:talk
2853:talk
2818:talk
2788:here
2761:talk
2745:talk
2725:talk
2613:and
2601:talk
2584:talk
2571:and
2563:and
2539:talk
2523:talk
2504:talk
2492:and
2480:talk
2437:this
2417:talk
2373:talk
2328:talk
2322:.)
2293:talk
2262:talk
2234:talk
2225:ugly
2196:talk
2178:talk
2143:talk
2127:talk
2119:talk
2085:talk
2069:talk
2051:talk
2036:talk
2026:WP:N
2005:talk
1953:here
1937:talk
1922:talk
1912:that
1892:talk
1868:will
1843:talk
1819:talk
1796:talk
1768:talk
1750:talk
1736:talk
1717:talk
1684:talk
1663:talk
1650:and
1548:talk
1534:and
1523:See
1420:4464
1403:9940
1349:0â10
1224:2206
1210:2881
1196:2427
1185:6305
1182:1841
1171:3511
1168:1797
1165:0â10
1154:7365
1099:talk
894:talk
868:talk
819:talk
779:talk
761:talk
696:talk
677:talk
671:Enby
633:talk
624:more
568:talk
522:talk
516:Enby
508:Etc.
409:talk
389:edit
384:view
192:for
122:The
2866:by
2702:» °
2682:LCU
2222:big
2219:The
2212:or
1578:to
1515:TIR
1437:650
1238:480
1060:14
1052:29
1044:25
1036:14
977:TIR
852:TIR
834:TIR
794:TIR
737:TIR
720:TIR
648:TIR
613:TIR
595:On
587:TIR
558:to
549:two
539:or
486:TIR
190:not
54:WMF
2938::
2912:â„
2892:)
2878:)
2855:)
2847:.
2820:)
2812:.
2763:)
2737:â
2727:)
2704:ât
2661:MM
2603:)
2586:)
2541:)
2525:)
2506:)
2482:)
2419:)
2391:â„
2375:)
2367:.
2348:â„
2330:)
2295:)
2264:)
2237:)
2198:)
2180:)
2169:,
2145:)
2129:)
2121:)
2087:)
2071:)
2053:)
2038:)
2007:)
1994:to
1939:)
1924:)
1914:âœ
1894:)
1864:do
1845:)
1835:.
1821:)
1798:)
1770:)
1752:)
1738:)
1719:)
1686:)
1676:.
1665:)
1654:.
1646:,
1631:,
1627:,
1623:,
1619:,
1615:,
1611:,
1597::
1550:)
1455:36
1332:IP
1253:32
1151:IP
1101:)
1068:1
1028:8
1020:9
959:3
951:3
943:5
935:3
927:4
896:)
870:)
821:)
781:)
763:)
698:)
683:)
679:·
635:)
570:)
528:)
524:·
342:A
298:60
296:,
294:59
292:,
290:58
288:,
286:57
284:,
282:56
280:,
278:55
276:,
274:54
272:,
270:53
268:,
266:52
264:,
262:51
260:,
258:50
256:,
254:49
252:,
250:48
248:,
246:47
244:,
242:46
240:,
238:45
236:,
234:44
232:,
230:43
228:,
226:42
224:,
222:41
220:,
218:40
216:,
143::
2917:èźș
2898:@
2888:(
2874:(
2851:(
2816:(
2759:(
2723:(
2706:°
2700:@
2698:«
2690:D
2686:A
2634:â
2599:(
2582:(
2537:(
2521:(
2502:(
2478:(
2463:C
2415:(
2396:èźș
2371:(
2353:èźș
2326:(
2291:(
2260:(
2231:(
2194:(
2186:@
2176:(
2141:(
2125:(
2117:(
2083:(
2067:(
2049:(
2034:(
2003:(
1950::
1946:@
1935:(
1920:(
1890:(
1841:(
1817:(
1794:(
1778:@
1766:(
1748:(
1734:(
1715:(
1682:(
1661:(
1546:(
1494:â
1097:(
892:(
866:(
817:(
777:(
759:(
675:(
631:(
566:(
520:(
500:â
377:.
206:.
183::
165:.
154:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.