Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)/Archive 7

1343:, including taking people's claims about who they are at face value and not accusing them of lying or misleading. On the other hand, on most matters we are a meritocracy where everyone's participation and views are important, and professionals are accorded no special status. We do our best not to have policies where specialized legal knowledge is necessary. Claiming in article space that one's opinions have special weight due to extra learning and expertise is seen by many as rude and improper; whatever one's credentials one's contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are only as good as the quality of the edits, and the appropriateness of edits is decided by consensus, adherence to policy, and verifiability, not by assertions of entitlement. In a few specialized areas such as policy arguments on non-free use policy or BLP defamation issues, certain editors are recognized by others as having some extra credibility but as a convention I think that extra respect is a personal decision by the audience, and has to be earned through reputation, not resume. An IP editor would have a hard time earning that credibility if nobody knows their edit history. It's not a matter of assuming bad faith, it's simply that you have to prove yourself to be taken seriously. 3223:

Administrator reviewed the case). Today another newbie engaged in an argument with User Porcupine - and at one point began a message with "Listen pig" (albeit written in Romanian). That user has received a gentle warning for the offence. I realise that these decisions were taken by different Admins and so there are bound to be differences in the sanctions that each feels is appropriate but quite frankly in this instance the disparity is a joke. There needs to be some guidance given to ensure more consistency in these cases. For the record I actually believe both Admins were wrong - the one who blocked me was wrong to do so - blocks should not be handed down when no one has complained about a users behaviour, and someone who calls another user a "pig" should at the very least get a 24 hour block.

2927:

It is a copyright issue that has nothing to do with slander or libel that is the basis of BLP. The exception for fair use images of living people is when a new image would be out-of-date and therefore the older image is no longer replaceable. For an actor who played a roll (and where the role is a defining characteristic) an image of them in that role would be irreplaceable, and could qualify for fair use. My suggestion would be to simply add some sourced commentary on them in that roll to support the fair use of the image. As for how many images to include, use good judgment on text content to avoid undue weight, and add images to support the text.

2097:. That's our main RS wording. It's stable, tight, and has been gone over by a lot of our best editors. To repeat: Why on V? Because you can't define verifiability without defining reliable sources. The examples page is all the bloat that was left over from '05 and '06. I remember the first time I read RS (summer '05): it advised me to go to my local library, which I'd surely enjoy; I remember because I thought it so stupid. It was just a page to drop off mini-essays. V, of course, has changed over time but in a way that's made it steadily better. 3548:

with an article, despite it being "established", then the editors should rethink why those problems were there in the first place. An established article with numerous editors which is unverifiable, original research, a POV fork, or (the most probable) fancruft, is the problem of those editors, not of the nominator, and making it a lot harder to put up an AfD for such articles will not be a net benefit for Knowledge (XXG). If editors want to discuss it before nominating, that's obviously fine, but it should in no way become a requirement.

3562:"Harder"? It is not hard at all, anyone can do it at any time for any reason, including people with agendas (and there are lots of those). They can also do this as many times as they want! It is simply far too easy to be a pain in the neck with an immediate, undiscussed AFD. "If the article is good enough then the AfD will soon be snowed..." -- why should that happen at AFD with an annoying notice on the page and an immediate deadline for deletion discussion to finish? Why not make an initial good faith effort on the talk page? 3112:

t-shirt some thing to be like a motivation for them and others who see them. Some thing to spread this beautiful way of thinking and living. Please let wiki philosophy became a way of living for us in this new age. I feel it's much much more than a great encyclopedia , I feel it can be the meaning of humanity in the future century . Please don't miss this great chance. We don't have any credit card here in Iran, if we had donating wikipedia would became one of my hobbies.

3593:

like the result of the last one, even when the proposal gets turned down yet again it ends up wasting a lot of time. If the goal is a better encyclopedia, that effort would be better spent working on truly pointless new articles, or else improving what we have. I'm not sure whether requiring a discussion before a deletion proposal is best, or a higher standard, or a longer period, or giving some weight for prior consensus to keep. We ought to do something.

1854:

which is dangerous as it can create differing policy interpretations. There was divergence as of this morning: compare "If all the sources for a given statement or topic are of low reliability, the material may not be suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG)" (RS) to the much more emphatic and memorable "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Knowledge (XXG) should not have an article on it" (V).

2022:

importantly, what constitutes an unreliable source. Those who work on hard science topics have very different criteria than those who work on social science topics, and those who write articles on pop culture have yet a third concept of reliability. The guideline has been a constant debate... and what it said has swung between being seen as too strict and being seen as too loose like a pendulum.

1324:, but mainly for discussion pages on attempting to get a consensus on something. On an article on my watchlist, there is an IP editor who claims to have background on copyright and trademark laws. Is there a policy that would justify my skepticism that he does have such background? I'm fairly sure there is one, but I've been unable to find it. 2942:

multiple pages. I don't dispute that Sarvagnya makes some good academic points here and elsewhere, but practically speaking it's a no harm no foul in my mind. The holders of the copyright are the indirect beneficiaries of the extra exposure for their product. As is frequent, Dhaluza offers a good solution. --

1397:. I'm not exactly talking about good faith. More like, on a discussion page, someone says "No, it's right because I have a degree in this, and so I know." I don't think that's part of Verify. I'm certain there was some policy. Maybe it was an essay. I'll keep RFC in mind. Thanks anyways for your help. 3640:

lately. Obviously some people will feel that an article should be nominated, and some people do not. It would be like a pre-AfD discussion? Seems pointless. Why have 2 of the same discussions? First, we'll talk about it on the talk page, which will be just like an AfD discussion, and then, we'll

3617:

So, an alternative: Either a separate section on the AfD page (e.g., "Established articles") for articles over X months age and/or Y edits, or some other way for editors to find these easily (template that generates searchable text?). That way, if there really is going to be WP:SNOW, it will happen a

3547:

I don't see the point in this. You are just turning it into two discussions instead of one. AfD should not be an annoying experience, if the article is good enough then the AfD will soon be snowed and the only one who has had an annoying experience will be the nominator. If there are serious problems

2486:

I would say that in this particular case the courtesy blurring of an in service undercover vehicles plate would be an option. I would hazard a guess that the blurring of all non-relevant plates to halt possible identity theft is not within Knowledge (XXG)'s remit. If some governments are silly enough

2454:

In general, I disagree. A license plate on image of a car (absent any other context) is not significantly identifying information. I can walk down any street and get dozens of license plates without knowing anything significant about their owners. Now if the caption said, this is Bill Person's BMW

2076:

But perhaps that's unrealistic--we seem to be dealing with the disagreements by deciding to not discuss them. Ignoring the need for consistent general statements will make discussions more difficult and results more variable. maybe that's the intent--everyone will try to interpret things as conducive

1572:

A user recently used his talk page to allege that I and another user were sockpuppets. The "evidence" posted to this talk page has now been discredited and the user has been banned for disruption by ArbCom. Is it acceptible for me to remove this material from the talk page, or is there an appropriate

3607:

I agree - it's just too easy to slap an AfD template on a perfectly good article (ugly, sits there misinforming readers) without any real consequences (if you expect WP:SNOW, that's hardly a disincentive). On the other hand, it's difficult to come up with rules about AfDs, to solve the problem, that

2926:

Agree with Relata refero here, that comment was out of line, and Sarvagnya did give a very good summary of the key points. The issue with fair use images of living people is their replaceability--that it that anyone could take another picture and use it, rather than make fair use of an existing one.

2583:

IMHO : Since we can get a name and address for a few bucks (and a SSN from there if you pay enough), the general rule should be to avoid showing a license plate. To state “Not our problem if DMV sells the info” is a bit short sighted. There is a difference between a single guy walking on the street,

1486:

That might be it. I might have combined the two, although now that I think about it, it seems to me what I'm thinking of also said something along the line of "Just because this editor SAYS they're this person doesn't mean they are." Other than that, I think I did pretty much combine the two (which,

3565:

Rather, put an least a bit of onus on the nominator, not just those who oppose it. Let him raise the problem on the talk page, and see how discussion goes for a limited time. Perhaps 2 days? If he is still unconvinced, and still determined to delete the article, then let him file an AFD. What's the

3047:

I see the bolded phrase to be most critical in our assessment. These images while loosely defined as criticism, certainly do not supersede the use of the original work, nor do they: prejudice the sale, diminish the profits, or supersede the objects of the original work. To the contrary these uses

2990:

The four factors of analysis for fair use set forth above derive from the classic opinion of Joseph Story in Folsom v. Marsh, 9 F.Cas. 342 (1841), in which the defendant had copied 353 pages from the plaintiff's 12-volume biography of George Washington in order to produce a separate two-volume work

2806:

I would say that BLP is irrelevant. The question hinges on the fair use of the pictures. If there is a concern, then the best option is to nominate the pictures for deletion and see what consensus is reached. Personally, I see no problem here and no reason to (a) remove the pictures and (b) take

2760:

Thanks for the note, for being frank about your involvement, and for laying this out neutrally for the most part. The counterargument is that there is no image use policy against using screen shots of an actor's performances in their bio article, no BLP problem or concern, it already passed muster

2388:

The way I've always thought of the two: AN for basic "FYI" stuff, while ANI is for things that need administrator attention, somewhat urgent. By the looks of things right now, things on the AN, IMO, should be on ANI instead. I guess some people don't make any distinction between the two though. -

2171:

page. As you can probably guess, it's a big magnet for vandals. I was surprised that the proposal was rejected. At first a false reason was given (no vandalism?), and then later it was said by another admin or editor that it was not vandalized often enough. That article is a clear example of a page

2142:

The essay tag is fine. It's the meandering that bothers me more than points made themselves. Just from the TOC, I don't like it. Put one way, just because you can think of an example doesn't mean we have to talk about it. Brevity is the soul of policy. I think we should start again with a short and

2016:

Some history may be in order for those who don't know. WP:RS was originally split off from WP:V... for both negative and positive reasons. Negatively, it amounted to a POV fork. Positively, it was offered as a guidleline to explain what was meant by the term "reliable sources" (as used in three of

1853:

Why on V? Because you can't define verifiability without defining reliable sources. What is verifiability but the state of being confirmed by reliable sources? as one editor put it. So why not have it in both places? The descriptions will be either a) redundant, which is pointless, or b) divergent,

3592:

We do need to give some deference to established articles that are either clearly notable or well-written. Deletion of established articles can be awfully contentious and disruptive, and when articles keep getting attacked on second, third, and fourth deletion nominations because somebody did not

3532:

actually doing an AFD. That is a reasonable courtesy to expect, and it does not prevent the individual AFD nominator from going ahead with the nomination if he isn't convinced on the talk page. It does, however, obligate him to consult with others first, making AFD less of a haphazard and annoying

3293:

The argument that "blocks should not be handed down when no one has complained about a users behaviour" is utterly specious. For example, if I encounter a user in the midst of a vandalism spree or campaign of racist harassment I'm going to block him to prevent further damage rather than waiting to

3222:

Shortly after I first registered on Knowledge (XXG) I was blocked indefinately with no warning (and with no complaints against me from any users) for being a sock puppet because I had engaged in a (civil on my part) argument with User Porcupine. (I was eventually unblocked after a more reasonable

2431:

I agree with Collectonian. Unless this person is ok with their license plate being shown, and has said as much, a courtesy blurring or blotting of the number would probably by the best option. I can't imagine such a modification would cause any problems in regards to attribution or license used. —

2372:

So I just read the history of the "Community Sanction Noticeboard" that was deleted earlier this month. That made me wonder exactly what is the distinction between the "administrator's noticeboard and the administrator's noticeboard/incidents" ? Don't the two overlap entirely? Shouldn't they be

2238:

on vandalizing Knowledge (XXG), and if the first article they come to is protected, they simply find another. Leaving those heavily vandalized articles unprotected and listed on numerous editor's watchlists actually allows us to detect and block IP vandals faster. (If anyone ever saw my watchlist,

2072:

and others, which also contain a good deal of the material. Personally, I would like to see this all consolidated properly and consistently, and the place to do so would appear to be as a page called directly Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources--instead of trying to de-fuse the issue by diffusing the

1237:

Perhaps the structure of the contact page(s) should be designed by someone who does it commercially for big companies and gets truckloads of money for that. One could even think about stepping out of the usual Knowledge (XXG) frame, to make it absolutely clear that Knowledge (XXG) takes the user's

1227:

I hope that my imaginary user is very rare in the real world, although his lawyer is unlikely to make us much trouble. With this user we have no chance to get it exactly right, but some of his concerns are actually valid. BTW, the bit about the green box was a lie. In reality I can't even see that

2521:

There may also be a law in that country that prohibits the disclosure and publication of police and other government vehicles for security purposes. Otherwise we could all produce a database on such vehicles which would pose a national security threat. Better to obscure the undercover vehicle's

2421:

Good question. I can't think of any specific policy on it, though one could argue that it should be airbrushed or otherwise obfuscated in compliance for privacy and in keeping with the living persons guideline (since the license plate is only slightly less personal info than posting someone's DL

2289:

I keep seeing these when I read articles about various celebrities. Most of the accounts look very fake and I don't know whether I should remove them or not. Many of them claim to be the "official myspace page of X", but their offical website has no mention about the myspace page. For example the

1889:

has already been somewhat depopulated. As a suggestion to ease the transition, may I say that it would be convenient if someone set up a subpage which took what RS looked like a few months ago and indicated to which policy/guideline everything has been shifted and what has been deleted, to assist

3447:

My proposal: An established article (i.e. an article that has been present for a long time and with numerous editors) may not be put up for deletion without first discussing it on the article's talk page. If after discussion on the talk page there is no consensus (to keep or delete it), then the

3111:

Dear Friends Knowledge (XXG) is a philosophy, so don't let people to just silently donate and go away, give something back to them to show that they are part of this philosophy, something like a logo for their personal web logs saying " I love giving to wiki" or some badge to put on their bag or

2941:

My comment was meant to be humorous not to give offense, but after reading the section on wikilawyering, I see the error as it is considered pejorative and uncivil. I do think that there is a lot of hairsplitting here and on the related various discussion pages. This discussion is spread over

1164:

However, a user with a concern who sees "contact us" is presently directed to OTRS at the first resort, and a fair number of OTRS replies therefore say "we can't help, it's the editorial community" or "you can edit it yourself if you like". It's not the best communication we could have. We could

2496:

I'm with Dragon's Flight. It's not exactly private when you slap it on your car and go for a drive (unlike your DL number or SSN, which presumably you keep to yourself). As for this image, it's not exactly undercover with that red light on the roof. Not sure I see a privacy problem with it.

2030:

of requiring our editors to cite reliable sources to back what they say in our articles will remain sound. It is a concept that remains at the core of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. That concept is not going away. If anything, the proposal to merge promotes the concept. Things that had guideline

1548:

If someone can cite an article using a specific word or phrase about a notable person, is that word or phrase automatically notable such that it should reasonably have its own article? Are some venues for publication considered more notable than others? In general, how do you determine if an

1739:

No offense to the US fans, but they could just as easily be lying when it hits the US. I can't imagine a quick confirmation is all that difficult (TV.com, any WWE fansite), and to say that a broadcast is unreliable just because it's in a different country doesn't work. I'll admit I've cleared

1194:

Thanks for thinking of this, I like your text. Only the page structure seems problematic, though I am not sure how it can be fixed. I had not seen the pages before, so looking at them was a little usability test. (A site like Knowledge (XXG) should really have a proper one.) While the overall

2230:

As a recent changes patroller and AIV-active admin, I can fully appreciate the frustration that stems from having certain articles that are vandalized on a regular basis, essentially in perpetuity. But the general community consensus is that we are willing to accept a limited amount of such

2021:

been stable. I have personally been invovled in at least two complete re-write attempts, and there have been others. None have been satisfactory. One major problem has been that the Knowledge (XXG) community has never really reached consensus on what constitutes a reliable source and more

1965:

Most emphatically, this is not a redoing of ATT. The central feature of that was the V + NOR merger, which isn't happening. RS is a different beast. Because it was not created by Jimbo or OFFICE and has never been an official policy I think editors can organically merge it. Redirect it, more

2785:

Did you want a discussion here or there? If you want to start a discussion here, great, and I'm entitled to contribute here just like anyone else. If you want everyone to go over there, perhaps that could be more clear and without advocacy of what people should say over there. Cheerio.

3480:

What you are saying amounts to WP:PROD, a very useful method. But I've not seen that may article put up for AfD where a discussion would have made much of a difference. Maybe 10% would be improved, and another 10% agreed on deletion or merge. Of course, even that 20% might be worthwhile.

2841:

I pretty much agree with Kevin and DGG, although, do you really need 3 fair-use pictures depicting him in roles? That just seems to me to be a bit much, possibly breaking fair-use policy. If so, I'd make them some of the more prominent ones, such as his role as Scarecrow in Batman Begins.

1625:

The issues related to confidential evidence are too large for a subsection, and in any event, they extend outside the narrow limits of blocking policy. So a proposal emerged organically, for a separate policy page covering cases when misconduct may be alleged on the basis of evidence of a

3308:

Fair point - in that instance I'd agree but this case was different. User Porcupine had complained about another user who was using socks, my name wasn't on the complaint, but I got blocked because I was arguing with Porcupine - even though Porcupine later said he knew I wasn't a sock.

3006:

reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize,

2117:

At a quick reading, i see only one or two places where it does not in fact represent accurately what the consensus is in discussions of sources, but of course you or anyone is welcome to edit it. If you want to revert the move though, I would appreciate it if we discuss it first there.

1849:

The content of RS generally sucks and has since it began; it's unstable and hasn't ever produced canonical, lasting language. Even the people who edit it heavily agree on that. At present, the page has little useful content that isn't redundant with V. What is of use is being shuffled

2588:, in this specific case, it’s a civil servant and I have liberal views on obtaining information on any government activity. They should have nothing to hide, be it a blue collar sleeping on the job in a city truck, a cop giving a ticket, or the mayor’s aid in a red light district. 2187:

By my count, it has been vandalized twice in the past two weeks, and both times were reverted within a minute or two. That's hardly serious enough to justify protecting the page. If you want a page that's being vandalized enough to justify protection, look at the edit history of

2727:

If memory serves me right, I have been prevented from using such screenshots from movies in the same manner as Cillian Murphy in the past. I cant find the diffs now, but I believe, I was told that such used didnt constitute fair use.. especially when the subject was alive.

2455:

and it had an identified license plate, that would be entirely different. But I don't see any need to remove isolated pieces of information taken out of context, any more than I feel the need to blur out all of the potentially identifiable faces in photographs of a crowd.

3416:. The other user, on the other hand, had been blocked for a similar offence before (and see his/her block log). The newcomer has the equivalent of a level 4 warning on his/her talk page now, anyway - and I happen to think the punishments are justified. (Non-admin) 2411:] is of an unmarked (or personally-owned) police car in Slovakia. It's a beautiful shot but the plate number is clearly visible and I don't know if that's cool or not. Do we have any precedent about whether plate numbers need to be airbrushed out in this situation? 2327:

At best I can see these in a See Also section, but have mixed feelings about including even a link to something where the info is not verifiable. The term "official site" has always seemed odd to me. What does official mean? It seems to be an over used ambiguity.

3668:. It's not going to work — I also frankly don't much care for the idea of segregating articles based on "age" or "number of edits to them". A two minute old article can be vastly superior to a months ago article and deserves the same respect and consideration. -- 1501:

Sorry, can't point to it directly, but there is a policy/guideline that says that editor X claims to be person Y in real life, an admin is to contact the editor (by email, I think) to confirm the identity. (Perhaps someone else can point more directly to this?) --

2172:

that needs protection. It could not be any clearer. There are very few anonymous IP users who have ever contributed anything that doesn't constitute vandalism on the page, if any. This is yet another example of being lenient to a fault on Knowledge (XXG). -

2749:

is valid, there are hundreds of articles that are waiting to be 'improved' with such images. Really, how difficult is it to create screenshots from movies. If otoh, such use is not allowed, please let people know and stop them from attacking me. Thanks.

1314:

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but I've been trying to find a policy that basically says "Don't take an editor's word for it." I'm positive it exists, as I'm fairly certain I've seen it mentioned before. For example, just because someone

1319:

that they work at Disney, and therefore know something about upcoming projects doesn't mean that they do, as there is no way of knowing for sure, and as such anything they add based on their own knowledge cannot be accepted as fact. I'm not talking about

1473:". The term "original research" means "work that one has done oneself that hasnt been independently published" but also covers all forms of personal view, opinion, statement, deduction, or belief that aren't based upon independent sources if required. 1687:

This seems pretty cut and dry to me. Unless the events are done live for both locations, any television broadcast would be inherently reliable in regards to its content. I can't comment on wrestling specifically, but I can't see how it's different. —

1868:

redux? Are we next going to merge in NOR? No. This is a separate issue. We've arrived organically at the point where there is no use to the page. The concept of reliable sources is, of course, here to stay; a rich description of it will remain on V.

1160:

OTRS regularly gets emails from people who are told that in many cases (unless something exceptional's up), that OTRS team members cannot override community consensus, and that they need to edit the wiki themselves, or seek dispute resolution.

3663:

is to get a broad community consensus about the topic. All that's going to happen is two discussions; one of which will be totally pointless, because no matter what the "losing" side will say that consensus was broad enough, and take it to

1920:

DGG, I think you may be mistaken here: it seems to be claimed on the talkpage that most of the content has been moved elsewhere. In any case, it would be nice to have things absolutely clear as to what is moved, and what is no longer valid.

3509:

an article's quality, neutrality, notability, etc. and then simply goes ahead and slaps on an AFD template. I also mean it especially for established articles (that have been around for months or years and been edited by numerous respected

1908:

I gather the intent is to leave the detailed content of RS nowhere. If there are problems about getting agreed language on a guideline page, it will be even worse on a policy page. As mentioned, ATT was rejected. 19:47, 18 November 2007

1710:

To you man me, i tis pretty cut and dry. But to those who want to keep match results off Knowledge (XXG) until at least the US airing, then the Australian broadcast is unreliable because someone could be lying about it. Of course, it is

2510:

I'd just like to clarify. I don't think it's an unmarked in the sense that it's used for undercover detective work, i think it's for traffic enforcement. The notes with the pic said it was taken at such-and-such highway in Slovakia.

3272:

I wasn't a sockpuppet though. The fact that I had had an arguement with an experienced user was used as evidence that I was a sockpuppet by some twisted logic. (Even the user who I was arguing with - said he knew I wasn't a sock).

2306:

I don't know why we would use Myspace as a source for anything, not to mention that it is not reliable in the slightest. You're right, a lot of them are hoaxes (the "Official page of X" garbage). Myspace pages are like blogs, not

2775:

Wikidemo, we've already heard your views over there. What is the point in repeating it here? My note was only an invitation to folks here to weigh in on the issue. The idea wasnt to repeat all our arguments here. Peace.

2077:

to the favored result for their favored articles. I realized early on here that this is what is meant by discussing "policy"--that is why I stick to AfD by and large, where at least it's explicitly over the specific articles.

2025:

For those who are fans of WP:RS, and are worried that this proposal means that the flood gates will open and we will get all sorts of unreliable sources being allowed in Knowledge (XXG), fear not... It is very clear that the

3523:

I am not saying that articles should be given automatic "tenure" or that established editors should be given a veto regarding AFD. But I am saying that these two factors should at least be taken into account by discussing

1947:

I will list where everything has gone. Basically, there were two descriptions of reliable sources, a weak one on RS and a strong one on V; the former is now gone. We don't need two. As I say, it's either redundant or

2487:

to sell their licence databases to anyone who wants them (such as the US DMV), and those buyers charge one-off fees on the internet to anyone who wants all the information related to that plate isn't our problem.

2422:

number, at least in the US), especially for a personally-owned car. The license plate could trace back to a living person. So my off the cuff 2 cents is that a readable plate shouldn't be seen in an image.

2064:. I imagine the intention is to keep it renamed somewhere. It's an odd page, being neither policy nor guideline, and probably nonetheless containing the actual real meaning. there are also the RS-like sections 1195:

experience with the page is probably very good for most users, I am not sure about those who are on an adrenaline trip because they have just read some bizarre claims about themselves on their biography page:

3443:

I am so tired of individual users, often the most uncivil ones or the ones with agendas, putting up articles for deletion with no previous discussion or involvement. I am not talking about speedy deletions.

1665:

in Australia and the rebroadcast of the same taping in the United States. The second issue of whether television broadcasts can be cited as a reliable source, particularly in reference to the broadcast of

3659:

Yeah, there's no way a policy change like this will work. You can't segregate discussion about the encylopedic merits about an article to that article's talk page, since the whole point of the

2912:

Come on, that's not civil, especially as he made a perfectly relevant remark. It's a long-established principle that "Here is X in role Y" does not count as critical commentary for FU purposes.

1264:

Also, I suspect that the information about OTRS people being ordinary editors and having to build consensus first is even more likely to be read if it comes in an automatic reply from OTRS.

50: 1661:

regarding two separate issues, but somewhat related issues. That is whether there should be a publication embargo on the outcome of wrestling matches between the broadcast of a taping of

2864:

Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.

1469:"). OR covers that an editors own view or say-so, is never support for a challenged statement, however skilled and experienced that editor may be. We need actual published sources, not " 2887:

The question however is, what constitutes critical commentary? Is there a good example of one? Does the manner in which it is used in Cillian Murphy constitute "critical commentary"?

3397:

06:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC) I think its high time to go back to the days where you could not be banned by the "community," only by ArbCom after a full hearing. (like 2 years ago).

3566:

big rush to add a disturbing template and open an immediate AFD page? Yes indeed, two stages: first a "local" discussion at the talk page and then only if necessary an AFD. Yes,

3326:

I totally agree. That problem was the same in the criminal justice system before sentencing guidelines, with judges giving totally disparate punishments for the same offenses.

3697:

AfD can be a biased vote for "deletion". Not always, but sometimes. What sort of people are likely to be attracted to a set of process pages with "deletion" in the title? :-)

1658: 2720:

from the Cillian Murphy article and it has set off a storm. Both sides are arguing their POVs with equal conviction and it seems to be raising tempers. Could somebody here

2464:

All of that said, in this specific case of a license plate on an undercover police car, it is the kind of specific context where removing the plate is probably a good idea.

2663:

Thanks to some forks it's being discussed in about four places at once now. The most extensive, and central (in my opinion), discussion is at WT:NFC, via the link above.

3451:

To me this seems like nothing more than common courtesy, though in all the AFD's I've witnessed I've never actually seen it done. What do others think of the proposal?

3240:

What does being a sockpuppet have to do with a dispute? If you were a sockpuppet, then the block was completely justified, and the cases would be extremely different.

3505:

No, doesn't look like WP:PROD, which is for "uncontroversially a deletion candidate." Rather, I am talking about things which are not self-evident, like where a user

2761:

in featured article review, and unilaterally deleting approved images from featured articles without so much as a speedy deletion notice is disruptive to the project.

1242:

seriously. It would look as if we were stopping all other activities to accomodate and pacify them. Most will be prepared to learn a few things about Knowledge (XXG)

1214:

Three lines about some "OTRS email system". No need to read that either, because I can see at a glance that there is no email address there! They are hiding from me!

2553:

For the record, and in keeping with the Project's status as a "neutral source of encyclopedic information", I oppose any material alteration of an image unless it's

2346:

Exactly. It all boils down to verifiability. Anybody can make a myspace page, and claim it is X's "Official" page (I guess it is supposed to mean that it actually

3177:

No it doesn't. Habitual vandals have easy to read edit histories. Pick a talk page version by a non-vandal, you'll find the warnings. Block logs are also a tell. —

2584:

me placing the plate on my car for all to see (an obligation by law) and showing it to millions. Modern character recognitions also makes it a “big brother” issue.

2532:

Beg pardon, but "While I don't have anything definite, there might well be a law against (blank) somewhere!" is not and has never been a justification for removing

1147: 1143: 1139: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 999: 995: 991: 987: 983: 979: 975: 971: 967: 963: 959: 955: 951: 947: 943: 939: 935: 931: 927: 923: 919: 915: 911: 907: 903: 899: 895: 891: 887: 883: 879: 875: 871: 867: 863: 859: 855: 851: 847: 843: 839: 835: 831: 827: 823: 819: 815: 811: 807: 803: 799: 795: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 771: 767: 3343:

but what was the result: rigid guidelines prohibiting the use of discretion and enshrining harsh standardized punishments--equal justice, by rejecting mercy.

1994:

Oh, and re the "detailed content of RS", I must ask: what detailed content? It hasn't had any for some time and when it did, in '05 and '06, it was a bloated.

1614:

Following certain recent events where editors believed by many to be of good conduct were indef blocked on the basis of "secret evidence", a number of editors

763: 759: 755: 751: 747: 743: 739: 735: 731: 727: 723: 719: 715: 711: 707: 703: 699: 695: 691: 687: 683: 679: 675: 671: 667: 663: 659: 655: 651: 647: 643: 639: 635: 631: 627: 623: 619: 615: 611: 607: 603: 599: 595: 591: 587: 583: 579: 575: 571: 567: 563: 559: 555: 551: 547: 543: 539: 535: 531: 527: 523: 519: 515: 511: 507: 503: 499: 495: 491: 487: 483: 479: 475: 471: 467: 463: 459: 455: 451: 447: 443: 439: 435: 431: 427: 423: 419: 415: 411: 407: 365: 361: 357: 353: 349: 345: 341: 337: 333: 329: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 301: 297: 293: 289: 285: 281: 277: 273: 269: 265: 261: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 237: 233: 229: 225: 221: 217: 213: 209: 205: 403: 399: 391: 387: 383: 379: 375: 371: 201: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 177: 173: 169: 165: 161: 157: 153: 149: 145: 141: 137: 133: 129: 125: 121: 117: 113: 109: 105: 101: 2017:

our core policies). Unfortunately, It quickly became a sort of pseudo-policy, outlining what was reliable and what was not. Because of this, WP:RS has

2065: 1588:

Banned users usually don't get user pages. There's a blocked indef template you could replace it with. Always good to ask the blocking admin, though. —

1228:

without using the scroll bar. (Let alone the list below. Configuration: 1024x768, Windows XP+Firefox.) And I heard it's surprising how many users have

2267: 1740:

episodes that broadcast in different countries before, usually when the info is poorly written by IP editors, but I can confirm it fairly quickly. —

1516:

User accounts that claim to be, or are the names of, well known people are usually blocked and the claimed "owner" contacted to see if they're real.

67: 2473:

The police in this case could if they wanted have arrested the photographer if they didn't want the picture taken so why are we worrying about it .

1638: 1169: 1154: 2825:

I concur with Kevin-- I do not see any reason why BLP has the least to do with it; it goes under the same copyright practices as anything else.

2061: 2114: 45: 40: 3686:

What's the point of soliciting a biased debate? Usually, the people paying attention to the Talk page for an article are the "keep" votes.

3122: 1172:, so that users at least are clued in about community v. OTRS and how we handle problems, before clicking through to "What's the problem". 57: 2650: 2294:

contains an "official Myspace page" that seems to not be official and the artist herself is completely broke and lives on the streets. -

1517: 1428: 2713: 2646: 2619: 1631: 1608: 83: 35: 17: 3186: 3159: 3026:

In short, we must often... look to the nature and objects of the selections made, the quantity and value of the materials used, and

2441: 1749: 1697: 1597: 3570:(or at least very strongly suggest within the policy page) a basic courtesy on the part of the nominator. Have a good weekend all, 3294:

see if anyone complains. Note that I'm commenting on a general principle here; I haven't looked into the particulars of your case.

2069: 94: 2741:

Please settle this once and for all and etch it into our policy. Because, if use of non-free content in the manner being used on

2592:

I bow to Bullzeye’s opinion, if the picture is considered Art by the author he should have the last word on a case by case basis.

3636:

Sorry guys, I just don't think this is necessary. I'm seeing more and more "bad faith" AfD nominations being rapidly closed per

2738:

valid? 2) Is there a limit to how many fair-use/non-free images can be used on an article? Or is it simply, 'more the merrier'?

2231:

vandalism in order to keep the open nature of the Wiki. It's obviously a tradeoff, but one that most of us are comfortable with.

1217:

At the bottom of the page it says I get priority with this "OTRS" nonsense, or something like this, but again no email address.

2734:

1) Are the fair use rationales used on for the three images (of which one got deleted and i believe is now in del review) on

62: 3383: 3253: 3028:

the degree in which the use may prejudice the sale, or diminish the profits, or supersede the objects, of the original work.

1454: 1810:. Please feel free to comment on the inclusion of the Primary, Secondary and Tertiary sources definitions in that policy. 2266:

has been submitted and to solicit the community to review the said proposal and vote on it. The proposal is available at

2857: 2262:

This is a formal announcement to inform the community that a proposal to redefine the criteria of conventionality in the

1830: 3427: 1285:

What _is_ the email address for OTRS? I went to add it (since it seems obvious it should be there), and I can't find it

2409:

Do we have any guidelines here for whether licence plate numbers can appear in images? This recently uploaded image

1462: 2686:

Note - for those, like me, not yet fully conversant with all the acronyms in use on Knowledge (XXG), NFC stands for

1807: 1259:. The text of the link going there should of course make it clear that it is for exceptional cases like libel only. 2094: 1834: 1211:"Editorial community"? I am not going to read this. I want this server taken down. Immediately. Who can I yell at? 29: 3624: 3299: 2877: 1659:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#RfC: Publishing embargo on televised WWE match results?

1508: 3412:

I think I know who you are talking about - that other user was a newcomer who is obviously new to things like

3126: 2716:. The issue at hand has to do with use of fair-use/non-free images on wikipedia and particularly on BLPs. I 1865: 2917: 2654: 2631: 2622:

which has implications for major re-interpretatation of the use of fair use images. Please provide input.

1926: 1895: 1521: 1432: 3118: 2603: 1615: 1252: 1202: 3150:

They can do it if they want. Doesn't change the fact that they've been warned. Can't erase the history. —

3053: 2947: 2901: 2812: 2333: 2177: 2536:

on Knowledge (XXG), nor should it be; our standing orders are to report any legitimate legal concerns to

3598: 3182: 3155: 3096: 2791: 2766: 2668: 2437: 1745: 1693: 1593: 1578: 1348: 1256: 2423: 86:. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either 2869:

Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.

2488: 3702: 3471: 3081: 2574: 2241: 1274: 1270: 3706: 3692: 3677: 3650: 3627: 3618:

lot quicker, since a lot of folks interested in AfDs might head directly for such easy pickings. --

3602: 3579: 3557: 3542: 3492: 3475: 3460: 3432: 3406: 3354: 3335: 3318: 3303: 3282: 3267: 3232: 3207: 3190: 3172: 3163: 3144: 3130: 3100: 3085: 3057: 2951: 2936: 2921: 2905: 2891: 2880: 2851: 2836: 2816: 2795: 2780: 2770: 2754: 2706: 2672: 2658: 2639: 2607: 2578: 2563: 2526: 2515: 2501: 2491: 2477: 2468: 2445: 2426: 2415: 2398: 2382: 2359: 2337: 2320: 2300: 2279: 2247: 2225: 2201: 2181: 2152: 2129: 2106: 2088: 2051: 2003: 1975: 1930: 1899: 1878: 1838: 1819: 1781: 1753: 1726: 1701: 1681: 1647: 1601: 1582: 1562: 1525: 1511: 1496: 1481: 1436: 1406: 1388: 1352: 1333: 1303: 1293: 1278: 1185: 3620: 3594: 3295: 2888: 2873: 2847: 2787: 2777: 2762: 2751: 2664: 2512: 2465: 2412: 1558: 1504: 1492: 1402: 1386: 1378: 1344: 1329: 1300: 1290: 2554: 2545: 2268:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Romanization of Russian#Proposal to re-define the criteria of conventionality

1842: 1394: 1363:? If someone adds something to an article and you "don't buy it", the best option might be to add 1360: 3168:

That makes me harder to know whether some guy is a habitual vandal or a innocent first - timer..

2913: 2701: 2624: 2239:

they'd think I was some kind of raging pervert who's really into politicians and celebrities!) —

2197: 2148: 2102: 2047: 1999: 1971: 1922: 1891: 1874: 1777: 1722: 1677: 3413: 3076:

Why is one of the skins called "chick" ? I see nothing relating to baby birds of girls in it.

1619: 2991:

of his own. The court rejected the defendant's fair use defense with the following explanation:

1299:

Nevermind - I found it, it's just not obvious that the email address given is, in fact, OTRS. —

3646: 3402: 3331: 3049: 2943: 2932: 2897: 2808: 2394: 2378: 2355: 2329: 2316: 2221: 2173: 1815: 3637: 3367: 3362:

If he was not a sockpuppet, and only had a dispute, he shouldn't have been blocked, and less

2206:

I agree. "Not enough recent vandalism to justify protection". Protecting pages that do not

2113:

well, that makes it an essay. i will be BOLD and rename and remark it accordingly. It is now

1799: 1474: 1466: 1424: 3424: 3314: 3278: 3228: 3196: 3178: 3151: 3092: 2433: 2275: 1741: 1689: 1589: 1574: 3665: 3660: 2691: 2687: 2263: 1803: 1712: 1477:

then says that if asked or needed, you must name the sources so others can check them too.

1420: 1374: 1340: 3698: 3673: 3467: 3077: 2597: 2570: 2541: 1549:

article should exist on its own, or be merged into another article? See the talk page of

1373:. If it's someone on a talk page and you think something fishy if going on, maybe list at 3200: 2537: 2308: 2035: 1886: 1458: 1321: 3575: 3553: 3538: 3456: 2843: 2742: 2735: 2295: 2189: 1653:

RfC: Reguarding publication of WWE match results and reliablility of broadcast episodes

1554: 1488: 1398: 1325: 3048:

probably enhance the sales and profits for the original works -- free advertising! --

3488: 3372: 3350: 3242: 2832: 2695: 2498: 2193: 2144: 2125: 2098: 2084: 2043: 1995: 1967: 1870: 1772: 1717: 1672: 1427:: You can't just claim something, you have to prove that someone else has proved it. 1367: 1175:

Can others review or improve this, as its a major page by which people contact us?

3642: 3398: 3327: 2928: 2746: 2544:) who will then bump it up the ladder to Jimbo as necessary. Any more than that is 2523: 2474: 2390: 2374: 2351: 2312: 2217: 1811: 1205:

has a very visible link labelled "Report a problem". That's obviously for me. Good.

3641:

do it all over again on the official AfD discusssion? No need, in my opinion. -

3418: 3310: 3274: 3224: 3204: 3169: 3141: 2271: 1251:

On second thought, perhaps it would be enough to have a kind of panic button on

3011:

and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy....

1622:

covering confidential evidence. The section gained a strong positive response.

1339:

Sorry but I don't know where that policy might be. On the one hand one should

3669: 3370:&/or the ArbCom and the consensus would have brought a definite solution. 2593: 2557:

ordered or manifestly designed to improve the image in some inoffensive way.

1573:

procedure for requesting that it be removed permanently by an administrator?

3687: 3571: 3549: 3534: 3452: 1550: 1487:

makes sense, as the two go together very well). Thanks again for your help!

3483: 3345: 2977: 2827: 2120: 2079: 1806:, a yes-or-no question on its future has been posted to the talk page at 1644: 1478: 1182: 1845:. About seven people have commented and it's 7-0 in favour. The basics: 2291: 1470: 1861:

in place as a kind of rambling essay. It's never been official policy.

3137:

any policy against users clearing warnings off their own talk pages??

2168: 3528:

about the article's suitability to Knowledge (XXG) on the talk page

2350:

X's page, although I don't buy it). - 05:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

1670:, or if most television broadcasts are considered "unreliable". -- 2373:

merged or one deleted? What actions or remedies should we seek?

1857:

RS was not started because of prompting from Jimbo or OFFICE but

1770:

Anyways, I encourage you to add your 2¢ to the RfC discussion. --

2614:

Possible major re-interpretatation of the use of fair use images

1794:

Primary, Secondary and Tertiary sources at No original research

1269:

I hope some of this makes sense, otherwise just ignore it. --

90:

a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.

2031:

status will now be part of Policy. In other words... while

82:

This page contains discussions that have been archived from

3091:

Maybe because the Chick skin was made for mobile devices.

2896:

Sarvagnya, are you working on your Wiki-law-degree? --

2717: 2569:

I don't see any problem with showing this information.

1858: 87: 1715:

to assume that a person is lying about a broadcast. --

2066:

Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons#Sources

1798:

After many months of discussing the applicability of

2976:I read an interesting passage at the WP article on 2234:There's also the honeypot theory: Some people are 1165:explain the basics before pointing them to email. 2212:protection is just against what Knowledge (XXG) 1255:that leads to a very small and simple page like 3009:but to supersede the use of the original work, 2095:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability#Reliable sources 3608:don't get into significant instruction creep. 2681:Use of NFC in BLP articles - Please weigh in. 2272:Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) 8: 1377:to get some experienced editors involved. -- 1890:people in updating their mental bookmarks. 3107:please let the world know about wikipedia! 2724:step in and settle this once and for all. 2042:of Reliable Sources is being stengthened. 1568:Removing false allegations from talk pages 1208:Why does the writing suddenly get smaller? 1170:Knowledge (XXG):Contact us/Article problem 2548:and beyond our individual mandate to act. 2062:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources/examples 1626:confidential, secret, or similar nature. 2542:the Foundation's full-time legal counsel 2167:I asked for a partial protection of the 2115:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable source examples 2264:Russian language romanization guideline 1885:This seems well-thought out, and I see 2712:Could you people please weigh in here 1841:and in surrounding threads. Also see 1632:Knowledge (XXG):Confidential evidence 1609:Knowledge (XXG):Confidential evidence 1168:I have added a short introduction to 18:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy) 7: 2070:Knowledge (XXG):No original research 2060:I see nobody here has yet mentioned 1639:Wikipedia_talk:Confidential evidence 2731:So please address the core issues. 3203:. I will archive this discussion. 24: 3366:. He should've been requested at 2270:. Thank you for your attention.— 1553:for more info on the situation. 1455:Knowledge (XXG):Original research 3218:Lack of Consistency in Sanctions 2858:Knowledge (XXG):Non-free content 2405:License plate numbers in images? 1831:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources 2163:Guidelines for protecting pages 1463:Knowledge (XXG):Citing sources 1: 3707:02:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC) 3693:19:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 3678:03:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 3651:01:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 3628:01:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 3603:22:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 3580:11:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 3558:09:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 3543:08:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 3493:08:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 3476:14:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 3461:12:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 3433:13:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 3407:06:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 3355:10:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 3336:05:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 3319:08:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 3304:23:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 3283:08:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 3268:06:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 3233:18:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 3131:18:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 3101:01:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 3086:16:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 3058:03:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 2952:01:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 2937:11:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 2922:07:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 2906:01:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 2892:21:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 2881:20:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 2852:05:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 2837:01:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 2817:01:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 2796:01:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 2781:01:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 2771:23:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 2755:22:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 2718:removed three fair use images 2707:09:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 2692:Biographies of living persons 2673:09:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 2659:03:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 2647:already being discussed above 2640:00:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 2608:20:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 2579:04:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 2564:21:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2399:05:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 2383:04:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 2360:05:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 2338:19:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 2321:19:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 2301:19:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 2280:17:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 2248:15:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 2226:06:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 2202:06:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 2182:05:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 2153:07:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 2130:00:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 2107:12:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 2089:02:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 2052:18:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 2004:12:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 1976:12:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 1931:21:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 1900:18:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 1879:14:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 1835:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability 1820:04:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 1782:00:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 1754:00:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 1727:00:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 1702:23:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 1682:23:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 1648:21:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 1602:08:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 1583:07:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 1563:07:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 1526:00:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 1512:20:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 1497:05:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 1482:23:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 1437:22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 1407:21:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 1389:21:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 1353:21:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 1334:21:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 1304:21:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 1294:21:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 1279:00:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 1186:14:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 78:Village pump (policy) archive 3208:07:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 3191:07:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 3173:07:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 3164:06:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 3145:06:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 2527:15:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2516:03:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 2502:03:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 2492:03:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 2478:19:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 2469:02:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 2446:02:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 2427:02:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC) 2416:22:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC) 2285:Celebrities myspace accounts 1359:Perhaps you are looking for 3448:nominator may open an AFD. 1866:Knowledge (XXG):Attribution 3725: 2143:simple Verifiability/FAQ. 1253:Knowledge (XXG):Contact_us 1203:Knowledge (XXG):Contact us 1155:Contact us/Article problem 1829:Plans are afoot to merge 1637:Comments and discussion: 1419:That sounds like part of 3466:I'm in support of this. 1657:An RfC was initiated at 1453:Yup, you're thinking of 3533:experience for others. 2258:Romanization of Russian 1808:WT:NOR#Let's find Waldo 1310:Trying to find a policy 3115:Best regards J.Anvar 2807:any further steps. -- 2618:There is a discussion 2093:It is consolidated at 1837:. Relevant discussion 1246:they have calmed down. 95:< Older discussions 2694:. Hope this helps, — 84:Village pump (policy) 2856:From the guideline 1634:(provisional title) 1544:Notability Question 3439:Deletion amendment 1232:used a scroll bar. 3197:User: Careless hx 3133: 3121:comment added by 2709: 2704: 2699: 2610: 2562: 1630:Proposed policy: 1341:assume good faith 1220:I call my lawyer. 3716: 3690: 3623: 3431: 3430: 3396: 3391: 3380: 3266: 3261: 3250: 3116: 2876: 2702: 2697: 2688:Non-free content 2685: 2638: 2634: 2627: 2601: 2561: 2560: 2298: 2246: 1825:Merging RS and V 1507: 1383: 1372: 1366: 79: 54: 3724: 3723: 3719: 3718: 3717: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3688: 3619: 3441: 3423: 3417: 3395: 3392: 3385: 3381: 3374: 3371: 3265: 3262: 3255: 3251: 3244: 3241: 3220: 3139: 3109: 3074: 2872: 2683: 2637: 2632: 2625: 2623: 2616: 2586:This being said 2558: 2407: 2370: 2296: 2287: 2260: 2240: 2165: 1827: 1796: 1655: 1618:an addition to 1612: 1570: 1546: 1503: 1379: 1370: 1364: 1312: 1158: 1151: 80: 77: 74: 48: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3722: 3720: 3712: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3654: 3653: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3621:John Broughton 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3563: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510:contributors). 3498: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3440: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3394: 3384: 3373: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3357: 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3296:Raymond Arritt 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3264: 3254: 3243: 3219: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3199:pointed me to 3193: 3138: 3135: 3123:195.146.46.164 3108: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3073: 3070: 3069: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3036: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2982: 2981: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2884: 2883: 2874:John Broughton 2866: 2820: 2819: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2743:Cillian Murphy 2736:Cillian Murphy 2682: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2629: 2615: 2612: 2567: 2566: 2550: 2549: 2519: 2518: 2513:Squidfryerchef 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2466:Dragons flight 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2449: 2448: 2429: 2413:Squidfryerchef 2406: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2369: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2341: 2340: 2324: 2323: 2286: 2283: 2259: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2232: 2190:George W. Bush 2164: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2074: 2055: 2054: 2033:guideline page 2023: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2007: 2006: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1903: 1902: 1882: 1881: 1862: 1855: 1851: 1826: 1823: 1795: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1705: 1704: 1654: 1651: 1642: 1641: 1635: 1611: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1569: 1566: 1545: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1505:John Broughton 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1356: 1355: 1311: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1266: 1265: 1261: 1260: 1248: 1247: 1234: 1233: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1218: 1215: 1212: 1209: 1206: 1197: 1196: 1190: 1181: 1157: 1152: 92: 76: 75: 73: 72: 71: 70: 65: 60: 55: 43: 38: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3721: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3696: 3695: 3694: 3691: 3685: 3684: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3662: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3639: 3635: 3634: 3629: 3626: 3622: 3616: 3615: 3614: 3613: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3600: 3596: 3591: 3581: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3564: 3561: 3560: 3559: 3555: 3551: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3531: 3527: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3508: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3485: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3449: 3445: 3438: 3434: 3429: 3426: 3422: 3421: 3415: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3404: 3400: 3393: 3390: 3389: 3382: 3379: 3378: 3369: 3365: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3347: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3333: 3329: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3292: 3291: 3284: 3280: 3276: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3263: 3260: 3259: 3252: 3249: 3248: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3217: 3209: 3206: 3202: 3198: 3194: 3192: 3188: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3175: 3174: 3171: 3167: 3166: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3143: 3136: 3134: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3113: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3071: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3038: 3037: 3030: 3029: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3012: 3010: 3004: 3003: 3002: 3001: 3000: 2999: 2992: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2974: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2914:Relata refero 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2895: 2894: 2893: 2890: 2886: 2885: 2882: 2879: 2875: 2870: 2867: 2865: 2862: 2861: 2859: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2829: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2805: 2804: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2779: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2753: 2748: 2744: 2739: 2737: 2732: 2729: 2725: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2710: 2708: 2705: 2700: 2693: 2689: 2680: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2651:68.156.149.62 2648: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2636: 2635: 2628: 2626:Corvus cornix 2621: 2613: 2611: 2609: 2606:was added at 2605: 2599: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2581: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2565: 2556: 2552: 2551: 2547: 2546:WikiLawyering 2543: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2525: 2517: 2514: 2509: 2508: 2503: 2500: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2490: 2485: 2479: 2476: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2467: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2430: 2428: 2425: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2414: 2410: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2367: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2326: 2325: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2299: 2293: 2284: 2282: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2257: 2249: 2245: 2244: 2237: 2233: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2210: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2191: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2170: 2162: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2122: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2086: 2082: 2081: 2075: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2041: 2038:will go, the 2037: 2034: 2029: 2024: 2020: 2015: 2014: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1993: 1992: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1923:Relata refero 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1892:Relata refero 1888: 1884: 1883: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1867: 1863: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1824: 1822: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1793: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1774: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1755: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1719: 1714: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1674: 1669: 1664: 1660: 1652: 1650: 1649: 1646: 1640: 1636: 1633: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1623: 1621: 1617: 1610: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1567: 1565: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1543: 1527: 1523: 1519: 1518:68.39.174.238 1515: 1514: 1513: 1510: 1506: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1438: 1434: 1430: 1429:68.39.174.238 1426: 1422: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1387: 1384: 1382: 1376: 1369: 1362: 1358: 1357: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1318: 1309: 1305: 1302: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1292: 1288: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1267: 1263: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1250: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1236: 1235: 1231: 1226: 1225: 1219: 1216: 1213: 1210: 1207: 1204: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1188: 1187: 1184: 1179: 1176: 1173: 1171: 1166: 1162: 1156: 1153: 1150: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1013: 1009: 1005: 1001: 997: 993: 989: 985: 981: 977: 973: 969: 965: 961: 957: 953: 949: 945: 941: 937: 933: 929: 925: 921: 917: 913: 909: 905: 901: 897: 893: 889: 885: 881: 877: 873: 869: 865: 861: 857: 853: 849: 845: 841: 837: 833: 829: 825: 821: 817: 813: 809: 805: 801: 797: 793: 789: 785: 781: 777: 773: 769: 765: 761: 757: 753: 749: 745: 741: 737: 733: 729: 725: 721: 717: 713: 709: 705: 701: 697: 693: 689: 685: 681: 677: 673: 669: 665: 661: 657: 653: 649: 645: 641: 637: 633: 629: 625: 621: 617: 613: 609: 605: 601: 597: 593: 589: 585: 581: 577: 573: 569: 565: 561: 557: 553: 549: 545: 541: 537: 533: 529: 525: 521: 517: 513: 509: 505: 501: 497: 493: 489: 485: 481: 477: 473: 469: 465: 461: 457: 453: 449: 445: 441: 437: 433: 429: 425: 421: 417: 413: 409: 405: 401: 397: 393: 389: 385: 381: 377: 373: 370: 367: 363: 359: 355: 351: 347: 343: 339: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 311: 307: 303: 299: 295: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 271: 267: 263: 259: 255: 251: 247: 243: 239: 235: 231: 227: 223: 219: 215: 211: 207: 203: 199: 195: 191: 187: 183: 179: 175: 171: 167: 163: 159: 155: 151: 147: 143: 139: 135: 131: 127: 123: 119: 115: 111: 107: 103: 99: 96: 91: 89: 85: 69: 68:Miscellaneous 66: 64: 61: 59: 56: 52: 47: 44: 42: 39: 37: 34: 33: 32: 31: 27: 26: 19: 3567: 3529: 3525: 3506: 3482: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3419: 3387: 3386: 3376: 3375: 3363: 3361: 3344: 3325: 3257: 3256: 3246: 3245: 3221: 3140: 3114: 3110: 3075: 3050:Kevin Murray 3027: 3025: 3008: 3005: 2989: 2944:Kevin Murray 2898:Kevin Murray 2868: 2863: 2826: 2809:Kevin Murray 2747:Preity Zinta 2740: 2733: 2730: 2726: 2721: 2711: 2684: 2630: 2617: 2589: 2585: 2582: 2568: 2533: 2520: 2424:Collectonian 2408: 2371: 2347: 2330:Kevin Murray 2288: 2261: 2242: 2235: 2213: 2208: 2207: 2174:Cyborg Ninja 2166: 2119: 2078: 2039: 2032: 2027: 2018: 1828: 1797: 1771: 1716: 1671: 1667: 1662: 1656: 1643: 1624: 1613: 1571: 1547: 1380: 1316: 1313: 1286: 1284: 1243: 1239: 1229: 1189: 1180: 1177: 1174: 1167: 1163: 1159: 395: 368: 97: 93: 81: 30:Village pump 28: 3666:AfD instead 3661:AFD process 3364:indefinetly 3179:Someguy0830 3152:Someguy0830 3117:—Preceding 3093:PrimeHunter 2690:and BLP is 2602:—Preceding 2571:Tim Vickers 2489:86.21.74.40 2434:Someguy0830 1966:precisely. 1802:section at 1742:Someguy0830 1690:Someguy0830 1590:Someguy0830 1575:Thin Arthur 3699:Carcharoth 3468:Tcaudilllg 3078:Jackaranga 2522:plate. -- 2368:ANI and AN 2243:Satori Son 1948:divergent. 1833:back into 1668:Smackdown! 1663:Smackdown! 1271:Hans Adler 100:Archives: 51:persistent 3526:questions 3507:questions 3201:WP:UP#CMT 2889:Sarvagnya 2844:Anakinjmt 2778:Sarvagnya 2752:Sarvagnya 2555:WP:OFFICE 2297:Lapinmies 1555:Cromulent 1551:Putinisms 1489:Anakinjmt 1399:Anakinjmt 1395:WP:VERIFY 1381:SB_Johnny 1361:WP:VERIFY 1326:Anakinjmt 1301:Random832 1291:Random832 46:Proposals 41:Technical 3689:--- tqbf 3595:Wikidemo 3414:WP:CIVIL 3119:unsigned 2978:Fair use 2788:Wikidemo 2763:Wikidemo 2665:Wikidemo 2645:This is 2559:Bullzeye 2534:anything 2499:Kbdank71 2309:reliable 2290:page on 2194:Carnildo 2145:Marskell 2099:Marskell 2073:content. 2044:Blueboar 1996:Marskell 1968:Marskell 1871:Marskell 1864:Is this 1620:WP:BLOCK 1616:proposed 1393:No, not 1345:Wikidemo 1287:anywhere 1257:this one 1238:concern 1178:Thanks! 58:Idea lab 3643:Rjd0060 3638:WP:SNOW 3568:require 3399:Belicia 3368:WP:RFCC 3328:Belicia 3195:Hmmmm. 3072:Chick ? 2929:Dhaluza 2604:comment 2590:Finally 2524:Andmark 2475:Garda40 2391:Rjd0060 2375:Belicia 2352:Rjd0060 2313:Rjd0060 2292:Leila K 2218:Rjd0060 2040:concept 2028:concept 1812:Dhaluza 1800:WP:PSTS 1475:WP:CITE 1471:hearsay 1467:WP:CITE 1461:") and 1425:WP:CITE 1423:and/or 3530:before 3420:x42bn6 3311:Kelpin 3275:Kelpin 3225:Kelpin 3205:Anshuk 3170:Anshuk 3142:Anshuk 2722:please 2236:intent 2169:sodomy 1859:dumped 1804:WP:NOR 1713:WP:ABF 1421:WP:NOR 1375:WP:RFC 36:Policy 3670:Haemo 2649:. -- 2594:YegLi 2538:WP:AN 2311:. - 2036:WP:RS 2019:never 1909:(UTC) 1887:WP:RS 1773:Farix 1718:Farix 1673:Farix 1459:WP:OR 1322:WP:OR 1244:after 1230:never 88:start 16:< 3703:talk 3674:talk 3647:talk 3625:(♫♫) 3599:talk 3576:talk 3572:Dovi 3554:talk 3550:Fram 3539:talk 3535:Dovi 3489:talk 3472:talk 3457:talk 3453:Dovi 3428:Mess 3425:Talk 3403:talk 3388:back 3377:Feed 3351:talk 3332:talk 3315:talk 3300:talk 3279:talk 3258:back 3247:Feed 3229:talk 3127:talk 3097:talk 3082:talk 3054:talk 2948:talk 2933:talk 2918:talk 2902:talk 2878:(♫♫) 2848:talk 2833:talk 2813:talk 2792:talk 2767:talk 2714:here 2698:MALL 2669:talk 2655:talk 2633:talk 2620:here 2598:talk 2575:talk 2540:and 2395:talk 2379:talk 2356:talk 2334:talk 2317:talk 2222:talk 2216:. - 2209:need 2198:talk 2192:. -- 2178:talk 2149:talk 2126:talk 2103:talk 2085:talk 2068:and 2048:talk 2000:talk 1972:talk 1927:talk 1896:talk 1875:talk 1850:out. 1843:WT:V 1839:here 1816:talk 1778:Talk 1723:Talk 1678:Talk 1579:talk 1559:talk 1522:talk 1509:(♫♫) 1493:talk 1433:talk 1403:talk 1368:fact 1349:talk 1330:talk 1317:says 1275:talk 1240:very 3484:DGG 3346:DGG 2871:-- 2828:DGG 2745:or 2703:JIM 2600:) 2278:); 2276:yo? 2274:• ( 2121:DGG 2080:DGG 1645:FT2 1479:FT2 1289:. — 1183:FT2 1148:195 1144:194 1140:193 1136:192 1132:191 1128:190 1124:189 1120:188 1116:187 1112:186 1108:185 1104:184 1100:183 1096:182 1092:181 1088:180 1084:179 1080:178 1076:177 1072:176 1068:175 1064:174 1060:173 1056:172 1052:171 1048:170 1044:169 1040:168 1036:167 1032:166 1028:165 1024:164 1020:163 1016:162 1012:161 1008:160 1004:159 1000:158 996:157 992:156 988:155 984:154 980:153 976:152 972:151 968:150 964:149 960:148 956:147 952:146 948:145 944:144 940:143 936:142 932:141 928:140 924:139 920:138 916:137 912:136 908:135 904:134 900:133 896:132 892:131 888:130 884:129 880:128 876:127 872:126 868:125 864:124 860:123 856:122 852:121 848:120 844:119 840:118 836:117 832:116 828:115 824:114 820:113 816:112 812:111 808:110 804:109 800:108 796:107 792:106 788:105 784:104 780:103 776:102 772:101 768:100 63:WMF 3705:) 3676:) 3649:) 3601:) 3578:) 3556:) 3541:) 3491:) 3474:) 3459:) 3405:) 3353:) 3334:) 3317:) 3302:) 3281:) 3231:) 3189:) 3185:| 3162:) 3158:| 3129:) 3099:) 3084:) 3056:) 2950:) 2935:) 2920:) 2904:) 2860:: 2850:) 2835:) 2815:) 2794:) 2769:) 2671:) 2657:) 2577:) 2497:-- 2444:) 2440:| 2397:) 2381:) 2358:) 2348:is 2336:) 2328:-- 2319:) 2224:) 2214:is 2200:) 2180:) 2151:) 2128:) 2105:) 2087:) 2050:) 2002:) 1974:) 1929:) 1898:) 1877:) 1818:) 1780:) 1752:) 1748:| 1725:) 1700:) 1696:| 1680:) 1600:) 1596:| 1581:) 1561:) 1524:) 1495:) 1465:(" 1457:(" 1435:) 1405:) 1385:| 1371:}} 1365:{{ 1351:) 1332:) 1277:) 1146:, 1142:, 1138:, 1134:, 1130:, 1126:, 1122:, 1118:, 1114:, 1110:, 1106:, 1102:, 1098:, 1094:, 1090:, 1086:, 1082:, 1078:, 1074:, 1070:, 1066:, 1062:, 1058:, 1054:, 1050:, 1046:, 1042:, 1038:, 1034:, 1030:, 1026:, 1022:, 1018:, 1014:, 1010:, 1006:, 1002:, 998:, 994:, 990:, 986:, 982:, 978:, 974:, 970:, 966:, 962:, 958:, 954:, 950:, 946:, 942:, 938:, 934:, 930:, 926:, 922:, 918:, 914:, 910:, 906:, 902:, 898:, 894:, 890:, 886:, 882:, 878:, 874:, 870:, 866:, 862:, 858:, 854:, 850:, 846:, 842:, 838:, 834:, 830:, 826:, 822:, 818:, 814:, 810:, 806:, 802:, 798:, 794:, 790:, 786:, 782:, 778:, 774:, 770:, 766:, 764:99 762:, 760:98 758:, 756:97 754:, 752:96 750:, 748:95 746:, 744:94 742:, 740:93 738:, 736:92 734:, 732:91 730:, 728:90 726:, 724:89 722:, 720:88 718:, 716:87 714:, 712:86 710:, 708:85 706:, 704:84 702:, 700:83 698:, 696:82 694:, 692:81 690:, 688:80 686:, 684:79 682:, 680:78 678:, 676:77 674:, 672:76 670:, 668:75 666:, 664:74 662:, 660:73 658:, 656:72 654:, 652:71 650:, 648:70 646:, 644:69 642:, 640:68 638:, 636:67 634:, 632:66 630:, 628:65 626:, 624:64 622:, 620:63 618:, 616:62 614:, 612:61 610:, 608:60 606:, 604:59 602:, 600:58 598:, 596:57 594:, 592:56 590:, 588:55 586:, 584:54 582:, 580:53 578:, 576:52 574:, 572:51 570:, 568:50 566:, 564:49 562:, 560:48 558:, 556:47 554:, 552:46 550:, 548:45 546:, 544:44 542:, 540:43 538:, 536:42 534:, 532:41 530:, 528:40 526:, 524:39 522:, 520:38 518:, 516:37 514:, 512:36 510:, 508:35 506:, 504:34 502:, 500:33 498:, 496:32 494:, 492:31 490:, 488:30 486:, 484:29 482:, 480:28 478:, 476:27 474:, 472:26 470:, 468:25 466:, 464:24 462:, 460:23 458:, 456:22 454:, 452:21 450:, 448:20 446:, 444:19 442:, 440:18 438:, 436:17 434:, 432:16 430:, 428:15 426:, 424:14 422:, 420:13 418:, 416:12 414:, 412:11 410:, 408:10 406:, 402:, 398:, 394:, 390:, 386:, 382:, 378:, 374:, 366:BO 364:, 362:BN 360:, 358:BM 356:, 354:BL 352:, 350:BK 348:, 346:BJ 344:, 342:BI 340:, 338:BH 336:, 334:BG 332:, 330:BF 328:, 326:BE 324:, 322:BD 320:, 318:BC 316:, 314:BB 312:, 310:BA 308:, 306:AZ 304:, 302:AY 300:, 298:AX 296:, 294:AW 292:, 290:AV 288:, 286:AU 284:, 282:AT 280:, 278:AS 276:, 274:AR 272:, 270:AQ 268:, 266:AP 264:, 262:AO 260:, 258:AN 256:, 254:AM 252:, 250:AL 248:, 246:AK 244:, 242:AJ 240:, 238:AI 236:, 234:AH 232:, 230:AG 228:, 226:AF 224:, 222:AE 220:, 218:AD 216:, 214:AC 212:, 210:AB 208:, 206:AA 204:, 200:, 196:, 192:, 188:, 184:, 180:, 176:, 172:, 168:, 164:, 160:, 156:, 152:, 148:, 144:, 140:, 136:, 132:, 128:, 124:, 120:, 116:, 112:, 108:, 104:, 3701:( 3672:( 3645:( 3597:( 3574:( 3552:( 3537:( 3487:( 3470:( 3455:( 3401:( 3349:( 3330:( 3313:( 3298:( 3277:( 3227:( 3187:C 3183:T 3181:( 3160:C 3156:T 3154:( 3125:( 3095:( 3080:( 3052:( 2980:: 2946:( 2931:( 2916:( 2900:( 2846:( 2831:( 2811:( 2790:( 2765:( 2696:S 2667:( 2653:( 2596:( 2573:( 2442:C 2438:T 2436:( 2393:( 2377:( 2354:( 2332:( 2315:( 2220:( 2196:( 2176:( 2147:( 2124:( 2101:( 2083:( 2046:( 1998:( 1970:( 1925:( 1894:( 1873:( 1814:( 1776:( 1750:C 1746:T 1744:( 1721:( 1698:C 1694:T 1692:( 1676:( 1598:C 1594:T 1592:( 1577:( 1557:( 1520:( 1491:( 1431:( 1401:( 1347:( 1328:( 1273:( 404:9 400:8 396:7 392:6 388:5 384:4 380:3 376:2 372:1 369:· 202:Z 198:Y 194:X 190:W 186:V 182:U 178:T 174:S 170:R 166:Q 162:P 158:O 154:N 150:M 146:L 142:K 138:J 134:I 130:H 126:G 122:F 118:E 114:D 110:C 106:B 102:A 98:· 53:) 49:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Village pump (policy)/Archive 7 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index