Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)/Archive 9

3444:

things like secondary people can be used as doctors but tertiary people are needed as lawyers. We'd quickly find the categories make no sense and have no general applicability; better to talk specifically about what the medicine profession needs nd what the lawyering profession needs rather than try to project these needs onto people themselves as if our needs were inherent properties of the outside world. What we're doing here is equally projection. Like job requirements, Knowledge (XXG)'s policy requirements are properties of Knowledge (XXG) policy, not properties of external objects such as people or sources. We need to describe and classify our needs directly, describing our policies and what they require. Projecting our needs onto external objects and trying to present our needs as if they were properties of the outside world is simply silly. We found a ready-made classification system intended for a different purpose (primary, secondary, tertiary) and thought it could be bent a bit and applied to Knowledge (XXG). It seems clear our needs are different from the ones this schema is based on. Better to describe things in a way that directly reflects our needs. Best, --

2757:

colors, even after much productivity. I suggest dealing with it privately and to be very gentle, and only in cases that are obvious. At the same time, I don't think it would work for administrators to do that. It seems like a line is being crossed if they do. I've seen mental illness in online friends of mine who have later come clean about it to me (one was extremely paranoid). I tried to help him on a personal basis, but as you probably expect, it didn't work. So what we should focus on is to not ignore any obvious policy violations. We cannot use "Oh he was just angry and got over it" or "He's ill, let him be" as an excuse. I know a lot of you just take the "report it to AN/I" approach, but I've seen administrators turn the other way even in the most extreme of cases because they don't want to hurt someone's feelings, or deal with it any further. The problem is, with many of these people, they'll get upset again and the same thing will happen again. We need to be stronger than this. Thank you all for the replies. Sorry that came off as a bit of a rambling — I don't have all the answers. -

3124:(she has gone by all three ) put if I wanted garage sale items i must want them to resell. I said no, I would like to see if i could get some xmas items out of them, the hospital bed for my extremem bought of pleurisy and i wanted a generator. This "Lo," banned me because I did not agree with her take on my ad and then said my tv was probably not worth anything anyway. so this is freecycle? who determines who wants, who gives away and why they do it? is this some sort of criteria or does the lady have esp. someone has got to regulate these so called moderators who apparently act like they out and out own the free cycle sites. well i don not believe this to be the case and intend to go public with my very rude, adverse situation. what would you do? jennifer bryant 2893:

between the two, but it does seem to me the project's proper business is the second only. I don't see how Knowledge (XXG) volunteers could be trained or equipped to understand when (1) does and does not affect (2). One reason for a gentler approach with established editors is the belief that ordinary people sometimes get overheated and affected by emotions in conflicts and similar situations, in other words, a belief that variation and "instability" is a characteristic of ordinary people and not the exclusive province of the mentally ill. It's very important to avoid stereotyping here, to avoid a discriminatory prejudice that having a psychological diagnosis implies an editor or admin is going to be disruptive. Best, --

2805:

being disruptive. To add to your characterization, these editors take minor setbacks (tags, warnings, bots, etc) very personally and threaten other users for something that is quite minor. This, to me, shows that they are not trying to make Knowledge (XXG) a better place and that they are acting in poor faith. I'm sorry, but assuming good faith in evidence of obvious bad faith is absurd, and some administrators and many regular editors need to realize that and stop using that as an excuse. This is a serious problem on Knowledge (XXG). I realize that some of these editors contribute plenty to Knowledge (XXG), and therefore many people don't want to ban them, but if this is a pattern and if they are harming other users:

2488:

If all of the sources are reliable, and there is a genuine open debate in the reliable literature with two opposing viewpoints, then report the debate. If a crackpot is self-publishing their own wacko ideas, and no one even takes these ideas seriously enough even to respond, then it probably doesn't even deserve mentioning. The question that needs to be asked is "Do reliable sources acknowledge the minority viewpoint, even to summarily refute it." If yes, then the viewpoint probably bears mentioning. If the academics aren't even acknowledging the viewpoint, then we shouldn't either. Again, I have not looked at the particular article in question, and I am only making general comments. --

2809:. I try to be sensitive to unstable people like this both online and in real life. I have a grandmother who behaves like this, and the best my family can do is try to alleviate her stress to avoid setting her off. However, I recognize that she does have some ability to control herself and we do not accept every emotional outburst. We do love and forgive her, of course. But please realize, administrators, that if an unstable user has a pattern of this behavior and is harming other users, you absolutely should not accept it. I imagine that a lot of you are thinking "We don't," but I've seen this from other admins and users. The twisting of the 1310:

pov-pushers. Obviously, we shouldn't allow contests on Knowledge (XXG) that reward policy violations. Offering money for writing good articles within policy is a Good Thing. People are still free to write good articles without being paid. This is precisely analogous to the Free Software movement. Companies can pay programmers to develop Linux kernel patches. They cannot force Torvalds to accept them into the codebase. It's the same here. Microsoft can pay Seamus Heaney to submit brilliant prose in praise of their products if they like. They cannot prevent us from deleting it again if we judge it to violate npov policy.

2848:

handle other operations, but most of what they do makes sense to me and is useful. Marking every article with a big citations tag at the top isn't really going to encourage people to improve the article. I mean, come on people, get real. Still, some admins think it's helpful. But on this issue; it's nowhere near the worst example and even I wouldn't consider anything more than an informal warning for it if I were an admin, unless they ignore the warning. As you hinted at, RfCs are dedicated to one episode or event. If a user's behavior over several months needed to be reviewed, where should it be done? -

2629:- Cyborg; While I can understand your concern at dealing with users who, as you say, are of "questionable mental stability", may I ask one small thing? If they don't give you any indication (by userbox, etc...) - what puts you in a position to be able to judge who is mentally stable or unstable? That's not meant as an argumentative statement, simply an idea for me to understand, say, do you have some experience of dealing with mentally unstable people by reason of work or something? No one on here has ever questioned my mental stability, but I suffer from 2714:, a school shooting killer with chronic access to the Internet. When no access is available to him he asks his son to post on message boards, newsgroups and to update an 'official' web page. Perhaps even change his own WP page? Or worst change pages related to research of his victims (he claims said research is his and that was his motivation for the killings). This being said, current state of things shows that WP is pretty good at defending itself of abuses, and I offer Fabrikant only as a good example of 'questionable mental stability'. 2771:

neurotics, bipolars, and even sociopaths are human beings too and may have something to contribute here. It would be sad and unfair to say that you're disqualified from Knowledge (XXG) for having an organic brain disorder. Judge the edits, not the editor, and don't punish people for being honest about their mental state. We shouldn't deny the obvious - our bipolar colleagues can be a total pain at times. But they can also be wickedly smart and productive, and deserve a seat at the table like everyone else provided they can get along.

2795:

out, and go on a rampage. They may even say 'now I'm going to turn evil- ruhaha' or some such. Thhen go back to normal briefly and apologise slightly so they get away with it. Then a few days later something sets them off again. Hopefully they get blocked if they continue in such a pattern. As an individual editor, the best way to deal with them is probably to avoid much contact with them. As a community, to notice their history when they invite their latest block, and if the pattern has occurred several times, long-term block.

2576:

an activity it is vulnerable to intrusion by the corrupt, the malicious, and the deranged. The barbarians are always at the gates, and it only takes a few to destroy a civilization or a Knowledge (XXG). We also have to recognize that Knowledge (XXG) has become an arena for contests for power. The high ranking :of its articles in the search engines is also an incentive for invasion, at first by subtle and skilled efforts that can seem to be "civilized" in this context but which if not repelled will eventually destroy the project.

1518:

broadcast. In other words, a plot summary of a TV broadcast or film, or even a statement of fact - such as "Jennie Garth did a tango in episode three" - is considered original research unless you cite someone else's formal article (which, natch, cites the original broadcast or film). The trouble, IMO, is that this rule would reduce entertainment articles to irrelevance; you can't write about films and TV shows unless you can cite them directly. One contributor writes that he has no problem with this. Is that desired?

2590:

so-and-so has such-and-such illness, and just focused on the issue of a person's participation in the project. Are they contributing? Is their behavior disruptive or productive? Is there anything we as a community might do to help them become a better editor? What chance of improvement is there? Again, as I mentioned in your other thread, it's very difficult to have these sorts of conversations in a general sense, and I'm not sure how productive it might be. Problematic users can be reported to the appropriate

1362:. In the world of Open Source Software, you often see companies sponsoring bounties (rewards) for programmers to add specific functionality to free software projects that, if added, would benefit everyone using the software. I see nothing wrong with that. In addition, if Knowledge (XXG) were to set up a committee to vet any award proposals first, then that would go a long way to keeping the special interests out. Besides, what could possibly be wrong with sponsoring an award for an article like 2113:

is advertised in this way. Surely a message in the watchlist is for big events that could affect the whole community (such as ArbCom elections), not for advertising a project set up by a small group of editors. It'd be similar to advertising a WikiProject in a watchlist message. I'm assuming they have some sort of official permission, though, as this page doesn't seem able to be edited by ordinary users. I think allowing this space to be used for advertising a project sets a bad precedent.

2974:

discernible from normal behavior. Most cases won't be so easy. As for editors, it's a bit more difficult. I would not want to upset the user and taking away their ability to edit could have a drastic effect on them. But, as I've stated above, if there is a pattern of this behavior, it cannot be tolerated. If they decide to come back and state that they are now healthy and be open about their past, then I would welcome them. -

2823:

lot of time on Knowledge (XXG), but that's mostly to read articles to expand my knowledge. But that person's amount of time here... can we really call that normal, or healthy? He does everything the user above cited as conduct that an unstable editor does here. I'm not suggesting that we warn someone just because they spend vast amounts of time here obviously, but I think it's something to think about. -

2565:

the contributions of an editor do not factor in their judgment if they have shown to be irrational and abusive towards other users. This is similar to how I think abusive editors (even if they are not mentally ill) should be treated. Currently, the administration seems to take a very laissez-faire approach. This is causing a great deal of harm here at Knowledge (XXG) as a whole and to individual users. -

1978:, where it was deleted under the argument that Knowledge (XXG) wasn't a social networking site. While I agree with that general idea, I don't think this considered the categories as helping with collaboration in relation to Knowledge (XXG). Before I continue I figured I should get more feedback about this (especially given only five editors were involved in the CfD). -- 2400:

effectively leaving Knowledge (XXG) to be become Veropedia editors to perfect and embalm our better grade articles - it's no small deal! The private for-profit company Veropedia use advertising, and they are demoting Knowledge (XXG) in promoting their 'final' 'perfected' versions (vetted, without independence, by them). Is it just me who doesn't like it? --

1602:

listed the major plot twists over the course of the show. Some contributors regarded it as not factual. We discussed this on the talk page when debating whether to add a section about what distinguishes this show from a regular dance competition; I pointed out that excessive gushing could be edited out later, but the entire section got deleted.

1162:) to Wikipedians. It offends me greatly that money is being brought into the mix - AND that such a contest is being advertised on my watchlist! We have plenty of ways to thank users for their work here. We have 1000s of editors working hard, not for money, but for the hope to create something useful and dynamic. 2166:), and off-linking this to veropedia. I'm all for contests, but perhaps we should move the "list" over to a project page here to be less adverty? (Full disclosure:I edited the watchlist message related to this, but only to adjust the formating, I don't have a strong opinion on to if it should be included). — 3265:

This is a distortion of the actual issues under discussion, as there is no "anti-primary-source lobby". Primary sources can be used, but they must be used carefully to avoid editorial bias and interpretation. Secondary sources may be used in addition to primary sources to avoid this problem. There

2962:

have any recognised mental illness. The interesting borderline case to consider here is: if there's a person who makes useful contributions, or even achieves adminship, while in a good mental state, and then their mental integrity degrades as a result of a illness-induced mood change, acquiring a new

2822:

I should add that I have one person in mind right now (though he is not the only one to act like this). A quick glance of his Contributions page shows me that he makes 300+ edits a day and frequently spends over half of the day, every minute, editing Knowledge (XXG). Every day. Now, I think I spend a

2112:

for a contest to improve certain articles. This seems to be the creation of Veropedia contributors who wish to improve the article on Knowledge (XXG) (and will pay people to do so) so they can have a Veropedia article on the subject. I have noting against the contest itself, but I am wondering why it

1961:

I was surprised that there wasn't any categories that showed Wikipedians that could be contacted via means like IRC or AIM, so I decided to hunt down some userboxes and populate some. My thinking was that this is useful for collaboration. There are many times where I jump on #wikipedia to ask a quick

3468:

I haven't been able to get an answer anywhere else, so I'll try here: Just because the person who took a photo claims to owns the rights and releases it for public domain does not necessarily mean that person really has the right to do so. Knowledge (XXG) acts in good faith in using those, but there

3443:

concepts. It would be a bit like discussing the requirements for becoming a doctor or a soldier under the topic "people" rather than under the topics of medicine and law. It would be silly to try to classify people into a set of categories like primary, secondary, and tertiary people and then to say

3333:

Yes, for the purposes of WP the parts of peer-reviewed papers that draw conclusions, give arguments, interpret data, or otherwise act like secondary sources are considered secondary sources. The only part that would be a primary source is actual experimental data or field notes. There is significant

2992:

For instance, a friend once fired an employee and was called before a hearing board, where he explained "I fired the employee because he was chronically late, picked fights, etc." Only after asked, "Do you have any explanation for his poor performance?" could my friend add, "Yes, he was using meth."

2837:

sprees target many different articles and people, it's hard to have an RfC that truly covers what they get upto, because RfCs have to be about 'the same dispute', so it's harder to raise the two people needed that have the boldness to stand up. If RfCs were allowed to address the user's behavior in

2794:

campaigns, tagging numerous articles, solely because they feel one of theirs was tagged unfairly. It's not disparaging to those with mental health problems, most of whom can still contribute sanely to Knowledge (XXG). But some people even if they haven't been diagnosed with any illness easily flip

2770:

There are some editors who are clearly disturbed, and it's sometimes helpful to conceive of their bizarre or abusive editing as the product of some personal issues. But mental illness isn't a yes or no thing. We're all a little sick in the head at times. And schizophrenics, obsessive compulsives,

2548:

That isn't the worst of all possible wordings, by any stretch of the imagination, but we can aim higher than not the worst. "I can't see why you raised this concern, can you explain further" is a response that invites continued discussion, and is thus more civil for a collaborative environment than

2487:

has published the source, I am more likely to trust what it says as "reliable", than I would "Joe's Blog". Also, in situations like this, it is helpful to go beyond footnoting. If you said "John Doe, in the journal "Nature", has said" yada yada yada others can see the transparency of the sources.

2399:

The Veropedia crew see themselves as above the law. There is not much debate in here - people really shouldn't be ignoring this! There is debate on the Veropedia for-cash competition talk page, though it's mostly a few stickers against a number of Veropedians (including their boss Danny). People are

1694:

Okay. The section was an attempt to gather together the various comments and plot observations that contributors had scattered all over the board, due to the fact that the "personal dramas" angle is what makes this a big TV reality show, different from regular dance competitions. Based on other Wiki

1658:

I definitely understand this; how much plot to reveal is the editorial bugaboo of TV/film articles. Of course, reality TV producers describe everything as a significant twist to try to generate interest ("Here's a dozen replays of Marie Osmond fainting!"), so that's a judgment call. The "no original

3283:

COGDEN seems to be suffering from an inability to grasp clear statements about the use of primary and secondary sources. The policy doesn't hold that primary (close to the subject being written about) sources are unacceptable, it holds that they should be treated with particular care to avoid going

2804:

This is exactly what I'm talking about, and I'm glad that you noticed it too. "Unstable" is the keyword here. There are multiple editors who have this problem, and I think it's a part of their lifestyle, but I believe the laissez-faire approach at this site and others on the Web allows them to keep

2575:

It is difficult to address this problem with any kind of guideline or policy, because it is a difficult problem even for mental health professionals in face-to-face situations. It will probably have to be dealt with on a case-to-case basis. Knowledge (XXG) assumes rationality and good faith, but as

2223:

Veropedia is scarcely relevant. All that matters is that Knowledge (XXG) articles get improved, and that's a matter that concerns the whole of the Knowledge (XXG) community - I want them all to participate. Sure, if you want to move the list of eligible articles over to a project page here, though,

2056:

When I search, the default namespaces for searching are Mainspace, MediaWiki Talk, and Template Talk. As a suggestion, it might make it more useful to search the Mainspace, Image, Portal, and Help spaces. Searching the Knowledge (XXG) or MediaWiki space will probably result in non-useful policies

1902:

I am writing to get others' opinions about capitalizing "The" when "The" is part of the title of an organization or religious denomination. Specifically, I am under the understanding that "The" is part of the official title of The United Methodist Church. What should be done about this? What can

3010:

I see this as an irrelevant issue. Knowledge (XXG) editors are volunteers and their treatment is not subject to terms of employment, including consideration for disabilities. Peers should therefore determine their treatment of any editor solely on the basis of their contributions and interaction

2973:

Depending on their behavior, if they are an admin and they behave poorly, then they should have their privileges taken away. You can't put power into the hands of someone who isn't mentally healthy. Of course, the admin would have to come out as having mental illness or it would have to be clearly

2927:

2847:

Two RFCs have been done of one person I have considered as unstable. Even if a tagging spree spans over dozens of articles that are unrelated, a question comes into one's head: is it acceptable to do mass-tagging of articles that one has not spent more than 5 seconds with? I know we have bots that

2564:

This issue is an important question for Knowledge (XXG) policy. How should administrators and the average user deal with other users who are mentally ill? What qualifies as mental illness? Where should the line be drawn? In terms of this matter, my view may be seen as rather strict. I believe that

3123:

I am not sure where to complain about free cycle so I will put it here. My names is jennifer bryant and i am om the woodlands texas freecycle page. I offered a big screen tv, minor repair, then wanted, garage sale items, a hospital bed and a generator. The moderator, one Maurice, or Lo, or MCM

2756:

I'm only referring to users who are disruptive. Paranoia doesn't count as something that would be very disruptive, IMO. In no way am I suggesting I be the person to decide who is mentally ill or not; neither is there an easy way to do this. There are some users on this site who do show their true

2654:

There's a "This Wikipedian is off their meds" userbox? In all seriousness, having a bipolar userbox on a user page hardly qualifies as a legitimate means of diagnosis. Personally, I don't think we can make any special exceptions for disruptive editors because they're mentally ill, otherwise every

2179:

Rjd0060- Plenty of projects etc. are here to inprove the encyclopedia. What makes this so different that it is promoted in such a prominent place? Surely only something along the lines of the upcoming ArbCom election should be promoted here, not a project created by a small group of people. Next,

1677:

without secondary sources. Suggestion that there are plots or twists to what is affectively a televised dance competition is original research because you are making an evaluative claim and would need secondary sources. In fact, no one should describe something as a "plot twist" without secondary

2892:

I think we need to distinguish two things; (1) Having a mental illness, which isn't necessarily the project's business; (2) behaving disruptively, which is the project's business, but which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with a mental illness. I'm not saying there's never a relationship

1601:

That's what I thought. I did a university thesis citing live theater performances and TV broadcasts using standard academic footnoting; I was surprised to hear Wiki's policies were substantially different, and now I know they're not. I think the real complaint was the drama/twists section, which

1449:

that has "Questions about the reliability of specific sources", which provide that very useful guidance. I suggest merging those questions (but not the rest of the examples page) back onto the guideline page. The rest of the examples page is poorly written and not that useful, and perhaps not

3476:

has four images of boys. This seems excessive regardless of the subject matter. Two of the images are paintings. Two of them, however, are photographs of minors with no information regarding authority to distribute photographs of those specific individuals, certainly not parental permission to

2431:

Please specify which laws, rules and regulations Veropedia is meant to have broken or violated. Veropedia's preserved good state versions of articles will soon begin to be reviewed by independent academics. It disappoints me to watch a handful of people go around, drumming up support for their

1616:

Well, "drama and twists" for a reality TV show can be taken as highly OR, because what defines a significant drama or twist? Does the show come out and say it? -- if so, great, it can be added, but the bulk of the time, abd based on the edit pointed out above, pretty much all of that was OR.

2589:

Knowledge (XXG), in general, takes a very laissez-faire approach -- it's one of the fundamental precepts of our philosophy, in general, both a great strength and a source of many problems. For my part, I'd rather we avoided throwing around a bunch of unqualified, amateur guesses as to whether

2740:

I completely agree with Thor and Luna. There's just no way to tell for sure if someone does or does not have a mental illness, even if we had qualified professionals who were editors here. Also, even if there was a way to tell if an editor has a mental illness, they shouldn't be treated any

1517:

On the Dancing With The Stars Season Five article, a couple of contributors have stated that reporting anything that occurs on the show's broadcast is considered "original research" unless it's been reported in the press, because we can't reference copyrighted online videos and can't cite a

1309:

I see nothing wrong with it. Any "mega-millionaire" can pay people to push any pov he likes, even now. Our defense against this isn't by existing somehow outside of the real world, our defense is policy combined with block buttons. There is no difference between paid pov-pushers and unpaid

1962:

silly question, like a naming convention, or to see if anyone remembered where a template was that could be used for format some external link. I've listed my own AIM screen name on my userpage and user talk page also as a method of collaboration. I created three categories at this point,

3358:

Nahh, I had a personal enoucnter with this issue: I got in a nasty argument with an editor who thought that vitamins were a waste of time and money and didn't do anything, and were crank medicine. To support his argument, he provided links to all sorts of literature, some of it possibley

2334:

that needed quite some text to explain what the conditions of the contest were, including "being a US resident", "legally"(!) and "physically"(!!!) I know that Wikimedia coworkers are of course much smarter than Scott Adams when it comes down to overcoming all sorts of practical problems

1251:

Should probably try and keep this on the talk page for the contest, but it isn't at the top of every page. It is only on your watchlist, unless you click "Dismiss", then it isn't even there. You may be confusing it with the fundraising bar for Wikimedia, but thats entirely separate. -

1988:

The argument that we're not a social networking site is spurious if applied to categorizing information already here. I'm not entirely sure what purpose the category would have but offhand I see no reason why it's inappropriate to gather information people have chosen to include about

1584:

A televised broadcast is a published source. So long as the editor merely describes the events in the broadcast and does not make any analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the events without additional secondary source, it is not original research.

2310:

I agree, and have removed the advert. If some off-wiki company wants to have a contest, that's fine. Using the Wikimedia Foundation's equipment, bandwidth, and unique access to our users to subsidize the cost of advertising their contest is against the principles of the foundation.

2279:

The problem here is not the location of the list, but the fact that this contest is advertised in a space generally used for official announcements, such as software changes or elections. This creates a false impression that this is some kind of official Wikimedia Foundation event.

3359:

peer-reiewed. I donno. It was POV pushing. However, the the problem, as I see it, is not his use of citations, but his POV pushing. Eliminating this kind of use of citations will not eliminate POV-pushing. Don't treat the symptoms (citation use) treat the disease (POV pushing).

3105:

So, is it okay to have articles about words as opposed to the subjects those words describe? And in articles about subjects, is it okay to have information about the origins/etc. of the word or phrase that describes that subject (information normally found in a dictionary)?

3491:, which applies to people of all ages. According that, the images of the boys are borderline (though the Indian one is more controversial because one of the boys is clearly identifiable.) In this case, pixellating the faces of the children might be an appropriate measure. 3180:

page appears to have changed; most nominations now come in as "other reason", with the standard reasons now elaborated on the second line. I obviously missed the policy discussion on this. Is there a sensible reason for this change, or it just my PC having a funny turn?

2057:(for the casual reader I mean) and archives/subpages/votes. Searching Talk pages of any type really doesn't make sense to me, since why would someone looking for an encyclopedic topic or site policy be interested in a conversation? Is this an issue for here or Meta? 2003:

This is a good place to put a link to a discussion at CfD, encouraging other editors to go there. It's a bad place to have a discussion that really should occur at CFD, particularly since discussions there are archived (by the date started) while discussions here

3389:

sources (usage: "an eyewitness account is a WTA source"). This will have the additional benefit that editors could not assume that they know what the terms mean when they first come across them and therefore not bother looking them up - as doubtless happens now.

1421:

out there without a parent page. Reliable sources is such a critical concept for Knowledge (XXG), that it is important to have a guideline page for it. Instead of redirecting the page or making it a disambiguation page, I propose revamping the

3284:

beyond the source and introducing synthesis or unsupported value judgements. Note that primary sources also includes self published sources which meet WP:RS in the context of an article about themselves, but which are generally unreliable. ...

2869:

As an editor with a mental illness (although I don't think you would be able to guess that based on my contributions) I appreciate your concern, but I don't think that any special consideration should apply except for the application of the

2838:

general when they're having one of their 'episodes', then they would be a more accurate representation of the user. Because while it runs the risk of being seen as ganging up on someone, sometimes that kind of RfC would be useful/necessary.

1730:

for instance) I've noticed that many have images have captions with the names of the actual pets. Does WP have any policy about this or relating to this? I just think it's a bit unencyclopedic to have actual names of pets in their images.

2832:

I don't think we can be overly suspicious just due to 'spends too much time here.' What we are basically talking about is conduct that would lead to an RfC, but because the user spreads the conduct over different areas and his/her

1695:

TV series templates, if this material were to remain, I think it would be better to pull it together in an episode table with brief synopses. And this thread should probably go back to the discussion page from the original article.

1493:

There is a discussion started about addressing those who would take entrenched positions and act in ways to block consensus. Notices have also been posted on related behavioral policies and guidelines soliciting participation.

2090:

Thanks, I logged in under a less-frequently used account and realized that. Would it be useful to include the Help and Image namespaces by default? Seems like those might be frequent hits for users searching for things.

2376:

Scott Adams clearly had a lawyer help with his contest rules/disclaimer, so the question is, was his work excessive, is our work deficient, or is this contest sufficiently informal/different that it doesn't need legalese?

3469:

may be legal issues with regard to the use of photos of minors. Just because you own the camera that takes a picture doesn't mean you have the legal right to post photos without the consent of the parent or guardian.

2963:

illness, or a change of medication, should they be de-adminned or banned, or should we wait for them to seek assistance and recover? If they do recover, do they have a means of requesting re-evaluation on this basis?

1551:

Thanks for the added ref, I, although I'm also referring to overarching complaints about original research which have been at the top of the article for weeks before the story section was added. BTW, I'm a she. ;-)

2454: 2987:

An example that may help here is how this issue is handled in the professional world. If you fire someone for mental illness or addiction, you are not generally permitted to cite the illness or addiction; only

1753:

and did not see any names in the captions. Anyways, while I don't think there are any policies of guidelines specifically prohibiting this, but it just makes sense to omit those from encyclopedic articles. -

3408:

You cannot eliminate the confusion because a primary source can sometimes be used as a secondary and the converse is true. The definition depends on two things: what type of source is being used and

1975: 1875: 50: 3243:

that requires cited conclusions in peer-reviewed journals, books, novels, and interviews not only to be verifiable, but also to be corroborated and filtered through second-hand literature?

3224:

is continuing, and it is coming to somewhat of a head, with the anti-primary-source lobby threatening to end discussion by decree. The issues up for discussion have been summarized on the

1293:. There is nothing stopping mega-millionaires from doing this without the existence of contests, but our policies that govern content are equipped to handle the possibility in my opinion. 1903:

be done about this? Is this such a minor issue that it need not take up our time? I don't want to go willy-nilly changing things, but it seems important to me to use titles properly.

3381:

source will not go away until we rename these terms as they are used here to something different from their use in the real world and then tighten up their definitions. I !vote for

2463:

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each

3150:

I'm sorry to hear about this, but this does not come under the scope of Knowledge (XXG). Also, it is not permitted to post private e-mails here without the consent of the sender.

1330:

The most serious threat of POV-pushing is not someone with deep pockets. After all, even highly-motivated salaried employees take the occasional day off. It is the people with

3266:

is nothing stopping anyone from attributing a scientific study or conclusion to the published author. The problem begins when an editor wishes to interpret a primary source,

1334:(aka "The Truth") who are the most serious threat, & they often work for less money than Knowledge (XXG) pays its Admins. (Yes, I mean they'll pay money to further their 1453:

Include "aspects of reliability" (scholarship, extremist sources, self-published sources, claims of consensus) that is currently on the reliable sources guideline page.

1165:

Real money creates a very different incentive. Real money means a mega-millionaire could reward a particular POV. Keep real money incentives out of Knowledge (XXG).

2483:

Prominence is generally measured by status in mainstream scholarship. Without commenting on the specifics of this article, the key here is "reliable" source. If

1566:

Amended accordingly. The original research is just one of the few problems with that section. Mainly, it is not relevant to the article to have notes like that.

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: 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: 3026:

Please read the entirety of people's comments to this topic before commenting. Same goes for your other repetitive message at the end of the section above. -

399: 395: 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: 3297:

I am a bit confused here. Aren't peer reviewed journal articles, by definition, secondary sources. In my field of interest, history, they certainly are.

3232:

Do Knowledge (XXG) editors have a right to cite peer-reviewed journals directly, or do we need to cite to them via the mediation of some possibly biased

1445:

guideline use to be more useful when it had some examples and guidance on specific types of sources (e.g. blogs, wikis, YouTube). There is a section on

1927:

Unless part of a proper noun, a, an and the are normally avoided as the first word (Economy of the second empire, not The economy of the second empire).

3488: 3435:

should tied to a classification systemt that purports to explain inherent attributes of sources. Rather, they are better described as attibutes of the

2786:

Some users do 'lose it' a bit very easily and appear unstable. We all know of those that when one of their articles is tagged even by a bot, say it's

1457: 1418: 67: 1974:, using only templates that actually listed a contactable ID. I got to a template for MSN and saw that a similar category had been removed via CfD 3270:

primary source data to support a POV without secondary sources to support it. The questions you raise above aren't even relevant to the problem. —

3057:

which give a definition but also some background. Often when an article is transwiki'd, the background is removed. I am aware of the existence of

2235: 1413:. But sentiment has been expressed by some on the talk page that it's not a good idea to eliminate the guideline page. That would also leave 1446: 1414: 45: 40: 3012: 2929: 1674: 1495: 57: 3135: 3195:

I am not sure what you mean... the speedy tags look mostly the same as ever. Most people using the standard reasons use templates like

1879: 1868: 2518:

If someone complains about an article, and I write in response that their "complaints appear to be baseless", is this uncivil of me?--

3334:

confusion about this point, since the dispute at NOR is about primary sources, which most peer-reviewed publications are not. — Carl

2458: 2259: 1469: 1406: 1199: 83: 35: 17: 2679:- Caknuck, I quite agree. We don't make any exceptions for anyone based on their state of mind, that is true. But as I have said, 2874:

policy. If we just remember that this applies to comments made to all editors, even abusive ones, then there should be no problem.

2470: 1971: 1434:

include having "Duplicate descriptions" of what reliable sources are. That could be handled by transcluding the exact wording from

94: 2202:

I've already "dismissed" the info, but weren't those names just to inform people as to who will be judging this little contest? -

2910:

Since when are the vast majority of Knowledge (XXG) users qualified to diagnose anything over the internet? Oh right, we arn't.

1963: 3427:

I don't believe our discussion of the properties sources need to have to establish certain Knowledge (XXG)-specific claims like

1967: 62: 2499: 2136:

I don't think this is "advertising" at all. We're all here to improve the Encyclopedia, and this is simply an incentive. -

2993:

Mental illness on this board should be treated in the same manner; it's the pattern of behavior that needs to be addressed.

2343:

where one lives when participating in this competition? Or can one be disqualified for all sorts of reasons post factum? --

3494: 1159: 2293: 2193: 2126: 1206: 3246:

Should editors be allowed to cite raw data from peer-reviewed journals, but not the conclusions by the original author?

3077: 2330:

Where in the world does one need to have an address to be eligible for the 100$ award? I remember a little contest at

2039: 1922: 1198:

As a FYI, the same user has also opened up a discussion (thankfully with fewer capital letters) on the contest page at

2109: 3493:

However, you should be aware that this has nothing to do with copyright, it is restricted by personality rights. The

3053:). I wonder, when is it appropriate to transwiki and when is it OK to leave here? I was thinking of articles such as 3187: 2348: 1465: 3454:

What scientists call primary sources are called secondary sources on wikipedia. (Folks enjoy confusing people). --

1225: 3506: 2336: 1277:: I don't think the existence of any contest is going to ever trump policies that govern article content such as 2432:

opinions and issues with Veropedia. Nothing wrong with healthy debate but this is getting a little silly now. --

2419: 29: 2331: 2077: 2014: 3016: 2933: 3139: 2469:

the prominence of each viewpoint? It seems like any methodology to gauge prominence might be a violation of

3085: 2484: 2358:

Payment can be made either by check or Paypal to the winners, so it does not really matter where they live.

1809: 3131: 2725: 2594:

for discussion and possible administrative response, if need be; I'd also encourage you to make use of the

3066: 2898: 2879: 2240: 2913:

Accusing or labeling another user of a mental illness can never be anything but a violation of WP:CIVIL.

2839: 2796: 3182: 2633:. If I hadn't said anything about that, would you have had some way of knowing that that was the case? 2608: 2344: 1994: 1781: 3206: 2026: 1202:. Whether it be here or there it would probably be more beneficial to have the discussion in one place 1158:

I would like to propose a policy that bans real money financial award constests and campaigns (such as

86:. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either 3289: 2746: 2577: 1946: 1298: 1170: 3510: 3481: 3458: 3448: 3420: 3402: 3368: 3346: 3328: 3306: 3292: 3278: 3259: 3209: 3189: 3157: 3143: 3110: 3100: 3070: 3030: 3020: 3002: 2978: 2967: 2952: 2937: 2922: 2902: 2883: 2852: 2842: 2827: 2817: 2799: 2775: 2761: 2750: 2729: 2692: 2659: 2637: 2613: 2580: 2569: 2553: 2542: 2532: 2522: 2504: 2477: 2436: 2423: 2404: 2386: 2367: 2352: 2315: 2297: 2271: 2252: 2228: 2211: 2197: 2174: 2145: 2130: 2095: 2081: 2066: 2046: 2033: 2017: 1998: 1982: 1950: 1915: 1892: 1883: 1857: 1835: 1817: 1785: 1763: 1740: 1704: 1689: 1668: 1651: 1628: 1611: 1596: 1575: 1561: 1546: 1527: 1507: 1483: 1395: 1375: 1347: 1319: 1302: 1261: 1234: 1211: 1189: 1174: 3417: 3275: 3154: 2772: 2073: 2010: 1990: 1907: 1887: 1826:

I was talking about. I don't know why I put that. It was some sort of Cat-related article, though.

1315: 3440: 3432: 3497:

should be used with every identifiable image of a living person, yet this is not the case (yet).

3478: 3397: 3302: 3095: 2918: 2493: 2172: 1911: 1853: 1831: 1802: 1736: 1685: 1646: 1592: 1503: 3315:, most contain some quality of secondary sources, but are primarily primary sources, apart from 2871: 2834: 2791: 3502: 3445: 3107: 3062: 3046: 3027: 2998: 2975: 2949: 2894: 2875: 2849: 2824: 2814: 2758: 2566: 2207: 2141: 2062: 1759: 1700: 1664: 1607: 1557: 1523: 1388: 1371: 1343: 1257: 1185: 3081: 1621:; for most reality TV shows, going into the "drama" of an episode is generally not needed. -- 1278: 3455: 3233: 3228:

for those who have not been following the discussion. Basically, the issues are as follows:

3225: 2711: 2600: 2433: 2382: 2287: 2187: 2120: 2072:

This is changable in your preferences, and Mediawiki talk, etc is not the default setting.

1777: 1209: 3221: 3216:

What would happen if tomorrow, you were barred from directly citing peer-reviewed journals?

3164: 2810: 1618: 1286: 3364: 3323: 3285: 3199: 3174: 2742: 2719: 2401: 2363: 1942: 1294: 1166: 3412:

it is being used. Furthermore, the definitions may be different depending on the field.—

2948:

I'm starting this as a new section because I believe it is worthy of its own category. -

2595: 2591: 1442: 1431: 1423: 1409:

regarding what to do with the page. One group of editors wanted to redirect the page to

1224:

Money rewards are fine, I just wish they did not advertise it at the top of every page.

3473: 3413: 3271: 3267: 3041:

I have had a number of articles listed as candidates for transwiki to wiktionary (e.g.

2267: 2043: 2030: 1979: 1934: 1478: 1359: 1311: 3436: 3428: 3240: 3058: 1435: 1410: 1282: 3391: 3341: 3298: 3089: 2964: 2914: 2489: 2312: 2225: 2167: 2163: 1930: 1849: 1827: 1732: 1680: 1640: 1587: 1499: 3498: 3316: 2994: 2689: 2656: 2634: 2550: 2529: 2474: 2203: 2137: 2092: 2058: 1755: 1696: 1660: 1603: 1553: 1519: 1384: 1367: 1339: 1253: 1181: 1460:

where people can ask more questions. That page has fairly high volume of traffic.

3128:

Thanks and happy holidays. i will send you my nasty email from said moderator.

1797: 3251: 3050: 2378: 2281: 2181: 2159: 2114: 1841: 1571: 1542: 1203: 3360: 3320: 3250:

Any comments for or against these proposals are welcome on the NOR talk page.

2715: 2539: 2519: 2359: 2155: 1772:

and they belong there. Can you give an example of what you call a pet name in

1622: 3312: 3042: 2263: 2040:

Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review#:Category:Wikipedians by contact information

1938: 1678:

sources as that would be an analytic, interpretive, and evaluative claim. --

1473: 2741:

differently unless their behavior is somehow disruptive to the community.

1289:

etc. The existence of these policies refutes KingTurtle's assertion that:

3337: 3151: 2630: 1363: 1659:

research" thing struck me as being a little odd, which is why I queried.

2549:"complaints appear to be baseless" which amounts to saying "go away". 2455:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for mediation/Northern Ireland flag usage

3239:

Should NOR impose a "super-verifiability" requirement over and above

2414: 2410: 2180:

thing, WikiProjects will be wanting to use this space for promotion.

1568: 1539: 2234:

I've moved the list across and changed the link. The new list is

1769: 2990:

the way the mental illness or addiction affected job performance.

1291:

Real money means a mega-millionaire could reward a particular POV

1898:

Capitalizing "The" in reference to Denominations/Organizations

1845: 1823: 1773: 1750: 1727: 1876:

Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman

90:

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

2790:

their experience on Knowledge (XXG). Or they go on massive

1798:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/Category:Felis_silvestris_catus

1381:

If a title is screamed, you know it's a bad suggestion :) --

1180:

If you don't like it, you don't have to participate in it.--

82:

This page contains discussions that have been archived from

3054: 1496:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Disruptive editing#Blocking consensus

1470:

Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Guideline_page_-_proposal

2025:

Per the above suggestion, please continue discussion on

3170:

I have been away for a short time, and I find that the

2560:

How to deal with users of questionable mental stability

1796:

Jedibob may be referring to some of the image names in

1635:

Masem, I'm pretty sure you missed out a very important

1534: 1200:

Wikipedia_talk:The_Core_Contest#This_contest_offends_me

87: 2943:

New mental illness in established admins and editors

2655:

malicious editor will try to use that as an excuse.

2958:The question seems loaded. Most abusive editors do 2429:

The Veropedia crew see themselves as above the law.

2459:Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view#Undue weight 1874:A new policy proposal is under way, spun off from 3037:Transwiki to Wiktionary - when is it appropriate? 1456:Lastly, the guideline page can provide a link to 1726:On a number of pet related articles I've seen, ( 2258:Worth mentioning there's related discussion at 1923:Knowledge (XXG):Manual of style#Article titles 1972:Category:Wikipedians available through Jabber 8: 3373:The confusion over the difference between a 1673:There should be no "Plot/Twist" sections in 1458:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources/Noticeboard 1419:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources/Noticeboard 3061:but thought more detail might be in order. 2686:they are mentally ill in the first place??? 1964:Category:Wikipedians by contact information 1844:, that's right. Don't know why I put just " 1464:To see how this suggestion could work, see 1968:Category:Wikipedians available through AIM 2150:There are some pretty popular user names 2027:WT:CFD#Wikipedians by contact information 3126:phone number removed for privacy reasons 1447:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable source examples 1415:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable source examples 1154:Keep money awards out of Knowledge (XXG) 1880:Knowledge (XXG):Private correspondence 1869:Knowledge (XXG):Private correspondence 1639:in the above, just before the link. — 1619:supposed to describe every plot detail 1513:TV/film articles and original research 1385:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 3472:This comes up becomes the article on 2260:Knowledge (XXG) talk:The Core Contest 1768:The only names I found were names of 1407:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Reliable sources 18:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy) 7: 3076:In case you haven't found them yet, 2471:Knowledge (XXG):No original research 1675:Dancing with the Stars (US season 5) 1401:Reliable sources guideline proposal 3477:distribute nude photos of minors. 2453:In the (extensive!) discussion at 1957:Wikipedians by contact information 24: 1617:Furthermore, remember that WP is 1533:For clarity, she is referring to 3088:provide some information. HTH — 1160:Knowledge (XXG):The Core Contest 2457:, one problem came up for me. 2247: 2104:Veropedia Watchlist Advertising 1498:. Input and opinions welcomed. 2598:process, whenever possible. – 2241: 1228: 1: 3421:23:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 3403:16:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 3369:14:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 3347:14:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 3329:14:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 3307:14:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 3293:01:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 3279:00:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 3260:00:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 3101:15:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 3071:18:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 3021:06:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC) 3003:04:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 2979:09:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 2968:14:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 2953:09:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 2938:06:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC) 2923:17:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC) 2903:06:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 2884:11:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 2853:08:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 2843:21:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2828:20:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2818:19:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2813:policy is partly to blame. - 2800:16:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2776:21:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2762:20:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2751:16:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2730:20:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC) 2693:15:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2660:15:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2638:13:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2614:08:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2581:07:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2570:06:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2478:22:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 2449:How do we measure due weight? 2387:23:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC) 2368:19:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 2353:18:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 2298:14:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC) 2272:11:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC) 2253:16:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 2229:16:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 2212:16:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 2198:16:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 2175:15:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 2146:15:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 2131:15:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 2096:17:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 2082:09:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 2067:06:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 2047:20:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 2034:03:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC) 2018:22:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 1999:09:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 1983:06:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 1951:22:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC) 1916:21:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC) 1893:19:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC) 1858:21:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 1836:21:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 1818:21:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1786:00:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 1764:00:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 1741:23:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 1705:23:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 1690:16:38, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 1669:14:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 1652:17:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 1629:14:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 1612:14:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 1597:12:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 1576:04:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 1562:04:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 1547:03:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 1528:03:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 1508:21:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1484:16:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1405:There has been discussion on 1396:18:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1376:18:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1348:20:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1320:17:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1303:17:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1262:16:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1235:16:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1212:15:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1190:15:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 1175:15:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC) 78:Village pump (policy) archive 3511:17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 3482:16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 3459:19:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 3449:17:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 3210:22:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 3190:17:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 3158:15:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 3144:15:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 3111:16:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 3031:23:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 2554:05:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 2543:05:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 2533:04:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 2523:04:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 2505:06:05, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 2437:00:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 2424:05:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 2405:04:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 2316:04:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 2006:are not permanently archived 1226: 3495:personality rights template 3527: 2465:". So how do we actually 2339:, but does it really make 1466:User:Aude/Reliable_sources 1316:(&#55304;&#56435;) 2710:?: I would like to offer 2108:There is an advertisment 1749:I've just looked through 1624: 3220:The controversy over at 2409:Veropedia reminds me of 1438:. No divergent wording. 1430:Some concerns regarding 3119:Freecycling is not fair 3086:Encyclopedic dictionary 3078:Use–mention distinction 2485:Oxford University Press 2337:when running a business 95:< Older discussions 3464:photographs of minors 2326:Geographical question 1878:. It can be found at 1436:WP:V#Reliable sources 84:Village pump (policy) 3082:Knowledge (XXG):Stub 3011:with others. NIGEDO 2928:with others. NIGEDO 2341:no difference at all 1489:Destroying consensus 1468:. Discussion is at 1426:guideline page. 2596:dispute resolution 2592:admin noticeboards 2154:for this contest ( 3400: 3395: 3345: 3256: 3146: 3134:comment added by 3127: 3098: 3093: 2732: 2502: 2496: 2473:, would it not? 2245: 2110:in our watchlists 1822:Sorry, it wasn't 1649: 1644: 1482: 1318: 3518: 3398: 3393: 3335: 3326: 3254: 3234:secondary source 3204: 3198: 3184:Anthony.bradbury 3179: 3173: 3129: 3125: 3096: 3091: 2807:it needs to stop 2723: 2712:Valery Fabrikant 2690:Thor Malmjursson 2635:Thor Malmjursson 2612: 2605: 2514:Uncivil comments 2500: 2494: 2345:Francis Schonken 2332:the Dilbert blog 2284: 2249: 2246: 2243: 2184: 2170: 2117: 2013: 1890: 1816: 1812: 1805: 1647: 1642: 1626: 1476: 1393: 1391: 1314: 1232: 1230: 79: 54: 3526: 3525: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3466: 3324: 3218: 3202: 3196: 3177: 3171: 3168: 3121: 3039: 2945: 2601: 2599: 2562: 2516: 2451: 2328: 2282: 2182: 2168: 2115: 2106: 2054: 2009: 1959: 1900: 1888: 1872: 1815: 1810: 1803: 1801: 1723: 1537:removal by me. 1515: 1491: 1450:needed anymore. 1403: 1394: 1389: 1383: 1156: 1151: 80: 77: 74: 48: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3524: 3522: 3514: 3513: 3492: 3489:good guideline 3487:Commons has a 3474:skinny dipping 3465: 3462: 3452: 3451: 3424: 3423: 3356: 3355: 3354: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3331: 3268:cherry picking 3248: 3247: 3244: 3237: 3217: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3167: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3120: 3117: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3059:Help:Transwiki 3038: 3035: 3034: 3033: 3013:78.144.179.191 3008: 3007: 3006: 3005: 2982: 2981: 2956: 2955: 2944: 2941: 2930:78.144.179.191 2908: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2887: 2886: 2866: 2865: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2840:91.110.230.131 2797:91.110.169.154 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2765: 2764: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2584: 2583: 2561: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2538:In what way?-- 2536: 2535: 2515: 2512: 2510: 2508: 2507: 2450: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2426: 2417:acquired it. - 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2371: 2370: 2327: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2256: 2255: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2105: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2085: 2084: 2074:Dragons flight 2053: 2050: 2038:Now listed at 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2011:John Broughton 1958: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1935:United Kingdom 1899: 1896: 1889:Lawrence Cohen 1871: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1807: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1744: 1743: 1722: 1719: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1514: 1511: 1490: 1487: 1462: 1461: 1454: 1451: 1439: 1402: 1399: 1382: 1379: 1378: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1323: 1322: 1306: 1305: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1242: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1193: 1192: 1155: 1152: 92: 76: 75: 73: 72: 71: 70: 65: 60: 55: 43: 38: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3523: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3496: 3490: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3483: 3480: 3475: 3470: 3463: 3461: 3460: 3457: 3450: 3447: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3425: 3422: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3401: 3396: 3388: 3384: 3380: 3377:source and a 3376: 3371: 3370: 3366: 3362: 3348: 3343: 3339: 3332: 3330: 3327: 3322: 3318: 3317:review papers 3314: 3311:In my field, 3310: 3309: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3291: 3287: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3261: 3258: 3257: 3245: 3242: 3238: 3235: 3231: 3230: 3229: 3227: 3223: 3215: 3211: 3208: 3201: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3188: 3186: 3185: 3176: 3166: 3163: 3159: 3156: 3153: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3136:70.240.222.20 3133: 3118: 3112: 3109: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3099: 3094: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3072: 3068: 3064: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3044: 3036: 3032: 3029: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2991: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2980: 2977: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2966: 2961: 2954: 2951: 2947: 2946: 2942: 2940: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2925: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2911: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2868: 2867: 2854: 2851: 2846: 2845: 2844: 2841: 2836: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2826: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2798: 2793: 2789: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2777: 2774: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2766: 2763: 2760: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2749: 2748: 2744: 2731: 2728:was added at 2727: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2694: 2691: 2688: 2687: 2685: 2678: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2661: 2658: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2639: 2636: 2632: 2628: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2615: 2610: 2606: 2604: 2597: 2593: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2582: 2579: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2568: 2559: 2555: 2552: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2541: 2534: 2531: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2521: 2513: 2511: 2506: 2503: 2497: 2491: 2486: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2476: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2448: 2438: 2435: 2430: 2427: 2425: 2422: 2421: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2403: 2398: 2397: 2396: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2333: 2325: 2317: 2314: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2299: 2295: 2292: 2289: 2285: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2254: 2251: 2250: 2237: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2227: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2195: 2192: 2189: 2185: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2173: 2171: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2128: 2125: 2122: 2118: 2111: 2103: 2097: 2094: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2083: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2051: 2049: 2048: 2045: 2041: 2036: 2035: 2032: 2028: 2019: 2016: 2012: 2007: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1931:United States 1928: 1924: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1904: 1897: 1895: 1894: 1891: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1870: 1867: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1814: 1813: 1806: 1804:Corvus cornix 1799: 1795: 1794: 1787: 1783: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1752: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1729: 1725: 1724: 1720: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1682: 1676: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1666: 1662: 1657: 1653: 1650: 1645: 1638: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1627: 1620: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1594: 1590: 1589: 1583: 1577: 1574: 1573: 1570: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1550: 1549: 1548: 1545: 1544: 1541: 1536: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1512: 1510: 1509: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1488: 1486: 1485: 1480: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1459: 1455: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1440: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1425: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1400: 1398: 1397: 1392: 1386: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1358:I agree with 1357: 1356: 1349: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1324: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1308: 1307: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1273: 1272: 1263: 1259: 1255: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1236: 1233: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1213: 1210: 1207: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1163: 1161: 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: 3471: 3467: 3453: 3446:Shirahadasha 3433:significance 3409: 3386: 3385:sources and 3382: 3378: 3374: 3372: 3357: 3252: 3249: 3219: 3183: 3169: 3122: 3108:Sarsaparilla 3063:Sarsaparilla 3040: 3028:Cyborg Ninja 3009: 2989: 2976:Cyborg Ninja 2959: 2957: 2950:Cyborg Ninja 2926: 2912: 2909: 2895:Shirahadasha 2876:Phil Bridger 2850:Cyborg Ninja 2825:Cyborg Ninja 2815:Cyborg Ninja 2806: 2787: 2759:Cyborg Ninja 2745: 2739: 2707: 2683: 2681: 2680: 2676: 2626: 2602: 2567:Cyborg Ninja 2563: 2537: 2517: 2509: 2466: 2462: 2452: 2428: 2418: 2340: 2329: 2290: 2257: 2239: 2222: 2190: 2151: 2123: 2107: 2055: 2037: 2024: 2005: 1960: 1926: 1905: 1901: 1886:. Thanks. • 1873: 1808: 1679: 1636: 1586: 1567: 1538: 1516: 1492: 1463: 1411:WP:V#Sources 1404: 1380: 1335: 1331: 1290: 1274: 1164: 1157: 403: 368: 97: 93: 81: 30:Village pump 28: 3456:Kim Bruning 3387:Wiki Type B 3383:Wiki Type A 3130:—Preceding 3051:face saving 2724:—Preceding 2682:How do you 2603:Luna Santin 2461:says that " 2434:Sagaciousuk 2008:at all. -- 1989:themselves. 1842:Bicolor cat 1778:PrimeHunter 3429:notability 3286:dave souza 2578:Jon Roland 2402:Matt Lewis 2224:go ahead. 1943:EdJohnston 1929:Examples: 1884:WP:PRIVATE 1295:IvoShandor 1167:Kingturtle 100:Archives: 51:persistent 3441:WP:SIGNIF 3414:Viriditas 3379:secondary 3313:astronomy 3272:Viriditas 3226:talk page 3043:cattiness 2244:LIMINATOR 2052:Searching 2044:Ned Scott 2031:Ned Scott 1980:Ned Scott 1939:The Hague 1721:Pet names 1332:a Message 46:Proposals 41:Technical 3299:Dsmdgold 3132:unsigned 3047:tattling 2965:Dcoetzee 2915:Jtrainor 2872:WP:CIVIL 2835:WP:POINT 2792:WP:POINT 2773:Wikidemo 2631:Paranoia 2501:contribs 2490:Jayron32 2313:Gentgeen 2226:Moreschi 2169:xaosflux 2164:Walkerma 1991:Wikidemo 1908:Macdonde 1850:Jedibob5 1828:Jedibob5 1733:Jedibob5 1500:Vassyana 1364:Squamata 58:Idea lab 3499:Puchiko 3375:primary 3207:W.marsh 2995:3Tigers 2726:comment 2708:Example 2677:Comment 2657:Caknuck 2627:Comment 2551:GRBerry 2530:WaltCip 2475:Andrwsc 2467:measure 2204:Rjd0060 2152:dropped 2138:Rjd0060 2093:Mbisanz 2059:Mbisanz 1840:It was 1756:Rjd0060 1697:3Tigers 1661:3Tigers 1604:3Tigers 1554:3Tigers 1520:3Tigers 1368:Jwinius 1340:llywrch 1336:Message 1279:WP:NPOV 1275:Comment 1254:Rjd0060 1182:WaltCip 3479:Wryspy 3222:WP:NOR 3200:db-bio 3175:speedy 3165:WP:CSD 3155:(Talk) 2811:WP:AGF 2788:ruined 2528:Yes.-- 2415:Viacom 2413:after 2411:Neopia 2379:Golbez 2283:Lurker 2183:Lurker 2162:, and 2160:Alison 2116:Lurker 1970:, and 1770:breeds 1572:(talk) 1543:(talk) 1338:.) -- 1287:WP:NOR 36:Policy 3507:email 3361:linas 2747:Cobra 2743:Glass 2716:YegLi 2540:Filll 2520:Filll 2420:Jéské 2360:Danny 2156:Danny 2042:. -- 2029:. -- 1681:Farix 1588:Farix 1443:WP:RS 1432:WP:RS 1424:WP:RS 1390:talk 88:start 16:< 3503:Talk 3439:and 3437:WP:N 3431:and 3418:Talk 3394:MALL 3365:talk 3342:talk 3321:Wily 3303:talk 3290:talk 3276:Talk 3255:GDEN 3241:WP:V 3140:talk 3092:MALL 3084:and 3067:talk 3017:talk 2999:talk 2934:talk 2919:talk 2899:talk 2880:talk 2720:talk 2684:know 2609:talk 2495:talk 2383:talk 2364:talk 2349:talk 2294:done 2288:said 2268:talk 2264:Halo 2236:here 2208:talk 2194:done 2188:said 2142:talk 2127:done 2121:said 2078:talk 2063:talk 2015:(♫♫) 1995:talk 1976:here 1947:talk 1937:but 1921:See 1912:talk 1854:talk 1832:talk 1811:talk 1782:talk 1760:talk 1737:talk 1701:talk 1686:Talk 1665:talk 1643:MALL 1625:ASEM 1608:talk 1593:Talk 1558:talk 1535:this 1524:talk 1504:talk 1479:talk 1474:Aude 1472:. -- 1441:The 1417:and 1372:talk 1366:? -- 1344:talk 1299:talk 1283:WP:V 1258:talk 1204:Agne 1186:talk 1171:talk 3410:how 3399:JIM 3338:CBM 3319:. 3152:Tra 3097:JIM 2960:not 2722:) 1848:." 1846:Cat 1824:Cat 1800:. 1774:cat 1751:Cat 1728:Cat 1648:JIM 1637:not 1360:dab 1312:dab 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 3509:) 3416:| 3390:— 3367:) 3340:· 3305:) 3288:, 3274:| 3253:CO 3205:-- 3203:}} 3197:{{ 3181:-- 3178:}} 3172:{{ 3142:) 3080:, 3069:) 3055:yo 3049:, 3045:, 3019:) 3001:) 2936:) 2921:) 2901:) 2882:) 2385:) 2377:-- 2366:) 2351:) 2296:) 2270:) 2248:JR 2238:. 2210:) 2196:) 2158:, 2144:) 2129:) 2080:) 2065:) 1997:) 1966:, 1949:) 1941:. 1933:, 1925:: 1914:) 1906:-- 1856:) 1834:) 1784:) 1776:? 1762:) 1739:) 1703:) 1688:) 1667:) 1610:) 1595:) 1585:-- 1560:) 1526:) 1506:) 1374:) 1346:) 1301:) 1285:, 1281:, 1260:) 1229:!= 1227:1 1188:) 1173:) 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:, 3505:- 3501:( 3392:S 3363:( 3344:) 3336:( 3325:D 3301:( 3236:? 3138:( 3090:S 3065:( 3015:( 2997:( 2932:( 2917:( 2897:( 2878:( 2718:( 2611:) 2607:( 2498:| 2492:| 2381:( 2362:( 2347:( 2291:· 2286:( 2266:( 2262:- 2242:E 2206:( 2191:· 2186:( 2140:( 2124:· 2119:( 2076:( 2061:( 1993:( 1945:( 1910:( 1882:/ 1852:( 1830:( 1780:( 1758:( 1735:( 1699:( 1684:( 1663:( 1641:S 1623:M 1606:( 1591:( 1569:I 1556:( 1540:I 1522:( 1502:( 1481:) 1477:( 1387:| 1370:( 1342:( 1297:( 1256:( 1231:2 1208:/ 1184:( 1169:( 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 9 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index