Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)/Archive 24

3226:

such programs with all sorts of metrics and tags. How on earth would we pick and choose which sorts of programs to facilitate or work with or adopt their labeling? Why would we pick ICRA? How would we keep it up to date? And those programs have their own different internal sets, too. We'd have to develop our own labeling system and then the commercial censorware programs would develop interpretations -- omg what a pain. We should just have content and people can use whatever censorware they want. Censorware is already available to let people filter out words and images. We don't need to do a da*n thing to facilitate it. Second, community-wise, seriously. We have massive community flame-wars just over merging TV episodes to a list; can you imagine the horror if we started labeling sexual health content, LGBT content, "controversial" political content, and so on? Endless nightmares. --

1885:. I should read the link that Smalljim has pointed to. As for sophistication of the reader, it's obvious that all kinds of people read Knowledge (XXG) and that they come from a range of educational backgrounds. But we should not assume that they are unable to learn about these things just as we did ourselves when we knew less. The example of the small town in India is in a different category altogether from Mumbai, which everyone should know is in India. It seems really condescending to me when obvious details are put in articles simply for the sake of the uneducated. A little like speaking really loud and slowly to someone who doesn't know your language. Not to criticize some good points that have been made to the contrary. Thanks for the pointer, W.marsh. 1520:

writing you are doing, all international journalism, reports, papers etc will include a country to establish context, it's just common sense. It gives context to the article, allows the readership from all over the world to understand where is being discussed immediately, and just makes good sense. For the example of Manchester, New Hampshire it is established in the first sentence that it is in the United States (though not necessarily massively clearly to those unfamiliar with the US state system like most people from outside the US, but at least there is something.) I see no reason to not include a country for context in any article that discusses a location, and every reason to include it. The article that prompted this discussion was

2437:) to a page (and possibly the talk) of certain articles? So if a child browses to an article that has the presence of nudity, sexual content, depiction of violence, explicit language, or other potentially harmful content such as gambling, drugs and alcohol, we have the standard ratings applied so such content can be filtered if desired. While it is not our policy to protect anyone from potentially harmful material, should we not have the ratings in place to allow parents to make those choices? The parent would be the censor, not us. It seems to me that this would be the responsible thing for an online encyclopedia to do. 2313:. If your password still works, log in with it and immediately change your password; this will lock out whoever got in to it. If your password no longer works, try sending a password reminder to your e-mail address - hopefully it won't already have been changed. If neither of these work, you will no longer be able to access your account, although if the actions as mentioned above are taking place, the account will probably be blocked, which will prevent further misuse. It's not possible to delete accounts on Knowledge (XXG), I'm afraid. 3075:

be able to filter using standard technologies. They can do so with more sophisticated proprietary software they have to purchase. Your not stopping it, your just saying you don't want to make it easier for them to make that choice. As for the picture example, removing such a picture would be against the "Knowledge (XXG) is not censored" policy, unless it had no value in the article at which point it might be argued that it is better off without it. This is not unlike any other discussion of image inclusion.

2851:

Knowledge (XXG) is what it is. If we want to protect children, we should work to make parents aware that there is material on Knowledge (XXG) that is potentially controversial or offensive. Trying to keep on top of rating all the content of all our pages won't work. It would generate only an illusory sense of security. The first time someone posts a picture of a penis under a CHILD-SAFE ARTICLE banner, not only would we have failed to protect anyone, we also shoot our credibility in the foot.

3680:... I support the basic idea behind the proposal. No, it would not be perfect, but nothing in Knowledge (XXG) is. Yes, it would make us vulnerable to vandalism, but (shock) we are already, it would not increase that. As for implementation, the devil is in the details, of course. It would need to be per-page, and it would need to be easy to apply, and it would probably require a developer hack. So it probably won't happen. :-(. But for what it's worth, I support the idea. -- 1701:

talk page message for every fact tag (it's pretty self-explanatory), and the alternative to not putting one is to delete the sentence, as I could not verify it. That means someone with access to different material than I have wouldn't have the opportunity to fix it, because they might not have known about that fact. Tags are really useful—both to editors and readers—so that we know what to fix or so we can warn readers that what they are reading might have an issue.

3868:

violence. For example, a user can set the Content Adviser to "nudity rating 2," which allows "partial nudity" but not "frontal nudity." This approach appears to be inconsistent with the predominant current of thought on Knowledge (XXG), which is that nude images -- for example -- should be included or not included based on its "encyclopedic nature" rather than on whether it is frontal, rear or whatever.

2385:), it last edited in 2006 so although he's not currently blocked, it's unlikely they will edit further. I have blanked the talk page so that when the acount name is searched for in Google, you won't see the pictures added listed, unless you know what you are doing and look into the page history. I'm sorry, there's not much else I can do since there's no way for you to prove ownership of the account. 3691:

Knowledge (XXG) and try to present the best; see today's FA on the main page. A truly, absolutist, non-censured, free speech text would include all the nonsense that is dumped into Knowledge (XXG) hourly. We remove it freely. We call our censoring 'vandal-fighting'. Seriously, labeling content would allow parents the freedom to act responsibly by providing information. Cheers!

2552:

start judging the content of the articles we write in terms of suitability for children? Something else- what about fundamentalist Christians who may not appreciate their children viewing information about atheism? What about fundamentalist Muslims who may not want their children seeing a woman's face uncovered? If you ask me, censorship is Pandora's box. Don't even go there.

2780:

categories are specific enough that there would likely be little dispute and the vast majority of people don't use any filtering so there would be little to gain in applying a improper rating. It would be treated like any other form of vandalism. You wouldn't have to apply this to every article. Apply it to the articles where it makes sense. Give the control to the editors.

3770:

filtered out inappropriate content actually only filtered out 50% or 80% of the inappropriateness. For an open wiki like this, the only way for people to verify whether the content is really inappropriate is to look at it. I also agree with those that predict that this will cause huge edit wars all over wikipedia as varying factions argue over what should be labelled.

3658:." RSS news feeds, blogs, shared bookmarks and many other technologies are based on RDF and related standards. In order to facilitate filtering for parents using PICS filters (such as Microsoft Internet Explorer's Content Advisor), since January 2006 ICRA has also provided a simplified PICS interpretation of the current vocabulary alongside the RDF labels. 3654:(RDF) as defined by the World Wide Web Consortium. Specifically, ICRA was instrumental in defining and now uses RDF Content Labels, a generic platform designed to support digital labels and trustmarks of all kinds. Use of RDF means that ICRA labels are part of a much bigger global effort to make sense of the mass of online data known as the " 1525:

those outside the US. It must be noted the majority of these articles (simply by the demographics of editors) that don't have countries are US ones created by US editors. I can't see an article that mentions a location in Zimbabwe for instance not having the country, no one would know where was being discussed.

1722:

condescending. You'd never see "Hawaii, USA" in the Economist, even though it's not a US publication, because they assume an educated readership. My question is, is there a relevant policy of Knowledge (XXG)? Can someone direct me to a page from the manual of style so that I can find out more information?

2720:. He's a nice, child-safe topic. It gets the green light—kids can read it, it's got nothing naughty. What happens if someone adds a discussion about the sexual themes in Browning's dramatic monologues to the article? That person might not change the article rating to reflect the new content. Eventually 3014:?? What's the point, then, of having a content ratings system anyway? "Sure, come visit our encyclopedia, but you have to vet the articles before showing them to your kids, because the content ratings might not be there, or they might be wrong." How exactly is that different than what we have now? -- 3837:

depict full-frontal nudity, yes or no? I've had folks argue that it does, even though she's covered by her hair. So, now we introduce a new form of Wikilawyering: does X fall under category Y or Z of the ICRA? It doesn't solve anything, and just introduces more stuff for people to argue over. And, as

3802:

are based on the social needs of the USA and the UK. This is not, in any definition of the word, inclusive for the entire world. As someone stated above, Germany would not accept the US/UK levels of violence nor would the US/UK accept Sweden's level of nudity. This would not be useful to nations with

3769:

My computer science professors taught me that a false sense of security is actually worse than having no security system in place, because with a crappy security system people THINK they are safe and are not as watchful. As a parent, I'd be awfully ticked off to find out that a software I **thought**

3563:

Sorry for calling your argument an excuse but you labeled it as a fact with nothing to support such an assumption. We're not talking about every article, but a very small group that would be relatively easy to identify and manage. Why should we restrict this? Why not let editors do this if they so

3544:

Calling other people's arguments & concerns "excuses" is a good example of a fallacious argument. Instead of merely attacking-by-labeling, why don't you give us a positive reason to do it, other than "it seems the responsible thing for an online encyclopedia to do"? There are numerous technical,

3244:

Almost all content filter programs can utilize ICRA. You wouldn't have to create anything. The technology is simple and a common Internet standard. I can't understand this argument about keeping this up to date. This is wikipedia and what we do best. Excuses, Excuses, nothing would get done pessimism

3173:

I'm still not sure you're understanding my point. By the time someone's child has seen that article with a penis on it, their technology and the content ratings system is completely and utterly useless. What you are saying is that in order for the content ratings to work, parents who want to use it

2865:

We wouldn't need to tag every article, very far from it. You also wouldn't have a banner. They would see the penis either way. However, you could apply it to articles that make sense. No banners, nothing to see... if they have the content filtering turn on, and they come to an article with such a

2811:

qualified to even hint at such an assertion. Most web sites vet their own content before it goes live. That does not happen here. It's ludicrous for us to have a mechanism that announces some pages are unequivocally safe for children when a vandal or POV-pusher can for minutes, hours, or days at a

2697:

Bascially what you just wrote is a rehash of the arguments that vandalism, ignorance, and incompetence will obviously destroy any knowledge gathering effort that relies on the open participation of volunteers. Funny, I seem to remember some very successful encyclopedia project that demonstrated that

1987:

editors for disrupting the encyclopedia? Most likely somewhere in between, but leaning in which direction? The more I read policy discussions the clearer it is becoming to me that there is basic disagreement as to what level we want "policy" to reflect. It might be useful to clarify this if possible.

1300:

Also there is such a plethora of information, it is not well organized in the site, its taken me three months to discover that there is a general discussion forum. and 'community portal' a simple link to a reference guide that tells me what every kind of tag does, would be helpful. I agree that it

1296:

I am very much a newbie in the area of editing articles What would be very nice and helpful is a simple reference of what each tag does, and how to add it in Also, in trying to find information *about* editing articles it is very hard. Everything in Knowledge (XXG) about Knowledge (XXG) is a Wiki -

3497:

Is that how we'd sell this? "Knowledge (XXG), now with content ratings on a small section of articles, if the volunteers around here want to add them, and make sure they are correct, and make sure they haven't been vandalized." Wouldn't it be more honest to at least tell it like it is? "Knowledge

3057:

Totally wrong in principle. This is supporting the worst tendencies in those who wish to censor the internet. The limited view that would result is would be a parody of WP. It would bias editing: we would find people arguing we should remove an image of, say, exposed breasts, so the page wouldn't be

2977:

rating. It would hardly be difficult to do with a bot and would increase Knowledge (XXG)'s accessibility by allowing access to those who want a filtered view while maintaining transparency. I can't see maintenance of the tags causing much overhead. In fact, we already have vandal bots that hunt down

3884:

material. My idea was that NSFW content be placed "below the fold" (that is, not visible until you scroll down), with a warning template at the top and, when appropriate, an option to view the page without the NSFW material. The idea was dismissed because of -- you guessed it -- the "no censorship"

3867:

The ICRA may say that it is a buffet system, where people can pick and choose what they want to ban. My understanding is, though, that the most widely known application of the ICRA ratings is in Internet Explorer, where they are converted into a series of sliding scales on language, nudity, sex and

3864:

organization on its own initiative wants to enter Knowledge (XXG) URLs into a database based on criteria they have drawn up, that's their prerogative. If we do it, or if we adapt our code to sort their purposes, we are actually participating in the process, which raises a whole other set of issues.

3863:

I like how this proposal, as opposed to some of the other content-rating proposals that have appeared here over the years, does not seem to cast judgments, as Morphh states. However, I don't think it's that simple. Tagging pages with ICRA criteria would imply endorsement of the ICRA system. If some

3817:

I think you misunderstand. The ratings are a description of the data, not a judgement. Internet standards refer to the technology used and integrated into products like Internet Explorer. Judgement is determined by the end user and that is country / family / person independent. An article would

3724:

it should never be tagged at all, according to anyone standards. This is a direct violation of NOT CENSORED. Tagging is a form of censorship, and inevitably leads to more overt censorship. We prevent nobody from filtering,but they must add whatever they need by themselves. We'd as soon attach tags:

3462:

Good point: anyone has the right to fork Knowledge (XXG) under the GFDL. If you want to set up a complete copy of all our articles that has a ratings system, there's nothing stopping you, but making swarms of Knowledge (XXG) editors acheive goals of content presentation that run contrary to content

3225:

Hear, hear, Kbdank71. As for adding content or attempting to label or tag content to facilitate various censorware programs -- oh my god, what a disaster. Even if this were a good idea policy-wise (it's not), it's a horrible idea technology-wise and Wiki-community-wise. First, there are a gajillion

3074:

So we should force this view on everyone and remove their personal choice to filter using open technologies. This is the other extreme of censoring. Forced censorsed or forced uncensored. Respect what the reader chooses to filter - it is there personal choice. Why should we decide that they not

3025:

There may be nothing to fix if they are offended - that's the way the article is if it is uncensored, unless it is incorrect. How is this different from anything else on wikipedia? The content might not be there or it may be wrong - it's Knowledge (XXG) and it has been shown to do well despite such

2819:

say is "This page ought to usually be safe for children, but may – from time to time – contain objectionable material. The page may occasionally be vandalized, and you might be looking at a penis. Sorry about that. On the other hand, this very rating may in fact be the creation of a vandal, and

2574:

article might be labeled for sex or nudity. We don't have to go crazy. This would likely be simpler then most content discussions and would be at the discretion of article editors. This is not censorship. This is choice. We're not censoring the material - we're only providing metadata so that

2424:

I understand that "Knowledge (XXG) is not censored" and agree with the policy. However, I don't know that we have taken any steps to allow parents / schools to easily make that choice for themselves - sort of an all or nothing. Should we not have templates or include code in the Category template

1672:

I think we need a policy allowing any such tags that are not backed up by an entry in the talk page to be removed on sight, and a bot to back it up. The effect of this would be that there were very few such tags; People considering putting one on would find it was normally less work to actually fix

3329:

That may be the most sensible approach. Knowledge (XXG)'s content – every last word – is freely available under the GFDL. Someone – and by 'someone' I mean an individual, a company, a nonprofit foundation, or a whole country – who would like to add content ratings can take a complete dump of the

3183:

Editors would keep up the tags just as they keep up content and once it is placed it will likely be the same tag. Parents are not under the false security that this protects them from everything. It is helpful and that's all it is. I say if editors want to add a nudity rating to an article that

2892:

Something has just occurred to me- what's the most objectionable content we have? What images do we have that could not be found in a standard school library? Some really offensive album covers or something? If we look at it from a school point of view (even a primary school) there are going to be

2673:

Any per-page rating would necessarily lag the page's content; the rating would not always reflect the material on the page, even discounting the obvious problem of vandalism. Ratings would be imposed by volunteers who may or may not be familiar with the rating system. POV pushers would know that

2602:

are objectively structured, e.g. "exposed breasts", "blood and dismemberment", etc. Some are subjective, but Knowledge (XXG) deals with subjective content disputes all the time. Even if we were to ignore the more subjective terms, I can't see how labeling images of "exposed genitalia" in a machine

1996:

should be rare (although still occassionally appropriate), but policies would be based not on what we'd like to happen but what we can realistically enforce under present circumstances. Much of this is part of unspoken Knowledge (XXG) culture. But if we could speak of it, we might be able to reach

1451:

Where can I find policy or simple guidelines on when it's necessary to include the county when identifying a city. Some editors feel it necessary to add the country to each and every mention of a city even when it's either obvious from the context of the article, or the city name is linked to an

3199:

I think I'm going to bow out now, as it seems that neither of us will convince the other. I will leave you with this, phrased differently, one last time: if nobody adds a nudity rating to an article that contains such, what is the point of this? If a parent feels comfortable letting their child

3131:

Metadata is not any different then content. Are they also relying on us to make sure the content is correct? We do our best and wikipedia is what it is. Finding the most obvious articles for tags would not be such a difficult task and would be easy to manage. The percentage of such content on

2528:

It probably is unlikely to happen here, partially because the content of pages can and actually is supposed to change. We would thus have to change the rating every time an image is changed. If one were to go ahead with your idea, though, it might not be a bad idea to create a program which would

2213:

had been marked as policy. Having some sort of automated announcement ensures community visibility of changes like this. The initial issues with repetitive announcements will be addressed, but shouldn't overshadow the benefits of having announcements when pages are promoted the first time. — Carl

1805:

Unless perhaps Modify is giving "Hanover, New Hampshire, United States" as a hypothetical title that contains the country name, and is saying titles like this one (but not necessarily this exact title) exist and are undesirable. Modify, If you could perhaps clarify what you mean, it would be much

1700:

I sometimes put a fact tag on a sentence because I have managed to source every other sentence in that paragraph except that one. By leaving the sentence without a fact tag, the reader could easily assume that the fact was covered by the next source, which is incorrect. I'm not about to leave a

1519:

I see no need to mention it in every mention of a location, but it should be mentioned the first time a location is mentioned in an article unless there is no possible way of someone, especially from outside that country, misinterpreting it. It's simply good writing practice no matter the kind of

3579:

Here is the short answer: You will not get consensus to do this or how to do it, and while that is a prediction, not a fact, I am willing to bet cold hard cash on it. The reasons why include: (1) it is controversial, (2) a lot harder than you suggest to make the judgment calls about which "small

2724:

might get around to updating the rating, but in the meantime the rating is worse than useless—it's flatly misleading. One could request a software change that stripped out ratings every time the article was edited, but most editors just wouldn't care enough to re-add them. How many editors are

2551:

and another element of the encyclopedia that people would have to worry about when writing. It's difficult enough for new users anyway- images are hell, categories are awkward, sourcing doesn't seem so important, NPOV can be difficult to get your head around... And now, you are proposing that we

1524:

to which I added that it was in the United States, and Rtphokie removed it again (in a good faith edit, this isn't a war or argument) saying the context was obvious from the article. I don't believe it is, not everyone knows what or where Texas is, nevermind the university at El Paso, especially

3741:

This is a Internet standard, not some selective made up criteria. It is not a violation of not censored as we do not sensor the content, we would change nothing on the content. It is metadata to describe the content and it would only effect those who choose to use the metadata to filter thier

3608:

I'm still mixed on whether or not this is a good idea, but I doubt you'd get the Wikimedia Foundation to go along with this, at least not the ICRA ratings. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they seem to use proprietary, copyrighted software. A plugin for the MediaWiki software might be possible, but

1861:

I think you're right, SmallJim, and that clears it up for me. I think putting the country name in articles about towns or provinces is a very good idea. I think we have to assume our readers are less sophisticated than the Economist does, simply because our readers could be anywhere, from any

1673:

the article themselves, assuming they had a case. And if they had no case, this would be obvious in their comments, and again the tag would be removed. They'd get sick of this. Or, if they had no case and decided to update the article anyway, they'd get reverted, and again they'd get sick of it.

3293:

This is a fucking brilliant proposal. This motherfucking comment is rated PG, and if any asshole disagrees, I'll bash his kneecap with a crowbar, pour half a bottle of cask-strength Whisky into me and the other onto the poor sob, and light a match...! As an alternative, there is not reason why

2850:

The problem is that if we can't be fully compliant, then the ratings would be worse than useless—they would be deceptive. We shouldn't pretend to be child-safe (or even to have child-safe pages) when – with our present software and policies – we simply can't make that guarantee. As you say,

1551:

One reason not to include a country name is in order not to be condescending when a general but educated readership can be expected to know what's going on; e.g., we all know that Beijing is in China and that Hawaii is in the United States. I started a thread on this below (see "Hanover, New

3690:

While it may not happen, ICRA tagging is not alien to what already happens on Knowledge (XXG). We already have two processes to rate the 'quality' of articles: GA and FA. We already have vandal-fighting bots that hunt down and revert instances of naughty words. In other words, we do clean-up

3147:

Correctness of content doesn't matter. The content ratings do. If a parent is using technology to keep their kids away from WP's naughty bits, they are relying on Knowledge (XXG) to make sure the ratings are correct, or else the use of the technology is pointless, as is the content ratings

2779:

Such a tag would likely have no performance hit, not lag as you describe. It would be smaller then most templates on an article. Regarding that it may not reflect content on the page, vandalism, etc... You're describing the challenges that happen on wikipedia every day in numerous areas. The

3043:

You wouldn't see any of it in the article as it would be a simple template tag at the top or bottom of the article. The code itself would cause little to no time lag (as TenOfAllTrades stated above, this was a misunderstanding of the term - he meant that the tag wouldn't necessarily remain

1471:. Once it is mentioned in the lead which state it is in, the rest of the article just calls it Manchester. It's like an article on John Smith. Once we have established that his full name is John Smith, we can call him John in the rest of the article without need to further elaborate... -- 1578:

However, this content is also preceded by a much more prominent box (with a gray background, colored stripe, and another stupid logo), which takes 19 words to ask for the article to be cleaned up "to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s quality standards". Well, of course the article needs improvement:

2286:

I created an account with wikipedia in my freshmen year. Now a Junior I see someone got into my account and has been posting porn on wikipedia. I am wondering how I would delete this account so I can end him putting up these things, but also make sure my name is not associated with it.

1721:

I've noticed that it's pretty common to use country names where they're not needed, as in the title for this comment. My understanding is that this is to make it easier for everyone to know what's going on and to avoid ethnocentrism. But often it goes too far in my opinion and becomes

3580:

group of articles" would get tagged (and how); (3) would add technical overhead to the project, and, most importantly, (4) not necessary because if there is a market for it, the GFDL licensing at WP means that other people (third-party developers, content-forkers) can and will do it. --

3157:

To your point above, it is the parents responsibility. We can only try to accommodate the browser preferences and we make no claims that they may not end up looking at a penis by vandalism or run into a page that no one has bothered to rate. They can choose to fix it at that point.

2795:

When I say that the rating would 'lag' the page's content I mean that the tag wouldn't necessarily remain up-to-date with changes to the page content, not that it would slow down page loads. (I agree that while the tags are a pointless waste of bandwidth they would represent a very

1658:

Agree. But what riles me is that there's no attempt to control putting ugly and ineffective tags on good articles either. It doesn't normally help an article to put a {{fact}} tag on a statement; Anyone can see that there's no reference supporting it. What the tag normally means is

3352:

Knowledge (XXG) cannot ensure that anything here is up-to-date or accurate. That is not the point. If it turns out to be a mess, then it could easily be removed. A bot could quickly remove all the templates. Why is it difficult to allow people to try to offer this metadata?

2908:

We're not talking about censoring articles. This would only apply to those that actually want and choose to filter content (or the parent / school wants them to filtered). If someone uses the basic tools in Internet Explorer or any other program to filter content, should we

3818:

be labeled for "bare breasts", and what this describes is no different in China then it is in the U.S. It tags what the data is, and the person that filters it determins what their level of filtering is and they can do so in whatever moral belief or country they so choose.

2807:. It would say to parents, "See? Knowledge (XXG) is a safe place to let your children play unsupervised, because our pages have been tagged with content warnings that will be automagically recognized by your screening software!" Frankly, Knowledge (XXG) is almost uniquely 2761:

So parents who want to filter, they should purchase software to view the 💕. Don't use open Internet standards but rely on proprietary software. Is that your take? If you think it's lame, you don't have to add them.. I'm just suggesting that we allow it. See how it goes.

2999:'s methodology is the impact this would have on page-bloat. If implemented, it would need to be something as clean and non-intrusive as the existing categories or the interlanguage references. Clogging up the page with html code, even if hidden, would be a bad thing. 2631:

And thank you for the link to the ICRA rating categories. I can now see where homophobic editors would place LGBT content: "Content that sets a bad example for young children: that teaches or encourages children to perform harmful acts or imitate dangerous behaviour".

3838:

others have pointed out, IE doesn't actually follow the granular approach of the ICRA: it just has a blanket "sliding scale" that interprets those items for the user. The user doesn't get to determine particular levels at all. Face it, this isn't going to work. --

2603:

readable fashion would either lead to drama or decrease the educational value. Supporting such labeling schemes increases the usability of Knowledge (XXG) by encouraging it to be used in contexts where it would otherwise be excluded. Labeling is not censorship.

2834:

I'd agree with those points but I'm not sure we need to state Knowledge (XXG) is somehow fully compliant or that we proclaim we're kid safe. Knowledge (XXG) is what it is and that should be understood but I'm not sure that prevents us from doing what we can.

2682:

If a parent is uncomfortable with leaving a child alone with a copy of Britannica – with its articles on anal sex, body parts, Michelangelo's David, and so forth – then that parent shouldn't be letting their precious snowflake near a computer unsupervised.

2913:

to respect it. That's all we're talking about... The Internet is a different form of medium and we should consider the technology and standards available to us to present the material. What is wrong with trying to respect a readers content settings?

3294:

someone who wants to limit access cannot take a copy and add culturally appropriate ratings as an value-added service. I strongly doubt that USians would be happy with Swedish standards for nudity, or that Germans would like US ratings for violence. --

2262:

to clarify the requirements on descriptions of images (in brief, interpretations of images must be based on specifically relevant reliable sources, just like any other assertion of fact in an article). Please feel free to comment on this proposal at

1297:

kind of annoying, when you want to discuss an issue with someone - I don't want to be involved in policy making, and I think its great that things are wiki, but there needs to be more clarity at finding information on editing - what each tag does.

2938:. We're a volunteer organization using a tool that requires us to constantly fight vandalism. Any effort we make will be imperfect yet we still keep working on the encyclopedia. (And despite all the vandals, it gets better almost every day.) 2348:

Thanks for the help. Neither is working, but I guess if he's blocked he can't do anything further. I was just upset that the first thing I find on google about my online name is something saying I've been posting porn and wrecking pages.

2954:. I never add categories to a page and think that most of them are pretty pointless but I don't object when someone else adds them because I know that not everyone uses the encyclopedia the same way I do. If the category was added in 2674:

they could limit access to certain pages by deliberately misstating their content. Vandals could fiddle with ratings in addition to screwing with the rest of the page content. We would be able to add all kinds of new entries to

3378:. They would fail to protect children from unsavoury content, and they would bar children from accessing age-appropriate content. Unreliable content ratings would give a false sense of security to parents...until those parents 1301:

is important to know how to do it, and why one should do it. Having a quick reference of every single tag, would be terribly useful. It took me hours to discover how to put up a page for review etc. It shouldn't be the case

1594:

And then there's still another prominent box with a gray background, a colored stripe, a third stupid logo, and 23 more words of self-important text from the "all Knowledge (XXG) articles must bristle with footnotes" brigade.

2933:

raises some valid concerns above about user expectations and time lag. I think those problems are likely correct. Nevertheless, I think this approach, if done on a voluntary basis, could be consistent with the principle of

3900:

I'm not sure I would call the ICRA commercial. It's an international non-profit organization, similar to Knowledge (XXG) - are we commercial? They are the only open standard content rating system that I am familar with.

2893:

textbooks that contains biological pictures of a human body, and that seems to be the example most people are giving. What are reasonable people actually going to object to? Do tell me if what I'm saying is ridiculous...

3382:

that our ratings were unreliable—at which point we'd get hit with a backlash. No thanks; we don't need the black eye, and modifying Knowledge (XXG) for the benefit of censorware is well out of the scope of our mandate.

3260:

I think you misunderstand me. I am not opposing because I am pessimistic, I am opposing out of principle -- I am virulently opposed to collaborating with censorship. Moreover, I am not, in fact, "pessimistic"; I am

2513:

You are mistaken, ICRA does support labeling individual pages. Personally, I think self-labeling would be a useful step to increasing the appearance of professionalism, but I think it is unlikely to happen here.

1496:

That makes sense but I'm still wondering if every article that includes a city include the country in the first mention? Again if it's obvious from the context of the article, is including the country name really

3871:

I certainly understand the concern many users have about the content in Knowledge (XXG). My big issue is the accidental display of unwanted material -- as in the case when I clicked on the word "buggery" on the

3416:

In a sense it is, but the goals of the Wikimedia Foundation still propel us forward to create a better encyclopedia. That which propels us forward for an improved content rating system is... uh... I don't know,

3438:

How is adding metadata about the content not an improvement for the encyclopedia. Giving an article that contains nudity a rating that it contains nudity seems to improve the encyclopedia, not make it worse.

2678:

as editors battled for their preferred ratings. If we narrowly restrict the ability to set or change page ratings, then we're never going to get all of Knowledge (XXG) rated (we've more than a million

3058:

tagged. Much much better to have WP as the example for why libraries and schools should not censor. But if someone wants to fork a WP and add tags, there's nothing to stop them. It's perfectly legal.

3885:

policy. But I think that a system of warning templates, while raising its own series of issues, is less offensive from a censorship point of view than participation in a commercial ratings system. --

3916:

Knowledge (XXG) is commercial in nature - in fact, having an NC Creative Commons license is a disqualifying factor for an image. It's the Wikimedia Foundation that's the non-profit organization. -

2543:

Any image, words or information used is used in an educational way. We would be lowering the educational value of the encyclopedia aiding censorship in such a way. Not to mention it would lead to

1992:

should be used very frequently and we should be very lenient with editors since policies may well be inappropriate for addressing actual day-to-day matters. If policies are enforcement standards,

3564:

choose? Why fork anything. It is our job to create the best encyclopedia possible and why wouldn't metadata about the content using common standards included in most browsers be part of that.

3103:

Exactly but this would not make us responsible for what their child sees. The parent being responsible should have the ability to use standard Internet technologies to do this. We should only

2712:

I think that you've missed an important distinction. A culture of eventualism works just fine for writing an encyclopedia. We acknowledge that much of what is here is a work in progress. We

3725:

this article offends/A/B/C... whatever. If you wouldnt support adding unobtrusive tags for those articles that might not be readable in the PRC, you should not support this proposal either.

50: 3482:

You wouldn't have to make anybody do anything.. it is a volunteer effort. I'll also don't think it is contrary to the content goals. You're not removing anything, your adding choice.

3200:

visit Knowledge (XXG) because we use content ratings, but that same child is surfing through articles with nudity, don't you think that parent is going to be a little pissed off? --

2124: 1910: 3755:

Even "Internet standards" of filtering / tagging terms are "selective made up criteria"; they're not holy writ. WP's content is open; fork it, tag it, and filter it all you like. --

2486: 2482: 3330:

database and add whatever ratings they see fit. By working from a stable version of Knowledge (XXG) and controlling what revisions and updates are added, such an organization

3174:

are going to have to visit every article first, to make sure that the tag is there and correct. And if they have to do that, why use the technology/content ratings at all? --

3803:

different social norms. Rather, it would be quite disruptive as people argue over the "correct" level of tagging for articles/images. This is a proposal doomed to failure. --

3707:

Knowledge (XXG) should never change content to conform to ICRA's (or anyone's) standards. Unobtrusive ICRA tagging is okay, but that may mean frequent updating of the tags.

2958:, presumably it is helpful to the person adding it. If a tag is added in good faith, it's not going to get in my way and might help the person adding the tag. Go for it. 2725:

going to be willing to learn the ICRA standards to the point where they apply the rules correctly, or are going to be willing to review every edit made to the encyclopedia?

2189: 2155: 2072: 1937: 1862:

background. And I for one want to know that the small town I'm reading about is in India--and I think you'd find a number of Americans, for instance, who don't know where

2210: 2115: 1901: 2094:

shows, the page is the same now as it was 12 days ago. There was some intervening vandalism (blanking the page) that removed the marking of the page as a guideline. --

2209:

On the other hand, let me point out that without this announcement, it would probably have taken a long time for anyone to notice that a little-noticed page like

3549:, given that third-parties are completely capable of either (a) censoring/filtering content on their own, or (b) forking WP & offering a censored version? -- 2716:

that material here may be incomplete, biased, or flatly wrong. Content ratings, however, aren't compatible with an eventualist philosophy. Take Victorian poet

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: 1754: 1733: 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: 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: 1826:? When I asked, several people agreed with me that it is useful to include the country with the first mention of the placename in the lead para (unless it's 1823: 1320: 403: 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: 1356: 2489:

for what exactly I mean. There are numerous other reasons for rejection, I strongly encourage you to read the original debate (caveat:it's really long).

3742:

viewing. You're preventing them from using open standard technology built into the browser and forcing them to pay for products to filter the content.

1352: 1979:

I think it might be useful to understand and clarify the purpose of policy in Knowledge (XXG). Is it to express aspirational ideals we hope to reach

67: 1201:

If you are asking if they are "allowed" then yes, they are. We just don't have articles about those things yet, although those things do exist. -

3148:

themselves. So going back to my original point, that makes US responsible for what they see. And I'd like to know when we became babysitters. --

2192:. The current proposal would remove additional notices such as this one, where the status changed back within 24 hours of the first change. — Carl 3793:, the Internet Content Rating Association, is an international non-profit organization with offices in the United States and the United Kingdom." 2741:

Content ratings are lame, schools can have readily avaible systems that wont desplay articles if they have alot of certian black listed words.

2264: 1267: 45: 40: 1602: 3677: 2151: 2147: 2132: 2068: 1933: 1918: 57: 3804: 3790: 2996: 2974: 2426: 2405: 2356: 2334: 2294: 1881:

Sorry about that, I should have given a specific reference. In this instance I was thinking of the lede of the featured article on the

2948:. An incorrect or missing tag would no more damage Knowledge (XXG)'s reputation than the routine vandalism that we deal with daily. 1956: 1395:

A proposal has started to allow established or trusted editors to edit via Tor, or other anon proxy. This discussion is located at

83: 35: 17: 3122:

That's not true at all. Any parent using such technology is relying on us to make sure the tags are there and they are correct. --

2468: 2866:

tag, it would let the know and filter the content. It is just metadata about the article and should be treated like any content.

2259: 2252: 94: 1429: 3834: 2382: 2713: 62: 3651: 1482: 2955: 1575:

contains one sentence of 17 words, which are followed by a stupid logo and a 13-word "this article is a stub" notice. Fine.

1217:

And since populated places like those are generally considered inherently notable, it is not unreasonable to expect that we

2529:

automatically label an individual page based on the inclusion of a particular image, if one would be able to be developed.

2485:. It was rejected, and I agree with that choice. The main problem is that it's hard to determine what's inappropriate, see 1957:

Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)#Knowledge (XXG):Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment is no longer marked as a policy

1788: 3880:

page. (We don't use the word "buggery" in America, and I had no idea what it meant.) Last year, I proposed a guideline on

2803:

The tags would offer a false sense of security that doesn't now exist: a warm fuzzy security blanket, Dumbo's feather, a

2327:

Hoping I'm doing this right. It was Cj Will Win maybe no spaces. I found out about it by putting cjwillwin into google.

1591:

need improvement. Why are articles being cluttered with boxes like this if it isn't even known whether they're needed?

3418: 2951: 2045: 2430: 1177:

It just means the articles haven't been written yet. Though unattractive, I don't think it's too big of a problem.

2944:

offended because a tag was not on a page where they thought it belonged, the right answer is to encourage them to

3696: 2983: 2498: 1468: 3918: 1364: 1221:

have articles on them. If it was full of redlinks for non-notable people or companies, it may be inappropriate.

29: 3388: 3343: 3299: 2856: 2825: 2730: 2703: 2688: 2608: 2519: 2237: 2100: 2021: 1965: 1606: 1158:

Is there a policy with regard to the existence of DAB pages where all the DABed links are red? For example:

3808: 2409: 2360: 2338: 2298: 3308:

There are already common Internet standards that define what each category is - that is what the ICRA is.

2401: 2352: 2330: 2290: 1467:

Once context is extablished with the first instance, then it is no longer necessary. For example, look at

2002: 1772: 1750: 1746: 1533: 1344: 2036: 1368: 2534: 2472: 1502: 1457: 1376: 1348: 1309: 3356:

I'm certain it would be a mess. Vandals would have a field day with changing or removing the tags. --

2743: 2566:

There are already ICRA classifications and they are very broad. It is not that hard to think that the

1776: 1737: 86:. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either 3922: 3909: 3894: 3847: 3826: 3812: 3779: 3764: 3736: 3715: 3700: 3684: 3666: 3645: 3589: 3572: 3558: 3537: 3524: 3502: 3490: 3475: 3447: 3433: 3409: 3392: 3360: 3347: 3316: 3303: 3274: 3253: 3235: 3204: 3192: 3178: 3166: 3152: 3140: 3126: 3115: 3098: 3083: 3069: 3034: 3018: 2987: 2967: 2922: 2902: 2874: 2860: 2843: 2829: 2788: 2770: 2756: 2734: 2707: 2692: 2654: 2641: 2626: 2612: 2587: 2561: 2538: 2523: 2502: 2476: 2462: 2445: 2413: 2392: 2364: 2342: 2320: 2302: 2276: 2272: 2240: 2226: 2204: 2183: 2167: 2103: 2084: 2024: 2006: 1968: 1949: 1889: 1875: 1845: 1813: 1800: 1779: 1766: 1740: 1726: 1710: 1691: 1646: 1610: 1556: 1540: 1506: 1487: 1461: 1441: 1380: 1332: 1313: 1285: 1259: 1241: 1210: 1194: 1171: 3692: 2979: 2458: 1526: 2053: 1867: 1830: 1792: 1758: 1745:

I guess I'm confused--the example that you give doesn't seem to exist. The title of the article is

3712: 3384: 3339: 3295: 2930: 2898: 2852: 2821: 2726: 2699: 2684: 2604: 2557: 2515: 2389: 2376: 2317: 2233: 2163: 2096: 2080: 2017: 1961: 1945: 1871: 1810: 1796: 1762: 1498: 1453: 1398: 3338:

offer on Knowledge (XXG), and the two problems that make content ratings worse than useless here.

2575:

viewers can make that choice on there own. ICRA labels are part of a global effort known as the "

1411: 3890: 3775: 3760: 3633: 3585: 3554: 3520: 3270: 3231: 2637: 2622: 2268: 1840: 1706: 1634: 1476: 1229: 2548: 2544: 1984: 3107:

to add metadata that allows such technologies to work. They choose and they are responsible.

1682:

But I can't see such a policy getting up. Too many people like slapping these useless tags on.

3004: 2963: 2494: 2453:

I do not see how helping censorship would fit with Knowledge (XXG)'s "not censored" position.

2434: 2310: 2015:- Would you mind actually citing a specific example or two? I think that would be helpful. -- 1998: 1687: 1437: 1328: 1255: 1206: 1167: 2675: 2945: 2530: 1620: 1568: 1406: 1372: 1305: 1280: 1266:

Perhaps someone could scare up a list of disambiguation pages with red links (comparable to

1187: 2820:

you're actually reading at an article on anal sex. We apologize for that, too. Sucker."

1993: 1989: 3681: 3464: 3422: 2717: 2454: 1183: 2978:

naughty words. The ICRA rating and tagging would not be substantially different. Cheers!

1371:

where you can ask questions about using Knowledge (XXG) (which can admittedly be hard).

3843: 3708: 2894: 2553: 2372: 2178: 2159: 2076: 1983:? Or is it to express a minimum enforcement standard below which administrators should 1941: 3515:

of people would refrain from contributing if WP were collaborating with censorware. --

2698:

creating and organizing content can be successful even in spite of all those faults.

3886: 3771: 3756: 3732: 3627: 3581: 3550: 3516: 3499: 3357: 3266: 3227: 3201: 3175: 3149: 3123: 3095: 3065: 3015: 2804: 2633: 2618: 2579:". These are common standards on the Internet that Knowledge (XXG) should include. 2221: 2199: 2110:

Knowledge (XXG):Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment is no longer marked as a policy

1980: 1834: 1702: 1628: 1472: 1360: 1223: 1791:. I suppose my question is, why does he/she think that's the title when it isn't? 3655: 3334:

ensure that the ratings were both up-to-date and 'accurate'—the two things that we

3000: 2959: 2935: 2576: 2490: 1683: 1433: 1340: 1324: 1251: 1202: 1163: 1159: 3370:

I'm repeating myself at this point so I'll stop after this comment. To reiterate,

3902: 3873: 3819: 3743: 3659: 3609:

software won't be installed here unless it is under a free license (such as the

3565: 3530: 3483: 3440: 3402: 3309: 3246: 3185: 3159: 3133: 3108: 3076: 3045: 3027: 2915: 2867: 2836: 2781: 2763: 2647: 2580: 2438: 1886: 1819: 1784: 1749:, and the logs do not show that the page has ever been moved. The article title 1723: 1553: 1271: 3784:

Ah yes, it's "an Internet standard." Made by "the Internet," no doubt! *cough*

3529:

Now your just making stuff up... The excuses are endless. Give me a break.

3184:

contains such, great. If not, then no big deal, nothing lost nothing gained.

2646:

Not unlike the content disputes. I think such might fall under NPOV policy.

2231:

Definitely valuable; an occasional false positive is a small price to pay. --

1863: 1319:

I agree that it's a right royal pain to find anything, but you might find the

1178: 3839: 3622: 2595: 2467:

ICRA ratings are applied to a website as a whole and not a particular page.

1896:

Knowledge (XXG):Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment is marked as a policy

3877: 3727: 3060: 2567: 2487:

Knowledge (XXG):Graphic_and_potentially_disturbing_images#Actual_examples

2386: 2314: 2217: 2195: 1807: 3498:(XXG), we're not censored, nor are we going to pretend like we are." -- 2013:

there is basic disagreement as to what level we want "policy" to reflect

2599: 3545:

community, and philosophical/policy problems with the idea. Why is it

1403:

The proposed policy in its “needs to be worked on” form is located at

3094:

being responsible for what their child sees? Why is it up to us? --

2571: 2188:

Options for making this one more intelligent are under discussion at

3365:

Such is life on wikipedia. With this argument, nothing would work h

2265:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:No original research#Interpretation of images

2174: 1616:

And its been an unsourced stub with almost no content since 2006.

3881: 3618: 1521: 3010:

Wait a sec. If they are offended, we should just tell them to

1552:

Hampshire, United States", below) before having read this one.

3614: 3610: 3472: 3430: 2973:

I'm certainly all for automatically tagging articles with an

90:

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

1583:. No, worse yet, the box doesn't even say that the article 82:

This page contains discussions that have been archived from

2950:

These proposed tags strike me as just a particular form of

1661:

I don't agree with this but I can't be bothered checking it

2617:

Labeling collaborates with and facilitates censorship. --

2483:

Knowledge (XXG):Graphic and potentially disturbing images

1567:

A question on the reference desk prompted me to look at

1339:

Depending on the type of tags you want, see for example

1250:

Sounds good -- thank you all for the clarification! --

3399:

unreliable encyclopedia is "worse" than no encyclopedia

2140: 2136: 2128: 2120: 2091: 2061: 2057: 2049: 2041: 1926: 1922: 1914: 1906: 1882: 1572: 87: 2398:

Thanks for all your help. I really appreciate it =)

2190:

Knowledge (XXG):Bots/Requests_for_approval/VeblenBot_6

1997:

agreement on policy discussions more readily. Best, --

1663:, and as such it's inherently both POV, and unsourced! 2211:

Knowledge (XXG):Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment

2116:

Knowledge (XXG):Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment

1902:

Knowledge (XXG):Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment

2031:Knowledge (XXG):User page is marked as a guideline 1787:is under the impression that the article title is 2425:(not visible on the article) that would apply an 1321:Knowledge (XXG):Editor's index to Knowledge (XXG) 1755:Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (settlements) 1734:Knowledge (XXG):Naming conventions (settlements) 1359:. The interaction box to the left has a link to 1357:Category:Knowledge (XXG) maintenance templates 1353:Knowledge (XXG):Template messages/Maintenance 8: 3876:article while at work and was taken to the 1391:Wider audience for commenting requested... 2995:The one concern I have after looking into 3613:) and is open source. This is why we use 3265:-- that this proposal will go nowhere. -- 3245:that exist here on how wikipedia works. 1601:Okay, done ranting. I'll go away now. -- 1268:Knowledge (XXG):Templates with red links 3678:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Pornography 3044:up-to-date, not loading performance). 1428:Guideline proposal. Please comment at 1789:Hanover, New Hampshire, United States 1717:Hanover, New Hampshire, United States 18:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy) 7: 3676:As a proud, card-carrying member of 3650:ICRA labels are expressed using the 2260:Knowledge (XXG):No original research 2253:Knowledge (XXG):No original research 1573:At the time of writing, this article 2258:I've proposed a short extension of 1447:when to include country information 1430:Knowledge (XXG) talk:official names 24: 2173:"Policy" for less than 24 hours. 1775:conforms to naming guidelines. -- 1771:I'm not sure what you're asking. 3132:Knowledge (XXG) is very small. 2481:A proposal similar to yours was 2150:. It was previously marked as a 3835:The Birth of Venus (Botticelli) 3511:Not to mention the fact that a 3372:unreliable content ratings are 1866:is, to pick a random example. 1417:at 20:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 3652:Resource Description Framework 2067:has recently been marked as a 1988:If policies are aspirational, 1932:has recently been marked as a 1: 2177:, but not terribly bright. • 1732:I believe you're looking for 1452:article on the city itself.-- 78:Village pump (policy) archive 3923:08:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 3910:17:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 3895:06:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 3848:21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 3827:22:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 3813:22:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 3780:03:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 3765:03:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 3737:22:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3716:19:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3701:19:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3685:18:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3667:18:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3646:18:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3590:18:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3573:18:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3559:18:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3538:17:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3525:17:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3503:18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3491:17:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3476:17:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3448:18:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3434:18:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3410:17:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3393:17:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3361:17:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3348:17:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3317:17:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3304:16:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3275:18:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3254:17:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3236:17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3205:19:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3193:19:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3179:18:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3167:18:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3153:18:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3141:17:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3127:17:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3116:16:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3099:16:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3084:16:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3070:15:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3035:17:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3019:16:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 2988:23:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2968:23:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2923:21:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2903:21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2875:21:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2861:21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2844:20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2830:20:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2789:19:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2771:19:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2757:19:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2735:20:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2708:19:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2693:19:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2655:19:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 2642:18:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 2627:18:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 2613:18:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2588:18:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2562:18:10, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2539:17:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2524:17:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2503:16:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2477:16:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2463:15:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2446:15:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC) 2414:01:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 2393:01:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 2371:Looking at the account name 2365:00:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 2343:00:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 2321:00:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC) 2303:23:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 2277:19:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 2241:22:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 2227:22:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 2205:22:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 2184:20:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 2168:18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 2104:23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 2085:18:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 2025:23:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 2007:15:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 1969:23:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 1950:19:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 1890:19:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 1876:00:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 1846:21:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 1814:20:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 1801:19:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 1780:19:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 1767:19:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 1741:15:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 1727:11:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 1711:17:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 1692:23:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 1647:07:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 1611:03:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 1563:Excessive tagging of the day 1557:20:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 1541:14:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC) 1507:00:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC) 1488:18:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC) 1462:14:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC) 1442:22:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 1381:16:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 1365:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump 1333:16:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 1314:16:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 1286:22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC) 1260:16:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC) 1242:20:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 1211:04:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 1195:02:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 1172:02:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC) 3750:0:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC) 3052:0:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC) 3941: 3090:What ever happened to the 2431:content filtering software 1292:A simple on site reference 2594:(ec) You're beating at a 2146:is no longer marked as a 2037:Knowledge (XXG):User page 1469:Manchester, New Hampshire 1369:Knowledge (XXG):Help desk 3463:goals is not desirable. 1587:improvement; it says it 3376:than no content ratings 1883:Tuck School of Business 1387:Ipblock exempt proposal 1363:. It includes links to 3795: 2812:time make liars of us. 2251:Proposed extension of 1773:Hanover, New Hampshire 1751:Hanover, New Hampshire 1747:Hanover, New Hampshire 1345:Help:Wikitext examples 95:< Older discussions 3787: 3621:and why we don't use 3419:think of the children 2815:The most that we can 1349:Help:HTML in wikitext 84:Village pump (policy) 3397:Like saying that an 2090:False positive - as 3882:"not safe for work" 3800:for the whole world 2429:rating (built into 1824:something like this 3798:So, the standards 2158:of the change. -- 2075:of the change. -- 1940:of the change. -- 1154:All-red DAB pages? 3913: 3830: 3752: 3670: 3576: 3541: 3494: 3451: 3413: 3320: 3257: 3196: 3170: 3144: 3119: 3087: 3054: 3038: 3007: 2966: 2926: 2878: 2847: 2792: 2774: 2658: 2591: 2549:instruction creep 2449: 2435:Internet Explorer 2416: 2404:comment added by 2367: 2355:comment added by 2345: 2333:comment added by 2311:Special:Userlogin 2305: 2293:comment added by 2225: 2203: 1975:Purpose of policy 1843: 1838: 1485: 1479: 1419: 3932: 3907: 3905: 3824: 3822: 3748: 3746: 3664: 3662: 3644: 3641: 3638: 3630: 3570: 3568: 3535: 3533: 3488: 3486: 3474: 3470: 3467: 3445: 3443: 3432: 3428: 3425: 3407: 3405: 3314: 3312: 3251: 3249: 3190: 3188: 3164: 3162: 3138: 3136: 3113: 3111: 3081: 3079: 3050: 3048: 3032: 3030: 3003: 2962: 2920: 2918: 2872: 2870: 2841: 2839: 2786: 2784: 2768: 2766: 2755: 2752: 2748: 2652: 2650: 2585: 2583: 2443: 2441: 2399: 2350: 2328: 2288: 2236: 2215: 2193: 2181: 2156:automated notice 2145: 2144: 2099: 2073:automated notice 2066: 2065: 2020: 1964: 1938:automated notice 1931: 1930: 1841: 1836: 1645: 1642: 1639: 1631: 1625: 1619: 1569:Parallax barrier 1537: 1531: 1483: 1477: 1412: 1278: 1240: 1237: 1234: 1226: 1193: 1190: 79: 54: 3940: 3939: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3931: 3930: 3929: 3903: 3820: 3744: 3693:Wassupwestcoast 3660: 3639: 3634: 3628: 3626: 3566: 3531: 3484: 3468: 3465: 3441: 3426: 3423: 3403: 3310: 3247: 3186: 3160: 3134: 3109: 3077: 3046: 3028: 2993:(edit conflict) 2980:Wassupwestcoast 2916: 2868: 2837: 2782: 2764: 2750: 2744: 2742: 2718:Robert Browning 2648: 2600:ICRA categories 2581: 2439: 2422: 2420:Content ratings 2284: 2256: 2232: 2179: 2175:Robots are cute 2118: 2114: 2112: 2095: 2039: 2035: 2033: 2016: 1977: 1960: 1904: 1900: 1898: 1719: 1640: 1635: 1629: 1627: 1623: 1617: 1565: 1535: 1527: 1449: 1426: 1389: 1294: 1272: 1235: 1230: 1224: 1222: 1188: 1181: 1156: 1151: 80: 77: 74: 48: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3938: 3936: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3861: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3796: 3785: 3782: 3767: 3719: 3718: 3704: 3703: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3592: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3505: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3385:TenOfAllTrades 3368: 3367: 3366: 3340:TenOfAllTrades 3324: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3296:Stephan Schulz 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3277: 3239: 3238: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3008: 2990: 2952:categorization 2949: 2939: 2931:TenOfAllTrades 2928: 2927: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2853:TenOfAllTrades 2822:TenOfAllTrades 2813: 2801: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2727:TenOfAllTrades 2700:Dragons flight 2685:TenOfAllTrades 2680: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2629: 2605:Dragons flight 2598:. Many of the 2592: 2516:Dragons flight 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2465: 2421: 2418: 2396: 2395: 2326: 2324: 2323: 2283: 2280: 2255: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2234:John Broughton 2207: 2111: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2097:John Broughton 2032: 2029: 2028: 2027: 2018:John Broughton 1976: 1973: 1972: 1971: 1962:John Broughton 1897: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1718: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1652: 1650: 1649: 1603:207.176.159.90 1564: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1491: 1490: 1448: 1445: 1425: 1424:Official names 1422: 1394: 1388: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1336: 1335: 1293: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1245: 1244: 1214: 1213: 1198: 1197: 1162:. Thanks! -- 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: 3937: 3924: 3921: 3920: 3915: 3914: 3912: 3911: 3906: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3892: 3888: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3869: 3865: 3849: 3845: 3841: 3836: 3832: 3831: 3829: 3828: 3823: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3810: 3806: 3805:68.156.149.62 3801: 3797: 3794: 3792: 3786: 3783: 3781: 3777: 3773: 3768: 3766: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3753: 3751: 3747: 3740: 3739: 3738: 3734: 3730: 3729: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3717: 3714: 3710: 3706: 3705: 3702: 3698: 3694: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3683: 3679: 3669: 3668: 3663: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3643: 3642: 3637: 3631: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3612: 3607: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3578: 3577: 3575: 3574: 3569: 3562: 3561: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3548: 3543: 3542: 3540: 3539: 3534: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3514: 3510: 3504: 3501: 3496: 3495: 3493: 3492: 3487: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3471: 3461: 3450: 3449: 3444: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3429: 3420: 3415: 3414: 3412: 3411: 3406: 3400: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3390: 3386: 3381: 3377: 3375: 3369: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3359: 3355: 3354: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3319: 3318: 3313: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3301: 3297: 3292: 3276: 3272: 3268: 3264: 3259: 3258: 3256: 3255: 3250: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3237: 3233: 3229: 3224: 3223: 3206: 3203: 3198: 3197: 3195: 3194: 3189: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3177: 3172: 3171: 3169: 3168: 3163: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3151: 3146: 3145: 3143: 3142: 3137: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3125: 3121: 3120: 3118: 3117: 3112: 3106: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3088: 3086: 3085: 3080: 3073: 3072: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3062: 3056: 3055: 3053: 3049: 3042: 3037: 3036: 3031: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2991: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2976: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2953: 2947: 2943: 2937: 2932: 2925: 2924: 2919: 2912: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2877: 2876: 2871: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2858: 2854: 2849: 2848: 2846: 2845: 2840: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2805:golden hammer 2802: 2799: 2794: 2793: 2791: 2790: 2785: 2778: 2773: 2772: 2767: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2754: 2753: 2747: 2740: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2690: 2686: 2681: 2677: 2672: 2657: 2656: 2651: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2630: 2628: 2624: 2620: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2590: 2589: 2584: 2578: 2573: 2569: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2550: 2546: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2448: 2447: 2442: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2419: 2417: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2406:99.165.88.239 2403: 2394: 2391: 2388: 2384: 2381: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2366: 2362: 2358: 2357:99.165.88.239 2354: 2346: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2335:99.165.88.239 2332: 2322: 2319: 2316: 2312: 2309:Try going to 2308: 2307: 2306: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2295:99.165.88.239 2292: 2282:My Account... 2281: 2279: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2261: 2254: 2250: 2242: 2239: 2235: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2223: 2219: 2212: 2208: 2206: 2201: 2197: 2191: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2182: 2176: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2154:. This is an 2153: 2149: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2126: 2122: 2117: 2109: 2105: 2102: 2098: 2093: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2071:. This is an 2070: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2038: 2030: 2026: 2023: 2019: 2014: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1995: 1991: 1986: 1982: 1974: 1970: 1967: 1963: 1958: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1939: 1936:. This is an 1935: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1903: 1895: 1891: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1847: 1844: 1839: 1832: 1829: 1825: 1822:asking about 1821: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1812: 1809: 1806:appreciated. 1804: 1803: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1725: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1704: 1699: 1698: 1693: 1689: 1685: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1662: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1648: 1644: 1643: 1638: 1632: 1622: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1599: 1596: 1592: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1576: 1574: 1570: 1562: 1558: 1555: 1550: 1549: 1542: 1539: 1538: 1532: 1530: 1523: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1508: 1504: 1500: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1489: 1486: 1480: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1446: 1444: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1423: 1421: 1420: 1418: 1415: 1409: 1408: 1404: 1401: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1362: 1361:Help:Contents 1358: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1337: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1302: 1298: 1291: 1287: 1284: 1283: 1279: 1277: 1276: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1243: 1239: 1238: 1233: 1227: 1220: 1216: 1215: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1199: 1196: 1191: 1185: 1180: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1169: 1165: 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: 3917: 3908: 3870: 3866: 3862: 3825: 3799: 3788: 3749: 3726: 3675: 3665: 3656:Semantic Web 3635: 3632: 3571: 3546: 3536: 3512: 3489: 3446: 3408: 3398: 3379: 3373: 3371: 3335: 3331: 3315: 3262: 3252: 3191: 3165: 3139: 3114: 3104: 3091: 3082: 3059: 3051: 3033: 3011: 2992: 2941: 2929: 2921: 2910: 2891: 2873: 2842: 2816: 2808: 2797: 2787: 2769: 2749: 2745: 2721: 2714:warn readers 2653: 2586: 2577:Semantic Web 2444: 2423: 2397: 2379: 2347: 2325: 2285: 2257: 2113: 2034: 2012: 1999:Shirahadasha 1978: 1959:, below. -- 1899: 1860: 1827: 1753:conforms to 1720: 1660: 1651: 1636: 1633: 1600: 1598:Good grief. 1597: 1593: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1577: 1566: 1534: 1528: 1497:necessary?-- 1450: 1427: 1416: 1413: 1410: 1407:project page 1405: 1402: 1397: 1393: 1390: 1341:Help:Editing 1303: 1299: 1295: 1281: 1274: 1273: 1231: 1228: 1218: 1160:Sainte-Barbe 1157: 463: 368: 97: 93: 81: 30:Village pump 28: 3874:Oscar Wilde 3617:instead of 2936:Eventualism 2531:John Carter 2469:86.21.74.40 2400:—Preceding 2351:—Preceding 2329:—Preceding 2289:—Preceding 1581:it's a stub 1373:PrimeHunter 1306:Dannyza1981 1304:Thank you. 3682:AnonEMouse 3263:optimistic 2956:good faith 2940:If anyone 2679:articles). 2455:DuncanHill 2433:, such as 1981:eventually 1864:Queensland 1529:Ben W Bell 100:Archives: 51:persistent 3709:Superm401 3623:reCAPTCHA 3547:necessary 2895:J Milburn 2596:straw man 2554:J Milburn 2373:Cjwillwin 2160:VeblenBot 2092:this diff 2077:VeblenBot 2069:guideline 1942:VeblenBot 1868:Darkspots 1793:Darkspots 1759:Darkspots 1399:talk page 1323:helpful. 46:Proposals 41:Technical 3887:Mwalcoff 3878:anal sex 3772:Karanacs 3757:Lquilter 3582:Lquilter 3551:Lquilter 3517:Lquilter 3500:Kbdank71 3358:Kbdank71 3267:Lquilter 3228:Lquilter 3202:Kbdank71 3176:Kbdank71 3150:Kbdank71 3124:Kbdank71 3096:Kbdank71 3026:faults. 3016:Kbdank71 2634:Lquilter 2619:Lquilter 2568:anal sex 2402:unsigned 2383:contribs 2353:unsigned 2331:unsigned 2291:unsigned 1703:Karanacs 1499:Rtphokie 1484:contribs 1473:Jayron32 1454:Rtphokie 58:Idea lab 3380:noticed 3092:parents 3001:Rossami 2960:Rossami 2800:waste.) 2751:Brigade 2722:someone 2676:WP:LAME 2491:Puchiko 2129:history 2050:history 1915:history 1831:obvious 1777:W.marsh 1738:W.marsh 1684:Andrewa 1621:sofixit 1434:Andrewa 1414:Mercury 1367:and to 1325:Foxhill 1252:Avocado 1203:Rjd0060 1164:Avocado 3904:Morphh 3821:Morphh 3745:Morphh 3661:Morphh 3567:Morphh 3532:Morphh 3485:Morphh 3442:Morphh 3404:Morphh 3336:cannot 3311:Morphh 3248:Morphh 3187:Morphh 3161:Morphh 3135:Morphh 3110:Morphh 3078:Morphh 3047:Morphh 3029:Morphh 3012:fix it 3005:(talk) 2964:(talk) 2946:fix it 2917:Morphh 2869:Morphh 2838:Morphh 2783:Morphh 2765:Morphh 2649:Morphh 2582:Morphh 2572:vagina 2440:Morphh 2390:(Talk) 2318:(Talk) 2269:ChrisO 2180:Anakin 2152:policy 2148:policy 1994:WP:IAR 1990:WP:IAR 1934:policy 1887:modify 1828:really 1820:modify 1818:Or is 1811:(Talk) 1785:modify 1724:modify 1554:modify 1275:bd2412 36:Policy 3919:Jéské 3833:Does 3469:notes 3466:Grace 3427:notes 3424:Grace 3374:worse 3332:could 2798:small 2746:Bones 2545:drama 2499:email 2267:. -- 2137:watch 2133:links 2058:watch 2054:links 1985:block 1923:watch 1919:links 1833:). — 1585:needs 1351:, or 1219:could 1179:EVula 88:start 16:< 3891:talk 3844:talk 3840:Kesh 3809:talk 3791:ICRA 3776:talk 3761:talk 3733:talk 3713:Talk 3697:talk 3619:MPEG 3586:talk 3555:talk 3521:talk 3389:talk 3344:talk 3300:talk 3271:talk 3232:talk 3066:talk 2997:ICRA 2984:talk 2975:ICRA 2899:talk 2857:talk 2826:talk 2817:ever 2731:talk 2704:talk 2689:talk 2638:talk 2623:talk 2609:talk 2558:talk 2535:talk 2520:talk 2495:Talk 2473:talk 2459:talk 2427:ICRA 2410:talk 2377:talk 2361:talk 2339:talk 2299:talk 2273:talk 2238:(♫♫) 2222:talk 2200:talk 2164:talk 2141:logs 2125:talk 2121:edit 2101:(♫♫) 2081:talk 2062:logs 2046:talk 2042:edit 2022:(♫♫) 2003:talk 1966:(♫♫) 1955:See 1946:talk 1927:logs 1911:talk 1907:edit 1872:talk 1837:MALL 1797:talk 1763:talk 1707:talk 1688:talk 1607:talk 1536:talk 1522:KTEP 1503:talk 1478:talk 1458:talk 1438:talk 1377:talk 1355:and 1347:and 1329:talk 1310:talk 1256:talk 1207:talk 1184:talk 1168:talk 3728:DGG 3640:man 3629:Mr. 3615:Ogg 3611:GPL 3513:lot 3401:. 3105:try 3061:DGG 2942:was 2911:try 2570:or 2387:Tra 2315:Tra 2218:CBM 2196:CBM 1842:JIM 1808:Tra 1641:man 1630:Mr. 1589:may 1236:man 1225:Mr. 1186:// 1182:// 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 3893:) 3846:) 3811:) 3778:) 3763:) 3735:) 3711:- 3699:) 3636:Z- 3625:. 3588:) 3557:) 3523:) 3421:! 3391:) 3346:) 3302:) 3273:) 3234:) 3068:) 2986:) 2901:) 2859:) 2828:) 2809:un 2733:) 2706:) 2691:) 2640:) 2632:-- 2625:) 2611:) 2560:) 2547:, 2537:) 2522:) 2501:) 2475:) 2461:) 2412:) 2363:) 2341:) 2301:) 2275:) 2220:· 2198:· 2166:) 2139:| 2135:| 2131:| 2127:| 2123:| 2083:) 2060:| 2056:| 2052:| 2048:| 2044:| 2005:) 1948:) 1925:| 1921:| 1917:| 1913:| 1909:| 1874:) 1799:) 1765:) 1757:. 1736:-- 1709:) 1690:) 1637:Z- 1626:. 1624:}} 1618:{{ 1609:) 1571:. 1505:) 1460:) 1440:) 1432:. 1379:) 1343:, 1331:) 1312:) 1270:? 1258:) 1232:Z- 1209:) 1192:// 1170:) 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:, 3889:( 3842:( 3807:( 3789:" 3774:( 3759:( 3731:( 3695:( 3584:( 3553:( 3519:( 3473:§ 3431:§ 3387:( 3342:( 3298:( 3269:( 3230:( 3064:( 2982:( 2897:( 2855:( 2824:( 2729:( 2702:( 2687:( 2636:( 2621:( 2607:( 2556:( 2533:( 2518:( 2497:- 2493:( 2471:( 2457:( 2408:( 2380:· 2375:( 2359:( 2337:( 2297:( 2271:( 2224:) 2216:( 2202:) 2194:( 2162:( 2143:) 2119:( 2079:( 2064:) 2040:( 2001:( 1944:( 1929:) 1905:( 1870:( 1835:S 1795:( 1761:( 1705:( 1686:( 1605:( 1501:( 1481:| 1475:| 1456:( 1436:( 1375:( 1327:( 1308:( 1282:T 1254:( 1205:( 1189:☯ 1166:( 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 24 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index