2763:
invalid fair use images hanging around, what will increasing the time achieve? Secondly, the image is still seen by a human- the deleting administrator. If it's an album cover for instance, and the rationale mentions that and links to the article, any decent admin will check the article in question. I am not aware of that happening at all, and it'd be pretty pathetic vandalism if it was. However, what do you propose to remedy it? In answer to your third point- no. A rationale needs to include everything it needs to include, and it doesn't have to be in template form. I used to not write my rationales in templates, instead favouring a list of reasons. They would not be tagged, that's not the way
Betacommandbot works. Your fourth point- the bot notifies every time an image is nominated. Imagine how ratty people would get if their images were nominated and they weren't told. I should know- it's happened to me, twice. The messages themselves aren't threatening, they are polite, and explain why this is happening to the image and what can be done about it. If people actually read them, there would be no problem. I have no idea what your next point means, and in response to your final point- again, you don't understand the scale of the problem. "Rationales, fair use and orphaned images" is not something that a few editors can sort out in a few hours- every image needs to be correctly licensed, with a full rationale for each article it is in if used under a claim of fair use, and every fair use image must be used in at least one article to prevent deletion. People should add these rationales and details when they upload the images. If I were you, I would not attempt to pursue all of these ideas at once, as you will achieve nothing apart from getting into a very long and boring discussion on the subject. I instead reccomend that you decide what the biggest problem with the way we deal with the issues is, and find a remedy, and attempt to implement said remedy. But please, please consider the
3135:
agenda Maybe putting an article against a government wouldnt be proper content and render the collaborator banned? Why not just ditch the 'proper content' thing. Maybe the person who locks articles is the most savvy and knowledgeable in the world? Why not simply put an official wikipedia page on that article and any subsequent edition just not being official. Who is to say what is notable and what is not? Archeologists treasure past-times trash mounds as an invaluable tool to unearth history. Vandalism? It happens. Just make a different version of each page. Or make a category called: vandalism and non-notable content. Banning and all of that is just a policy asking for trouble. Trouble being restricting knowledge. And what is an encyclopedia but a compendium of knowledge, ideally all knowledge? Verifiable? Like from the
American Diabetes Association which for years said lowering blood sugar in diabetics prevents heart attacks and now finds out the complete opposite is true (GOOGLE IT)? Or what about the blasphemic thought that the earth is round? Very easy to find reputable references for the theory that the earth is not flat. Are rules good? Maybe, maybe not. But I would say -in principle- avoid messing with so many rules and just stick with advice. --
2948:. Granted part of the problem was that back then images could not be undeleted, so deleting them was a "big deal". These days image deletions are just as reversable as any other deletion so we no longer need long grace pediods, what we need is a way to keep the number of "bad" images down, and knocking them off after X days does the job. If anyone then comes up with a new infromation/rationale that would allow the image to be used after it has been deleted they can simply request to have it undeleted. Considering how many people get all worked up about "perfectly good" images getting deleted over technicalities we could probably be doing a better job at informing people about the posibility of undeletion though... --
3339:
identifies it. The intent is for the admin's action to reflect what the community has determined to be the stronger arguments. The key area where the admin weighs in on is to determine whether genuine policy arguments are being used and discount editors who are simply ignoring policy. But as long as genuine policy arguments are being used, the community, not the admin, determines which ones are stronger. Otherwise we may as well stop wasting editors' time, dispense with AfD, and use CSD for everything. There's a wide area between a pure headcount and basing things on the admin's own idea of what should be done. AfD is intended to be resolved within that wide area in between, not at either extreme. Best, --
1253:
thought, "What if
Knowledge (XXG) started a 'Wiki Policy', where anyone could propose solutions to a current issue in the US? Then as people read these policies, they could point out flaws and solutions to these policies and propose "amendments" under the original policy. People can then vote for the most appealing amendments, and the amendment with the most votes could be modified and added into the original policy. The new, revised policy then becomes open for critique afterwards. After all, the best policies result from mutual collaboration, and no collaborative tool is better than Knowledge (XXG).
1924:
were removed in error. The site I run is not a discussion or fan site, it is purely an information site run with the full knowledge and co-operation of the brothers. The site contains no advertising and I receive no money for or through it. To my mind, if people are interested enough to view the individual pages on
Knowledge (XXG) they may like further information on current projects, which is where my site comes in. I would appreciate some feedback on this - I have, as advised by one of your editors, posted on each individual discussion page and on the blp page, without response. Thanks
1855:, has gone on a spree of deleting every trivia section he finds. I have discussed it with him on his talk page and encouraged him to work to improve articles through incorporation rather than simply deleting content, but he doesn't feel the need to not be unilaterally removing content in such a way. Am I too sensitive about it? Again, I do not like trivia sections, but I think this is just the wholly wrong way to go about the issue, and there is absolutely no policy prohibitin them. I'd appreciate outside observations, thoughts, and experiences. Feel free to bring it to
2508:
over mailing lists/etc, most people will at some point give out their real names. Knowledge (XXG) should respect the wish for privacy. Views and characters change but
Knowledge (XXG) does not forget - do we really want this? If this process should be implemented there is perhaps an open question regarding licensing. Who has the copyright of a text if the authors are all unknown or do not wish to be named? Or is this no problem at all because it's highly unlikely that all authors of an article do not wish to be named? I'm looking forward for your views on this topic. --
2988:). So slightly softer deadlines can be set - and as mentioned above, the 7 days is often relaxed a bit when BCB does a large batch - but as we're coming up to that deadline rather quickly and there are still a lot of images that don't even come close to satisfying the resolution, what's really needed is for people to look into the list of images that need fixed rationales and, well, fix them (I've done one or two, but I've been a bit busy IRL).
3381:
stronger--that is for the community to judge, not the admin. they should not be judging strength of policy, and if the wording in deletion policy implies we should, it needs to be changed. Our role is to know what is not policy so we can ignore it, and to discard irrelevant arguments. if w disagree with what the consensus considers to be the most relevant policy, we should be joining the argument and not closing it.
3054:
thousands and thousands of separate and individual volunteers, each editing by their own lights. Where you contrast two articles' treatment and conclude that there is some actual, considered reason behind the difference in application of policies as to them (and come to a highly speculative result), I see chaos and individual action and thus no direct connection between the two articles' treatment whatever.--
1374:
opinion, such a statements comes off as needlessly and subtly POV. It should be sufficient for NPOV to simply state "According to the Book of Mormon..." or something similar at the start, as is done on such pages for biblical characters from
Genesis and the Exodus, both which describe equally historically questionable events. I'm not against having such a statement on the
1780:, which currently redirects to the WikiProject), and yet there is always going to be someone who extends the "it's only an essay" argument one step further and say "it's only a WikiProject, who cares?". I don't think it will be a controversial guideline proposal, and if it makes administrating the project easier, why not? Commments?
2554:, not as a regular action for users who have vanished. If a vanishing user knows that they have posted personal information in a particular edit, the authorship of that edit can be hidden carefully with this new software, or obliterated by the sledgehammer of the current oversight system. However, anonymising
2558:
the contributions of an editor just because they have left strikes me as unnecessary, and would certainly damage the culture of openness and good faith that
Knowledge (XXG) currently fosters. The fact that your angry words or inappropriate edits might be forgiven but will never be forgotten, is what
2490:
The process would be for example: A user decides to disable his/her account, meaning that one is no longer able to contribute with this account (maybe with exception of the talk page). After 30 days or so the contributions of the account will be associated with an depersonalized/anonymous account (to
1694:
Studio and network issued publicity photos (both production stills and actor portraits) were virtually never registered for copyright, although the photos usually bore a copyright notice. The copyright notice alone protected the photo for its first 28-year copyright term. But a copyright could not be
1574:
As you noted, soft-redirects are most commonly used to show that a definition has been moved to
Wiktionary and that Knowledge (XXG) does not yet have an article on the topic (and maybe doesn't expect that we can ever get one). Soft-redirects are often used to preserve the contribution history of the
1527:
Are soft redirects to be treated as articles or redirects? If articles, then they are subject to AFD and A# speedy deletion. If
Redirect, then RFD and R# deletions are the rule. This goes to the heart of my problems with the A3 speedy deletion. If A3 can apply to one soft redirect, then it can be
1373:
is not generally accepted by non-Mormon historians or archaeologists" on every single page for individuals from the Book of Mormon narrative? Such a statement was added to a few pages some months ago, though to much disagreement. Now another editor has taken to including on all the other pages. In my
3338:
I disagree that this guideline can be interpreted to permit an admin to simply ignore the community and substitute the admin's own judgment for what the best outocme should be. Admins do not know policy any better than anyone else. The community, not the admin, arrives at consensus. The admin merely
3134:
deletion, banning, locking, protecting... all censorship. The problem with all of the above is the amount of freedom provided to collaborators by the powers to be. The people locking, banning, deleting, etc are simply: 1. not perfect 1.1. not completely objective. 1.2. maybe with a hidden personall
2943:
True, but we can't wait forever just because someone might not check in once every week either (I've had people contact me about images I tagged 6 months after they where delted). Back in the "good old days" the predecesors of the current speedy deletion tags would just say something along the lines
2697:
For instance images without licensing and proper rationales are tagged for deletion by the bots, however many of the images are uploaded by new users who do not understand the rationales, licensings, etc, and they get instantly nominated for deletion by the bots, the bots slapping a template warning
2693:
Hi, I have noticed that we have bots which are going around tagging hundreds of images for deletion because of their licensing/rationales etc, such as the
Betacommond bot. I can't see anything wrong with this as policy is policy and fair enough, however how these rules are coming out may come across
1501:
Within the last couple of days a specific "soft redirect" was placed for AFD discussion. In the middle of the discussion the redirect was A3 speedy deleted. I have strong feelings that this is not a proper A3 speedy, and have contacted the deleting admin about this before possibly taking the A3 to
3053:
Your post would be perfectly valid if Knowledge (XXG) was run by some type of being with godlike powers, able to monitor, tag and enforce everything equally, at the same time, with perfect knowledge of policy and its judicious application. Ah, but that is not the case at all. We are a collection of
2895:
Though I agree with most of the content of the responses above, I will say that the purpose of having a longer notice time is because not every Wikipeida editor comes here every day. Most of us do, who are Wikihobbyists, but there are a lot of causal users who come here now and then, and spend some
2762:
You're proposing a lot of things there, but the thing that you seem to fail to realise is the scale of the problem. However, I will answer each of your points in turn. Firstly, seven days is long enough for someone to write a flaming rationale. It takes two minutes. Other than having thousands more
2647:
We can rename the account, but we can't change old versions of pages. If you sign a page, every time someone edits the page and doesn't remove your signature, a new version of the page is created that has your username in it. The only way to do remedy this would be to modify the software to be able
2507:
hire someone based on his view on politics/whatever etc. etc. but this is definitely an issue. OK, someone can respond that one should have used a non-personalized username which can not be linked back to a person in the first place but I say: If someone actively contributes to Knowledge (XXG) e.g.
1639:
after their first 28-year term. I have never found one instance of a copyright renewal for a pre-1964 studio or network publicity photograph in the online U.S. Copyright Catalog. This online catalog contains all renewals made from 1978 forward, hence it would contain the renewal (if it was made) of
1621:
I would like to address the subject of the copyright status of movie and television studio portraits of actors. By these, I mean photographs meant to publicize the actor as a personality, and not still photos taken in costume or in character on the set of a particular production. The kind of photos
1439:
Would there be any support for getting rid of the maintenance categories (things like "Articles with unsourced statements from...")? These get mixed in with the pertinent categories at the bottom of articles and make it more difficult for ordinary users to find the categories which are likely to be
2563:
violation, would you want to see that half the votes had been anonymised because editors had left? We have a crude system in place to deal with individual inappropriate contributions, and that system will become more elegant and precise with the software update I mentioned above. Beyond that, if
2430:
I have a private conspiracy theory that the system of "internal pages" is kept deliberately complex and opaque, just to ensure that newcomers don't become too knowledgeable too quickly. A bit like the Bible used to be available only in Latin. This way newbies can be kept in their rightful place at
1923:
I am trying to resolve the removal of an external link. I run a website for the actors Joe, Paul, Mark and Stephen McGann and had an external link on each of their pages to the site (www.mcgannbrothers.org.uk). These links were recently removed but I believe under the terms of Knowledge (XXG) they
3070:
Fugghettaboutit's post is accurate. While I'm not sure what you mean by "SuperEditor" -- can I apply for admission to this category? -- I suggest a minor exercise that would help: rewrite the first paragraph of your post in the active rather than the passive voice. That might add the necessary
3031:
While in two subject areas I note the difference in treatment, the ARC, the net's largest collection of online art, which has been referenced as a source by a number of Wiki contributors, lacks "notability", while some little political party operating out of a true-believer's basement is accorded
2914:
In a more general tone, we've extended the deadlines on a soft-basis whenever there is a day that BCB tags like 5000 images, to give more time to correct them. I've expressed concern before about deletion-bots and scripts being run from admin accounts, but it seems there is a latent consensus to
2818:
It is generally accepted that altering the length of time allowed does not really affect either the effectiveness or the friendliness of the system. A message saying "you have ten days to fix this image or it will be deleted" is not really much different to one saying "you have seven days to fix
2790:
has over four megabytes of archives containing mainly complaints about the way the bot handles image tagging, and has been blocked (at the last count) 34 times by irate admins. While Betacommand and his bot take an enormous amount of stick for the work it does, Knowledge (XXG) fair-use policy is
2616:
policy. Although this is an interesting feature it does not solve the problem I have in mind. This only blocks very basic attempts of, let's say, snooping. What if a person knows to which articles or fields of interest I have contributed? It should be easy for this person to reveal my new/renamed
2168:
Thanks. I think I understand now. Well, to clarify, my proposal is just to put the current guidelines regarding user talk pages (found in three different guidelines) into one guideline. That can then later be improved if need be. I think it is very relevant because some people yelled at me in the
2133:
should be the place to pull it together, and that the page is necessary in and of itself, before it's marked as a guideline. I think that you should wait for that consensus, Law Lord, before marking it as a guideline again. John Broughton, I don't see the harm in hosting the policy proposal at
1252:
Today, I was reading an article on policies that affect the current US economic situation in New York Times and I browsed through the reader comments made in response to these proposals. Many of the recommendations in the comments were also quite valid and interesting. After thinking about it, I
2621:
You mentioned that the non-forgetting party of WP keeps people social - I think your view narrows it too much down to a Knowledge (XXG) internal issue. But I am thinking more of a real world issue. You know, it's not all about WP, people tend to have lives outside the internet and try to make a
1646:
I can perhaps understand Knowledge (XXG)'s reluctance to consider still photos from motion pictures and television shows to be in the public domain, because even if the still photo itself was not under its own copyright, it may have a derivative copyright from the film or television program it
3380:
Yesd, closers will sometimes simply use their own interpretation of policy, and that is wrong. They should judge what arguments are not based on policy, eliminate them, and see what the consensus is. this is different from trying to judge which of two competitive policy based arguments is the
2803:
meet the requirements of that resolution - there can be no discussion or dissention on this. So in response to the general question that has been raised countless times, no, Knowledge (XXG) cannot become more friendly to non-free images and media than it already is: in some respects, it must
3164:
No, every word anyone writes is not knowledge. This place is an encyclopedia, and without policies and enforcement of policies that keep this place on that track, we would very quickly be something else, like a random massive biased chaotic myspace-forum-blog, with people foisting ridiculous
2559:
compels many editors to remain civil and to assume good faith. Knowing the complete history of an article (or more usefully, things like user-talk or project pages) is invaluable in a whole host of tasks. If you had to dig up an old RfA to check for meatpuppetry or an old AfD to contest a
1634:
As a law student going into the specialty of intellectual property, and as someone who formerly worked in the industry, I am very familiar with materials and the issues involved. And that is why I can state this was some confidence: the U.S. copyrights of studio and network issued publicity
2698:
on the users talk page. Often since they are new users the very first message they recieve is a notification that the image they have uploaded is up for deletion. They are not going to understand it is a template message, and may recieve it as harsh. The way this is done could come up as
1654:
been renewed? No, which is why I say "virtually never". It is always possible that a handful of the copyrights, out of thousands, have been renewed. But the vast majority have not. Thus it is a shame to let a valuable source of public domain images go by unused out of a fear of copyright
3413:
Having participated in an AfD where I kept saying "no reliables sources exist for this subject" and others simply said "well, I think it's notable" and similar arguments not grounded in policy, I can assure you that at least one closing admin didn't eliminate all opinions which had weak
1846:
I'd like to get some outside comment on Trivia section removals. I'm not a fan of trivia sections, but believe that generally they should not be indiscriminately deleted/blanked. Either work to incorporate information into the article as possible or leave it be (so someone else will).
2807:
It is in response to Knowledge (XXG)'s reluctance to come into full compliance with this resolution that image taggers like BetacommandBot present their admittedly aggressive approach to image tagging. There is almost no one who argues that BCB's modus operandi is gentle or not
1577:
Consider the scenario where a user creates a definition for "foo" and it get's transwiki'd. If you delete it, sooner or later someone will recreate it in ignorance of the prior decision. If you leave behind the soft-redirect, the template includes the note that we don't have
2527:
in your question/proposal, so I'm not sure if you're aware of it. RTV lets you change your username, delete all personal information, and walk away. Of course you can come back with a new, more anonymous account if you like. Can you compare your proposal to this guideline?
3016:
One of my ongoing gripes about Knowledge (XXG) is that while there are stated standards, these standards are frequently ignored. The guidelines governing NPOV, citations and notability may be strenuously enforced in regard to some entries while completely ignored in others.
2502:
Why am I proposing this? Because people make statements, in the real world they will eventually be forgotten - Knowledge (XXG) does not forget. Maybe someone made statements and does not want to be associated to it by e.g. his human resources superior. I know it's illegal to
1775:
will be invoked, but I don't really see why: this is in many respects merely tidying-up around a rule which is already accepted as a guideline, not an attempt to create new policy or extend existing ones. It's already argued as a guideline, it already has its own shortcut
3110:
On the other hand, I've never heard of the Art Renewal Center. Doesn't mean it's not notable, it just means that you should look up the phrase on Google News. Just because I'm a rube and have missed this site doesn't mean that we need to change our operating procedures.
1386:
seems overdoing it. Since this covers such a broad number of articles, and has implication on pages relating to individuals mentioned in other religious texts, I was hoping to see what the larger community thought. So, thoughts and directions on what policy would dictate?
3633:
I would like to be able to share wikipedia articles on sies like facebook. Sites like these allow people to share articles from many news sources, and I consider Knowledge (XXG) articles to be article just like any other, though they are not always as timely.
2715:
3) Shouldn't how to put a proper rationale on an image be simplier? because even if a rationale is there, betacommond bot will class it as "invalid" and have it up for deletion. Because for it to "leave the image" alone, it has to be a big complicated template
3353:
I think we're in agreement. Closers should rely primarily on evaluating the weight of the policy-based arguments expressed. This may give rise to the appearance of disregarding consensus if there are many arguments (or plain votes) not grounded in policy.
1589:
Note: If the content was moved via a recent transwiki process, the contribution history should have been moved with the page. Older transwikis and content moved via cut-and-paste still require some other step such as history-preservation to satisfy GFDL.
3100:
Political parties are pretty easy to satisfy notability. States have published standards for being registered with that state. If it meets those standards, the state finds it notable, and if a state finds it notable, it's pretty much a shoo-in to pass
3741:
could be used for spamming, but I agree that there would be a problem deciding which sites should get "endorsed" by Knowledge (XXG). (Maybe we could charge any interested website, say, $ 100,000 per year for a standard link on every article?) --
3183:
Not to even mention the potential legal implications of such a thing... I suppose you could create your own Wiki with no rules, but I can't see Knowledge (XXG) becoming like that any time soon. In fact, it is heading in the opposite direction.
2837:
a threat. There has been much discussion about BCB combining notifications to avoid making multiple posts to a single talk page (the current record is 85 in two days), but it is usually noted that this would enormously slow down BCB's rate of
3024:. The entry is obviously written by a partisan of the Patriot Party, it refers to no cited sources, and as a political party without recognition lacks notability yet it remains in place and without flags. Last night I read an entry about the
2711:
2) What happens if a fair use image is in an article and removed by a vandal which does it slyly on a small article which gets no attention, the image is therefore tagged for deletion for not being in the article and deleted by accident.
1625:
Knowledge (XXG) currently has a policy of almost never allowing the use of these images, out of the belief that they are under copyright. And so, Knowledge (XXG) editors must resort to using low quality screen captures of the actors from
2656:). So you can't stop someone who is determined to dig up dirt on you from Knowledge (XXG). If you have a good reason though, along with a rename, you can have your signature removed/replaced on the current version of pages that its on.
1402:
I think "According to the Book of Mormon" would satisfy accuracy concerns and be more NPOV. If there is a large amount of archaelogical proof against the events listed, then it might warrant a section in the article describing that.
2919:
is a project to address the backlog that never got off the ground (but did create some useful tools). Remember the Dot and I have been working on ways to make FU image uploads easier and have submitted a bug request to MediaWiki at
1586:
work on definitions. The same could often be true in my mind for contributions which really fit better either in WikiQuote or WikiBooks. So to answer your first question, soft-redirect to the other projects seem reasonable to me.
1679:
That still sounds like a dangerous amount of conjecture and assumption. If the copyright on a particular image was filed and not renewed, why not trace it to the source and make some effort to demonstrate that it was not renewed?
1592:
As to whether a soft-redirect is an article or a redirect for the purposes of deletion, I could argue it both ways. It's a close call and either deletion forum could properly decide a case based on the specific merits.
2719:
4) Shouldn't we make the bots deletion proposal less of a "threat", which is the manner it appears to carry out the edits and many a times betacommond will spam a talkpage with the same warning template intimidatingly.
2822:
Image uploaders have seven days to fix this problem, and it is usually obvious where an image was supposed to go. If the image had a proper fair-use rationale including an article backlink, this would be very easy to
2309:) believes he's on a cleanup crusade for userboxes, including ones that are already userfied. I'm trying to explain why they're generally acceptable, but it doesn't seem like I'm getting through to him. I pointed out
1640:
any work originally published from 1950 to 1963. (For works first published from 1964 through 1977, copyright renewal was automatic; works first published from 1978 onward are given one continuous term of copyright.)
3544:
help. Instead, people would fight over single trees, rather than recognizing that overall some of the forest were diseased. (A DRV or new AfD are of course the places to go to reconsider the fates of single trees.)
2128:
from a guideline to a proposal. I think this succinct statement of user talk page policy is a great idea--it could help to stop some harassment of newbies--there needs to be at least a little consensus that
2625:
So, besides old vote results is there anything that stands in the way for such a feature? In my view, the personal lives of contributors should rank higher than Knowledge (XXG) internal politics. Regards --
1630:
that are not under copyright, or screen captures from public domain motion pictures the actors may have appeared in. Because of this over caution, many articles on actors are left without any photo at all.
2285:
1661:
that studio and television network issued portrait photos of actors published before 1964 be considered, by default, out of copyright and permissible for the use of illustrating the actor in articles.
2290:
1528:
applied to all of them. Like regular redirects, there is generally little on the page besides the soft redirect itself, and a long comment to keep the soft redirects off of the Short Pages reports.
3443:, for example, the closing admin is perfectly within rights to ignore or heavily discount those arguments. If we didn't want to give admins discretion, someone would write a bot for closing XfDs.
1524:
talk pages it appears obvious that, a couple of years back they were highly frowned upon. But somewhere along the way that disapproval seems to have faded, for their number to rise to over 1200.
2367:
I am wondering, since non-US postage stamps are not covered under US copyright law, if therefore a person's image on a stamp, from a third world country perhaps may be used as an illustration?
2618:
realnameĀ ? This is currently NOT possible and I don't see why archived, ancient votes are a reason against anonymization. Validity of votes was checked before so why should this be an issue?
50:
1417:
If there is a general article or section on the archaeological reliability of the Book Of Mormon, then the phrase "According to the Book of Mormon" could be linked (or redirected) there.
2702:, and I think seven days is a bit too soon, often the users will upload the image and not edit again, so shouldn't we consider that the way this is carried out could be done be softened?
1643:
If virtually no renewals exist for studio portrait photos first published 1950-1963, it is just as unlikely that any renewals exist for studio portrait photos first published 1923-1949.
2550:, a very slow-moving enhancement for MediaWiki which has the potential to largely effect this idea. Note, however, that this development is likely to be used only as an enhancement to
2280:
1969:
1647:
depicts. But in the case of a studio portrait of an actor, not depicting any particular production, there can be no such derivative copyright. The portrait photo stands on its own.
2962:
Sure, but wouldn't it be easier to give extra time, than to go through the hassle of undeleting?Ā :-) And newbies aren't necessarily going to know it can be done, so it gets a bit
2848:
I'm not sure about this, but I would expect it has been at least proposed in the past. With nearly 300,000 non-free images on Knowledge (XXG), such a project would dwarf even
2081:, yesterday, and no other editors have commented on it. I've reverted the new guideline back to a redirect and posted a note on the talk page about the need for consensus. --
1751:
We already have a clearly established ethos that Knowledge (XXG) should avoid systemic bias such as US-centrism, westernism, anglophonism, etc; and we have cleanup templates (
3317:
2431:
the bottom of the hierarchy, at least till they've been here long enough to learn to respect their betters and appreciate the perfection of the way things are done here. --
2055:
1996:
1960:
3665:
Save to del.icio.us ā¢ Share on Facebook ā¢ Digg This! ā¢ outside.in: geotag this story ā¢ Discuss on Newsvine ā¢ Stumble It! ā¢ Sphere: Related Content ā¢ Add to del.icio.us
1760:
2896:
time fixing up articles, and then they go away for a while. So the suggestion to have a longer warning period is not for you and me, but a different class of editor. -
2708:
1) Shouldn't we Increase the length of time the image is tagged for deletion for, 10 days maybe? and perhaps increase the publicity and teaching of these policies?
2966:. Anyway, as long as the warning period doesn't drop below a week, I'm not too concerned about it. I was just pointing out some rationale that wasn't quite true. -
1507:
1217:
I was the first one to make a refining change to the article. I would appreciate it if you would adjudicate the user WLU, who has reached the three revert limit.
3269:
I've been watching and/or participating in various AfD discussions. Ostensibly, the results of these discussions are determined by some meaningful notion(s) of
2207:- it's quite possible that some editors will object to yet another guideline, feeling that the info is fine where it is. Moreover, I don't believe the info was
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:
3468:
say was the extent to which problem XfDs (problems as far as he/she is concerned) went to DRV, and whether they were overturned there. If a number of such XfDs
2877:
And in response to point 1, if there's anything that extending the deadline would do, it would create more red tape and clutter. What would be next; 2 months?--
2799:. Knowledge (XXG) actually interprets this resolution extremely liberally, and has resisted complying fully for almost a year now. However, new images simply
2306:
1575:
moved content (a requirement of GFDL). Soft-redirects also have the advantage of clearly telling new editors that we don't want a repeat of the same mistake.
2648:
to edit old revisions in a way that most people can't see what was changed, but this could still require thousands of edits to be made if you sign a page like
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:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
365:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
281:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
403:
399:
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:
2786:
The issue of fair-use images on Knowledge (XXG) is a continually debated topic which is probably the single largest cause of controversy and discussion.
3169:
on the readers such as that the earth is flat. If you want to push that agenda somewhere, there are lots of places to do so that aren't encyclopedias.--
2652:
a few times or just delete everything that you have ever signed, which would be incredibly disruptive (and impossible in the case of pages like this or
1479:
2465:
Hi, I'm sure this topic has been covered before but I couldn't find anything related to it. So here is my proposal/question: Why is it not possible to
1943:. You are welcome to suggest inclusion on the article talk pages. If the site is deems suitable someone can add it but you should not add it yourself.
67:
2349:
2499:
the contributor by storing the information in a non-public database. So the information would not be lost but would be inaccessible for the web.
3281:
could be made. I don't know whether this same sort of thing is happening in CfD discussion and so forth, but I certainly can't rule that out.
3244:
2383:
1816:
1722:
1382:
page since the opinion of the historians and archaeologists is usually in direct relation to those groups, but putting something like this on
1260:
3676:
It's an interesting idea; it's something that could go into the left margin (quickbar) below everything else. Thoughts by other editors? --
2617:
username and thus the right to vanish itself would be useless. What if my career/job/life depends on destroying the link username <-: -->
1475:
1188:
45:
40:
3320:, in particular, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)."
2051:
1992:
1977:
57:
3038:
If there are to be standards then let's see them universally applied, if not universally applied, then just let everybody write anything.
1218:
3514:
I'm well aware that there are admins who do a superlative job of various things, including of closing _fDs; but I'm not quite sure why
2313:
and he told me he wanted to make a proposal to stop these kinds of userboxes, so I thought that was going to be the end of it. Then he
2099:
As I have answered, I merely quoted relevant parts from 3 different guidelines and even marked the source for each one as a footnote.
83:
35:
17:
2300:
1158:
Just wondering if there was anything out there, perhaps MOS, that discouraged the linking of units of height or weight in infoboxes.
94:
3652:
3288:
a reƤffirmation that the rƓle of a closing admin is to identify, respect, and effect the consensus decision (if there is one); or
3119:
2028:
1444:
3140:
3035:
My guess for the difference is that the SuperEditors are more likely to be intimidated by political kooks than by art critics.
2796:
2985:
1192:
62:
3775:
2640:
PS: Just to make it clear: anonymization means permanently disabling the account AND anonymize contributions (it's a logical
2401:
thanks sometimes it takes a WHILE to find the right page, it seems there are an infinite number of wikipedia internal pages.
1440:
of use to them. They seem unnecessary anyway, since "What links here" (from the relevant template page) can be used instead.
2830:
like to hear any specific suggestions you or anyone else can offer for making it even easier to provide fair-use rationales.
1907:
1828:
1513:
There are currently over 1200 soft redirects on the project. Most are to Wiktionary, but a number are to other projects.
3273:. But I have repeatedly noticed that some closers are ignoring consensus in favor of their judgment of who has provided
1768:
1745:
1551:
Quick update, the speedy deleting admin has reversed himself, so DRV is not an issue. The wider issues remain, though. -
2296:
3313:
2524:
1536:, but to start discussion on the larger issues of all the soft redirects in general, and how they should be handled. -
2364:
I am almost afraid to ask a question, seeing as how I am new and don't really want to draw too much attention as yet.
2345:
2244:
page - that is, a page that simply says that guideline information about user talk pages can be found at X, Y, and Z.
2237:
2135:
2130:
2078:
2019:
3136:
3174:
3059:
2445:
That assumes that "the betters" know what's going on in half of those pages, which is a rather large assumption.
2386:. The short answer is that U.S. law respects copyrights in other countries, and hence so does Knowledge (XXG).
29:
3748:
3682:
3486:
2254:
2087:
1864:
1856:
1731:
1264:
3150:
I'm sorry, what are you actually proposing? We allow people to write absolutely anything on Knowledge (XXG)?
3021:
2694:
as aggressive and hard towards many users, I would like to propose some possible changes to how this works.
2547:
2320:
1355:
1222:
3640:
3203:
2036:
1562:
1256:
3619:
3344:
2833:
No matter how it's worded, the message is ultimately saying "fix this image or it will be deleted", which
2631:
2564:
you choose a username which allows personal identification and air questionable views on a site which you
2513:
2341:
1556:
1541:
1392:
1308:
2551:
2139:
3233:
2867:
2594:
1852:
1787:
1685:
1383:
2073:
The page has been converted from a redirect to a new guideline (copying info from other guidelines) by
86:. Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either
3789:
3751:
3720:
3699:
3685:
3656:
3623:
3577:
3556:
3489:
3392:
3363:
3348:
3329:
3306:
3258:
3237:
3207:
3199:
3193:
3178:
3159:
3144:
3082:
3063:
3047:
2999:
2975:
2957:
2932:
2905:
2886:
2872:
2776:
2756:
2742:
2676:
2635:
2599:
2537:
2517:
2452:
2440:
2425:
2410:
2395:
2376:
2353:
2330:
2257:
2178:
2151:
2111:
2090:
2067:
2008:
1947:
1933:
1912:
1868:
1833:
1811:
1792:
1734:
1708:
1689:
1673:
1610:
1566:
1545:
1491:
1464:
1426:
1412:
1396:
1359:
1330:
1284:
1268:
1241:
1226:
1204:
1177:
3648:
3170:
3116:
3055:
2981:
2841:
This is not possible under the resolution I mentioned above - in some respects the bots are not hard
2792:
2752:
2738:
2406:
2372:
3291:
an admission that consensus will no longer be as prevailing a principle as previously been asserted.
2853:
2529:
2143:
1925:
1372:
Is it necessary to put such a statement as "The historicity of <Book of Mormon person's name: -->
1196:
3744:
3695:
3678:
3573:
The process looks weak when a closer closes pages and pages of debate without typing a rationale. ā
3551:
3482:
3301:
3229:
3189:
3155:
3079:
2787:
2772:
2533:
2491:
avoid that vandals are able to hide their actions by instantly disabling their account after their
2432:
2250:
2170:
2147:
2103:
2083:
2074:
2063:
2004:
1929:
1860:
1727:
1681:
1622:
studios and television networks would send out to newspapers and magazines to publicize the actor.
1456:
1200:
3166:
2729:
7) should admins be allowed to run through them and delete them with bots, which such admins like
1887:
1302:
3782:
3043:
3025:
2726:
6) Has there been a wikiproject considered to sort out rationales, fair use and orphaned images?
2664:
2436:
2174:
2107:
1807:
1754:
1487:
1460:
1408:
1351:
1280:
2916:
1772:
2921:
2826:
How, exactly, is the process currently complicated and how could it be made simpler? We would
3612:
3340:
2971:
2953:
2901:
2882:
2627:
2509:
2340:
issue than policy. There's nothing strictly against these noms, aside from being pointless. ā
1904:
1825:
1704:
1669:
1606:
1552:
1537:
1388:
1168:
3605:
2963:
2809:
2699:
1799:
1777:
1342:. But I agree that most users would probably use futurology, since most of them are probably
3253:
2994:
2861:
2588:
1781:
3597:
3440:
3435:
More to the point, nowhere in the guideline does it say "eliminate type X arguments", then
2849:
2653:
2649:
2622:
living. I guess you've heard about human resources folks googl'ing the names of applicants?
2560:
2310:
2125:
1940:
1594:
1521:
1503:
1275:
Interesting idea, but it would have to be a separate wiki and not part of Knowledge (XXG).
3644:
3593:
3574:
3359:
3325:
3112:
2748:
2734:
2421:
2402:
2391:
2368:
2211:
from the other guidelines, which means the new (proposed) guideline is simply duplication.
1892:
This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page.
1848:
1422:
1297:
1232:
Actually, we both have, and I don't think this is the appropriate place to discuss this.
3762:
Actually, that's already been implemented on Facebook's side. Instructions can be found
3601:
2924:, but they have been busy with actual bugs and haven't been able to get to new features.
2337:
1798:
I think the idea that Knowledge (XXG) should "Avoid systemic bias" is already covered in
1582:
another mere dictionary definition. And we helpfully point them to a place where people
2495:). As an alternative to ultimately anonymizing contribution, Knowledge (XXG) could just
3691:
3546:
3296:
3185:
3151:
3076:
2944:
of "image has no source, please fix", and they tended to just stay like that, some for
2768:
2327:
2059:
2000:
1627:
3767:
3388:
3225:
3039:
2658:
1803:
1483:
1404:
1276:
1237:
3663:
I think you're referring to Knowledge (XXG) adding links to each article like this:
3609:
2102:
Please explain why you think existing and approved guidelines need new consensus. --
1955:
Knowledge (XXG):Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment has been marked as a guideline
2967:
2949:
2926:
2897:
2878:
2730:
1944:
1900:
1821:
1700:
1665:
1650:
Can it be stated with confidence that the copyright on a studio portrait photo has
1602:
1533:
1506:. But the wider issue of soft redirects, and how to handle them, remains. Do see
1478:
when it concerns living people and religion. Please participate in the discussion
1347:
1161:
2568:
will record your contributions for the rest of time, that's your own silly fault.
1817:
Knowledge (XXG):Neutral point of view/FAQ#Anglo-American focus and systematic bias
3248:
2989:
2446:
3717:
3355:
3321:
2723:
5) Shouldn't the reasons why the bots tag the images for deletion be softer?
2417:
2387:
1763:) to deal with it, yet there is no specific guideline I can see that actually
1520:
Are soft redirects good for the project in general? Glancing through the old
1418:
3763:
3476:
get overturned, then what is being proposed is clearly a significant change.
2248:
don't really require consensus (assuming that they aren't controversial). --
1187:
You may want to join in the discussion at the Village Pump (proposals) about
1343:
1601:
apply to a soft-redirect anymore than it would apply to a hard-redirect.
3525:
Nor would I waste time if admins were merely ignoring arguments such as ā
3383:
1516:
The key questions that I see coming out of the AFD/speedy situation are:
1379:
1233:
3668:
1375:
3318:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus
3690:
No, too spammy. We're effectively endorsing those sites by doing so.
2767:
of this problem, as this is something you don't seem to quite grasp.
2286:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:EVula/Userboxes/Martian
3028:
which was flagged by an earnest SuperEditor as lacking notability.
1896:
it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.
1859:
to prevent this section/page from growing unmanagable big. Thanks!
3713:
3600:, discussion of a return to the previous long-standing wording at
3091:
I'm not a supereditor, but I am the superluser. Does that count?
2291:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:EVula/Userboxes/Eris
1191:
from Knowledge (XXG). This topic started in the talk page of the
2169:
past when I removed harassment from my own talk page. Cheers. --
1301:
over what that article should be called, and whether the policy
3224:
Hi. Where can I find a discussion regarding audio samples like
2812:, but a majority seem to agree that it is ultimately necessary.
1699:
term until it was registered within its first 28-year term. ā
2980:
The problem is that there is an absolute deadline set by the
2014:
Knowledge (XXG):User talk page has been marked as a guideline
90:
a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
82:
This page contains discussions that have been archived from
3766:; I imagine the other sharing sites have similar setups. --
2483:
replace username in histories with a placeholder like e.g.
2281:
Knowledge (XXG):Templates for deletion/Log/2008 February 16
1767:
this widely accepted rule. Does anyone want to help write
3439:. If several editors make a nonsensical argument based on
1445:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Categorization#Maintenance categories
2203:
being at what was a redirect. But it still needs to be a
2079:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Talk page#Policy for user talk pages
1771:
as a potential guideline to fill this gap? I know that
3589:
2314:
2044:
2040:
2032:
2024:
1985:
1981:
1973:
1965:
87:
3020:
I've just read, and provided discussion on, the entry
3012:
Flexibility of Standards - NPOV, Citations, Notability
2272:
Growing XfD nominations of non-controversial userboxes
1819:
is probably the closest to what you're looking for. --
1183:
How to remove duplicated content from Knowledge (XXG)?
2612:
Hi, thanks for your input - I wasn't aware about the
1961:
Knowledge (XXG):Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment
2382:
We have a special page for questions on this topic:
1305:applies. Your opinion there would be appreciated.
3716:. We have a big enough problem with spam as it is.
3518:
point should here be relevant, as what I said was ā
3314:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy#Deletion discussion
3075:writes, edits, and patrols articles here. Cheers,
1655:infringement, a fear not justified by the facts.
1510:for some of my earlier comments on the situation.
1508:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Omglolwtfbbq
3198:Indeed, we are becomming a very oppressed bunch.
3071:precision -- doing so will make you think about
2416:You're welcome. And never be afraid to ask.Ā :)
1338:well if it was up to me I'd probably call it
8:
3629:Ability to share articles on Facebook, etc.
1470:Categorization of living people by religion
3540:have seen, I decided that examples would
3245:Knowledge (XXG):Media copyright questions
2384:Knowledge (XXG):Media copyright questions
2050:has recently been edited to mark it as a
1991:has recently been edited to mark it as a
1849:A new user (started 04 Feb as I can tell)
1723:Knowledge (XXG):Media copyright questions
1368:Statement on book of mormon related pages
3536:that has attended most of the DRVs that
2815:In response to your specific questions:
1894:- If information is otherwise suitable,
3608:about footnote placement was initiated
3228:and the involving copy right issues? --
1635:photographs published before 1964 were
3284:I think that there needs to be either
3130:Proper content, notability, vandalism,
2546:You might also want to have a look at
2477:the possibility to disable the account
1532:I'm not here to DRV argue the case of
1474:There is disagreement on how to apply
1443:This proposal has also been raised at
1350:" concerning scientific speculation.--
1346:, and as far as I know it's the main "
3712:Not to mention such a feature can be
3637:Just my two cents. Thanks, Michael
2986:wikimedia:Resolution:Licensing policy
18:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy)
7:
2480:lock/remove user and discussion page
2138:, with all respect. We can link to
2077:. The proposal to do so was made at
1898:" Seems fairly unambiguous to me. --
1761:WikiProject Countering systemic bias
1769:Knowledge (XXG):Avoid systemic bias
2819:this image or it will be deleted".
2199:I have no strong objection to the
24:
2469:a registered account? When I say
2142:from this proposal page, right?
3522:closers are ignoring consensusā.
3739:generated by MediaWiki software
2525:Knowledge (XXG):Right to vanish
3437:count the rest of the opinions
2238:Knowledge (XXG):User talk page
2136:Knowledge (XXG):User talk page
2131:Knowledge (XXG):User talk page
2020:Knowledge (XXG):User talk page
1291:Futurology or Futures studies?
1189:eliminating duplicated content
1:
3790:15:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
3752:15:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
3721:12:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
3700:11:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
3686:22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
3657:00:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
3624:03:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
3578:02:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
3557:04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
3490:22:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
3393:05:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
3364:18:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
3349:16:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
3330:15:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
3307:15:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
3259:02:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
3238:22:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
3208:00:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
3194:11:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
3179:19:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
3160:14:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
3145:16:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
3123:2008Ā FebruaryĀ 19,Ā 02:51Ā (UTC)
3083:14:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
3064:02:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
3048:19:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
3000:04:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
2976:18:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2958:02:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2933:02:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2906:01:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2887:18:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
2873:15:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
2797:resolution on image licensing
2777:15:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
2757:14:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
2743:15:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
2677:21:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2636:20:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2600:15:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
2538:14:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
2518:12:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
2453:08:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2441:07:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
2426:07:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
2354:09:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
2331:09:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
2258:16:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
2179:15:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
2152:14:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
2112:02:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
2091:22:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
2068:18:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
2009:18:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1948:11:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1934:09:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1913:08:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1869:08:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1842:Trivia sections "discouraged"
1834:09:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1812:06:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1793:21:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1735:22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1709:18:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1690:10:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1674:23:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
1611:20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1597:(no content), however, would
1567:18:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1546:18:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1492:18:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1465:15:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1427:00:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1413:15:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1397:06:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1360:15:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
1331:03:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
1285:23:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1269:22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1242:14:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1227:14:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1205:19:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
1178:14:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
78:Village pump (policy) archive
3277:, or even of for which side
2548:mw:Bitfields for rev deleted
2411:22:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
2396:16:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
2377:16:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
1664:I welcome any discussion. ā
3478:Examples would really help.
2791:ultimately governed by the
2360:Non-US postage stamp images
1721:I suggest you take this to
1476:WP:Categorization of people
3806:
2804:eventually become less so.
1759:, etc) and a WikiProject (
1154:Linking units on infoboxes
2689:Image policies too harsh?
2140:Knowledge (XXG):Talk page
3667:. (For an example, see
2856:in scale and complexity.
2705:Some things to consider
3737:I'm not sure how links
3249:Confusing Manifestation
2990:Confusing Manifestation
2984:of March 23, 2008 (see
2461:Anonymize contributions
2297:OtolemurĀ crassicaudatus
1637:virtually never renewed
1295:There's an argument at
3529:I think this is kewl.ā
3022:American Patriot Party
1617:Movie studio portraits
1435:Maintenance categories
95:<Ā Older discussions
3137:WonderingAngel-aesc78
3032:unchallenged status.
2915:accept such things.
2342:Trust not the Penguin
1384:Enos (Book of Mormon)
1193:Summary style article
84:Village pump (policy)
3532:Having observed the
2982:Wikimedia Foundation
2793:Wikimedia foundation
1886:. Direct quote from
3472:go to DRV, and did
1746:Avoid systemic bias
1340:future speculations
3584:Footnote placement
3275:the best arguments
3026:Art Renewal Center
2523:You don't mention
2058:of the change. --
1999:of the change. --
3714:used for spamming
3659:
3643:comment added by
3279:the best argument
3257:
2998:
2485:anon contribution
2246:Information pages
1609:
1569:
1271:
1259:comment added by
1176:
3797:
3787:
3780:
3772:
3747:
3681:
3638:
3616:
3554:
3485:
3304:
3251:
2992:
2956:
2929:
2733:has been doing?
2675:
2672:
2669:
2661:
2587:
2574:14 Fruit Avenue,
2450:
2336:Seems more of a
2325:
2319:
2253:
2086:
2056:automated notice
2049:
2048:
1997:automated notice
1990:
1989:
1911:
1882:or in this case
1832:
1758:
1730:
1605:
1560:
1451:some opposition
1326:
1323:
1320:
1317:
1314:
1311:
1254:
1210:Creation Science
1175:
1173:
1166:
1159:
79:
54:
3805:
3804:
3800:
3799:
3798:
3796:
3795:
3794:
3783:
3776:
3768:
3743:
3677:
3631:
3614:
3594:Economy of Ohio
3586:
3555:
3550:
3481:
3464:What SlamDiego
3305:
3300:
3267:
3222:
3171:Fuhghettaboutit
3167:fringe theories
3132:
3122:
3056:Fuhghettaboutit
3014:
2952:
2927:
2691:
2670:
2665:
2659:
2657:
2614:right to vanish
2585:
2463:
2448:
2362:
2323:
2317:
2274:
2249:
2082:
2022:
2018:
2016:
1963:
1959:
1957:
1921:
1910:
1899:
1844:
1831:
1820:
1752:
1749:
1726:
1619:
1499:
1472:
1437:
1370:
1324:
1321:
1318:
1315:
1312:
1309:
1298:talk:Futurology
1293:
1261:136.152.148.113
1250:
1212:
1185:
1169:
1162:
1160:
1156:
1151:
80:
77:
74:
48:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3803:
3801:
3793:
3792:
3760:
3759:
3758:
3757:
3756:
3755:
3754:
3745:John Broughton
3728:
3727:
3726:
3725:
3724:
3723:
3705:
3704:
3703:
3702:
3679:John Broughton
3673:
3672:
3669:this blog page
3630:
3627:
3585:
3582:
3581:
3580:
3570:
3569:
3568:
3567:
3566:
3565:
3564:
3563:
3562:
3561:
3560:
3559:
3549:
3530:
3523:
3501:
3500:
3499:
3498:
3497:
3496:
3495:
3494:
3493:
3492:
3483:John Broughton
3453:
3452:
3451:
3450:
3449:
3448:
3447:
3446:
3445:
3444:
3424:
3423:
3422:
3421:
3420:
3419:
3418:
3417:
3416:
3415:
3402:
3401:
3400:
3399:
3398:
3397:
3396:
3395:
3371:
3370:
3369:
3368:
3367:
3366:
3333:
3332:
3299:
3293:
3292:
3289:
3266:
3263:
3262:
3261:
3243:You could try
3221:
3218:
3217:
3216:
3215:
3214:
3213:
3212:
3211:
3210:
3131:
3128:
3127:
3126:
3125:
3124:
3115:
3105:
3104:
3103:
3102:
3095:
3094:
3093:
3092:
3086:
3085:
3067:
3066:
3013:
3010:
3009:
3008:
3007:
3006:
3005:
3004:
3003:
3002:
2938:
2937:
2936:
2935:
2922:bugzilla:12452
2909:
2908:
2892:
2891:
2890:
2889:
2859:
2858:
2857:
2846:
2839:
2831:
2824:
2820:
2813:
2805:
2788:Betacommandbot
2780:
2779:
2690:
2687:
2686:
2685:
2684:
2683:
2682:
2681:
2680:
2679:
2638:
2623:
2619:
2605:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2583:
2582:
2581:
2578:
2575:
2572:
2541:
2540:
2488:
2487:
2481:
2478:
2462:
2459:
2458:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2428:
2399:
2398:
2361:
2358:
2357:
2356:
2321:User wikipedia
2294:
2293:
2288:
2283:
2273:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2260:
2251:John Broughton
2236:- simply make
2234:another option
2221:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2216:
2215:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2159:
2158:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2117:
2116:
2115:
2114:
2100:
2094:
2093:
2084:John Broughton
2015:
2012:
1956:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1920:
1919:External links
1917:
1916:
1915:
1903:
1861:VigilancePrime
1843:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1824:
1748:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1728:John Broughton
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1695:renewed for a
1628:movie trailers
1618:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1591:
1588:
1580:and don't want
1576:
1571:
1570:
1530:
1529:
1525:
1498:
1497:Soft redirects
1495:
1471:
1468:
1436:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1369:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1292:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1249:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1214:Silly Rabbit,
1211:
1208:
1184:
1181:
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:
3802:
3791:
3788:
3786:
3781:
3779:
3773:
3771:
3765:
3761:
3753:
3750:
3746:
3740:
3736:
3735:
3734:
3733:
3732:
3731:
3730:
3729:
3722:
3719:
3715:
3711:
3710:
3709:
3708:
3707:
3706:
3701:
3697:
3693:
3689:
3688:
3687:
3684:
3680:
3675:
3674:
3670:
3666:
3662:
3661:
3660:
3658:
3654:
3650:
3646:
3642:
3635:
3628:
3626:
3625:
3621:
3617:
3611:
3607:
3603:
3599:
3595:
3591:
3583:
3579:
3576:
3572:
3571:
3558:
3553:
3548:
3543:
3539:
3535:
3531:
3528:
3524:
3521:
3517:
3513:
3512:
3511:
3510:
3509:
3508:
3507:
3506:
3505:
3504:
3503:
3502:
3491:
3488:
3484:
3479:
3475:
3471:
3467:
3463:
3462:
3461:
3460:
3459:
3458:
3457:
3456:
3455:
3454:
3442:
3438:
3434:
3433:
3432:
3431:
3430:
3429:
3428:
3427:
3426:
3425:
3412:
3411:
3410:
3409:
3408:
3407:
3406:
3405:
3404:
3403:
3394:
3390:
3386:
3385:
3379:
3378:
3377:
3376:
3375:
3374:
3373:
3372:
3365:
3361:
3357:
3352:
3351:
3350:
3346:
3342:
3337:
3336:
3335:
3334:
3331:
3327:
3323:
3319:
3315:
3311:
3310:
3309:
3308:
3303:
3298:
3290:
3287:
3286:
3285:
3282:
3280:
3276:
3272:
3264:
3260:
3255:
3250:
3246:
3242:
3241:
3240:
3239:
3235:
3231:
3227:
3220:Audio samples
3219:
3209:
3205:
3201:
3197:
3196:
3195:
3191:
3187:
3182:
3181:
3180:
3176:
3172:
3168:
3163:
3162:
3161:
3157:
3153:
3149:
3148:
3147:
3146:
3142:
3138:
3129:
3121:
3118:
3114:
3109:
3108:
3107:
3106:
3099:
3098:
3097:
3096:
3090:
3089:
3088:
3087:
3084:
3081:
3078:
3074:
3069:
3068:
3065:
3061:
3057:
3052:
3051:
3050:
3049:
3045:
3041:
3036:
3033:
3029:
3027:
3023:
3018:
3011:
3001:
2996:
2991:
2987:
2983:
2979:
2978:
2977:
2973:
2969:
2965:
2961:
2960:
2959:
2955:
2951:
2947:
2942:
2941:
2940:
2939:
2934:
2931:
2930:
2923:
2918:
2913:
2912:
2911:
2910:
2907:
2903:
2899:
2894:
2893:
2888:
2884:
2880:
2876:
2875:
2874:
2871:
2870:
2865:
2864:
2860:
2855:
2851:
2847:
2844:
2840:
2836:
2832:
2829:
2825:
2821:
2817:
2816:
2814:
2811:
2806:
2802:
2798:
2794:
2789:
2785:
2782:
2781:
2778:
2774:
2770:
2766:
2761:
2760:
2759:
2758:
2754:
2750:
2745:
2744:
2740:
2736:
2732:
2727:
2724:
2721:
2717:
2713:
2709:
2706:
2703:
2701:
2695:
2688:
2678:
2674:
2673:
2668:
2662:
2655:
2651:
2646:
2645:
2643:
2639:
2637:
2633:
2629:
2624:
2620:
2615:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2608:
2607:
2606:
2601:
2598:
2597:
2592:
2591:
2584:
2579:
2576:
2573:
2571:Thomas Melon,
2570:
2569:
2567:
2562:
2557:
2553:
2549:
2545:
2544:
2543:
2542:
2539:
2535:
2531:
2526:
2522:
2521:
2520:
2519:
2515:
2511:
2506:
2500:
2498:
2494:
2486:
2482:
2479:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2472:
2468:
2460:
2454:
2451:
2444:
2443:
2442:
2438:
2434:
2429:
2427:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2408:
2404:
2397:
2393:
2389:
2385:
2381:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2374:
2370:
2365:
2359:
2355:
2351:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2332:
2329:
2322:
2316:
2312:
2308:
2305:
2302:
2298:
2292:
2289:
2287:
2284:
2282:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2271:
2259:
2256:
2252:
2247:
2243:
2239:
2235:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2226:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2222:
2210:
2206:
2202:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2161:
2160:
2153:
2149:
2145:
2141:
2137:
2132:
2127:
2123:
2122:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2118:
2113:
2109:
2105:
2101:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2095:
2092:
2089:
2085:
2080:
2076:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2069:
2065:
2061:
2057:
2054:. This is an
2053:
2046:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2030:
2026:
2021:
2013:
2011:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1995:. This is an
1994:
1987:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1967:
1962:
1954:
1949:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1918:
1914:
1909:
1906:
1902:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1850:
1841:
1835:
1830:
1827:
1823:
1818:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1791:
1790:
1785:
1784:
1779:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1756:
1747:
1744:
1736:
1733:
1729:
1724:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1671:
1667:
1662:
1660:
1656:
1653:
1648:
1644:
1641:
1638:
1632:
1629:
1623:
1616:
1612:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1585:
1581:
1573:
1572:
1568:
1565:was added at
1564:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1526:
1523:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1514:
1511:
1509:
1505:
1496:
1494:
1493:
1489:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1469:
1467:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1441:
1434:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1367:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1352:Sparkygravity
1349:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1304:
1300:
1299:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1248:"Wiki Policy"
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1219:208.188.2.101
1215:
1209:
1207:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1182:
1180:
1179:
1174:
1172:
1167:
1165:
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:
3784:
3777:
3769:
3738:
3664:
3636:
3632:
3596:appeared at
3590:this version
3587:
3541:
3537:
3534:emotionalism
3533:
3526:
3519:
3515:
3477:
3473:
3469:
3465:
3436:
3382:
3341:Shirahadasha
3294:
3283:
3278:
3274:
3270:
3268:
3223:
3133:
3072:
3037:
3034:
3030:
3019:
3015:
2945:
2925:
2868:
2862:
2842:
2834:
2827:
2800:
2783:
2764:
2746:
2731:User:Misza13
2728:
2725:
2722:
2718:
2714:
2710:
2707:
2704:
2696:
2692:
2666:
2663:
2641:
2628:ReallyNobody
2613:
2595:
2589:
2565:
2555:
2510:ReallyNobody
2504:
2501:
2496:
2492:
2489:
2484:
2470:
2466:
2464:
2400:
2366:
2363:
2303:
2295:
2275:
2245:
2241:
2233:
2208:
2204:
2200:
2017:
1958:
1939:Please read
1922:
1895:
1891:
1883:
1879:
1872:
1871:
1857:my talk page
1845:
1788:
1782:
1764:
1750:
1696:
1663:
1658:
1657:
1651:
1649:
1645:
1642:
1636:
1633:
1624:
1620:
1598:
1583:
1579:
1553:TexasAndroid
1538:TexasAndroid
1534:Omglolwtfbbq
1531:
1515:
1512:
1500:
1473:
1452:
1448:
1442:
1438:
1389:FyzixFighter
1371:
1348:catch phrase
1339:
1307:
1306:
1296:
1294:
1251:
1216:
1213:
1186:
1170:
1163:
1157:
503:
368:
97:
93:
81:
30:Village pump
28:
3639:āPreceding
3312:Please see
3265:_fD results
3200:Gavin Scott
2747:Thank you.
2577:Upper Bowl,
2473:I think of
2242:information
1853:WillOakland
1561:āPreceding
1255:āPreceding
3645:Belgrade18
3414:arguments.
3113:superluser
3077:Antandrus
2854:WP:MILHIST
2838:operation.
2749:AndreNatas
2735:AndreNatas
2403:EraserGirl
2369:EraserGirl
2124:I changed
100:Archives:
51:persistent
3692:J Milburn
3547:SlamDiego
3297:SlamDiego
3271:consensus
3186:J Milburn
3152:J Milburn
2769:J Milburn
2561:WP:CSD#G4
2552:oversight
2530:Darkspots
2471:anonymize
2467:anonymize
2328:Ned Scott
2315:nominated
2232:There is
2144:Darkspots
2060:VeblenBot
2052:guideline
2001:VeblenBot
1993:guideline
1926:Micharris
1888:WP:TRIVIA
1804:-Icewedge
1765:enshrines
1755:globalise
1659:Proposed:
1344:futurists
1303:WP:NAMING
1197:Emmanuelm
46:Proposals
41:Technical
3653:contribs
3641:unsigned
3230:Tantalos
3040:LAWinans
2917:WP:TODAY
2433:Kotniski
2307:contribs
2205:proposal
2201:proposal
2171:Law Lord
2104:Law Lord
2075:Law Lord
1773:WP:CREEP
1682:Wikidemo
1484:Karanacs
1457:Kotniski
1405:Karanacs
1380:Lamanite
1277:Sbowers3
1257:unsigned
58:Idea lab
3615:Georgia
3606:WP:CITE
3254:Say hi!
2995:Say hi!
2968:Freekee
2950:Sherool
2928:MBisanz
2898:Freekee
2879:WaltCip
2700:WP:BITE
2580:Melonia
2209:removed
2033:history
1974:history
1945:Spartaz
1901:RoninBK
1822:RoninBK
1800:WP:NPOV
1778:WP:BIAS
1701:Walloon
1666:Walloon
1603:Rossami
1563:comment
1376:Nephite
3598:WP:FAC
3588:After
3466:didn't
3441:WP:COI
3080:(talk)
2954:(talk)
2850:WP:BIO
2843:enough
2654:WP:ANI
2650:WP:ANI
2311:WP:GUS
2126:WP:UTP
1941:WP:COI
1697:second
1607:(talk)
1595:CSD A3
1522:WP:RFD
1504:WP:DRV
1453:so far
1447:(with
36:Policy
3770:jonny
3718:MER-C
3613:Sandy
3610:here.
3602:WP:FN
3575:Pomte
3527:Keep.
3356:Bovlb
3322:Bovlb
3101:WP:N.
2964:BITEy
2946:years
2869:melon
2863:Happy
2810:bitey
2596:melon
2590:Happy
2418:Bovlb
2388:Bovlb
2338:WP:AN
2326:. --
2276:See:
2041:watch
2037:links
1982:watch
1978:links
1789:melon
1783:Happy
1725:. --
1652:never
1599:never
1419:Bovlb
1164:Londo
88:start
16:<
3764:here
3749:(ā«ā«)
3696:talk
3683:(ā«ā«)
3649:talk
3620:Talk
3604:and
3520:some
3516:that
3487:(ā«ā«)
3389:talk
3360:talk
3345:talk
3326:talk
3316:and
3234:talk
3226:here
3204:talk
3190:talk
3175:talk
3156:talk
3141:talk
3060:talk
3044:talk
2972:talk
2902:talk
2883:talk
2823:fix.
2801:must
2784:(ec)
2773:talk
2765:size
2753:talk
2739:talk
2632:talk
2566:know
2534:talk
2514:talk
2497:hide
2493:work
2447:Tito
2437:talk
2422:talk
2407:talk
2392:talk
2373:talk
2301:talk
2255:(ā«ā«)
2175:talk
2148:talk
2108:talk
2088:(ā«ā«)
2064:talk
2045:logs
2029:talk
2025:edit
2005:talk
1986:logs
1970:talk
1966:edit
1930:talk
1884:RTFG
1880:RTFM
1865:talk
1808:talk
1732:(ā«ā«)
1705:talk
1686:talk
1670:talk
1557:talk
1542:talk
1488:talk
1480:here
1461:talk
1455:).--
1423:talk
1409:talk
1393:talk
1356:talk
1313:e Tr
1281:talk
1265:talk
1238:talk
1223:talk
1201:talk
3592:of
3542:not
3480:--
3474:not
3470:did
3384:DGG
3073:who
2852:or
2828:all
2795:'s
2671:man
2660:Mr.
2644:).
2642:and
2556:all
2505:not
2240:an
1890:: "
1873::-)
1559:)
1378:or
1325:ist
1322:man
1316:ans
1234:WLU
1195:.
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
3698:)
3655:)
3651:ā¢
3622:)
3552:āT
3391:)
3362:)
3347:)
3328:)
3302:āT
3247:.
3236:)
3206:)
3192:)
3177:)
3158:)
3143:)
3062:)
3046:)
2974:)
2904:)
2885:)
2835:is
2775:)
2755:)
2741:)
2667:Z-
2634:)
2586::D
2536:)
2516:)
2449:xd
2439:)
2424:)
2409:)
2394:)
2375:)
2352:)
2348:|
2324:}}
2318:{{
2177:)
2150:)
2110:)
2066:)
2043:|
2039:|
2035:|
2031:|
2027:|
2007:)
1984:|
1980:|
1976:|
1972:|
1968:|
1932:)
1867:)
1851:,
1810:)
1802:.
1757:}}
1753:{{
1707:)
1688:)
1672:)
1584:do
1544:)
1490:)
1482:.
1463:)
1449:no
1425:)
1411:)
1395:)
1387:--
1358:)
1319:hu
1310:Th
1283:)
1267:)
1240:)
1225:)
1203:)
1171:06
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:,
3785:t
3778:m
3774:-
3694:(
3671:.
3647:(
3618:(
3545:ā
3538:I
3387:(
3358:(
3343:(
3324:(
3295:ā
3256:)
3252:(
3232:(
3202:(
3188:(
3173:(
3154:(
3139:(
3120:c
3117:t
3058:(
3042:(
2997:)
2993:(
2970:(
2900:(
2881:(
2866:ā
2845:.
2771:(
2751:(
2737:(
2630:(
2593:ā
2532:(
2512:(
2435:(
2420:(
2405:(
2390:(
2371:(
2350:C
2346:T
2344:(
2304:Ā·
2299:(
2173:(
2146:(
2106:(
2062:(
2047:)
2023:(
2003:(
1988:)
1964:(
1950:}
1928:(
1908:C
1905:T
1863:(
1829:C
1826:T
1806:(
1786:ā
1776:(
1703:(
1684:(
1668:(
1555:(
1540:(
1486:(
1459:(
1421:(
1407:(
1391:(
1354:(
1279:(
1263:(
1236:(
1221:(
1199:(
404:9
400:8
396:7
392:6
388:5
384:4
380:3
376:2
372:1
369:Ā·
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:Ā·
53:)
49:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.