548:ā fashion), as I said stated above, I believe you have the best of intentions here. Iām not questioning your good faith. I simply think you have an extreme personal bias on this issue. As a result of this apparent bias, I find no validity of your arguments, which are fallacious, specious and illogical. Given that no one else is agreeing with you on this matter, that would normally be a clue for most people that you just *might* be wrong. Yet, somehow, that possibility doesnāt seem to have dawned on you.
35:
1276:
713:
986:. (I would suggest that "sparingly" is purposefully ambiguous - partly because instruction creep should be avoided - but mostly because there are some instances where an embedded animation is wanted, by the vast majority of editors/readers.) Please make it clear in your future discussions of this topic, that you are talking about the images such as those found at
484:
particular animation has biased him enough that he is mentally seized upon that issue to help lend credibility and nobility to his cause. But his arguments simply arenāt supported by the facts. I donāt think
Philcha has confused any issues; he is merely stating the facts and drawing logical conclusions. Andyās arguments just donāt make sense. Sorry.
1140:
are not "relevant" to
Knowledge (XXG). I consider that to be a harmful position, but accept that there is no clear written policy (leastwise, none that I can find) mandating or recommending that those industry-standard guidelines should be followed, or to which level. Practical experience shows that
417:
you cite a WCAG guideline on avoiding flickering animations until browsers provide an option to block or freeze animations - although this guideline apparently does not define threshold levels for animations that are likely to cause trouble. In the meantime most
Windows browsers freeze animations if
1005:
A few editors have suggested potential technical solutions, such as creating a userpreference that stopped animations from running by default, for the benefit of people such as yourself who find them distracting, and for the epileptic users you so tirelessly campaign on behalf of. I would recommend
425:
page that allegedly defines the rate and intensity of flickering likely to provoke an epileptic seizure. It might be sensible to define a policy or procedure that allows removal of images that are in that range. However reviews of such images would have to be conducted in a totally objective manner
1174:
Knowledge (XXG) has gotten along just fine with our animations and Iām not aware that any epileptic anywhere has had a problem with them. There are CSS style sheets to load into browsers to block GIF animations and users who are extraordinarily sensitive to animations can avail themselves of these
857:
As I mentioned on WT:drop the stick, the original animation was one of wildly exaggerated violence juxtaposed against the relatively benign reality of edit conflict. āErrorā: the basis of all humor. It was a humorous sight gag that was obviously added to help relieve tension and defuse conflict,
483:
I wonder if there has been one sufferer of epilepsy who has ever come to
Knowledge (XXG) to complain about any of our animations. Just pardon me all over the place for thinking this, but whereas Andy Mabbett may have the best intentions of epileptics at heart, I think his personal dislike of one
740:
I think all involved would agree that putting aside the merits and drawbacks of moving images and looking simply at the image in question... it's not a great image. It's grainy, the animation is poor, and it looks to be low res. Instead of repeatedly edit warring to remove it, why don't just we
418:
the user hits the ESC key and most offer an option to block images altogether; I expect non-Windows browsers offer similar facilites. I'm sure users prone to epilepsy already know and use these facilities, otherwise they'd have a seizure at every page that shows a jiggling banner ad.
533:
I donāt question your right to express your beliefs here so I would appreciate it if you afforded me the same courtesy and didnāt presume to tell how I may think and where I may express my views. And, Earth calling
Pigsonthewing: your personal beliefs are not the only ones on this
946:
I believe you're reading too much into my words. I have found that throughout this "discussion" you have been overly confrontational, I worry about what it could to do to the reputation of this WikiProject if one of its members is acting in such a way to uninvolved users.
1060:
These multi-level nested lists tend to be busy and sloppy looking, and hard to read, but I don't know if there's a better alternative. They definitely could use some graphic help, but just enough to give the reader some milestones, because too much will increase the
551:
Judging from the tone and tenor of your above responseāand your responses to every single other editor who has dared to disagree with youāI believe you A) are absolutely convinced there can be no chance that you are wrong on this, and B) are taking this
402:
is of poor quality, jerky and does flicker a bit - annoying cycles indefinitely although one cycle is enough to make the point. However the flickering is nowhere near as rapid or intense as the level at which UK TV companies issue epilepsy alerts before
1343:
It seems you donāt like that *inconvenient truth* and havenāt come to grips with the reality that the vast majority of editors greatly appreciate the many animations we have on
Knowledge (XXG). Further, you have failed to produce evidence that a
1102:
After these few changes the list looks so much more clearer (I honestly donāt know why I didnāt think of some of these changes until now and others when you mentioned them). I personally donāt think that there is a need for graphics now, do
1323:
1167:
414:
352:
1145:; but I believe that there should be a clear policy that, in the absence of consensus to exempt specific cases, WCAG guidelines should be followed to a stated level; or at least that we should, as a body, strive towards doing so.
884:
Thanks, L'Aquatique; that's fine by me. I think that image should also replace the disputed image, on "Knowledge (XXG)-space" pages, and people who have the latter in their user space should be asked to consider dropping it.
1407:
to follow said policy, the policy shouldāby defaultābe followed(?). Uhmmmā¦ (*sound of strumming on the keyboard as I deeply ponder this one*)ā¦ No. By that logic, I could state āin the absence of any consensus whatsoever
1233:
1098:
The AG/Army/Corps/Division and brigade titles are now all in bold, the commanding officers have been returned to regular text and any additional information has been moved to a new footnote section at the bottom of the
1337:
987:
1106:
However the commanding officers, especially those without links, do become somewhat blurred within the text. As a test I did change the commanding officers so they to were bold however it didnāt seem to help
981:
above. Andy: Please stop removing these images piecemeal, and claiming/implying that it is based on a recommendation that we are following. If you want the wording of the guideline changed, discuss it an
1039:
and have found that it is hard to distinguish who the commanding officer of division/Corps etc is. Due to this I have made their rank and names in bold ā from a MOS point of view is this acceptable?
1071:
For
Operation Epsom, try unit names in bold and commanders in regularāthis may still provide differentiation, but may seem more natural. Abbreviating the commanders' ranks may reduce clutter a bit.
965:
924:
481:
There are CSS style sheets to load into browsers to block GIF animations and users who are extraordinarily sensitive to animations canāand without a doubt doāavail themselves of these things.
98:
1348:
with epilepsy has ever complained about
Knowledge (XXG)ās animations and stated that there are no suitable ways for such sufferers to block them. Yet here you are, hammering away on this.
263:
93:
88:
76:
71:
63:
560:) Philcha and I simply disagree with your conclusions and logic. Lighten up and please stop acting like a censor who has the unilateral power to delete animations from Knowledge (XXG).
1412:
to ban tendentious editors for life, we should assume itās OK to just go ahead and ban them for life.ā You get an āAā for effort. Fortunately, Knowledge (XXG) doesnāt work that way.
902:
I agree that the image should be replaced on other essays (it's found on quite a few), but I would strongly urge you to let it end there. You may, if you feel it necessary, leave a
849:
764:
112:
145:
have all standardized upon 1024Ā ĆĀ 768 as the minimum assumed monitor resolution below which scrolling is required. That resolution is pretty much the Web standard now.
1197:
Your personal, fallacious beliefs about what you imagine are my motivations are not relevant to this matter; and your restatement of them here is a further breach of
430:, and not become witch-hunts against the use of animations. It seems to me that you have seriously damaged your case by appearing set on just such a witch-hunt. --
21:
1395:āI believe that there should be a clear policy that, in the absence of consensus to exempt specific cases, WCAG guidelines should be followed to a stated level;ā
1297:
1257:
Moving images are a cause of problems for people with a variety of conditions, such as epilepsy, and reading disabilities, and are distracting to many more.
1201:. Your equation of WCAG solely with animated images strongly suggests a lack of understanding of accessibility in general and of my proposal in particular.
1029:. Personally I think it looks ok and if it seemed ok with the wider community I was thinking of doing it myself to some order of battles I have worked on.
1425:
1374:
941:
897:
875:
814:
297:
279:
1110:
Any further suggestions on what could be done to make the article more accessible to the general reader? Or any comments on the changes made thus far?--
906:
note informing them of the situation, but I will be exceedingly... shall we say, disappointed? If you bully or harass them in any way. Are we clear?
322:
111:
How essential is support for ~640x480 window size (or basically anything smaller then 800x600) for accessibility reasons? This issue has come up in
1026:
737:
All right, all right. Please, you guys, let's try to get along here. Since compromise is my word of the day, let's try to find a compromise here.
454:" from the RNIB page you cite. You appear to believe, mistakenly, that epilepsy concerns are the only accessibility issues with animated images.
406:
Some animations are very useful ways to illustrate processes, and the good ones are about as smooth as movies or TV. There's a good example at
1226:
My personal beliefs are neither fallacious nor imagined. Fortunately, Knowledge (XXG) provides an abundant evidence trail (cited below) and
1137:
1210:
1157:
938:
894:
691:
612:
513:
463:
386:
364:
312:
228:
There are probably too many navboxes, and I would prefer it if they could be hidden. The equilibrium symbols should be generated with
1032:
The way orders of battle are laid out they are rather text heavy and can be hard sometimes to see where the next division etc start.
983:
1357:. And please stop Wikilawering and trying to hide behind the apron strings of wholesome sounding rules like āWP:AGFā. You flat out
51:
17:
1066:
In Market Garden, I would consider just having the insignia for top-level armies and corps, but not for every single bullet point.
504:
Your personal, fallacious beliefs are not relevant to this matter; and your statement of them here is a further breach of WP:AGF.
1232:
as to what this is about. āAssume good faithā ā āsuspend common sense.ā You started out by deleting an animation from an essay (
1095:
I have adjusted the
British half of the article for now, I will use that as a sandbox so to speak before I edit the German half.
1036:
1332:
1401:. Wouldnāt it be just *extra special* if every editor could make such a case for their pet cause: that without a consensus
1213:
1188:
1160:
1119:
1054:
1015:
694:
653:
615:
573:
516:
497:
466:
439:
389:
367:
340:
315:
243:
222:
200:
183:
158:
123:
1148:
Does anyone have comments, and would people support such a move, and be willing to assist me in taking it forward?
207:
189:
From my POV, it's OK ... the tables are easy to skip and I can get to the main text in three keystrokes with JAWS.
42:
1141:
it is sometimes necessary to work around certain poorly-worded or obsoleted parts, hence the (draft) WCAG 2.0 and
1330:
on this page. Yet you persist at this. Why? Note that many of our self-running, looping animations have achieved
746:
1206:
1153:
934:
890:
687:
608:
509:
479:
Concern over the welfare of epileptics is a red herring. Sufferers of epilepsy can take care of themselves.
459:
382:
360:
308:
325:, among other places. They're still as inaccessible as ever, and will remain so until someone rewrites the
399:
218:
179:
1351:
1115:
1050:
326:
544:(and a pronounced tendency to cite Knowledge (XXG) essays, guidelines, articles, and policies in an ā
355:; and I've been reverted twice, despite pointing out the accessibility implications and citing WCAG.
119:
640:
Perhaps. But that might explain why the factual basis for your arguments crumbles under scrutiny.
1202:
1149:
1011:
930:
886:
683:
604:
505:
455:
407:
378:
356:
335:
304:
274:
238:
195:
171:
This article has three infoboxes, templates in the lead: I'm unsure if this placement complies.
1283:
1172:
I encourage other editors to review the goings on in that link, and consider the ramifications.
1025:
An editor has added several divisional/Corps symbols to the following order of battle article:
951:
910:
838:
753:
252:
435:
211:
172:
717:
1420:
1369:
1183:
1111:
1082:
1046:
870:
809:
648:
568:
492:
153:
1198:
541:
545:
165:
556:
too personally, and C) every disagreement is an excuse to pull any stunt to win (witness
450:
It is you who appears to be confusing issues. Perhaps because you missed that I quoted "
427:
138:
115:
1132:
It's clear from recent comments (see above) that some editors do not believe that the
415:
Wikipedia_talk:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass#Moving_image
353:
Wikipedia_talk:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass#Moving_image
1042:
Also any hints etc on how to make the article more accessible to the average reader?
1007:
535:
331:
270:
234:
191:
1260:
682:
No such thing has happened, because you keep refuting straw-men, not my arguments.
431:
229:
988:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured pictures/Engineering and technology/Machinery#Animations
1415:
1364:
1178:
1079:
1002:
these animations, should be considered from all angles before changes are made.
865:
859:
804:
643:
563:
487:
148:
50:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1265:
Until user agents allow users to freeze moving content, avoid movement in pages
1275:
995:
929:
I'm not in the least clear why you adopt such an unwarranted, hostile tone,.
712:
1322:
That is just so absurd. Absolutely no one has been agreeing with you; not
1234:
Knowledge (XXG):Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
1006:
pursuing those strategies instead, perhaps via the
Technical Pump. --
351:
There's quite strident opposition to the removal of a moving image at
206:
Thank you, Graham87. If you have a moment, can you also comment on
1274:
711:
540:
Notwithstanding your attempt to hide behind the apron strings of
991:
422:
1142:
1133:
29:
134:
452:
The animation should also come to a rest after 3 to 5 cycles
129:
None that I know of. The following news sites for instance:
998:. Making it harder, in any way, for our casual readers to
142:
716:
When there is nothing left to beat, consider that there
1390:
1313:
1309:
1241:
557:
323:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Accessibility/Archive 1#Timelines?
1045:
Sorry for all the questions and thanks for the help.--
210:? I have several concerns there, hard to summarize.
130:
421:
At another point in that discussion someone cited an
113:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:2008 main page redesign proposal
862:. I think your still image conveys the same effect.
321:The inaccessibility of timelines was discussed at
375:Knowledge (XXG) does not consider to be relevant
1238:and cited WCAG as the justification for doing so
1255:
1035:On the same subject, I completed the following
426:based on current medical criteria supported by
1350:You should consider what the message point of
745:it? There's a whole bunch of static images in
303:seems to have multiple accesibility issues...
248:Fixed your redlink there, hope ya don't mind.
8:
1327:
1175:things if need be. Please drop this Andy.
977:Please see the previous conversation, at
601:about what you imagine are my mtoivations
1027:Operation Market Garden order of battle
1361:āmany timesāwhat your intentions are.
1263:states with priority 2 that we should
396:I think you're confusing some issues:
48:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1336:status and there are galleries, like
7:
1138:Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
992:Moon#Orbit and relationship to Earth
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Manual of Style
1229:editors can make up their own minds
1166:No one else here seems to have the
603:are not relevant to this matter...
373:At which I've just been told that "
978:
28:
860:collaborative writing environment
298:Timeline of MacBook Family Models
290:Timeline of MacBook Family Models
1168:distaste you have for animations
801:, Andy, happy and end all this?
33:
1295:
1037:Operation Epsom order of battle
963:
922:
847:
762:
261:
1284:
952:
911:
839:
754:
747:Commons:Category:Nuclear tests
595:Clarification: Your personal,
253:
1:
1279:Please, think of the horsies
558:your baseless ANI against me.
546:if itās blue, it must be true
1426:05:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
1375:23:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
1298:02:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
1285:
1214:21:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
1189:20:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
1161:20:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
1120:13:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
1055:17:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
1016:22:57, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
966:23:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
953:
942:23:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
925:21:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
912:
898:20:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
876:02:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
850:01:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
840:
815:01:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
765:01:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
755:
749:that would do just as well.
695:01:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
654:00:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
616:00:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
574:23:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
517:23:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
498:22:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
467:22:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
440:14:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
390:13:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
368:22:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
341:08:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
316:17:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
280:05:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
264:01:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
254:
244:08:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
223:17:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
201:16:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
184:03:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
159:00:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
124:08:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
1314:the animation on this essay
1442:
1326:on WT:Drop the stick, nor
797:Splendid. Would that make
208:Acid dissociation constant
858:which often occurs in a
400:Image:Bomba atomowa.gif
347:Animated image in essay
1389:As to your statement (
1300:
1269:
1205:(User:Pigsonthewing);
1152:(User:Pigsonthewing);
933:(User:Pigsonthewing);
889:(User:Pigsonthewing);
721:
686:(User:Pigsonthewing);
607:(User:Pigsonthewing);
508:(User:Pigsonthewing);
458:(User:Pigsonthewing);
381:(User:Pigsonthewing);
359:(User:Pigsonthewing);
327:EasyTimeline extension
307:(User:Pigsonthewing);
268:Nope, not at all.Ā :-)
1308:Further, you stated (
1278:
715:
538:that are meritorious.
413:In the discussion at
46:of past discussions.
1312:) that you believed
834:How about this one?
1076:Looks good so far.
984:WT:Image use policy
329:for accessibility.
1301:
1261:WCAG guideline 7.3
1086:2008-10-27Ā 18:27Ā z
722:
408:Four-stroke engine
1346:single individual
1341:showing them off.
1087:
996:Horse gait#Gallop
718:are other options
104:
103:
58:
57:
52:current talk page
1433:
1424:
1373:
1333:Featured Picture
1319:āharmful image.ā
1296:
1293:
1292:
1187:
1085:
1021:Order of Battles
964:
961:
960:
923:
920:
919:
874:
848:
845:
844:
813:
763:
760:
759:
652:
572:
496:
338:
302:
296:
277:
262:
259:
258:
241:
215:
198:
176:
157:
85:
60:
59:
37:
36:
30:
1441:
1440:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1413:
1399:patently absurd
1362:
1176:
1130:
1023:
863:
802:
641:
561:
485:
349:
336:
300:
294:
292:
275:
239:
213:
196:
174:
169:
166:Operation Epsom
146:
109:
81:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1439:
1437:
1429:
1428:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1240:. You stated (
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1192:
1191:
1129:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1090:
1089:
1073:
1072:
1068:
1067:
1063:
1062:
1022:
1019:
979:#Moving images
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
881:
880:
879:
878:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
738:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
618:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
501:
500:
472:
471:
470:
469:
445:
444:
443:
442:
419:
411:
404:
393:
392:
348:
345:
344:
343:
291:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
204:
203:
168:
163:
162:
161:
108:
105:
102:
101:
96:
91:
86:
79:
74:
69:
66:
56:
55:
38:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1438:
1427:
1422:
1418:
1417:
1411:
1406:
1405:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1385:
1384:
1377:
1376:
1371:
1367:
1366:
1360:
1356:
1353:
1347:
1342:
1339:
1335:
1334:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1320:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1299:
1294:
1291:
1290:
1282:
1277:
1268:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1244:) as follows:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1230:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1215:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1190:
1185:
1181:
1180:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1146:
1144:
1139:
1135:
1127:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1088:
1084:
1081:
1075:
1074:
1070:
1069:
1065:
1064:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1043:
1040:
1038:
1033:
1030:
1028:
1020:
1018:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1003:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
985:
980:
967:
962:
959:
958:
950:
945:
944:
943:
940:
936:
932:
928:
927:
926:
921:
918:
917:
909:
905:
901:
900:
899:
896:
892:
888:
883:
882:
877:
872:
868:
867:
861:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
846:
843:
837:
816:
811:
807:
806:
800:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
766:
761:
758:
752:
748:
744:
739:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
719:
714:
696:
693:
689:
685:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
655:
650:
646:
645:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
617:
614:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
576:
575:
570:
566:
565:
559:
555:
549:
547:
543:
537:
536:pale blue dot
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
518:
515:
511:
507:
503:
502:
499:
494:
490:
489:
482:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
468:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
448:
447:
446:
441:
437:
433:
429:
424:
420:
416:
412:
409:
405:
401:
398:
397:
395:
394:
391:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
371:
370:
369:
366:
362:
358:
354:
346:
342:
339:
334:
333:
328:
324:
320:
319:
318:
317:
314:
310:
306:
299:
289:
281:
278:
273:
272:
267:
266:
265:
260:
257:
251:
247:
246:
245:
242:
237:
236:
231:
227:
226:
225:
224:
220:
216:
209:
202:
199:
194:
193:
188:
187:
186:
185:
181:
177:
167:
164:
160:
155:
151:
150:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
127:
126:
125:
121:
117:
114:
106:
100:
97:
95:
92:
90:
87:
84:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
67:
65:
62:
61:
53:
49:
45:
44:
39:
32:
31:
23:
22:Accessibility
19:
1414:
1409:
1403:
1402:
1398:
1397:that too is
1394:
1386:
1363:
1358:
1354:
1352:WP:DEADHORSE
1349:
1345:
1340:
1331:
1318:
1317:
1288:
1286:
1280:
1264:
1259:
1256:
1237:
1228:
1227:
1211:Andy's edits
1203:Andy Mabbett
1177:
1171:
1158:Andy's edits
1150:Andy Mabbett
1147:
1143:WCAG Samurai
1131:
1077:
1044:
1041:
1034:
1031:
1024:
1004:
999:
976:
956:
954:
948:
939:Andy's edits
931:Andy Mabbett
915:
913:
907:
903:
895:Andy's edits
887:Andy Mabbett
864:
841:
835:
833:
803:
798:
756:
750:
742:
692:Andy's edits
684:Andy Mabbett
642:
613:Andy's edits
605:Andy Mabbett
600:
596:
562:
553:
550:
539:
514:Andy's edits
506:Andy Mabbett
486:
480:
464:Andy's edits
456:Andy Mabbett
451:
387:Andy's edits
379:Andy Mabbett
374:
365:Andy's edits
357:Andy Mabbett
350:
330:
313:Andy's edits
305:Andy Mabbett
293:
269:
255:
249:
233:
230:Template:Eqm
205:
190:
170:
147:
110:
82:
47:
41:
1287:L'Aquatique
1207:Andy's talk
1154:Andy's talk
1112:EnigmaMcmxc
1047:EnigmaMcmxc
955:L'Aquatique
935:Andy's talk
914:L'Aquatique
891:Andy's talk
842:L'Aquatique
757:L'Aquatique
688:Andy's talk
609:Andy's talk
510:Andy's talk
460:Andy's talk
403:programmes.
383:Andy's talk
361:Andy's talk
309:Andy's talk
256:L'Aquatique
40:This is an
1000:learn from
597:fallacious
99:ArchiveĀ 10
116:Nil Einne
94:ArchiveĀ 9
89:ArchiveĀ 8
83:ArchiveĀ 7
77:ArchiveĀ 6
72:ArchiveĀ 5
64:ArchiveĀ 1
1338:this one
1099:article.
1061:clutter.
1008:Quiddity
599:beliefs
20: |
1080:Michael
743:replace
432:Philcha
214:Georgia
175:Georgia
107:640x480
43:archive
1416:Greg L
1391:ā here
1365:Greg L
1359:stated
1310:ā here
1242:āĀ here
1199:WP:AGF
1179:Greg L
904:polite
866:Greg L
805:Greg L
644:Greg L
564:Greg L
542:WP:AGF
488:Greg L
332:Graham
271:Graham
235:Graham
192:Graham
149:Greg L
141:, and
1355:means
1328:above
1316:is a
1107:much.
428:WP:RS
212:Sandy
173:Sandy
135:MSNBC
16:<
1421:talk
1387:P.S.
1370:talk
1324:here
1184:talk
1128:WCAG
1116:talk
1103:you?
1051:talk
1012:talk
994:and
990:and
871:talk
810:talk
649:talk
569:talk
493:talk
436:talk
423:RNIB
219:Talk
180:Talk
154:talk
120:talk
1410:not
1404:not
1136:'s
1134:W3C
799:you
554:way
377:"!
143:CBS
139:ABC
131:CNN
1393:)
1236:)
1209:;
1170:.
1156:;
1118:)
1083:Z.
1053:)
1014:)
937:;
893:;
690:;
611:;
512:;
462:;
438:)
385:;
363:;
337:87
311:;
301:}}
295:{{
276:87
240:87
232:.
221:)
197:87
182:)
137:,
133:,
122:)
68:ā
1423:)
1419:(
1372:)
1368:(
1289:!
1281:~
1267:.
1186:)
1182:(
1114:(
1078:ā
1049:(
1010:(
957:!
949:~
916:!
908:~
873:)
869:(
836:~
812:)
808:(
751:~
720:.
651:)
647:(
571:)
567:(
495:)
491:(
434:(
410:.
250:~
217:(
178:(
156:)
152:(
118:(
54:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.