724:). In that case, MPGuy draftified an article with no sources that had been that way for five hours. A one-hour minimum would not have made a difference here, but this shows that how some people operate. (At the same time, there is a recent complaint at ANI that we are too lenient and accept articles that don't meet their "minimum standard" of quality). A one-hour minimum would prevent some of the complaints, with little "cost". I could see someone starting an article and getting distracted by a phone call for a little while. Giving an hour filters out cases where someone it really planning to continue developing the article, and who are most annoyed that their article got swept away too quickly. This might even encourage people to review older articles instead of the newest ones.
1400:, it's in the freely editable 'Other' field. What the new version does is to permit reviewers to select an accurate, thematic message message to the article creator without having to make one up or 'customise' a default message. It's also less aggressive by not bombarding the creator with spoonfuls of alphabet soup, instead linking the creator to a more warmly presented help page where they can get more answers and further assistance. It takes away any perceived bad faith component that every author of a draftified article is deliberately or recklessly abusing Knowledge (XXG) policies. Lots of genuine articles with potential are also correctly draftfied.
120:
a claim stated as a fact, even if made from a 'volunteer' account, does not help grow the community's confidence in the
Foundation or help the reviewers in their call to the WMF for involvement of any kind that would improve the process or create an alternative. All Foundation projects have some form of quality control for new articles, the truly active reviewers at en.Wiki are a dedicated bunch of people and the encyclopedia would be in a sorry state without them. Even if they created the software for it, the WMF obviously dosn't know how NPP works in practice; either that or the comment was a misguided piece of levity. I hope the latter.
2741:
the only editor working regularly on that queue, due to the articles-first focus that NPP had from its inception when we were nowhere near keeping up with even just the article queue on its own (and at the risk of sounding conceited, it's a bit of a waste to have our most experienced, rather than our least experienced, editors working on redirect reviews). At this point, there's now a handful of regulars that do redirect work in addition to article work, so I consider my former alarm to have successfully done what I hoped it would, as long as the backlogs of either variety remain more or less in check.
205:, the claim by WhatamIdoing is absurd because it just ain't true. There is a possible technical solution however that would approach her 'idea', but it would never work simpy because to do it, we would never grow the number of active patrollers beyond what we have already, and the WMF would simply refuse on the cost/benefit aspect (they won't even pay for urgent fixes). Don't forget that the WMF is interested only in growing the number of articles in the encyclopedia irrespective of the quality, and that's the stance WAID has held since she argued with me,
1746:). These newcomers don't yet understand core Knowledge (XXG) principles and guidelines around notability, verifiability, conflict of interest, neutral point of view, etc. These newcomers need additional guidance or they end up frustrated and disappointed when their articles get deleted. Because they aren't receiving the proactive guidance they need, they end up creating additional work for content moderators (patrollers, admins, watchlistersβ¦) who need to provide reactive guidance which is rarely well-received or well-understood.
174:'s talk page is mainly populated by a smaller group of regulars from the better informed members of the community, and generally some very intelligent discussion takes place there, thus some may be led to believe that such statements are accurate. At the moment, it's the new coordinators who are thinking deeply about NPP - and thinking outside the box, hence their initiative with the Open Letter. Let's hope that part of it works. It's apparently been noticed by the WMF even if it has been shunned by the BoT.
231:, the "we'll throw everyone who's gullible enough to work hard on our behalf under the bus in the name of quantity" attitude is depressingly familiar. Also, given the state of CSD (which would make even the most rigid bureaucrat in real life weep blood) there's not a truly efficient way for those small number of patrollers to handle things. I haven't been able to force myself to do any meaningful patrolling in about 10 years, and every time I try I'm reminded of why.
1235:
35:
1831:
2799:
Google (and myabe never even hitting
Knowledge (XXG) because Google just reproduces the OR). Even really popular article redirects only get a few hundred hits each month while even obscure topics can get that many views. So if we're prioritizing time and attention - and I think we are because if we weren't we wouldn't be perennially facing backlogs - I think doing so for aticles is the right choice. Best,
2023:
1868:
2782:
pages feed so that I can prioritize whichever pages have been waiting for review the longest. If we were in a situation where we were being totally overwhelmed on all fronts I could see the reason in prioritizing articles as a triage measure, but even with our concerning bus-factor situation, I don't think we've been in such a situation of being overwhelmed by backlogs for years now.
1228:
1486:β a draft is not a place). On a more general note, I've tried to make incremental improvements to the old draftify script's various texts before, and relying on one person to make the change was an annoying bottleneck. I don't see how using a subst'd template to store the text, as opposed the Javascript file it's currently in, would even be detectable from a UX point of view. β
2686:
2709:
of articles should be granted accordingly prominent space. It felt like a lot to have the last newsletter so focused on redirects after the backlog drive. Obviously part of that was celebrating the backlog drive - also important - but it also felt like more drift from trying to deal with the fact that for many years NPP's
1014:
entirely to NPP and admins. That would however, according to the new silly trend of needing a site-wide RfC for every nut and bolt, need a site-wide or at least a local RfC, but that is an entirely different issue to the simple but more effective uplift to the script's UI. The redesign came about because:
2761:
why you view all backlogs the same? I explained above why I don't think that should be the case, and I think that value judgement is shared on a deeper level where redirects have only a 30 day window (and if I recall correctly leave the queue at that time rather than staying in there). But I would be
2740:
My view is that backlog is backlog; we clearly have the collective capacity to keep both articles and redirects in check, no reason to play the two workflows off of each other. In the past I raised the alarm about the redirect backlog when it was much longer than the article one and I was essentially
2708:
I agree with Josh about NPP's focus. Ultimately I strongly support people's choices about how they want to spend their time. {{u|Rosguill}, for instance, is someone I know who spends a lot of time reviewing redirects. More power to them. The thing is that at a project level, I think the primary focus
628:
We could align our advice to be 1 hour for almost everything as well. There really is no rush for non-egregious cases. Sitting in mainspace for another 45 minutes gives a much better chance of knowing if the author has an intention of making a decent article. That also aligns better with the existing
144:
suggests. But I think she's right to ask: how can we review pages better. Giving volunteers the chance to lean into specialties as is proposed seems like a reasonable one as is the idea that perhaps NPP is trying to patrol too much and a narrower focus on notability and CSD could be a backlog assist.
3081:
Thanks! To make a point, what we're really missing is something like the two lines that you two just wrote. An expert (Rosguill) selecting (from the thousands of essays of variable quality) and pointing out an expertly written essay on the topic, and a NPP system expert (Novem
Linguae) pointing me
2885:
I'd suggest that we let folks add their rough stub ideas to the newsletter, and about a week before sending, each of these ideas are evaluated (to see if they are still relevant), and then fleshed out. We might have 10K articles and 1K redirects in mid-August, in which case it would make total sense
2655:
An article backlog that includes the same number of pages as the redirect backlog is not the same and we should not be seeking to have these equally balanced. It takes considerably more time to process articles than it does for redirects and, right now, we need help with reviewing articles. Redirect
2651:
At its core, NPP should be focused on article reviewing over redirect reviewing and I think it's necessary to call attention to the need for more people reviewing articles. The phrasing can be played with, as the quoted text doesn't feel quite right, but I do think an inclusion of some kind could be
1680:
If we agree on the above items, I think we should update the old script to issue a message saying it is unmaintained and telling how to switch to the new version. MPGuy has continued the incremental version numbers, so it is really the successor/current version - not a new script/fork. We don't want
1212:
I think the gadget approach has some advantages too - as MPGuy says, no one will feel like they are solely responsible, and we won't be back in this position if NL or whoever accidentally walks in front of a bus. I get that there is some extra hassle involved in getting an update - but that seems to
1041:
from closing down), would have made it so. Personally I'm not concerned with the technology of how it's hosted; it's a user script and does not need a great debate or any debate, it's use like all user scripts is voluntary and not mandatory - like all user scripts it just saves work. Let's just get
357:
To discuss such changes, you first need to find people who have the time, the energy, and the initiative to discuss them. When someone comes up with an idea, dozens of people are ready to chime in and rip it apart, but when the time comes to actually carry out changes that get consensus, suddenly no
119:
claim of how NPP works is surely very far from reality. To wit, NPP doesn't even have that many active reviewers. To reduce the backlog, those who do the vast majority of reviews are having to patrol articles at a rate that leaves little time for visits from such a multitude of other reviewers. Such
3020:
10k I decided to learn how to do it. I couldn't find any overview in one place and so decided that I'd spend a few hours hunting down and reading what is relevant that is specific to redirect patrol. So far I haven't spent those few hours and so never got started on redirects. If we need to build
1808:
Or do you want the Growth team to consider a totally different idea?Β Keep in mind that the
Moderator Tools team and two other teams are also working the sharedΒ βimprove the experience of editors with extended rightsβ key result, so there will be other teams approaching this from a less new-editor
1618:
The script is currently in MPGuy's user space. There are pros and cons to keeping it in user space as discussed above. It can be a gadget/community script and be restricted. If we use a model of having an interface admin "release" a new version that has been coded and tested, instead of making code
1075:
The main benefit of gadgets is that they show up in
Special:Preferences, which is a way to market them more widely since you just have to check a box. The main downside of gadgets is that you need to do intadmin edit requests to modify them. This is also a downside of "community scripts" not hosted
826:
I see myself, Rosguill, and Joe supporting one hour, Barkeep is OK with it, Kudpung is staying out of this one, MPGuy did not express any opinion and NL favoring 15 minutes. I think this is a consensus for one hour. Since the current language already suggests an hour, I think this is a small enough
3018:
On two other points made, NPP'ers are the only ones that can make
Knowledge (XXG)'s "should this article exist?" new article gatekeeper system functional whereas there are 45,000,000 editors who can work on article quality issues. IMO statements that downplay dealing with the "should this article
3014:
I agree that other approaches are far more important than asking (active) folks to switch between new page and redirect to the extent that perhaps it's best not to specifically mention switching. But as noted the folks working there having a fun collaborative experience is even more important than
2838:
in July 2022. My idea was to ease the pressure that
Rosguill felt to review 29 day old redirects before they fell off the queue, giving a bit of a buffer if we wanted to take our time reviewing redirects or give other editors a chance to participate. So currently redirects get autoreviewed after 6
2033:
Hi NL, Sorry to spring a history merge on you on your first day of having the mop, but you are the best sysop for the job as you have some context to what I want doing. Could you merge the newsletter draft talk page history with the main newsletter talk page history, and then delete the newsletter
1511:
I'm not fluent enough on the detailed discussed above for full participation here, but the script text that implies / leads editors to believe that they are not allowed to move a page from draft is false and so should be fixed. Also it feels pointy/negative. I has it used on me on an article that
1459:
The entire principle behind the UX design is to deliberately avoid templates and avoid interference from people who feel they must edit and re-edit everything they see. On
Knowledge (XXG) one often ends up with more blue links than black print. The process is a simple one, that's why it links to a
1246:
In that case we need to get it right first time. See the updates in the GUI image, but I forgot to incorporate the checkbox for 'Other'. The risk of NL walking in front of a bus is less likely than Evad's long periods incommunicado. I will also probably be properly retiring soon. OTOH, the gadget
1056:
The current script can be used by anyone, it's just that without advanced permissions, it can't do some parts of the process, like deleting the redirect to the draft from the old title. This change to the script came about due to multiple discussions that articles were being moved without a custom
1013:
I redesigned this script's UI on the understanding that it would be only available to NPP and admins as I was under the impression it always was and that anyone else who is determined to move a page to draft could do it the long way, but this is certainly a juncture for restricting moving to draft
809:
I'm also in favour of at least an hour (with exceptions for attack pages etc.) We could also look into hiding articles less than X minutes old from the queue by default. I've a feeling that hasty reviewing this has become more of a problem now that the backlog is small and more people are hovering
696:
template should be deprecated, it's a vestige from the days when WP was so desperate for articles it was tolerated for them to be developed in mainspace. It's not necessary nowadays and it already wasn't when the old incubator was created in 2009. AFAICS Page
Curation only says "Note: This page is
2125:
You could protect the newsletter draft page so that when I massmessage, if someone vandalises it at the exact moment I preview it, it doesn't (nearly) send vandalism to 870 people. Tbh I don't think massmessage works that way. Trust me, I'm a menace with advanced perms, I nearly rollbacked all my
1178:
As far as I know, non NPPers did not have access to Evad's script anyway. At least that what's in one of my test accounts, one that is autoconfirmed. I would host it in my userspace but that would be a bit silly considering I can't read or use any IT languages. I'm not worried where it's hosted,
979:
has suggested it be limited to NPP/admins (he has proposed restricting Move to Draft in that way). I'm not sure about that at this time - unless moving to draft is formally restricted, we would want everyone to use this script rather than just doing it manually if the script was only available to
487:
You posting that "someone" (not even a courtesy ping) reverted you and one person agreeing with you is neither a consensus nor a "discussion". You need consensus to add something to a page, not to not-add it. It's a handy template you've made, but it's not the most important thing on every single
2917:
Or maybe you two could be a bit more "go with the flow". It's only your first week as newsletter coordinators. I would expect y'all to be in the phase where you are feeling things out and very open to suggestion and direction, and not in the phase where you are edit warring my content out of the
2798:
Thanks for the explanation. I admit I remain unconvinced. For any individual reader it's equally bad if they get an OR full article or a content fork. But the odds of a reader finding a content fork because a redirect exists on
Knowledge (XXG) is much less than finding an article with OR through
2781:
is roughly equivalent, and focusing strictly on articles at the expense of redirects is like meticulously mowing your lawn while ignoring the border hedges. We ultimately need both for Knowledge (XXG) to be the best it can be, and personally I set my review preferences to include both in the new
2502:. Y'all are some of the names I think of when I think of UPE fighters. Is there anything that non-admins can do to help in this area? If we recruit a non-admin NPP coordinator to focus on COI/UPE issues, do you have any ideas for things they could help with, or is that not a great idea? Thanks. β
2066:
Hey. Thanks for the message. I don't think this is a good spot for a history merge because it's not fixing a copy-and-paste move of page A onto empty/new page B. Rather, this is trying to merge two different talk pages with two different sets of content together. If you'd like to merge them, I'd
1734:
The Growth team is exploring a project idea that aims to improve the experience of new editors by providing them with better guidance and structure in the article creation process. The hope being that by providing new editors with more structure around article creation, it will lead to newcomers
1464:
but attractive page. There are therefore deliberately no message texts. The system was the result of much discussion and many designs of both the UI and the target page before the final version was decided upon and has also been discussed with the WMF within the framework of PageTriage upgrading
1637:
The default (if there is no consensus on this) would be the status quo, which is to continue hosting it from my userspace. I'm OK with that, but would definitely prefer that it be made into a gadget. I too think that the inconvenience of future code changes (once it is a gadget) would be minor.
2776:
IIRC the different cutoff dates was purely due to volume/technical issues from when the backlogs were not under control; in only 30 days, redirects would typically pile up to ~12,000, which caused problems for our database. My view is that our goal here is quality control for new pages in the
1060:
The original author did not make it a gadget because that is normally reserved for widely-used tools - 1000+ users (there are currently around 730). However, making it a gadget comes with the ability to restrict its usage to users with certain rights. So if we want to take this opportunity to
1143:
Having to do intadmin edit requests all the time just to adjust stuff is a big hassle. I'd suggest that whoever the main maintainer ends up being should host it in their userspace. Bummer that MPGuy2824 doesn't want to host it. As an alternative, I would suggest that I host the script in my
755:
I like the idea of X minutes ago, that is more in line with allowing people actively working on an article to continue. Once we finalize the time, I'll send a message to all NPPers summmarizing the improvements and reminding them to switch to the latest version (your version) of the script.
1967:. Since Zippy is vouching for you I went ahead and added you to the NPP coordinator's list. You are very new to NPP so please be careful. There's a chance some folks will object to how new you are and I may have to remove you, but for now let's try it out. I went ahead and added you as
2817:
log worked (and still does AFAIK). It was removed when Page Curation was introduced because Kudpung convinced the WMF that every article needed an explicit tick. So probably the reason redirects still have it is not for any real reason other than nobody asked for it to be removed.
2398:
Some people think that articles should always get priority, because they get more page views than redirects. Also our top reviewer is currently not doing article reviews. With these two arguments, I am persuaded that we should focus on articles for awhile. Hope that makes sense.
1334:
I would be more inclined to avoid inviting any discussion for a while. Discussion only invites more negative comment than positive appreciation - it's the nature of things on Knowledge (XXG). I would say just let people use it and they will come up with their own suggestions.
170:, but how should it be proposed? At the moment, NPP has to work with whatever human and software resources it has. All genuine suggestions are of course most welcome from anyone in the community, but throwing sand in the works by making absurd claims surely cannot help.
2881:
Folks, I'd like to a suggest a different method of creating the newsletter draft. There is no particular need to keep the newsletter in a permanent "ready-to-send" state. The previous one was just sent a few days back, and the next one will be sent (at earliest) in mid
2619:
We can always encourage them, but I don't think we should push too much, I'm not sure the backlog is high enough yet, and there's only so much we can push on our reviewers. My reversion was purely as it didn't seem necessary, though I'm open to changing my opinion.
1512:
was 2 minutes old (not by NPP) where I was going to have the GNG sources installed by the time that the article was 5 minutes old. Of course, that brings in a third issue, but as the recipient I thought that the text was both too negative and also misleading.
735:
I could also update the MoveToDraft script to alert the reviewer if the last edit was less than X minutes ago, instead of being created in the last X minutes (currently, X=15, but we can make it 60). This would take care of creators who are actively improving their
668:
An hour of copyvio won't kill us (if it's fixed it can just be RD'd instead of outright deleted) but I would be opposed ot saying we need to leave an attack page up for an hour - I have a special script just so I can try to respond to those requests quickly. Best,
956:
Since Evad's script is not being updated, any method will require the script users to make some change. The new version could just be a MPGuy user script, but he has said he does not want that - understandably as he has just made one relatively minor enhancement.
1932:βs talk page tidy, could you move your comment to my talk page where relevant discussion has already occurred. Another user with similar concerns posted there and had their concerns relieved. Please read the thread on my talk and then comment further. Thank you @
2126:
edits with massrollback by not paying attention and doing something else and then the popup appeared. I've also accidentally rollbacked AIV helperbot. Those are the reasons why I test the massmessage on me first, so I don't have to employ AWB to fix everything.
590:. If #1 & #2 are saying to give no-content issues time to be fixed, but are implying that other CSDs (e.g. Copyvio) can be done immediately, that is in conflict with #3 that says "any deletion" must wait at least 15 minutes. That discrepancy should be fixed.
2605:
Yeah, I reverted that. Apologies for not coming to discuss sooner. Personally, even if the backlog is larger for articles right now, it varys all of the time. NPP users can also review what ever they want and use their own descresion based on the backlog. -
1285:
I was thinking a special mass-message to the NPP mailing list, but I don't think we should do that until we decide on the final location. For now, a notice on the discussion page too is probably OK, with the disclaimer. Do you want me to put something there?
716:, there seems to be agreement here that we should remove any contradictions in the tutorial. There is agreement that some issues should be marked for deletion immediately. For non-egregious cases, I favor stating a one hour minimum. The tutorial says in bold
504:
I didn't ping you because you frequently comment there so I thought you had it on your watchlist. If you read it carefully, I asked if anyone objected and no one did. All the other people who read it and did not object implicitly agreed; this is a consensus.
2952:
Definitely, and like Zippybonzo said above, we arenβt trying to βresistβ. I personally am still trying to find my feet around the newsletter, and I apologize for removing your content before discussing with you here. Iβll try to be more open next time. -
1444:
There is only one message text with phrases added or removed, based on the issues that you find in the article. I don't think it should be hard to get that message's text from a template. I'll try to do that the next time someone asks for a change to it.
424:
a few hours back), I don't think we need to show the backlog number above the page tabs on every NPP-related page. I've added code to hide that template when the backlog is below 500. If anyone wants to undo this (or tweak the number), you can do so at
1758:
1975:, and then we send them the template on that page. Poke around there a bit and let me know if you'd like to get started with that and if you have any questions. Thanks so much for your help with NPP coordination. I look forward to working with you. β
1271:. I put this link out on discord yesterday and no one has complained of any issues, yet. Maybe we could inform NPP reviewers of this on the discussion page with the understanding that it might get moved over to a Gadget sometime in the future. -
996:
making it a gadget because they does invite a much wider group of people to be using it. And Kudpung's rationale for why it should be a smaller group is something I agree with. So some kind of community script feels like the best option? Best,
488:
NPP-related page. When you first objected to me removing it, I tried to find a compromise by re-adding it to specific pages where it is relevant. Can you try and do that too? Who do you think is actually going to use this template, and when? β
1536:
has made two updates to the script - the better message to the author, and a warning to the user if they try to use the script on an "new/actively edited" article. So far, 11 people are using this version, which has only been publicized at
1213:
be more of a problem if you are asking someone to make a specific change. I presume we would always have a tested complete updated version and would just have to ask that the new version be copied over - a very straightforward change.
1372:
I think the new version gives the option to pick from multiple messages, instead of just changing the default message. This also opens the door for other bug fixes and features now that we have an active maintainer. Hope this helps.
2839:
months with no review. Articles will stay in the queue indefinitely and will not be autoreviewed by the software. Articles and redirects will become indexable by Google after 90 days though. We had a well-attended discussion on the
2903:
Iβm not opposed to the idea myself. Maybe we can remove the redirect from the talk page and allow for suggested additions to be put there. Then Zippybonzo and I can evaluate these when we prepare to send the newsletter. -
2175:
On a user talk page, I think everything triggers the orange bar unless your account has the bot flag at a minimum. May also need to mark the edit as a bot edit in the API, although I'm not 100% sure about the second part.
1913:
Hey Illusion, I'd suggest that, for now, you work on making your NPR right permanent. In addition to normal reviewing, the right-granting admin usually looks for regular AfD participation, along with correct CSD tagging.
1139:
We could restrict the users without an RFC. However that will just mean that non NPPs use the old script and not the new script that has the permissions check. Therefore I am disinclined to limit it to just NPPs at this
135:
It grows my confidence to know there is someone at the WMF who is active as a volunteer and even better that this employee is thinking deeply about NPP (and knows to contribute at User talk:Iridescent). I agree with you
1057:
message, and the default message was not getting the author to understand what was wrong with the article. I don't see this is related to #1 & 2, or that we wouldn't have wanted to do this even without #4 & #5.
948:
has been virtually inactive for almost a year and has not responded to email, so waiting for him to update his version with MPGuy's changes is not realistic. Having an interface-admin do it seems unlikely as well (see
1681:
the Evad version to evolve separately, so after a month or two we should have that disabled. I don't think it makes sense for people to keep using it indefinitely, and to leave messages on the T.P that go unanswered.
1556:
agreed with that. I agree with that now. Since draftification is such a touchy subject it is probably prudent to limit usage to more "trusted" people. I looked at 50 users (of about 500) of the Evad script. Of those:
1179:
let's just get it done and available only to NPP. If anyone else wants desperately to move an article to draft they can do it the long way. We can't deny them that any more than we can deny them the use of Twinkle.
1193:
If hosting it in my/Novem's userspace seems the best solution, then sure. My suggestion was to host it in NPP space (if the requisite page protections would be there). That way it is more obvious that it is not
2777:
encyclopedia as a whole; while there is more to be inspected when reviewing an article vs. a redirect, the impact to a reader of stumbling on say, an article full of OR vs. a bad redirect that sends them to a
1882:! I recently received a message on my talk page from an NPP coordinator inviting me to become an NPP coordinator. I accepted. I was told to ask you to be added to the group list. Could you help with this? - π₯
1031:
anticipation of using it as a new feature in the Page Curation fly-out when, following our meeting yesterday with the Director of Product and her staff, the PageCuration tools will be uprgaded for us by the
2140:
Great idea to test it on yourself. Once it's sent, it's a bit hard to unsend or change. Would need an AWB run, and making the fix would probably re-ping everyone again. Definitely better safe than sorry.
2383:
I saw you added something to the draft newsletter about switching back to reviewing articles, but now the redirect queue is higher and redirects need more attention. Do you think it should be removed? -
2522:
To be honest I'm not really sure there's a specific need for COI/UPE coordination beyond reporting suspicious activity while doing regular review work, first with talk page notices and then at
298:
I rather feel this thread was archived prematurely. As some of these discussions are on development issues and can last longer than 30 days, could we consider reverting to manual archiving?
2091:
I'll just put them in a collapse, and then I will need you to delete the draft talk page and redirect it to the main newsletter talk page as it's easier when everything's on one big page.
317:
98:
93:
88:
76:
71:
63:
2918:
newsletter and trying to set up a system where we have to run disputed content through you two. Please go with the flow more. I am getting frustrated with the level of resistance here. β
1592:
and asked them to look at recent (last 500?) MoveToDraft edit summaries, and then cross reference that to who did it and what perms they have. Or maybe the above data is close enough. β
1061:
restrict its usage, a gadget may be the way to do that. If we went that route, we could see about getting the original script disabled also, so non-NPPers couldn't keep using it as is.
917:
I've updated the MTD script to show the following message when appropriate: "Draftifying may not be appropriate per WP:DRAFTIFY, since this article was edited less than 60 minutes ago."
473:
2301:
While this thread is open, would it be NPOV/necessary to write about your adminship in the newsletter, or do we save it for the administrators newsletter. Also, I read your email.
2458:
Thanks for getting the conversation started. Can you elaborate on what you mean by review quality? Does this mean re-reviewing other NPP's reviews and making sure they are good? β
1949:
For the record, I advised them, as they are rather competent and would be able to help in areas such as the newsletter and backlog drives and possibly nominations for autopatrol.
2561:
If you used to review articles but have recently been reviewing redirects, please consider switching back to reviewing articles, to help keep the article backlog under control.
787:
I see two people on this page who have clearly stated "we should change 15 minutes to an hour". Perhaps we should do a survey here or on WT:NPPR to get a little more clarity. β
629:
guidance that says "often appropriate to wait an hour or more." I agree it is better to develop articles in User or Draft space, but policy does not require it. We even have
1028:
we have an excellent new target page in the message without using alphabet soup and presenting the noobs with walls of text of policies, some of which are 9 print-pages long.
2046:
324:) about putting a small, discreet banner on unpatrolled pages, similar to a process used on de.Wiki. Has this idea simply been abandoned, or can we continue to discuss it?
720:
I think that may lead people to just remember that 15 minutes long enough. Jumping on articles quickly is a re-occurring complaint about NPP. It happened again today (see
1619:
changes to the script, it shouldn't be too much of an inconvenience. This would keep the script and it's talk/feature request page in a more central/permanent location.
1656:
feature into the PageTriage toolbar soon, then let's not work on converting the script into a gadget. I guess we'll have to wait till the next WMF meeting to be sure. -
2350:
All the folks that already had it when I joined (Barkeep49, Insertcleverphrasehere, Oshwah, ONUnicorn), plus me. By the way, I can't remember if I invited you yet but
2210:
Sorry, I got curious and couldn't help myself. I tested it just now on testwiki. A non-bot account marking the edit as minor does trigger the user talk notification. β
527:
That is ridiculous. When "someone" disagrees with one of your edits, you talk about it, not fall back on a telepathic poll. Why aren't you willing to discuss this? β
961:
has suggested that it could be a "community script". That would keep it from being "owned" by a specific user and thus more readily update-able by interface admins.
608:
For simplicity reasons, I think we should align our advice to be 15 minutes for almost everything (except for egregious cases, e.g. vandalism, attack pages, etc.). β
2316:
I think it'd be OK to mention my RFA, as long as others don't object. Feel free to draft something up. Thanks for taking the initiative on the next newsletterΒ :) β
21:
339:
It has not been abandoned. Sidetracked by the WMF letter, waiting for NL to dig deeper into implementation, etc. I believe you were going to take another look at
1353:
I really don't understand. Evad's script always had a customisation option didn't it? I even changed the details of the default message with a bit of code on my
2041:
188:
Yes I also am hopeful by the work of the current coordinators and want to be supportive (mainly by staying out of their way given what capacity I have). Best,
421:
1972:
3019:
exist?" aspect are not a good thing. Finally, I think that I still have useful newbie/dummy eyes regarding redirect patrol. When the backlog was at: -->
269:
236:
718:
an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more.
1750:
1743:
1573:
3 (6%) were active and are page/file movers So if we restrict the script to Admins, NPP, and Page/File Movers, that leaves 8% unable to use the script.
1198:
script and others are welcome to update/fix things in it. Making it into a Gadget sounds like a short-term hassle, but better in the long term to me. -
588:
an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more
556:. The template was worked on by myself and others and now looks decent, solving some aesthetic concerns at the time of its original implementation. β
1037:
There was never any intention for it to become a gadget, if there was, its original creator, who is again incommunicado (that's why in 2018 I saved
2967:
1739:
227:
Can confirm. Being someone within theoretical (if not practical, since only a maniac with a death wish would dare attempt it) walking distance of
739:
I think a lot of reviewers are used to 15 minutes, so if we decide to make it 60 minutes, it'll need an announcement on the main NPP talk page. -
426:
1697:
If anyone asks about the formatting of the Janaury 2023 newsletter spilling out to following sections, there is a missing closing div tag. See
1835:
1072:
Gadget vs user script will not affect the ability to restrict it to certain user rights. In user scripts, you can check permissions with code.
374:
340:
1764:
1354:
265:
247:
232:
210:
944:
has updated the script to offer a customized message to the article author when their article is moved to draft. The author of the script, @
2196:
It didnβt when I tested with my alt. So if I ever screw up I can spend some hours figuring a regex query to fix it without mass pinging.
1842:
1754:
1781:
The feature will provide guidance and guardrails to help newcomers create higher-quality articles and improve their overall experience.
1757:.Β One possibility is a community configurable "Article wizard" or helper, which could also fulfill the 2023 Community Wishlist survey
1897:
1735:
creating fewer low-quality articles that create work for patrollers who check recent edits and mentors who review newcomersβ drafts.
890:
721:
51:
17:
2886:
to keep NL's line. On the other hand, the situation could be reversed, in which case the line would be removed without controversy.
2105:
You can probably just BLAR it. Although I appreciate you thinking of all these opportunities for me to use my shiny new tools!Β :) β
1479:"Interference from people who feel they must edit and re-edit everything"... sounds like Knowledge (XXG)'s raison d'Γͺtre, to me?Β :)
1971:. Those are the tasks you're interested in, right? For recruitment, we do some checking of folks using the list and procedure at
1770:
We're committed to shaping the overall plan based on community feedback and needs, while adhering to the following requirements:
2071:
attribution of course. I'm a little hesitant to merge them, but if you think that's best we could try it out. Hope this helps. β
2264:
You were right, the ping from my alt didnβt show up as the orange banner, though it did register as a notification. Peculiar.
250:, as you and I discussed while walking the length and breadth of Governer's Island in NY for 2 hours just over 10 years ago.
769:
I'd be in favor of suggesting a minimum wait of over an hour to minimize the risk of interrupting a long edit in progress.
1042:
it rolled out one way or another with a minimum of fuss. If I were still an interface admin I would have done it already.
3058:
2656:
reviewing should be a secondary focus and I myself have been focusing on article reviews over redirects for this reason.
476:
and there was absolutely no objection. You seem to be the only one who has a problem prominently displaying the backlog.
972:
and Xaoflux has said approval there would need "some maintainers that know what they are doing and want to take it on".
3093:
3076:
3052:
3032:
2998:
2985:
2961:
2947:
2933:
2912:
2898:
2862:
2829:
2808:
2793:
2771:
2752:
2735:
2722:
2701:
2678:
2665:
2642:
2629:
2614:
2599:
2546:
2537:
2517:
2487:
2473:
2452:
2414:
2392:
2369:
2345:
2331:
2310:
2273:
2259:
2239:
2225:
2205:
2191:
2170:
2156:
2135:
2120:
2100:
2086:
2060:
2003:
1990:
1958:
1944:
1923:
1908:
1890:
1854:
1823:
1775:
1710:
1687:
1665:
1647:
1632:
1607:
1582:
1523:
1497:
1474:
1454:
1439:
1409:
1397:
1388:
1367:
1361:
1344:
1306:
1292:
1280:
1256:
1219:
1207:
1188:
1173:
1159:
1126:
1106:
1091:
1067:
1051:
1006:
986:
929:
899:
871:
847:
833:
821:
802:
780:
762:
748:
730:
706:
690:
678:
663:
645:
633:
623:
602:
571:
538:
499:
482:
463:
438:
407:
390:
349:
333:
275:
259:
242:
222:
197:
183:
154:
129:
586:
uses 15 minutes in three places - #1 & #2 specifically say don't CSD A1/A3/A7 an article for 15 minutes. #3 says
1247:
process will take a lot longer to get rolled out because there will probably be opposition from the policy police.
2843:
page, and there was an appetite to raise the noindex threshold to indefinite, but there were various objections in
1268:
533:
494:
42:
2661:
1428:. Would it be feasible to use templates for the message texts, so that they're open to editing and refinement? β
1169:
448:, has been slow edit warring about it. The backlog is only really of interest to current reviewers on pages like
1482:
I like the current message, but I think it could use a light copyedit to fix obvious grammatical mistakes (e.g.
654:
I'm leaning towards consistency, but I'm flexible. I wrote the tutorial (or most of it) but that was yonks ago.
2994:
2957:
2908:
2731:
2697:
2674:
2638:
2610:
2388:
1999:
1940:
1904:
1886:
964:
Another option suggested is that this could be a Gadget, so it would be available in Preferences. According to
697:
only x minutes old. Consider waiting to tag it, unless the issue is serious." It doesnt mention a time frame.
520:
1111:
You can do the same thing in user scripts using a conditional. IfΒ ! mw.something.something('patrol') return; β
3071:
2980:
2928:
2857:
2594:
2512:
2468:
2409:
2364:
2326:
2254:
2220:
2186:
2151:
2115:
2081:
2027:
1985:
1872:
1602:
1383:
1154:
1121:
1086:
866:
797:
618:
566:
1538:
508:
1819:
593:
Specifically regarding Draftification, I don't see why we shouldn't just say always wait at least an hour.
2840:
528:
489:
2813:
Just as an aside, for many years articles also used to have a 30 day window, that was just how the old
1995:
Understood. Thanks for adding me to the list, I look forward to being able to help out around NPP. - π₯
449:
2943:
2657:
2625:
2581:
2483:
2448:
2341:
2306:
2269:
2235:
2201:
2166:
2131:
2096:
2056:
1954:
1165:
3038:
965:
3089:
3028:
2991:
2954:
2905:
2894:
2804:
2767:
2728:
2718:
2694:
2671:
2635:
2607:
2577:
2385:
1996:
1964:
1937:
1919:
1901:
1883:
1850:
1661:
1643:
1519:
1450:
1302:
1276:
1203:
1098:
If a gadget, it can also be only offered to people using certain skins, or with certain permissions
1002:
925:
909:
843:
744:
674:
472:, actually you are the one who is doing what you think is best without seeking consensus. This has
434:
228:
193:
150:
3062:
2971:
2919:
2848:
2585:
2503:
2459:
2426:
2400:
2380:
2355:
2317:
2245:
2211:
2177:
2142:
2106:
2072:
1976:
1929:
1879:
1702:
1593:
1374:
1145:
1112:
1077:
857:
788:
713:
609:
557:
307:
2778:
1589:
1234:
420:
Given that the backlog has been very low (<200) for more than a week (except for a temporary
852:
I'm in the minority so I of course withdraw my objection. Please proceed. I recommend changing
3021:
in that area, perhaps a "getting started" summary on the items unique to redirect. Sincerely,
2824:
1815:
1724:
1492:
1470:
1434:
1405:
1340:
1252:
1184:
1047:
816:
702:
659:
458:
386:
363:
329:
255:
218:
179:
141:
125:
116:
2523:
2814:
1706:
2068:
1803:
Is there anything about this idea that you find concerning, or you want to ensure we avoid?
969:
953:). Continuing that conversation here, we have to decide on the rollout of the new version.
853:
583:
2939:
2621:
2573:
2479:
2444:
2337:
2302:
2265:
2231:
2197:
2162:
2127:
2092:
2052:
1950:
206:
171:
2889:
Seriously, the best thing we can do for the backlogs, right now, is to do some reviews. -
452:. Clumsily inserting at the top of 19 documentation and talk pages is a poor solution. β
2890:
2800:
2763:
2714:
2569:
1933:
1915:
1846:
1657:
1639:
1623:
1553:
1533:
1446:
1425:
1350:
1329:
1298:
1272:
1199:
998:
941:
921:
920:
Also, NL has updated the PageTriage code. This will go live with the next deployment. -
905:
839:
740:
670:
430:
202:
189:
163:
146:
2670:
Iβll create a separate section for this. You can give your thoughts once I do so. - π₯
1784:
The feature will be designed to reduce the downstream workload for content moderators.
3045:
2786:
2758:
2745:
2530:
2499:
1793:
Do you think this project will help new page patrollers on English Knowledge (XXG)?
1267:
All above-mentioned issues have been resolved with the script. It's now on enwiki at
958:
838:
1 hour (with exceptions that one is ready to defend) would be fine with me as well. -
827:
change that it can be made without further discussion at WT:NPPR. Comments/concerns?
773:
359:
2819:
1698:
1549:
1487:
1466:
1429:
1401:
1336:
1248:
1180:
1043:
1022:
constant murmurs from the community that it's used as a backdoor route to deletion,
976:
811:
698:
655:
516:
469:
453:
382:
325:
311:
251:
214:
175:
137:
121:
2844:
2835:
2161:
I think if you mark it as minor with AWB it doesn't ping, but I'm not an AWB dev.
1227:
1541:. Before trying to get more people to switch, I think we should finalize things:
945:
444:
It doesn't need to be there at all, and only is because the template's creator,
50:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
3082:
to that section which somehow I didn't find in my initial search. So, thanks!
2710:
2543:
2495:
2555:
Encouraging NPPs to focus on articles instead of redirects in the newsletter
1742:
indicated that they opened an account specifically to create a new article (
2938:
I'm open for it. I'll go with the flow then. I'm not attempting to resist.
1753:, are still under consideration, we anticipate exploring ideas related to
2970:
page and archive are looking good. Thanks for everyone's work on that. β
2351:
2336:
For my own curiosity, who are the moderators of the NPP discord server?
1552:
suggested using this as an opportunity to restrict usage to NPP/Admins.
1025:
constant murmurs that the default message was too aggressive/unfriendly,
1682:
1627:
1577:
1325:
1287:
1214:
1101:
1062:
1019:
constant murmurs from the community that the use of draft is excessive,
981:
894:
828:
757:
725:
640:
597:
512:
477:
445:
402:
344:
321:
303:
1728:
1778:, enabling each community to customize it to meet their unique needs.
416:
Hiding the NPP Backlog from the page tabs if the backlog is below 500
2727:
Iβve added a new section about focusing on articles. Thoughts? - π₯
2559:
After some discussion on Discord, I added this to the newsletter:
2034:
draft talk page so I can redirect it to the newsletter talk page.
1233:
1226:
3057:
I think our redirect reviewing checklist is currently located at
343:. I was planning to do a formal RFC on this, just not ready yet.
168:
a narrower focus on notability and CSD could be a backlog assist
1738:
In 2022, about 28% of newly registered users who completed the
2230:
It does?, can you leave me a minor edit on my talk page here.
1898:
User talk:Illusion Flame/Archive 1#NPP coordination invitation
950:
29:
320:, we were discussing a genial idea (which I believe was from
229:
the original location of the largest fast food chain on Earth
111:
Writing on a popular user talk page, the WMF appears to have
2966:
Thanks. I'm sure it'll be smooth sailing going forward. The
2834:
I changed the redirect cutoff from 1 month to 6 months in
1969:
backlog drive assistant, newsletter assistant, recruitment
1394:
Evad's script always had a customisation option didn't it?
401:
Here is another option. See the top message on this page.
377:
I too have been distracted by the letter campaign and the
2566:
2564:
1841:
Consolidating parallel discussions to page linked from
1626:, you are the key person here. What do you want to do?
112:
2047:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:New pages patrol/Newsletter/Draft
1588:
Could probably get more accurate data if you went to
1798:
Do you have any suggestions for improving this idea?
1567:
7 (14%) were inactive (no edits for at least a year)
3059:
Knowledge (XXG):New pages patrol#Redirect checklist
893:if anyone wants to review before I make them live.
1727:, community relations specialist working with the
2990:Youβre welcome. That archiving took awhile. - π₯
2042:Knowledge (XXG) talk:New pages patrol/Newsletter
1096:Are you sure about that? According to Xaoxflux,
1570:4 (8%) were active but are not page/file movers
1465:where it will not be available for re-editing.
1760:Reference requirement for new article creation
1755:Article creation improvements for new editors
8:
1749:While the specifics of the project, and the
2968:Knowledge (XXG):New pages patrol/Newsletter
1973:User:Insertcleverphrasehere/NPR invite list
2568:, so this will need discussion. Thoughts?
2443:If you have any others, leave them below.
1843:mw:Growth/Article creation for new editors
1164:Not seeing any issue with you hosting it.
506:
427:Knowledge (XXG):New pages patrol/Page tabs
1873:User talk:Novem Linguae § NPP Coordinator
1836:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Growth Team features
1751:Growth teamβs annual planning priorities
1699:User talk:MB#New pages patrol newsletter
904:Your proposed changes seem fine to me. -
2563:It has now been removed by two editors
2244:Done. How'd our little experiment go? β
2028:User talk:Novem Linguae § History merge
1812:Thank you in advance for your replies.
140:that the situation is not as absurd as
2560:
2542:The risk of infiltration is too high.
1968:
1861:Illusion Flame NPP Coordinator request
1483:
1393:
1097:
717:
587:
167:
48:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1788:So, we would love to hear from you:
1652:If there is some hope of getting the
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:New pages patrol
7:
2067:recommend cutting and pasting, with
968:, that would require a consensus at
554:Keep count in page tabs at all times
3061:. Would something like that work? β
2713:has been pretty close to 1. Best,
1701:for a discussion I started on it.
810:over new articles in real time. β
28:
2847:, so that did not move forward. β
2352:you are more than welcome to join
639:, and some people work this way.
3041:may be what you're looking for.
2684:
2021:
1866:
1829:
856:, PageTriage, and MoveToDraft. β
266:The Blade of the Northern Lights
248:The Blade of the Northern Lights
233:The Blade of the Northern Lights
213:12 years ago (diffs available}.
211:The Blade of the Northern Lights
33:
2762:open to being convinced. Best,
373:Ye, I'll take another look at
264:Yes, indeed. Plus Γ§a change...
2421:Coordinator task brainstorming
1:
2436:COI/UPE detection/prevention?
1688:04:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
1666:06:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
1648:06:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
1633:05:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
1608:06:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
1583:04:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
1524:18:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
930:04:02, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
900:02:36, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
872:04:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
848:03:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
834:02:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
822:07:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
803:07:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
781:05:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
763:02:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
749:05:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
731:05:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
707:04:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
679:03:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
664:02:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
646:03:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
1498:12:56, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
1475:11:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
1455:09:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
1440:08:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
1410:23:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
1389:22:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
1368:18:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
1345:11:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
1307:06:17, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
1293:06:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
1281:05:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
1257:04:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
1220:04:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
1208:03:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
1189:03:06, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
1174:23:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
1160:23:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
1127:01:03, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
1107:00:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
1092:23:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
1068:22:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
1052:18:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
1007:17:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
992:Philosophically I'd suggest
987:16:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
624:01:12, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
603:00:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
572:16:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
539:07:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
500:14:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
483:13:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
464:06:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
439:02:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
408:21:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
391:23:26, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
350:13:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
334:09:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
276:15:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
260:09:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
243:04:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
223:02:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
198:22:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
184:22:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
155:21:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
130:21:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
2992:π°πππππππ πππππ
2955:π°πππππππ πππππ
2906:π°πππππππ πππππ
2729:π°πππππππ πππππ
2695:π°πππππππ πππππ
2672:π°πππππππ πππππ
2636:π°πππππππ πππππ
2608:π°πππππππ πππππ
2386:π°πππππππ πππππ
1997:π°πππππππ πππππ
1938:π°πππππππ πππππ
1902:π°πππππππ πππππ
1884:π°πππππππ πππππ
1716:Article creation hypothesis
1711:02:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
369:β Kudpung 5 September 2017
3112:
2019:
1864:
1827:
1676:Deprecation of Evad script
1269:User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft
3094:20:13, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
3077:19:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
3053:19:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
3033:19:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
2999:11:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
2986:11:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
2962:10:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
2948:06:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
2934:03:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
2913:03:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
2899:03:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
2863:19:47, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
2830:18:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
2809:17:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
2794:15:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
2772:15:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
2753:14:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
2736:22:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
2723:22:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
2702:20:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
2679:20:17, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
2666:20:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
2643:20:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
2630:20:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
2615:20:06, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
2600:20:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
2547:18:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
2538:01:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
2518:01:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
2488:19:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
2474:00:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
2453:05:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
2415:13:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
2393:12:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
2370:21:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
2346:20:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
2332:06:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
2311:06:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
2274:06:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
2260:06:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
2240:06:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
2226:05:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
2206:05:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
2192:05:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
2171:05:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
2157:05:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
2136:04:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
2121:04:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
2101:04:27, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
2087:04:20, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
2061:04:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
2004:11:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
1991:06:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
1959:05:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
1945:03:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
1924:03:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
1909:00:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
1891:19:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
366:can sing a song about it.
2425:Some brainstorming: (cc
1855:15:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
1824:18:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
1765:#26 out of 182 proposals
113:got something very wrong
107:A WMF perspective of NPP
1693:January 2023 newsletter
2757:Can you explain more @
1928:In an effort to keep @
1776:Community configurable
1362:Insertcleverphrasehere
1238:
1231:
1144:userspace. Thoughts? β
891:the tutorial talk page
371:
1809:centric perspective.
1237:
1230:
578:Minimum deletion time
354:
46:of past discussions.
1774:The feature will be
1297:Would you? Thanks. -
936:Move to Draft Script
1896:Hereβs the thread:
1561:9 (18%) were Admins
375:the associated doc.
1239:
1232:
889:I have updates at
691:under construction
634:under construction
341:the associated doc
318:New article banner
294:New article banner
3075:
2984:
2932:
2861:
2828:
2598:
2516:
2472:
2413:
2368:
2330:
2258:
2224:
2190:
2155:
2119:
2085:
1989:
1763:proposal (ranked
1606:
1564:27 (54%) were NPP
1496:
1438:
1424:Thanks for this,
1396:, it still does,
1387:
1364:
1158:
1125:
1090:
1076:in a userspace. β
870:
820:
801:
622:
570:
537:
524:
511:comment added by
498:
462:
104:
103:
58:
57:
52:current talk page
3103:
3069:
3067:
2978:
2976:
2926:
2924:
2855:
2853:
2822:
2815:Special:NewPages
2692:
2688:
2687:
2592:
2590:
2510:
2508:
2466:
2464:
2407:
2405:
2362:
2360:
2324:
2322:
2252:
2250:
2218:
2216:
2184:
2182:
2149:
2147:
2113:
2111:
2079:
2077:
2025:
2024:
2016:Newsletter stuff
1983:
1981:
1870:
1869:
1857:
1833:
1832:
1600:
1598:
1490:
1432:
1381:
1379:
1360:
1333:
1152:
1150:
1119:
1117:
1084:
1082:
951:prior discussion
864:
862:
814:
795:
793:
695:
689:
638:
632:
616:
614:
564:
562:
531:
492:
456:
358:one is around -
315:
272:
239:
85:
60:
59:
37:
36:
30:
3111:
3110:
3106:
3105:
3104:
3102:
3101:
3100:
3063:
3044:
2972:
2920:
2849:
2785:
2744:
2685:
2683:
2658:Hey man im josh
2634:Same here. - π₯
2586:
2582:Hey man im josh
2557:
2529:
2504:
2460:
2439:Review quality?
2423:
2401:
2356:
2318:
2246:
2212:
2178:
2143:
2107:
2073:
2031:
2030:
2022:
2018:
1977:
1876:
1875:
1867:
1863:
1858:
1840:
1838:
1830:
1718:
1695:
1678:
1616:
1594:
1547:
1531:
1467:Kudpung ΰΈΰΈΈΰΈΰΈΰΈΆΰΉΰΈ
1402:Kudpung ΰΈΰΈΈΰΈΰΈΰΈΆΰΉΰΈ
1375:
1337:Kudpung ΰΈΰΈΈΰΈΰΈΰΈΆΰΉΰΈ
1323:
1249:Kudpung ΰΈΰΈΈΰΈΰΈΰΈΆΰΉΰΈ
1181:Kudpung ΰΈΰΈΈΰΈΰΈΰΈΆΰΉΰΈ
1166:Hey man im josh
1146:
1113:
1078:
1044:Kudpung ΰΈΰΈΈΰΈΰΈΰΈΆΰΉΰΈ
938:
886:
858:
789:
772:
699:Kudpung ΰΈΰΈΈΰΈΰΈΰΈΆΰΉΰΈ
693:
687:
656:Kudpung ΰΈΰΈΈΰΈΰΈΰΈΆΰΉΰΈ
636:
630:
610:
580:
558:
418:
383:Kudpung ΰΈΰΈΈΰΈΰΈΰΈΆΰΉΰΈ
326:Kudpung ΰΈΰΈΈΰΈΰΈΰΈΆΰΉΰΈ
301:
296:
270:
252:Kudpung ΰΈΰΈΈΰΈΰΈΰΈΆΰΉΰΈ
237:
215:Kudpung ΰΈΰΈΈΰΈΰΈΰΈΆΰΉΰΈ
176:Kudpung ΰΈΰΈΈΰΈΰΈΰΈΆΰΉΰΈ
166:, I agree that
122:Kudpung ΰΈΰΈΈΰΈΰΈΰΈΆΰΉΰΈ
109:
81:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
3109:
3107:
3099:
3098:
3097:
3096:
3055:
3042:
3012:
3011:
3010:
3009:
3008:
3007:
3006:
3005:
3004:
3003:
3002:
3001:
2950:
2887:
2883:
2879:
2878:
2877:
2876:
2875:
2874:
2873:
2872:
2871:
2870:
2869:
2868:
2867:
2866:
2865:
2783:
2742:
2738:
2706:
2705:
2704:
2653:
2649:
2648:
2647:
2646:
2645:
2578:Illusion Flame
2556:
2553:
2552:
2551:
2550:
2549:
2540:
2527:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2441:
2440:
2437:
2434:
2422:
2419:
2418:
2417:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2299:
2298:
2297:
2296:
2295:
2294:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2284:
2283:
2282:
2281:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2276:
2050:
2049:
2044:
2020:
2017:
2014:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
1965:Illusion Flame
1961:
1911:
1865:
1862:
1859:
1828:
1806:
1805:
1800:
1795:
1786:
1785:
1782:
1779:
1740:Welcome Survey
1717:
1714:
1694:
1691:
1677:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1615:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1575:
1574:
1571:
1568:
1565:
1562:
1546:
1543:
1530:
1527:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1480:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1210:
1191:
1176:
1141:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1073:
1058:
1034:
1033:
1029:
1026:
1023:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1010:
1009:
937:
934:
933:
932:
918:
915:
914:
913:
885:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
807:
806:
805:
785:
784:
783:
770:
767:
766:
765:
737:
684:
683:
681:
666:
651:
650:
649:
648:
595:
594:
591:
579:
576:
575:
574:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
474:been discussed
417:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
395:
368:
353:
352:
295:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
158:
157:
108:
105:
102:
101:
96:
91:
86:
79:
74:
69:
66:
56:
55:
38:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3108:
3095:
3091:
3087:
3086:
3080:
3079:
3078:
3073:
3068:
3066:
3065:Novem Linguae
3060:
3056:
3054:
3051:
3050:
3049:
3040:
3037:
3036:
3035:
3034:
3030:
3026:
3025:
3016:
3000:
2996:
2993:
2989:
2988:
2987:
2982:
2977:
2975:
2974:Novem Linguae
2969:
2965:
2964:
2963:
2959:
2956:
2951:
2949:
2945:
2941:
2937:
2936:
2935:
2930:
2925:
2923:
2922:Novem Linguae
2916:
2915:
2914:
2910:
2907:
2902:
2901:
2900:
2896:
2892:
2888:
2884:
2880:
2864:
2859:
2854:
2852:
2851:Novem Linguae
2846:
2842:
2837:
2833:
2832:
2831:
2826:
2821:
2816:
2812:
2811:
2810:
2806:
2802:
2797:
2796:
2795:
2792:
2791:
2790:
2780:
2775:
2774:
2773:
2769:
2765:
2760:
2756:
2755:
2754:
2751:
2750:
2749:
2739:
2737:
2733:
2730:
2726:
2725:
2724:
2720:
2716:
2712:
2707:
2703:
2699:
2696:
2691:
2682:
2681:
2680:
2676:
2673:
2669:
2668:
2667:
2663:
2659:
2654:
2650:
2644:
2640:
2637:
2633:
2632:
2631:
2627:
2623:
2618:
2617:
2616:
2612:
2609:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2601:
2596:
2591:
2589:
2588:Novem Linguae
2583:
2579:
2575:
2571:
2567:
2565:
2562:
2554:
2548:
2545:
2541:
2539:
2536:
2535:
2534:
2525:
2521:
2520:
2519:
2514:
2509:
2507:
2506:Novem Linguae
2501:
2497:
2493:
2489:
2485:
2481:
2477:
2476:
2475:
2470:
2465:
2463:
2462:Novem Linguae
2457:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2450:
2446:
2438:
2435:
2432:
2431:
2430:
2428:
2427:Novem Linguae
2420:
2416:
2411:
2406:
2404:
2403:Novem Linguae
2397:
2396:
2395:
2394:
2390:
2387:
2382:
2381:Novem Linguae
2371:
2366:
2361:
2359:
2358:Novem Linguae
2353:
2349:
2348:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2335:
2334:
2333:
2328:
2323:
2321:
2320:Novem Linguae
2315:
2314:
2313:
2312:
2308:
2304:
2275:
2271:
2267:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2256:
2251:
2249:
2248:Novem Linguae
2243:
2242:
2241:
2237:
2233:
2229:
2228:
2227:
2222:
2217:
2215:
2214:Novem Linguae
2209:
2208:
2207:
2203:
2199:
2195:
2194:
2193:
2188:
2183:
2181:
2180:Novem Linguae
2174:
2173:
2172:
2168:
2164:
2160:
2159:
2158:
2153:
2148:
2146:
2145:Novem Linguae
2139:
2138:
2137:
2133:
2129:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2117:
2112:
2110:
2109:Novem Linguae
2104:
2103:
2102:
2098:
2094:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2083:
2078:
2076:
2075:Novem Linguae
2070:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2048:
2045:
2043:
2040:
2039:
2038:
2037:Links below:
2035:
2029:
2015:
2005:
2001:
1998:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1987:
1982:
1980:
1979:Novem Linguae
1974:
1970:
1966:
1962:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1942:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1930:Novem Linguae
1927:
1926:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1912:
1910:
1906:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1888:
1885:
1881:
1880:Novem Linguae
1874:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1837:
1826:
1825:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1810:
1804:
1801:
1799:
1796:
1794:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1783:
1780:
1777:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1768:
1766:
1762:
1761:
1756:
1752:
1747:
1745:
1741:
1736:
1732:
1730:
1726:
1721:
1715:
1713:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1692:
1690:
1689:
1686:
1685:
1675:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1631:
1630:
1625:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1613:
1609:
1604:
1599:
1597:
1596:Novem Linguae
1591:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1581:
1580:
1572:
1569:
1566:
1563:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1555:
1551:
1544:
1542:
1540:
1535:
1528:
1526:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1516:
1499:
1494:
1489:
1485:
1484:a draft where
1481:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1463:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1436:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1385:
1380:
1378:
1377:Novem Linguae
1371:
1370:
1369:
1366:
1365:
1363:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1331:
1327:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1308:
1304:
1300:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1291:
1290:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1265:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1236:
1229:
1221:
1218:
1217:
1211:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1192:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1177:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1156:
1151:
1149:
1148:Novem Linguae
1142:
1138:
1128:
1123:
1118:
1116:
1115:Novem Linguae
1110:
1109:
1108:
1105:
1104:
1099:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1088:
1083:
1081:
1080:Novem Linguae
1074:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1066:
1065:
1059:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1040:
1036:
1035:
1030:
1027:
1024:
1021:
1018:
1017:
1012:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1000:
995:
991:
990:
989:
988:
985:
984:
978:
973:
971:
967:
962:
960:
954:
952:
947:
943:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
916:
911:
907:
903:
902:
901:
898:
897:
892:
888:
887:
883:
873:
868:
863:
861:
860:Novem Linguae
855:
851:
850:
849:
845:
841:
837:
836:
835:
832:
831:
825:
824:
823:
818:
813:
808:
804:
799:
794:
792:
791:Novem Linguae
786:
782:
779:
778:
777:
768:
764:
761:
760:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
733:
732:
729:
728:
723:
719:
715:
714:Novem Linguae
711:
710:
709:
708:
704:
700:
692:
682:
680:
676:
672:
667:
665:
661:
657:
653:
652:
647:
644:
643:
635:
627:
626:
625:
620:
615:
613:
612:Novem Linguae
607:
606:
605:
604:
601:
600:
592:
589:
585:
582:
581:
577:
573:
568:
563:
561:
560:Novem Linguae
555:
552:
551:
540:
535:
530:
526:
525:
522:
518:
514:
510:
503:
502:
501:
496:
491:
486:
485:
484:
481:
480:
475:
471:
467:
466:
465:
460:
455:
451:
447:
443:
442:
441:
440:
436:
432:
428:
423:
415:
409:
406:
405:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
393:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
370:
367:
365:
361:
351:
348:
347:
342:
338:
337:
336:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
313:
309:
308:Novem Linguae
305:
299:
293:
277:
273:
267:
263:
262:
261:
257:
253:
249:
246:
245:
244:
240:
234:
230:
226:
225:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:
200:
199:
195:
191:
187:
186:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
161:
160:
159:
156:
152:
148:
143:
139:
134:
133:
132:
131:
127:
123:
118:
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:
19:
3084:
3083:
3064:
3047:
3046:
3023:
3022:
3017:
3013:
2973:
2921:
2850:
2845:phab:T310974
2836:phab:T227250
2788:
2787:
2747:
2746:
2689:
2587:
2558:
2532:
2531:
2505:
2461:
2442:
2424:
2402:
2378:
2357:
2319:
2300:
2247:
2213:
2179:
2144:
2108:
2074:
2051:
2036:
2032:
1978:
1877:
1816:Trizek (WMF)
1814:
1811:
1807:
1802:
1797:
1792:
1787:
1769:
1759:
1748:
1737:
1733:
1722:
1719:
1696:
1683:
1679:
1653:
1628:
1617:
1595:
1578:
1576:
1548:
1532:
1514:
1513:
1510:
1461:
1376:
1359:
1358:
1288:
1215:
1195:
1147:
1114:
1102:
1079:
1063:
1039:The Signpost
1038:
993:
982:
980:NPP/admins.
974:
963:
955:
939:
895:
859:
829:
790:
775:
774:
758:
726:
685:
641:
611:
598:
596:
559:
553:
507:βΒ Preceding
478:
419:
403:
394:
378:
372:
364:TonyBallioni
356:
355:
345:
300:
297:
142:WhatamIdoing
110:
82:
47:
41:
22:Coordination
3015:that.
2652:beneficial.
2433:Recruitment
2026:Moved from
1871:Moved from
1729:Growth team
1545:Restriction
722:this at VPP
40:This is an
3039:WP:RPATROL
2995:(ππππ)
2958:(ππππ)
2940:Zippybonzo
2909:(ππππ)
2732:(ππππ)
2711:bus factor
2698:(ππππ)
2675:(ππππ)
2639:(ππππ)
2622:Zippybonzo
2611:(ππππ)
2574:Zippybonzo
2480:Zippybonzo
2445:Zippybonzo
2389:(ππππ)
2338:Zippybonzo
2303:Zippybonzo
2266:Zippybonzo
2232:Zippybonzo
2198:Zippybonzo
2163:Zippybonzo
2128:Zippybonzo
2093:Zippybonzo
2053:Zippybonzo
2000:(ππππ)
1951:Zippybonzo
1941:(ππππ)
1905:(ππππ)
1887:(ππππ)
966:WP:Gadgets
207:Scottywong
172:Iridescent
117:employee's
3085:North8000
3024:North8000
2946:(he|him)
2891:MPGuy2824
2801:Barkeep49
2764:Barkeep49
2715:Barkeep49
2628:(he|him)
2570:Barkeep49
2486:(he|him)
2451:(he|him)
2344:(he|him)
2309:(he|him)
2272:(he|him)
2238:(he|him)
2204:(he|him)
2169:(he|him)
2134:(he|him)
2099:(he|him)
2059:(he|him)
1957:(he|him)
1934:MPGuy2824
1916:MPGuy2824
1847:Folly Mox
1834:Moved to
1744:all stats
1658:MPGuy2824
1640:MPGuy2824
1624:MPGuy2824
1554:Barkeep49
1534:MPGuy2824
1515:North8000
1447:MPGuy2824
1426:MPGuy2824
1355:common.js
1351:MPGuy2824
1330:MPGuy2824
1299:MPGuy2824
1273:MPGuy2824
1200:MPGuy2824
999:Barkeep49
942:MPGuy2824
922:MPGuy2824
906:MPGuy2824
840:MPGuy2824
741:MPGuy2824
686:IMO the
671:Barkeep49
431:MPGuy2824
381:article.
203:Barkeep49
190:Barkeep49
164:Barkeep49
147:Barkeep49
99:ArchiveΒ 8
94:ArchiveΒ 7
89:ArchiveΒ 6
83:ArchiveΒ 5
77:ArchiveΒ 4
72:ArchiveΒ 3
64:ArchiveΒ 1
3048:Rosguill
3043:signed,
2789:Rosguill
2784:signed,
2779:WP:CFORK
2759:Rosguill
2748:Rosguill
2743:signed,
2533:Rosguill
2528:signed,
2500:Rosguill
1654:draftify
1614:Location
1590:WP:QUERY
1539:WT:NPP/R
959:Xaosflux
776:Rosguill
771:signed,
736:article.
521:contribs
509:unsigned
379:Signpost
360:Xaosflux
20: |
2882:August.
2841:WT:NPPR
2524:WP:COIN
1878:Hello @
1550:Kudpung
1529:Rollout
977:Kudpung
884:Updates
470:Joe Roe
312:Joe Roe
310:, and
138:Kudpung
43:archive
2693:. - π₯
2069:WP:CWW
1936:. - π₯
1725:Trizek
1720:Hello
1703:isaacl
1462:simple
970:WP:VPT
946:Evad37
854:WP:NPP
584:WP:NPP
450:WT:NPR
271:θ©±γγ¦δΈγγ
238:θ©±γγ¦δΈγγ
209:, and
145:Best,
115:. The
2544:MER-C
2498:and @
2496:MER-C
1140:time.
422:spike
16:<
3090:talk
3072:talk
3029:talk
2981:talk
2944:Talk
2929:talk
2895:talk
2858:talk
2825:talk
2805:talk
2768:talk
2719:talk
2690:Done
2662:talk
2626:Talk
2595:talk
2513:talk
2494:Hi @
2484:Talk
2478:Yes
2469:talk
2449:Talk
2410:talk
2365:talk
2342:Talk
2327:talk
2307:Talk
2270:Talk
2255:talk
2236:Talk
2221:talk
2202:Talk
2187:talk
2167:Talk
2152:talk
2132:Talk
2116:talk
2097:Talk
2082:talk
2057:Talk
1986:talk
1963:Hey
1955:Talk
1920:talk
1900:- π₯
1851:talk
1820:talk
1767:).
1723:I'm
1707:talk
1662:talk
1644:talk
1603:talk
1520:talk
1493:talk
1471:talk
1451:talk
1435:talk
1406:talk
1398:ICPH
1384:talk
1341:talk
1328:and
1303:talk
1277:talk
1253:talk
1204:talk
1185:talk
1170:talk
1155:talk
1122:talk
1087:talk
1048:talk
1032:WMF.
1003:talk
926:talk
910:talk
867:talk
844:talk
817:talk
798:talk
745:talk
703:talk
675:talk
660:talk
619:talk
567:talk
534:talk
517:talk
495:talk
459:talk
435:talk
387:talk
362:and
330:talk
256:talk
219:talk
194:talk
180:talk
151:talk
126:talk
2997:π₯
2960:π₯
2911:π₯
2820:Joe
2734:π₯
2700:π₯
2677:π₯
2641:π₯
2613:π₯
2584:. β
2391:π₯
2354:. β
2002:π₯
1943:π₯
1907:π₯
1889:π₯
1488:Joe
1430:Joe
994:not
812:Joe
529:Joe
490:Joe
454:Joe
429:. -
316:At
3092:)
3031:)
2953:π₯
2942:|
2904:π₯
2897:)
2818:β
2807:)
2770:)
2721:)
2664:)
2624:|
2606:π₯
2580:,
2576:,
2572:,
2526:.
2482:|
2447:|
2429:)
2384:π₯
2340:|
2305:|
2268:|
2234:|
2200:|
2165:|
2130:|
2095:|
2055:|
1953:|
1922:)
1853:)
1845:.
1839:β
1822:)
1731:.
1709:)
1684:MB
1664:)
1646:)
1629:MB
1579:MB
1522:)
1473:)
1453:)
1408:)
1357:β
1343:)
1326:MB
1305:)
1289:MB
1279:)
1255:)
1216:MB
1206:)
1196:my
1187:)
1172:)
1103:MB
1100:.
1064:MB
1050:)
1005:)
983:MB
928:)
896:MB
846:)
830:MB
759:MB
747:)
727:MB
705:)
694:}}
688:{{
677:)
662:)
642:MB
637:}}
631:{{
599:MB
523:)
519:β’
513:MB
479:MB
446:MB
437:)
404:MB
389:)
346:MB
332:)
322:MB
306:,
304:MB
274:)
258:)
241:)
221:)
196:)
182:)
153:)
128:)
68:β
3088:(
3074:)
3070:(
3027:(
2983:)
2979:(
2931:)
2927:(
2893:(
2860:)
2856:(
2827:)
2823:(
2803:(
2766:(
2717:(
2660:(
2597:)
2593:(
2515:)
2511:(
2471:)
2467:(
2412:)
2408:(
2399:β
2379:@
2367:)
2363:(
2329:)
2325:(
2257:)
2253:(
2223:)
2219:(
2189:)
2185:(
2176:β
2154:)
2150:(
2141:β
2118:)
2114:(
2084:)
2080:(
1988:)
1984:(
1918:(
1914:-
1849:(
1818:(
1705:(
1660:(
1642:(
1638:-
1605:)
1601:(
1518:(
1495:)
1491:(
1469:(
1449:(
1445:-
1437:)
1433:(
1404:(
1386:)
1382:(
1373:β
1349:@
1339:(
1332::
1324:@
1301:(
1275:(
1251:(
1202:(
1183:(
1168:(
1157:)
1153:(
1124:)
1120:(
1089:)
1085:(
1046:(
1001:(
975:@
957:@
940:@
924:(
912:)
908:(
869:)
865:(
842:(
819:)
815:(
800:)
796:(
743:(
712:@
701:(
673:(
658:(
621:)
617:(
569:)
565:(
536:)
532:(
515:(
497:)
493:(
468:@
461:)
457:(
433:(
385:(
328:(
314::
302:@
268:(
254:(
235:(
217:(
192:(
178:(
149:(
124:(
54:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.