1054:
pressures to be NPOV and what-not (which I don't deny the importance of at all) have created a culture that is afraid to add any flair, humour or character to the content, in ways which aren't necessarily contradictory to the philosophy. Not that I'm claiming that this quote is the shining beacon of literature or anything, but nonetheless, isn't that what this page is partially about? The fact that this is happening here I think adds a touch of irony ;) I could be wrong though; I've been contributing for only 4-5 months (but reading much longer), maybe I don't understand the system. --
305:- If taking option 1. we are instructed to "Move it to the Talk page" (presuming that the "it" refers to "anything substantial"). But later we are told "then wait a bit" before proceeding. Moving means taking away from one place as well as putting in another, so we are being instructed to proceed to make an amendment or deletion, then told not to proceed to do so before waiting "a bit" for responses to what we should not (or is it should?) have done anyway. The author of the caveat presumably meant not "move" but "copy" But why should we have to presume so much?
573:) said he was glad it was reverted. The version that's up there right now is based on my own edits, and I'm comfortable in my reasoning behind what I changed (but, of course, I don't mind someone else editing me). I guess I was just rattled a bit at first at having been reverted, and wanted to know what to do in case I was reverted again - especially as the complaints given about my article were fairly subjective and could have gone either way. Who's to say whether or not I deserved to be reverted? (Today I also reworked
501:
relevant or noteworthy, or just generally has poor formatting - do you ever go in and rework an article significantly? If you do, how do you deal with previous editors who may get their nose bent out of shape that you redid their stuff? Or do you just leave well enough alone, limit your changes to specific details within the existing structure of the article, and trust that the people who edited before you knew what they were doing and your own opinion might be wrong? -
31:
110:
with, so I simply "translated" the page into
American English in its entirety so that I can be sure it's correct. This in no way implies that I think one is better than the other; only that I'm more competent to edit one. Of course, if a British person later comes along to edit it and wants to translate it back, that's fine too if he or she feels more competent editing that. --
956:
general consensus, we can move it here and try and hash out any objections. I've just been spending too much time recently cleaning up after ill-advised and/or un-followed up page moves and template changes, and would rather have the newcomers warned in advance, instead of getting a 'please don't ___' when they apply 'be bold' beyond article edits.
264:". But also there must be a life-cycle issue. As WikiPedia converges (if it ever does...) the need for community respect for what exists must become relatively more important versus the priority of getting new contributers and getting new content. Systems become unstable near convergence if the step size is left high... --
318:- There seems to be a lot of people here talking about Wikis, and what to write and what not to write. What is the point!? Wouldn't it be more interesting to talk about something else? Like what people on these pages do for a living, or perhaps if there's a certain type of people who write things on these sites.
716:
bits and pieces without ever actually restructuring it, leaving it a rambling mess. I've found myself doing this. It is much harder to rearrange and restructure a text than just add a few pieces. The original text will color the tone of the article long afterwards, even if it does not deserve to. --
715:
I've seen the direct results of what the IBM study found, it isn't pretty. Some articles that started with text with factual errors continue to support those errors many edits later. I think people are afraid to edit it out. Frequently if the original text was disorganized, people just keep adding
1053:
I don't see what the issue was? The article is relatively informal, and is meant to be.. I don't really care that much, but just for future reference. Specifically, as much as I love wikipedia, I think one of the major weaknesses is that the writing style is so formulaic and drab. I think all the
619:
I've reworked a couple of articles. Sometimes I just start rewriting it one paragraph at a time, adding a paragraph, and then later deleting the redundant parts in the rest of the article. Sometimes I just add all the missing pieces first, so grossly expanding the article that the previous text is
418:
I doubt that the image's impact is as devastating as you describe it. I am also no more able to justify the image's inclusion on the article than I am able to justify the 10K Knowledge (XXG) logo in the upper-left corner--in both cases, they add nothing to the content, could easily be replaced with
393:
To me, the image is relevant, good-looking, and an enhancement to the article. I would also disagree that the
Knowledge (XXG) is minimalistic; we do what we can to make our articles look good in spite of the technical limitations. But you might have expected that I would disagree with you--such is
109:
Another comment: There are times when I have edited a page originally written in
British English. Since my native language is American English, I do not consider myself competent to edit British text without accidentally throwing in a "realize" or "the team is..." or something else I'm not familiar
407:
I suppose the main issue with the image is that it's distracting. The color, jumpy fonts, and prominent position on the left all draw one's focus away from the article. In this case the article is not encyclopedia content; rather, it's advice to editors, and it seems harmful to draw their attention
955:
I added a bit to try and clarify that "Be bold!" generally means edits to a single article, recommending a bit more caution when doing things that have wide-spread effects. If someone thinks the idea can be presented better, feel free to edit mercilessly. If someone thinks I've mis-interpreted the
741:
One of the problems when trying to even remotely approach anything like a bold update (i.e. not even really a bold update) is that someone is likely to come along and revert the update, even when the update happens to be uh, "reasonable". A couple of experiences like this would discourage would-be
281:
If you encounter an article on a controversial subject that you would like to edit, first read the comments on the talk page and view the Page history to get a sense of how the article came into being and what its current status is. Then, if you want to change or delete anything substantial in the
120:
Perhaps this debate doesn't really belong here, but do you really find
British English so different that you feel you can't piecemeal edit it correctly? I certainly feel competent to edit pages obviously written by Americans :) As far as ending up with a mixture of British and American (and, what
643:
Re-write in stages. If a re-structuring is necessary, do this first, with minimal changes to existing text. Leave it for a day or two. Then tidy up existing text (spelling, grammar, style etc.) but keep the same content. Leave it for a day or two again. Then add all that new content that you have
145:
Or consider
Canadian English. Just read anything written in standard Canadian English (whatever that is), or peruse the Canadian Oxford English Dictionary, and you'll find that using a mishmash of British and American English is the norm in Canada. So rewriting an entire article is probably not
919:
Disagree for ambiguity reasons. Yes, we say "BE BOLD!", but we mean in updating the pages. Unless someone says that this page can be expanded to mean "Be bold in everything you do on
Knowledge (XXG)", I think it should stay where it is. New users and visitors will get the right context from the
410:
However, you should also consider what you are trying to say by including the image. Right now, it seems to just repeat the title (which sums up the whole point of the article). After a user has been referred here and has read the page title, does he really need a further repetition of the same
500:
I'm just curious, what do any of you do when you come across an article which you believe needs significant changes to its structure? Like if it restates facts, scatters facts under irrelevant sections, uses 'critics believe that...' too often, rambles, includes lots of citations which aren't
463:
I'm looking over my paragraph above and it reads like a legal threat. I hope it was not construed as such? Seriously, it's simply not that big a deal, but if there is a way we could keep the image in a way that you found aesthetically appealing, I would really love to hear your ideas.
101:
page contained a quote from Jimbo about something that would "grow gracefully old", and someone changed it into the cliche "grow old gracefully". That's not what Jimbo said, and it has a different meaning. It was also not an improvement on the original; in fact it was much worse.
87:
For the most part, the instinctive desire of an author to "own" what he has written is counterproductive here, and it is good to shake up that emotional attachment by making sweeping changes at will when it improves the result. But there's an important exception to keep in mind:
204:, which made the first sentences unreadable. (anon user added german/czech/slovak/hungarian names, which is appropriate, but not in the first sentence like that. Also unwikified. I have work to do now, so I can't but if anybody wishes to correct all of it, please go ahead.
1019:
In many cases contributers are interested in editing an article, but distance themselve from this because they're not 100 percent certain if the edit the're about to do is completely correct (that is, not everyone is a PhD in what he/she would like to edit). This reflects
181:, section:On editing styles. It talks about different approaches to take while editing, boldness being one of them. Wikis work with other approaches too. Perhaps the line could be "Wikis develop faster when people are bold." as the speed element is the biggest advantage.
308:- After that conundrum comes another, equally difficult to grasp. Option 1: List your objections if they refer to a sentence or so vs. Option 2: Only list your objections if they refer to something longer (= don't list your objections if they refer to a sentence or so).
302:- Knowledge (XXG) menus do not include a "talk page" (or even a "Talk page"). A fair amount of digging will eventually reveal that what is meant is the "Discuss this page" option; but aren't we dealing here with an article for newcomers to the Knowledge (XXG)?
981:. Mistakes and missteps may be made, but by-and-large, the BE BOLD statement serves as a motivator. Remember, nothing a newbie does is ever truly permanent. Keep the cautions, warnings, and caveats to a minimum on this page. Make it about empowerment. --
249:, where a user has changed UK county names wholesale across many articles on towns, cities, counties etc, and has also created many new articles to suit a particular view of what is correct. There's a place beyond 'bold', where even angels fear to tread!
620:
in the minority. Then, later, the previous bits can be reworded, worked in, or just deleted. Either way, if your text is high quality, and no factual data is actually lost in the process, it'll probably stick, and hopefully fewer noses will be bent. --
871:
Ah, I misunderstood you. I temporally deleted that redirect in order to move the page from "Be bold in updating pages" to "Be bold" — which I did (I noted why I was deleting the page in the edit summary, which you left out. I thought you meant that I
521:
Most of the time if you do a good reorg of the info, and structure a good encyclopedia article, you won't get wrapped up in arguments. Sloppy articles need to be fixed, and most people actually apprecaite a helpful touch on pages they frequent.
1042:
I don't really have a strong stance on the subject, but
Necaholic has removed my quote, which was perfectly relevant, in fact it can be interpreted as literally "be bold, but don't be reckless", its also a relatively well known movie reference:
670:— I think I ticked off a couple of editors because they were already working on a new version (although it was under construction as a user subpage, quite easy to overlook...). If I'd followed these guidelines, it would gone much smoother.
803:
Checking the
Whatlinkshere shows a lot of user talk pages referencing that... what you didn't consider was "why?". The Be bold link is/was used in a lot of new user Welcome messages. I think you should move it back and, this time, fix
1000:
Show deference to the article authors who came before you. If the content changes you make to a long-established article are significant, err on the side of explaining your changes in a reasonably detailed manner on the article's talk
121:
the hell, let's throw in some
Australian, New Zealand, and South African English as well), I can't see it as a huge problem. If somebody finds the spelling and vocabulary inconsistencies too annoying, they'll get cleaned up IMHO. --
425:
For me, this is a trivial matter in the grand scheme of things. Do you seriously find the image to be so off-putting that it detracts from the message? If so, I'm afraid we'll be at odds and I will seek community consensus at the
647:
Try not to remove stuff - this is what often causes disputes. Clear factual errors should be removed, but other material can usually be incorporated in one way or another. POV stuff can be re-written as NPOV; bias can be balanced
419:
text, and are there simply because they look nice. Provided a webpage is accessible, I have no problem it looking good. The image is also an apt illustration of being bold (in my opinion): I saw a beautiful T-shirt design on
680:
That IBM research suggested that initial text is rarely taken away. With the exception of short stubs, the first edit tends to define an article. There of course plenty of exceptions (even 1% would be 3,000 articles).
636:
Check the article's history. If there is a frequent contributor or the article is clearly largely the work of one or two users, explain your plans on their talk page(s) - not to ask "permission", but just to keep them
512:, and explain your changes on the Talk pages, but be prepared to get involved in pointless controversies, or to get abused if a long standing one already exists for that article, or to get all your work reverted. --
176:
Isn't the first line "Wikis don't work if people aren't bold." too definitive (and misleading ?) ? It suggests that boldness is the only way to live in wikipedia. Better ways of rephrasing the line can be found at
96:
be edited for content without correctly identifying all the changes. It's OK to fix obvious spelling and grammar bugs, but changing content is tantamount to making a false quotation claim. For example, the
325:
I thought the concept was fantastic. But instead of reading about all sorts of interesting opinions from around the world there's just a load of people saying what you should and shouldn't write...
131:
I don't need to edit other people's text to get a mishmash of
American and British English -- my writing is a mishmash already! I switch willy-nilly from -ise to -ize and back again... :) --
386:
To me, this image seems ugly, but also unecessary. I don't see what this adds to the article - it seems to just clutter things up and screw up the minimalistic style of Knowledge (XXG). --
666:
Gandalf61, this is great advice (is this written up anywhere in a Knowledge (XXG): space article?). Anecdote: one of my earliest contributions was an overly enthusiastic refactoring of
977:
This page is all about BEING BOLD. Too many cautionary warnings will water this idea down. Remember, this is the page we point a lot of new users towards to encourage them to
200:
This should be written in many places, maybe there should be a {msg:} for it, so we can put it on users' talk pages. All of this provoked by a recent mass edit of articles on
854:). And I hardly thought that this move would be "controversial." But if you have such strenuous concerns, I will not object to moving this back. ] 20:42, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
996:
Because I've recently seen some authors make major changes to articles without showing other editors of the article any respect, I'd like to see a blurb like this added:
411:
title? Ultimately, I'm not sure that any image is appropriate here, because I don't think an image really illustrates the idea of being bold any better than text can. --
753:
is trying to say something here of if he just has an axe to grind because he was reverted elsewhere. I'll leave a message on his talk page (assuming it's a he.) --
699:
569:, I felt like it read like a high school essay. It rambled and repeated words. I reworked it; someone reverted it (possibly by mistake?); someone else (in
234:
guideline could do with a further caveat about naming conventions and certain use of style; now that some standards have become generally accepted. :
746:
Is this a complaint, or something that we can incorporate into the article? What is meant here by "reasonable" (with the scare quotes)? Also see
246:
475:
No, no, it's no problem. Nobody else seems to object, and I can't say it's all that crucial to me. Leave it up and gauge reaction for a bit. --
930:
905:
770:
509:
231:
213:
818:
Why move it back? The new name got more links, it's shorter, and more descriptive of what the page actually is. ] 20:26, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
293:
Then, wait a bit for responses. If no one objects, proceed. But always move large deletions to Talk and list your objections to the text.
193:... If you think that particular information should be added to, restructured or reformated in many articles, please ask first at the
79:
71:
66:
1021:
378:'s "Be bold!" T-shirt graphic to the page. I'm not satisfied with the layout, but I trust that someone will improve upon it. --
920:
current article title. All appropriate redirects are already in place, so finding the article (or citing it) is no problem. --
355:
581:. Is there any sort of "request for peer review" list around here, where I can ask people for opinions on my edits?) -
629:
I have also reworked a couple of articles. I think the following steps can be taken to minimise the risk of dispute -
178:
159:
857:"19:29, 13 Oct 2004 Neutrality deleted "Knowledge (XXG):Be bold" (Delete to make way for page move.)" I did see the
38:
408:
from the important point being made. If you fix some of these issues, I think the image becomes less problematic.
858:
851:
796:
got many links. Plus, it's more inclusive of what the page actually says and is less wordy. So I though I would
427:
194:
47:
17:
589:
640:
Explain your plans on the article's talk page and invite comments. Anyone watching the article will see this.
169:
111:
103:
311:- Finally, "If no one objects, proceed". The liberum veto comes to Knowledge (XXG)! I sincerely hope not!
750:
343:...? Otherwise, we could have ], to describe the state of mind and attitude, rather than give an order...
832:
725:
441:
I don't find it "devastating"; I find it annoying. If no one else cares, it certainly is no big deal. --
352:
147:
692:
What's this IBM research you mention? Was it all about Knowledge (XXG)? ] 07:14, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
132:
934:
909:
797:
793:
774:
985:
924:
876:
deleted the redirect, something I would never do. Gets quite confusing. ] 20:52, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
865:
844:
812:
781:
724:
To facilitate the building of a consensus around what edits an article need, you can use the new
201:
122:
1006:
957:
758:
582:
502:
469:
457:
435:
401:
836:
825:
you moved it. You also speedy deleted the pre-existing redirect at this location against the
1055:
941:
671:
600:
553:
531:
349:
328:
Chill out you silly Americans! It's a free platform. Stop trying to control it so much!!!
220:
826:
705:
685:
570:
340:
268:
98:
898:
982:
921:
862:
841:
809:
778:
656:
513:
375:
335:
Parent page needs reverting (see 'sex monkey') but I have no idea how to do it. AndyE.
1048:"Sucking the marrow out of life doesn't mean choking on the bone." -Dead Poets Society
420:
965:
729:
449:
754:
695:
Blimey Bod you have a very long sig when you view it in wikitext! The IBM paper is
667:
476:
465:
453:
442:
431:
412:
397:
387:
379:
362:
250:
800:
myself and move the page. Do you have any objections? ] 20:10, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
322:
1025:
938:
607:
595:
592:
549:
538:
526:
523:
235:
217:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
702:
682:
574:
563:
286:
Move it to the Talk page, if it is a sentence or so, and list your objections.
265:
245:
It would also have been useful in a recent case, currently being discussed at
205:
163:
831:
Redirects can be immediately deleted if they have no useful history and: ...
696:
396:
Do you see any way to rework the image so that the article is improved? --
339:
Ultra-minor nit-pick: shouldn't this page be at ], given that it's in the
289:
Only list your objections to the section on the Talk page if it is longer.
717:
621:
361:
Create the page and redirect — that's what this project is all about! --
321:
Having only just found out about these from a story on the BBC website -
182:
964:
I haven't read what you've done, but I definitely agree with the idea.
578:
861:, which is how I knew you'd done it. Care to change your story? --
423:, asked him if he would mind if I put up on WP:BB, and there it is.
835:
is that it should be removed to make way for a non-controversial
299:
I'm sorry, but there are several things I don't understand here.
261:
789:
747:
567:
25:
742:
bold updaters and encourage conservative editing instead.
92:
written by and specifically credited to one person should
769:
Where was the discussion about renaming this page from
496:
Do you ever make significant changes to an article?
821:This would have been a great conversation to have
588:Brian, there is a place to request peer review at
188:
158:So, this page should link to a new one, called,
323:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3857621.stm
700:Knowledge (XXG):Wikipedia_in_academic_studies
8:
951:Clarifying we're talking about article edits
950:
247:Knowledge (XXG):Naming_conventions_(places)
314:Et in Arcadia, 12.08 UTC on 06 March 2004
931:Knowledge (XXG):Be bold in updating pages
906:Knowledge (XXG):Be bold in updating pages
850:I didn't speedy delete any redirect (See
771:Knowledge (XXG):Be bold in updating pages
262:fools rush in where angels fear to tread
189:"Don't mass edit without asking first...
840:". Key word there is -consensus-. --
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
792:" of the former title and found that
172:. Is it better placed here or there?
168:This seems to be duplicated on meta:
7:
1022:Knowledge (XXG):No_original_research
937:so I'd rather it stays where it is.
548:What's the article in question? --
728:. Any comments on it are welcome.
24:
736:Recent addition by anonymous user
933:seems more accurate than simply
212:That goes against the advice to
29:
1039:"This quote has no relevance."
160:Knowledge (XXG):Avoid edit wars
1035:Quote from Dead Poet's society
566:. Before I started editing it
179:Knowledge (XXG):Editing_policy
1:
1015:Be bold vs. Original research
916:] 19:26, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
859:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion log
852:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion log
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Be bold
973:Some things to keep in mind
749:; is this a can't tell if
698:. (Read the PDF). See also
590:Knowledge (XXG):Peer review
170:m:Be bold in updating pages
1072:
992:Deference to other authors
761:18:13, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
726:Knowledge (XXG):Todo lists
382:19:46, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
185:22:45, Sep 16, 2003 (UTC)
1058:04:48, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
1028:13:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
1011:23:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
960:02:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
944:03:25, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)
868:20:48, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
847:20:40, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
815:20:22, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
784:20:05, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
732:17:04, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
688:10:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
659:10:41, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
655:Just my few thoughts ...
612:04:57, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
585:02:36, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
543:01:13, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
505:00:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
472:00:46, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
438:23:46, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
404:20:32, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
365:19:46, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)
346:I said it was minor. ;-)
282:text, you should either:
208:18:22, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
988:08:23, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
968:10:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
927:17:40, 2004 Oct 27 (UTC)
720:04:41, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
708:08:40, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
674:18:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
624:03:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
556:02:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
516:00:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
460:00:43, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)
445:00:35, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
415:22:56, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
390:20:28, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
356:16:41, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
271:14:45, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
253:21:11, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
238:22:05, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
223:19:43, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
1034:
910:Knowledge (XXG):Be bold
794:Knowledge (XXG):Be bold
788:I looked throught the "
775:Knowledge (XXG):Be bold
644:been itching to put in.
479:00:50, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1051:
744:
195:wikipedia:Village pump
1045:
739:
42:of past discussions.
751:User:128.175.112.225
146:worth the bother. --
133:user:Simon J Kissane
202:Holy Roman emperors
1008:Stevie is the man!
808:the redirects. --
123:user:Robert Merkel
99:Wiki is not paper
85:
84:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1063:
1009:
610:
605:
598:
541:
536:
529:
421:m:User:Wapcaplet
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1071:
1070:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1037:
1017:
1007:
994:
975:
953:
913:
895:
790:What links here
767:
738:
608:
601:
596:
571:Talk:Windows_XP
539:
532:
527:
498:
372:
341:imperative mood
315:
251:Chris Jefferies
191:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1069:
1067:
1036:
1033:
1031:
1016:
1013:
1003:
1002:
993:
990:
979:just get going
974:
971:
970:
969:
952:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
928:
912:
903:
894:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
766:
763:
737:
734:
722:
721:
712:
711:
710:
709:
678:
677:
676:
675:
661:
660:
652:
651:
650:
649:
645:
641:
638:
631:
630:
626:
625:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
558:
557:
545:
544:
518:
517:
497:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
461:
424:
409:
395:
371:
370:Be bold! image
368:
367:
366:
337:
333:
317:
313:
291:
290:
287:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
255:
254:
242:
241:
240:
239:
225:
224:
190:
187:
174:
156:
155:
154:
153:
152:
151:
150:
138:
137:
136:
135:
126:
125:
116:
107:
83:
82:
77:
74:
69:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1068:
1059:
1057:
1050:
1049:
1044:
1040:
1032:
1029:
1027:
1023:
1014:
1012:
1010:
999:
998:
997:
991:
989:
987:
984:
980:
972:
967:
963:
962:
961:
959:
943:
940:
936:
932:
929:
926:
923:
918:
917:
915:
914:
911:
907:
904:
902:
900:
892:
875:
870:
869:
867:
864:
860:
856:
855:
853:
849:
848:
846:
843:
839:
838:
834:
828:
824:
820:
819:
817:
816:
814:
811:
807:
802:
801:
799:
795:
791:
787:
786:
785:
783:
780:
776:
772:
764:
762:
760:
756:
752:
748:
743:
735:
733:
731:
727:
719:
714:
713:
707:
704:
701:
697:
694:
693:
691:
690:
689:
687:
684:
673:
669:
665:
664:
663:
662:
658:
654:
653:
646:
642:
639:
635:
634:
633:
632:
628:
627:
623:
618:
611:
606:
604:
599:
593:
591:
587:
586:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
565:
562:
561:
560:
559:
555:
551:
547:
546:
542:
537:
535:
530:
524:
520:
519:
515:
511:
508:
507:
506:
504:
495:
478:
474:
473:
471:
467:
462:
459:
455:
451:
447:
446:
444:
440:
439:
437:
433:
429:
422:
417:
416:
414:
406:
405:
403:
399:
392:
391:
389:
385:
384:
383:
381:
377:
369:
364:
360:
359:
358:
357:
354:
351:
347:
344:
342:
336:
332:
329:
326:
324:
319:
312:
309:
306:
303:
300:
297:
294:
288:
285:
284:
283:
279:
270:
267:
263:
259:
258:
257:
256:
252:
248:
244:
243:
237:
233:
230:Probably the
229:
228:
227:
226:
222:
219:
215:
211:
210:
209:
207:
203:
198:
196:
186:
184:
180:
173:
171:
166:
165:
161:
149:
144:
143:
142:
141:
140:
139:
134:
130:
129:
128:
127:
124:
119:
118:
117:
114:
113:
106:
105:
100:
95:
91:
81:
78:
75:
73:
70:
68:
65:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1052:
1047:
1046:
1041:
1038:
1030:
1018:
1004:
995:
978:
976:
958:Niteowlneils
954:
896:
893:Move request
873:
830:
822:
805:
768:
765:Page renamed
745:
740:
723:
679:
668:cryptography
602:
583:Brian Kendig
533:
503:Brian Kendig
499:
428:Village pump
373:
348:
345:
338:
334:
330:
327:
320:
316:
310:
307:
304:
301:
298:
295:
292:
280:
277:
199:
192:
175:
167:
157:
115:
108:
93:
89:
86:
60:
43:
37:
1056:Freshraisin
874:permanently
216:though. :)
36:This is an
575:Windows Me
564:Windows XP
331:Toby, UK.
90:Commentary
983:Netoholic
922:Netoholic
863:Netoholic
842:Netoholic
837:page move
833:Consensus
810:Netoholic
779:Netoholic
657:Gandalf61
637:informed.
514:Simonides
376:Wapcaplet
260:Indeed, "
162:, maybe?
80:Archive 5
72:Archive 3
67:Archive 2
61:Archive 1
966:Maurreen
829:policy "
730:Pcarbonn
374:I added
350:James F.
296:Unquote
935:Be bold
798:be bold
755:Ardonik
510:Be bold
477:Twinxor
466:Ardonik
454:Ardonik
443:Twinxor
432:Ardonik
413:Twinxor
398:Ardonik
388:Twinxor
380:Ardonik
363:Ardonik
278:Quote:
232:be bold
214:be bold
39:archive
1026:Abdull
939:Angela
897:(from
827:WP:CSD
823:before
759:talk()
703:Pcb21|
683:Pcb21|
672:— Matt
579:Mac OS
550:Cyrius
470:talk()
458:talk()
436:talk()
402:talk()
353:(talk)
236:ChrisG
218:Angela
1001:page.
899:WP:RM
777:? --
430:. --
394:life.
269:|talk
266:BozMo
206:Zocky
164:Graft
16:<
1024:. --
706:Pete
686:Pete
648:etc.
597:siro
577:and
528:siro
448::-(
806:all
773:to
718:ssd
622:ssd
197:."
183:Jay
148:AJM
112:LDC
104:LDC
94:not
1005:—
908:→
901:)
464:--
452:--
102:--
76:→
986:@
942:.
925:@
866:@
845:@
813:@
782:@
757:.
609:o
603:χ
594:—
554:✎
552:|
540:o
534:χ
525:—
468:.
456:.
450:™
434:.
400:.
221:.
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.