158:
less sure of. I understand the need for it (e.g. in my problem with CheeseDream the mediators and AC aren't supposed to jusge content). But what I love about
Knowledge (XXG) is that the process truly matches the scientific value that the truth can never be known in its entirety, that knowledge is the product of an ongoing process of debate, speculation, testing, and re-considering. I wouldn't want to sacrifice this either. Belive me, I see the merit in your specific proposal. But I see that merit because I see a serious problem. When I reject "peer-rview" it is not to turn your proposal into a straw-man, it is merely to open up other possibilities.
694:
addition that tends to be favorable toward Israel that you give to one that tends to be critical of it. And, again, I didn't particularly mean to single you out, I was just trying to pick an example I was familiar with pertaining to people within this project, because I felt that the example I could point to about myself was too narrow to illustrate the problem. I'm sure someone else could identify a broader area where I tend to be other than evenhanded. I think the nature of this is that one tends to be unaware when one is doing it, and it's more obvious to others than to oneself. --
665:
adversarial system to solve that). It almost certainly is not a role that any of us will easily take in an area where we have strong feelings. For example, I was recently chewed out by someone -- not a very likable someone, but not a fool -- for editing the article about the college I attended as an undergrad. Frankly, if people didn't ever write about the college they went to, I suspect we'd have rather few articles about colleges, so I'm unapologetic, but I would
31:
804:
that cease privileging process over product and cease privileging editors over readers. We are calling on
Knowledge (XXG) to adopt a structure that protects serious editors and prevents problem users from sabotaging their work. In practice this means that Knowledge (XXG)'s structure must change so that certain subjects have some kind of editorial oversight by a review panel of expert writers.
270:"is somebody going to tell me I shouldn't have added it?" Yes, you shouldn't have added it. If it's not published, how is anyone else going to verify it? What if someone maliciously interchanges "whiteside" and "greenside" with the edit summary "Maurreen is ignorant"? How can anybody adjudicate that kind of a dispute? I personally accumulated lots of juicy stories about the
212:
articles, and we can discuss which one of them fails (is original research, personal essay, unverifiable) and which ones succede, or which ones are flawed but can be salvaged by real research. If we can come up with more specific rules of thumb on just this issue, I think we would be serving
Knowledge (XXG) very well indeed!
220:
those hours writing another dozen articles. I know which one I think is a better use of time. Citing sources is important when it comes to articles that people can't agree on, but for the rest (the great majority of articles on wikipedia, I might add), it's probably not worth the time it takes for the benefit it gives.
249:, a U.S. Marine helicopter squadron. I added the following to the article: "The presidential and VIP flights fall under 'whiteside.' 'Greenside' operations include support of Marine Corps Combat Development and operational test and evaluation, such as with the V-22 Osprey, a vertical take-off and landing aircraft."
857:
on; we need to recognize that content is more imporant (in the end) than even-handedness, and that not all editors of an article have equal levels of knowledge/etc about a subject, and that really knowledgeable contributors are valuable and we need to keep them; and that to reach these two goals will
488:
Yes, the Talk: page is the right place for it. That's where the editors communicate about the article, and it is the editors who need to know that it needs sources. The only reason to put it on the article would be to warn readers - and we already have a number of standard warnings that would be more
289:
of always going back to something written, but alas, not everything worth covering in an encyclopaedia always gets written down. E.g. one I have personal experience with is very early
Internet history (late 1970s); a lot of it didn't get written down, or written versions (e.g. old email from the late
895:
interested in developing
Knowledge (XXG) into a respected resource worthy of citation at the personal, business, and educational levels, although I do not think there is consensus for developing Knowledge (XXG) into an academic research resource tool except for background material. It's the elements
660:
Trying to raise an article to encyclopedic standards is going to involve taking on a "role" for a period of time, at least with respect to a particular article, that may be distinct from other roles one plays in editing
Knowledge (XXG). I'm sure that most, or all, of us involved in this conversation
260:
The question is if it really was unpublished. Was this a standing order, a military operational procedure, etc., all of which are written down someplace. Most of these actually have a source, but you may need to go through extensive hoops to track down a reference. In the meantime, if the element is
99:
I have a major problem with much of the discussion. It hinges on this: the peer-review process used by major journals, relying on PhD.s, is based on the notion of journals as publishing original research. Knowledge (XXG) is not a place for original research. Therefore the PhD. peer-review process
828:
I agree with much of the paragraph. I don't know how realistic it is to expect
Knowledge (XXG) articles in general to be worthy of citation in a scholarly journal (though there's no reason individual articles should never be worthy) but I strongly agree that serious editors should be protected from
693:
For this task, probably so. And I agree that you try to be NPOV. Again, I think it's fine that you edit those articles, but I think you are too engaged to be an even-handed arbiter, which is what we seem to be talking about here. I believe that you are too engaged to give the same scrutiny to a new
573:
I believe that appropriate candidates for these first experiments would be articles that are believed to be at least generally accurate, are not subjects of current active controversies, but are currently under-sourced. We should certainly try for articles in different subject-matter areas (because
569:
I'd like to suggest that rather than indulge at great length in hypotheticals, we should set up some (self-organizing) teams of about four people; each team would take on a few articles and try to bring them up to what we consider acceptable standards, then look at each other's work and see what we
342:
the original research; it's exactly the sort of thing that history professors do to get tenure. The step of review and publication is to a degree artificial, but it's the only thing that stands between WP and the armies of kooks who would like to put all their mumblings online here. In practice, we
231:
Which brings me to another point: random websites. Although not always reliable for factual information, I think they are a good way to measure some degree of "public opinion" in certain cases. We're aiming to capture the sum of all knowledge, and one of the wonders of the internet is that there is
200:
a place for original research, or personal essays. Look, if you are part of the crew of a sailboat and know everything about how to rig a sloop or something, I suppose you can write an artricle on how to rig a sloop without citing other books as sources (although honestly, it might help readers if
124:
articles and books by PhDs, or that have gone through peer review. I continue to like
Knowledge (XXG)'s somewhat anarchic and egalitarian culture. I don't want that to change. I just want editors to learn to rely on books in libraries, and books by serious scholars, over web-sites. I do believe
557:
My apologies. All my good humor is being sapped on another page. However, it seems that after a period of growth
Knowledge (XXG) is at a time of transition and I think now more than ever we need to be careful to make clear to everyone what some basic principles are, including open membership and
225:
Plus I agree it's often very difficult to find sources for a lot of things. For example, finding detailed information for albums released before the age of the internet is often impossible unless you happen to own a huge stack of music magazines. This leaves you with very little worthwhile you can
219:
I think it's a bit of an effort/benefit tradeoff. If the article is non-contentious (ie nobody is contesting its accuracy), is the lack of sources that big a deal? I would say it's not. Sure, someone could spend hours tracking down an exact source for every single little claim. Or they could spend
169:
I don't expect editorial arbitration to stifle the process of open debate and reconsideration that makes producing articles on Wiki unique. I'd expect it to intervene in more clear cut areas, such standardizing German-Polish nomenclature, and technical terminology; and settling disputes of factual
157:
I like the idea but still have mixed feelings. The arbitration committee's findings are (relatively) final -- I am not thrilled by that but in such an anarchic community as this, I see the need and good of that. Would this committee you suggest make "final" rulings? That's something I feel much
144:
I'm not advocating a journal system of peer review or a system of article approval, but rather setting up an alternative to the
Arbitration Committee to settle disputes based on editorial considerations as opposed to just process. This would not be any more of a change to Wiki's anarchic structure
913:
Is anyone aware of good work in these directions in Wikipedias in other languages? In my experience, I've encountered higher standards on sourcing and fact-checking in the German-language Knowledge (XXG) and a level at least comparable to ours in the French-language Knowledge (XXG); in others, my
803:
We believe that the objective of Wikpedia must be to produce a viable online sourcebook worthy someday of a citation in a scholarly journal. We are calling on organizations governing Knowledge (XXG) (such as the Wikimedia Foundation and the Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration Committee) to adopt policies
360:
I've been pushing a lot lately to help get the articles cited better with sources. I especially feel all featured articles should have good references. You may be surprised to find out that many, if not most, featured articles currently have no proper references. I am making a list of them and
185:
I agree with much but not all of this. That is, casually produced material usually isn't the best source. But different sources, including personal knowledge and experience, are useful for different topics. For example, if I write on topics my experience that are not documented elsewhere, but not
211:
be the work of people involved in this project. Rather than peer-review articles, I'd rather see this group as a kind of think-tank to address thorny issues in enforcing "verifiability" and other related standards. Maybe you could offer ten examples that represent a diverse range of kinds of
664:
Still, I think this is something distinct. It requires (for example) willingness to acknowledge the inconvenient fact as readily as the convenient one, and to strengthen the citations for even positions we disagree with (something that few Wikipedians normally do: normally we rely on a mildly
630:
A few article from popular-culture areas -- especially foreign-language popular-culture areas -- which I think are going to be some of the toughest things to get non-web references for. For example, to name two major Romanian bands, where are we going to find references, especially academic
403:
that warns the reader that an article has no sources. I like this idea very much--it really should be a no-no to post stuff on the Knowledge (XXG) that isn't backed by sources, and this template might give people the right idea. I have two little suggestions and one bigger one:
674:. Their roles there are already staked out. I'm sure there are other areas where they can be much more objective. (Jayjg, Xed, I hope you don't feel I'm singling you out in a negative way: I am trying to pick an example from people who are already signed up on this project.) --
727:
Oh, that was just a tiny joke during an edit war. I knew you would revert it, that was during your "stalk Jayjg's edits, and whenever he's in a dispute with anyone, revert him" phase. And you did revert it, four minutes later. Sheesh, where is everyone's sense of humour?
298:
where the participants are still alive to give "oral history". Nobody is saying "don't use this book as a source because it relies on interviews", that would be silly. Why do we have to have a higher standard than that? Personal memories of participants are an
509:
In a sense, what is being proposed here -- and I don't necessarily think it is a bad idea -- is to actually form the cabal some of us are often accused of belonging to. However, unlike your classic cabal, I recommend that if we do this we should be
829:
users sabotaging their work. I feel we do need a panel of expert writers who can be called upon in case of disagreement, and who will be in a position to judge the quality of the articles, not just mediate between the different personalities.
437:
Isn't it usually kind of obvious when an article entirely lacks sources? I think that's why people would feel bullied - the reaction would be "well, duh". Also, something painfully obvious, like the title of a album with the scan of its cover
669:
be the best person to judge that article dispassionately. Similarly, with all due respect, I would doubt that Jayjg or Xed, who I think are generally good contributors to Knowledge (XXG), could take a dispassionate approach to the article
597:
of featured articles that are insufficiently referenced. Would this list form a suitable test corpus? There are featured articles on many different topics, and it would be good to make sure that they all have proper references. --
442:, is sort of "self-sourcing", if you will. I think a better way to phrase would simply be "please add more references", because many article have one or two dead links as referencesĀ :-), and we want for those is "more and better".
261:
particularly relevant, a footnote of the timeframe you can personally report from and "reported by Name on date" is a method of citing yourself. This citation is, of course, ripe for abuse and is generally poor practice. -
100:
is not a great model. I thiknk we need to be very careful about what peer review does and does not accomplish. But more importantly, I think we need to work through what is wrong with Knowledge (XXG) and what we hope to
577:
I have some more concrete ideas along these lines, but before I take time to detail this, I want to make sure that at least a few people think this is an interesting enough suggestion to be worth my fleshing it out. --
343:
do accept plausible-sounding websites in addition to books and news articles, although I look for some kind of credential, such as a real name that is attested elsewhere as an expert in the topic, etc. See
201:
you cite books they can turn to for more information). I suppose I can think of other articles where your own experience may be enough. But I know oh so many cases where this is simply inappropriate.
86:
81:
76:
64:
59:
145:
than the emergence of the conflict resolution process; this would just rationalize the way disputes are settled... Would you and Slrubenstein favor a more limited proposal along these lines?
853:
While I don't agree with each and every sentence/idea in the deleted para, I'm in sync with the general concepts, and with most of it. Knowledge (XXG) needs to be something that people can
226:
put in such an article, unless you're willing to wing the sources requirement and write at least partially from personal knowledge or potentially unreliable (read random website) sources.
361:
will post that somewhere soon. I feel all wikipedia articles should be properly researched and cited, so the featured articles are a good place to start. See the ongoing discussion at
518:
operating as a team, and we should be systematic about having our communications about that article in an open forum such as a talk page, not by private back channels like email. --
232:
more variety human knowledge exposed than there ever has been before. We shouldn't discount it out of hand, it is a useful resource if you're willing to acknowledge the limitations.
594:
170:
accuracy... I do understand your reservations, though. If this proposal is to go anywhere, I suppose that it'll have to come along with suggestions for limiting its jurisdiction.
476:
tried adding templates to articles about being (for example) overly US-centric, something like this will be a lot more welcome on talk pages than in the articles themselves. --
362:
282:
It seems to me that a Talk: page would be the right place for this - write an entry of the form (in this case) "I worked in this unit during xxx-yyy and this is what I saw".
47:
17:
104:
first, before deciding how to do it. For example, I don't care whether wikipedians editing my work are PhD.s or not (and I personally don't want to have to submit a CV
842:
I would be ecstatic if a scholar just used WP to get background on an area tangent to his/her specialty, then read and cited the references found in those articles.
493:
concern about the contents. (Not to mention that until we get some sort of "known good version" system working, any page could always contain vandalism anyway...)
310:
Also, not everything worth covering is going to get turned into a book. Do we only cover topics that got turned into books? Yes, it can get close to the line of
623:
A few articles that look basically on the mark, but totally (or almost totally) lack references of any sort. For example, I just translated the bulk of
125:
this requires some policing and education -- but I do not think the journal system of peer review is either necessary or best-suited to these goals.
896:
regarding when and how an article is protected from change which are in question here, and not the end results of this (desired/opposed) process.
661:
are serious about turning Knowledge (XXG) into a better reference work; probably most, or all, of us feel we are doing that by most of our edits.
514:
careful to operate openly, and in particular if a group of us operating as a team take on particular articles, we should be very clear that we
809:
I'm with Maurreen here. On the other hand, I'd love to see a process to identify and make available "released" versions of articles, which
574:
many of the teams would presumably organize by subject-matter area), and within each should probably try for articles of various lengths.
422:
Figure out some way to gain prior community assent before posting this template all over the place, otherwise people will feel bullied.
643:)? My suspeicion is that we are going to have to have different standards in these areas, and we might as well know it up front. --
545:
Exactly. I was just joking about how many of the people who are often accused of being a "cabal" have signed on to this already. --
311:
449:
The article isn't meant to be put all over the wiki. It's only meant for very important articles that don't have sources, such as
914:
experiences have varied and sometimes been disappointing. I've had people view it as an insult when I ask for their sources. --
303:
source in academic circles. Yes, I know it's gone through an extra step of review in being published, but at the same time,
900:
I think it would be good for the group to develop such a statement. But I don't see any consensus on protecting articles.
858:
probably require some changes, which will inevitably have to be rooted in the Wikimedia foundation. So I wish we'd try to
876:
I interpret the paragraph as seeking to change the nature of Knowledge (XXG). An add-on system could be acceptable.
314:, but if you read that page, it's actually talking about e.g. new scientific theories, not documenting history. --
38:
538:
I don't agree about forming a cabal, unless you mean something like a common interest group with open membership.
196:
I am afraid you would have to be clearer/more specific about the content and context. Knowledge (XXG) is simply
795:
Because it is un-Wikilike and does not appear to have consensus, I am deleting the following paragraph.
671:
612:
Might be a good place to start (although I wonder at the notion that it is a problem, for example, that
136:
252:
If that information is not published anywhere, is somebody going to tell me I shouldn't have added it?
624:
891:
Do we want to develop a consensus on a purpose/mission statement like the above? I think most of us
120:
important to me is that Knowledge (XXG) articles be based on serious research, which often involves
636:
400:
262:
747:
Clearly you find vandalizing pages hilarious. So hilarious that you reverted it right back to
559:
539:
213:
202:
159:
126:
686:
Hmm. While my approach may not be dispassionate, my edits are NPOV. Is dispassion required?
473:
919:
818:
699:
679:
648:
583:
550:
523:
481:
133:
843:
830:
602:
443:
396:
348:
347:, etc, for our own material on all this (which I note is itself unsourced, tsk tskĀ :-) ).
275:
344:
233:
186:
disputed by people of similar experience, I don't see that information as problematic.
901:
877:
866:
796:
531:
497:
466:
383:
330:
318:
253:
187:
632:
290:
70's) is now lost. For this reason you often see books (e.g. Hafner's book on the
112:
by PhD.s or not, and I do not think it matters that wikipedia articles have been
915:
814:
695:
675:
644:
590:
579:
546:
519:
477:
454:
427:
366:
207:
Can you give a few examples? In fact, I think you raise a point that I believe
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
813:
been through a review process, just like happens with open-source software. --
775:
729:
687:
599:
108:
to Knowledge (XXG). I do not think it matters whether wikipedia articles are
274:
project, but won't put any of it in WP until it's been published elsewhere.
465:
I think the template has potential but it's probably premature right now.
863:
752:
713:
494:
380:
326:
315:
171:
146:
450:
291:
640:
294:) which rely heavily on interviews - and not just technology fields,
749:"The Jews against Occupation spokesman went on to rant about Israel"
707:"The Jews against Occupation spokesman went on to rant about Israel"
246:
613:
616:
gives only online references). I'd also like to add to the pot:
710:
271:
245:
One example of using a nonpublished source: I used to work at
25:
862:
any problems with that para, rather than simply deleting it.
558:(as I know you did take pains to emphasize) transparency.
530:
Oooh! I've never been in a cabal before. How exciting!Ā :)
18:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards
363:Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_removal_candidates
419:No need to mention this Committee; all can source
307:the origin of the data is still human memories.
379:agree we need better references/sourcing/etc!
472:Based on discussion on the Village Pump when
391:Responding to Neutrality's suggested template
8:
627:from the Spanish, which gave no references.
774:Oh Xed, you laughed yourself. Chill out.
705:An example of one of Jayjg's 'NPOV' edits
365:. (Currently I seem to be losingĀ :) -
338:The book that publishes the interviews
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
7:
132:Damn straight. I agree completely.
95:comments on "peer review" and PhD.s
390:
24:
631:references, for gangster rappers
29:
1:
656:Same players, different roles
457:. ] 05:01, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
887:Purpose or mission statement
416:articles should have sources
909:Foreign-language wikipedias
936:
922:08:51, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
682:08:40, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
586:08:18, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
526:08:07, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
484:07:59, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
369:18:49, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
833:10:06, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
821:08:54, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
799:08:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
702:23:43, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
690:23:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
651:19:09, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
553:21:52, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
469:07:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
446:04:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
321:14:36, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
256:07:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
236:07:01, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
139:18:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
904:18:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
880:17:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
869:16:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
846:05:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
778:02:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
755:00:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
732:00:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
716:23:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
605:14:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
534:08:31, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
500:14:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
489:appropriate if there is
430:01:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
386:16:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
351:20:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
333:16:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
278:05:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
265:17:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
190:18:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
174:21:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
149:20:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
505:Is it time for a cabal?
116:by PhD.s or not. What
285:It's nice to have the
672:Arab-Israeli Conflict
408:No need to say "this
42:of past discussions.
639:(sort of a Romanian
625:History of Catalonia
570:can learn from it.
312:no original research
637:Spitalul de UrgenÅ£Ä
565:Possible test cases
329:'s advice. Thanks.
395:A couple days ago
92:
91:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
927:
241:Sourcing options
73:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
935:
934:
930:
929:
928:
926:
925:
924:
911:
889:
793:
658:
567:
507:
393:
358:
243:
97:
69:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
933:
931:
910:
907:
906:
905:
888:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
871:
870:
850:
849:
848:
847:
837:
836:
835:
834:
823:
822:
792:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
720:
719:
718:
717:
703:
657:
654:
653:
652:
628:
620:
619:
618:
617:
607:
606:
566:
563:
555:
554:
536:
535:
506:
503:
502:
501:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
432:
431:
424:
423:
420:
417:
392:
389:
388:
387:
357:
354:
353:
352:
345:primary source
335:
334:
280:
279:
267:
266:
242:
239:
238:
237:
228:
227:
222:
221:
194:
193:
192:
191:
180:
179:
178:
177:
176:
175:
155:
154:
153:
152:
151:
150:
106:for any reason
96:
93:
90:
89:
84:
79:
74:
67:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
932:
923:
921:
917:
908:
903:
899:
898:
897:
894:
886:
879:
875:
874:
873:
872:
868:
865:
861:
856:
852:
851:
845:
841:
840:
839:
838:
832:
827:
826:
825:
824:
820:
816:
812:
808:
807:
806:
805:
800:
798:
790:
777:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
754:
750:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
731:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
721:
715:
711:
708:
704:
701:
697:
692:
691:
689:
685:
684:
683:
681:
677:
673:
668:
662:
655:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
629:
626:
622:
621:
615:
611:
610:
609:
608:
604:
601:
596:
593:is compiling
592:
589:
588:
587:
585:
581:
575:
571:
564:
562:
561:
552:
548:
544:
543:
542:
541:
533:
529:
528:
527:
525:
521:
517:
513:
504:
499:
496:
492:
487:
486:
485:
483:
479:
475:
470:
468:
456:
452:
448:
447:
445:
441:
436:
435:
434:
433:
429:
426:
425:
421:
418:
415:
411:
407:
406:
405:
402:
398:
385:
382:
378:
377:
372:
371:
370:
368:
364:
356:This is great
355:
350:
346:
341:
337:
336:
332:
328:
324:
323:
322:
320:
317:
313:
308:
306:
305:fundamentally
302:
297:
293:
288:
283:
277:
273:
269:
268:
264:
259:
258:
257:
255:
250:
248:
240:
235:
230:
229:
224:
223:
218:
217:
216:
215:
210:
205:
204:
199:
189:
184:
183:
182:
181:
173:
168:
167:
166:
165:
164:
163:
162:
161:
148:
143:
142:
141:
140:
138:
135:
131:
130:
129:
128:
123:
119:
115:
111:
107:
103:
94:
88:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
72:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
912:
892:
890:
859:
854:
810:
802:
801:
794:
748:
706:
666:
663:
659:
633:B.U.G. Mafia
576:
572:
568:
560:Slrubenstein
556:
540:Slrubenstein
537:
515:
511:
508:
490:
471:
464:
439:
413:
409:
394:
375:
374:
359:
339:
309:
304:
300:
295:
286:
284:
281:
251:
244:
214:Slrubenstein
208:
206:
203:Slrubenstein
197:
195:
160:Slrubenstein
156:
127:Slrubenstein
121:
117:
113:
109:
105:
101:
98:
70:
43:
37:
455:Blackshirts
440:right there
325:I followed
36:This is an
412:article"--
397:Neutrality
234:Shane King
102:accomplish
595:this list
410:important
399:posted a
87:ArchiveĀ 6
82:ArchiveĀ 5
77:ArchiveĀ 4
71:ArchiveĀ 3
65:ArchiveĀ 2
60:ArchiveĀ 1
902:Maurreen
878:Maurreen
797:Maurreen
791:Deletion
532:Maurreen
467:Maurreen
401:template
331:Maurreen
301:accepted
296:anything
254:Maurreen
188:Maurreen
114:approved
635:or for
474:WP:Bias
451:England
292:ARPANET
122:reading
110:written
39:archive
916:Jmabel
867:(talk)
815:Jmabel
696:Jmabel
676:Jmabel
645:Jmabel
641:Pogues
603:(Talk)
591:Taxman
580:Jmabel
547:Jmabel
520:Jmabel
498:(talk)
478:Jmabel
428:Opus33
384:(talk)
373:Well,
367:Taxman
319:(talk)
263:Amgine
209:should
776:Jayjg
751:. -
730:Jayjg
712:. -
688:Jayjg
600:ALoan
287:ideal
247:HMX-1
16:<
920:Talk
864:Noel
855:rely
844:Stan
831:Slim
819:Talk
811:have
700:Talk
680:Talk
649:Talk
614:Leet
584:Talk
551:Talk
524:Talk
512:very
495:Noel
482:Talk
453:and
444:Stan
381:Noel
349:Stan
327:Noel
316:Noel
276:Stan
134:john
893:are
860:fix
753:Xed
714:Xed
667:not
516:are
491:any
414:all
272:GNU
198:not
172:172
147:172
918:|
817:|
709::
698:|
678:|
647:|
582:|
549:|
522:|
480:|
340:is
118:is
376:I
137:k
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.