Knowledge (XXG) talk:Too long; didn't read

1103:

inappropriately devaluing/deemphasizing. In other words, they're improving the text *as far as *they* can tell*, where "as far as they can tell" = sometimes not far enough. I admit, though, that it is fair (and necessary, though time-consuming) to ask oneself whether, in each unique case, a *little* sacrificing of fine shades of distinction is "worth it" because the accessibility of the communication has been improved *a lot*. That's where *I* could find improvement, I think (in *some* cases—although not as many as procrusteans think). I empathize with Pascal's comment in that respect—the fine shades of distinction aren't lost on me, so I tend to underappreciate the extent to which they're "clogging up the communication" for others (who they probably *are* lost on). It doesn't mean that those shades are nonsense; it doesn't mean that they aren't necessary to the *whole* truth; it just means that most readers would have to spend too much time and effort to absorb them. In other words, humans most often don't have time for the whole truth, and an acceptable approximation is better for practical purposes. But I speak from business-world experience when I say that in a context where author and reader are equals in terms of what their time is worth, it can easily be said that in a case where the details have turned out (usually on postmortem) *not* to have been negligible after all, it is the *reader* who was, and is, being too lazy. (Compare contexts in which we say that the author is being too lazy.) I spend my days explaining to people at the postmortem stage the exact, analyzed details of how they didn't bring enough intelligence or knowledge or attention or diligence to the table, and the work that they were working on is scrap because of it. I think the big difference, which I will try to keep in mind on WP, is that in a context like an encyclopedia, nearly all of the responsibility for time and effort is on the author, not the reader. And I can only hope that you've been gracious enough to have read this far, because there's some important truth herein that is missed if not. But "oh well" either way; the world keeps turning regardless of what any one person hasn't read. —

1055:

we need to develop the knowledge base that analyzes their attacks and clearly explicates the ways in which they're stupid. Thus subsequent generations of thinkers and communicators are less likely to swallow that form of miseducation (which ran rampant and unchecked in the 19th and 20th centuries), because there will be resources available to help debunk it. It won't go away (because it's part of human nature), but it'll be discredited among the bulk of average minds, whereas for a number of generations it's been held up above that bulk as "what you should aspire to," and they didn't know any better in the absence of an effectively countervailing educational force (which is hopefully now being built up in the era of crowdsourcing). In other words, pedantry, which for a long time reigned supreme in many corners of the epistemological landscape, is newly endangered by the rise of the internet. Which is why I don't find it surprising that many a retirement-age pedant is privately disgusted by the existence of Knowledge (XXG). Their brains can smell the existential threat to the pedant lifestyle (registering deep in the fear centers), even if the conscious mind isn't fully aware of (or actively misjudges) why the viscera are feeling the revulsion. The idea that there may come a time when it's no longer possible to score social-pecking-order-rank points by being a pedant really rains on their self-image. —

1773:"I agree as well that TLDR, as well as its possibly even less civil (because it fails to assume good faith since it calls long posts a "disruptive tactic" meant to "shut down discussion) cousin WP:WALLS are used too frequently. What the people who tend to use these should rightly be citing is the as-yet-unwritten essay WP:Nah Nah Nah I have my fingers in my ears and can't hear you, because usually people who are citing these essays are just using them as tactics to belittle the viewpoint of someone they disagree with. If someone is actually being too verbose, it is better to just politely tell them in your own words that the length of their post is getting in the way of its readability rather than citing an essay, which will always come across as flippant and dismissive. "TLDR" and "Wall of Text" are both largely unnecessary essays that are insulting and uncivil. They should probably be AFDed, but I know that they are much-loved and many who like to use them would flock to support them, plus the bar for deleting essays is pretty high. However, essays which encourage incivility in their very use like these do should ideally meet that bar." 2281:—they are rare, and most long comments are not examples of them. It's not practical to prevent them simply by declaring that long comments are outlawed. An analogy might be outlawing all matches because arsonists exist, or outlawing all kitchen knives because deaths by stabbing occasionally occur. Matches and kitchen knives are tools with valid purposes that people sometimes need in the course of normal life; and so are long conversations. One last thought—sometimes a reader perceives obfuscation where none actually exists, simply because he's not able to quickly understand the multivariate explication. For example, if he asked a physicist why the sky is blue, he might come away thinking that all those resultant big words were an act of obfuscation—but they weren't; they were only a technically accurate explanation that lacked enough pedagogical prowess to explain physics to a non-physicist. I personally am convinced that people big on "TLDR" replies are well represented in that sample of "misperceivers of phantom obfuscation". — 2361:

have filed have 90% gone in "my" favour, i.e. with respect to guidelines, not those who use TLDR to shut down discussion or actually deluge it with TLDR-coated personal attacks so that the proponent's responses to same and the guidelines and issues laid out can be claimed to be unintelligible, and the RM or CfD derailed thereby; which is contrary to guidelines that say content is what should be discussed, not an editor (unless, as has been seen in many guidelines, a certain pattern of behaviour including persistent refusal to acknowledge guidelines needs pointing out....for doing that I get screams of NPA and AGF, even though my own good faith is being called into question by the persistence of "oppose" votes that have no real substance.....hounding literate writers over not writing in terser form on behalf of this essay and its WoT counterpart is not creating a better encyclopedia; it is inhibiting it, and at present is in the process of being used to even demand I silence my replies at said ANI. For TLDR

980:

then explains the variables and limitations involved in deciding how many hundredths of a millimeter to extend the excision in any particular area. The patient then says, "well, that's all too long for me to absorb, but I still pass a judgment on your work, which I claim is a valid judgment, that you screwed up." Some parts of reality are sufficiently multivariate that they can't be accurately reduced to 140 characters. The 140-char version is a distortion; often it's an acceptable distortion ("close enough for government work", as the saying goes); but whether it's an acceptable distortion depends on the instance, and whether the data loss matters or not. But people who can't handle adequate discussion length aren't qualified, logically, to make that determination accurately. See also

1561:, because usually people who are citing these essays are just using them as tactics to belittle the viewpoint of someone they disagree with. If someone is actually being too verbose, it is better to just politely tell them in your own words that the length of their post is getting in the way of its readability rather than citing an essay, which will always come across as flippant and dismissive. "TLDR" and "Wall of Text" are both largely unnecessary essays that are insulting and uncivil. They should probably be AFDed, but I know that they are much-loved and many who like to use them would flock to support them, plus the bar for deleting essays is pretty high. However, essays which encourage incivility in their very use like these do should ideally meet that bar. 1016:

future? Telling the idiot "Don't do that" is a simple answer, but it's not effective. It turns out that to fully understand and influence/control the phenomenon of wifebeating, which on the surface is an "obviously simple topic" (i.e., "fist hit skull, mouth say 'ouch', me drink more beer" sums it up), you need things like sociology, psychology, psychiatry, public health/epidemiology, law enforcement science, and so on. Now go look at a good textbook in any of those fields, and slap a label on the cover that says "TL;DR". Is the label-slapping person qualified to analyze the topic of wifebeating? Should other people substantially value the things he has to say on the topic? Many discussions that happen in life are microcosms of this general theme. —

801:

slow-motion-nightmare variant. The variant where the bad is what you're swimming in—been ubiquitous for years—and the worst can be constantly seen waiting on the horizon, in all its splendid inevitability and darkness. Except by the blind, who don't see no evil; whatchu talkin bout, egghead? I speak from experience. The answer is the ejection seat, which removes one from a context and places one in another. The only complication is when the ejection seat isn't available ready-made and thus must be cobbled together in-flight from scarce spare parts. It takes so fuckin long. But keep your chin above the sewage; for at the flight's destination, greater darkness awaits. —

1381:

I have human flaws too, try as I might); I just feel the need to be honest on Knowledge (XXG) about the spots in life where humans in aggregate aren't cutting the mustard cognitively. In many cases they're quite capable; they just clip their own wings by allowing their cognition to be led by the nose by their short-term interests and their COIs. Part of that is the thing you mentioned, where they claim "TL;DR" not because it's actually true but because they're trying to score some points / stroke their fragile egos / protect themselves from having to do boring cognitive legwork or to face unpleasant reality.

670:. Have yourself a treat (food, beverage, good book) and leave them to their fate, which is a freight train that's not within your power to steer or brake anyway. Tomorrow's another day, and you can once again drag your feet from the caboose, to make as much of a positive difference as you can. In terms of absolute coordinates (with reference to the origin), it will look disspiritingly insignificant; but in terms of incremental (relative) coordinates, you'll at least have something approaching self-actualization; and that's something. — 693:, where you inaccurately consider yourself superior, and you inaccurately discount the insights of the others; and there is the objective, depressing side, where you simply duly acknowledge the freight-train problem and maintain your true place in the grand scheme of life—ie, mostly spectator, slightly participant. If one wishes to be truly smart, one must stick to the latter and guard against the former. Not even innocent self-amusing word-play in an edit summary must be suffered to stand, lest it appear to others to be arrogance. — 999:

I don't mean "tweet"). That "editors" find it offensive when confronted by more than seven sentences at a time has made countless RMs and CfDs derailed; by TLDR, WoT or whatever, or even outright derision and unpunished personal attacks in closing statements; hypocrisy is rife, another trait of not being qualified to take part in serious debate; IMO there should be a 'knowledge test' and 'logic test' for admins and not just a protracted exercise in passive-aggressive "wikiquette".

1098:. You're right that that's an acceptable alternative thing to say, but note that it doesn't say the *same* thing, either connotatively or even denotatively (although it's acceptably similar). But there *are* cases in life where maximum precision is needed to dig down to the whole truth. You're right that loquaciousness is probably more often *not* positively correlated to reading comprehension, compared statistically to the cases where it is. But it is equally true that 944:"The latter is a common cognitive problem for all human minds, which are faced with the task of sensing the many facets of a complex reality and modeling it in a way simple enough for the consciousness to understand and easily manipulate in interrelation with yet other topics. This leads humans toward certain analytical weaknesses that have been explored through observations both an.......... . . . . . .as selectively as each one may wish." Seriously, TLDR. 1275:

talking about. In doing this I suppose I was invoking iAR, but I feel justified in doing so since A) (Although authentic "sureness" is rare) I -do- know that the quote, at least as transcribed, was false, based on my musical history, which leads us to B) I do have expert training in music theory, particularly ear training (the quote inaccurately described a change in chords/harmony). It was quite a while ago, and nobody seems to have contested it.

1046:

that, I was LOL, because I totally get the point (and the joke), and in this case I was the one who had posted a response to (what turned out to be) a trolling talk page comment. So I was able to laugh in self-deprecating fashion. But the thing is, I'm actually glad in this case that it took a trolling comment to elicit the time and effort needed to formulate the response. I'm glad because this topic is perennially taken up in

351:; and because of this fundamental stance, I wouldn't have thought this would be a likely venue to invite constructive criticism of the writing style and content below -- but maybe I've been simply wrong. I hope this becomes a step in the right direction as I learn how to better edit my writing to make it more succinct, less wordy -- more effective. If the following does not properly belong here, then where? -- 22: 81: 53: 1287:

non-musician with a keyboard with labeled keys, can verify it for themselves. That's not a good way of putting it... how would one explain it to non-musicians? How about this: When you see red, you recognize it as red. When a musician with perfect pitch, or an external reference such as a piano hears B-flat, they recognize it as B-flat with the same level of certainty that you recognize red.

145: 67: 2052:. While I like the motivating sentiments, the change really marks a significant rewrite and change in thrust. Doing this is too much like changing history after the fact. The page is well used as a link to state that a wall of text has not been read by this poster, and therefore is probably not read by a vast majority, and subsequent comments should be read in that light. 1133:

realize that you probably don't want to read that explication. Not everyone who goes around WP slashing others' writing adequately understands that which they are slashing. That's not a comment about you (I haven't studied your contributions history enough to know), it's just a comment about anyone who misapplies or overcorrects on the ONW or TLDR front. —

913:

figuring it out on their own, which may or may not say anything about whether they're capable of having it explained to them. And there's always going to be more of them. So don't let it get you down too much. But anyway, you're right—the better we can handle this topic in the essay, the better off we'll be. Doing it concisely is a challenge (how meta). —

2219:

Other editors have rather regularly added much longer single quotations for the purposes of article improvement as well. Such efforts can be one of the more useful ways of developing articles, and I cannot see any good reason to make them impossible or not permitted by some sort of inherently arbitrary guideline as this one.

1344:

they disagree with me); it's in my day job, too. In fact, frustration from my day job is what has driven me so far into "wordiness overdrive" in recent years. I probably would be containing my wordy excesses a lot better if I could get into a mentally healthier environment to spend my waking days in. Workin on it.

1970:. However I think the neutral name will help here too, so the move is all plus and no minus. The essay will need some minor rewriting following the move but it's already had a many authors, so no big deal. Note that this RM is a a formal request to reinstate a previously undiscussed move that was reverted. 2409:

Many editors still redirect users whenever possible to this page claiming that their time is "too valuable" and that they have "other things to do" rather than attempting to debunk any arguments presented to them if the body of text is too large, in fact I even wonder if such an essay should exist as

2233:

Finally, I find it amusing that other editors seem to object to reading comments which are nowhere near as long as the articles themselves. If a person can't read comments much shorter than the article itself, it can, reasonably, raise concerns in the eyes of others whether they have read the article

2033:

change things so TLDR redirects to a "Please be concise" we keep message/meaning the same while transparently improving civility. If we split the essay than someone would have to start bitching at folks who use the existing TLDR to use the new one, and that in itself is counterproductive to civility.

1428:

By the way, I meant no offense when I called you crazy. I'm just light-heartedly teasing, because you use a lot of fancy words outside of their normal context (which, though I sometimes find myself doing it too, you might wanna keep in mind that to a lot of people, it may make you look like a pedant

1343:

way. Better?" I have a hard time refraining because of how often people fail to understand, even when the idea being imparted is really not that complicated. This is not just on Knowledge (XXG) (in fact on Knowledge (XXG) I often encounter a lot of smarter-than-average people, which is nice even when

1257:

It is true that a lot of writing is overly wordy (before it gets cleaned up), but I believe it is also very common for something long to be that long for good reasons, yet still result in someone seeing it and feeling intimidated, replying with "TL;DR." I.E. I agree that it is often a failure on the

1054:

in extrapolation from Strunk and White, earning the disgust of linguistic scientists (e.g., Pullum) and of people who actually have writing and editing talent (as opposed to people who erroneously pride themselves on having pedantry that they mistakenly believe equals writing and editing talent). And

979:

Seriously, many of the people who say "TLDR" are either not smart enough or too impatient to be competently/credibly debating the factors underlying the observed behavior. An analogy: Someone complains that their surgeon didn't resect certain bits of the margins of their tumor adequately. The surgeon

665:

2 y) to offer you any timely consolation, but I'll post it here anyway for the record. The answer to the above is this: You're the smartest guy in that particular room. And you have bumped up against the limit of what you can teach the others therein without them tuning you out. Such is life on earth

2360:

the ways described. It is being treated as a policy and is core to the rants and rails against me in the current ANI seeking to permanently ban me - why? Because discussing all the dissembling and mis-quotations of guidelines re TITLEs is what a certain group want to silence...even though the RMs I

2323:

Another "no" here. Sometimes long posts are necessary. Sometimes editors write long posts to relieve their feelings, or to be sure they have explained themselves properly, or because they are writing as thoughts occur to them, not producing a pre-planned essay. If you want to limit what people write

1380:

F2F. It doesn't show on Knowledge (XXG) because in this medium one is only "visible" to others when one has come across a topic badly needing explication.) My problem with humans is an epidemiological one, not a clinical one. I don't hate individuals for having human flaws (it's not their fault, and

1362:

enough to correct this epistemological problem that's pandemic among humans. In fact, having bumped up against that very problem before (i.e., the limits on the mitigation that Knowledge (XXG) can offer by itself), I recorded some thoughts on what people have come up with so far by way of solutions

1274:

It also kind of sums up why I have some issues with the whole NOR and verifiability thing: The pages outlining these guidelines make sense, but have you seen some of the sources being cited? I had to delete a book excerpt from the Bohemian Rhapsody article because the author had no idea what she was

1015:

I thought of another way to explain the idea, perhaps clearer. Consider domestic violence, for example, "wifebeating". Why are a nonnegligible fraction of human males mentally defective enough to beat their wives? And what practical steps can the rest of us take to effectively prevent wifebeating in

998:

Not qualified for much at all, IMO, least of all writing an encyclopedia. That such people have commandeered/presumed to authority in the writing of an encyclopedia is a joke. The 140-character limit is post-modern, post-literate "Twitter think"...and we all know what the root of "twitter" is (and

2264:

I agree with Til and John. One problem is that there's no way to make it objectively enforceable; and another is that sometimes multiple paragraphs are simply necessary to explicate a multivariate topic. The TLDR response is sometimes just a dick move by someone who doesn't want to admit that there

2009:

Okay, it's a controversial topic, but Knowledge (XXG) essays exist partly to air such viewpoints. We don't delete or substantially alter an essay just because some people disagree with it. Most of the text of the page concerns the usage and various connotations of the phrase abbreviated TLDR. If

1783:

and also to avoid acknowledging valid points/responses, to the point of derailing RMs and CfDs based on an editor's alleged personality and not on the issues raised is getting in the way of accurate content and proper titling......notions fielded in terse one-liners often require many more than one

1261:

I believe the article does currently mention the importance of determining the difference, which is fortunate, but I see a lot of immaturity going on here on the talk page. And I think it's unfortunate and perhaps ironic that the user making some of the best points on this talk page happens to type

1132:

The following is not an insult, just a part of reality: the fact that you can't see the difference reveals a flaw in you, not me. I'm truly not being facetious or snippy. If you'd like me to explicate the difference so that you can see it, I will do so, but I'll refrain unless you ask, because I do

912:

I didn't see this talk thread until today, about 6 weeks after Nick posted. But all I can say is, "Amen, Nick—amen." Today I just said about the same thing in my reply nearby below in another thread. One corollary is that the people you have to explain this to are the people who were not capable of

441:

of the Japanese government. As such, reliance on this "gold standard" for descriptive terminology relating to Japanese naval ships is defensible, and any reasoned consensus based on such standards is also defensible; however, neither can be considered determinative. There is an inherent caveat in

2579:

It'd be helpful to have an essay that says something along the lines of "if it's not excessively long, you have some responsibility to read a discussion to familiarize yourself with the context before voicing your opinion (and if you don't have anything to add or the requisite expertise, sometimes

2218:

Also, honestly, such a restriction would be a problematic inhibition to article development in other ways. I could, and recently have, placed several short quotations on an article talk page for the specific purpose of providing independent reliable sources for content related to those quotations.

2094:

This essay is about not reading too-long texts, and is directly related to the "TL;DR" expression. Someone linking to WP:TL;DR wants people to read an essay about TL;DR. As SmokeyJoe says, the move changes the meaning of the essay. If you want a civil essay about brevity, your best bet is starting

2032:

too long. It's that it's currently being used as a quick slam instead of a politely referenced guiding principle. Duplicating the essay wouldn't address that -- folks who use WP:TLDR will still use that. I'm suggesting a refactor to keep the current meaning but in a more civil way. By structurally

1338:

territory among humans. I recognize that I have a weakness for saying the same idea 2 or 3 times in different words, but the biggest reason I ended up that way is just the frustration of dealing with people who don't get it the first 2 ways, and sometimes the third way sinks through their skulls a

1310:

Don't care. If you didn't read it, it means the post would not have affected your opinion of anything. The idea of the TL;DR principle relates to articles so that they can be readily understandable. The act of replying with "TL;DR" on a talk page seems to, most of the time, be generally nothing

615:

An ameliorative edit was initiated. This involved one sentence only, supported by an in-line citation with an external link to a credible source. The talk page record reveals that this precisely-targeted intervention was reverted twice without substantive discussion. The edit encountered further

298:

I get that this page is meant to be unnecessarily wordy, but I don't think that self-demonstrating articles are good protocal on wikipedia. A part of me can't help but try to edit it down, though I know that would defeat the purpose. On the other hand it propably shouldn't be that way in the first

2340:

Another NO. Please, if you can't read something long, what makes anyone believe you can write anything of length. This essay is overrated. This is an encyclopedia that we write and this essay is used to basicly just insult writers from those not even capable of reading. Perhaps a better title for

2151:

Does anyone think its a good ida to upgrade this essay into a guideline? I have run into two editors who think its okay to reply to simple statements with 10-20 lines. These editors actually expect you to read such large blocks of text. A lot of the time such lengfthy responses go off-topic or if

2389:

I love this! I was reading a medical article a few months ago that was part jargon-speak and part plain speech. I looked at the Talk page where I found a message from someone complaining that the most recent revision had dumbed down the article to the level of a "layman's encyclopedia." Well,

2214:

There are, and will continue to be, pages which have "multiple issues". I think we even have article improvement templates specifically designed for that eventuality. It would be unreasonable in the extreme I believe to attempt to make any sort of general guideline regarding talk page discussion

1175:

smart than you actually are. The whole thing reeks of insecurity (of the type that lashes out maliciously to tear others down in order to achieve apparent relative height) when smelled through those nostrils. This type of insecurity seems to me to be on a different (parallel, simultaneous, meta)

1045:

At the risk of feeding the trolls a crumb or two, I just have to acknowledge one anon's intentionally meta-trollish edit: "You should continue posting well thought out text walls. You are in no way wasting your time. Everybody on the internet cares about your opinion." (192.133.84.6) When I read

2112:

Citing TLDR in a discussion is an unnecessarily flippant way to say that someone's post length detracts from their point - and too often it is just used as a slam to belittle the opinion of someone you disagree with. The usage of TLDR essay is counterproductive to Knowledge (XXG)'s principle of

471:

with a unique, non-aircraft carrier name. In Japan, if ducks were prohibited by the Japanese Constitution, then something which waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and behaves like a duck would be sensibly given a unique non-duck name. As it relates to use of the term

2641:

2) Can we have a separate section to provide tips where we can shift present paragraph "..A further option for both readers and writers is to structure the writing so it can be skimmed effectively. This means writing.." and also add tips about collapse template, underlining sentences for quick

1297:

This is absolute nonsense when it comes to the finer details of many things. "If it's worth mentioning, a secondary source will have already or soon will mention it?" Screw that. If it's verifiable fact, what gives random authors and other publications the authority to decide "what's worth

1286:

And a small related point, which has less to do with this overall theme and more specifically to do with music, at least (as it's the one thing that I know really, really, REALLY well) is that even if the listening to and analyzing of music might be considered OR, any learned musician, or any

1102:

terseness is most often *not* positively correlated to reading comprehension either—in my experience, including in my day job, it's much the opposite; although the procrustean operators themselves are oblivious to what it is among the connotative and denotative details that they're missing or

800:

Wow, Rursus, I'm 1.5 years late to this talk thread, but amen, brother, amen. I agree with your quantitative threshold value, and I *definitely* agree about being pushed down into sinkholes from above by PHBs. Who even cares, as long as it's quick enough, right? But the worst version is the

477:

Among the Japanese, the practical decision-making which sometimes calls for a prudent substitution of flexible notions of "fiction" for "fact" is recorded across the span of centuries. This aspect of Japanese history and culture need not intrude into this Knowledge (XXG) article about the

2222:

And, of course, the suggestion regarding "leniency" above is more than a little problematic itself. Who would determine in which cases "leniency" would be permitted, and who would not be allowed to do so? That issues would have to be decided, in such a way that it does not seem to violate

1278:

I guess my point HERE (down at the bottom) is that I do think statements on Knowledge (XXG) should be, on average, as verifiable as possible, but secondary and tertiary sources are far from automatically correct. This is why the guidelines suggest using sources known for reliability and

1093:

Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I know you hate reading more than 2 or 3 lines, but I would hope that you'll read the following, which is as short as possible to communicate the ideas. I saw your recent addition at "...and intelligently differentiating the cases is seldom a facile affair

1809:

Per the thoughts expressed above in "Propose Deletion" I have boldly renamed this "Please be concise" and added a (hopefully) more gentle lede. The intent is to convey the same message in friendlier terms. In addition (ironically?) I found opportunities to tighten up the writing a bit.

2341:

this is somthing....like "No attention span, don't care to read it" or "I don't like reading what you wrote so shut up" because that is exactly what this essay is always used for, to insult those that take the time to use this project for what it is meant for....to wrtie at length!--

1659:

Good critique. I refined it as follows: I split the one long sentence into two related short ones, and I gave the wiktionary link for the big word. Thus it now reads: " if you're hasty and harsh enough, you could end up earning a reputation for yourself as someone with incompetent

2199:

This should never be any kind of guideline, it would be arbitrarily restrictive and slanted to the pov of lazy or slower readers. Article talk pages are for discussions on improving the article, and as such can get quite involved with many paragraphs of input required at a time.

370:

for fear that someone will complain that it has "too many words." In a context which arises before I posted my initial edit to that article's second paragraph, it becomes possible to begin to appreciate what's gone so very wrong as the result of an unthinking reliance on

2010:

the title is changed, then the point is spoiled. If we move the page and then rewrite it to suit the new title, then what we have is an entirely different essay. Why not just create a new page and go ahead and write that other essay, while leaving this one in place?

1176:

channel from the content being discussed, itself. It's on an alternate frequency that's more about positioning and elbowing for social pecking order than it is about the ideas being discussed. But some of us are honestly not worrying about how smart we can manage to

2385:

From the article: "Sometimes the writer is an academic whose occupation requires obscure, genre-specific jargon to impress his or her peers and justify additional funding. They don't necessarily know how to turn it off on Knowledge (XXG), or even that they should."

2365:

I was blocked for two days, without the ability to edit even my own talkpage or to use wiki-mail; no ANI was filed, the block came out of the blue..... well, I was warned, but TLDR was the reason for the threat; it's supposed to be only an essay, not an Iron Law or

1298:

mentioning" about a topic? I just say, thank Knowledge (XXG) for iAR (and yes, I know it's not a trump card), because not everything worth mentioning has been published, and it's not all that unlikely that not everything worth mentioning will EVER be published.

688:

It just occurred to me to acknowledge the other side of this coin, after which point I can leave well enough alone. There are two sides to being among the smartest guys in any particular room, which are usually closely intertwined in human follies: There is the

472:"aircraft carrier," this unique bias is informed by the constitution which was imposed during the post-war occupation by the Americans; and it, along with many other salutatory aspects of the Constitution, has been embraced by subsequent generations of Japanese. 394:

based on premises which effectively function to exclude or excise crucial issues from the body of the article; and this becomes a defect when it affects significant content which remains otherwise inextricable in reality. Relying solely on English-language

869:

Sometimes, for a talk page post, I write at length but concisely. Sometimes, I get TLDR back. I think there's a misunderstanding about TLDR that should be addressed or clarified in the essay. It's now only subtly hinted at and evidently it gets missed.

1146:

appreciate the ONW principle when it's properly applied. I just find that many of the people who angrily or snarkily harp on it (overemphasize it) have an emotional axe to grind that often seems to boil down to "you're not as smart as you're trying to

1025:

Agreed. I have seen evidence that some people read part of a passage, maybe all of it, then stamp TLDR, apparently so they don't have to explain what they disagree with. Perhaps they don't have an acceptable explanation and don't want to admit it.

1635:...if you're hasty and harsh enough, you could end up earning a reputation for yourself as someone with incompetent reading comprehension, which you may know is an unfair reputation, but which your actions will speciously make seem like the truth. 885:

The second example is 18 words long and the first example is only 17 words long, but, if both were a thousand times longer, the first one likely would deserve TLDR but the second one likely would not because it's proportionately informative.

2215:

which does not specifically make allowances for situations of multiple issues, because those "multiple issues" would have to be pointed out on the article talk page, and that would very likely exceed the arbitrary guidelines proposed here.

1113:

I don't see the difference between "...is seldom a facile affair" and "...is not always easy," other than the first being stilted and the second being direct. While arguing for verbosity and complex constructions you may want to consider

581:

have escaped a thorough examination. The thin record of postings in the initial section of the talk page suggests a nascent pattern of thwarting discussion and inquiry; and the subsequent record on that talk page confirms this unwanted

1367:. It's only brainstorming at this point, of course; but it's better than a big heap of nothing and vacant stares, which seems empirically to be the default human contribution to most epistemological or systems engineering challenges. 1155:) and you should explicitly acknowledge how smart I am." In fact, if you read that link again through those eyes, you see that the whole thing, emotively, is not so much about how smart anyone actually is, as about dos and donts for 2637:

1) I had seen reasons of couple of users that they write detail response because the want to be wish to be thorough or at times define keep the record straight. Can that position be acknowledged in the section "Reasons for length"?

1989:

The TLDR meme has spread beyond tedious to tendentious. I'm in favour of names and shortcuts that support appropriately sized contributions in discussion, and against anything that would have talkpages reduced to mere twitterfests.

1268:"But some of us are honestly not worrying about how smart we can manage to seem, or about failing to showcase our smartness. In some cases we're just trying to dig down to truths in a complex world where half-truths are prevalent." 1293:

The idea of adding such musical analysis to an article.. from what I've seen here so far.. falls under the guideline of "If it's important enough to mention, some reliable publication will have published the detail in question."

1788:

or just butt out of RMs and CfDs where they are unwilling to read the issues concerned, or as one closer put it, they don't have the time to read. Don't have the time? Then don't close or vote on such an RM or CfD, it's that

1961:

and similar remain in place for many reasons. One of these is that while on occasions it may be counterproductive to let off steam on Knowledge (XXG), on others it's essential to provide ways to do it. Linking to this page as

1837:

Agree. I've undone the move. I also undid some (but not all) of the other changes; in particular restored the more gentle (!) earlier version of the "maintain civility" section. I like the addition of the Pascal quotation.

1748:

No, sorry, I'm in agreement with this Deletion Proposal. I don't care about the disclaimer it has no weight in this matter. This is not an encyclaepedic article and really just appears to be the WP editors self-agrandising.

1438:

Anyway, I don't really have anything more to say right now. "Big heap of nothing and vacant stares" for now. I'm still a bit new to Knowledge (XXG), and I'm off to go see if there's something I can contribute too. Bye for

1419:. You and I seem to think somewhat similarly. I kind of definitely -am- a misanthrope, though. It doesn't mean I hate everyone though, just that I think the vast majority of the human race is a spectacular failure so far. 591:

Across the arc of talk page exchanges amongst potential contributors and others, the consequences of intense, concerted resistance made it impossible even to reach a threshold from which to begin parsing aspects of this

892:

Also consider that taking on a subject may require reading long texts, including hardcopy books. If someone doesn't want to read that much on the subject, perhaps the subject is not an appropriate choice for that person.

1353:

people tend to be unaware of that fact. Knowledge (XXG) is in fact the biggest help in fighting that wall of ignorance (speaking of walls) that humans have come up with in a long time. Unfortunately, Knowledge (XXG)

1262:

only in giant walls of redundant text (as you'll probably see, I'm not much better, but I break things up into paragraphs at least, damn it). I'm referring of course to the person with a fraction in their username.

605:

Initial examination of this suspect article included a complete review of the edit history, including scrutiny of relevant external links which were deleted without any efforts to incorporate plausibly useful

1490:

Whoops.. I made approximately 1.5 grammatical errors at the end there (the first was a shameful misspelling / typographical error (too/to), and the second (ending sentences with prepositions) is up to some

778:

culture accordingly. "Too long; didn't read" can only be defended if the text is larger than 200 kb (or maybe 1 Mb). By nature an encyclopedia contains lots of texts, and so do the talk pages. ... said:

158: 381:. An unmindful insistence on what is published in a reference book without giving due weight to consequences which flow from the Japanese context leads inexorably to mistakes in some instances. 2324:

and how they write it on your own talk page, go ahead (as long as you are civil about it). But trying to restrict how people write on talk pages elsewhere in Knowledge (XXG) is a non-starter.

1584:

said it. You can't prop up somebody (in this case Shakespeare) as an authority on something and assume that the opinions of his characters are the same as his own. Doing that makes no sense.

2580:

it's better to stay silent)". Does an essay along those lines exist? (Please ping me if you reply. It'd be helpful to hear nos, not just yeses, since if there are nos I'll write it myself.)

2667: 125: 1050:-trolling fashion by people who are quite earnest as they (arrogantly) totally miss the point that the "Reasons for length" part of the project page explicates. These are the people who 2642:

reading in own comment, providing mid discussion synopsis. If one wants to dot down through response for record sake can write in own user space sub-page and a link in the discussion.

2152:

they are on-topic they make superfluous or redundant comments. At time such editors disrupt constructive conversations by placing their humongous paragraphs in the middle of a thread.

525:

In that Knowledge (XXG) article about the first of the Hyūga-class vessels, I would hope to make a constructive contribution by re-casting this controversy using medical terminolgy:

596:

cancer. Such illustrative "consensus" becomes a powerful element of proof -- a multi-faceted demonstration of an undetected, highly persistent, insidious and pernicious problem.

347:

I would not have thought this would be a reasonable venue for posting the following draft, but maybe I'm missing the point a little bit? My personal focus has been informed by

2307:

If an entry really does drag on too long, perhaps it should be addressed via existing policies regarding potential vandalism and/or the writer suitably (gently!) enlightened.

2230:

Some sort of statement to the effect of "not unduly long" might be useful, but I cannot see any way to make it a firm guideline, given the variety of situations we encounter.

517:

in that scene in which Petruccio looks at the sun and defies his new wife to disagree when he identifies it as the moon -- especially in that passage which begins,

1334:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, tehmikuji. FWIW, I agree with all of them. BTW, I'm not crazy; just afflicted with an adequate attention span, which puts me in

2677: 1558: 2543: 88: 1180:, or about failing to showcase our smartness. In some cases we're just trying to dig down to truths in a complex world where half-truths are prevalent. — 450:. When the logical progeny of such reliance produce deleterious effects in Knowledge (XXG), this subtle cancer mandates giving more than lip-service to 399:

catalogs, the edit history reveals how otherwise credible edits and edits have thwarted, deleted or blocked, thus stunting this subject's development --

135: 482:

except when an otherwise useful fiction is proffered as sufficient rationale for devaluing, denying, and deleting edits and citations (consistent with

616:

resistance which blocked access to any threshold from which to begin to address the unacknowledged bias which remains the article's pervasive flaw. --

1768:

in very uncivil fashion with it repeatedly as a means to derail discussion or NPA/AGF me.... as noted above by various others; quoting Mmyers above:

241:

Agree with Radiant, in particular, the following sentence is too long: "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words,

403: 1386:

I've already typed for too long. TL;DR, of course. One thing that's cute about people is that they'll sit and watch a 3-hour movie that contains X

1194: 1123: 1070: 707: 2539: 1372:

Reading my comment here you might take me for the bitterest misanthrope imaginable. In fact I'm considered a very nice guy by those who know me

959:

Was this a prank? A very good example of TLDR. There was actually some content in it. I read it and wrote a summary and deleted the original. --

2672: 1750: 1713: 1222: 851:

I can't help but smile for the fact that this page's "nutshell" abstract is simply "This page in a nutshell: Be concise." Now I'm having a

690: 443: 2495: 97: 908:(Corrected the formatting of boxes in my previous edit (time omitted by error) and added "much" this time: 07:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)) 2523: 1958: 1898: 836: 578: 367: 2605: 2468:

The article is longer, the number of readers who are willing to read will be smaller, despite articles, policies, essays or talks. So:

855:

moment. I'm sure it's superfluous to point this out (y'all noticed it too, probably), but I just couldn't help sharing my amusement. —

2509:

Use special formats such as bullets or bold fonts in policies, essays or talks to make Wikipedians understand faster and more clearly.

2411: 1912:

simply dropped into discussions. While appropriate for some internet forums, it is not the best formulation for a site whose five key

1642: 1591: 1238: 1190: 1119: 1066: 945: 703: 639: 2484:

Don't put lengthy speeches (Sometimes someone may disrupt the discussion on purpose). It will make others confusing, or be off topic.

1916:

principles include "civility." "Please be concise" conveys essentially the same meaning with a less curt and dismissive connotation.

1784:

line to refute......those incapable of reading longer passages should, as I have said elsewhere (and been ANI'd for saying it), take

1364: 1265:

That person, regarding TL;DR claims and an article stating that simple writing makes an author seem more intelligent to the reader:

981: 747: 282: 1641:

I feel this sentence is too wordy, and with too many big words ("speciously" being the worst offender) for this particular essay.

1736: 2475: 2356:

Per Amadscientist and Gandalf61 and others farther up the talkage in other sections, this essay has been abused against me in

508:. In my view, this specific quotation does capture the essence of a very important aspect of this somewhat complicated issue. 58: 33: 2529: 679:

PS: 75.39.255.20: Thanks for the ass-clown antic. Humor duly noted. But do try to make some earnest contributions as well. —

2053: 1902: 2433: 2450: 66: 2499: 2444: 702:

The fact you feel compelled to reply to threads that have been idle for two years is interesting in the present context.

254:

not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but

2172:

No, it would cause more problems that it would solve; specifically it would give editors something else to fight about.

882:

The edits were bad because they were ungrammatical, POV, copyright infringement, a personal attack, and out of context.

2140:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1967: 1873:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

101: 1557:

are used too frequently. What the people who tend to use these should rightly be citing is the as-yet-unwritten essay

1314:

Like that crazy but insightful person said, the world keeps on turning regardless of what any one person didn't read.

447: 889:

Before marking a post as TLDR, consider whether it's long or it's long but still informative relative to its length.

2300:

Absolutely not. It is all very well having the essay explain a slightly wry, but often cruel put-down (TL;DR,) but

2234:

they added to either. Creating such questions in the minds of others is probably not a good idea in and of itself.

2205: 1732: 1689:

The essay is contrary to encyclopedic values and civility and amounts to shouting "shut up" at someone when quoted.

1706:

4chan. We are not the ADD generation, our reading skills should at least be enough to handle a paragraph or two.

1350: 557: 154: 2410:

despite warning against editors not to use this for ridicule, it's almost exclusively used for ridicule. Ahoy, --

821: 2471: 716:

Yes, your point is entirely taken, yet my contributions still stand for any few future readers who will care. —

553: 1717: 1226: 1754: 548:

or "developing so gradually as to be well-established before becoming apparent." It is also well-known to be

39: 1905:– Please deletion discusion above; in practice, the previous section on how to refer to this essay civility 840: 505: 2415: 2346: 2269:

valid cases of the problem that Pass a Method mentioned—that is, filibuster-style comments that are clearly

2189: 2161: 1646: 1595: 1031: 949: 927: 901: 643: 230: 184:

used to link to the GFDL text. There were no links to the shortcut at the time, but it is a good example. ←

2028:

It's not really a controversial topic -- where I've seen it applied is generally under walls of text which

1709: 1587: 1234: 1218: 743: 437:

in at least this one instance because their congruent terminology derives from primary sources bearing the

278: 2282: 1932:. I took the liberty of adding "Knowledge (XXG):" to the destination. Pretty sure that's what you meant. 1669: 1619: 1470: 1416: 1400: 1242: 1181: 1134: 1104: 1077: 1056: 1017: 985: 914: 856: 802: 717: 694: 680: 671: 425: 373: 1429:(the very people you don't like)). Not saying you are one, though, or that you necessarily even care. =) 2239: 2201: 2100: 1661: 766:

before running their company into a technical sinkhole. I think managers either should consider reading

751: 464: 418:

expects us all to care very much about the "why" which informs whatever name or terminology is selected.

286: 1765: 226: 1785: 816:

Just thought this little bit of wisdom would fit nicely in this essay. What does it mean? "Be clear!"

2118: 2082: 2034: 1941: 1917: 1887: 1811: 1566: 835:

Various improvements made on 03:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC); no changes to overall content direction.

817: 414:

is named, nor do I care about the terminology used to describe this vessel -- but I'm persuaded that

2329: 2061: 1828: 1615: 1529: 1452: 1324: 430: 378: 2155:

I also don't mind a new guidelie from scratch which would deal with such a problem. Any thoughts?

1394:*written* words, and their little heads explode. Go figure. Just another charming quirk of humans. 1390:*spoken* words and never complain that their brains were taxed by the number of words; yet type X 93: 2371: 2342: 2184: 2156: 2015: 1937: 1843: 1794: 1115: 1027: 1004: 923: 897: 332: 197: 2653: 2626: 2598: 2569: 2547: 2419: 2399: 2375: 2350: 2333: 2316: 2285: 2243: 2209: 2194: 2178: 2166: 2122: 2104: 2086: 2065: 2040: 2019: 1999: 1979: 1947: 1923: 1891: 1847: 1832: 1817: 1798: 1758: 1740: 1721: 1672: 1650: 1622: 1599: 1570: 1554: 1533: 1473: 1456: 1403: 1328: 1246: 1198: 1184: 1137: 1127: 1107: 1080: 1059: 1035: 1020: 1008: 988: 968: 953: 931: 917: 905: 859: 825: 805: 794: 755: 720: 711: 697: 683: 674: 647: 625: 360: 336: 317: 290: 265: 234: 220: 190: 1349:

What you said about the information gaps in the published corpus is entirely correct, although

1089:

Various facets on both sides of same stone; and differentiating cases (b/c cases not lump-able)

1975: 556:

has not yet encompassed the oncological model, but it is arguably true that the metastasis of

2074: 1963: 1913: 1909: 1696: 1618:

with Shakespeare as the focus. I'm going to rephrase that spot. Thanks for the suggestion. —

1339:

little bit. It's kind of like, "Here, if you didn't understand what I just said, then try it

593: 574: 455: 415: 348: 181: 2649: 2395: 2312: 2235: 2174: 2096: 1823:

I don't see your reasons as good enough to justify the page move without any discussion. --

784: 621: 518: 500: 356: 313: 261: 2224: 1703: 1548: 1373: 2565: 2114: 2078: 1883: 1562: 1051: 922:

Thank you. Any debate from any editors? If not, I'll probably edit the page soon. Thanks.

467:

prohibits "aircraft carriers"; and therefore the Japanese quite sensibly identify the JDS

185: 96:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the 2131: 1864: 2325: 2057: 1824: 1525: 1448: 1320: 1282:

A random book about popular music by a random scholar is not automatically infallible.

964: 1665: 1076:

And that's OK. The world still turns regardless of what any one person hasn't read. —

483: 451: 2661: 2458: 2448:

I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short.

2367: 2011: 1933: 1839: 1790: 1000: 771: 561: 434: 328: 1508:

Well, I'm off to go see if there's something to which I can contribute. Bye for now!

876:

The edits were bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, and bad.

1971: 775: 272:

The Too long; didn't read page is a good example of TL;DR. Shorten it up please

2645: 2391: 2308: 1099: 780: 767: 617: 352: 309: 257: 2561: 2503: 2278: 2274: 1551:

since it calls long posts a "disruptive tactic" meant to "shut down discussion

873:

This is an example that would be appropriate for TLDR if it were much longer:

549: 545: 537: 495: 438: 396: 144: 80: 52: 2575:

Does a companion essay exist advising to read a discussion before commenting?

1580:

I take issue with this. Shakespeare didn't say "Brevity is the soul of wit."

2614: 2586: 1377: 1290:

Of course, this is regarding, like I said, my removal of false information.

960: 391: 1614:) is venerable, but it shouldn't be mentioned in a way that seems like an 1607: 533: 513:

Perhaps a more apt illustrative exchange is to be found in Shakespeare's

498:

construes the phenomenon in terms of a familiar line from Shakespeare's

1664:. You may know that this is an unfair reputation, but your actions may 1335: 2494:

Divide texts into several paragraphs properly in articles. Add proper

2560:

Is that really the right way to cite Shakespeare on Knowledge (XXG)?

2432:

The article saying avoiding to be too long is too long. So let's see

1611: 1365:

User:Three-quarter-ten/Ponderings#On possibilities for our next venue

982:

User:Three-quarter-ten/Ponderings#On_false_accusations_of_obfuscation

541: 1545:

I agree as well that TLDR, as well as its possibly even less civil (

506:"that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet" 247:

for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines

1096:(or as Strunk and White would recommend, "...is not always easy") 852: 273: 410:

Personally, of course, I don't care what the article about JDS

92:, a collaborative effort to organise and monitor the impact of 2441: 1559:

WP:Nah Nah Nah I have my fingers in my ears and can't hear you

552:

or "highly injurious or destructive." It is unfortunate that

15: 1779:

And oh yeah, the uncivility with which this has been wielded

143: 2474:; (Notice that a new long article may be suspected to be a 564:

elsewhere, is insidious, pernicious and sometimes invasive.

879:

But this should be okay even if proportionate for length:

2265:

are multiple facets to the topic at hand. Although there

1863:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

896:

Thoughts on addressing or clarifying this in the essay?

423:

Although generally valued as highly credible resources,

2077:; so the supposed benefit in civility will not happen. 1906: 1731:

Read the disclaimer. It was put there for a reason. ~~

2130:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

664:

Tenmei, I'm *way* too late to this talk thread (: -->

2668:

High-impact WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages

1957:. It is of course important that the redirects from 1692:

The essay is poorly written and unnecessarily vague.

975:

Insufficient brain functioning to qualify for debate

2491:If it's necessary to write long texts, you should: 1882:this essay. Renaming will not prevent its abuse. 2557:Shakespeare, William (1992), Hamlet, ... New York 2056:should be written as a new. separate document. -- 404:Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer#Article name 2429:(JUST KIDDING. Please do not take it seriously.) 1966:or similar may be terse but is not necessarily a 2481:Shorten policies and essays for reading easily; 1686:The essay has little to no community consensus. 504:-- in that passage in which Juliet muses about 32:does not require a rating on Knowledge (XXG)'s 2472:It's not suitable to make the article too long 299:place. AnkhAnanku 22:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC) 8: 2183:In that case we could word it more lenient. 1940:) 11:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Yes, thanks. 2506:in order to lighten the feeling of boredom. 2113:civility, and so its existence is as well. 386:Knowledge (XXG)'s current treatment of JDS 366:I hesitate to add this to the talk page at 161:on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links. 1695:The essay is easily used as a bludgeon to 770:as an exercise (or the modern alternative 323:Increasingly, it's being treated as if it 47: 2227:and other extant policies and guidelines. 1699:new editors who make formatting mistakes. 1311:more than a human ego defense mechanism. 490:is an aircraft carrier with another name. 2678:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages 1142:The link is good in various ways, and I 116:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays pages 2608:. Feel free to take a look/improve it! 940:Extensive babbling on brain functioning 49: 2606:Knowledge (XXG):Read before commenting 1363:and workarounds. They're available at 865:length due not to content but to bloat 1899:Knowledge (XXG):Too long; didn't read 1764:I support this proposal, having been 7: 1878:The result of the move request was: 444:Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force 243:a paragraph no unnecessary sentences 21: 19: 1231:tl;dr - Article needs distilling. 38:It is of interest to the following 1903:Knowledge (XXG):Please be concise 442:reliance on the imprimatur of the 250:and a machine no unnecessary parts 110:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Essays 100:. For a listing of essays see the 89:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) essays 14: 2304:simply encourages poor behaviour. 2054:Knowledge (XXG):Please be concise 86:This page is within the scope of 2073:People will still link to it as 1668:make it seem true to others." — 1376:. (I'm even quite good at being 1163:how smart you are, or trying to 1159:how smart you are, or trying to 579:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer 368:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer 79: 65: 51: 20: 2673:NA-Class Knowledge (XXG) essays 1304:And here, I'll do it for you: 1151:, and I'm very smart (in fact, 544:is conventionally described as 1741:12:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC) 1722:12:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC) 1629:A sentence in need of refining 221:12:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 191:04:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC) 1: 2654:11:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC) 2425:This article is too looooooog 2420:06:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC) 2195:11:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC) 2179:10:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC) 2167:09:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC) 2095:yourself a separate essay. -- 2087:23:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 2066:13:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 2041:12:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 2020:10:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 2000:23:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC) 1980:17:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC) 1948:11:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC) 1924:10:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC) 1908:was often ignored and a bare 1848:10:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC) 1833:00:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC) 1818:18:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC) 1759:02:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC) 1271:This pretty much sums it up. 1191:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 1120:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 1067:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 1036:19:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 1021:17:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 989:17:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 954:15:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 932:20:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 918:18:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC) 860:19:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC) 795:08:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 704:Short Brigade Harvester Boris 235:05:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC) 2570:14:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC) 2548:06:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC) 2351:09:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC) 2334:13:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC) 2317:22:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC) 2286:22:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC) 2244:20:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC) 2210:19:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC) 1892:00:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC) 906:07:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC) 826:21:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC) 774:), in order to get into the 554:criticism of Knowledge (XXG) 177:Redirects and content length 130:This page has been rated as 2604:Update: I've written it at 2400:04:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC) 2273:bloated for the purpose of 2123:16:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC) 2105:01:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC) 1673:01:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC) 1651:08:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC) 1571:15:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC) 1253:TL;DR claims too prevalent. 1229:) 07:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 1009:11:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC) 648:03:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC) 448:Ministry of Defense (Japan) 196:I didn't read this page :) 113:Template:WikiProject Essays 2694: 2627:23:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC) 1199:17:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 1185:16:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 1138:16:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 1128:15:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 1108:14:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 806:15:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 721:16:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 712:16:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 698:16:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 684:15:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 675:15:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC) 266:01:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC) 2599:19:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC) 2455: 2405:Regardless of the text... 2376:17:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC) 1799:17:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC) 1623:21:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 1600:19:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC) 1358:is turning out to be not 1301:I've ranted long enough. 1081:17:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC) 1060:16:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC) 969:13:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC) 626:05:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC) 519:"I say it is the moon ... 361:15:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC) 337:17:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC) 151: 129: 74: 46: 2137:Please do not modify it. 1870:Please do not modify it. 1534:08:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC) 1474:03:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC) 1457:14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC) 1404:04:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC) 1351:Dunning–Kruger afflicted 1329:20:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC) 1247:15:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC) 756:15:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 318:19:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC) 291:15:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 573:Prior to this, the non- 515:The Taming of the Shrew 486:) which state that JDS 390:implicates deep-rooted 256:that every word tell." 2530:The Portuguese version 1781:as if it were a policy 691:arrogant, selfish side 155:automatically assessed 148: 136:project's impact scale 94:Knowledge (XXG) essays 1959:Too long; didn't read 1733:Lothar von Richthofen 1662:reading comprehension 1576:The Shakespeare Quote 465:Constitution of Japan 463:As you may know, the 446:and the newly formed 426:Jane's Fighting Ships 374:Jane's Fighting Ships 308:That's not a policy. 153:The above rating was 147: 2553:Shakespeare Citation 1880:No consensus to move 1547:because it fails to 2524:The English version 2476:copyright violation 2434:the Chinese version 1616:appeal to authority 1167:smart, or to avoid 431:Global Security.org 379:Global Security.org 2392:Rissa, copy editor 1606:You're right; the 812:Eschew Obfuscation 762:Manager philosophy 149: 34:content assessment 2624: 2612: 2596: 2584: 2465: 2464: 2177: 2038: 1997: 1945: 1921: 1815: 1712:comment added by 1590:comment added by 1552: 1549:assume good faith 1237:comment added by 1221:comment added by 746:comment added by 281:comment added by 188: 174: 173: 170: 169: 166: 165: 162: 2685: 2633:Some suggestions 2625: 2622: 2621: 2619: 2610: 2597: 2594: 2593: 2591: 2582: 2532:is much shorter. 2461: 2442: 2302:making it policy 2202:Til Eulenspiegel 2192: 2187: 2173: 2164: 2159: 2139: 2036: 1998: 1995: 1943: 1919: 1872: 1813: 1786:remedial reading 1724: 1681:Propose Deletion 1602: 1546: 1399:Best regards. — 1279:fact-checking. 1249: 1230: 1153:smarter than you 790: 758: 501:Romeo and Juliet 293: 252:. This requires 217: 215: 213: 211: 209: 187: 152: 118: 117: 114: 111: 108: 83: 76: 75: 70: 69: 68: 63: 55: 48: 25: 24: 23: 16: 2693: 2692: 2688: 2687: 2686: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2658: 2657: 2635: 2615: 2613: 2609: 2587: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2555: 2456: 2427: 2407: 2383: 2190: 2185: 2162: 2157: 2149: 2144: 2135: 1994: 1991: 1968:personal attack 1868: 1858: 1807: 1707: 1683: 1631: 1585: 1578: 1258:reader's part. 1255: 1232: 1216: 1213: 1091: 977: 942: 883: 877: 867: 849: 833: 818:Hires an editor 814: 786: 776:Knowledge (XXG) 764: 741: 345: 343:Too many words? 306: 276: 225:so tru tho lol 207: 205: 203: 201: 199: 179: 115: 112: 109: 106: 105: 102:essay directory 64: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2691: 2689: 2681: 2680: 2675: 2670: 2660: 2659: 2634: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2576: 2573: 2554: 2551: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2527: 2520: 2519: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2507: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2482: 2479: 2463: 2462: 2453: 2452: 2449: 2446: 2439: 2426: 2423: 2406: 2403: 2382: 2379: 2354: 2353: 2337: 2336: 2320: 2319: 2305: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2231: 2228: 2220: 2216: 2148: 2145: 2143: 2142: 2132:requested move 2126: 2125: 2107: 2089: 2068: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2023: 2022: 2003: 2002: 1992: 1983: 1982: 1951: 1950: 1897: 1895: 1876: 1875: 1865:requested move 1859: 1857: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1806: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1751:114.111.151.60 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1726: 1725: 1714:107.33.212.171 1700: 1693: 1690: 1687: 1682: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1654: 1653: 1638: 1637: 1630: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1577: 1574: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1409: 1407: 1406: 1396: 1395: 1383: 1382: 1369: 1368: 1346: 1345: 1285: 1254: 1251: 1223:193.198.16.211 1212: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1090: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1038: 1013: 1012: 1011: 976: 973: 972: 971: 941: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 881: 875: 866: 863: 848: 845: 832: 831:Noting changes 829: 813: 810: 809: 808: 763: 760: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 655: 654: 653: 652: 651: 650: 631: 630: 629: 628: 610: 609: 608: 607: 600: 599: 598: 597: 586: 585: 584: 583: 568: 567: 566: 565: 527: 526: 522: 521: 510: 509: 492: 491: 474: 473: 460: 459: 420: 419: 407: 406: 383: 382: 344: 341: 340: 339: 305: 302: 301: 300: 295: 294: 269: 268: 239: 238: 237: 178: 175: 172: 171: 168: 167: 164: 163: 150: 140: 139: 128: 122: 121: 119: 84: 72: 71: 56: 44: 43: 37: 26: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2690: 2679: 2676: 2674: 2671: 2669: 2666: 2665: 2663: 2656: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2632: 2628: 2620: 2618: 2607: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2592: 2590: 2574: 2572: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2558: 2552: 2550: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2531: 2528: 2525: 2522: 2521: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2508: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2492: 2490: 2489: 2483: 2480: 2477: 2473: 2470: 2469: 2467: 2466: 2460: 2459:Blaise Pascal 2454: 2447: 2443: 2440: 2437: 2435: 2430: 2424: 2422: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2404: 2402: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2387: 2380: 2378: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2364: 2359: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2343:Amadscientist 2339: 2338: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2322: 2321: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2303: 2299: 2298: 2287: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2275:filibustering 2272: 2271:intentionally 2268: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2232: 2229: 2226: 2221: 2217: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2193: 2188: 2186:Pass a Method 2182: 2181: 2180: 2176: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2165: 2160: 2158:Pass a Method 2153: 2146: 2141: 2138: 2133: 2128: 2127: 2124: 2120: 2116: 2111: 2108: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2093: 2090: 2088: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2069: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2048: 2047: 2042: 2039: 2031: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2008: 2005: 2004: 2001: 1988: 1985: 1984: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1960: 1956: 1953: 1952: 1949: 1946: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1922: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1904: 1900: 1894: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1874: 1871: 1866: 1861: 1860: 1855: 1849: 1845: 1841: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1816: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1787: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1769: 1767: 1766:WP:BLUDGEONed 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1705: 1701: 1698: 1694: 1691: 1688: 1685: 1684: 1680: 1674: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1652: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1639: 1636: 1633: 1632: 1628: 1624: 1621: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1583: 1575: 1573: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1550: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1475: 1472: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1418: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1405: 1402: 1398: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1384: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1370: 1366: 1361: 1357: 1352: 1348: 1347: 1342: 1337: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1315: 1312: 1308: 1305: 1302: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1288: 1283: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1269: 1266: 1263: 1259: 1252: 1250: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1210: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1189:I surrender. 1188: 1187: 1186: 1183: 1179: 1174: 1170: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1145: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1136: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1106: 1101: 1097: 1088: 1082: 1079: 1075: 1074: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1058: 1053: 1049: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1028:Nick Levinson 1024: 1023: 1022: 1019: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 987: 983: 974: 970: 966: 962: 958: 957: 956: 955: 951: 947: 939: 933: 929: 925: 924:Nick Levinson 921: 920: 919: 916: 911: 910: 909: 907: 903: 899: 898:Nick Levinson 894: 890: 887: 880: 874: 871: 864: 862: 861: 858: 854: 846: 844: 842: 838: 837:75.139.208.94 830: 828: 827: 823: 819: 811: 807: 804: 799: 798: 797: 796: 792: 791: 789: 782: 777: 773: 772:Robert Jordan 769: 761: 759: 757: 753: 749: 745: 722: 719: 715: 714: 713: 709: 705: 701: 700: 699: 696: 692: 687: 686: 685: 682: 678: 677: 676: 673: 669: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 649: 645: 641: 637: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 627: 623: 619: 614: 613: 612: 611: 604: 603: 602: 601: 595: 590: 589: 588: 587: 580: 576: 572: 571: 570: 569: 563: 562:cultural bias 559: 558:systemic bias 555: 551: 547: 543: 539: 535: 531: 530: 529: 528: 524: 523: 520: 516: 512: 511: 507: 503: 502: 497: 494: 493: 489: 485: 481: 476: 475: 470: 466: 462: 461: 457: 453: 449: 445: 440: 436: 435:systemic bias 432: 428: 427: 422: 421: 417: 413: 409: 408: 405: 402: 398: 393: 389: 385: 384: 380: 376: 375: 369: 365: 364: 363: 362: 358: 354: 350: 342: 338: 334: 330: 326: 322: 321: 320: 319: 315: 311: 303: 297: 296: 292: 288: 284: 280: 275: 271: 270: 267: 263: 259: 255: 251: 248: 244: 240: 236: 232: 228: 224: 223: 222: 219: 218: 195: 194: 193: 192: 189: 183: 176: 160: 156: 146: 142: 141: 137: 133: 127: 124: 123: 120: 103: 99: 95: 91: 90: 85: 82: 78: 77: 73: 60: 57: 54: 50: 45: 41: 35: 31: 27: 18: 17: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2616: 2588: 2578: 2559: 2556: 2537: 2526:is too long. 2438: 2431: 2428: 2412:42.114.33.55 2408: 2388: 2384: 2362: 2357: 2355: 2301: 2270: 2266: 2154: 2150: 2136: 2129: 2109: 2091: 2070: 2049: 2029: 2006: 1986: 1954: 1929: 1896: 1879: 1877: 1869: 1862: 1856:move request 1808: 1780: 1772: 1771:from Mmyers 1747: 1708:— Preceding 1643:86.41.46.205 1634: 1592:152.1.147.76 1586:— Preceding 1581: 1579: 1544: 1408: 1391: 1387: 1359: 1355: 1340: 1319: 1316: 1313: 1309: 1306: 1303: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1289: 1284: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1270: 1267: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1239:195.225.81.1 1233:— Preceding 1214: 1177: 1172: 1169:inaccurately 1168: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1143: 1095: 1092: 1052:hypercorrect 1047: 1044: 978: 946:84.159.81.31 943: 895: 891: 888: 884: 878: 872: 868: 850: 834: 815: 787: 785: 765: 742:— Preceding 739: 668:Homo sapiens 667: 640:75.39.255.20 577:problems in 514: 499: 487: 479: 468: 424: 411: 400: 387: 372: 346: 324: 307: 277:— Preceding 253: 249: 246: 242: 227:Glitchood101 198: 180: 131: 87: 40:WikiProjects 30:project page 29: 2279:obfuscating 2236:John Carter 2097:Enric Naval 1217:—Preceding 1118:. Regards, 1100:procrustean 847:Meta moment 768:Leo Tolstoy 748:24.7.72.242 582:hypothesis. 283:24.7.72.242 132:High-impact 62:High‑impact 2662:Categories 2115:Mmyers1976 2079:JCScaliger 2035:Nobody Ent 1942:Nobody Ent 1918:Nobody Ent 1884:Mike Cline 1812:Nobody Ent 1666:speciously 1563:Mmyers1976 1157:displaying 550:pernicious 538:metastasis 439:imprimatur 397:naval ship 98:discussion 2646:Bookku 2381:Verbosity 2366:HOLYWRIT. 2326:Gandalf61 2058:SmokeyJoe 2037:(Gerardw) 1944:(Gerardw) 1920:(Gerardw) 1825:SmokeyJoe 1814:(Gerardw) 1702:Finally, 1553:) cousin 1526:tehmikuji 1449:tehmikuji 1356:by itself 1321:tehmikuji 1161:highlight 546:insidious 392:paradigms 2500:pictures 2390:duh.... 2368:Skookum1 2012:Jowa fan 1987:Support. 1934:Favonian 1840:Jowa fan 1791:Skookum1 1710:unsigned 1608:aphorism 1588:unsigned 1582:Polonius 1555:WP:WALLS 1415:Thanks, 1388:thousand 1378:taciturn 1235:unsigned 1219:unsigned 1171:looking 1001:Skookum1 744:unsigned 534:oncology 433:promote 329:Skookum1 279:unsigned 2518:Example 2358:exactly 2147:Upgrade 2110:Support 2075:WP:TLDR 2007:Oppose. 1972:Andrewa 1955:Support 1930:Comment 1914:pillars 1910:WP:TLDR 1789:simple. 1697:WP:BITE 1491:debate. 1392:hundred 1336:outlier 1215:tl;dr 1065:tl;dr. 740:TL;DR 560:, like 456:WP:NPOV 416:WP:NPOV 349:WP:NPOV 304:GFDL??? 182:WP:TLDR 134:on the 2540:逆襲的天邪鬼 2504:tables 2309:MODCHK 2225:WP:OWN 2175:NE Ent 2092:Oppose 2071:Oppose 2050:Oppose 1996:oetica 1704:WP:NOT 1612:saying 1469::-) — 1317:TL;DR 1307:TL;DR 781:Rursus 666:among 638:tl;dr 618:Tenmei 542:cancer 536:, the 353:Tenmei 310:Merzul 258:Merzul 157:using 107:Essays 59:Essays 36:scale. 2562:Mhkay 2496:links 2363:alone 1805:Moved 1360:quite 1211:TL;DR 788:bork³ 606:data. 496:Sdsds 488:Hyūga 480:Hyūga 469:Hyūga 412:Hyūga 388:Hyūga 200:: --> 28:This 2650:talk 2617:Sdkb 2611:{{u| 2589:Sdkb 2583:{{u| 2566:talk 2544:talk 2502:and 2416:talk 2396:talk 2372:talk 2347:talk 2330:talk 2313:talk 2283:¾-10 2240:talk 2206:talk 2191:talk 2163:talk 2119:talk 2101:talk 2083:talk 2062:talk 2016:talk 1976:talk 1964:TLDR 1938:talk 1888:talk 1844:talk 1829:talk 1795:talk 1755:talk 1737:talk 1718:talk 1670:¾-10 1647:talk 1620:¾-10 1610:(or 1596:talk 1567:talk 1530:talk 1471:¾-10 1453:talk 1439:now! 1417:¾-10 1401:¾-10 1341:this 1325:talk 1243:talk 1227:talk 1195:talk 1182:¾-10 1178:seem 1173:less 1165:look 1149:seem 1135:¾-10 1124:talk 1116:this 1105:¾-10 1078:¾-10 1071:talk 1057:¾-10 1032:talk 1018:¾-10 1005:talk 986:¾-10 984:. — 965:talk 961:Kvng 950:talk 928:talk 915:¾-10 902:talk 857:¾-10 853:meta 841:talk 822:talk 803:¾-10 752:talk 718:¾-10 708:talk 695:¾-10 681:¾-10 672:¾-10 644:talk 622:talk 594:NPOV 592:non- 575:NPOV 484:WP:V 454:and 452:WP:V 429:and 377:and 357:talk 333:talk 327:one. 325:were 314:talk 287:talk 274:User 262:talk 231:talk 216:< 159:data 126:High 2277:or 2267:are 2134:. 2030:are 1374:F2F 1048:non 540:of 532:In 401:see 186:Ben 2664:: 2652:) 2623:}} 2595:}} 2568:) 2546:) 2538:-- 2498:, 2478:.) 2457:— 2451:” 2445:“ 2436:: 2418:) 2398:) 2374:) 2349:) 2332:) 2315:) 2242:) 2208:/ 2121:) 2103:) 2085:) 2064:) 2018:) 1978:) 1901:→ 1890:) 1867:. 1846:) 1831:) 1797:) 1757:) 1739:) 1720:) 1649:) 1598:) 1569:) 1532:) 1455:) 1327:) 1245:) 1197:) 1144:do 1126:) 1073:) 1034:) 1007:) 967:) 952:) 930:) 904:) 843:) 824:) 793:) 754:) 710:) 646:) 624:) 359:) 335:) 316:) 289:) 264:) 245:, 233:) 2648:( 2564:( 2542:( 2414:( 2394:( 2370:( 2345:( 2328:( 2311:( 2238:( 2204:/ 2117:( 2099:( 2081:( 2060:( 2014:( 1993:N 1974:( 1936:( 1886:( 1842:( 1827:( 1793:( 1753:( 1735:( 1716:( 1645:( 1594:( 1565:( 1528:( 1451:( 1323:( 1241:( 1225:( 1193:( 1122:( 1069:( 1030:( 1003:( 963:( 948:( 926:( 900:( 839:( 820:( 783:( 750:( 706:( 642:( 620:( 458:. 355:( 331:( 312:( 285:( 260:( 229:( 214:t 212:n 210:a 208:i 206:d 204:a 202:R 138:. 104:. 42::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

talk:Too long; didn't read - Knowledge (XXG)

Index