Knowledge talk:User account policy/Archive 6

1684:

I'm thinking some variant of the former, because Farty McGee doesn't seem to be the type of username that will "bring disrepute" onto the project (to paraphrase an argument I've heard recently in this discussion) or something that will cause mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together, etc on the project. That's the username that sparked this conversation here, and I think a little perspective is needed. We're arguing about policy creep, and in an area that doesn't seem to need changing. If someone names themselves User:ShitFilledToilet, then they're zapped. But a username that makes a silly 2nd grade joke because it uses 'fart' in the name? It seems like unnecessary policy sharpening that doesn't serve the interest of the project. Either way, community consensus is what's important here, and it seems increasingly clear to me that a small, vocal group is currently best represented in this thread and, through effective communication, they have created the appearance of a widespread community consensus when I suspect that may not be true. Before the changes to WP:U proposed are made, I hope we can get some more time to widen the net to make sure that the proposed changes actually meet the wishes of the editors. -

924:(1) obviously inflammatory, (2) inflammatory, but not obviously so, (3) not inflammatory, but theoretically could be, and (4) obviously not inflammatory. We should, in fact, disallow usernames of level 1 and 2, and should not disallow ones of levels 3 and 4. The current wording can imply to some people that those level 3 names should be disallowed, because with enough imagination, they can be considered "potentially inflammatory." If we remove the word "potentially" from the policy, I cannot really believe that usernames that are actually inflammatory but in a non-obvious way will suddenly become allowed, so levels 1 and 2 will be disallowed, and levels 3 and 4 will be okay. Put another way: this page isn't about the process, or about how we decide which names are okay. Rather, it's about what kinds of names are okay, and I say it's the "inflammatory or offensive" ones, and not the ones merely with potential, that are not okay. 4443:

reading this policy is about to make his first account and such information is relevant to that (not to mention that section has been there a while), but then suddenly we segue into sharing accounts, multiple accounts, single-purpose accounts, doppelganger accounts, etc. Does this transition actually make sense to people? If so, why? Are we going to transition to saying "You can't use that sockpuppet like that. It's a violation of the username policy." which makes absolutely no sense? If you're going to put all the account-related rules here, then rename the page. I object to the idea either way, because you're mingling two completely different concepts for no apparent reason. WP:LAP does not apply, because before those sections were added, there was no overlap or redundancy. I would propose that if we want all the account stuff in one place, that it be put on a page devoted to such things. WP::U is not it.

1714:(edit conflict)Chairboy, what really is the difference between having a username that uses flatulence as part of a "silly second grade joke" and putting at the end of every post on a talk page "I Farted", which is also a "silly second grade joke". It may seem silly, it may seem stupid, but as I've stated elsewhere, I have to question the motivation of a user that insists to be refered to as a mechanism of toilet humor. This is not simply about flatulence and the term 'fart', 'farting', or 'farty', in direct reference to the name that sparked this conversation, it is about outlining certain forms of humor that are not appreciated in a community where the goal is to further knowledge. Just as walking into a board meeting in a company and using a fart joke is not appropriet, using one here I feel is equally inappropriet, as well as opening pandoras box for juvenile usernames of 2069:

in the direction of assuming good faith and allowing. This is not a blanket condemnation of all username blocks, merely counsel that the project may be best served by allowing the occasional borderline case instead of possibly overreacting and blocking usernames that are not reasonably offensive. A recent RFCN discussion, for example, focussed on a username that was proposed because someone who had just watched a documentary on the Holocaust mentally projected the username as a Nazi reference. While some of the more conservative participants of the page agreed that it "sounded menacing", many others opined that it seemed to be a bit of a stretch. Another recent username that was allowed in spite of vigorous protestation from a small group of editors (and the username that sparks this discussion, I suspect) was allowed because the community interpreted the

965:

rule supports that kind of speculation by the use of the word "potentially", and it would be better not to. Especially, it would be better not to because the word is just plainly unnecessary in the rule. Let me put this another way: including "potentially" makes the wording slightly more accurate, but it does so at the cost of implying that the spirit of the rule is more exclusive of problematic usernames than I think we really mean. When it comes down to it, the spirit of the rule is more important than the need to be accurate by mentioning the issue of potential offense. If this doesn't convince you that my wording is the best choice, I will try to craft an alternative that both embraces the proper spirit and keeps the accuracy of the word "potentially" in place...but I'm afraid it will end up being clunky and inelegant.

2242:

followed inflexibly and unreflectively, and anyone who either interprets it differently or argues that it should be applied flexibly is either a troll or ignorant, and their arguments not counted. From the point of view of those on the other side of the debate, this group take a notion such as the potential to offend, and take it to mean that, if anyone is actually offended (no matter how many people say that a name isn't offensive), or even if it can be conceived that someone might be offended, the name must be disallowed. This has led to arguments such as that "TortureIsWrong" might be offensive to someone into S&M...

2132:(ec)What in the end needs to happen is that we need to decide whether we're going to interperate usernames based on the "spirit" of the policy, which is open to a far greater range of interpretations, vs. the letter of the policy, which is consise and may be interpreted, but it is much more narrow than the spirit. Otherwise, why do we have the subpoints of the policy? If we're just going to go along by spirit, perhaps the policy should be a short two-sentence policy of "usernames found objectionable by the community are not allowed, usernames that are not objectionable by the community ARE allowed." 4434:

I did not delete one account and transfer all contribs to my new account. I changed my username. The account remained constant. Usernames are the tags by which accounts are identified, but they are not the account itself. No other website anywhere on the internet that I have spent any time with refers to an account as a username. Accounts are accounts, and they have usernames. Sockpuppetry in and of itself has absolutely nothing to do with them, except for the fact that the accounts have different usernames. For the same reason, I also object to

1299:

considered proper would fall under the defintition better than Breathing, which I don't know of a single group on earth that finds breathing a s improper. That is what I was hoping you'd take from it. Instead, you've decided to interpret it as breathing and farting are 100% the same, which they are not, even though the dictionary reference equates the two. That is where I find you're on a kick, sir. You have to look at the context of the term. Farting is something that is refered to as gross, disgusting, and rude. Breathing is not.

2144:

things, such as reer to violence. There are many many words that may refer to violence, have other meanings, etc etc and in short, that part of the policy is open to interpretation. Where, sometimes it works well, and others it is not as clear. I think we need to make sure that the policy does not assume taht things are not al;ways black and white, however sometimes are subject to human interpretation. Otherwise, if it was all black and whtie, we could have a bot doing our username blocks.

2117:- I like it" I would be all for not allowing it. Also, I feel that current consensus over a username trumps past consensus of the policys defintion. I.E. if at the time, policy would have prevented a broad array of actions, a current consensus allows a small subset of the previously disallowed "range" of actions, the current consenus takes precedent, especially in situations where current consensus allows something that is in the smaller subset of the previous consensus. 5029:

someone attempted to use the account name "ThisIsIncrediblyLongAndObviouslyIllegal", it would either be truncated to "ThisIsIncrediblyLongAndO" (24 characters or something around there) or just refused straight off the bat. It seems as though this would prevent a lot of work and confusion for admins and new members, and might get us more people to stay. I'm afraid that an immediate block for long names might deter new users who want to contribute. Ideas?

38: 1537:

textbook states, "The skin excretes excess water and salts, as well as a small amount of urea, in the form of sweat. The lungs excrete carbon dioxide, a gas produced when energy is captured from compounds in foods." But does that mean that we should allow "urea" in our usernames? *shrug* Maybe we should change policy to say "reproductive or excretory functions of the body that do not involve the respiratory or exocrine systems"--

5555:. However, usernames which are defamatory towards a particular company / trademark could be an issue, but these are already not allowed by other policies. The only problem that I have with the use of trademarks in usernames is the potential that, in some cases, it could appear that the edit was coming from some kind of official source, which could be misleading. As such, I would hesitate to allow usernames along the line of 5399:. It's hard for me to imagine a username that might actually create a legal problem for the foundation. Even "Mickey Mouse" (the most difficult example I could think of) would be okay. Of course, if Disney actually complained about such a user, the situation might become different... but I'd be surprised if Disney wanted to wrangle with Knowledge over a username and not, say, over our gazillions of fair use images. 2196:

letter of the policy, there is interpretation, but it is far more narrow and does not permit emotion-based/Spirit-based inconsistancies. Two names that contain the word torture, TortureIsWrong, and TortureIsOkaySometimes will most likely get two different results based on spirit. Doing it based off of the letter of the policy prevents the latter user from accusing anyone of POV violation, etc.

4824:; worrying about allusions to hacking and the like is oversensitivity; and similarity to a known vandal is utterly worthless when trying to pick a name, it is directed at administrators and might be better covered under "how to block" or under the new sockpuppet stuff. In short, maybe we can move the good bits around and toss the rest. -- 5617:(who has a very annoying userpage) decided to block them over it. I've renamed them but I'm not very happy that they were blocked over it as I don't see this stuff as clear cut. I'm horrified that some people seem to block first and ask questions later. Blocking is appropriate for obscenities etc but not for things like this. 4081:. I thought POV pushing was against our policies. Having a separate account to edit in a specific area or on a single article seems fine, but an account to expressly push a single point of view shouldn't be condones whether its a sockpuppet of not should it? This seems at odd with other policies. -- 5332:

being really mistaken for an official account of General Mills, for instance, nor can I think of any other reason to disallow the name. Some trademark names may be bad, but many others aren't. I'm removing the restriction from the guideline: this has now been discussed (and was also discussed above

5327:

I strongly support removing the trademark restriction. In any case, usernames can't usually be trademarks, since trademarks include very specific font, color, layout, and often, images. There is no legal issue to someone using a trademark as their username: it's not a form of competition. As for a

4191:

I know that several of you are hell-bent on some kind of mass-merger campaign, both in the notability context, and it seems, here too. Well, it's not appreciated. Knock it off! The SPA designation is used all of the time in Afds, and is useful because you can cite to it and people immediately know

2153:

If a decision is made on specific policy with an understanding that it is going against the spirit (aka, the actual wishes of) the policy, then a mistake has been made. I believe the sub-points are intended to assist in establishing a framework to make the decision, not to always be hard-points that

2077:

actions of thousands of editors, this community input should receive the respect it deserves. There are area where the policy must trump opinion, such as copyright issues and other things that have legal consequences, but determining the appropriateness of 'Farty McGee' or 'TortureIsWrong' isn't one

1683:

Was the spirit of the policy to stop people from creating disruption via their usernames by forcing people to type in what they considered curse-words and whatnot, creating physical discomfort because they were being essentially forced to dwell on scatological topics? Or was it to stop a fart joke?

1333:

It basically comes down to considering what the ultimate goal of a username that references a bodily function many find gross, disgusting, or rude. Shock value? Vulgar comedy? I'm not sure I grasp the desire by some to be refered online in a place where they are making an intellectual contribution as

1155:

has shown that there is ambiguity in the policy on excretory function. Specifically, what constitutes excretory function for the purpose of banning usernames? Urination and defacation are the obvious ones, but usernames refering to flatulence also should be blocked. However, the dictionary definition

964:

Level 3 may always exist, but right now the rule tends to somewhat endorse the idea that level 3 usernames are not okay, but they really are okay. I know that changing the rule won't prevent people from going too far in imagining potential for offense when none really exists. However, right now the

946:

I am confused, first your say "I think we can all agree that we judge usernames on their potential to inflame or upset or offend", then you go on to say that the word "potentially" should be removed. This level 3 your speak of, where a name is "not inflammatory, but theoretically could be" will exist

569:

expert"? I didn't find an appropriate section in the policy, but I tend to believe that such usernames are likely to offend other users who may feel like experts on the topic themselves, and to bite newbies who may be discouraged by such an immediate display of over-confidence. After all, how are you

5028:

This has probably been suggested before, and this probably wouldn't be the place to suggest it, but seeing as how we have a rule against "extremely lengthly" usernames, is there any way at all to create a built-in limit on the number of characters allowed when creating a new account? For example, if

4717:

ones to whom it was any use at all. Putting a tiny useless synopsis of it somewhere so it would be more accessible for newbies while deleting the only information it had that wasn't self-evident to the people for whom it was originally intended is nonsensical and counterproductive. I think it would

4433:

being merged here? For that matter, why is there a shortcut box preemptively claiming that WP:SOCK links to that section when it doesn't and never has? The reason I object to this merger in the strongest possible of terms is the fact that "Usernames" are not "Accounts". When I got my username change

3506:

Hey I'm new to this and I'm hoping to avoid being called a 'sock puppet', I signed up to the German wikipedia project but I would also like to be able to sign in to the english site. But I find that I get an error message when trying to log in. Can I sign up to the english wikipedia project with the

3200:

Interesting point, but a major argument for allowing Fenian's Swine's username is that he has been here since July 2005. The case would have been very different had the name been picked up in the first weeks of his editing (and incidentally, in the first weeks of his editing this rule did not exist;

2700:

I agree: trademarks don't need to be forbidden. If a name is a trademark but it doesn't imply some kind of potential confusion about the user's role on Knowledge, I don't see a problem, and I do agree that too many things are trademarked for us to need to prohibit all of them. Spirit of the law is

2195:

The problem lies in the fact that when we try to do too much open interpretation, we loose the ability to be fair and consistant. Two usernames that are similar in nature may, at this point, get different results on different days depending on who votes with that emotion. By strictly sticking to the

2068:

One problem is that not everyone who appeals is a troll, and the past few months have shown that quite a few people were blocked for WP:U violations inappropriately. While the pendulum should never swing so far as to jump its track, the health of the project is probably best served if it swung more

1536:

From reading the first few posts, it seems like you guys have a hard time deciding whether breathing and sweat are excretory funcions. I would like to clarify, unless someone else has already done so, that exhaling and sweating are and excretory function. (according to my biology teacher) My biology

1216:

Not trying to argue it out, just trying to see how you saw reading a dictionary entry verbatim as OR, outside of the fact the words "Fart", "flatus", or "flatuence" did not specifically appear in the definition. Thanks for clarifying your position. I don't agree with it, but thank you for clarifying

860:

I agree with HighInBC. Besides, if, for example, something was obviously highly offensive to Scientologists or some other significant but not highly prevalent religious group, why should we wait until one happens to come along and gets offended before doing anything about it? It doesn't mean we have

662:

Are obfuscated e-mail addresses like "NobodyAtExampleDotCom" disallowed also? The policy is unclear on this: it just states that usernames containing '@' are rejected by the MediaWiki software, apparently due to spam concerns. If this is the case, can we amend the policy to also say "Usernames that

625:

page, which I have warned the user about. I was going to add the {{UsernameConcern}} tag to his page but I'm not actually sure which part of the policy covers this, if any. I am assuming it would be considered inappropriate for anyone to sign themselves up with a username apparently representing any

5497:

As it says on facebook's username policy: "Dude, everyone knows that you aren't Paris Hilton". Maybe there is no harm in doing it, but a good amount of users with copyrighted names end up spamming. Perhaps we should take it on a case-by-case basis and give people the benefit of the doubt. Take, for

5390:

IMO, the real username policy is against certain overarching types of usernames: misleading/confusing, harassing, or offensive. There are good reasons for each of those. This restriction fell under the "misleading" part, but I can't see how these names could actually be misleading. And for ordinary

5357:

So names like "Mickey Mouse" or "Exxon McDisney" would be okay because they don't seem to represent the companies themselves? What about the use of words that were invented by a company and then protected like "Segway" or "Google"? I am not dead set against the removal of the rule, but I do see its

5281:

Ryan, reading it, doesn't it look like we asked Wikimedia counsel, and nobody cares? I mean, they didn't come up with this one, and if they're the least bit interested in having it, they've had an awfully long time to tell us so. I think this means appeal to Wikimedia is exhausted. And honestly, we

3950:

A single editor should not have more than one account with admin powers. If you leave, come back under a new name and are nominated for adminship, it is expected that you will give up admin powers on your old account. You may do this quietly with your old account and not have to show a link between

2249:

I'd like to see the policy drop the reference to potentiality in favour of something rather less open-ended; that might go some way to heading off some of the more bizarre arguments at RFCN. Often the first experience of Knowledge for some editors is a baroque argument over their innocently-chosen

2245:

If anyone really argued that, because "TortureIsWrong" was allowed, "TortureIsOKSometimes" should be allowed too would be missing the point of the policy, and it would be explained to them. If they still couldn't see it — well Knowledge is full of people who just can't see why their article on the

2241:

The issue will be presented differently by people on the different sides of the disagreement. What I'd say, for example, is that for HighInBC, RJASE1, Cascadia, and one or two others, the policy at this page is a hard-edged matter, and their interpretation of it is simply what it says. It's to be

1907:

You need to make sure your draft reflects the current policy before replacing what we have. For example you re-added the prohibition on criminal names despite the consensus to remove it a few weeks ago. I support a re-write, but I have reverted until that re-write reflects the current set of rules.

1733:

Actually, this changes everything. The WP:U policy is specifically about the content of the usernames themselves. If you're now arguing that you're just concerned about their motivations instead of the username itself, then you're essentially retracting your objection as it has no place in a WP:U

1171:

Normally I would say common sense should play into this, but it appears we need to actually specify verbatim what is allowed and what isn't allowed. Just as Poop is disallowed because of the poop joke, and just the fact that poop is what it is, farting is used in the same line. I think we just need

923:

Obviously, we must consider how editors in general will react. That's not the point. I think we can all agree that we judge usernames on their potential to inflame or upset or offend, because we can't just let it offend people in order to decide. Here's my point. I see four levels of usernames:

5136:

It looks like previous consensus was to leave it vague and up to the discretion of blocking admins. There's no way of knowing if this blacklist will affect existing users such as yourself, anyway... so maybe it's best to leave it off for now. Sorry to those who do edit with long names, Abu-Fool in

5012:

It would depend what actually happened. Generally, WP:U should not try to list all types of invalid usernames. It's a potentially infinite list, and making it longer does not avert Wikilawyering at all, and probably increases it. Having come up once or twice is not by itself grounds for inclusion.

4320:

already has been. Hence my rant below. Not that it surprises me that you missed it, considering that no one seems to use merge tags anymore. They apparently discuss changes everywhere except the pages effected then declare consensus was reached and merge away. Never mind that people who care about

3035:

Keep in mind the name predated the rule against "potentially" offensive names. That being said, there is a problem with people ignoring policy using creative excuses, but that does not mean the policy can be ignored. It would be better to ignore the people ignoring the policy when it comes time to

2578:

Okay, I have added it back in worded the same way it was before. Another discrepancy I noticed was the lack of a section prohibiting names of Wikimedia projects (Knowledge, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, etc.). That section was relatively new, added in February, as an addition to the "imply official role"

2177:

What I see here is an attempt to turn this into some sort of guideline that we can follow or not follow. It is important that this be a binding policy. What happens when somebody mentions an RFCN on ani, and 15 people who haven't even read the policy start voting? Well, either the policy discounts

5447:

So your point is that if someone registers the name Captain America and acts like an ass, it has tarnished the name of Captain America in the eyes of the people dealing with the user and this damages Marvel's holdings? I can't see why that would happen. People are not so easily influenced as all

5222:

I believe that the assumption is that if other users mispell your name as something often enough to warrant your creating a redirect, that mispelling is close enough to your name that no one could register it anyway without breaking the rules against having a name similar to someone else's. I've

4695:

First of all, the username policy is long enough as it is. The probability of a new user reading a policy page decreases every time we make that page longer, and usernames don't have much to do with accounts anyway. Usernames are how accounts are identified. The account pages deal primarily with

1298:

Chairboy, when you look at someone using a username relating to farting, and a username relating to breathing, and a dictionary definition defines both as excreting, when applying a common sense approach to using that definition, you would find that Farting, being something that is generally not

1183:

We'll need specific medical references to put breathing and sweating as excretory, and I doubt that they'd be considered so in a real medical definition. Applying that 'general' dictionary definition is OR anyway, but for "fart" I found a source that explicitly called it an excretory function.

4965:

Oh, from experience, I doubt this is how it went. I would say that more likely it never came up, but some well-meaning soul decided to be proactive; or else, it came up once or twice, the course of action was obvious, and there was no confusion, and no wiki-lawyering, but some well-meaning soul

2024:

I'm not sure. I'm not at all happy that RFCN has changed from an alert noticeboard to a "votes on username appropriateness". In general clear-cut violations of UN will likely be blocked by some admin who spots them; we don't want to give trolls the idea they can appeal an obvious block to RFCN.

985:

Some times level 3 is okay, other times it is not, consensus decides. I frankly don't think we are too biased in the direction you think we are. If anything we are letting one's through that should be disallowed. Which usernames do you think have been blocked inappropriately because of the word

4665:

One of two-and-a-half, by my count, the half being the essay, or did I miss any? Of course the rename doesn't make sense without merging those, and likewise the merge doesn't make sense without renaming the results. The general point here is that Knowledge has too many policy pages and this is

4442:

being merged here, though I'm apparently too late for the latter page. This page goes on and on about usernames and how to choose them, which ones are appropriate and which ones are not, then suddenly how to delete an account, although that kind of makes sense because it is assumed that anyone

2546:

That's understandable, and as a whole the new version is much easier to navigate than before. I'd like to propose that a line reading something along the lines of "Are extremely lengthy" be added below the restriction against lengthy repetitions in the Misleading section, assuming there are no

2143:

Again, i feel we are trying to black and white things. I am sure there are a large subset of names that everybody agrees should be disallowed. and, most of these wont be the subject of a RFCN. I think the policy is important, but perhaps needs clarification when prohibiting large subsets of

5516:(he was amenable to the idea). I wanted to check what others feel about this gray area and I don't want him to have to change his username unless consensus is in favor of changing it. I think it would be a good idea to use this RFCN as a precedent for such a name. Let me know what you think -- 3273:

I stand corrected, I was unaware of that. Nevertheless it does not follow that just because we make one exception we must also make every similar exception. Another (but admittedly weak) argument for FS is that he apparently is Fenian (weak in part because everyone can make similar claims).

1204:

Not necessarily. It is just that your dictionary definition didn't define "fart" as excretory, and was so general a definition as to allow "breathing" to be considered excretory. It seems OR to take the definition of excretory and the definition of fart and put them together on account of

2492:

I was just reading through the new username criteria and I think it is much more clear now than it was before. That said, I have one concern. The rewrite contains a section that prohibits long repetitions of the same character and apparently random strings of characters, however it does

4730:

should exist as they are. Each section of the new page could have its nice synopsis with a link to the primary page. There's no reason I can see to redirect the pages once the synopsis page is there because the only thing you're doing that way is vastly reducing the amount of available

5480:

Keep in mind, by the way, that comic characters like Captain America and Mickey Mouse aren't just trademarks, they are also protected under copyright. But that doesn't mean people can't pretend to be Captain America, it means they can't try to sell new stories about Captain America.

2054:

I will agree with that, and I think obvious trolling should be dealt with. I also agree clear cut violations will be dealt with, which I tried to clarify in the clause. However, this is supposed to apply to usernames that are unclear. I.E., generally usernames which spend days on

4485:

Just for my knowledge, when did it become standard practice to discuss mergers everywhere except the pages to be merged or the destination page, merge the content into the destination page, and only then mark the pages to be merged for merger? I'm sorry, but I think the content for

830:

I think that it is a very important word to have. Keep in mind we hold usernames to a higher standard than regular speech. The fact is that usernames should not be decided based on how a particular editor feels about the name, but the potential to offend other editors. Otherwise

1448:

Inflammatory usernames: Knowledge does not allow potentially inflammatory or offensive usernames. Inflammatory usernames are needlessly discouraging to other contributors, and disrupt and distract from our task of creating an encyclopedia. This includes, but is not limited

5108:

The question now is, should we do this? Policy is supposed to reflect concensus, and the policy says that long usernames aren't allowed, but I don't think we've ever actually set a specific number that is "too long". Now would probably be a very good time for such a poll.

777:

E-mails are not allowed unless they predate the rule(sept 26 2006), no matter how you obfuscate them. The rule against domains also did not exist when the e-mail rule came about so I would say that the domain issue does not apply to e-mail username predating the rule.

5448:

that, and I can't see their opinion of the product, service, character, or whatever represented by a trademark being altered by anything a user bearing that trademark as his username could do. Would you seriously even consider changing search engines solely because

1936:

Scanning back over the last half year I am unable to find a version that does not contain this prohibition. That said I would not object to removing it; I have not seen it being a problem all that often. I think we have a MasterThiefGarrett somewhere, for instance.

3427:

Right. Well I want to re-open the debate, because I've just noticed this. By removing things such as the mention of existing email addresses not being blocked, you've opened the gateway to block editors who've been on Knowledge for years without problems. See

597:

as me. I see no reason to prohibit such names. As for other experts getting offended at a person claiming to be an expert, well, I don't think we can always spare the feelings of the most sensitive. Has there been any problems with this type of name already?

1234:

In the history of RFCN, a trend towards increasingly stringency on usernames appears to be in progress. I'm not certain that it, or the prohibition of usernames that reference breathing or farting, furthers the goal of the encyclopedia nor "protects" it. -

698:

Yeah, I did consider that it was covered by the domain clause... but still thought it was a bit unclear. Maybe it would be better if the "E-mail addresses" section were indented to be under the "Domains" section, to clarify that it's just a special case?

3838:

advertising every time you sign a post, if it was your plan or not. I run a small educational group, I was going to name myself after it when I joined, then I read the policy. My goal was to lead people to my site. I saw it was against the rules so I did

1722:. If you look at a lot of the immature vandalism that goes on, it is simply inserting things like "Poop" or "I farted" into an article. That is what I'm looking at, not that it's "A harmless 2nd grade joke" that a few people might get a chuckle out of. 2011:. These usernames, many of them in the "grey" area of policy, will be left to the interpretation and consensus of the community which in turn will be used to determine the appropriateness of said username and will be the final word in such decisions. 2508: 2662:

I've removed it again, on second thought. The problem is that lots and lots of things are trademarks these days. For instance, fictional characters and movie titles (both a very fertile source of usernames) tend to be trademarked by their companies.

3592:

keeps getting mentioned on the discussion page, yet it does not appear on the project page. Could someone who claims to know what the grandfather policy is get a version of it on the project page for discussion here. Is it as simple as this?

2871:

Hm, come to think of it, I recall several other such names (like PepsiDrinker, for instance). It seems those are in good faith and should hardly be forbidden. But by present wording of policy they are; so it would be nice to fix this wording.

2099:

The existing policy gives clearance for debate in some areas and not others. I think it is fine as it is. We need structure or it turns into a "ilikeit" "idontlikeit" vote. Remember, RFCN is a request for comment, not a request for decision.

3887:

I agree. However if a person name bluenova made an article about BlueNovaTechnologies, and linked to it from everywhere, that would increase the likelihood of it being seen as a username violation. The existing wording seems to cover this.

5358:

value, and I don't really see a former consensus, the discussion just petered off. The problem as I see it, is that somebody can use a trademark in their name and act like and ass, we block them but the damage to the name is already done.

4819:

Defamation of other people or groups might better be classified as offensive, and defamation of "articles or processes" is incomprehensible; broadcasting personal info is surely harassment, but is probably very, very rare and falls under

4666:

confusing to many users, hence a few people are trying to alleviate that. And of course a few other people disagree. Please tell me what would be bad about having one account policy rather than having the issue spread over several pages?

3861:

It's the same reason why I can't, and wouldn't, have a username of "BlueNovaTechnologies", although I am the COO of this small startup company. However, calling oneself "BlueNova" is generic enough to not = a company right off the bat.

2535:. I think that those working on the Draft version were looking to cut down on the clutter, they seem to have removed things that didn't need to be removed (isn't that a rewrite of policy). Not saying it was intentional, things happen. 3783:

I suppose that is why we already have the provision "unless the name is generic and could reasonably refer to something else". It is far from a novel idea, most promotional usernames are for the purposes of advertising in one's sig.

4902:

WP:U is defined to prevent confusion as much as possible. If a provision is in WP:U, I would have to take that as there has been an issue with that in the past, and by having it expressly outlined in WP:U, it prevents confusion.

4873:

Cool. In general, I see this as having (at least) two somewhat divergent purposes: suggestions to people who are creating accounts in good faith, and suggestions to administrators. As to personal info, I would ask two questions:

4590:, etc., all of which come back to a single pattern: kill bureaucracy with bureaucracy, headed by someone who has decided to act as an authoritative figure on the subject matter, and go so far as push for reforms, etc., based on 1734:

discussion. If the user is a vandal, then they'll be reverted and blocked as necessary. Reading the motivation into the username is an exercise prone to failure at best, and in danger of punishing innocent people at worst. -

4834:

Good points, but a few comments... Names like "(some username) is a jerk" are harassment of that (some username). Personal info issues may be rare but are very high in impact, hence their listing here. We're not particularly

4708:

goes, it is rather irrelevant to new users so why should it be merged anywhere? Who's going to try to impersonate some random newbie, so why should they be bothered with making doppelganger accounts? The information on

4550:

policy, which makes no sense. By all means, create an overview page which discusses the policies, guidelines and maybe even essays which relate to user accounts, but they shouldn't all just be dumped into the one page.

3174:

arguments in that name's favor that "Fenian Swine" had. It must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not disallow any such name. The loophole has been opened wide enough for a long long convoy to pass through. --

5421:(ec) Your point about damage to the trademark is interesting.. but I figure, if it's not a big deal thing, we can just remove the user's talk page contributions, and if it's a really big deal thing, there's always 2154:

can pierce an argument. An admin acting on his/her own should find more usefulness in the subpoints than a community discussion like RFCN, which I hope would be attempting to find the actual intention/spirit. -

3429: 736:

Now that I think of it, there's an inconsistency in that e-mail addresses that predate the MediaWiki '@' ban are allowed, but these do of course contain domain names. So it appears the cases are not identical.

4839:

about hacking issues but will nevertheless block any user who is a self-proclaimed spammer or troll; and indeed the "known vandal" bit is aimed at admins, but does belong here since it's an invalid username.

1999:

was allowed by consensus, however some still feel it violates the policy. I think it would be important the following (or a similar clause) to the username policy to prevent such controversies in the future.

1966:

Another problem with criminal names is that what constitutes a crime in one jurisdiction may not be a crime in others. Obviously murder is murder, but smoking marijuana (for example) isn't a crime everywhere.

1469:

If we look at the clause on bodily excretion in the context of the Inflammatory Usernames section, then it only seems to apply to offensive usernames involving any excretory function. Am I reading this right?

4774:

I've removed the merge tag because the proposed merge isn't being actively discussed anymore and not many were in favor anyways. Anyone who intends to pump more life into the discussion is free to revert me.

5249:

Geez, I thought we were done with this. It is sufficient to talk about impersonation or promotion of company names. There are no intellectual property issues. We asked Wikimedia counsel, nobody cared. See

4285:

than it is to the username policy. Thirdly, the former is an essay (and a fairly controversial one) and you're proposing to merge it into a policy page. Have you thought the implications of this through?

1263:

Chairboy for some reason has been on the kick of taking the definition I cited and the fact that it referenced "Breathing", and has decided that if we disallow Farting, we should disallow Breathing too.

1184:

Perhaps the policy should have a parenthetical list along the lines of "...excretory functions(such as poop, pee, fart, & related)..." In any case I believe I made it clear that "fart" is no good.

1780:

Suggestion: "reproductive or bodily functions of the body that do not involve the respiratory, nervous, skeletal, muscular, endocrine, or exocrine systems???" Bodily functions describes a vague term.--

3551:

Having used wikipedia for a long time, I thought I'd give editing a try. I was hoping to use my first name (Rabi) as my user name, but I get a "Username entered already in use" error. The user has no

1275:

Please don't denigrate my opinion by describing it as being on a "kick", implying that I'm just out to cause trouble. The definition you provided to back up flatulence as a form of excretion applies

3686:

who was a representative of some sort of the Coca Cola company, we may at some point block him for spamming or COI violations, but we should not a priori consider that an invalid username. Thoughts?

3984:

I don't know the origin of this phrasing, but it's been there for a long time, and there was a recent controversy when a new account was adminned without RFA, because he had an older admin accout.

398:

Personally think that most special characters should not be allowed. If they want to have a bunch of !!!!'s in their signature then go ahead. I think it's destracting to have a bunch of ?<: -->

5586:

matches the name of a well-known company or group, and would still be disallowed. This is only about trademarks that aren't the names of companies, and thus can't be mistaken as being official.--

3447:

Longstanding editors who existed before policy change should be grandfathered. Anyways, what's the rationale of prohibiting email address? I see lots of users exposing their email on Knowledge.

1081:

We are not deciding if we should build an article for them, but if we should let people use their names. We should have different, lower, standards of fame for simply protecting someone's name.

800:

I removed "potentially" in front of inflammatory in the "No inflammatory usernames." A username that people think has the "potential" to be inflammatory or offensive, but which no one actually

109:

Boring procedural note- I see that this page is now very long. Do others agree that having a Bot work on archiving it would be a good idea? Perhaps all threads older than 7 days to be archived?

5264:

That does not look like a consensus to remove the rule, it looks like there is disagreement there. I think it is an important rule and it should stand until there is a consensus to remove it.

1439:

Part of my original concern in starting this is that there are certain types who will now try to get us to ban "breath" and "sweat" usernames, and then cite the dicdef and discussion from the

4143:

It seems like a poor idea to have writing that could confuse users about one of our core ideals. I suggest a change from "push a single opinion" to "edit a single article or topic area". --

717:

sign was blocked was actually because it causes problems with templates as well. I still think that it's clear enough already, but others may differ. I would maybe support chaning wording to

3573:

for a relatively new procedure, for just this kind of situation. I can't seem to see when the previous user was created, so maybe it was quite a while ago? (even better for your request?)

1132:

Usually we e-mail the person using an official contact number from a pre-existing official website. So if it was an actor we would confirm it through their agent or official e-mail address.

2073:

of the username policy as relates to violence. The change proposed above would seem to cement the importance of community opinion on these matters, and as Knowledge is built on the almost

2801: 2246:

fictional friend of the mother of a minor pop star isn't notable, or why their essay on the secret World Government of Black Jewish communist aliens isn't acceptable; we can live with it.

1850:

The policy on religious usernames is particularly open to interpretation again, as it sits in the draft. I think the text of the current policy should be applied to the revised version.

1753:

I was stating that I personally have to question the motivation... not that it needs to be written into policy. The rest of my argument still stands. Hope that clarifies things for you.

1011:

for instance, someone ended up giving that user a barnstar of resilience for just putting up with the discussion, over a username that was, at best, theoretically offensive to someone.

4759:

When I was a new user I found the separation of the policy pages very helpful. Most websites have a 30 page "Terms of service" that is written in legalese and have everything together.

1606: 2250:

user name, with people coming up with hitherto unthought of and often bizarre problems with it. That's not good, and I've little doubt that we've put off good editors in this way. --

2113:

Again, it is not black and white. It is very rarley ilikeit or idontlike it. It is mroe often, i dont interpret this as a violation of policy. If there are many RFCNs that state, "

5509: 2987: 2606:

I'm not sure, but it should probably be re-included. I have gone ahead and added span ids to the inappropriate username section, in order to allow the user of shortcuts again (like

1890:

Aye, thanks. It may seem a bit on the verbose side (and probably is), but that was what has been discussed. I'm up for discussing a reduction further should it be deemed neccisary.

5627:

I actually see where HighInBC was coming from when he blocked this, it seams to imply that the account had an official role with google, it might be an idea taking it up with him.

3716:

Actually, placing the company name in your name would make every post you do an advertisement. I don't think we should allow company names at all. - This message brought to you by

4243:

Whether or not mergers make things more difficult, the complaint by MD is incorrect. A shortcut or a wikilink can put the reader right into appropriate section (see, for example,

1485:

As much as I am loathe to point this out, determining what is 'offensive' can be rather subjective. What happens when a username is determined to be slang for an offensive term?

861:

to be extremely conservative or unreasonably obtuse about what is actually likely to offend people, but we should be allowed to react before something actually offends someone.--

5669:

I certainly agree we should discuss non blatant names first (with the user and then at RFCN if needs be), but without endorsing the block, I can see where High was coming from.

5767:

AGF is not the issue. Taking the name of the only person who does not need consensus to act unilaterally here is bound to cause confusion amongst our less experienced editors.

640:: Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies and groups are discouraged and may be blocked as a violation of Knowledge policy against spamming and advertisement. 1820:, and is part of a general aim to keep our policies up to date and simple. If you see any problems, unclarities, or inadvertent changes, please edit the page and fix them. 5373:

That being said, I am fine with the rule being removed now that there is a discussion on the talk page happening and opinions are being tossed about in a healthy fashion.

4277:

Firstly, if you want a merge then you really should put merge tags on both pages so that people are aware of the proposal. Secondly, the pages don't cover similar ground.

2562:

No objection from the peanut gallery (myself). Considering it was in the origional version before v4/2/07 came around, I don't think it needs to go to a vote or anything.

5452:

called you something profane or vandalized your user page? I can't see at all why this sort of thing would cause even remotely enough damage to warrant having the rule.--

3458:

I will review my block of Renegade_cash@hotmail.com in the morning in light of this new information, but it is late here, and I have a wife to cuddle with, goodnight.

2752: 5199:

Where has this stuff come from? I personally find them really annoying-and it does feel like they are squatting an unused account space. I'd rather encourage people

4429:

I'm sorry if I missed some big talk page discussion concerning this, and if I did so feel free to point me to it so I can cross-post this, but I must ask: Why is

1650: 5730:

Why don't you take it up with the blocking administrator? The policy is up for interpretation but I don't think it would stop names like Jimbo3371, the admin is

2335:

Indeed, and also the parts on account sharing and account deletion. I'd be happy to consider other names. For instance, we could simply call it "user accounts".

4586:

because it is too bureaucratic, yet discussion of a merge of non-relative policies go on off radar of those that haunt those pages, disputes over projects like

4546:

It seems what is being attempted is some kind of overarching "user account policy", but the way this is being carried out is by merging everything into the user

947:

no matter where we set the bar. Do you have a specific wording in mind, because simply removing the word potentially will not result in what you are proposing.

4582:

I've noticed a few movements going on within Knowledge... to kill anything perceived as bureaucracy, policy creep, etc., by those very means. People taking on

1766:

When did farting become obscene anyways? Must depend on who you are, because farts are funny in my family. Instead of saying "Excuse me", we all just laughed.

2502: 1923:

Hmm on further ivestigation it seems that was re-added some other time, I will return the draft for now and try to figure out when that modification came in.

1672:

Indeed. The newer suggestion definately provides a more consise definition, and prevents most toilet humor that is not appropriet for this type of community.

621:

is entering various negative POV items on Hillsong related pages, and is clearly not representing the church. They also entered defamatory information on the

96: 91: 79: 74: 66: 350: 4390:

Indeed, being an SPA is not a violation of policy, and the merge is in no way intended to change that. Note that SPA doesn't say that either, it only says

3245: 5858:

pretends to be Jimbo, they should be stopped from doing that. Someone who pretends to be Jimbo, if their username helps them, we should block the name.

2618:. If anyone should feel like it, please review the span ids I've added to make sure I chose span ids that fit the section they direct to appropriately. -- 5503: 2498: 4718:

be a good idea to have a page that summarizes all the other pages pertaining to the various kinds of accounts that exist and how to deal with them, but

4651:

That would also have been inappropriate because this page is only one of the various pages which deal with different things to do with user accounts. --

3955:

Hey, this makes adminbots impossible. That's not good. What was the original reason for this paragraph? Maybe we can find a synthesis or compromise. --

4124:

Well if it is against policy, but not against this policy, then why mention it here? If we are going to mention it here, why say it is not forbidden?

3248:. He was asked to change names then, because this name was offensive, and he simply refused. No grandfather clause then, no "old-timer" exemption. -- 278: 214: 2271:

It has been suggested to rename this to "account policy", since its scope is slightly broader than what its current title suggests. Thoughts please?

1205:

similarities. Anyway I believe that the issue is clarified with a direct source so there is no need to argue on this point any further. Is there?

5313: 5255: 5251: 5122: 5014: 4967: 4894: 4825: 3976: 2839: 2741: 1514: 1112: 1064: 464:

for more discussion on related matters. The @ sign was disabled to stop e-mail addresses in usernames, not for technical reasons(as far as I know).

2407:

It was also partially covered here, and is being incorporated here to reduce confusion and redundancy, and make related issues more comprehensive.

663:

are not literal e-mail addresses but clearly convey one (such as "NobodyAtExampleDotCom") are also disallowed."? I bring this up because I noticed

5829:

Ah, the old "there are others like it" argument. Well I don't hold too strong an opinion on the matter, but I do think the names are problematic.

5328:

trademark making it look like an official account, if it does, they're already blockable, and if it doesn't, what's the problem? I can't imagine

2731:

Okay, do we have a blacklist for these? We reached a point where otherwise reasonable names are blocked on sight because they have these words.

2497:

seem to contain the prohibition against extremely lengthy usernames that existed before. Was there consensus to take this out? I recently brought

724: 686: 4218:

I've noticed some mass-merger campaigns going on... I'm not sure of the motive. It is not like it makes things easier, but fact, more difficult.

1279:. You acknowledged this in the specific RFCN discussion, and used 'common sense' as the rationale for why some gas is more equal than others. - 480:

The problem is with the template, not the name. The template puts the name in a box which uses "!" as a header control character -- which is why

5850:

I don't think we should be blocking usernames that include "Jimbo" except if they look like they could be legitimately confused with the real

5656:

The user claims it's mocking George Bush. If google were to have a wikipedia account it would at least be grammatical. My real concern is the

4049:

where it says "Although multiple user accounts are allowed on Knowledge in certain circumstances, only one should have administrative tools."

822: 4192:

what policy you are referring to without making them wade through the entire username policy. Please leave it just as it is. Thank you.

3413: 3137:

We prove them wrong. My point is that every policy on Knowledge has had an exception or two in the past, that's not generally problematic.

344: 2761:, and "on wheels" is on it. I don't think the other two should be added, tho, otherwise we'll soon have every admins name on that list. -- 2322:

section for example has not much to do with usernames. "Account policy" might be technically correct, but it also sounds kinda awkward. --

3676:"Actually, we really don't like spam usernames, even if the users really are representatives of the companies for whom they are spamming" 3022:, there's no point to even discussing how offensive a name is, once the user cites the above as their justifications for the username. 1156:

provided during the RFCN also states that breathing and sweating are excretory functions. Do we block these names too? comments please

2844: 2746: 1657:

Similar to an earlier suggestion, removes the word "excretory", which caused our problem. We definitely need more discussion on this.

1519: 1117: 1069: 272: 208: 54: 17: 5551:

Well as far as I understand it, I don't think there are any realistic legal reasons to restrict the use of trademarks in usernames

488:

templates (not putting the username inside such a box) handled the same name just fine. As a short-term (but ugly) fix, I've made

4807:

Give the impression that you intend to cause trouble here, such as by alluding to hacking, spamming, trolling, or computer viruses

4704:. It doesn't have policy-level consensus, and it never has, thus merging it into a policy page is wholly inappropriate. As far as 5895: 5862: 5485: 5429: 5403: 5341: 4278: 4029: 3329: 3321:

I thought the policy was explicit about disallowing usernames that strongly embrace a controversial point of view (for instance,

2705: 2078:

of them. If the community changes its mind, then it will be reflected by changes to the architecture of the policy framework. -

1015: 969: 928: 808: 4622:

Thebainer is correct. Note that there is a thread earlier on this page suggesting to rename this page to "User account policy".

4595:

But, I digress... these two polices definitely belong on separate pages to make them easily digestible and prone to being read.

5092:

The bugzilla guys came back rather quickly on this - apparently there is a very easy way to enforce this, we just add the code

3409: 2782: 1971: 1801: 1661: 1474: 1160: 2909:

The username policy explicitly prohibits "random" usernames, this seems vague, because any username that has no meaning (like

1003:

I think most such names are not disallowed after a discussion... but damage is done by them even being discussed, in light of

4913: 4605: 4228: 3915: 3872: 2624: 2585: 2553: 2521: 1443:

RFCN as precedent. I'd rather avoid policy creep if we can; we may be ok under the current guidelines, which state in whole:

449: 407: 5499: 5148:

Actually, there is a way of knowing whether or not the blacklist affects current users. And the answer is no it does not.--

1031:

Discussion is a good thing, it is how we solve problems. I don't see anything bitey in discussing a name then allowing it.

626:

organisation or person (trademarked or otherwise) and then carry out actions like this. Any guidance appreciated - thanks!

4696:

types of accounts and how they should be dealt with, which has nothing to do with usernames. Secondly, the information in

579: 220: 2515:

as an extremely lengthy username, but then going over the policy I was unable to find that clause that existed before. --

374: 3972: 3170:

Pick two hate words from any two categories (religious, political, ethnic, etc.) and make them a username. Now give the

2835: 2737: 1510: 1108: 1060: 804:

it is inflammatory or offensive should not be disallowed. Someone, somewhere, can be inflamed by just about anything.

5392: 5097: 4202: 2999:

It appears all one has to do to use an otherwise inappropriate username is to declare one, or both, of the following:

2758: 1653:

that by some definitions, defecation is technically not excretion. Perhaps we should try something along the lines of

356: 1655:

Usernames that refer to or allude to reproductive or bodily functions, including defecation, urination, and vomiting.

362: 2913:

username) would be considered "random letters". What's the exact meaning of it and what's the rationale behind it?

843:. We are making decisions based on how the Knowledge public will react, so the term "potential" is very important. 296: 226: 196:

I've brought this up for discussion, as it's something I found out about today when welcoming a user. I discovered

45: 3261: 3188: 3125: 3071: 2991: 2319: 728: 690: 682:

Usernames which imply a domain are disallowed so I don't really think there's a needto change policy on this one

547: 511: 5125:. And thanks for pointing out this username blacklist page! I think many didn't even know it existed. Cheers, -- 4261: 3746::) I don't think having your name in edit logs or talk page posts counts as advertising much, although it's a 3513: 284: 143: 4360: 2014:

Any body strongly disagree with that wording (I am assuming alot of people will, but i feel it is important).

1318:

as prohibited under this definition, though it's probably not strictly considered as an 'excretory function'.

3834:

Debate about what? The persons motives are not relevant, the fact is if your name is a company name then you

425: 5735: 5670: 5628: 4931: 4776: 4282: 3969: 2830: 2732: 1505: 1103: 1055: 721: 683: 338: 1085:

which you refer to is about a persons worthiness of encyclopedic mention, which is unrelated to usernames.

5720:, do we really want to prevent anyone else called Jimbo from having a username similar to their own name? 4195: 4144: 4082: 266: 202: 128:

A week is good. I see too many places that use 24 hours, which is too short. And 'automatic' is good...

4356: 3322: 5902: 5886: 5869: 5837: 5816: 5775: 5758: 5724: 5693: 5664: 5660:

elements of blocking to enforce non-clearcut policy. Some people are far too keen on the block button..

5651: 5621: 5601: 5578: 5560: 5538: 5536: 5492: 5467: 5436: 5410: 5381: 5366: 5348: 5316: 5272: 5258: 5238: 5217: 5207: 5192: 5163: 5143: 5129: 5115: 5084: 5069: 5035: 5017: 4999: 4970: 4958: 4919: 4897: 4864: 4828: 4779: 4767: 4746: 4690: 4660: 4646: 4611: 4591: 4577: 4560: 4535: 4513: 4476: 4462: 4418: 4381: 4364: 4340: 4295: 4264: 4234: 4212: 4180: 4147: 4132: 4115: 4085: 4062: 4036: 4008: 3979: 3959: 3938: 3921: 3896: 3878: 3852: 3825: 3792: 3774: 3729: 3710: 3663: 3651: 3629: 3615: 3605: 3577: 3563: 3560: 3540: 3495: 3466: 3451: 3440: 3420: 3403: 3384: 3366: 3336: 3298: 3268: 3229: 3195: 3161: 3132: 3107: 3078: 3049: 3026: 2974: 2963: 2917: 2896: 2866: 2857: 2850: 2814: 2787: 2769: 2712: 2687: 2657: 2628: 2601: 2589: 2568: 2557: 2541: 2525: 2475: 2442: 2431: 2402: 2383: 2359: 2330: 2309: 2295: 2261: 2235: 2202: 2186: 2166: 2148: 2138: 2121: 2108: 2090: 2063: 2049: 2018: 1976: 1961: 1931: 1916: 1896: 1885: 1856: 1844: 1790: 1774: 1759: 1746: 1728: 1707: 1696: 1678: 1666: 1627: 1596: 1581: 1564: 1547: 1525: 1489: 1479: 1433: 1412: 1395: 1378: 1367: 1340: 1324: 1305: 1291: 1270: 1258: 1247: 1223: 1209: 1199: 1188: 1178: 1165: 1140: 1123: 1093: 1075: 1039: 1022: 994: 976: 955: 935: 912: 895: 876: 851: 840: 815: 786: 770: 746: 731: 708: 693: 676: 651: 630: 606: 583: 554: 518: 472: 451: 434: 409: 392: 320: 181: 163: 146: 132: 122: 23: 5329: 2932: 1569:

If you're accusing me of disrupting wikipedia to make a point, I'd like a retraction and an apology. -

575: 4975:

That is moslty correct (it did come up a few times, actually), but I don't see why that is a problem.

4888:

Are we worried that, in absence of this line, administrators would not block such a username on sight?

2936: 3432:. There might be other things wrong with it. I'm tired and am going to bed but I want to register my 2255: 1440: 1206: 1185: 618: 5709: 5610: 5449: 3556: 3552: 2928: 2924: 534:

is fixed. The name no longer looks bad. Tell me if you encounter any other such problem. Thanks! --

5422: 4656: 4556: 4531: 4291: 4257: 3683: 3399: 2003:"Usernames that are not blatantly innapropriate (I.E., would not be blocked on site if reported to 1996: 1715: 766: 742: 704: 672: 175: 139: 116: 1719: 571: 5879: 5793: 5594: 5583: 5556: 5460: 5333:

in a previous section): at this point, the restriction needs to be discussed before it goes back

5231: 5156: 5046: 4976: 4935: 4841: 4739: 4667: 4623: 4506: 4455: 4395: 4333: 4157: 4092: 3985: 3802: 3751: 3687: 3517: 3472: 3343: 3275: 3206: 3202: 3138: 3084: 2940: 2873: 2664: 2634: 2452: 2408: 2336: 2272: 2212: 2162: 2086: 2026: 1938: 1862: 1821: 1742: 1692: 1577: 1391: 1287: 1243: 869: 447: 405: 254: 3598: 4526:

It's not standard practice. Merges should be announced on both the "from" and the "to" page. --

5883: 5661: 5618: 5563:

which couldn't really be misinterpreted as the user having an affiliation with the trademark.

5282:

can't keep saying "it should be a rule because it was a rule" in the face of heavy opposition.

5214: 5204: 2178:

their votes, or for one day only we do something different at the whim of the flowing masses.

836: 528: 492: 261: 241: 197: 2860:

might possibly be disallowed because that is a tradmark, but not a fan-type name like yours.

2829:

Do trademark restrictions apply to entities alone or products as well, like "Buick Century"?

5713: 5517: 4491: 3956: 3661: 2864: 2599: 1705: 1594: 1562: 1410: 1403: 1365: 1322: 1256: 430: 388: 316: 311: 821:

I have put it back in, it is good that you were bold, but I have reverted in the spirit of

498:

urlencode the name. As a longer-term fix, the name needs to be used outside such boxes. --

5892: 5891:

Yeah, that one I think was more sensible: at a glance, it looks just like plain "Jimbo".

5859: 5482: 5426: 5400: 5338: 4927: 4821: 4494:, since this is the page people interested in the policy are going to check. Consensus on 4046: 4026: 3747: 3743: 3570: 3326: 2766: 2702: 2327: 2251: 2074: 1616: 1587: 1554: 1418: 1012: 966: 925: 805: 594: 5780:

I dissent with that, and have noted so on the blocking admin's talk page. We also have a

1349:

Propose changing the guideline to read as follows: "Usernames that refer to or allude to

4091:

It is against our policy, but having such account does not violate the username policy.

3801:

I just hadn't heard of that one before. Perhaps you have a link to some related debate?

5657: 5564: 5513: 4802:

Contain personal information about people, such as a telephone number or street address

4719: 4652: 4583: 4552: 4527: 4430: 4313: 4287: 4244: 4022: 3678:. I'm not sure where this came from but it seems to me that the point is we don't like 3395: 2970:

Oh, okay I got it. Thanks. Someone else has also answered it in the talk page on RFCN.

2779: 2615: 2512: 2393: 2145: 2118: 2060: 2056: 2015: 2008: 1992: 1968: 1658: 1471: 1157: 1152: 1008: 1004: 832: 762: 738: 700: 668: 627: 622: 170: 111: 3380:. An edit summary of "see talk" and there's NOTHING on the talk page supporting this? 5831: 5769: 5721: 5717: 5614: 5587: 5453: 5375: 5360: 5266: 5224: 5149: 5139: 5111: 5080: 5042: 5031: 4904: 4761: 4732: 4727: 4723: 4710: 4705: 4697: 4596: 4587: 4571: 4499: 4495: 4470: 4448: 4439: 4435: 4375: 4326: 4322: 4317: 4252: 4219: 4126: 4056: 3932: 3906: 3890: 3863: 3846: 3786: 3735: 3722: 3645: 3623: 3460: 3437: 3381: 3043: 2619: 2580: 2563: 2548: 2536: 2516: 2448: 2437: 2397: 2377: 2303: 2197: 2180: 2155: 2133: 2102: 2079: 2004: 1925: 1910: 1891: 1851: 1809: 1768: 1754: 1735: 1723: 1685: 1673: 1570: 1486: 1460:

Usernames that refer to or allude to reproductive or excretory functions of the body.

1430: 1384: 1373: 1335: 1300: 1280: 1265: 1236: 1218: 1194: 1173: 1134: 1087: 1050:

Should the policy about names of notabile people read "Well-known" or notabile since

1033: 988: 949: 906: 889: 862: 845: 780: 600: 466: 442: 400: 157: 1808:, just in the wording. This has been discussed on the draft's talk page, as well as 589:

It is inappropriate to give an "expert" any sort of special treatment on Knowledge,

5789: 5785: 2059:

and generaly many pages of discussion. These are the ones I am trying to clarify.

1817: 1813: 5851: 5781: 5731: 5183: 5179: 4487: 3658: 3574: 3417: 2861: 2611: 2607: 2596: 1702: 1646: 1624: 1591: 1559: 1426: 1407: 1383:

I disagree that the username policy needs to creep further in this direction. -

1362: 1319: 1253: 1102:

Another question comes as what consitutes proof that User:John Doe or John Doe?

1082: 1054:

dictates not to equate the two? Also does this apply to fictional characters?

1051: 642: 590: 129: 53:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3844:

We don't allow advertising anywhere else, why would we allow it in a username?

4966:

decided to add it anyway. If anyone knows differently, let us know, though. --

4930:

is not such a big deal for things that everybody can do (unlike, say, writing

4498:, a page I hadn't even heard of before today, does not equal consensus here.-- 3739: 3612: 3602: 3448: 3023: 2971: 2914: 2762: 2323: 1354: 152: 3559:, and has zero contributions. Is there any way I can acquire this user name? 1701:

I agree that wider consensus should be reached before the policy is changed.

5570: 5396: 5304: 5126: 3010: 1422: 5391:

trademarks, there would be no legal issue to their use: see, for instance,

4054:

Every admin has to read that page, so I see no point in repeating it here.

2726: 4797:

Are defamatory or insulting to other people, groups, articles or processes

421: 3325:, or the likes). This seems to have been lost in the recent rewriting. 3249: 3176: 3113: 3059: 1358: 1315: 1252:

Where do you get the "breathing" prohibition? Nobody has suggested that.

535: 499: 900:

Seriously though, there was a recent discussion about just this here is

5105: 3657:

Yes, I think it's perfectly in line with the spam policies/guidelines.

3471:

We can fix such problems. I've added an exception note, please copyed.

2807: 1804:, with the aim to clean up the page, remove redundancies, and clarify. 1783: 1540: 570:

going to convince someone who has the expert written in his username? —

314:

character should be disallowed in usernames, like the @ symbol is?? --

332: 4877:

Are we worried that, in absence of this line, a user might choose,

3430:

Knowledge:Requests_for_comment/User_names/Renegade_cash@hotmail.com

3083:

Just because a policy has exceptions doesn't mean it's not policy.

2595:

We also lost the prohibition on trademarks - was that intentional?

3003: 2533:

What looks good on paper doesn't always work the best in real life

2211:

I've tweaked the relevant section. Does that help? Please copyed.

1501: 5297:

It is enough to refer to impersonation or promotion of companies.

4394:. It would seem that most of the SPA page is redundant, however. 4156:

Yes, this would seem to require some rewording to clear that up.

137:

Yes, autoarchiving is good, and a week is a good time limit. --

1590:

accusation, it wasn't the appropriate argument for me to make.

2499:

This username is my username and the username that I shall use

32: 3621:

It is important to have the date there, I support that edit.

1861:

Okay. Is the current version better? It feels a bit verbose.

441:

It appears the @ symbol is used as part of backend syntax...

4355:

a violation in policy. A merge of that is inappropriate. --

4926:(1) no. (2) yes, and (3) it serves to avert wikilawyering. 4325:

talk page. For that matter, why should we be expected to?--

719:

Usernames which imply a domain, web address or email adress

2981:

The "Inappropriate usernames" section can be ignored now.

237:

when RC-patrolling today, and this user's name broke the

3611:

Without objection here, I have edited the project page.

1607:

Knowledge:Do not disrupt Knowledge to illustrate a point

417: 5223:

mostly seen it used for capitalization issues anyway.--

3641: 3378: 1800:

Over a month ago a rewrite of this page was started at

901: 758: 664: 416:

Good point. However, I'm confused about one thing. The

380: 368: 302: 290: 232: 5127:

Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Ami--OMG TOO LONG!! <BLAM!: -->

5104:, nobody can create a name longer than 24 characters. 3966:

This excludes administrators who run adminbot accounts

3250: 3177: 3114: 3060: 536: 500: 4073:

I'm concerned about the wording here, in particular:

1504:

and then discuss whether the name should be allowed.

4392:"such accounts may warrant a bit of gentle scrutiny" 3734:

Likewise, every post you do is an advertisement for

3041:

I am restructuring my RFCN usage with that in mind.

2301:

What part of this policy is unrelated to usernames?

761:. It would be good to have more clear policy here. - 5882:too. He'd been told by someone to change his name. 4255:were to be changed to redirect to this policy. -- 1605:needs to remember the full title of the guideline: 1417:Just out of curiosity, how does this policy affect 4713:was useful to longtime editors, and they are they 4445:Sorry that this turned out longer than I intended. 3112:But if everyone claims to be an exception....? -- 1558:a hyperbolic and illogical argument by one user. 428:when setting user rights. Confusing, or what?? -- 4025:... which is this policy, ok never mind. Lol. 3416:(the link was hidden next to the archive links) 5712:was blocked because his name is too similar to 4373:I also object to the merge, it makes no sense. 1351:reproductive or excretory functions of the body 326:I had to urlencode the username here, as below: 4569:I don't see how there topics belong together. 3058:Only prospectively, or also retroactively? -- 2488:Rewrite of the inappropriate username criteria 2436:Are we proposing a merge into a single policy? 1552:The "breathing" and "sweating" thing was just 247:template when I left a note on his talk page. 4021:policy, anyway? Sounds like it should be at 3002:The username is intended by the user to show 1193:So taking a dictionary definition is OR now? 8: 1991:There has been a lot of controversy over at 1402:I posted a notice of this discussion at the 5559:but I can't see any issues with names like 3246:Knowledge:Requests for comment/Fenian Swine 1615:being that making pointed arguments is not 5300:Nuclear power in Canada is Clean and Safe. 4812:Are similar to those used by known vandals 4792:Harassing usernames include usernames that 4075:"....only exists to push a single opinion" 2923:Probably because it's hard to distinguish 886:Won't someone think of the scientologists! 192:User names with exclamation mark character 2727:"Can't sleep..", "_Guy," and "_on Wheels" 399:!@#$ %^&*()-+ in someone's username. 3930:Good then, I am going out for espresso. 2396:dealt with the Multiple Account Policy?? 24:Knowledge talk:Username policy/Archive 6 5203:to use redirects etc in the userspace. 4321:these pages don't necessarily read the 4249:wade through the entire username policy 658:Obfuscated e-mail addresses disallowed? 461: 420:symbol isn't allowed in usernames, yet 5078:THought that might be it. Thanks. :-) 3508:PattyM< 23:42, 5 April 2007 (NZST) 3377:Sorry for the foul language, but wtf. 2007:), are subject to community review at 51:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3018:Since one can not judge what another 1806:This is not a change in actual policy 823:Knowledge:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle 484:template "broke" on this name, while 307:but it breaks the welcomeg template. 7: 5213:I clearly need more coffee. *blush* 4881:, to reveal someone's personal info 4468:I somehow missed all this talk too. 4312:Apparently you missed the fact that 4045:I am pretty sure this is covered in 3391: 3240:I was under the impression the name 2800:There was a discussion about this... 5314:Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 5256:Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 5015:Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 4968:Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 4895:Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 4826:Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 3597:Every username in existence before 3009:The username is intended to defuse 2856:Under the old policy, they didn't. 1619:. The aim of WP:POINT is stopping 5792:who don't seem to be problematic. 5716:. This seems a little harsh, lets 5512:), a newbie whose name I put into 3674:John254 said in the edit summary, 151:7 days sounds good. Clear out the 31: 18:Knowledge talk:User account policy 4079:"Such accounts are not forbidden" 1334:"BucketOPuke" or "SirFartsAlot". 1147:Policy tweak: excretory functions 5500:Sony trademark vs dell trademark 4279:Knowledge:Single purpose account 3636:New change to promotional policy 3601:doesn't come under this policy. 3373:Policy change on email addresses 1372:I like it. It allows breathing. 638:Usernames that promote a company 310:Anyone else here think that the 36: 3410:Knowledge:Username_policy/Draft 1802:Knowledge:Username policy/Draft 1314:I'd also urge consideration of 5294:There are no trademark issues. 4316:is being merged here too, and 1172:to add farting as an example. 1: 5337:, not the other way around. 3342:Added a line, please copyed. 3244:objected to, in August 2005: 613:Impersonation of organisation 250:It doesn't seem to break the 2146:-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 2119:-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 2061:-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 2016:-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 1623:, not stopping discussion. 1277:equally as well to breathing 424:have to use it in the form " 168:I'll add a template then... 5393:United States trademark law 5098:MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist 4187:No to Merge with SPA Policy 1500:Depends, think of the game 565:What about usernames like " 5921: 5903:16:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 5887:14:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 5870:14:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 5838:14:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 5817:14:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 5776:14:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 5759:13:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 5725:13:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 5694:21:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC) 5665:21:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC) 5652:21:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC) 5622:21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC) 5602:03:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC) 5579:21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 5539:20:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 5493:20:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 5468:17:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 5437:16:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 5411:16:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 5382:16:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 5367:15:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 5349:15:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 5317:15:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 5273:13:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 5259:18:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5239:16:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5218:07:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5208:06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5193:06:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5164:05:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC) 5144:21:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5130:20:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5121:You might want to look at 5116:19:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5085:14:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5070:08:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5036:01:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5018:17:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 5000:15:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4971:15:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4959:15:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4920:15:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4898:15:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4865:15:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4829:15:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4780:16:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC) 4768:17:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC) 4747:10:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4691:09:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4661:09:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4647:08:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4612:19:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 4578:19:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 4561:04:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 4536:04:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 4514:03:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 4477:03:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 4463:03:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 4419:08:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4382:19:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 4365:18:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 4341:03:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 4296:02:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 4265:01:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 4235:18:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 4213:17:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 4181:08:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 4148:15:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC) 4133:14:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 4116:13:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 4086:13:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 4063:14:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 4037:12:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 4009:12:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 3980:12:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 3960:12:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 3939:15:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 3922:15:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 3897:14:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 3879:14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 3853:13:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 3826:13:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 3793:13:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 3775:13:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 3730:13:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 3711:08:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 3664:01:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 3652:01:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC) 3630:14:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 3616:14:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC) 3408:As well, the draft itself 2713:20:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC) 1490:22:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1480:22:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1434:22:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1413:21:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1396:19:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1379:19:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1368:19:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1341:19:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1325:19:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1306:20:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1292:19:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1271:19:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1259:19:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1248:19:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1224:19:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1210:19:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1200:19:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1189:19:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1179:18:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1166:18:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC) 1141:18:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 1124:17:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 1094:17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 1076:17:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 1040:17:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 1023:17:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 995:17:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 977:03:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 956:01:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC) 936:18:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 913:18:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 896:17:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 877:17:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 852:17:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 816:17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC) 787:14:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC) 771:14:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC) 747:15:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 732:15:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 709:15:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 694:15:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 677:15:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC) 652:12:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 631:12:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 607:13:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 584:02:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 473:14:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 452:13:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 435:13:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 410:13:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 393:13:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 321:13:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 182:02:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC) 164:14:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 147:14:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 133:04:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 123:04:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC) 5878:We've recently renamed a 3606:23:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC) 3578:03:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 3564:03:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC) 3541:12:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 3496:09:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 3467:04:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 3452:04:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 3441:04:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 3421:04:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 3404:04:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 3385:04:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 3367:09:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 3337:03:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC) 3299:11:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 3269:11:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 3230:11:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 3196:10:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 3162:10:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 3133:09:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 3108:07:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 3079:07:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 3050:02:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 3027:02:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 2975:15:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 2964:15:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 2918:15:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 2897:08:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 2867:22:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2851:22:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2815:00:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 2788:23:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2770:22:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2753:22:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2688:09:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC) 2658:08:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 2629:22:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2602:21:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2590:21:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2569:21:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2558:21:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2542:21:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2526:21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2476:08:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 2443:16:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2432:16:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2403:15:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2384:15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2360:15:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2331:15:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2320:"using multiple accounts" 2310:15:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2296:14:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2262:08:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 2236:08:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 2203:15:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2187:15:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2167:15:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2149:15:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2139:14:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2122:14:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2109:14:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2091:14:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2064:14:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2050:14:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2019:14:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 1977:14:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 1962:13:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 1932:13:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 1917:13:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 1897:13:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 1886:13:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 1857:13:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 1845:09:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 1791:22:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 1775:15:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 1760:15:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 1747:15:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 1729:15:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 1708:15:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 1697:15:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 1679:14:45, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 1667:04:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 1628:06:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 1597:04:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 1582:03:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 1565:03:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 1548:03:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 1526:01:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC) 555:07:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 519:07:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 5045:and ask the developers. 3742:health insurance, and a 3514:User talk:121.72.240.101 3502:Multiple Language Editor 593:applies just as much to 5172:Username disambiguation 4283:Knowledge:Sock puppetry 4247:); no one will have to 3640:I just noticed a change 3201:hence it's basically a 1151:Recent conversation at 713:A major reason why the 665:such a name get blocked 524:Okay, the problem with 426:User:Wikieditor1@enwiki 5303:Dan is a stubborn old 4932:how to crash Knowledge 4069:Single purpose account 2988:Fenian Swine precedent 2701:more important here. 2547:objections to this. -- 757:Another such name was 4490:should be decided on 3507:same user name? : --> 2614:) that are common on 49:of past discussions. 5291:So! Be it resolved: 619:User:Hillsong church 5423:Knowledge:Oversight 5041:Yes, there is. See 3323:User:OutlawAbortion 2992:Inappropriate names 2531:As the saying goes 2373:User account policy 1997:User:TortureIsWrong 1046:Notibility vs. fame 462:#Proposed_amendment 5609:I've just renamed 5561:User:I like google 3970:Ryan Postlethwaite 3590:grandfather policy 3584:Grandfather policy 3203:grandfather clause 2858:User:Buick Century 2831:BuickCenturyDriver 2733:BuickCenturyDriver 2633:I've replaced it. 1995:where a user name 1506:BuickCenturyDriver 1429:, and the like? -- 1104:BuickCenturyDriver 1056:BuickCenturyDriver 333:Matt+3%21%21%21+XL 5836: 5774: 5577: 5380: 5365: 5330:User:CountChocula 5271: 5195: 4883:in their username 4766: 4576: 4475: 4446: 4380: 4363: 4208: 4198:MortonDevonshire 4131: 4061: 3937: 3895: 3851: 3791: 3727: 3650: 3628: 3465: 3434:strong objections 3267: 3194: 3131: 3077: 3048: 2933:User:AAaaaaaaaaaa 2849: 2751: 2382: 2308: 2185: 2159: 2107: 2083: 1930: 1915: 1773: 1739: 1689: 1574: 1524: 1388: 1284: 1240: 1139: 1122: 1092: 1074: 1038: 993: 954: 911: 894: 850: 785: 722:Ryanpostlethwaite 684:Ryanpostlethwaite 605: 553: 517: 471: 162: 102: 101: 61: 60: 55:current talk page 22:(Redirected from 5912: 5900: 5867: 5830: 5813: 5811: 5809: 5807: 5805: 5768: 5755: 5753: 5751: 5749: 5747: 5714:User:Jimbo Wales 5690: 5688: 5686: 5684: 5682: 5648: 5646: 5644: 5642: 5640: 5598: 5592: 5576: 5573: 5567: 5533: 5532: 5531: 5525: 5524: 5523: 5490: 5464: 5458: 5434: 5408: 5374: 5359: 5346: 5265: 5235: 5229: 5189: 5177: 5160: 5154: 5137:particular. :-) 5066: 5064: 5062: 5060: 5058: 5024:Character cutoff 4996: 4994: 4992: 4990: 4988: 4955: 4953: 4951: 4949: 4947: 4916: 4909: 4861: 4859: 4857: 4855: 4853: 4760: 4743: 4737: 4687: 4685: 4683: 4681: 4679: 4643: 4641: 4639: 4637: 4635: 4608: 4601: 4594:. </rant: --> 4570: 4510: 4504: 4469: 4459: 4453: 4444: 4415: 4413: 4411: 4409: 4407: 4374: 4359: 4351:Being an SPA is 4337: 4331: 4260: 4231: 4224: 4211: 4207: 4205: 4199: 4193: 4177: 4175: 4173: 4171: 4169: 4125: 4112: 4110: 4108: 4106: 4104: 4055: 4034: 4005: 4003: 4001: 3999: 3997: 3931: 3918: 3911: 3889: 3875: 3868: 3845: 3822: 3820: 3818: 3816: 3814: 3785: 3771: 3769: 3767: 3765: 3763: 3721: 3707: 3705: 3703: 3701: 3699: 3644: 3622: 3537: 3535: 3533: 3531: 3529: 3492: 3490: 3488: 3486: 3484: 3459: 3392:#Revised version 3363: 3361: 3359: 3357: 3355: 3334: 3295: 3293: 3291: 3289: 3287: 3258: 3256: 3226: 3224: 3222: 3220: 3218: 3185: 3183: 3158: 3156: 3154: 3152: 3150: 3122: 3120: 3104: 3102: 3100: 3098: 3096: 3068: 3066: 3042: 2960: 2958: 2956: 2954: 2952: 2937:User:AAaaaaaaaaa 2893: 2891: 2889: 2887: 2885: 2847: 2833: 2810: 2749: 2735: 2710: 2684: 2682: 2680: 2678: 2676: 2654: 2652: 2650: 2648: 2646: 2472: 2470: 2468: 2466: 2464: 2428: 2426: 2424: 2422: 2420: 2376: 2356: 2354: 2352: 2350: 2348: 2302: 2292: 2290: 2288: 2286: 2284: 2258: 2232: 2230: 2228: 2226: 2224: 2179: 2157: 2101: 2081: 2046: 2044: 2042: 2040: 2038: 1958: 1956: 1954: 1952: 1950: 1924: 1909: 1882: 1880: 1878: 1876: 1874: 1841: 1839: 1837: 1835: 1833: 1786: 1767: 1737: 1687: 1572: 1543: 1522: 1508: 1419:double entendres 1386: 1282: 1238: 1133: 1120: 1106: 1086: 1072: 1058: 1032: 1020: 987: 974: 948: 933: 905: 888: 873: 867: 844: 813: 779: 648: 599: 544: 542: 533: 527: 508: 506: 497: 491: 465: 385: 384: 351:deleted contribs 335: 312:exclamation mark 306: 279:deleted contribs 259: 253: 246: 240: 236: 215:deleted contribs 180: 156: 142: 121: 88: 63: 62: 40: 39: 33: 27: 5920: 5919: 5915: 5914: 5913: 5911: 5910: 5909: 5896: 5863: 5854:. However, if 5834: 5803: 5801: 5799: 5797: 5795: 5772: 5745: 5743: 5741: 5739: 5737: 5706: 5680: 5678: 5676: 5674: 5672: 5638: 5636: 5634: 5632: 5630: 5596: 5588: 5571: 5568: 5529: 5528: 5527: 5521: 5520: 5519: 5486: 5462: 5454: 5430: 5404: 5378: 5363: 5342: 5269: 5247: 5233: 5225: 5185: 5174: 5158: 5150: 5056: 5054: 5052: 5050: 5048: 5026: 4986: 4984: 4982: 4980: 4978: 4945: 4943: 4941: 4939: 4937: 4918: 4914: 4905: 4851: 4849: 4847: 4845: 4843: 4788: 4764: 4741: 4733: 4677: 4675: 4673: 4671: 4669: 4633: 4631: 4629: 4627: 4625: 4610: 4606: 4597: 4592:I Don't Like it 4574: 4508: 4500: 4473: 4457: 4449: 4427: 4405: 4403: 4401: 4399: 4397: 4378: 4335: 4327: 4256: 4233: 4229: 4220: 4209: 4203: 4197: 4194: 4189: 4167: 4165: 4163: 4161: 4159: 4129: 4102: 4100: 4098: 4096: 4094: 4071: 4059: 4030: 4017:Why is that in 3995: 3993: 3991: 3989: 3987: 3947: 3935: 3920: 3916: 3907: 3893: 3877: 3873: 3864: 3849: 3812: 3810: 3808: 3806: 3804: 3789: 3761: 3759: 3757: 3755: 3753: 3725: 3697: 3695: 3693: 3691: 3689: 3672: 3648: 3638: 3626: 3586: 3549: 3527: 3525: 3523: 3521: 3519: 3504: 3482: 3480: 3478: 3476: 3474: 3463: 3375: 3353: 3351: 3349: 3347: 3345: 3330: 3319: 3285: 3283: 3281: 3279: 3277: 3266: 3216: 3214: 3212: 3210: 3208: 3193: 3148: 3146: 3144: 3142: 3140: 3130: 3094: 3092: 3090: 3088: 3086: 3076: 3046: 2983: 2950: 2948: 2946: 2944: 2942: 2907: 2883: 2881: 2879: 2877: 2875: 2843: 2827: 2808: 2785: 2778:Guy can be ok. 2745: 2729: 2706: 2674: 2672: 2670: 2668: 2666: 2644: 2642: 2640: 2638: 2636: 2627: 2588: 2579:prohibition. -- 2556: 2524: 2490: 2462: 2460: 2458: 2456: 2454: 2418: 2416: 2414: 2412: 2410: 2380: 2346: 2344: 2342: 2340: 2338: 2306: 2282: 2280: 2278: 2276: 2274: 2269: 2256: 2222: 2220: 2218: 2216: 2214: 2183: 2105: 2036: 2034: 2032: 2030: 2028: 1989: 1987:Proposed clause 1974: 1948: 1946: 1944: 1942: 1940: 1928: 1913: 1872: 1870: 1868: 1866: 1864: 1831: 1829: 1827: 1825: 1823: 1798: 1796:Revised version 1784: 1771: 1664: 1644: 1642:Arbitrary break 1541: 1518: 1477: 1441:User:FartyMcGee 1163: 1149: 1137: 1116: 1090: 1068: 1048: 1036: 1016: 991: 986:"potentially"? 970: 952: 929: 909: 892: 871: 863: 848: 809: 798: 783: 660: 644: 615: 603: 595:Stephen Hawking 563: 552: 531: 525: 516: 495: 489: 469: 336: 331: 330: 264: 257: 251: 244: 238: 200: 194: 169: 160: 138: 110: 107: 84: 37: 29: 28: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5918: 5916: 5908: 5907: 5906: 5905: 5876: 5875: 5874: 5873: 5872: 5843: 5842: 5841: 5840: 5832: 5824: 5823: 5822: 5821: 5820: 5819: 5770: 5762: 5761: 5710:User:Jimbo3374 5705: 5702: 5701: 5700: 5699: 5698: 5697: 5696: 5611:User:TheGoogle 5607: 5606: 5605: 5604: 5548: 5547: 5546: 5545: 5544: 5543: 5542: 5541: 5473: 5472: 5471: 5470: 5450:User:TheGoogle 5442: 5441: 5440: 5439: 5416: 5415: 5414: 5413: 5385: 5384: 5376: 5370: 5369: 5361: 5354: 5353: 5352: 5351: 5322: 5321: 5320: 5319: 5310: 5309: 5308: 5301: 5298: 5295: 5286: 5285: 5284: 5283: 5276: 5275: 5267: 5246: 5243: 5242: 5241: 5220: 5197: 5196: 5173: 5170: 5169: 5168: 5167: 5166: 5133: 5132: 5090: 5089: 5088: 5087: 5073: 5072: 5025: 5022: 5021: 5020: 5009: 5008: 5007: 5006: 5005: 5004: 5003: 5002: 4962: 4961: 4923: 4922: 4912: 4891: 4890: 4889: 4886: 4868: 4867: 4817: 4816: 4815: 4814: 4809: 4804: 4799: 4787: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4771: 4770: 4762: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4731:information.-- 4619: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4604: 4572: 4564: 4563: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4480: 4479: 4471: 4426: 4423: 4422: 4421: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4376: 4368: 4367: 4357:badlydrawnjeff 4349: 4348: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4258:John Broughton 4238: 4237: 4227: 4188: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4127: 4119: 4118: 4070: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4057: 4051: 4050: 4042: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4012: 4011: 3982: 3946: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3933: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3914: 3900: 3899: 3891: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3881: 3871: 3856: 3855: 3847: 3841: 3840: 3831: 3830: 3829: 3828: 3796: 3795: 3787: 3780: 3779: 3778: 3777: 3723: 3682:. If we had a 3671: 3670:Spam usernames 3668: 3667: 3666: 3646: 3637: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3624: 3609: 3608: 3585: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3548: 3547:Inactive User? 3545: 3544: 3543: 3503: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3469: 3461: 3455: 3454: 3444: 3443: 3424: 3423: 3406: 3374: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3318: 3315: 3314: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3308: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3260: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3232: 3187: 3165: 3164: 3124: 3081: 3070: 3053: 3052: 3044: 3038: 3037: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3015: 3014: 3007: 2990:overrides the 2982: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2967: 2966: 2929:User:573469574 2925:User:573489574 2906: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2826: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2783: 2773: 2772: 2728: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2722: 2721: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2693: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2623: 2584: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2552: 2520: 2489: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2447:Yes. See also 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2378: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2313: 2312: 2304: 2268: 2265: 2239: 2238: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2190: 2189: 2181: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2151: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2103: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2066: 1988: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1972: 1926: 1920: 1919: 1911: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1797: 1794: 1778: 1777: 1769: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1662: 1643: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1601:Truly, truly, 1586:Sorry for the 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1493: 1492: 1475: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1451: 1437: 1436: 1415: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1381: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1328: 1327: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1161: 1148: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1135: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1097: 1096: 1088: 1047: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1034: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1009:User:Ghanarhea 998: 997: 989: 982: 981: 980: 979: 959: 958: 950: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 916: 915: 907: 898: 890: 882: 881: 880: 879: 855: 854: 846: 841:WP:IDONTLIKEIT 827: 826: 797: 791: 790: 789: 781: 774: 773: 755: 754: 753: 752: 751: 750: 749: 659: 656: 655: 654: 623:Bobbie Houston 614: 611: 610: 609: 601: 562: 559: 558: 557: 546: 510: 478: 477: 476: 475: 467: 455: 454: 438: 437: 413: 412: 328: 327: 193: 190: 189: 188: 187: 186: 185: 184: 158: 149: 140:John Broughton 106: 103: 100: 99: 94: 89: 82: 77: 72: 69: 59: 58: 41: 30: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5917: 5904: 5901: 5899: 5894: 5890: 5889: 5888: 5885: 5881: 5877: 5871: 5868: 5866: 5861: 5857: 5853: 5849: 5848: 5847: 5846: 5845: 5844: 5839: 5835: 5828: 5827: 5826: 5825: 5818: 5815: 5814: 5791: 5787: 5783: 5779: 5778: 5777: 5773: 5766: 5765: 5764: 5763: 5760: 5757: 5756: 5733: 5729: 5728: 5727: 5726: 5723: 5719: 5715: 5711: 5703: 5695: 5692: 5691: 5668: 5667: 5666: 5663: 5659: 5655: 5654: 5653: 5650: 5649: 5626: 5625: 5624: 5623: 5620: 5616: 5615:User:HighInBC 5612: 5603: 5600: 5599: 5593: 5591: 5585: 5582: 5581: 5580: 5574: 5566: 5562: 5558: 5554: 5550: 5549: 5540: 5537: 5535: 5534: 5515: 5511: 5508: 5505: 5501: 5496: 5495: 5494: 5491: 5489: 5484: 5479: 5478: 5477: 5476: 5475: 5474: 5469: 5466: 5465: 5459: 5457: 5451: 5446: 5445: 5444: 5443: 5438: 5435: 5433: 5428: 5424: 5420: 5419: 5418: 5417: 5412: 5409: 5407: 5402: 5398: 5394: 5389: 5388: 5387: 5386: 5383: 5379: 5372: 5371: 5368: 5364: 5356: 5355: 5350: 5347: 5345: 5340: 5336: 5331: 5326: 5325: 5324: 5323: 5318: 5315: 5311: 5306: 5302: 5299: 5296: 5293: 5292: 5290: 5289: 5288: 5287: 5280: 5279: 5278: 5277: 5274: 5270: 5263: 5262: 5261: 5260: 5257: 5253: 5244: 5240: 5237: 5236: 5230: 5228: 5221: 5219: 5216: 5212: 5211: 5210: 5209: 5206: 5202: 5194: 5191: 5188: 5181: 5176: 5175: 5171: 5165: 5162: 5161: 5155: 5153: 5147: 5146: 5145: 5142: 5141: 5135: 5134: 5131: 5128: 5124: 5120: 5119: 5118: 5117: 5114: 5113: 5107: 5103: 5099: 5095: 5086: 5083: 5082: 5077: 5076: 5075: 5074: 5071: 5068: 5067: 5044: 5040: 5039: 5038: 5037: 5034: 5033: 5023: 5019: 5016: 5011: 5010: 5001: 4998: 4997: 4974: 4973: 4972: 4969: 4964: 4963: 4960: 4957: 4956: 4933: 4929: 4925: 4924: 4921: 4917: 4910: 4908: 4901: 4900: 4899: 4896: 4892: 4887: 4884: 4880: 4879:in good faith 4876: 4875: 4872: 4871: 4870: 4869: 4866: 4863: 4862: 4838: 4833: 4832: 4831: 4830: 4827: 4823: 4813: 4810: 4808: 4805: 4803: 4800: 4798: 4795: 4794: 4793: 4790: 4789: 4785: 4781: 4778: 4773: 4772: 4769: 4765: 4758: 4757: 4748: 4745: 4744: 4738: 4736: 4729: 4725: 4721: 4716: 4712: 4707: 4703: 4699: 4694: 4693: 4692: 4689: 4688: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4658: 4654: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4645: 4644: 4621: 4620: 4613: 4609: 4602: 4600: 4593: 4589: 4585: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4575: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4562: 4558: 4554: 4549: 4545: 4544: 4537: 4533: 4529: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4515: 4512: 4511: 4505: 4503: 4497: 4493: 4489: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4478: 4474: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4461: 4460: 4454: 4452: 4441: 4437: 4432: 4425:Account stuff 4424: 4420: 4417: 4416: 4393: 4389: 4388: 4383: 4379: 4372: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4366: 4362: 4358: 4354: 4350: 4342: 4339: 4338: 4332: 4330: 4324: 4319: 4315: 4311: 4310: 4309: 4308: 4307: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4297: 4293: 4289: 4284: 4281:is closer to 4280: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4266: 4263: 4259: 4254: 4250: 4246: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4236: 4232: 4225: 4223: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4214: 4206: 4201: 4200: 4186: 4182: 4179: 4178: 4155: 4154: 4149: 4146: 4145:Siobhan Hansa 4142: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4134: 4130: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4120: 4117: 4114: 4113: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4084: 4083:Siobhan Hansa 4080: 4076: 4068: 4064: 4060: 4053: 4052: 4048: 4044: 4043: 4038: 4035: 4033: 4028: 4024: 4020: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4010: 4007: 4006: 3983: 3981: 3978: 3974: 3971: 3967: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3958: 3953: 3952: 3944: 3940: 3936: 3929: 3928: 3923: 3919: 3912: 3910: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3898: 3894: 3886: 3885: 3880: 3876: 3869: 3867: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3854: 3850: 3843: 3842: 3837: 3833: 3832: 3827: 3824: 3823: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3797: 3794: 3790: 3782: 3781: 3776: 3773: 3772: 3749: 3745: 3741: 3738:, as well as 3737: 3736:BC Recordings 3733: 3732: 3731: 3726: 3719: 3715: 3714: 3713: 3712: 3709: 3708: 3685: 3684:User:Cocacola 3681: 3677: 3669: 3665: 3662: 3660: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3649: 3643:, I like it. 3642: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3617: 3614: 3607: 3604: 3600: 3596: 3595: 3594: 3591: 3583: 3579: 3576: 3572: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3565: 3562: 3561:74.225.52.253 3558: 3554: 3546: 3542: 3539: 3538: 3515: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3501: 3497: 3494: 3493: 3470: 3468: 3464: 3457: 3456: 3453: 3450: 3446: 3445: 3442: 3439: 3435: 3431: 3426: 3425: 3422: 3419: 3415: 3411: 3407: 3405: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3383: 3379: 3372: 3368: 3365: 3364: 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3335: 3333: 3328: 3324: 3317:POV usernames 3316: 3300: 3297: 3296: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3265: 3264: 3257: 3255: 3254: 3247: 3243: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3231: 3228: 3227: 3204: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3192: 3191: 3184: 3182: 3181: 3173: 3169: 3168: 3167: 3166: 3163: 3160: 3159: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3129: 3128: 3121: 3119: 3118: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3106: 3105: 3082: 3080: 3075: 3074: 3067: 3065: 3064: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3051: 3047: 3040: 3039: 3034: 3033: 3028: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3016: 3012: 3008: 3005: 3001: 3000: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2993: 2989: 2980: 2976: 2973: 2969: 2968: 2965: 2962: 2961: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2916: 2912: 2904: 2898: 2895: 2894: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2865: 2863: 2859: 2855: 2854: 2853: 2852: 2846: 2841: 2837: 2832: 2824: 2816: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2803: 2799: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2789: 2786: 2781: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2771: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2748: 2743: 2739: 2734: 2714: 2711: 2709: 2704: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2689: 2686: 2685: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2656: 2655: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2626: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2600: 2598: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2587: 2582: 2570: 2567: 2566: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2555: 2550: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2540: 2539: 2534: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2523: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2507: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2487: 2477: 2474: 2473: 2450: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2441: 2440: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2430: 2429: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2401: 2400: 2395: 2391: 2390: 2385: 2381: 2374: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2361: 2358: 2357: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2329: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2311: 2307: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2294: 2293: 2266: 2264: 2263: 2259: 2253: 2247: 2243: 2237: 2234: 2233: 2210: 2209: 2204: 2201: 2200: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2188: 2184: 2176: 2175: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2152: 2150: 2147: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2137: 2136: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2123: 2120: 2116: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2106: 2098: 2097: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2076: 2072: 2067: 2065: 2062: 2058: 2053: 2052: 2051: 2048: 2047: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2017: 2012: 2010: 2006: 2001: 1998: 1994: 1986: 1978: 1975: 1970: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1960: 1959: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1929: 1922: 1921: 1918: 1914: 1906: 1905: 1898: 1895: 1894: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1884: 1883: 1860: 1859: 1858: 1855: 1854: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1843: 1842: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1795: 1793: 1792: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1776: 1772: 1765: 1761: 1758: 1757: 1752: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1727: 1726: 1721: 1717: 1716:User:IPassGas 1713: 1709: 1706: 1704: 1700: 1699: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1677: 1676: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1665: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1648: 1641: 1629: 1626: 1622: 1618: 1614: 1613: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1595: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1563: 1561: 1557: 1556: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1535: 1534: 1527: 1521: 1516: 1512: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1491: 1488: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1478: 1473: 1461: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1452: 1450: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1442: 1435: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1414: 1411: 1409: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1389: 1382: 1380: 1377: 1376: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1366: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1353:, to include 1352: 1348: 1347: 1342: 1339: 1338: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1326: 1323: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1307: 1304: 1303: 1297: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1278: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1269: 1268: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1257: 1255: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1233: 1232: 1225: 1222: 1221: 1215: 1211: 1208: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1198: 1197: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1187: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1177: 1176: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1167: 1164: 1159: 1154: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1131: 1130: 1125: 1119: 1114: 1110: 1105: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1095: 1091: 1084: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1071: 1066: 1062: 1057: 1053: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1030: 1029: 1024: 1021: 1019: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 996: 992: 984: 983: 978: 975: 973: 968: 963: 962: 961: 960: 957: 953: 945: 944: 937: 934: 932: 927: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 914: 910: 903: 899: 897: 893: 887: 884: 883: 878: 875: 874: 868: 866: 859: 858: 857: 856: 853: 849: 842: 838: 834: 829: 828: 824: 820: 819: 818: 817: 814: 812: 807: 803: 795: 792: 788: 784: 776: 775: 772: 768: 764: 760: 756: 748: 744: 740: 735: 734: 733: 730: 726: 723: 720: 716: 712: 711: 710: 706: 702: 697: 696: 695: 692: 688: 685: 681: 680: 679: 678: 674: 670: 666: 657: 653: 650: 647: 641: 639: 635: 634: 633: 632: 629: 624: 620: 612: 608: 604: 596: 592: 588: 587: 586: 585: 581: 577: 573: 568: 560: 556: 551: 550: 543: 541: 540: 530: 523: 522: 521: 520: 515: 514: 507: 505: 504: 494: 487: 483: 474: 470: 463: 459: 458: 457: 456: 453: 450: 448: 446: 445: 440: 439: 436: 433: 432: 427: 423: 419: 415: 414: 411: 408: 406: 404: 403: 397: 396: 395: 394: 391: 390: 382: 379: 376: 373: 370: 367: 364: 361: 358: 357:nuke contribs 355: 352: 349: 346: 343: 340: 334: 325: 324: 323: 322: 319: 318: 313: 308: 304: 301: 298: 295: 292: 289: 286: 283: 280: 277: 274: 271: 268: 263: 256: 248: 243: 234: 231: 228: 225: 222: 219: 216: 213: 210: 207: 204: 199: 191: 183: 179: 178: 174: 173: 167: 166: 165: 161: 154: 150: 148: 145: 141: 136: 135: 134: 131: 127: 126: 125: 124: 120: 119: 115: 114: 104: 98: 95: 93: 90: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 73: 70: 68: 65: 64: 56: 52: 48: 47: 42: 35: 34: 25: 19: 5897: 5884:Secretlondon 5864: 5855: 5794: 5790:User:Jimbo79 5786:User:Jimbo68 5736: 5707: 5671: 5662:Secretlondon 5629: 5619:Secretlondon 5608: 5595: 5589: 5552: 5518: 5506: 5487: 5461: 5455: 5431: 5405: 5343: 5334: 5248: 5232: 5226: 5215:Secretlondon 5205:Secretlondon 5200: 5198: 5186: 5157: 5151: 5138: 5110: 5101: 5096:to the page 5093: 5091: 5079: 5047: 5030: 5027: 4977: 4936: 4906: 4882: 4878: 4842: 4836: 4818: 4811: 4806: 4801: 4796: 4791: 4740: 4734: 4714: 4701: 4668: 4624: 4598: 4547: 4507: 4501: 4456: 4450: 4428: 4396: 4391: 4352: 4334: 4328: 4248: 4221: 4196: 4190: 4158: 4093: 4078: 4077:followed by 4074: 4072: 4031: 4018: 3986: 3965: 3954: 3949: 3948: 3908: 3865: 3835: 3803: 3752: 3717: 3688: 3679: 3675: 3673: 3639: 3610: 3589: 3587: 3550: 3518: 3512:Answered on 3505: 3473: 3433: 3376: 3344: 3331: 3320: 3276: 3262: 3252: 3251: 3241: 3207: 3189: 3179: 3178: 3171: 3139: 3126: 3116: 3115: 3085: 3072: 3062: 3061: 3019: 2985: 2984: 2941: 2910: 2908: 2874: 2828: 2806: 2805: 2730: 2707: 2665: 2635: 2612:WP:U#Illness 2577: 2564: 2537: 2532: 2505: 2494: 2491: 2453: 2438: 2409: 2398: 2372: 2337: 2273: 2270: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2213: 2198: 2134: 2114: 2070: 2027: 2013: 2002: 1990: 1939: 1892: 1863: 1852: 1822: 1818:village pump 1805: 1799: 1782: 1781: 1779: 1755: 1724: 1720:User:IFarted 1674: 1654: 1649:just posted 1645: 1620: 1611: 1610: 1602: 1553: 1539: 1538: 1468: 1459: 1453: 1447: 1438: 1427:inside jokes 1404:Village Pump 1374: 1350: 1336: 1301: 1276: 1266: 1219: 1217:either way. 1195: 1174: 1150: 1049: 1017: 971: 930: 885: 870: 864: 810: 801: 799: 796:inflammatory 793: 718: 714: 661: 645: 637: 636: 616: 566: 564: 548: 538: 537: 512: 502: 501: 485: 481: 479: 443: 429: 401: 387: 377: 371: 365: 359: 353: 347: 341: 329: 315: 309: 299: 293: 287: 281: 275: 269: 262:Matt 3!!! XL 249: 229: 223: 217: 211: 205: 198:Matt 3!!! XL 195: 176: 171: 117: 112: 108: 85: 50: 44: 5880:User:Jjimbo 5852:Jimbo Wales 5782:User:Jimbo3 5732:User:Wafulz 5584:User:Google 5557:User:Google 5178:moved from 4893:Regards, -- 3957:Kim Bruning 2802:click here! 2608:WP:U#Random 1647:User:Alison 794:Potentially 759:not blocked 431:sunstar net 389:sunstar net 317:sunstar net 43:This is an 5245:Trademarks 4786:Harassment 3748:novel idea 3744:video game 3740:Blue Cross 3599:2005-12-08 2825:Trademarks 2392:I thought 2252:Mel Etitis 1621:disruption 1423:neologisms 1355:flatulence 1207:The Behnam 1186:The Behnam 837:WP:ILIKEIT 375:block user 369:filter log 297:block user 291:filter log 260:template: 227:block user 221:page moves 5708:Recently 5498:example, 5397:Trademark 3951:accounts. 3945:Adminship 3557:Talk Page 3553:User Page 3414:talk page 3412:and its 3396:SpuriousQ 3172:identical 3011:prejudice 2780:Flyguy649 2267:And also, 1969:Flyguy649 1659:Flyguy649 1603:everybody 1472:Flyguy649 1158:Flyguy649 763:SpuriousQ 739:SpuriousQ 701:SpuriousQ 669:SpuriousQ 628:Halsteadk 381:block log 303:block log 255:userlinks 233:block log 105:Archiving 97:Archive 8 92:Archive 7 86:Archive 6 80:Archive 5 75:Archive 4 67:Archive 1 5722:LukeSurl 5590:Dycedarg 5510:contribs 5456:Dycedarg 5227:Dycedarg 5152:Dycedarg 5140:Hersfold 5112:Hersfold 5106:(Source) 5081:Hersfold 5032:Hersfold 4928:WP:BEANS 4907:CASCADIA 4822:WP:BEANS 4777:Picaroon 4735:Dycedarg 4599:CASCADIA 4502:Dycedarg 4451:Dycedarg 4329:Dycedarg 4222:CASCADIA 4047:WP:ADMIN 3977:contribs 3909:CASCADIA 3905:Indeed. 3866:CASCADIA 3571:WP:USURP 3438:Nardman1 3382:Nardman1 2994:section. 2905:Question 2845:odometer 2840:contribs 2784:contribs 2747:odometer 2742:contribs 2625:Contribs 2586:Contribs 2565:Cascadia 2554:Contribs 2538:Cascadia 2522:Contribs 2509:contribs 2439:Cascadia 2399:Cascadia 2199:Cascadia 2135:Cascadia 2075:brownian 1973:contribs 1893:Cascadia 1853:Cascadia 1816:and the 1756:Cascadia 1725:Cascadia 1675:Cascadia 1663:contribs 1617:WP:POINT 1588:WP:POINT 1555:WP:POINT 1520:odometer 1515:contribs 1487:Aarktica 1476:contribs 1431:Aarktica 1375:Cascadia 1359:vomiting 1337:Cascadia 1316:vomiting 1302:Cascadia 1267:Cascadia 1220:Cascadia 1196:Cascadia 1175:Cascadia 1162:contribs 1118:odometer 1113:contribs 1070:odometer 1065:contribs 865:Dycedarg 835:becomes 725:contribs 687:contribs 580:contribs 567:Anytopic 561:"expert" 529:welcomeg 493:welcomeg 444:Cascadia 422:Stewards 402:Cascadia 345:contribs 273:contribs 242:welcomeg 209:contribs 5658:WP:BITE 5514:WP:RFCN 4837:worried 4720:WP:SOCK 4584:WP:RFCN 4431:WP:SOCK 4314:WP:SOCK 4245:WP:SOCK 4023:WP:SOCK 3020:intends 2759:We have 2616:WP:RFCN 2513:WP:RFCN 2394:WP:SOCK 2158:HAIRBOY 2082:HAIRBOY 2057:WP:RFCN 2009:WP:RFCN 1993:WP:RFCN 1738:HAIRBOY 1688:HAIRBOY 1573:HAIRBOY 1387:HAIRBOY 1283:HAIRBOY 1239:HAIRBOY 1007:. See 1005:WP:BITE 833:WP:RFCN 572:KNcyu38 153:cobwebs 46:archive 5856:anyone 5718:WP:AGF 5553:per se 5522:Valley 5100:, and 5094:.{24,} 5043:WP:BUG 4728:WP:SPA 4726:, and 4724:WP:DOP 4711:WP:DOP 4706:WP:DOP 4700:is an 4698:WP:SPA 4653:bainer 4588:WP:AMA 4553:bainer 4528:bainer 4496:WP:LAP 4440:WP:DOP 4436:WP:SPA 4323:WP:LAP 4318:WP:DOP 4288:bainer 4253:WP:SPA 3968:????? 3718:MegaCo 3659:RJASE1 3575:Shenme 3418:Shenme 3036:close. 2862:RJASE1 2597:RJASE1 2449:WP:LAP 2071:spirit 2005:WP:AIV 1810:WP:LAP 1703:RJASE1 1625:Shenme 1609:. The 1592:RJASE1 1560:RJASE1 1408:RJASE1 1363:RJASE1 1320:RJASE1 1254:RJASE1 1052:policy 902:a link 802:claims 177:scribe 130:Shenme 118:scribe 5898:juice 5893:Mango 5865:juice 5860:Mango 5796:: --> 5704:Jimbo 5569:(aka 5488:juice 5483:Mango 5432:juice 5427:Mango 5406:juice 5401:Mango 5344:juice 5339:Mango 5102:voilá 5049:: --> 4979:: --> 4938:: --> 4915:Trail 4844:: --> 4702:essay 4670:: --> 4626:: --> 4607:Trail 4398:: --> 4230:Trail 4160:: --> 4095:: --> 4032:juice 4027:Mango 3988:: --> 3917:Trail 3874:Trail 3805:: --> 3754:: --> 3690:: --> 3613:patsw 3603:patsw 3520:: --> 3475:: --> 3449:Wooyi 3346:: --> 3332:juice 3327:Mango 3278:: --> 3209:: --> 3141:: --> 3087:: --> 3024:patsw 3004:irony 2972:Wooyi 2943:: --> 2935:from 2931:, or 2927:from 2915:Wooyi 2876:: --> 2763:Conti 2708:juice 2703:Mango 2667:: --> 2637:: --> 2511:) to 2455:: --> 2411:: --> 2339:: --> 2324:Conti 2275:: --> 2215:: --> 2115:Allow 2029:: --> 1941:: --> 1865:: --> 1824:: --> 1814:WP:AN 1612:point 1502:Craps 1018:juice 1013:Mango 972:juice 967:Mango 931:juice 926:Mango 811:juice 806:Mango 486:other 16:< 5833:InBC 5812:< 5788:and 5771:InBC 5572:Wimt 5565:Will 5530:city 5504:talk 5395:and 5377:InBC 5362:InBC 5305:Fool 5268:InBC 5254:. -- 5252:here 5180:WP:U 5123:this 5065:< 4995:< 4954:< 4860:< 4763:InBC 4715:only 4686:< 4657:talk 4642:< 4573:InBC 4557:talk 4548:name 4532:talk 4492:WT:U 4488:WP:U 4472:InBC 4438:and 4414:< 4377:InBC 4361:talk 4292:talk 4262:(♫♫) 4176:< 4128:InBC 4111:< 4058:InBC 4019:this 4004:< 3973:talk 3934:InBC 3892:InBC 3848:InBC 3839:not. 3821:< 3788:InBC 3770:< 3724:InBC 3706:< 3680:spam 3647:InBC 3625:InBC 3588:The 3569:See 3536:< 3491:< 3462:InBC 3400:talk 3390:See 3362:< 3294:< 3263:HIST 3225:< 3190:HIST 3157:< 3127:HIST 3103:< 3073:HIST 3045:InBC 2986:The 2959:< 2892:< 2836:Honk 2738:Honk 2683:< 2653:< 2620:Nick 2610:and 2581:Nick 2549:Nick 2517:Nick 2503:talk 2471:< 2427:< 2379:InBC 2355:< 2318:The 2305:InBC 2291:< 2257:Talk 2231:< 2182:InBC 2104:InBC 2045:< 1957:< 1927:InBC 1912:InBC 1881:< 1840:< 1770:InBC 1651:here 1511:Honk 1357:and 1153:RFCN 1136:InBC 1109:Honk 1089:InBC 1083:WP:N 1061:Honk 1035:InBC 990:InBC 951:InBC 908:InBC 891:InBC 847:InBC 782:InBC 767:talk 743:talk 729:talk 705:talk 691:talk 673:talk 617:Hi, 602:InBC 591:WP:V 576:talk 549:HIST 513:HIST 482:this 468:InBC 460:See 363:logs 339:talk 285:logs 267:talk 203:talk 159:InBC 144:(♫♫) 5613:as 5425:. 5201:not 5184:Max 4934:). 4353:not 4251:if 4204:Yo 3836:are 3555:or 3394:. - 3253:Ben 3242:was 3205:). 3180:Ben 3117:Ben 3063:Ben 2495:not 1718:or 1449:to: 1361:". 667:. - 643:Max 539:Ben 503:Ben 172:WjB 113:WjB 5784:, 5754:te 5752:ai 5750:hw 5748:et 5746:tl 5744:os 5740:an 5738:Ry 5734:. 5689:te 5687:ai 5685:hw 5683:et 5681:tl 5679:os 5675:an 5673:Ry 5647:te 5645:ai 5643:hw 5641:et 5639:tl 5637:os 5633:an 5631:Ry 5335:in 5312:-- 5190:em 5182:-- 5013:-- 4885:!? 4722:, 4659:) 4559:) 4551:-- 4534:) 4447:-- 4294:) 4286:-- 4210:· 3750:. 3728:) 3516:. 3436:. 3402:) 2939:. 2911:my 2842:, 2838:, 2809:Ed 2804:-- 2744:, 2740:, 2622:—/ 2583:—/ 2551:—/ 2519:—/ 2451:. 2375:? 2260:) 2165:) 2089:) 1812:, 1785:Ed 1745:) 1695:) 1580:) 1542:Ed 1517:, 1513:, 1425:, 1421:, 1406:. 1394:) 1290:) 1246:) 1115:, 1111:, 1067:, 1063:, 904:. 839:, 769:) 745:) 707:) 675:) 649:em 582:) 578:• 532:}} 526:{{ 496:}} 490:{{ 386:-- 258:}} 252:{{ 245:}} 239:{{ 155:. 71:← 5810:t 5808:n 5806:a 5804:i 5802:d 5800:a 5798:R 5742:P 5677:P 5635:P 5597:ж 5575:) 5526:2 5507:· 5502:( 5463:ж 5307:. 5234:ж 5187:S 5159:ж 5063:t 5061:n 5059:a 5057:i 5055:d 5053:a 5051:R 4993:t 4991:n 4989:a 4987:i 4985:d 4983:a 4981:R 4952:t 4950:n 4948:a 4946:i 4944:d 4942:a 4940:R 4911:/ 4858:t 4856:n 4854:a 4852:i 4850:d 4848:a 4846:R 4742:ж 4684:t 4682:n 4680:a 4678:i 4676:d 4674:a 4672:R 4655:( 4640:t 4638:n 4636:a 4634:i 4632:d 4630:a 4628:R 4603:/ 4555:( 4530:( 4509:ж 4458:ж 4412:t 4410:n 4408:a 4406:i 4404:d 4402:a 4400:R 4336:ж 4290:( 4226:/ 4174:t 4172:n 4170:a 4168:i 4166:d 4164:a 4162:R 4109:t 4107:n 4105:a 4103:i 4101:d 4099:a 4097:R 4002:t 4000:n 3998:a 3996:i 3994:d 3992:a 3990:R 3975:/ 3913:/ 3870:/ 3819:t 3817:n 3815:a 3813:i 3811:d 3809:a 3807:R 3768:t 3766:n 3764:a 3762:i 3760:d 3758:a 3756:R 3720:( 3704:t 3702:n 3700:a 3698:i 3696:d 3694:a 3692:R 3534:t 3532:n 3530:a 3528:i 3526:d 3524:a 3522:R 3489:t 3487:n 3485:a 3483:i 3481:d 3479:a 3477:R 3398:( 3360:t 3358:n 3356:a 3354:i 3352:d 3350:a 3348:R 3292:t 3290:n 3288:a 3286:i 3284:d 3282:a 3280:R 3259:/ 3223:t 3221:n 3219:a 3217:i 3215:d 3213:a 3211:R 3186:/ 3155:t 3153:n 3151:a 3149:i 3147:d 3145:a 3143:R 3123:/ 3101:t 3099:n 3097:a 3095:i 3093:d 3091:a 3089:R 3069:/ 3013:. 3006:. 2957:t 2955:n 2953:a 2951:i 2949:d 2947:a 2945:R 2890:t 2888:n 2886:a 2884:i 2882:d 2880:a 2878:R 2848:) 2834:( 2767:✉ 2765:| 2750:) 2736:( 2681:t 2679:n 2677:a 2675:i 2673:d 2671:a 2669:R 2651:t 2649:n 2647:a 2645:i 2643:d 2641:a 2639:R 2506:· 2501:( 2469:t 2467:n 2465:a 2463:i 2461:d 2459:a 2457:R 2425:t 2423:n 2421:a 2419:i 2417:d 2415:a 2413:R 2353:t 2351:n 2349:a 2347:i 2345:d 2343:a 2341:R 2328:✉ 2326:| 2289:t 2287:n 2285:a 2283:i 2281:d 2279:a 2277:R 2254:( 2229:t 2227:n 2225:a 2223:i 2221:d 2219:a 2217:R 2163:☎ 2161:( 2156:C 2087:☎ 2085:( 2080:C 2043:t 2041:n 2039:a 2037:i 2035:d 2033:a 2031:R 1955:t 1953:n 1951:a 1949:i 1947:d 1945:a 1943:R 1879:t 1877:n 1875:a 1873:i 1871:d 1869:a 1867:R 1838:t 1836:n 1834:a 1832:i 1830:d 1828:a 1826:R 1743:☎ 1741:( 1736:C 1693:☎ 1691:( 1686:C 1578:☎ 1576:( 1571:C 1523:) 1509:( 1392:☎ 1390:( 1385:C 1288:☎ 1286:( 1281:C 1244:☎ 1242:( 1237:C 1121:) 1107:( 1073:) 1059:( 872:ж 825:. 765:( 741:( 737:- 727:/ 715:@ 703:( 699:- 689:/ 671:( 646:S 574:( 545:/ 509:/ 418:@ 383:) 378:· 372:· 366:· 360:· 354:· 348:· 342:· 337:( 305:) 300:· 294:· 288:· 282:· 276:· 270:· 265:( 235:) 230:· 224:· 218:· 212:· 206:· 201:( 57:. 26:)

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

Knowledge

talk:User account policy/Archive 6 - Knowledge

Index