45:, in the next day or so I'm going to add a list of nominations that are 90+ days old. Would it be possible to add a third line to the chart, showing the number of such nominations, and would there be a straightforward and consistent way of charting the progress? From what I can tell, it should be fairly simpleâlook at the daily report of "Old nominations," look at the number of 90+ day old nominations, manually subtract those that are on review/hold/2nd opinion, and then perhaps adjust for the fact that the report is at 1 a.m. rather than midnight. But please let me know if this would be more complicated than it sounds. --
733:
who/what/where/when/why), and partly from without (I'll spot-check a few RS on the topic, possibly including some not cited in the article, and see if there are any areas that they treat as important which are unexplorer or underexplored in the article). It's a lot easier for certain kinds of subjects that are usually structured in a fairly formulaic way (e.g. articles about songs will usually have sections covering the composition, critical reception, chart performance, awards, music video, etc.), but definitely a lot harder for something like
481:
10 oldest unreviewed nominations", so people can make a quick check on the
Reports page to see what's available. That has worked in the past when we had drives that offered a variety of bonus points depending on how old the nomination was: those in the top 10 oldest always qualified for the most points regardless of their age. Or you can do like GOCE, and just drop by a month (or half a month) when things run out. The only thing is that it's hard to search out noms by date unless reviewers do it manually, unless you assemble a list for them.
525:
359:
begun on or after the date added. I'd like to suggest you get all the way down to zero, and then add the next tranche. (You're at 16 now, down only 1 since yesterday.) There are another 16 in the 80 to 89 section, 15 in 70 to 79, and 13 in 60 to 69, after which new ones will continue to move into 60 and above. Plenty to fuel the next weeks.
73:, one template per day, and since we share the template with the Guild of Copy Editors, we cannot add fields willy-nilly. (They are also running a drive in July.) I don't know how an extra field could be manually added to the end of the template-generated line, and I won't have time to experiment prior to the beginning of the drive.
1669:
however, that each review would give each article the benefit of a close look, not just a check-the-boxes analysis. And then there are the nominations that sit around for months (likely because potential reviewers take a look, determine that significant work is needed, and move on), only to receive a short review and a pass... --
336:, agree the .5 point is working. Assuming we get (close to) zero 90+ day nominations remaining, I think we could start progressively offering the extra credit for nominations that are less oldâsay 75+ days to start, then (if that goes well) 60+ days. As to word count, I see your point. There's definitely a
1112:
I'm not familiar with the nomination procedures in this wiki. Do I need to nominate this article again or is it still in the backlog? I am aware that the entire course of events (exotic topic, long time without reviewer, then lengthy process of rewriting the article, then withdrawal of the reviewer)
480:
I would wait until both Arab
Christians and Stjepan have been reviewed before making a change. Going to 75+ or 70+ makes a reasonable next step. Another approach for future runs is start with nominated before X dateâthree months before the start of the drive is usually goodâand add an "or in the top
1668:
I think you're taking the correct approach in giving the benefit of the doubt to the reviewer, although I share your concern. I would like to think that in such cases, the articles are already in demonstrably good shape, such that the comments are just icing on the cake; I would also like to think,
984:
There are currently 7 unreviewed nominations that are 90+ days old, down from 76 when the drive began. If and when all nominations that are 90+ days old are placed on review, then unreviewed nominations that are 80+ days old will becomes eligible for the .5 point bonus. The same principle will hold
632:
with 10 or more reviews & at least 1 edit in the last year and anyone else from the march drive. (Limited to 10+ because of concerns raised on a talk about spamming users). After
Usernameunique made the request. Side note on notifications: There is also a request for a watchlist notification to
458:
I think next time we should simplify the old noms process by not using a rolling window for eligibility. Instead, we should start with articles nominated before X date (probably 2-3 months before the drive starts, depending on what the backlog looks like), and when those are all gone, we move it up
358:
The Guild of Copy
Editors does something similar for older tagged articles during a drive. They may start out by offering bonuses for copyediting tagged articles from the oldest months, but when they run out of those entirely, they'll add the latest month to get bonuses, but only if the copyedit is
1524:
FYI, the last time we did a drive, we only counted reviews that had been posted (not necessarily responded to) by the deadline. Otherwise, reviews could drag out a lot and impede the timely posting of barnstars. However, because of this comment I will be giving more leeway as you've promised that
1152:
I've undone the failure, which should be used as an indication of an article's quality, not a reviewer's (lack of) time. There are two optionsâthe article can be placed in the list of abandoned good article reviews on the backlog page, or the review page (which doesn't yet include any substantive
1034:
have not been eligible in past drives so my assumption is that they are not. The idea here is to reduce the backlog by reviewing existing nominations to see whether they should be listed or not. Whether to delist current good articles is something else altogether: worthwhile, but not part of this
757:
To be clear, is the number of words that we are supposed to put next to the reviews that we've done the number of words that we wrote in our review, or the number of words in the article? Also, is there an easy built-in word count tool that I am able to use, or do I have to copy-paste into a word
732:
just requires "broad" coverage, addressing the "main aspects of the topic". As for determining whether that's met, for me it partly comes from within (i.e. just my intuition about what main pieces of information I would want if I were a reader interested in the topic - starting from the basics of
307:
I think the extra credit for older nominations is definitely working. Next time I might suggest 0.5 point for any article older than 60 days. Not so sure about the word count because while we're keeping a list of the oldest articles needing review you have to click on the article and complete a
116:, come to think of it, we may have been speaking of different things. I had actually forgotten about the table, and when I said "chart," was thinking about the graph. It looks like this uses a more generic templateâdo you think it would be relatively easy to add a third line to the graph? --
76:
While the Report does generate at 01:00 UTC, it takes only a few minutes most days to backdate it to 00:00 UTC by seeing the changes in the nominations page in the hour since, so I've been making manual changes to get it exactly at midnight UTC. I've stopped using the numbers given on the
99:, thanks for your response. "it should be fairly simple"âfamous last words once again. I may keep an informal tally here of the number of old nominations out of interest, but at the end of the day, the count of the total nominations outstanding is the most important. --
81:
page, since they are typically off by four or five, and there's no way I know of to fix them so they're reliable, since category counting is not exact for the GAN categories. (The Report counts what's on the GAN page, so it's always as accurate as that page is.)
440:). Thus, there is a decent chance that both the current 90+ day nominations will be claimed before the next couple crack 90 days. Meanwhile, the 80+ day nominations are themselves being winnowed, and are down to only 9 (whereas there were 16 on 7 July, per
1561:, by "posted," do you mean that the review has not just been opened (e.g., "Taking this, comments to follow"), but that the substance of the review has been given? Or do you mean that the review has been both opened and added to the backlog page? --
1232:
by the end of the drive tomorrow. And if anyone is still looking to participate or qualify for a higher barnstar, feel free to grab another article; any review started before the drive ends will count, even if it is finished afterwards. Pings:
1695:, I've finished calculating the points. If you agree, I'll hand out the barnstars. As an aside, I've avoided officially calculating the points for myself; I believe them to be 20, but if one of you would like to sign off, please feel free. --
622:
1208:, however, it may be more complicated that it's worth. In future nominations the concept may be dropped; one other idea would be to award extra points for articles that are particularly long, but not keep a cumulative tally. --
1153:
comments) can be deleted and another review begun in its place. I'd suggest starting with the former approach and switching over to the latter if the backlog drive ends without the review being taken over. Also pinging
1205:
988:
459:
to Y date. This would be easier to calculate for potential reviewers as well; we wouldn't need to make a special list of qualifying articles since the nomination date is prominently displayed on the GAN page. (
1646:
Another issue is that I'm never sure what to do with the very short reviews that just request a few superficial changes and/or post a checklist and leave me wondering how thorough the review actually was...
1229:
774:
399:
Once the Arab
Christians article goes on review, there will be no articles on the list that were 90+ days old when we started the drive. I think that's the moment to substantially expand the eligibility.
1575:
The first was what we did during the last drive. We also accepted reviews that were claimed before the drive began, but the actual substantial review was not begun until after the drive started. (
444:'s comment above). Once the 90+ nominations are gone, it may be worth extending the extra point to all 70+ day unreviewed nominations, which would make 17 articles eligible (9 80â89, 8 70â79). --
377:
Yeah, it probably makes sense to get down to zero before changing the metrics. Among other reasons, it should theoretically prevent a few tough-to-review articles from endlessly lingering. --
1085:
said, good article reassessments are certainly worthwhile, and appreciated. But I agree that they're beyond the scope of the backlog drive, which is focusing on unreviewed nominations. --
653:. We have 14 signups since, and presumably more to come. And only 3 opt-outs, so (combined with having the ability to opt out) I think the concern about spam can be put to rest. --
1198:
985:
true going forwardâif and when all unreviewed nominations that are 80+ days old are placed on review then 70+-day-old nominations will be come eligible, and so on.
21:
810:
If it's installed properly, you should have a small link called "Page size" in the right-hand pane under "Tools" which you can click to get the wordcount.
552:, did we get a mass message out at least to people who participated in former GAN drives? Last year I had to send out manual messages which was a pain. (
870:
596:
853:
592:
27:
634:
1466:
1201:. Basically, the thinking is that the average article here is ~2,000 words, so multiply that by two to get the extra point. As
714:
1184:
429:
1719:
1704:
1678:
1663:
1641:
1622:
1591:
1570:
1549:
1518:
1217:
1188:
1166:
1147:
1125:
1094:
1069:
1048:
1021:
1002:
971:
953:
928:
882:
857:
831:
819:
805:
793:
790:
767:
746:
718:
695:
662:
644:
615:
586:
568:
515:
490:
475:
453:
416:
386:
368:
349:
324:
296:
282:
268:
254:
240:
223:
209:
181:
167:
153:
139:
125:
108:
91:
54:
1652:
1611:
1580:
1538:
1446:
1194:
1180:
1058:
942:
604:
557:
464:
405:
313:
17:
1113:
was rather unlucky and I am not going to blame anyone for this mess. But I'd love to know where we stand ;-) Thanks, â
908:
904:
710:
188:
1414:
1334:
919:
appears to not have noticed. I think the latter is still ongoing, in fact. Might be best to take a look at that.
878:
506:'s excellent sandbox graph that includes a line for old nominations, in order to keep everything in one place. --
193:
130:
Looks like we started with 76 nominations that were 90+ days old, though knocked down to 71 in the first hour. --
1606:
Sorry I've been kinda MIA here the last week, but I hope to get around to validating more reviews later today. (
1715:
1700:
1674:
1637:
1566:
1514:
1213:
1162:
1103:
1090:
998:
924:
691:
658:
582:
511:
449:
382:
345:
292:
278:
264:
250:
236:
219:
205:
177:
163:
149:
135:
121:
104:
50:
1298:
849:
1179:
Where does the number "4,000" come from when awarding an extra point? Why not keep it simple with "5,000"?
1346:
1310:
1053:
Yes, I'd agree that reassessments are not part of this drive, although definitely worthwhile in general. (
437:
709:
is an absolute whopper of an article - how does someone even begin to know if it covers all the bases? -
1529:
before the drive ends will count". For the next drive I suggest adding to the instructions: "any review
1482:
1470:
1228:
Friendly reminder to all participants to please ensure all articles you are reviewing are listed on the
1044:
486:
364:
87:
1632:, had a busy weekend myself. I'll also spend time today and tomorrow tabulating the overall numbers. --
686:
Asking because a few of these look like slam dunks, and I wouldn't mind getting a slice of the action.
577:, good timingâI've been working on setting this up today. With any luck it will go out on the 29th. --
1430:
1422:
1386:
1262:
1234:
874:
763:
67:
1498:
1398:
535:
1711:
1696:
1670:
1633:
1562:
1510:
1458:
1342:
1326:
1282:
1209:
1158:
1086:
1036:
994:
967:
934:
920:
778:
687:
654:
578:
549:
507:
445:
433:
378:
341:
340:
benefit, but might be worth dropping it next time and seeing if there's a noticeable difference. --
288:
274:
260:
246:
232:
215:
201:
173:
159:
145:
131:
117:
100:
60:
46:
844:
To follow up, is this the prose size at the beginning of the review, or at the end of the review?
1490:
1382:
1306:
1270:
1154:
1143:
864:
845:
642:
1692:
1486:
1410:
1370:
1314:
1286:
1242:
1017:
815:
786:
742:
628:
1648:
1607:
1576:
1534:
1442:
1418:
1078:
1054:
1040:
938:
937:, No, I did notice, I just didn't bother to fix the link. Both GANs were closed as failed. (
705:
A quite serious question: how can we know if some of these are comprehensive? For instance,
600:
553:
503:
482:
460:
441:
401:
360:
309:
113:
96:
83:
42:
1438:
1434:
1378:
1362:
1358:
1350:
1330:
1318:
1302:
1294:
1120:
828:
802:
759:
734:
706:
428:, it's tantalizingly close. I'm fine with either option, but it's worth noting that after
287:
5 to start day 13, 6 to start days 14 and 15, 7 to start day 16, and 3 to start day 17. --
801:
May you help please, as I've added the script to my toolbox but can't seem to use it? --
1502:
1494:
1454:
1374:
1366:
1246:
1238:
963:
898:
729:
725:
1474:
1426:
1394:
1338:
1290:
1266:
1139:
1031:
650:
637:
308:
process to determine the word count. It is more complicated and maybe not worth it. (
78:
1462:
1402:
1278:
1250:
1074:
1027:
1013:
827:
Thanks for helping out, I spotted the link and used it properly for the article! --
824:
811:
798:
782:
738:
531:
186:
25 to start day 5. Although this number benefits from two quite short reviews, of
1688:
1657:
1629:
1616:
1585:
1558:
1543:
1406:
1322:
1274:
1254:
1202:
1082:
1063:
947:
914:
609:
574:
562:
469:
425:
410:
333:
318:
197:
1506:
1390:
1258:
1133:
1114:
871:
Knowledge talk:Good article nominations#Word count for July 2021 Backlog Drive
1478:
1450:
1354:
63:, it is more complicated, unfortunately. The table is created by template
1138:- it looks like it has been failed, so it'll be necessary to renominate.
679:
May anyone just enter their name in the participants list? Are there any
432:(102 days old), the next oldest unreviewed nominations are 86 days old (
724:
Just to nitpick, "comprehensive" is a term usually associated with the
530:
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on
895:
I looked at the top of the participants list, and noticed a problem:
28:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/July 2021
200:
noted about the latter, the brevity may be cause for concern. --
1035:
effort to trim the backlog. I'll leave it to drive coordinator
519:
962:
Sorry. I closed GA2 and by mistake listed the closing as GA1
1012:
Can a review be listed here if it's done as a reassessment?
1710:
Hearing no objections, I've handed out the barnstars. --
683:
requirements for a prospective reviewer to fulfill?
777:, number of words in the article. You can use the
8:
273:7 to start day 11, 9 to start day 12. --
597:Knowledge:Village pump (miscellaneous)
980:Rules update regarding old nominations
7:
1533:before the drive ends will count". (
591:Great! I've added notifications to
593:Knowledge:Community bulletin board
35:
1109:Hi all and sorry to bother you,
523:
1602:Finishing off coordination work
1720:05:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
1705:02:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
1:
1447:Some Dude From North Carolina
1197:, the relevant discussion is
1195:Some Dude From North Carolina
1181:Some Dude From North Carolina
753:Question regarding word count
144:Down to 45 to start day 2. --
18:Knowledge talk:Good articles
909:Talk:Charles A. Cheever/GA2
905:Talk:Charles A. Cheever/GA1
1736:
1679:08:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
1664:06:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
1642:01:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
1623:23:52, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
1592:07:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
1571:07:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
1550:06:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
1467:The Most Comfortable Chair
1039:to confirm or contradict.
1032:good article reassessments
516:09:14, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
189:Bad Times at the El Royale
1519:19:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
1218:21:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
1189:15:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
1167:19:44, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
1148:19:27, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
1126:19:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
1095:07:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
1070:03:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
1049:15:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
1022:23:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
1008:Individual reassessments?
726:featured article criteria
696:22:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
663:19:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
645:22:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
616:03:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
587:03:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
569:01:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
491:18:31, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
476:22:36, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
454:21:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
417:03:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
297:21:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
283:17:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
269:00:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
126:05:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
109:04:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
92:04:46, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
55:18:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
1104:Talk:Abdurauf Fitrat/GA1
1003:21:42, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
972:22:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
954:22:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
929:22:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
883:20:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
869:Beginning of review per
858:04:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
832:08:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
820:23:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
806:09:32, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
794:09:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
768:04:58, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
747:18:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
719:16:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
681:particularly recommended
633:be added for a few days
387:04:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
369:01:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
350:23:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
325:22:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
255:00:43, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
241:04:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
224:04:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
210:02:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
182:21:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
168:01:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
154:13:57, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
140:01:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
38:List of old nominations
438:Affine symmetric group
194:Äakovo internment camp
711:Aussie Article Writer
430:Stjepan VukÄiÄ KosaÄa
259:7 to start day 10. --
245:11 to start day 9. --
231:12 to start day 8. --
214:17 to start day 6. --
172:32 to start day 4. --
1415:Pickersgill-Cunliffe
1335:HickoryOughtShirt?4
781:script to count. â
1299:Extraordinary Writ
1230:backlog drive page
775:these instructions
675:How to participate
620:I just sent out a
434:Steinitz's theorem
228:16 to start day 7,
22:GAN Backlog Drives
1311:Gerald Waldo Luis
992:
629:User:GA bot/Stats
542:
541:
26:(Redirected from
1727:
1660:
1619:
1588:
1546:
1483:Vaticidalprophet
1471:The Rambling Man
1137:
1066:
987:More discussion
986:
950:
918:
902:
868:
640:
626:to all users on
612:
565:
527:
526:
520:
472:
413:
321:
158:39 for day 3. --
72:
66:
31:
1735:
1734:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1726:
1725:
1724:
1658:
1617:
1604:
1586:
1544:
1431:RunningTiger123
1423:Rotideypoc41352
1387:MrLinkinPark333
1347:-ink&fables
1263:BennyOnTheLoose
1235:A. C. Santacruz
1226:
1177:
1175:4 but why not 5
1146:
1131:
1107:
1064:
1010:
982:
948:
912:
896:
893:
875:MrLinkinPark333
862:
755:
735:Arab Christians
707:Arab Christians
703:
677:
638:
610:
563:
547:
524:
470:
411:
319:
70:
64:
40:
33:
32:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1733:
1731:
1723:
1722:
1712:Usernameunique
1697:Usernameunique
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1671:Usernameunique
1634:Usernameunique
1603:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1563:Usernameunique
1553:
1552:
1511:Usernameunique
1459:Tayi Arajakate
1343:Horsesizedduck
1327:Harper J. Cole
1283:Damien Linnane
1225:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1210:Usernameunique
1176:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1159:Usernameunique
1142:
1106:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1087:Usernameunique
1051:
1037:Usernameunique
1009:
1006:
995:Usernameunique
981:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
957:
956:
935:Horsesizedduck
921:Horsesizedduck
892:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
754:
751:
750:
749:
702:
699:
688:Horsesizedduck
676:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
655:Usernameunique
579:Usernameunique
550:Usernameunique
546:
543:
540:
539:
528:
508:Usernameunique
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
446:Usernameunique
420:
419:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
379:Usernameunique
372:
371:
353:
352:
342:Usernameunique
328:
327:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
289:Usernameunique
285:
275:Usernameunique
271:
261:Usernameunique
257:
247:Usernameunique
243:
233:Usernameunique
229:
226:
216:Usernameunique
212:
202:Usernameunique
184:
174:Usernameunique
170:
160:Usernameunique
156:
146:Usernameunique
142:
132:Usernameunique
118:Usernameunique
111:
101:Usernameunique
74:
61:Usernameunique
47:Usernameunique
39:
36:
34:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1732:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1662:
1661:
1654:
1650:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1621:
1620:
1613:
1609:
1601:
1593:
1590:
1589:
1582:
1578:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1551:
1548:
1547:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1491:Wasted Time R
1488:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1383:Modussiccandi
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1307:GeneralPoxter
1304:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1271:Chipmunkdavis
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1231:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1174:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1155:Kaiser matias
1151:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1141:
1135:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1124:
1123:
1118:
1117:
1110:
1105:
1102:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1068:
1067:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1033:
1029:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1007:
1005:
1004:
1000:
996:
990:
979:
973:
969:
965:
961:
960:
959:
958:
955:
952:
951:
944:
940:
936:
933:
932:
931:
930:
926:
922:
916:
910:
906:
900:
890:
884:
880:
876:
872:
866:
865:GeneralPoxter
861:
860:
859:
855:
851:
847:
846:GeneralPoxter
843:
842:
833:
830:
826:
823:
822:
821:
817:
813:
809:
808:
807:
804:
800:
797:
796:
795:
792:
789:
788:
784:
780:
776:
772:
771:
770:
769:
765:
761:
752:
748:
744:
740:
736:
731:
727:
723:
722:
721:
720:
716:
712:
708:
701:Comprehensive
700:
698:
697:
693:
689:
684:
682:
674:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
647:
646:
643:
641:
636:
631:
630:
625:
624:
619:
618:
617:
614:
613:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
589:
588:
584:
580:
576:
573:
572:
571:
570:
567:
566:
559:
555:
551:
544:
537:
536:MediaWiki.org
533:
529:
522:
521:
518:
517:
513:
509:
505:
492:
488:
484:
479:
478:
477:
474:
473:
466:
462:
457:
456:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
424:
423:
422:
421:
418:
415:
414:
407:
403:
398:
397:
388:
384:
380:
376:
375:
374:
373:
370:
366:
362:
357:
356:
355:
354:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
332:
331:
330:
329:
326:
323:
322:
315:
311:
306:
305:
298:
294:
290:
286:
284:
280:
276:
272:
270:
266:
262:
258:
256:
252:
248:
244:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
225:
221:
217:
213:
211:
207:
203:
199:
195:
191:
190:
185:
183:
179:
175:
171:
169:
165:
161:
157:
155:
151:
147:
143:
141:
137:
133:
129:
128:
127:
123:
119:
115:
112:
110:
106:
102:
98:
95:
94:
93:
89:
85:
80:
75:
69:
62:
59:
58:
57:
56:
52:
48:
44:
37:
29:
23:
19:
1693:Lee Vilenski
1687:
1656:
1628:Not at all,
1615:
1605:
1584:
1542:
1530:
1526:
1525:"any review
1487:VersaceSpace
1411:Peacemaker67
1371:Lee Vilenski
1315:Gog the Mild
1287:DocFreeman24
1243:Amitchell125
1227:
1178:
1121:
1115:
1111:
1108:
1062:
1011:
983:
946:
894:
785:
756:
704:
685:
680:
678:
627:
623:notification
621:
608:
561:
548:
545:Mass message
501:
468:
409:
337:
317:
187:
41:
1443:simongraham
1419:REDMAN 2019
1206:pointed out
1079:BlueMoonset
1041:BlueMoonset
907:instead of
903:has listed
758:counter? â
532:Phabricator
504:BlueMoonset
483:BlueMoonset
442:BlueMoonset
361:BlueMoonset
338:theoretical
114:BlueMoonset
97:BlueMoonset
84:BlueMoonset
68:GAN changes
43:BlueMoonset
1439:Sammi Brie
1435:S Marshall
1379:Mikehawk10
1363:Kyle Peake
1359:GhostRiver
1351:Jburlinson
1331:HawkAussie
1319:Goldsztajn
1303:Ganesha811
1295:Epicgenius
760:Mikehawk10
1503:Wizardman
1499:Willbb234
1495:Wetrorave
1455:Steelkamp
1399:MWright96
1375:Marshelec
1367:Lazman321
1247:ArnabSaha
1239:Akrasia25
964:Akrasia25
899:Akrasia25
779:Prosesize
1475:Tomobe03
1427:Reidgreg
1395:Muboshgu
1339:Hog Farm
1291:Etriusus
1267:Casliber
1224:Last day
1140:Hog Farm
854:contribs
829:K. Peake
803:K. Peake
651:Terasail
649:Thanks,
639:Terasail
20: |
1527:started
1463:Teratix
1403:Npthura
1279:Colin M
1251:Artem.G
1075:Colin M
1028:Colin M
1014:Colin M
825:Colin M
812:Colin M
799:Teratix
739:Colin M
730:WP:GACR
534:and on
502:Adding
1691:&
1689:Buidhe
1659:buidhe
1630:Buidhe
1618:buidhe
1587:buidhe
1559:Buidhe
1545:buidhe
1531:posted
1407:Paul W
1323:Haleth
1275:Citing
1255:AryKun
1203:buidhe
1119:Man77
1083:Buidhe
1065:buidhe
949:buidhe
915:Buidhe
911:, and
611:buidhe
575:Buidhe
564:buidhe
471:buidhe
426:Buidhe
412:buidhe
334:Buidhe
320:buidhe
198:buidhe
79:WP:GAN
1507:Z1720
1391:MSG17
1259:Aza24
1134:Man77
1077:, as
891:Error
196:. As
16:<
1716:talk
1701:talk
1675:talk
1638:talk
1567:talk
1515:talk
1509:. --
1479:Urve
1451:SSSB
1355:JPxG
1214:talk
1199:here
1185:talk
1163:talk
1157:. --
1144:Talk
1091:talk
1081:and
1045:talk
1018:talk
999:talk
989:here
968:talk
925:talk
879:talk
850:talk
816:talk
783:Tera
773:Per
764:talk
743:talk
715:talk
692:talk
659:talk
635:here
595:and
583:talk
512:talk
487:talk
450:talk
436:and
383:talk
365:talk
346:talk
293:talk
279:talk
265:talk
251:talk
237:talk
220:talk
206:talk
192:and
178:talk
164:talk
150:talk
136:talk
122:talk
105:talk
88:talk
51:talk
787:tix
599:. (
1718:)
1703:)
1677:)
1655:)
1651:·
1640:)
1614:)
1610:·
1583:)
1579:·
1569:)
1541:)
1537:·
1517:)
1505:,
1501:,
1497:,
1493:,
1489:,
1485:,
1481:,
1477:,
1473:,
1469:,
1465:,
1461:,
1457:,
1453:,
1449:,
1445:,
1441:,
1437:,
1433:,
1429:,
1425:,
1421:,
1417:,
1413:,
1409:,
1405:,
1401:,
1397:,
1393:,
1389:,
1385:,
1381:,
1377:,
1373:,
1369:,
1365:,
1361:,
1357:,
1353:,
1349:,
1345:,
1341:,
1337:,
1333:,
1329:,
1325:,
1321:,
1317:,
1313:,
1309:,
1305:,
1301:,
1297:,
1293:,
1289:,
1285:,
1281:,
1277:,
1273:,
1269:,
1265:,
1261:,
1257:,
1253:,
1249:,
1245:,
1241:,
1237:,
1216:)
1187:)
1165:)
1122:»»
1116:««
1093:)
1061:)
1057:·
1047:)
1030:,
1020:)
1001:)
993:--
970:)
945:)
941:·
927:)
881:)
873:--
856:)
852:âą
818:)
766:)
745:)
737:.
728:.
717:)
694:)
661:)
607:)
603:·
585:)
560:)
556:·
514:)
489:)
467:)
463:·
452:)
408:)
404:·
385:)
367:)
348:)
316:)
312:·
295:)
281:)
267:)
253:)
239:)
222:)
208:)
180:)
166:)
152:)
138:)
124:)
107:)
90:)
71:}}
65:{{
53:)
1714:(
1699:(
1673:(
1653:c
1649:t
1647:(
1636:(
1612:c
1608:t
1581:c
1577:t
1565:(
1539:c
1535:t
1513:(
1212:(
1183:(
1161:(
1136::
1132:@
1089:(
1059:c
1055:t
1043:(
1016:(
997:(
991:.
966:(
943:c
939:t
923:(
917::
913:@
901::
897:@
877:(
867::
863:@
848:(
814:(
791:â”
762:(
741:(
713:(
690:(
657:(
605:c
601:t
581:(
558:c
554:t
538:.
510:(
485:(
465:c
461:t
448:(
406:c
402:t
400:(
381:(
363:(
344:(
314:c
310:t
291:(
277:(
263:(
249:(
235:(
218:(
204:(
176:(
162:(
148:(
134:(
120:(
103:(
86:(
49:(
30:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.