958:
Similarly, do you see how your way of contrasting feminists who are for and against the idea is biased? Because it is absurdly biased, and I'm not sure how I can explain it to you if you do not already see it. Imagine a statement like, "some children have good taste and prefer vanilla ice cream. Other children prefer chocolate ice cream." I've implied that children with good taste prefer vanilla ice cream, and that those who prefer chocolate ice cream have bad taste. Also, your use of the word "deny" is a non-native usage.
203:
182:
1288:
opinion about paper abortion. They did not say if there was significant or often opposition against this subject. Well, we could of course just write significant opposition and write a significant support to make it unbiased, since both statements are true. But it would be very unspecific and will just fill without giving any gain. So I deleted the biased words. If you look at the Danish section, we can see that 40-70% approves on this subject, while the rest are against it. So there we have specific information. --
1163:
there was some key peice of background information they had never become acquainted with, perhap. I am not saying I know that, in this particular instance, you are the one with the biased POV. But I strongly recommend you conduct editorial discussions on the wikipedia with that possibility in mind. Entering a discussion in attack mode, insisting you know other parties are biasd, turns out to be pretty embarrassing, if you end up realizing you were the biased party all along.
102:
81:
112:
1041:
deleted. So don't complain of bullying. You wrote a bad article and posted it without prior experience with editing or creating articles (at least, not on this account). Knowledge is inclusive, but don't expect your first article to be a success. Try contributing to the community (and first try doing it in ways that exclusively in ways that do not advance your point of view), try creating articles on more neutral subjects, and then tackle something like this.
442:
288:
267:
50:
374:
356:
21:
1012:
Here is another way: when you say that 7 out of 10 Danes want to support "paper abortion," you cite an article that cites a Gallup poll. The article that you cite also talks about another poll in which 42 percent of Danes would support "paper abortion." So here you have an article that presents two
627:
Maybe you could come up with some arguments? You are actually just bullying. This is not about propaganda. Maybe you would love to read the guidelines? Knowledge is about many people writing articles together. Feel free to edit the things you think are wrong. Or maybe you can tell me, which parts are
584:
I did edit it -- I took it away. The only reason that anybody published anything about what four or five kids in western Sweden were kicking around as an idea was because it was such a fantastically bad idea. This is the kind of idea that shows up in Men's Rights
Activism groups. I also can't help
998:
Here is another way: "But there is a huge debate in many countries." How many countries? How huge of a debate? You mentioned two countries, and one of them (Sweden), was a proposal by five kids involved in a youth politics group that got media attention because of how it was such a bad idea. You
1162:
You do realize that sometimes, when someone says they see a terrible bias, and they then engage in an honest discussion of that bias, they walk away from the discussion with the realization that, while there was a bias, it wasn't in the passage they read, but in their own minds? Sometime they find
984:
Not only does this sentence contain a typo, grammatical errors, and a basic structure that is non-intuitive to native speakers, it also presents the arguments against "paper abortion" in a dismissive, straw-man tone. Did you think that you had done a good job summarizing the arguments against your
957:
Here is one way it is biased: "Feminists are very divided on this. Some feminists want equal rights and promote this idea. Other feminists deny it." Are they actually very divided on it? Is it anything close to an even split? Or are there just a small number of feminists who are in favor of it?
1383:
It would be interesting to look if some don't predict more actual abortions if this practice was legal. There are two other lives involved, that of the woman and that of the child. A woman knowing she'll lack support could feel pressured to find other people or to avoid giving birth (despite the
943:
I started to make a section to talk about all of the issues in this article, but the problem is honestly that there are so many of them. I don't want to sound harsh, but it is so pervasively biased as an article that it is hard to know where to start. It also has a lot of awkward grammar, typos,
1287:
While I think that the opposition section is all right and well-written, I removed two words: Significant and often. They are biased and try to create a mood against Paper
Abortion. So I deleted both words. The citations do not cover it anyway; it was just three journalists writing their personal
1172:
However, if you adopt a more collegial tone -- where you aren't accusing the other party, you may find yourself pleasantly surprised on those occasions you realize you were wrong, and they were right. Since you didn't draw a line in the sand, you save yourself the embarrassment of having to back
1040:
It would take a massive amount of work to rework this into a presentable article. Since none of us think that this should be an article in the first place, none of us wants to rewrite it. I also don't want to hold your hand through each bias and grammatical error. That is why it's going to get
1026:
Did you know that this subject is mentioned as a small part of a couple of articles on
Knowledge? It was also the subject of a court case in the US. And yet, you didn't link to it from its subsections in other Knowledge articles, and you didn't include the court case in the US where this legal
719:
And maybe you can tell wish sections you don't like? The introduction might be edited, but is fully neutral and describes the subject. The describtion of
Denmark and Sweden are correct. The pro argumentation should be all right too. The con arguments should be written more about. Actually, the
1225:
I am going to repeat that I found the article quite interesting. I think you need to be reminded that MM is not writing in his or her native language. Bearing that in mind I think they did a fine job. The concerns you voiced above? Valid, but, frankly, insignificant. They fall short from
526:
I would also support its deletion, for numerous reasons. For the moment I'm deleting the claim that a
Swedish political group is in favor of it -- it was proposed by a sub-group and quickly shot down. That the author overstated the political weight it held is consistent with the rest of the
1315:
To balance out the "Eurocentric" complaint, US Safe Haven laws could be cited as an existing method by which men could abandon an unwanted child, in theory, though in practice they are only effectively accessible by women, which would tend to conflict with the them of the article that "paper
675:
Articles must conform to
Knowledge policy, and sometimes the effort needed to make a thoroughly policy-noncompliant article comply with policy is less than the effort that would be needed to delete the article and start over. Don't edit other users' comments.
1204:
Well, one of the articles said that a
Swedish political group did not support a proposal, and Momo Monitor said that the political group "wishs" the proposal. Later, Momo Monitor claimed that they had not said that the political group supported the
1234:
For non-native speakers reversing pairs of words that are polar opposites can be both one of the easiest errors for them to make and one of the most damaging. Fast/slow, in/out, up/down, go/come, on/off, hot/cold, permitted/denied.
1208:
For the other article, they cited two polls for Danish support of a policy, and Momo
Monitor picked the higher of the two numbers. I cited it as an example of bias, because Momo Monitor was asking for examples of how they were
698:
Well, calling a whole article a ridiculous screed is definitely against the
Knowledge policy. And well, all of this article is based on information, wish I took from newspapers and academic work. Feel free to edit tho.
659:
Just maybe you could do what
Knowledge is there for? Edit an article, to make it better? But of cause, why do something useful, when you just can delete an article you don't like and want to 'nuke from orbit'. Sigh.
506:
This entire article is a ridiculous screed. I'm tempted to send this for TNT rather than attempt a complete rewrite to free it of POV language, to make sure all the sources actually discuss the topic, etc.
1261:
After substantial revision, it seems that the NPOV tag is now unnecessary, feel free to undo my edit removing it if you believe that I am in error, and comment here to discuss further NPOV issues.
1116:) 00:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC) That being said, the article as it presently stands is dismissively smug and one-sided, but I sense that editors who want to quickly get rid of it are being the same.
1316:
abortions" are for MEN ONLY or some kind of new MRA talking point, rather than something that originated in feminist advocacy for reproductive rights and something women are already able to do.
720:
patriarchal view and the feminism section are the only too sections wish could be critized. What about we delete them instead? Or just edit them? Instead of deleting a whole article ... --
1182:
So, the two articles you thought weren't accurately represented -- how about a non accusatory comparison of what you thought they said with what you think the article implied they said?
1075:
585:
but wonder -- do you speak Swedish? Because it's mysterious to me that you would reinstate the content with its citation when you can't read the source that you're citing.
214:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1013:
facts, and you have picked the fact that makes "paper abortion" seem better-supported. Why did you pick 7/10, instead of 42%? Did you think you weren't being biased?
1327:
453:
249:
338:
1131:
It's a little worse than dismissively smug and one-sided -- of the two articles that I checked its citations on, it actively misrepresented their contents.
999:
say "huge debate in many countries," but to me it seems like "a small debate in a handful of countries. But debated a lot online by men's rights activists."
545:
Actually I wrote that the Swedish party LUF discussed it. That is what the news wrote. If you don't agree, feel free to edit it. I will put it back again. --
1125:
971:
Here is another way it is biased: "The denial of parenthood meats same contra arguments as common abortion did: use birth control or don't have sex at all."
420:
1430:
571:
party wishs a statutory abortion." Why are you telling me that you wrote that the Swedish party LUF discussed it? You wrote that they "wish" it.
452:
procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been
1226:
justifying claims that improving the article was an unsurmountable problem. They also fall far short of justifying inflammatory language like
929:
594:
554:
239:
31:
1435:
1425:
1460:
1445:
414:
328:
1140:
1096:
such a right based on a woman's right to abortion. I also see that Knowledge already has some decently sourced material on the subject; ex.
645:
Really disgusting comments you are coming with. It's not about propaganda. It's a word that was highly discussed in my country (Denmark). --
637:
536:
164:
1268:
1244:
1220:
1191:
618:
729:
708:
689:
1450:
1440:
628:
wrong? I used reliable sources for every single statement I did. But of cause, why use arguments, when you just can use a strawman? --
215:
847:
304:
1277:
1465:
1455:
1311:
Frances Goldscieder has a 1991 Op-Ed article, also supporting the idea, credited with coining the phrase "financial" abortion.
748:
1415:
1080:
I think you'll find that there is more than enough reliably sourced material on this subject. I know that scholars such as
154:
1323:
1027:
principle was tested. Creating an article is hard work, and it takes a lot of research that you don't seem to have done.
757:
390:
210:
187:
496:
295:
272:
1420:
1410:
1396:
1271:
1365:
1349:
894:
685:
516:
1297:
806:
802:
753:
381:
361:
1331:
1101:
1070:
1312:
129:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
1373:
1357:
1105:
879:
859:
472:
449:
61:
1265:
910:
883:
669:
654:
471:
may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the
1308:
1216:
1136:
1066:
925:
868:
813:
798:
794:
590:
532:
468:
784:
without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
520:
787:
774:
482:
125:
86:
27:
1256:
875:
389:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
303:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
817:
614:
568:
49:
1390:
1293:
906:
725:
704:
665:
650:
633:
550:
492:
460:
1378:
1212:
1132:
1062:
1054:
Alright, I've spent half an hour on this. That's way too much time. How soon can we delete?
921:
770:
586:
528:
67:
1319:
824:
20:
8:
1369:
1353:
1307:
Karen DeCrow, N.O.W. President 1974-1977, wrote a NYT Op-Ed advocating the idea in 1982.
1121:
1113:
887:
853:
762:
681:
512:
464:
1343:
1282:
1240:
1187:
766:
610:
1385:
1289:
902:
721:
700:
661:
646:
629:
546:
488:
1337:
917:
1302:
1081:
836:
890:
namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace
1117:
1109:
1085:
901:
You actually don't want to delete the article out of one of those points ... --
840:
781:
677:
606:
508:
1404:
1236:
1183:
1097:
832:
1384:
possibility of being less likely to voluntarily avoid contraception too). —
1089:
300:
202:
181:
1313:
https://www.brown.edu/Administration/News_Bureau/Op-Eds/Goldscheider.html
828:
609:
would be a waste of time. You can't clean propaganda. Nuke from orbit. —
501:
1092:
have written on the related phenomenon (and attendant problems) of men
864:
740:
Btw, maybe you want to take a look on the reasons to delete an article?
441:
117:
1309:
https://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/09/magazine/l-no-headline-123813.html
101:
80:
111:
386:
373:
355:
287:
266:
1362:
The book of Sullerot is a very reliable and important source.
459:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the
1346:
says, adoption is a very important issue in this matter.
1076:
Substantial reliably sourced material for such an article
130:
487:
I removed both, after I added orphans and categories.--
795:
that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
385:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
299:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
107:
823:Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant
419:This article has not yet received a rating on the
1402:
771:pages that exist only to disparage their subject
1145:You are using some inflammatory terms here.
812:Articles for which thorough attempts to find
809:(but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
790:(unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
846:Articles that breach Knowledge's policy on
47:
867:that are unused, obsolete, or violate the
605:Agreed. Bringing the article in line with
756:and other material violating Knowledge's
1147:"actively misrepresented their contents"
747:Content that meets at least one of the
1403:
1149:? Aren't those, as Popeye would say,
1461:Unknown-importance Abortion articles
1446:Low-importance Human rights articles
1431:Low-importance Men's Issues articles
436:
379:This article is within the scope of
293:This article is within the scope of
208:This article is within the scope of
123:This article is within the scope of
43:
15:
805:, and articles that are themselves
133:and the subjects encompassed by it.
66:It is of interest to the following
13:
916:Actually, it does violate #8, see
313:Knowledge:WikiProject Human rights
224:Knowledge:WikiProject Men's Issues
14:
1477:
1451:WikiProject Human rights articles
1441:Start-Class Human rights articles
1436:WikiProject Men's Issues articles
1426:Start-Class Men's Issues articles
1173:away from an entrenched position.
803:original theories and conclusions
316:Template:WikiProject Human rights
227:Template:WikiProject Men's Issues
440:
372:
354:
286:
265:
201:
180:
110:
100:
79:
48:
30:on 14 March 2016. The result of
19:
852:Redundant or otherwise useless
333:This article has been rated as
244:This article has been rated as
159:This article has been rated as
26:This article was nominated for
1332:12:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
567:That is false, you wrote "The
399:Knowledge:WikiProject Abortion
1:
1466:WikiProject Abortion articles
1456:Start-Class Abortion articles
1102:Matt Dubay child support case
848:biographies of living persons
473:contentious topics procedures
402:Template:WikiProject Abortion
393:and see a list of open tasks.
307:and see a list of open tasks.
218:and see a list of open tasks.
1106:Paternal rights and abortion
749:criteria for speedy deletion
7:
1416:Low-importance law articles
1100:(A man's right to choose),
10:
1482:
1298:19:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
1278:04:44, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
1245:05:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
1232:"actively misrepresented."
1221:00:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
1192:20:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
1141:06:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
1126:00:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
1071:04:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
930:05:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
911:18:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
730:18:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
709:18:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
690:17:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
670:16:47, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
655:16:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
638:16:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
619:06:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
595:19:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
555:16:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
537:04:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
521:02:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
497:01:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
421:project's importance scale
339:project's importance scale
250:project's importance scale
165:project's importance scale
1397:19:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
1374:12:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
1358:12:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
765:, including inflammatory
758:non-free content criteria
475:before editing this page.
418:
367:
332:
281:
243:
196:
158:
139:Knowledge:WikiProject Law
95:
74:
1421:WikiProject Law articles
1411:Start-Class law articles
858:Categories representing
469:normal editorial process
296:WikiProject Human rights
211:WikiProject Men's Issues
142:Template:WikiProject Law
569:Liberal Youth of Sweden
456:as a contentious topic.
465:standards of behaviour
56:This article is rated
874:Any other use of the
780:Advertising or other
319:Human rights articles
230:Men's Issues articles
825:notability guideline
754:Copyright violations
461:purpose of Knowledge
382:WikiProject Abortion
1228:"dismissively smug"
897:for an encyclopedia
893:Any other content
860:overcategorization
450:contentious topics
62:content assessment
1334:
1322:comment added by
944:and other errors.
483:Orphan/Categories
480:
479:
435:
434:
431:
430:
427:
426:
405:Abortion articles
349:
348:
345:
344:
260:
259:
256:
255:
175:
174:
171:
170:
42:
41:
1473:
1393:
1388:
1344:Évelyne Sullerot
1317:
1276:
1257:NPOV tag removal
1213:Triacylglyceride
1151:"fighting words"
1133:Triacylglyceride
1063:Triacylglyceride
922:Triacylglyceride
820:them have failed
814:reliable sources
587:Triacylglyceride
529:Triacylglyceride
444:
437:
407:
406:
403:
400:
397:
376:
369:
368:
358:
351:
350:
321:
320:
317:
314:
311:
290:
283:
282:
277:
269:
262:
261:
232:
231:
228:
225:
222:
205:
198:
197:
192:
184:
177:
176:
147:
146:
143:
140:
137:
120:
115:
114:
104:
97:
96:
91:
83:
76:
75:
59:
53:
52:
44:
23:
16:
1481:
1480:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1401:
1400:
1391:
1386:
1381:
1340:
1305:
1285:
1262:
1259:
1082:James Q. Wilson
1078:
775:patent nonsense
527:presentation.
504:
485:
463:, any expected
404:
401:
398:
395:
394:
318:
315:
312:
309:
308:
275:
229:
226:
223:
220:
219:
190:
144:
141:
138:
135:
134:
126:WikiProject Law
116:
109:
89:
60:on Knowledge's
57:
12:
11:
5:
1479:
1469:
1468:
1463:
1458:
1453:
1448:
1443:
1438:
1433:
1428:
1423:
1418:
1413:
1380:
1377:
1339:
1336:
1304:
1301:
1284:
1281:
1258:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1210:
1206:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1108:(Opting out).
1086:George Akerlof
1077:
1074:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
935:
933:
932:
899:
898:
891:
872:
862:
856:
850:
844:
821:
810:
791:
785:
778:
777:, or gibberish
760:
751:
744:
743:
742:
741:
735:
734:
733:
732:
714:
713:
712:
711:
693:
692:
643:
642:
641:
640:
622:
621:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
560:
559:
558:
557:
540:
539:
503:
500:
484:
481:
478:
477:
445:
433:
432:
429:
428:
425:
424:
417:
411:
410:
408:
391:the discussion
377:
365:
364:
359:
347:
346:
343:
342:
335:Low-importance
331:
325:
324:
322:
305:the discussion
291:
279:
278:
276:Low‑importance
270:
258:
257:
254:
253:
246:Low-importance
242:
236:
235:
233:
216:the discussion
206:
194:
193:
191:Low‑importance
185:
173:
172:
169:
168:
161:Low-importance
157:
151:
150:
148:
122:
121:
105:
93:
92:
90:Low‑importance
84:
72:
71:
65:
54:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1478:
1467:
1464:
1462:
1459:
1457:
1454:
1452:
1449:
1447:
1444:
1442:
1439:
1437:
1434:
1432:
1429:
1427:
1424:
1422:
1419:
1417:
1414:
1412:
1409:
1408:
1406:
1399:
1398:
1394:
1389:
1379:Abortion rate
1376:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1360:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1345:
1335:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1324:64.121.126.15
1321:
1314:
1310:
1300:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1280:
1279:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1270:
1267:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1233:
1229:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1098:Child support
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1073:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
931:
927:
923:
919:
915:
914:
913:
912:
908:
904:
896:
892:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
870:
866:
863:
861:
857:
855:
851:
849:
845:
843:and so forth)
842:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
819:
815:
811:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
789:
788:Content forks
786:
783:
779:
776:
772:
768:
764:
761:
759:
755:
752:
750:
746:
745:
739:
738:
737:
736:
731:
727:
723:
718:
717:
716:
715:
710:
706:
702:
697:
696:
695:
694:
691:
687:
683:
679:
674:
673:
672:
671:
667:
663:
657:
656:
652:
648:
639:
635:
631:
626:
625:
624:
623:
620:
616:
612:
611:ArtifexMayhem
608:
604:
603:
596:
592:
588:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
570:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
556:
552:
548:
544:
543:
542:
541:
538:
534:
530:
525:
524:
523:
522:
518:
514:
510:
499:
498:
494:
490:
476:
474:
470:
466:
462:
457:
455:
451:
446:
443:
439:
438:
422:
416:
413:
412:
409:
392:
388:
384:
383:
378:
375:
371:
370:
366:
363:
360:
357:
353:
352:
340:
336:
330:
327:
326:
323:
306:
302:
298:
297:
292:
289:
285:
284:
280:
274:
271:
268:
264:
263:
251:
247:
241:
238:
237:
234:
217:
213:
212:
207:
204:
200:
199:
195:
189:
186:
183:
179:
178:
166:
162:
156:
153:
152:
149:
132:
128:
127:
119:
113:
108:
106:
103:
99:
98:
94:
88:
85:
82:
78:
77:
73:
69:
63:
55:
51:
46:
45:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1382:
1364:
1361:
1348:
1341:
1318:— Preceding
1306:
1290:Momo Monitor
1286:
1269:CleverPhrase
1264:
1263:
1260:
1231:
1227:
1150:
1146:
1093:
1090:Janet Yellen
1079:
1061:
934:
903:Momo Monitor
900:
895:not suitable
797:, including
722:Momo Monitor
701:Momo Monitor
662:Momo Monitor
658:
647:Momo Monitor
644:
630:Momo Monitor
547:Momo Monitor
505:
489:Momo Monitor
486:
458:
447:
380:
334:
310:Human rights
301:Human rights
294:
273:Human rights
245:
221:Men's Issues
209:
188:Men's Issues
160:
145:law articles
124:
68:WikiProjects
36:no consensus
35:
131:legal field
58:Start-class
1405:Categories
1283:Opposition
799:neologisms
454:designated
118:Law portal
1366:88.1.39.5
1350:88.1.39.5
1205:proposal.
1118:Motsebboh
1110:Motsebboh
985:position?
918:WP:FRINGE
854:templates
793:Articles
767:redirects
763:Vandalism
678:Roscelese
509:Roscelese
467:, or any
1338:Adoption
1320:unsigned
1237:Geo Swan
1184:Geo Swan
1094:assuming
880:template
869:Non-free
837:WP:MUSIC
686:contribs
517:contribs
396:Abortion
387:Abortion
362:Abortion
28:deletion
1392:Neonate
1303:Support
1209:biased.
884:project
876:article
841:WP:CORP
607:WP:NPOV
337:on the
248:on the
163:on the
1266:Insert
1104:, and
871:policy
833:WP:BIO
818:verify
807:hoaxes
64:scale.
1387:Paleo
1342:Like
1088:with
886:, or
865:Files
1370:talk
1354:talk
1328:talk
1294:talk
1272:Here
1241:talk
1230:and
1217:talk
1188:talk
1137:talk
1122:talk
1114:talk
1084:and
1067:talk
926:talk
907:talk
888:user
829:WP:N
782:spam
726:talk
705:talk
682:talk
666:talk
651:talk
634:talk
615:talk
591:talk
551:talk
533:talk
513:talk
493:talk
448:The
34:was
920:.
816:to
502:POV
415:???
329:Low
240:Low
155:Low
136:Law
87:Law
1407::
1395:–
1372:)
1356:)
1330:)
1296:)
1243:)
1219:)
1190:)
1139:)
1124:)
1069:)
928:)
909:)
882:,
878:,
839:,
835:,
831:,
801:,
773:,
769:,
728:)
707:)
699:--
688:)
684:â‹…
668:)
660:--
653:)
636:)
617:)
593:)
553:)
535:)
519:)
515:â‹…
495:)
1368:(
1352:(
1326:(
1292:(
1239:(
1215:(
1186:(
1153:?
1135:(
1120:(
1112:(
1065:(
924:(
905:(
827:(
724:(
703:(
680:(
676:–
664:(
649:(
632:(
613:(
589:(
549:(
531:(
511:(
507:–
491:(
423:.
341:.
252:.
167:.
70::
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
.svg){kind=small}
