419:(as of 30 June 2013). Folks at the Wikimedia Foundation please take note: I'm sure that you have access to all sorts of mindless stats., but the higher percentages of vandalism, articles needing copyediting and references (those that actually have tags on them...) and, I'm willing to bet, the amount of relative time spent by admins arguing at the Café and blocking and/or expulsing other admins or veteran users, the result of heavy-handed lobbying, together with the relative time spent in basic maintenance tasks, including ARV, and until an outside, i.e., neutral & international, "auditing team" whose only interest is the good of the project itself, gets sent in there to sort it out, Knowledge in Spanish will not reach its corresponding level of recognition among Spanish-speaking users of the Internet.
652:, that allow us to revert up to around 18 bad edits a minute (which means actually reviewing, and accepting as good, many more edits in that same space of time), those of us who get a kick out of copy-editing know that we can easily spend half an hour going over a particularly badly written article with a fine-tooth comb and only have one edit to show for it. Other factors involved in edit counts include article creation (one edit, regardless of length), creating a wikitable (one edit, regardless of complexity), a reply in an edit war (regardless of complexity and political correctness), and so on. Moreover, the number of bytes that appear for each edit when reviewing an article's history page, i.e., plus or minus figures, do not necessarily reflect the actual effort made in improving an article.
628:. Many editors patrol new pages from the “front”, i.e., the most-recently created pages. However, there's a pretty humongous backlog of articles that were created up to a month ago which, if they don't get revised in time, simply slip into the mainstream encyclopaedia without having been subject to that minimum review which is so desirable. In other words, it's a race against time to try and ensure that as many pages as possible get at least a quick going-over. The most seriously deficient pages will need more work done on 'em, but others can be accepted into the fold with nothing more than a simple tag which sends 'em off into categories that other editors check out. Reason for which, once again, I'd like to invite y'all to
729:
always be an "only" warning. I'm well aware that there is a school of thought that considers "boys will be boys" and that vandals can be "converted" if treated kindly (as I mention elsewhere, I'm "proud" to have done so on more than one occasion, and at least one of those editors went on to become an admin). However, my experience tells me that most vandals' attempts to beat the system are more effectively dealt with if nipped in the bud within seconds. Precisely one of the strengths of
Knowledge – that anyone can edit here – is also one of its weaknesses. One thing is that the information it contains is open to discussion and another is that it has been vandalised.
388:) and having been able, on several occasions, to directly benefit from content I found here and applying it in my work, I finally cottoned on to the fact that I could actually participate in helping to build this thing up. Eschewing, as directly childish, the idea of having a username, I operated as an IP for a couple of years, only copyediting, until someone, somewhere - I can't remember the exact details, but it'll come back to me one day – left me a welcome template inviting me to register. After having originally rejected the idea, it eventually grew on me and, by
692:) and the effect of reading on a screen as opposed to the printed page, but what little I have had access to clearly points to the need for shorter paragraphs, and fewer of them. I take that to mean that articles should be short enough to read in screen-sized chunks, without the need for too much scrolling, and with multiple links to other, related main articles. A lengthy article does not necessarily mean more – or better – information. I'm a great "believer" in creating sub-articles to de-clutter main articles. A good example is
57:
220:
293:
832:
and widespread – than casual onlookers might, at first, perceive. I'm proud of having "helped" several vandals "reform" and become constructive editors – and in one case, an admin. But few things are more tiresome than having to deal with self-righteous editors who tear their hair when someone points out that their edit does not comply with
Knowledge policies, and stubbornly insist on dragging the issue out to the nth degree.
733:
many, are indeed smarter than the rest of us. But so what? Again, it never c. to amaze me that there are people out there who are prepared to waste their time and mental energy destructively. Sadly, I have no doubt that most of whom are editors and even admins who have been blocked at some stage and are able to return using a different IP, intent on doing as much damage as possible.
882:
549:), and numerous exhortations pasted all over the place to add references to reliable sources, I never cease to be amazed by the number of editors – and I don't just mean those who arrived a moment ago and are still learning the ropes – who add stuff here without providing said refs. Outside of Knowledge (there is a real world, or rather, real
19:"But I have three precious things which I prize and hold fast. The first is gentleness; the second is economy; and the third is shrinking from taking precedence of others. With that gentleness I can be bold; with that economy I can be liberal; shrinking from taking precedence of others, I can become a vessel of the highest honour." – The
621:
row and make quick reversions, which is when, in passing, one also notices other issues on that page that need attending. Some dilemma! Does one stay at the page and try to clean up some minor point or does one head off to clean up – often involving some major nastiness – after that pesky vandal? Solution: slap a tag on it and tally-ho!
828:), spend much time tweaking and perfecting those articles to ensure that this encyclopedia can enjoy a certain amount of - growing – credibility, even if their work goes largely unnoticed. And then there's a smaller group of users who, like myself, also choose to keep watch over recent changes and to fight against vandalism.
578:
able to revert that ever-so-subtle bad faith edit – having had access to the referenced source – and having to AGF and simply leave it there, certain that the user, who has already made half a dozen such edits in quick succession has scored yet again. All because the original text cannot be easily verified...
483:
but those of us who've been around here for a while know who they are, and greatly appreciate their presence. My relatively high
Knowledge profile notwithstanding, believe it or not, I am, at heart, a WikiGnome myself... it's just that I'm still some way off from reaching Lao-tzu's third premise (see above).
835:
So, what am I getting at with the above? Simply that I fully understand those of you who prefer to keep that low profile, probably based on having already burnt yer fingers trying to be reasonable when dealing with others over the
Internet. However, if you don't already have your work cut out keeping
728:
However, I have zero tolerance for sexist and racist comments (and insults in general) – this is an encyclopaedia, not the back streets of the dodgy neighbourhood I grew up in – and my first warning for obvious and malign vandalism of that kind, for which no assumption of good faith is required, will
724:
I have a surprisingly high capacity for assuming good faith, e.g., with those one-off edits that say "hello" and which are basically tests, or those in which folks tell the world how much they love someone or the latest teen pop idol, and a slightly lower tolerance level for the "poo, fart & pee"
577:
I realise that this may not be an issue for the folk from academia who spend much of their time, in collaboration with other like-minded editors, perfecting articles on subjects they know about, but for those of us who move around
Knowledge fighting vandalism, there's a great difference between being
831:
This latter task is, by its very nature, conflictive, at least. And the cause of misunderstanding, at best. And, unfortunately, editors who make good faith edits may, occasionally, get caught up in the crossfire, and find their edits reverted by mistake. Vandalism at
Knowledge is much more complex –
490:
On the other hand, while it's clear that many of you out there are pretty sociable and participate in the exchange of barnstars, etc., please forgive me if I don't partake in such expressions of goodwill. Noblesse oblige means that I'll thank you if you see fit to award me with summat, but please be
434:
Administrators who use
Knowledge-related IRC channels are reminded that, while these channels have legitimate purposes, discussing an issue on IRC necessarily excludes those editors who do not use IRC from the discussion (and excludes all non-administrators from the discussion ), and therefore, such
720:
Although I really wish I could spend more quality time sharing my wide-ranging knowledge in many areas ☺ – duly accompanied by the references from reliable and independent sources – and even create more articles, much of my time here at
Knowledge is unfortunately taken up reverting mere vandalism.
608:
One of the pet hates of these editors seems to be tagging, that is, placing tags on pages that need improving. Other than that they felt mortally offended when someone, at some stage, tagged an article created by them, and they've let the rancour set in, I just don't see why they get their knickers
600:
It's clear-cut. Either an article is perfect (!) or it ain't. If it ain't, fix it… or, if circumstances don't permit, slap a tag on it so that a) other editors can fix it or, b) innocent readers – who do not yet understand how
Knowledge works and/or are blissfully unaware of the humongous amount of
573:
And paraphrasing an admin (who gave me permission to use the cite): "An article may or may not include a bibliography or external links, but references are not open to discussion, for a very simple reason: you contribute what you know of a subject, and tomorrow some wise guy comes along and changes
482:
that spend their time making all those necessary tweaks that help ensure that
Knowledge has been able to reach its current level of recognition. The very essence of Knowledge, it's precisely due to their discretion, that their amazing contributions go unnoticed by the vast majority of readers here,
465:
First of all, I want to thank all the folk out there for contributing to making Knowledge, among many other concepts, a model of disinterested collaboration of historic dimensions. Personally, I have benefitted greatly from hours of reading interesting articles on a wide-ranging number of subjects,
437:
As the practice of off-wiki "block-shopping" is strongly discouraged, and that except where there is an urgent situation and no reasonable administrator could disagree with an immediate block (e.g., ongoing vandalism or serious BLP violations), the appropriate response for an administrator asked on
427:
Just for the record, I withdrew from es:wiki in April 2013, disgusted after having witnessed over several years the flagrant misuse of their delegated "powers" to suit their own interests by a small, but powerful lobby among the admins, and the bullying they tolerate among their pet admin hopefuls,
400:
Having been invited to present myself as admin on three or four occasions (both in public and by email), a degree of commitment that didn't then, and still doesn't, appeal to me in the slightest, we now zap forward to June 2010, when I was spending much of my Knowledge time over at the Knowledge in
740:
are getting out of it. Is that brief moment of whatever it is – euphoria at having put one over the rest of us? – really worth it? Talk about cheap thrills! I'm sure that the initial surge of dopamine goes sour when your subconscience, or whatever, kicks in and makes you feel like a jerk, which is
732:
While the "poo, fart & pee" type makes up most of the vandalism – it never ceases to amaze me how boringly predictable the vast majority of vandals are – the bane of Knowledge are really the trolls, flamers, etc., and all the others who think they're smarter than anyone else. Some of them, not
620:
or some other register of edits, you're likely to come across vandal edits. Hopefully, many will simply be isolated cases, one-off jobs by someone who reckons s/he's cool. Unfortunately, some vandals will have made a series of edits in rapid succession and one often has to visit several pages in a
612:
One of the typical wise-guy comments these self-righteous editors come out with is “Why don't you fix the problem yourself instead of slapping a big ugly tag on it”. AGF and leaving aside that in the time it takes 'em to hound the editor and leave their mark they could probably also have fixed the
510:
Which brings me to another aspect regarding my time here at Knowledge. As I mentioned in passing above, I have no interest whatsoever in being an admin and have turned down invitations/suggestions/requests to submit RFAs, both here and at the Knowledge in Spanish. While I respect their work, I can
584:
Once again, Jimmy Wales hits it on the head: "I really want to encourage a much stronger culture which says: it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate
556:
Part of the problem stems from the fact that, among experts, there is much agreement/consensus on certain points which don't need referencing if written for edited/peer-reviewed journals. However, as is so patently obvious here at Knowledge, even without taking into account the numerous bad faith
759:
I’m a pretty reasonable sort of chap, and am even willing, under certain circumstances, to accept that you may be right and/or that I may be wrong. I do, however, draw the line at insults and attacks on political, religious, cultural, ethnic or other groups, and, as I mentioned in the section on
647:
Like all mindless stats., these things do need to be taken with a pinch of salt. I'm not particularly fazed by those who make a big deal 'bout their edit count, but on the off-chance that relative newcomers to Knowledge are reading this, I'd just like to point out that while there are great
604:
As I mention elsewhere, one of the banes of Knowledge is the self-righteous editor, the type who likes to lecture others and point his/her finger at them, forgetting the wonderful English saying “when you point your finger at someone, don't forget there are three more pointing back at you”.
340:
with an attitude. I spend roughly half my time on Knowledge reading up on stuff that interests me and the other half proofreading, editing, fixing redlinks, assuming good faith and/or reverting edits by vandals – following their often haphazard trails takes me to articles which I
609:
in such a twist when seeing a template that performs a specified function… A totally different matter is when someone comes along and slaps an unnecessary tag on an article, but that comes under the heading of disruptive editing, and the corresponding steps should be taken.
511:
see no advantage in being one myself. The basic maintenance and antivandalism stuff that I do here require no special tools other than those available to all, such as Twinkle and STiki, and the other technical stuff that admins have to do really doesn't appeal to me.
564:
There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.
332:
Dear fellow Wikipedians, Not much of interest to include here except to say that I think Knowledge is gr8, and to thank all you folks for being out there and helping to keep it all together. It’s well worth our while, whatever its failings.
502:
I obviously have to express my gratitude to the admins who fulfil a number of tasks without which, even though the vast majority of users edit in good faith, this project wouldn't have been able to reach its current level of credibility and
518:. I prefer to stand out as an "ordinary" Wikipedian rather than being a run-of-the-mill admin and, b) having seen a very high proportion of burnout cases, my intention is to enjoy the time I spend here. In the words of the immortal
401:
Spanish (where I had registered at more or less the same time as here, again after having edited there for some time as an IP) and which I considered was in much greater need of experienced editors than Knowledge in English.
793:. However, if you find yourself in conflict with another editor, the first option should always be to discuss your differences on the article talk page, where other editors can also join in and help reach
704:
This need to rationalise article size has recently taken on an added twist in that many people I know are accessing Knowledge from a variety of handheld devices. Bite-sized snippets is where it's at...
688:– which is what has really changed our lifestyles :) – has only been around since 1992. There's not much literature out there yet regarding optimum use of web pages (except possibly in the case of
350:
I have been known to slip up in my zeal and even to put my foot in it on occasions. If I have made an edit to your work, please take it in good faith and let me know if you disagree with it. Regards, --
680:
One of the greatest benefits of reading stuff on wikis is the flexibility offered by all those blue links (not to mention the importance of redlinks, which help detect major gaps that need filling).
347:
would never normally think of visiting but which can be interesting nonetheless. And once I'm there to revert vandalism and to tweak and to do whatever needs doing, my fingertips start itching and...
553:, out there...), I've had numerous discussions regarding this issue with experienced wikipedians and people from academia who argue that bibliographies and external links serve the same purpose.
557:
edits that have to be dealt with, much content is written by people on an "I've-heard" basis and Knowledge, as an encyclopedia – not a blog or social network – cannot be based on such content.
840:
warning you that there might be unpleasant messages on your talk page and you reckon you can cope with trolling and self-righteousness, I'd like to invite you to spend some time over at
736:
In the highly unlikely event that a vandal will have read this far, if you have, and you do get a kick out of destroying the work of others, maybe you need to ask yourself just what you
812:
Many users – a majority? – spend their time here at Knowledge creating, or contributing to, pages on subjects they know summat about and staying out of trouble. Others, above all the
581:
If Knowledge is ever to overcome the lingering perception, especially among academia, that it is not reliable, it really needs to ensure full compliance with its own policies...
616:
For those of you who are more or less new to Knowledge, I'll explain the latter process first, ‘cos it’s easier to understand. Checking out your own watchlist,
744:
As for detecting long-term vandalism at Knowledge, my record so far has been discovering a vandal edit that had remained undetected for nearly five years.
435:
IRC discussion is never the equivalent of on-wiki discussion or dispute resolution. Consensus about blocks or other subjects should not be formed off-wiki.
601:
maintenance work required to ensure that stuff here is readable – see that someone is aware of the problem and simply haven't had time to fix it.
778:, it is no excuse for being rude. This includes, needless to say, insults, but also accusations of censorship, bias or being sockpuppets. Please read
847:
And as I mentioned above regarding edit counts, if you prefer to keep that low profile and you ain't worried about your edit count, you could always
526:... That said, there's no lack of occasions in which I regret not having had access to certain tools. However, in the words of the equally immortal
507:. That said, this should not be seen as toadying up to them. As some of them already know, I have no misgivings in confronting 'em if needs be...
466:
not only of matters that interest me directly, but also in an endless number of subjects I didn't even know I might be interested in. :)
837:
530:, "I can resist everything except temptation", so it's better to keep said tools out of the reach of weak-willed folks like wot I is.
343:
725:
childishness that abounds. For such relatively harmless vandalism I'll normally follow the formalities of Level 1 warning, etc.
613:
problem themselves, much tag-slapping activity is probably most often related to patrolling new pages and/or chasing a vandal.
363:
897:
106:
90:
362:
My random rants & ravings, as of September 2013. (For the majority of you out there who are post-decimalisation:
80:
428:
but particularly virulent over recent months, including, but unfortunately not limited to, blatant misuse of IRC:
185:
901:
523:
409:
389:
848:
656:
629:
199:
384:
After having been an avid reader of articles on Knowledge for several months (my first visit here was to
132:
785:
Knowledge has several mechanisms in place for dealing with conflict, including, but not limited to, the
546:
194:
659:
ain't the way to go if you want to pump up your edit count... but someone has to do it :)
284:
915:
Wales, Jimmy. "Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", 16 May 2006
617:
504:
475:
256:
404:
It still is... I don't remember the mindless stats. at the time, but as of today, there are
515:
145:
48:
8:
817:
813:
794:
479:
471:
337:
208:
925:
438:
IRC to block an editor is to refer the requester to the appropriate on-wiki noticeboard.
836:
an eye on your watchlist, and you're not especially fazed about logging in and finding
914:
821:
280:
121:
675:
625:
763:
649:
445:
385:
700:
which, together with other, ancillary articles, complement each other perfectly.
269:
790:
685:
98:
869:
519:
75:
786:
779:
697:
56:
569:, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons.
21:
684:
I know how easy it is to forget that Internet, or to be more precise, the
412:, as well as some 300 rollbackers at es:wiki compared to the 4,907 here.
527:
301:
264:
233:
184:. If you are here because my username resembles that of any of the other
170:
32:
392:, I had registered with a username and was editing away like billy-ho.
15:
693:
410:
there are 87 (of whom 81 have edited at least once since 5 March 2013)
766:
is basic here at Knowledge. While disagreement with other editors is
825:
219:
405:
188:
used here at Knowledge, click "show" → (If not, please read on...)
689:
71:
26:
841:
416:
838:
the message indicator that replaced the "Orange Bar of Doom"
140:
To add this auto-randomizing template to your user page, use
872:
The Internet Classics Archive. Retrieved 4 September 2013.
760:
vandalism above, have zero tolerance for such behaviour.
470:
This section must also make a special mention of all the
275:
228:
213:
491:
aware that I'll archive it at the earliest opportunity.
417:
2nd most visited Knowledge after Knowledge in English
415:
Just to put some perspective on this, es:wiki is the
851:, where there's a huge backlog of essential work...
749:
514:
In part, this is due to a) being a firm believer in
232:, other than having a really unfortunate username -
524:"Mad dogs and Englishmen go out in the midday sun"
585:source, should be the recipient of a barnstar."
926:Wales, Jimmy. "Insist on sources", 19 July 2006
574:it all, introducing falsehoods into the text."
406:1,435 admins at en:wiki, of whom 656 are active
357:
344:wouldn't normally touch with a bargepole and/or
195:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Technoquat
888:At Google Books. Retrieved 4 September 2013.
648:"intelligent routing tools" out there, like
545:Despite the corresponding Knowledge policy (
166:Is due to people who want to feel important.
624:The other typical case is when patrolling
386:"drupe", at the beginning of August 2004
203:and I got some help in dealing with it.
162:Half the harm that is done in this world
881:Manning, George and Kent Curtis (2003)
741:what you really are. And you know it.
560:As Jimmy Wales put it (my bold text):
193:In particular, you may be looking for
791:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
664:
886:, p. 126. McGraw-Hill International
395:
13:
55:
14:
940:
802:
750:For editors with a bone to pick,…
270:The Red Yellow Cucumber Gentleman
327:
291:
218:
81:List of acronyms and initialisms
856:
567:This is true of all information
336:Basically, I'm a supererogated
300:by me earlier, per CheckUser -
41:
919:
908:
902:The Collins English Dictionary
891:
875:
863:
637:
630:revise new pages from the back
455:
422:
354:23:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
1:
905:. Retrieved 3 September 2013.
535:
369:
710:
358:My ha'p'orth (caveat lector)
287:) 00:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
78:stands for? See Knowledge's
70:Do you need to know what an
7:
259:) 22:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
10:
945:
673:
590:
379:
248:22:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
133:Become a Knowledge tipster
497:
316:01:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
65:Acronyms and initialisms
547:Knowledge:Verifiability
211:hat on, I can say that
782:for further details..
571:
450:
408:, whereas at es:wiki,
273:actually be a sock of
60:
884:The Art of Leadership
562:
505:top of mind awareness
431:
200:attacked my user page
197:... Who has actually
59:
780:No personal attacks
657:New page patrolling
104: –
96: –
870:"The Tao-te Ching"
665:Length of articles
61:
826:Wikipedians above
787:Three revert rule
516:Peter's Principle
451:
156:
155:
122:Category:Acronyms
49:Tip of the moment
40:
39:
936:
928:
923:
917:
912:
906:
895:
889:
879:
873:
867:
849:patrol new pages
655:And, of course,
448:
430:
396:... and there...
314:
311:
309:
295:
294:
278:
272:
246:
243:
241:
231:
222:
216:
202:
151:
150:
144:
127:
111:
109:
103:
101:
95:
93:
67:
54:
42:
16:
944:
943:
939:
938:
937:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
924:
920:
913:
909:
896:
892:
880:
876:
868:
864:
859:
854:
853:
809:
805:
800:
799:
756:
752:
747:
746:
717:
713:
708:
707:
678:
671:
667:
662:
661:
644:
640:
635:
634:
597:
593:
588:
587:
542:
538:
533:
532:
500:
462:
458:
453:
452:
449:
444:
440:
436:
425:
398:
382:
376:
372:
360:
330:
324:
322:
321:
307:
305:
302:
292:
274:
268:
239:
237:
234:
227:
224: Unrelated
212:
198:
192:
189:
186:Techno... names
180:I'm the "only"
176:
168:
164:
158:
152:
148:
142:
138:
136:
129:
128:
125:
118:
114:
113:
112:
107:
105:
99:
97:
91:
89:
68:
63:
45:
36:
30:
12:
11:
5:
942:
930:
929:
918:
907:
890:
874:
861:
860:
858:
855:
842:Recent changes
810:
808:Click "show" →
807:
806:
804:
803:One final rant
801:
757:
755:Click "show" →
754:
753:
751:
748:
718:
716:Click "show" →
715:
714:
712:
709:
702:
701:
686:World Wide Web
672:
670:Click "show" →
669:
668:
666:
663:
645:
643:Click "show" →
642:
641:
639:
636:
618:Recent changes
598:
596:Click "show" →
595:
594:
592:
589:
543:
541:Click "show" →
540:
539:
537:
534:
499:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
485:
484:
463:
461:Click "show" →
460:
459:
457:
454:
442:
424:
421:
397:
394:
381:
378:
377:
375:Click "show" →
374:
373:
371:
368:
359:
356:
329:
326:
320:
319:
318:
317:
262:
261:
260:
190:
179:
178:
154:
153:
137:
130:
119:
116:
115:
88:
87:
86:
62:
38:
37:
31:Translated by
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
941:
927:
922:
916:
911:
904:
903:
899:
894:
887:
885:
878:
871:
866:
862:
852:
850:
845:
844:. Good luck!
843:
839:
833:
829:
827:
823:
819:
815:
798:
796:
792:
788:
783:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
745:
742:
739:
734:
730:
726:
722:
706:
699:
698:Louvre Palace
695:
691:
687:
683:
682:
681:
677:
660:
658:
653:
651:
633:
631:
627:
622:
619:
614:
610:
606:
602:
586:
582:
579:
575:
570:
568:
561:
558:
554:
552:
548:
531:
529:
525:
521:
517:
512:
508:
506:
489:
488:
487:
486:
481:
477:
473:
469:
468:
467:
447:
441:
439:
429:
420:
418:
413:
411:
407:
402:
393:
391:
387:
367:
365:
355:
353:
348:
346:
345:
339:
334:
328:December 2022
325:
315:
313:
299:
289:
288:
286:
282:
277:
271:
266:
263:
258:
254:
251:Thank you. --
250:
249:
247:
245:
230:
225:
221:
215:
210:
206:
205:
204:
201:
196:
187:
183:
177:
174:
173:
172:
167:
163:
159:
147:
141:
135:
134:
124:
123:
110:
102:
94:
85:
83:
82:
77:
73:
66:
58:
53:
52:
50:
44:
43:
34:
29:. Chapter 67.
28:
24:
23:
18:
17:
921:
910:
900:
893:
883:
877:
865:
846:
834:
830:
811:
784:
775:
771:
767:
762:
758:
743:
737:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
703:
679:
654:
646:
623:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
583:
580:
576:
572:
566:
563:
559:
555:
550:
544:
513:
509:
501:
464:
433:
432:
426:
414:
403:
399:
390:January 2007
383:
361:
351:
349:
342:
335:
331:
323:
303:
297:
281:Technical 13
252:
235:
223:
191:
181:
175:
169:
165:
161:
160:
157:
149:}}
143:{{
139:
131:
126:
120:
100:Tips library
79:
69:
64:
47:
46:
22:Tao-te Ching
20:
898:"ha'p'orth"
818:wikifairies
774:, and even
674:Main page:
638:Edit counts
520:Noël Coward
476:WikiFairies
456:Wikipedians
446:en:WP:BLOCK
423:... and now
364:"ha'p'orth"
171:T. S. Eliot
146:totd-random
33:James Legge
857:References
814:wikignomes
694:The Louvre
536:References
472:WikiGnomes
370:Background
276:Technoquat
229:Technoquat
117:Read more:
76:initialism
822:wikielves
795:consensus
776:Necessary
711:Vandalism
676:WP:LENGTH
626:new pages
480:WikiElves
352:Technopat
338:wikignome
298:Confirmed
253:Technopat
214:Technopat
209:CheckUser
182:Technopat
92:Prior tip
764:Civility
650:WP:STiki
443:—
290:Already
267:, could
207:With my
108:Next tip
772:Natural
690:W3C-WAI
591:Tagging
522:, only
380:Here...
72:acronym
27:Lao-tzu
768:Normal
738:really
551:worlds
498:Admins
296:
265:Alison
824:(see
528:Wilde
820:and
789:and
696:and
478:and
285:talk
257:talk
797:.
279:?
226:to
217:is
74:or
51:...
25:by
816:,
770:,
632:.
474:,
366:)
308:is
240:is
84:.
312:n
310:o
306:l
304:A
283:(
255:(
244:n
242:o
238:l
236:A
35:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
