User talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah/Archive 3

1207:, it's trending towards a snowball delete, and you saw the opinions of admins GOF and Tim, both admins and both have been doing cat work for years longer than me, so I can't control where consensus lies or where it goes - but I'm also not alone in the wilderness. If you think this is workable, go for an RFC on labeling of anti-Semites, I will help draft, and see what current consensus is. A month ago I would have gone after hitler with a stick, but things have changed, categorization is a political act and categorization of a famous bio like Hitlers will land you on the front page of the NY times and result in outing and real-life consequences- I don't care about this *that* much to be the sacrificial lamb. During the hubbub I tried to mark Filipacchi as a woman novelist (not taking her out of the parent!), and was viciously attacked, then later as bios were being diffused i tried to move hers and was dragged before ANI. So, no, I will find ways to IAR for our be-jack-booted-Germans. Also fwiw, the holocaust is today a subset of antisemitism and antisemitism in germany I think - and it wasn't me who put it there. Anyway, busy day so won't be on much, but truly accept my best regards and thanks for pushing me with intelligent ideas.-- 2507:

just on the novelists. So, I guess I'm at a loss too. What I'd suggest is this - there seems to be rough consensus around the diffusion, at least among those who have showed up so far - even two who were previously somewhat opposed to the idea, like Neonorange, and 99% of the diffusion has not been contested by any editors watching those articles. Why not just ask someone to close it out, ask those protecting the remaining novelist bios to drop the stick and allow full diffusion, then meanwhile you and others work on a broader Writer-level RFC, which does seem to have some support - from me, from Carwil, from a recent entrant, etc. If non-diffusion is the outcome, it's easy for a bot to fix. But those 75 remaining novelists should not just hang out there, if an article gets written about that it will be even harder to explain why they're there.--

1160:(it's why you can go from high-level concept categories down to things that would *never* belong in the parent, since topic category relationships are more like "related to" rather than "is a" relationships. I do believe that we should remove the nazi bios from that top-level cat, for consistency's sake, it's just I don't want to be the one doing it. Come on, won't you give me a free pass to stay away from Nazis? As Indiana Jones says, "Nazis. I hate these guys". I mean, I've been a lone wolf in the wilderness on that Mullins fellow, I even removed Ezra Pound, knowing full well that the next NY Times article will be about that! - you have to give me props for bravery in the face of incoming fire, no? Also, FWIW, I've said I would not oppose an RFC, but the questions I laid out would need answering. -- 2522:

it to be an end run around having an RfC, maybe you could voice your support there for having an RfC on a higher level category, we could get consensus to do that, and then have a discussion about the wording of it. You could ask those diffusing the novelists to drop the stick and get a bot to undiffuse them all up to the novelists categories. That would be a gesture of good faith, in line with the consensus on the CfD discussion on American women novelists, which I feel represents more of a consensus than that abortive thing on the category talk page, and would look great to outside observers without explanation (since you seem to want to take that into account). That would put us in a position where things would look good no matter how long it takes to figure out what to do.—

1175:

have to come up with consistent rules which will prevent editors from putting BLPs of porn stars into antivegetarianism categories, as if there were some relationship between the two. You insist on consistency and consensus and the necessity of a CfD and your answer here is to bend the rules because everybody knows? Why don't you go to CfD and get a consensus that Hitler shouldn't be in antisemitism. Anyway, Holocaust can't sensibly be a subcategory of antisemitism, so your bending won't even work. There are antisemites who don't fit into your subcategories. Words actually mean something and you and you're not the boss of what that is. Shorter OWK:

3500: 2472:- leaving only 75 or so novelists left in the head category - most quite famous - which is a rather odd result that needs dealing with. The question you posed has been widely advertised, but since there isn't support to do an RFC (or at least, not one on American novelists), what do you think should be done? Should we ask a non-involved admin to come and close the conversation in a few days, and provide a judgement of what should be done as a result? Do you want to let it sit there as is for another week? -- 2070:. You can click on the intersects up top, and it will display all articles that meet the criteria (e.g. American novelists who are LGBT and African American or whatever). This is still very early prototype stage, but since you were interested I wanted to share and get your feedback. If we could take this to production, this would basically obviate the need for big arguments about diffusion. In addition, we would be able to kill all of the gendered/ethnic categories entirely, except at the highest level. 1583: 31: 953: 2492:, especially the section entitled "The Trouble With Wikipedian Categories." Maybe the solution is to have a higher level RfC, maybe at the level of Category:Writers or Category:novelists or whatever the parent of Category:American writers is. I'm out of ideas, but I can tell you that from the standpoint of readers who care about literature, diffusing Category:American novelists into ill-considered subcategories, whatever they are, is a big mistake.— 3305: 3104: 2949: 2753:. Interesting complications around claims made by her daughter, which she disputes in her blog, and other complexities - plus the thing is constantly being spammed, and some eds are making audacious claims - I just removed one that was based I think on a tongue-in-cheek blog post - she does have strong anti-Israel views it seems, but some editors want to call her a terrorist, which I don't think is the same thing. -- 2798: 164: 3393: 3257:

were as good. Just yesterday we were trying to figure out how to help two of our clients who have just moved off the street, and we needed exactly $ 150 to do it. One needs a refrigerator (for $ 125), and the other needs a phone (for $ 25). In one fell swoop you have just solved two real-world problems of a kind most people don't even think about, as they drive by Sycamore and Romaine and look the other way.

1486: 2488:

an RfC. I'm at a loss as to what to do. I feel as if it'd be a big mistake to rely on the opinions of your categorization "machines" to decide what categories people go in, and I think your strategy of explaining the categorization system over and over again is not helpful. Readers don't understand it because it doesn't actually make sense in the context of real life. For more on this, see

2836: 1889:

Category:American poets is not realistically dividable on other grounds, then do not create a subcategory for "African-American poets", as this will only serve to isolate these poets from the main category. Instead, simply apply "African-American writers" (presuming Category:Writers is the parent of Category:Poets) and "American poets" as two distinct categories.

3229: 2335:

species, while the "lumpers" want to combine them into a more broadly-defined species.) Thanks goodness I mostly deal with San Diego which has just a few, obvious templates. About the linking/redirect issue: It looks to me as if all those links from templates to the redirect page instead of the newly named page are still there.

557:- seems like one of the writers bios that was targeted by Qworty. The author himself recently came back and restored some material. It's not that bad, but it still is mostly unsourced. If you have spare cycles, it could use a cleanup and sourcing if you're interested. Also FWIW, I think you did good work on the Young article.-- 1378:

is trying and wanted to thank you. On another subject - I did begin to tidy Upton Sinclair, so when I can get myself in a better frame of mind about WP (I mean what is the purpose of this place? to build content for readers or to spend time navel gazing?) I might try to work up that page or Steinbeck's page. Both need work.

2002: 2716:

On another note, did you know that many princesses are a subset of princes? Just found that... god what a mess. If we thought Filipacchi was bad, what happens if the royal families of the world start noticing how we've been (mis)categorizing them? These are people with serious money, power, and media

1377:

For trying to bring a resolution to the novels category situation and for trying to ask for collaboration between the category people and content people (whoever all these people are). I can't see that either of these will result in a satisfactory solution but I do appreciate that at least one person

1231:

I did read it - I agree, it is a good article, there was (obviously) a lot I didn't know about Mr. Pound. And I have no argument with the way his anti-semitism is treated in the article. As I said to Alf, if I wasn't worried about off-wiki implications, I would remove Adolph from the German category,

1202:

in spite of our numerous disagreements I really do enjoy debating with you, as you push me and make me think very hard. I'm not opposed to a broader RFC nor am I convinced consensus has not changed - perhaps it has - and perhaps categories could be created to capture these fellows without looping Mel

1159:

so you don't believe in nazi-exceptionalism? For example, here's one way to bend the rules a bit - stick the nazis under Holocaust, and stick that under antisemitism. That fulfills the letter, and the spirit, I think, since topic categories don't carry down the chain in the same way set categories do

997:

I think your recent interventions imply that you oppose Option 1 (not Fix 1, the discussion above it), and would prefer a different categorization scheme. However, you didn't really comment in that !vote, and I'm not sure I understand your current reasoning. Could you add your opinion to that section

2912:

It's because you won't talk about them on the talk page. If you'd take some time to learn how things are done instead of edit warring like this you'll have a much easier time of it. Your edit also removed the reference that I assume supported the paragraph above it. Can you start a section on the

2487:

I'm not sure. I feel as if your complicated proposal was essentially an RfC, and not one that was so easy to understand. I don't think that the fragmented process that took place on that page supports a formal closing either. It seems like an RfC in the guise of a discussion about why not to have

2471:

So, I'm not feeling consensus for an RFC as per the question you posed, but there does seem to be a growing consensus around the solution Neonorange asked me for in the comments thread (i.e. Option 1), and in practical terms, that consensus has already been enacted by several categorization machines

2077:

Anyway, your thoughts welcome on this. One concern I have is that this will open up the possibility to do many *more* intersects than we currently have categories for - there would be no issue in creating an intersect of African-American poets from Los Angeles who are bisexual and born in 1979. But,

1320:

One of your latest suggested that "we" (whoever we is) said you should bring this to CFD - actually, both Good OF and I have suggested an RFC on this matter if it's important to you to try to overturn the existing consensus. If you want to do an RFC just on creating an American antisemites category,

735:

seem to have me confused with whoever put those links on there. I am opposed to the links. I did not put the links on there. Ironholds has replied over there, so why don't you join the discussion about whether the page should be blanked. I'm assuming you're talking about "grave-dancing"? If so,

133:

Perhaps the source does not mention the total population in 1997, but the 1990 data shows a population of 31,xxx and the 2000 data shows a population of more than 33,000, thus the 1997 population could not be much lower than 33,000; plus, I stated that this is an "approximate" estimation. I believe,

3256:

Your immensely generous out-of-the-blue donation to the GWHFC and the lovely message you sent with it will go a long way towards keeping us going. But for now I am simply stunned. What possessed you to make it? Would that there were more people like you in our midst whose instincts and whose timing

2607:

I've sometimes individually notified editors who have been deeply involved in discussions - trying to not take account of any positions they might hold so it is neutral - but I think probably most of them are watching by now. It would probably be worth it to notify JPL, Xezbeth, and Nikki Maria, as

2521:

I'm against having a formal close on that discussion because it was not the kind of discussion that should be formally closed. As you say, it was not neutrally worded, and even though you widely and neutrally advertised it, by that time it was too hard for newcomers to follow. If you didn't intend

2073:

In addition, since we can now easily enumerate the contents of a category, presence in the head will no longer be seen as a "big" deal - click the enumeration link at the top of the demonstration so you see what I'm talking about - you can easily get everyone, including of the subcats, right in the

1174:

Why don't you use your free pass to stay away from Nazis, novelists, and antisemites? Your response to everyone who understands the fact of the matter, which is that Ezra Pound, Eustace Mullins, and John Kasper belong in the category Antisemitism in the United States is to say that if so they will

1013:

I'll reread it and see if I can make enough sense out of it to oppose it. My current reasoning is that a lot of people who write articles on novelists are opposed to diffusing them out of the (country)-novelist categories so that, while we discuss the larger issue, they should be all moved back to

716:

No, I was not ignoring BRD, which is not BRRRD. Anyway, i think the current version, due to Ironholds, is better. It is in line with common practice in such cases, and it removes a user page which is no longer relevant, as the user is no longer on Knowledge, explains the reason for the removal, and

3062:

Hi, alf! Your AfD nomination for the above article was successful and it was deleted. In the AfD discussion I mentioned several other, virtually identical articles which I thought should be treated in the same way that this one was. Since it has been deleted, I think the others should be nominated

1706:

Seriously though, I know what you mean - if it doesn't have the status if a legally-recognized city/town/township/village/voting-district/whatever or better (e.g. county, state, etc.) then it doesn't get the same presumption of notability that a recognized entity has. Even when something does have

1473:

I agree that the user definitely has an agenda and we need to intervene. And administrator intervention may be delayed if we don't warn properly (I've had block requests rejected by admins because of breaches in warning protocol). The level 2 warning following an unconstructive edit to Los Angeles

765:

Who's doing things that might be seen as "grave-digging"? What do you mean by "grave-digging" in this context? I thought you meant "grave-dancing," but I guess just don't understand. Will you please consider joining the conversation on the user talk page about whether or not to blank the page?

652:

I went back and checked again: One address form omitted "0:0". Whether there's a case problem with the template or not, assuming both forms of the IPv6 address have the same meaning when transmitting through the Internet and identifying nodes, probably MediaWiki doesn't assume the latter and so it

3437:

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I

2708:

Ok, so I propose we ask a non-involved admin to close out the discussion on Tuesday. That gives about 10 days in the hopper - discussion seems to have died down. What say you? In any case, I'm now focused on getting cat intersects to work. That will cause a switcheroo, in some ways, as we'll have

2506:

I didn't intend it that way - Neonorange asked a question, I responded, and then people started !voting on it... But we can't do an RFC on that, it would need to be reformulated in a neutral fashion - but if we did do an RFC, that would go against the consensus above, which was to *not* do an RFC

1616:

Thanks! There's a lot more to do on that one. I couldn't believe what bad shape it was in. I hope to work on it more tomorrow. Good catch on the Sunset Hills AfD and I'm sorry to oppose you on the Victoria Park one. I think you're right in principle but not in the practice of that particular

1227:

from beginning to end Ezra Pound's article. It's actually quite good and well-wriiten. Then look at the sources. Then come back and try to make the case he shouldn't be in the American anti-semite category. I see a vast disconnect between content contributors who understand the subject matter and

1236:

the issue at play here. A bright line was drawn, and the line was "no bios" - there weren't exceptions granted. If you do an RFC, I will help draft (if you want), and I wont stand in the way of a new consensus. But the old consensus is clear - I hope Tim's thoughts convinced you at least of that

473:

Hi there. I didn't realize there HAD been a deletion discussion. It occurred and was closed all in a few hours? Can you point me to it? I didn't mean to re-add the tag inappropriately. It should be noted, however, that if he IS notable, it's mostly for the Knowledge scandal, and various earlier

324:

discussion and supporting my view since you also agree it's a weasel word, since "It can be true whether or not there is discrimination as long as the people doing the advocating are advocating against it. A kid down the street from me has a t-shirt that says "No unicorns." The kid is advocating

3445:

data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide

2334:

Thanks. I'm baffled by the LA templates, they are a maze. (It looks as if the "splitters" won the day when it came to setting up LA templates. IMO every field has "lumpers" and "splitters"; for example in biology the "splitters" want every slight variation of an animal or plant to be a separate

1393:

I'm sorry I ever got involved, because it's very upsetting. I don't think anything will come of it either. I suppose we'll see. I appreciate your efforts and sympathize with the worry it can produce trying to explain things like this to people who don't seem to know the meanings of the words

1184:

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. 'They've a temper, some of them--particularly verbs, they're the proudest--adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs--however, _I_ can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what _I_

319:

Look at the timeline. 1) I remove NPOV weasel word word "perceived" 2) get it reverted, being told that's a totally valid word. 3) make WP neutral by putting it on both sides 4) After having THAT also reverted, try to get discussion going to we're treating everything fairly. I'm not "disrupting

1144:

No, I'm serious. If you won't do that one you don't believe in the defensibility of your own consensus to the point of acting on it. You keep challenging everyone who disagrees with you to come up with universal rules that cover every imaginable case but in fact you know in your gut that the

1128:

I love how you're daring people to go after the holocaust. Are you ornery or just want to watch the fireworks? I do *actually* value my life, livelihood, and so on. I'd rather just imagine there's a nazi-exceptionalism at work, so I'm *not* going to put my money where my mouth is. (but I'll do

1915:

You can put articles into them, you just can't also take them out of the parent category *IF* the category you're putting the article into is ethnicity, gender, race, religion, whatever. If you want to take every article out of American writers you have to do it by ALSO putting them in other

1888:

Also in regards to the "ghettoization" issue, an ethnicity/gender/religion/sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree. If a category is not otherwise dividable into more specific groupings, then do not create an E/G/R/S subcategory. For instance: if

1822:

I understand that some people think that, but you really need to read up on the larger context of what's happening with these categories. Even by the actual guidelines, which I have serious problems with, but even by those, you cannot use by-sex, by-race, or by-ethnicity categories to diffuse

958:

I just wanted to send this your way, to thank you for your though-provoking ideas about categorization, and your good work as a defender of the wiki in general, and moving towards a civil-way-out on this categorization mess. We don't always (or rarely?) agree, but I appreciate your insights

904:

Jesus, mine neither. They have all those bots running against the images and it's really hard to figure out what they want. I get about six of those notifications for every image I upload. As you can see from a note further up on this page, Begoon really figured out what was necessary.—

750:

No, I said "anything that might, rightly or wrongly, be seen as grave-digging". Referring to reading the edit-history is irrelevant to that, as how something might be seen by someone looking at the page is not influenced by the history of that page. I did not suggest that I thought it was

3454:, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the 3426:

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

320:

Knowledge to make a point", I'm trying to make things even. It's not my fault there's 2 different sets of rules going. If I was trying to disrupt I'd be reverting at least one of the reverts, not trying to reach consensus on talk pages. You should be joining the

2110:

No, there will still be drama, even in category space. But this would, I think, alleviate some of it. And ghettoization by gender/ethnicity would be a thing of the past. One disadvantage I just thought of is you would no longer be able to browse something like

134:

there was no need to remove my changes.Ethnic and religious statistics belong to the category of demographics. Since the section was filled with 2000 and 2010 statistics, it was reasonable to use the data in the beginning to avoid confusion. Please reply back.

1145:

current rules are wrong on at least that one instance. If they're wrong on that one then there's obviously something to discuss. If there's something to discuss then discuss it and stop invoking a consensus in which your actions belie your putative belief.—

517:

Given the major work that needs to be done, perhaps it would be best to create a sandbox and work offline from the live article with a few people from various points of view and then when there is agreement on a particular portion, bring it to live space. --

929:(and LQs response), then check out the category discussion, and the other about Buddha on same page. Borges would very much enjoy. CFD these days is really wonderful, some real gems being cooked up, and then placed before us CFD-junkies to be savored.-- 1823:

articles out of their parent categories. You may want to clear the category American writers, but you have to do it some other way than that. Ask any category nerd you like, it's actually true. I wish you'd revert all your own edits like this. Talk to

2650:

What do you think of my proposal for format? Maybe it'd be better to have separate sections for supporting different fixes, i.e. ===Support Fix 1=== and so on, with invitation to people who add new fixes to add new sections for support statements?—

3042:

Unfortunately you have been reverted again by the same user (Levounion battle). Although I fully understand the removal and I agree with it, the discussion appears to be fruitless in the relevant talk page. You comments might be helpful. Thanks in

1321:

or on populating the Antisemitism in the US category with American antisemites, please feel free, but I don't see the chances being good - if you want to make a change, it would have to be global, and you'll run into the other "isms" problem... --

2720:

Finally, on a completely *different* note, now that Leonard has said his piece about the book, how shall we treat it? I think we should just say he published a few articles about open source or something, and leave out the as-yet-unfinished bit.

106:(and the whole sacred sites tree, which I think is cool and useful) really gets at the heart of some of the points you (and Wittgenstein) have been raising. There is a of fuzzy logic of category membership - at what point does a mountain like 2578:

That's the least of our worries. We'll ask on the bot owners board. I don't know how to write interfaces with the API but the rest of the algorithm for this even I could write, so someone over there will be able to do it. I will notify. —

769:

This is in no way a special case. We are a neutral entity - we should not treat users any differently because the rationale for their ban got media attention. We should treat them the same as if the press had remained completely ignorant.

1264:

I think we are now definitely in Godwin's land. Did you just compare me with war criminals who sent people to gas chambers? Or was it in jest? Sorry, I didn't take that as very funny - if it was a joke it didn't come across as well as it

246:. Not so with yourself, LGR. You're not engaging on the talk page and you're evidently not clear on the meaning of the words you're putting in the article. If you think I'm being disruptive take me to a noticeboard or else hush up. — 3550:, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of 3078:

Yeah, I thought this morning about nominating them. If I haven't done it before you get back, feel free. I just want to research them all quite carefully, because it's not such an easy thing to get a place article deleted.—

1916:

categories which are not based on those criteria. The solution, which I think is wrong but seems to have consensus, in the novelists categories was to create by century categories and use those to empty the parent category.—

2233:

It seems like the article should be put into one or more LA templates, but there are so many of them I'm not sure where it should go. Looking for inspiration I find that many of the features of Griffith Park, such as the

2067: 2078:

how will we manage the creation of such intersects (I guess, anyone can create them, but what is the criteria for which intersects can go at the top of the category screen? perhaps then we go back to "defining")

1707:

legal recognition, like "Acme County Boll Weevil Protection District 3" (yes, I did make that up), it can still be knocked down at AFD when its notability is challenged and no significant coverage can be found.

2352:

Me too, when it comes right down to actually trying to figure it out. As long as the spaghetti feeds the family it doesn't matter how tangled it is, I suppose. Maybe I'll make a Griffith Park template soon! —

2998: 2811: 2264:, since that's where Griffith Park was. I also fiddled with the Chinese Theatre entry. Let's see how long that lasts! I haven't hard the heart to look into the linking/template/redirect issue yet today.— 414:

which directly involves some actions you have taken recently. I believe I have represented the actions and concerns fairly, but if I have unintentionally misrepresented your position please correct me.

2693:

ok did that. Also can you notify TruthKeeper88, I think she's retired but she may want to have a vote on this. actually, to be neutral, you should just re-notify everyone who actually !voted on the RFC

1790: 1091:

Articles, even lists (if well sourced). But not categories. There's just too much grey area. Does Mel Gibson go in? etc. Check the previous CFDs I posted, consensus is quite clear, and repeatedly so. --

2536:

Interesting, but that's not what I'd support. I proposed my way out over at the American novelists category page, please share your proposal (soon), and we'll see if others have ideas. Best regards, --

766:

You and Ironholds both claim that it's common practice but (a) it's not policy, and (b) this is a special case in which "standard practice" doesn't seem to carry much weight.19:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

2922: 1978:. I know you're an Anti-Catholic and I suspect you're probably in league with terrorists. Please keep your Marxist agenda out of wikipedia. We have means and methods of dealing with your kind 2433:

Just fooling around a bit because irony... I don't know who added the link to the random kid, but you're right, your sin was venial. And that obnoxious bot would have caught it soon enough...—

2791: 1763:

is not supposed to contain any articles; all articles in that category should be in subcategories instead. I would gladly switch the category to a different subcategory if you would like, but

1451:" and (b) the edit to Los Angeles was so obviously in bad faith that I saw no reason to escalate the level of the other warning. Regarding your comment at the user's talk page about edits to 1879: 2679:

OK, then in the interest of efficiency I'll just make it permanent. Maybe you could move your comment on my fix into threaded discussion section to keep things clean and I'll reply there?—

2772:

Hey. I got message from you about some test edits reverted. I did not make any edits, actually I have not edited English Knowledge for months. Bests, K.--Korovioff 21:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

2821: 1339:

Quite possibly true. I really don't think you're trying to defang antisemitism or have any goals other than to make the categorization system work as you think it should, by the way.—

114:, where many people who once considered it sacred have been scatttered to the winds of time). Perhaps this is an unanswerable question, or at least one not solvable with this system. -- 1793:, and it ended two days ago with a decision to keep the subcategories as is. Is there another discussion that took place at which it was decided to delete the gender subcategories? 1432:, not to pile on warnings before the user has seen the first one. The warning for London Heathrow was improper, as there's no way they could have seen the warning for Los Angeles. 2879:. If you can and would include a message with the money, tell them "Keep up the good work on Romaine Street and to hell with the Hollywood Neighborhood Council!" Thanks again.— 2096:

Thanks! I will give it a try later and let you know what I think. I agree that something like this could solve an awful lot of problems, although never all of them, I imagine.—

103: 3264:

You are now one of us. Please stop by some Wednesday night, when my wife Penny and I are there, so that you can see us in action close-up, and so that we can thank you in person.

1849:

I don't understand. The categories exist, there is consensus that they should continue to exist, but we shouldn't place any articles in them? Where is there consensus for that?

2602: 1957: 1925: 286: 255: 1204: 2644: 2481: 396: 2897:

I've talked to another mod about my edits ( I went into detail about why I did them) and got the "ok" Unfortunately people keep on deleting my edits. It's very frustrating.

3624: 3158: 1944:

The CfD you quote just has to do with which word to use, male vs. men, female vs. women. It doesn't have anything to do with diffusion. Again, the relevant guideline is

1649:

According to the post office and the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, my place of residence is real and inhabited, but I hardly think it meets Knowledge's Notability guidelines.

702:, which I'm sure you've been around long enough to have read. Why don't you engage on the talk page. Edit summaries are not sufficient in a contentious case like this.— 542: 1632: 878: 527: 3434:

on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

2466: 1449:

Warning a user for vandalism is generally a prerequisite to administrator intervention. Because of this, users should be warned for each and every instance of vandalism,

1403: 662: 647: 349: 2703: 2688: 2674: 2660: 2617: 2588: 2573: 2559: 2545: 2531: 2516: 2501: 2456: 2442: 2124: 2105: 1987: 1362: 1348: 1303: 1289: 1216: 1197: 1169: 1154: 1114: 1100: 1086: 1072: 1058: 986: 760: 745: 726: 711: 502: 439: 304: 2137:

Just a note to let you know that your expertise and careful research on all things related to Los Angeles is much appreciated. Like catching that incorrect address at

1671: 1638: 1626: 1014:

those parent categories so that the (understandably) very hurt feelings can be soothed a little while a discussion takes place about what to do about subcategories.—

3475: 3063:

for deletion too, but I am out of town and can't handle it. Do you want to do the honors? If you would rather not, I will take care of it when I get home. Thanks. --

1455:: this user seems to have it in for Sweden with respect to Norway and I'm inclined to be very suspicious of unexplained edits that remove information about Sweden.— 483: 3088: 2376: 2362: 2347: 2309: 2273: 2255: 2216: 2194: 2172: 1499: 1464: 938: 1729: 1690: 914: 604: 2115:- such categories would go away. You'd still be able to get to it by browsing the general occupations tree however, and then filtering by "jewish" for example. -- 1900: 1858: 1836: 1274: 1138: 1063:

Do you see my point about the anti-jewish writers cat? I'm trying to kill it, but I can't remove him from it since it's on the chopping block - thems the rules.--

1043: 1023: 839: 3195: 2730: 2428: 1246: 3617: 3604: 3486: 110:

become "sacred" enough to merit categorization (e.g. thousands of pilgrims visiting each year to circumambulate in prayer), vs just "sacred b/c its big" (e.g.

3555: 1969: 779: 2776:

I don't think that was me. I've never edited your userpage. Maybe you got it because you were looking as an IP and someone else had your IP previously?—

508: 679:. I suggest that you be careful. I'm sure that you have been around long enough to know that edit-warring is unacceptable, and may lead to being blocked. 183:

with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Knowledge's

2888: 2138: 2338:

I'm inclined to just pretend I didn't notice. I don't think it will ever come up as a problem. There are more important things here that need fixing. --

1567: 632: 490: 468: 1280:

Sorry, struck. "Nuremberg defense" is a generic technical term in my line of work, not denotative of Nazi associations, but I don't want to offend.—

1007: 566: 334: 2163:

Thanks for your kind words. I will certainly take a look at your article. I'm surprised it hadn't been written before December, but there you go!—

920: 151: 3072: 2939: 1806: 3343: 1311: 851: 451: 188: 3414: 1029: 123: 2858: 1330: 2090: 3386: 2983: 2967: 2849: 2802: 2785: 1878:

Don't delete the gender subcategories, just don't take the articles out of the main category to put them into gender subcategories. See e.g.

1607: 340:

I do agree with you but I'd rather chew off my own foot than edit MRM articles. Feel free to use my argument there if you want to, though.—

2762: 2713:

that will be undifferentiated - so will bring up a whole other host of issues around making sure people get correctly categorized somewhere.

2608:

they have been doing most of the moving back and forth. Also perhaps a note at the Filipacchi article, since that's where it all started? --

1228:

categorizers who don't. (I've broken my self- imposed rule of not editing but this seemed important). TruthKeeper 13:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

589: 3447: 2042: 236: 1441: 1353:

Thanks, I appreciate you AGF. And I AGF for you too, by the way. we're all trying to make this little wiki a bit better in our own way. --

968: 194:

If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Knowledge's

898: 424: 3052: 3558:. There's lots of news this month for the Knowledge Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... 3094: 533:

That sounds like a good idea. There's so much nonsense in there that it's hard to see how to shape it. Would you care to start one?—

280: 230: 1480:

A new warning generally should not escalate from a previous warning unless a user received the previous warning and failed to heed it.

1178:'When _I_ use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less.' 992: 3438:

find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

688: 375: 89: 81: 76: 64: 59: 2564:

Also, do you know of a bot that can do this? it's possible in theory, I just don't know which bot we should ask to do this job. --

2157: 1387: 577: 2413: 1778: 379: 242:

Are you kidding me? You are using words wrong and you are not engaging on the talk page. Every one of my edits is in line with

3214: 2934: 863: 3286: 2025: 1759:

I'm very sorry; I don't know what just happened. I did not try to revert your edit. I must have clicked something by mistake.

1746: 463: 3470: 3362:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

3177:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

3057: 3017:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

2906: 2207:

Any time, it was an excellent start. Just wait until I get into the paywalled LA times stuff; there's a goldmine in there.—

1677:

Oh, silly! You're committing the fallacy of equivocation. At AfD a reference to inhabited places is usually a reference to

1521: 2052:

You had previously expressed interest in the idea of category intersections. I wanted to give you a sneak peek of something

2112: 3430:

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the

2336: 1558:

If you have sources, put it in the article with the sources and then add the category. It would be far better that way.—

1077:

Fine. How is anyone supposed to use this encyclopedia to study antisemitism? It's obviously a defining characteristic.—

3451: 824: 610: 548: 2016:

For stepping up to the plate (or the wicket, if you prefer) and helping to resolve the "Sallie Parker" episode. Thanks.

926: 3516: 2593:

OK, I notified a bunch of WikiProjects. Are there other places besides Project talk pages that one usually notifies?—

959:

nonetheless :) I hope I'm not enabling you by sending you a beer, so please don't drink it until after 12pm your time.

314: 411: 3311: 3205:

I sent a small donation to that food bank in Hollywood in your name... what a great story, so I had to join in :) --

3402: 3110: 2955: 2710: 1974:

I've taken the liberty of removing and replacing some of the false info and blatent lies you posted in the article

1948:. You really should get some bot to undo all your edits and figure out another way to empty the parent category.— 3455: 3337: 3244: 1105:

You're going to take Hitler out so that you don't have to worry about whether Gibson goes in? Baby/Bathwater.—

3382: 3295: 3084: 3008: 2884: 2866: 2781: 2684: 2656: 2598: 2584: 2527: 2497: 2438: 2402: 2358: 2305: 2297: 2269: 2212: 2168: 2101: 2038: 1953: 1921: 1896: 1832: 1686: 1622: 1563: 1460: 1399: 1344: 1285: 1193: 1150: 1110: 1082: 1054: 1019: 982: 910: 874: 835: 741: 707: 643: 620: 600: 571: 538: 498: 435: 392: 345: 276: 251: 226: 147: 47: 17: 717:

does not make contentious statements or do anything that might, rightly or wrongly, be seen as grave-digging.

2826: 2809:

has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath

2550:

FWIW, fine to notify again - to Biography, literature, novels, I forget where else. Can you do it? cheers. --

2367:

Oh, good, just what LA needs - another template! J/K - a Griffith Park template would actually make sense. --

1719: 1661: 97: 3530: 1526: 812: 371: 168: 3588:

Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

2235: 2047: 1573: 1425: 1409: 998:

for clarity's sake? Right now there seems to be no one else opposing it on the discussion page. Thanks.--

884: 387:

It'd be better if you'd calm down and discuss the additions you want to make on the article talk pages.—

321: 206:, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through 1827:, whose views are more in line with your own, but understands this principle, if you don't believe me.— 619:

that a username or IP address is case-sensitive, thus fixing for the future the problem you ran into in

3363: 3349: 3178: 3164: 3131: 3122: 3018: 3004: 2975: 2875:, I see from browsing WO that I won the contest. Thanks, gals and guys! You can send the prize money 2261: 203: 128: 38: 3576:

Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

3191: 3080: 2880: 2777: 2744: 2680: 2665:

I think it's fine as you made it. I doubt tons will join in, people are kinda sick of this I think.--

2652: 2594: 2580: 2523: 2493: 2434: 2354: 2301: 2265: 2208: 2164: 2097: 2034: 1949: 1917: 1892: 1828: 1764: 1760: 1723: 1682: 1665: 1618: 1559: 1456: 1395: 1340: 1281: 1189: 1146: 1106: 1078: 1050: 1015: 978: 906: 870: 831: 737: 703: 639: 596: 534: 519: 494: 431: 388: 341: 265: 247: 215: 211: 143: 3582:

OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

3037: 2057: 1429: 1394:

involved. I'll take a look at Sinclair; I've been meaning to work on it seriously for years now.—

859: 180: 1891:" Really, this has been in the NYT and about a zillion other newspapers for about six weeks now.— 1232:

so I hope that explains why I don't care much about the extent of Pound's anti-semitism - that is

3570:

Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

1383: 943: 658: 628: 367: 330: 2419:

But it must be admitted, my crime was not as grave as the website link to some random kid! :) --

3510: 3466: 3431: 3410: 3336:, a weblog and forum dedicated to criticizing Knowledge, has assisted journalists reporting on 3210: 3027: 2930: 2902: 2758: 2726: 2699: 2670: 2640: 2613: 2569: 2555: 2541: 2512: 2489: 2477: 2452: 2424: 2409: 2181:

Thanks for your improvements to that article, keep it up! Yes, sometimes it's astonishing what

2120: 2086: 1983: 1358: 1326: 1299: 1270: 1242: 1212: 1165: 1134: 1096: 1068: 1039: 964: 934: 756: 722: 684: 562: 479: 459: 420: 402: 300: 119: 3304: 3103: 2948: 3316: 3243:

Congratulations, Alf.laylah.wa.laylah, for winning the first prize your contributions to the

3115: 2960: 2853: 2816: 1603: 1596: 1452: 3168: 869:

Hey, thanks! I saw your edit summary and thought about doing it, but it was too daunting.—

3187: 2148:? I created it back in December but I think it is badly in need of another pair of eyes. -- 1751: 1550: 977:

Thanks, and no problem with enabling. It's always after yesterday's noon, so no worries!—

806: 363: 3594:

WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

2635:

I was gonna write a punchy summary for you, but then I figured, you'd be all over it :) --

1180:'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.' 8: 3600:

Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

3499: 3278: 3048: 2132: 1294:

Ok thanks - I saw your edit summary but readers of the page won't necessarily. Cheers! --

855: 775: 207: 1681:. I suppose I could have been more explicit, but it's the usual shorthand over there.— 1482:

So the LHR edits should also be level 2, which you've now done, and we're back on track

3376: 3359: 3174: 3068: 3014: 2767: 2372: 2343: 2251: 2190: 2153: 2053: 1880:

Knowledge:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_24#Category:American_women_novelists

1873: 1817: 1532: 1495: 1437: 1379: 654: 624: 326: 2923:

Knowledge:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#American_novelist_stalemate

2815:

and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! ♦

167:

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Knowledge. Your edits appear to be

3621: 3506: 3462: 3406: 3206: 2926: 2898: 2806: 2754: 2722: 2695: 2666: 2636: 2609: 2565: 2551: 2537: 2508: 2473: 2448: 2420: 2405: 2145: 2116: 2082: 2021: 1979: 1824: 1715: 1657: 1517: 1354: 1322: 1295: 1266: 1238: 1208: 1161: 1130: 1092: 1064: 1035: 960: 930: 894: 752: 718: 695: 680: 616: 585: 558: 475: 455: 416: 296: 184: 115: 3524: 3148: 1992: 1854: 1802: 1774: 1737: 1599: 1003: 821: 670: 554: 157: 1474:

was proper. The escalation to level 3 for London Heathrow — an edit that occurred

264:

I have to warn you first before taking you to a notice board. Consider it done.

3392: 3346:. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 3228: 3219: 3161:. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 3136: 3001:. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page 2988: 2239: 1507: 1419: 510: 3353: 46:

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

3332: 3323: 3140: 3044: 2999:

Template:Did you know nominations/Committee of Catholics to Fight Anti-Semitism

2872: 2396: 1945: 1883: 1700: 1678: 1536: 1372: 771: 732: 403: 292: 172: 3564:

3441:

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small

1582: 3540: 3372: 3277:

Thanks for all of your hard work, and for introducing us to this charity! --

3200: 3064: 2917: 2368: 2339: 2247: 2186: 2149: 1491: 1433: 952: 699: 243: 195: 107: 104:

Knowledge:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_11#Category:Sacred_mountains

2750: 2017: 1975: 1743: 1708: 1650: 1513: 1182:'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master--that's all.' 890: 795: 581: 135: 111: 3616:

only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the

3520: 3152: 2992: 2978: 1850: 1798: 1770: 1544: 999: 845: 816: 676: 445: 2001: 698:, although I don't find it to be so clear-cut a case. You are ignoring 3419: 2893: 2848:

For your hard work on writing what could be a controversial article on

1415: 454:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

2033:

And thank you, too. Them wickets can get mighty sticky, can't they?—

1478:

the edit to Los Angeles — was not. The relevant line in the policy is

1789:

Where was that consensus reached? The only discussion I know of is

355: 2797: 2056:

has recently developed. To see it, add the following line to your

142:

I'm moving this to the article talk page and will reply there. —

1699:

Well, the local taxing authority has given "legal recognition" (

1645:

Thus it's real, thus it's an inhabited place, thus it's notable.

1547:. I'm new to Knowledge editing so please forgive any mistakes. 1539:. I did some research about him and my sources say he is either 3031: 2792:

DYK nomination of Committee of Catholics to Fight Anti-Semitism

1540: 163: 3328:, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was 3159:

Template:Did you know nominations/Hollywood Anti-Nazi League

3127:, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was 2972:, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was 854:

on your behalf. Cheers, and thanks for writing the article!

3442: 3144: 2242:, are not listed in any LA templates. What's your saying - 1414:

Thanks for staying on top of the unconstructive edits from

1223:

Butting in (I hope you don't mind!): Obiwan, I suggest you

1639:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Victoria Park, Los Angeles

2913:

talk page of the actual article to discuss what you want?

2835: 1617:

one. It really was the streetlights that convinced me.—

736:

you're badly misreading the edit history of that page.—

1447:

Thanks for the note, but (a) that guideline also says "

2260:

Amazing that they're not in there. I put them all in

2144:

For that matter, could you take a look at the article

1512:

Thanks! I swiped the idea from a user in Belgrade. :)

2940:

DYK for Committee of Catholics to Fight Anti-Semitism

889:

Thank you, image licensing is not my strong suit. :)

3612:

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be

3342:

The nomination discussion and review may be seen at

3247:! As you requested, $ 150 was given in your name to 3157:

The nomination discussion and review may be seen at

2997:

The nomination discussion and review may be seen at

2876: 1703:) to the property the building I live in sits on. :P 3248: 2467:

American novelists categorization - what to do now?

1203:into them. perhaps. If you see the current CFD for 927:

User_talk:Lquilter#my_favorite_category_of_all_time

925:This made me think of you for some reason: --: --> 491:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Robert Clark Young 210:. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in 3476:Books and Bytes: The Knowledge Library Newsletter 187:page, and ask for independent help at one of the 3344:Template:Did you know nominations/Wikipediocracy 2068:Category:Wikipedia_categorization_intersect_test 852:Template:Did you know nominations/Wikipediocracy 202:Please ensure you are familiar with Knowledge's 2852:, great job! The Bald Ones are proud of you! ♦ 621:Talk:Feminism#Marriage and other missing topics 452:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 2062:importScript('User:Obiwankenobi/intercat.js'); 2984:Committee of Catholics to Fight Anti-Semitism 2968:Committee of Catholics to Fight Anti-Semitism 2850:Committee of Catholics to Fight Anti-Semitism 2803:Committee of Catholics to Fight Anti-Semitism 2300:instead, but left the Chinese Theatre edit.— 1970:Deleted false and biased info you added Hajji 469:Deletion Discussion re: Robert Clark Young 450:Hello. There is currently a discussion at 3320:was updated with a fact from the article 3119:was updated with a fact from the article 2964:was updated with a fact from the article 1999: 921:Things that at a distance, resemble flies 580:. Also, thank you for the encouragement. 412:Biographies of living persons noticeboard 751:grave-digging, and I am sure it wasn't. 430:Thanks, I think you explained it well.— 359:STOP DELETING AND VANDALISING PAGES!!! 1633:Be careful with "thus ... it's notable" 1030:And, just like that, swords drawn again 410:I have recently filed a inquiry at the 14: 3226: 1553:comment added 03:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC) 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2842:The Eric Barbour Award of Controversy 2066:Then restart your browser, and visit 576:You appear to have read my mind with 196:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents 3546:Welcome to the inaugural edition of 3299: 3098: 2943: 2244:We got 4,243,893 messes to clean up! 2113:Category:American Jews by occupation 1483: 1129:Mussolini, if you back me up :) ) -- 595:Thanks, and keep up the good work!— 325:against unicorns, n'est ce pas?" -- 25: 493:. You can renominate it, though.— 23: 3340:involving the online encyclopedia? 3095:DYK for Hollywood Anti-Nazi League 2296:I changed my mind and put them in 1535:. I saw you revised my edit about 24: 3637: 2490:What Should We Do About Knowledge 2010:The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar 1595:For additions and corrections to 993:American Novelists categorization 179:If you are engaged in an article 3498: 3391: 3303: 3227: 3151:'s visit to Los Angeles to meet 3102: 2947: 2834: 2796: 2711:Category:African-American people 2000: 1581: 1484: 951: 162: 29: 3495:Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 3245:List of Knowledge controversies 1767:shouldn't stay on any article. 811:, you know - also available at 617:Unsigned template documentation 2298:Template:Northwest Los Angeles 18:User talk:Alf.laylah.wa.laylah 13: 1: 3058:Redondo Sycamore, Los Angeles 2807:Did You Know nominations page 3625:21:49, 27 October 2013 (UTC) 3592:Announcing WikiProject Open: 3586:News from the library world: 1205:Category:Anti-Jewish writers 813:File:Wikipediocracy logo.svg 7: 3574:New subscription donations: 3452:list of prominent templates 3034:) 08:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 2925:closure requested. Best, -- 2236:Greek Theatre (Los Angeles) 1049:All in a day's editing...— 611:IPv6 address capitalization 549:Another one that needs help 10: 3642: 3568:Knowledge Loves Libraries: 3554:, please add your name to 3132:Hollywood Anti-Nazi League 3123:Hollywood Anti-Nazi League 2976:World Heavyweight Champion 2801:Hello! Your submission of 2262:Template:Greater Hollywood 553:Just came across this one 322:Talk:Men's rights movement 315:Pointy editing at Feminism 212:loss of editing privileges 3598:New ways to get involved: 3471:21:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC) 3423:Hey Alf.laylah.wa.laylah 3415:08:32, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 3387:08:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 3287:17:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC) 3233: 2833: 2006: 1765:Category:American writers 1761:Category:American writers 1589:The Barnstar of Diligence 1580: 675:Your are edit-warring at 3605:Read the full newsletter 3358:and it will be added to 3215:15:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC) 3196:08:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC) 3173:and it will be added to 3089:16:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 3073:16:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 3053:14:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC) 3013:and it will be added to 2987:, co-founded in 1939 by 2935:23:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 2907:16:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 2889:00:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC) 2859:10:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 2822:10:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC) 2786:21:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC) 2763:04:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC) 2731:04:37, 2 June 2013 (UTC) 2709:massive categories like 2704:15:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 2689:15:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 2675:15:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 2661:15:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 2645:15:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 2618:15:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 2603:14:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 2589:14:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 2574:14:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 2560:14:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 2546:14:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 2532:22:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC) 2517:21:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC) 2502:21:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC) 2482:21:00, 20 May 2013 (UTC) 2457:17:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC) 2443:17:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC) 2429:17:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC) 2414:17:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC) 2377:13:55, 31 May 2013 (UTC) 2363:17:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC) 2348:17:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC) 2310:18:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC) 2274:18:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC) 2256:17:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC) 2217:22:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC) 2195:22:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC) 2185:have an article here! -- 2173:20:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC) 2158:20:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC) 2125:20:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC) 2106:20:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC) 2091:19:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC) 2043:16:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC) 2026:16:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC) 1988:15:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC) 1958:14:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC) 1926:14:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC) 1901:14:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC) 1859:14:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC) 1837:14:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC) 1807:13:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC) 1779:13:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC) 1747:14:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC) 1730:04:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC) 1691:04:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC) 1672:04:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC) 1627:04:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC) 1608:03:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC) 1568:03:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC) 1522:18:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 1500:17:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 1465:17:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 1442:17:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC) 1428:). Please remember, per 1404:20:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1388:18:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1363:22:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1349:21:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1331:21:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1304:16:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1290:16:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1275:16:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1247:13:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1217:13:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1198:12:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1170:02:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1155:02:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1139:02:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 1115:17:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1101:17:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1087:17:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1073:17:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1059:16:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1044:16:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1024:18:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 1008:18:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 987:15:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 969:15:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 939:02:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC) 915:17:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC) 899:17:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC) 879:16:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC) 864:16:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC) 840:13:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC) 825:13:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC) 780:20:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC) 761:19:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC) 746:19:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC) 727:19:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC) 712:19:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC) 694:Thanks for the warning, 689:19:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC) 663:14:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC) 648:16:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC) 633:15:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC) 623:. Thanks for your work. 605:19:07, 19 May 2013 (UTC) 590:18:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC) 567:15:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC) 543:18:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC) 528:18:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC) 503:23:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC) 484:23:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC) 464:04:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC) 440:16:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC) 425:16:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC) 397:23:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC) 380:23:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC) 350:03:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC) 335:03:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC) 305:01:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC) 287:20:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC) 256:20:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC) 237:20:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC) 152:20:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC) 138:8:00, 12 May 2013 (UTS) 124:15:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC) 3364:Did you know? talk page 3179:Did you know? talk page 3019:Did you know? talk page 2812:your nomination's entry 1034:But it will be ok :) -- 731:I'm sorry, but you and 523:aka The Red Pen of Doom 204:policies and guidelines 3401:Thank you for filling 3296:DYK for Wikipediocracy 3251:. Their response was: 2867:Wikipediocracy contest 2404:. You got me. Sh*t. -- 1647: 1187: 572:... and administrators 189:relevant notice boards 3556:the subscriber's list 3403:a red link on my talk 2074:same browser window. 1643: 1597:Skid Row, Los Angeles 1453:Norwegian Air Shuttle 1176: 98:Tricky categorization 42:of past discussions. 3237:The Oddball Barnstar 3081:alf laylah wa laylah 2981:was a member of the 2881:alf laylah wa laylah 2778:alf laylah wa laylah 2681:alf laylah wa laylah 2653:alf laylah wa laylah 2595:alf laylah wa laylah 2581:alf laylah wa laylah 2524:alf laylah wa laylah 2494:alf laylah wa laylah 2435:alf laylah wa laylah 2355:alf laylah wa laylah 2302:alf laylah wa laylah 2266:alf laylah wa laylah 2209:alf laylah wa laylah 2165:alf laylah wa laylah 2098:alf laylah wa laylah 2035:alf laylah wa laylah 1950:alf laylah wa laylah 1918:alf laylah wa laylah 1893:alf laylah wa laylah 1829:alf laylah wa laylah 1683:alf laylah wa laylah 1619:alf laylah wa laylah 1560:alf laylah wa laylah 1527:About Morgan Freeman 1457:alf laylah wa laylah 1396:alf laylah wa laylah 1341:alf laylah wa laylah 1312:Semi-arbitrary break 1282:alf laylah wa laylah 1190:alf laylah wa laylah 1147:alf laylah wa laylah 1107:alf laylah wa laylah 1079:alf laylah wa laylah 1051:alf laylah wa laylah 1016:alf laylah wa laylah 979:alf laylah wa laylah 907:alf laylah wa laylah 871:alf laylah wa laylah 832:alf laylah wa laylah 738:alf laylah wa laylah 704:alf laylah wa laylah 653:redlinks. Oh, well. 640:alf laylah wa laylah 597:alf laylah wa laylah 535:alf laylah wa laylah 495:alf laylah wa laylah 432:alf laylah wa laylah 389:alf laylah wa laylah 342:alf laylah wa laylah 248:alf laylah wa laylah 144:alf laylah wa laylah 2827:A Barnstar for You! 2048:Category intersects 1574:A barnstar for you! 1410:Warning other users 885:Wikipediocracy logo 281:central scrutinizer 231:central scrutinizer 2054:User:Magnus Manske 368:Whitechristian2013 185:dispute resolution 129:Reply to your post 3541:Knowledge Library 3370: 3369: 3357: 3293: 3292: 3185: 3184: 3172: 3025: 3024: 3012: 2864: 2863: 2745:And another thing 2146:Griffith Park Zoo 2139:Craftsman Mansion 2031: 2030: 1877: 1821: 1728: 1727: 1670: 1669: 1613: 1612: 1430:WP:Warn vandalism 974: 973: 524: 383: 366:comment added by 95: 94: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3633: 3618:Suggestions page 3502: 3395: 3347: 3307: 3300: 3283: 3249:http://gwhfc.org 3231: 3224: 3223: 3162: 3149:Leni Riefenstahl 3106: 3099: 3038:Ethnic cleansing 3002: 2951: 2944: 2856: 2838: 2831: 2830: 2819: 2800: 2063: 2004: 1997: 1996: 1871: 1815: 1742:Exactly so! :-) 1713: 1712: 1655: 1654: 1585: 1578: 1577: 1554: 1489: 1488: 1487: 955: 948: 947: 823: 819: 810: 555:Robert_Bidinotto 525: 522: 513:- use a sandbox? 474:revenge stunts. 382: 360: 285: 284: 283: 271: 268: 235: 234: 233: 221: 218: 166: 73: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3641: 3640: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3607: 3552:Books and Bytes 3548:Books and Bytes 3545: 3535: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3487:Books and Bytes 3478: 3450:, along with a 3421: 3399: 3298: 3279: 3222: 3203: 3188:Graeme Bartlett 3137:communist front 3097: 3060: 3040: 3028:The DYK project 2989:Catholic Worker 2942: 2920: 2895: 2869: 2854: 2829: 2817: 2794: 2770: 2749:Take a look at 2747: 2469: 2399: 2240:Los Angeles Zoo 2135: 2061: 2050: 1995: 1972: 1754: 1740: 1635: 1576: 1548: 1529: 1510: 1485: 1412: 1375: 1314: 1032: 995: 946: 944:A beer for you! 923: 887: 848: 817: 815: 804: 798: 673: 615:I added to the 613: 574: 551: 520: 515: 511:White privilege 471: 448: 408: 361: 357: 317: 275: 274: 273: 269: 266: 225: 224: 223: 219: 216: 214:. Thank you. 181:content dispute 160: 131: 100: 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3639: 3609: 3603: 3562:New positions: 3537: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3480: 3479: 3477: 3474: 3420: 3418: 3390: 3368: 3367: 3333:Wikipediocracy 3324:Wikipediocracy 3308: 3297: 3294: 3291: 3290: 3275: 3274: 3267: 3266: 3260: 3259: 3240: 3239: 3234: 3232: 3221: 3218: 3207:Obi-Wan Kenobi 3202: 3199: 3183: 3182: 3141:Dorothy Parker 3139:co-chaired by 3107: 3096: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3059: 3056: 3039: 3036: 3023: 3022: 2952: 2941: 2938: 2927:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2919: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2894: 2892: 2868: 2865: 2862: 2861: 2845: 2844: 2839: 2828: 2825: 2793: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2769: 2766: 2755:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2746: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2723:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2718: 2714: 2696:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2667:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2637:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2610:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2566:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2562: 2552:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2548: 2538:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2509:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2474:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2468: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2449:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2421:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2406:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2398: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2176: 2175: 2134: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2117:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2083:Obi-Wan Kenobi 2058:common.js page 2049: 2046: 2029: 2028: 2013: 2012: 2007: 2005: 1994: 1991: 1971: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1928: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1886:, which says " 1866: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1810: 1809: 1795: 1794: 1786: 1785: 1753: 1750: 1739: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1704: 1694: 1693: 1634: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1611: 1610: 1592: 1591: 1586: 1575: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1537:Morgan Freeman 1528: 1525: 1509: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1468: 1467: 1411: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1374: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1355:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1334: 1333: 1323:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1313: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1296:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1267:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1239:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1209:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1183: 1181: 1179: 1162:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1131:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1093:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1065:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1036:Obi-Wan Kenobi 1031: 1028: 1027: 1026: 994: 991: 990: 989: 972: 971: 961:Obi-Wan Kenobi 956: 945: 942: 931:Obi-Wan Kenobi 922: 919: 918: 917: 886: 883: 882: 881: 856:Reaper Eternal 847: 844: 843: 842: 830:OK, thanks! — 797: 794: 793: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 672: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 612: 609: 608: 607: 573: 570: 559:Obi-Wan Kenobi 550: 547: 546: 545: 514: 507: 506: 505: 470: 467: 447: 444: 443: 442: 407: 401: 400: 399: 356: 354: 353: 352: 316: 313: 312: 311: 310: 309: 308: 307: 297:Obi-Wan Kenobi 279: 259: 258: 229: 200: 199: 192: 171:and have been 159: 156: 155: 154: 130: 127: 116:Obi-Wan Kenobi 99: 96: 93: 92: 87: 84: 79: 74: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3638: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3623: 3619: 3615: 3608: 3606: 3601: 3599: 3595: 3593: 3589: 3587: 3583: 3581: 3577: 3575: 3571: 3569: 3565: 3563: 3559: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3544: 3542: 3534: 3532: 3529: 3526: 3522: 3518: 3515: 3512: 3508: 3503: 3501: 3496: 3490: 3489: 3488: 3473: 3472: 3468: 3464: 3459: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3444: 3439: 3435: 3433: 3428: 3424: 3417: 3416: 3412: 3408: 3404: 3398: 3394: 3389: 3388: 3384: 3381: 3378: 3374: 3365: 3361: 3355: 3351: 3345: 3341: 3339: 3338:controversies 3335: 3334: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3319: 3318: 3317:Did you know? 3313: 3309: 3306: 3302: 3301: 3289: 3288: 3284: 3282: 3272: 3269: 3268: 3265: 3262: 3261: 3258: 3253: 3252: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3241: 3238: 3235: 3230: 3225: 3217: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3198: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3180: 3176: 3170: 3166: 3160: 3156: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3138: 3134: 3133: 3129:... that the 3126: 3125: 3124: 3118: 3117: 3116:Did you know? 3112: 3108: 3105: 3101: 3100: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3077: 3076: 3075: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3055: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3035: 3033: 3029: 3020: 3016: 3010: 3006: 3000: 2996: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2985: 2980: 2977: 2971: 2970: 2969: 2963: 2962: 2961:Did you know? 2957: 2953: 2950: 2946: 2945: 2937: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2891: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2874: 2860: 2857: 2855:Dr. ☠ Blofeld 2851: 2847: 2846: 2843: 2840: 2837: 2832: 2824: 2823: 2820: 2818:Dr. ☠ Blofeld 2814: 2813: 2808: 2804: 2799: 2787: 2783: 2779: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2765: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2719: 2715: 2712: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2701: 2697: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2591: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2499: 2495: 2491: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2447:DC did it. -- 2446: 2445: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2360: 2356: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2275: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2238:and even the 2237: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2147: 2142: 2140: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2114: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2088: 2084: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2069: 2064: 2059: 2055: 2045: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2014: 2011: 2008: 2003: 1998: 1990: 1989: 1985: 1981: 1977: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1890: 1885: 1881: 1875: 1874:edit conflict 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1843: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1819: 1818:edit conflict 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1797: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1787: 1783: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1766: 1762: 1757: 1749: 1748: 1745: 1731: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1710: 1705: 1702: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1652: 1646: 1642: 1640: 1628: 1624: 1620: 1615: 1614: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1598: 1594: 1593: 1590: 1587: 1584: 1579: 1569: 1565: 1561: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1552: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1533:Count Awesome 1524: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1501: 1497: 1493: 1481: 1477: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1424: 1421: 1417: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1319: 1316: 1315: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1235: 1230: 1229: 1226: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1195: 1191: 1186: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1025: 1021: 1017: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1005: 1001: 988: 984: 980: 976: 975: 970: 966: 962: 957: 954: 950: 949: 941: 940: 936: 932: 928: 916: 912: 908: 903: 902: 901: 900: 896: 892: 880: 876: 872: 868: 867: 866: 865: 861: 857: 853: 841: 837: 833: 829: 828: 827: 826: 822: 820: 814: 808: 803:I think it's 801: 781: 777: 773: 768: 767: 764: 763: 762: 758: 754: 749: 748: 747: 743: 739: 734: 730: 729: 728: 724: 720: 715: 714: 713: 709: 705: 701: 697: 693: 692: 691: 690: 686: 682: 678: 664: 660: 656: 655:Nick Levinson 651: 650: 649: 645: 641: 638:OK, thanks!— 637: 636: 635: 634: 630: 626: 625:Nick Levinson 622: 618: 606: 602: 598: 594: 593: 592: 591: 587: 583: 579: 569: 568: 564: 560: 556: 544: 540: 536: 532: 531: 530: 529: 526: 512: 504: 500: 496: 492: 488: 487: 486: 485: 481: 477: 466: 465: 461: 457: 453: 441: 437: 433: 429: 428: 427: 426: 422: 418: 413: 405: 398: 394: 390: 386: 385: 384: 381: 377: 373: 369: 365: 351: 347: 343: 339: 338: 337: 336: 332: 328: 327:TheTruthiness 323: 306: 302: 298: 294: 290: 289: 288: 282: 278: 272: 270:green rosetta 263: 262: 261: 260: 257: 253: 249: 245: 241: 240: 239: 238: 232: 228: 222: 220:green rosetta 213: 209: 205: 197: 193: 190: 186: 182: 178: 177: 176: 174: 170: 165: 153: 149: 145: 141: 140: 139: 137: 136:User: Ari777m 126: 125: 121: 117: 113: 109: 108:Mount Kailash 105: 91: 88: 85: 83: 80: 78: 75: 72: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3622:The Interior 3613: 3611: 3610: 3602: 3597: 3596: 3591: 3590: 3585: 3584: 3579: 3578: 3573: 3572: 3567: 3566: 3561: 3560: 3551: 3547: 3538: 3536: 3527: 3513: 3507:The Interior 3504: 3497: 3494: 3485: 3484: 3463:Okeyes (WMF) 3460: 3440: 3436: 3432:VisualEditor 3429: 3425: 3422: 3407:Gerda Arendt 3400: 3396: 3379: 3371: 3331: 3329: 3322: 3321: 3315: 3312:22 June 2013 3280: 3276: 3271:Ted Landreth 3270: 3263: 3255: 3236: 3204: 3186: 3143:, boycotted 3130: 3128: 3121: 3120: 3114: 3061: 3041: 3026: 2982: 2973: 2966: 2965: 2959: 2921: 2899:ErikTylersYo 2896: 2870: 2841: 2810: 2795: 2771: 2751:Alice Walker 2748: 2634: 2470: 2400: 2243: 2182: 2143: 2136: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2065: 2051: 2032: 2009: 1980:NYFinanceGal 1976:Joseph Breen 1973: 1887: 1769: 1758: 1755: 1752:Maggie Mason 1741: 1648: 1644: 1636: 1588: 1531:Hi! This is 1530: 1511: 1479: 1475: 1448: 1422: 1413: 1376: 1317: 1263: 1233: 1224: 1177: 1127: 1033: 996: 924: 888: 849: 802: 799: 753:JamesBWatson 719:JamesBWatson 696:JamesBWatson 681:JamesBWatson 674: 614: 575: 552: 516: 509:makeover of 476:NaymanNoland 472: 456:Coffeepusher 449: 417:Coffeepusher 409: 362:— Preceding 358: 318: 201: 175:or removed. 161: 132: 112:Mount Denali 101: 70: 43: 37: 3354:quick check 3169:quick check 3153:Walt Disney 3147:film-maker 3111:7 June 2013 3009:quick check 2993:Dorothy Day 2979:Gene Tunney 2956:5 June 2013 2717:savvy. Ugh. 2694:proposal.-- 2133:Also thanks 1600:GeorgeLouis 1549:—Preceding 1545:irreligious 1380:Truthkeeper 850:I've filed 807:PD-textlogo 677:User:Qworty 489:It's here: 291:seriously? 36:This is an 3580:New ideas: 3539:Greetings 3350:here's how 3165:here's how 3005:here's how 2768:Test edits 1641:you wrote 169:disruptive 3373:Cas Liber 3330:... that 3281:SB_Johnny 3045:Alexikoua 2974:... that 2873:SB Johnny 1882:and also 772:Ironholds 733:Ironholds 578:this edit 208:consensus 102:This one 90:Archive 7 82:Archive 5 77:Archive 4 71:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 3543:members! 3531:contribs 3517:contribs 3461:Thanks, 3456:Feedback 3383:contribs 3360:DYKSTATS 3175:DYKSTATS 3065:MelanieN 3043:advance. 3032:nominate 3015:DYKSTATS 2369:MelanieN 2340:MelanieN 2248:MelanieN 2187:MelanieN 2150:MelanieN 2081:best, -- 1791:this one 1756:Hi Alf, 1720:contribs 1662:contribs 1492:Ibadibam 1434:Ibadibam 1426:contribs 1265:might.-- 671:Edit war 376:contribs 364:unsigned 295:dude. -- 173:reverted 158:May 2013 3220:Thanks! 2991:leader 2805:at the 2183:doesn't 2018:Carrite 1946:WP:EGRS 1884:WP:EGRS 1825:Obi-Wan 1784:Hi Alf, 1744:Spartaz 1709:davidwr 1701:WP:NGEO 1679:WP:NGEO 1651:davidwr 1551:undated 1514:Optimom 1508:Userbox 1237:much.-- 891:Optimom 582:Optimom 415:Cheers! 404:WP:BLPN 293:WP:DTTR 39:archive 3614:opt-in 3521:Ocaasi 3458:page. 3397:treats 2397:Touché 1993:Thanks 1851:Neelix 1799:Neelix 1771:Neelix 1738:Thanks 1724:e-mail 1666:e-mail 1541:Jewish 1476:before 1373:Thanks 1318:a note 1000:Carwil 818:Begoon 700:WP:BRD 521:TRPoD 406:notice 277:(talk) 267:little 244:WP:BRD 227:(talk) 217:little 1416:Krsno 1185:say!' 16:< 3620:. -- 3525:talk 3511:talk 3467:talk 3448:here 3443:JSON 3411:talk 3405:! -- 3377:talk 3285:| ✌ 3211:talk 3192:talk 3145:Nazi 3135:, a 3085:talk 3069:talk 3049:talk 2931:talk 2903:talk 2885:talk 2877:here 2871:Hey 2782:talk 2759:talk 2727:talk 2700:talk 2685:talk 2671:talk 2657:talk 2641:talk 2614:talk 2599:talk 2585:talk 2570:talk 2556:talk 2542:talk 2528:talk 2513:talk 2498:talk 2478:talk 2453:talk 2439:talk 2425:talk 2410:talk 2373:talk 2359:talk 2344:talk 2306:talk 2270:talk 2252:talk 2213:talk 2191:talk 2169:talk 2154:talk 2121:talk 2102:talk 2087:talk 2039:talk 2022:talk 1984:talk 1954:talk 1922:talk 1897:talk 1855:talk 1833:talk 1803:talk 1775:talk 1716:talk 1687:talk 1658:talk 1623:talk 1604:talk 1564:talk 1518:talk 1496:talk 1461:talk 1438:talk 1420:talk 1400:talk 1384:talk 1359:talk 1345:talk 1327:talk 1300:talk 1286:talk 1271:talk 1243:talk 1225:read 1213:talk 1194:talk 1166:talk 1151:talk 1135:talk 1111:talk 1097:talk 1083:talk 1069:talk 1055:talk 1040:talk 1020:talk 1004:talk 983:talk 965:talk 935:talk 911:talk 895:talk 875:talk 860:talk 836:talk 796:Logo 776:talk 757:talk 742:talk 723:talk 708:talk 685:talk 659:talk 644:talk 629:talk 601:talk 586:talk 563:talk 539:talk 499:talk 480:talk 460:talk 436:talk 421:talk 393:talk 372:talk 346:talk 331:talk 301:talk 252:talk 148:talk 120:talk 3519:), 3505:by 3310:On 3201:fyi 3109:On 2954:On 2918:fyi 2401:Ok 2141:. 1722:)/( 1718:)/( 1664:)/( 1660:)/( 1637:On 1543:or 1234:not 846:FYI 800:Hi 446:ANI 3469:) 3413:) 3385:) 3352:, 3314:, 3213:) 3194:) 3167:, 3113:, 3087:) 3071:) 3051:) 3007:, 2958:, 2933:) 2905:) 2887:) 2784:) 2761:) 2729:) 2721:-- 2702:) 2687:) 2673:) 2659:) 2643:) 2616:) 2601:) 2587:) 2572:) 2558:) 2544:) 2530:) 2515:) 2500:) 2480:) 2455:) 2441:) 2427:) 2412:) 2375:) 2361:) 2346:) 2308:) 2272:) 2254:) 2246:-- 2215:) 2193:) 2171:) 2156:) 2123:) 2104:) 2089:) 2060:: 2041:) 2024:) 1986:) 1956:) 1924:) 1899:) 1857:) 1835:) 1805:) 1777:) 1689:) 1625:) 1606:) 1566:) 1520:) 1498:) 1490:. 1463:) 1440:) 1402:) 1386:) 1361:) 1347:) 1329:) 1302:) 1288:) 1273:) 1245:) 1215:) 1196:) 1188:— 1168:) 1153:) 1137:) 1113:) 1099:) 1085:) 1071:) 1057:) 1042:) 1022:) 1006:) 985:) 967:) 937:) 913:) 897:) 877:) 862:) 838:) 809:}} 805:{{ 778:) 759:) 744:) 725:) 710:) 687:) 661:) 646:) 631:) 603:) 588:) 565:) 541:) 501:) 482:) 462:) 438:) 423:) 395:) 378:) 374:• 348:) 333:) 303:) 254:) 150:) 122:) 86:→ 3533:) 3528:· 3523:( 3514:· 3509:( 3465:( 3409:( 3380:· 3375:( 3366:. 3356:) 3348:( 3273:" 3254:" 3209:( 3190:( 3181:. 3171:) 3163:( 3155:? 3083:( 3067:( 3047:( 3030:( 3021:. 3011:) 3003:( 2995:? 2929:( 2901:( 2883:( 2780:( 2757:( 2725:( 2698:( 2683:( 2669:( 2655:( 2639:( 2612:( 2597:( 2583:( 2568:( 2554:( 2540:( 2526:( 2511:( 2496:( 2476:( 2451:( 2437:( 2423:( 2408:( 2371:( 2357:( 2342:( 2304:( 2268:( 2250:( 2211:( 2189:( 2167:( 2152:( 2119:( 2100:( 2085:( 2037:( 2020:( 1982:( 1952:( 1920:( 1895:( 1876:) 1872:( 1853:( 1831:( 1820:) 1816:( 1801:( 1773:( 1726:) 1714:( 1711:/ 1685:( 1668:) 1656:( 1653:/ 1621:( 1602:( 1562:( 1516:( 1494:( 1459:( 1436:( 1423:· 1418:( 1398:( 1382:( 1357:( 1343:( 1325:( 1298:( 1284:( 1269:( 1241:( 1211:( 1192:( 1164:( 1149:( 1133:( 1109:( 1095:( 1081:( 1067:( 1053:( 1038:( 1018:( 1002:( 981:( 963:( 933:( 909:( 893:( 873:( 858:( 834:( 774:( 755:( 740:( 721:( 706:( 683:( 657:( 642:( 627:( 599:( 584:( 561:( 537:( 497:( 478:( 458:( 434:( 419:( 391:( 370:( 344:( 329:( 299:( 250:( 198:. 191:. 146:( 118:( 50:.

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

Index