748:, which (by title) qualifies it for consideration, rather than dismissing it outright because it's a CAM source. Inspecting the clinical studies in the Mogami review, however, reveals they were all disqualifying studies with low subject numbers and weak designs (section 3.1), i.e., if judged individually, each would be called "primary research" at best and not used. So, is a review of questionable primary studies acceptable because it consolidates clinical studies on the rikkunshito-appetite topic? Some would say 'yes', although I maintain it's 'no'; that the editorial review allowed Mogami to be published testifies about the low-overall quality of the journal. The Ernst editorial makes an additional case against EBCAM and by inference other CAM journals: the research quality is generally so poor that authors seek to pay their way into publication. Another way of looking at this is to ask if the Mogami 'systematic review' could pass muster in a rigorously reviewed journal, like Lancet or NEJM. Definitely not, leading us to find a more reliable source for a topic that will always be nebulous for defining efficacy, specificity, and safety, as
1498:), do you deny that you are directly accusing me of being a paid editor? Do you have any evidence of that? How do you reconcile that with the No personal attacks policy quoted above? To be clear, perhaps you don't understand when you did that. I'm the creator of the above mentioned article, and you slapped the template on it saying that it was probably created for money, and opened the AfD by saying that "This page is made for PR/Advertising WP:PROMO purpose", basically saying you can read my mind. I wrote the article because this is a Chinese advertising company infiltrating the worldwide advertising space, which is a major public concern. Don't assume other people's motivations w/o evidence. See also our discussion at
470:(i.e., there is no black/white list). I understand that we have a certain United States institutional bias, but I have no idea what journals are on your list, and I'm probably not OK with whatever small list (mostly by not freely-accessible) publishers you have in mind. Seems to be a fairly arbitrary decision - all review articles discuss a quite varied level of evidence, and requiring that all medical content discuss - what, multicenter RCTs? - seems quite unrealistic. Where would you prefer to handle this dispute resolution? We can go to
1230:
1104:
79:
22:
1543:. I certainly don't believe this is notable (a supply ship? seriously? zero significant coverage, just passing mention), but how do I know you aren't a paid promoter? I don't. So why don't I slap the paid editing tag on it, nom for AfD, and accuse you of being paid to write it to promote SpaceX or Guice Offshore? Because that would assume bad faith and create a hostile environment. Does that allow you to understand a little better why we have these policies?
1833:
1297:
2292:
2082:
1889:
1743:
1012:
212:
2174:
898:. What gets measured gets managed, and prolly part of the reason that *Science* refuses to publish a failed replication is that it doesn't see it see it as interesting enough to increase the impact factor. Additionally, "Perversely, a weak paper that is being refuted will augment the impact factor, as will a retracted article, because although the article may have been retracted, the citations of this article will still count"
507:
States (or maybe Europe). In this case, there's lots and lots of literature including reviews - if you don't like that journal, we can use another one. But if *all* 14 reviews, plus the ones since 2014 (somewhere around a half-dozen), then that's frankly troubling. My understanding is that rikkunshito is also approved by the government of Japan for cachexia treatment; I haven't done a full literature in a few years.
785:(edit conflict) We need to move away from journal-level medals. There is no need to launch an investigation into the journal nor to read tea leaves about its average quality: just look straight into the reality at hand, i.e. the authors of this work. I say they're clearly suspicious, given 1) their academic credentials and experience seem unknown, 2) they are working for a private company. When you see that
824:. Good points about the Mogami study. The article you provide on high impact journals does state "the best reporting practices ... were present in more than 80% of articles published in NEJM and Lancet". There will be arguments all around about what are the most respected journals and why, but NEJM has been ranked highest by almost every index for years or as long as there have been
1709:, altho my understanding of the industry is limited. But sure, let's look at collaborating. One other area you could help me out is filling more gaps in areas where Knowledge is missing a large corporation. In my opinion, most corporations with market caps over $ 1b USD deserve articles, and we're missing quite a lot of them. Whether you want to go the extra mile and create
793:, there's no need to look further. Their work cannot alone be used for any such claim, much like any publication by Monsanto swearing that glyphosate is safe, whatever journal contains it. The article could however be used as a source for a sentence like "companies selling rikkunshito have attempted to demonstrate its benefits for X compared to Y", or something similar.
1701:: Happy to provide advice, but I'm afraid my interest in that page was transient and I don't see much need to build it up - I was filling the gap, as I don't like to see highly notable corporations missing from Knowledge. The article may be built up as news flows in. However, you could do me a favor and fix the talk page WikiProject templates for it? I'm a big fan of
309:(which was formerly a decent summary and is now utterly incoherent). I deliberately refrained from reverting those edits in order to confirm a longstanding theory of mine: I'm the only editor who cares enough to monitor those articles regularly enough to recognize bad edits. I hope you're prepared to step up if I ever decide that I no longer care. --
901:. Hopefully we will have an open-source alternative eventually which can be fine-tuned. Generalist journals don't really seem that great to me, but I suppose it's fair to rebut that at least high IF journals (1) represent areas where high-profile discussion is happening and (2) have lots of submissions and therefore take their pick of the litter.
1982:
audience will benefit both the WikiProject
Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.
367:
deserves a page. Based on your recent edits to the UnitedHealth Group page, I'm confident you would do a good job of getting it started, much better than I would. If you have no interest, and don't want this on your talk page, don't hesitate to delete this comment. Just an idea. Anyway, thanks for the edits to UnitedHealth Group.
1671:
and requested concerned authority for a quick closure. Also, I would like to apologize to you for unknowingly indulging in "personal attack" which has created an inconvenient situation for everyone in our community. In the end, thank you for guiding me and make me more aware of the rules which we all
854:
publish articles on glyphosate co-authored by
Monsanto employees without even a standard COI acknowledgement, you can't help but conclude that their pre-publication checks are astonishingly inadequate: as for minimal quality checks which the publisher ought to guarantee, Hindawi did a better job with
297:
before drawing conclusions. (As you should have noticed by now, that user's next statement confirmed the obvious: he does not understand what is a contract.) But that logic goes both ways. There were more tactful ways to call me out for jumping to conclusions (as User:BD2412 did), short of making a
1993:
I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my
Knowledge user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Knowledge email this user
894:
years ago) it seems clear that the high-profile journals prioritize splashiness over rigor; this was also part of the explanation for why a 2011 study found that "journal retraction index versus the impact factor revealed a surprisingly robust correlation between the journal retraction index and its
611:
Ultimately it's fair to say that we are the final arbiter of what we allow in and we should maintain high-quality, but the more that we can base determinations on actual evidence, the better. It's a bit hypocritical to accuse journals of being fraudulent if we can't readily point to good evidence. I
2040:
Wikimania is happening and hopefully you're enjoying the sessions. While it's fairly last minute, you're warmly invited to participate in the local
Wikimania-themed meetup in the Wikimedia Foundation office this Friday (tomorrow!). You will have to register in advance, but we would love to see more
535:
For the
Appetite article, I'm ok with saying that rikkunshito is "under preliminary research to identify its potential use as an appetite stimulant". This is fact, but to state it more conclusively is misleading. I'm copying part of this discussion to the Appetite talk page. If you're curious about
2259:
and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion
842:
Tressoldi et al. appear to consider those best practices essential, to the point that any score below 100 % should be considered a failure. I cannot say whether they are right, but the point is that journal-level metrics like the impact factor are very poor predictors of the quality of individual
506:
Note, I think that this institutional bias is something that needs to be discussed on a broader meta-level. There's arguably a cultural bias bordering on unethical (I'll try to avoid more inflammatory language) in how
Knowledge treats publication by researchers from anywhere other than the United
366:
Hi, ImperfectlyInformed. I see you recently did some solid editing to the page about UnitedHealth Group. I'd like to briefly propose the idea of creating a page for
Richard T. Burke, the founder and chairman of UnitedHealth group. The founder and chairman of the world's largest healthcare company
1981:
on
Knowledge). I would like to better understand Knowledge's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Knowledge. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic
324:
I'm very glad that you're back! I'll refrain from repeating myself, and I appreciate your cool tone. I don't want to sound condescending, but I think you will find that the restraint of a cool and professional tone is well worth the effort. One of my favorite quotes is from
Schopenhauer on the
634:
As far as the alternative medicine field, EBCAM is notable in that it has been called out specifically by Ernst. But I'm not sure how the algorithm in general handles better-run AM journals. Seems like it might pick up "unreliable fields" without looking at the substance of such publications.
285:
But first, I needed to make a point. When you go so far as to defend editors who clearly do not understand the subject matter of the article -- and obviously have made no effort to engage with the material -- and then threaten to take other editors to arbitration for calling out an obvious
2048:
The event will involve hacking, teaching, learning, and celebrating and we'll have snacks. We will have the opportunity to watch live sessions at
Wikimania together in the afternoon. The rest of the day we'll have opportunity to participate in the hackathon, and we may have some on-demand
330:
It is a wise thing to be polite; consequently, it is a stupid thing to be rude. To make enemies by unnecessary and willful incivility, is just as insane a proceeding as to set your house on fire. For politeness is like a counter--an avowedly false coin, with which it is foolish to be
224:
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
406:
Thanks for the sources you left on the talk page for UnitedHealth Group. I've never started a page before, but there's a first time for everything. I have no excuse not to just do it myself. I'll see if I can give it a go. Thanks again for the sources and the encouragement.
1857:
until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
1323:
until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
1985:
All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Knowledge's coverage of medical topics.
1989:
Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.
739:
In choosing high-quality sources for WP medical content, editors also have to maintain a healthy skepticism and assess candidate sources critically. The original object of this discussion - rikkunshito use to improve appetite reported in
1356:): dude, I've been editing Knowledge since 2007, especially focused on large, notable businesses. You have been editing since 2020. I have never written to promote or advertise anything. Please remove your baseless personal attacks (see
1090:
1468:
I see the ping, but this isn't the sort of thing I generally deal with. I have said I have differences with WP's COI policies and so I don't get involved with them. I don't by saying that mean to imply anything about
1861:
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
1327:
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
941:
433:
because a) the studies reviewed were on small numbers of subjects or done using animals in lab studies (a very low-quality review), and b) that journal published low-quality, non-MEDRS content, with a low (2.0)
1573:
1969:
571:
is that it, like many but not all journals on alternative medicine, is that its peer-review process is a joke, and will publish pretty much anything 'pro' alt med, regardless of the scientific merits.
953:
1209:
2321:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
2111:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
1916:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
1770:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
1039:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
236:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
2027:
1705:
and in many cases a smaller article is better. There's no point in repeating all the information on Knowledge - if people want tons of detail, there's citations. I might be inclined to work on
1146:
631:, or even standardized processes around review could help. Blithely saying that an entire journal is unusable because some American librarian said years ago so isn't really very rigorous.
382:
I agree that he could use a page, but why don't you think you could do a good job? Let's work on it together. Can you do some searching for sources and start a stub in your draft space?
855:
the Tsumura article than OUP and Wiley did in that case. Should we just trash anything anyone publishes with them? Certainly not. We need to take a critical look at every source equally.
1243:
624:
stopped updating his list a couple years ago. And EBCAM, for example, was not on the list, and Hindawi was taken off it in 2010. It seems that the anonymous person who revived the list
635:
Certainly if an alternative medicine publication uncritically publishes stuff like homeopathy or whatever, it shouldn't be used. But not sure such analysis has been done in most cases.
301:
In the meantime, I've noticed over a dozen examples of vandalism or just grossly incompetent editing on important articles that slipped through during the past seven months, including
2337:
2127:
1932:
1786:
1055:
252:
977:
2306:
2096:
1902:
1821:
1756:
1286:
1025:
1839:
1823:
290:, that comes across as not only uncivil but obnoxious and threatening on your part. At this rate, you will be the only person covering the law articles on this encyclopedia.
1728:
1499:
1250:
for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a
1854:
1320:
1280:
2032:
467:
937:
1593:
933:
What on earth is promotional about MY edit? Nothing. Revert your revert of my edit, or justify it. (Leave your revert of the promotional edits, by all means.) Re
1874:
1337:
199:
522:
293:
With the benefit of hindsight, I'll readily admit that I should have attempted to first coolly attempt to elicit any reasoned rationale for the proposed move from
1959:
1812:
152:
My current focus (as of 2018-03) is software development, career and personal development. Until I figure out how to sustainably contribute, unsubscribing from:
1577:
1081:
270:
1169:
and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at
1713:
is up to you; I don't do that because my focus when I do (rarely) create articles is on filling gaps, not publishing a fancy article or getting some credit.
147:
416:
397:
355:
1654:
1558:
1521:
1463:
1401:
1379:
916:
693:
657:
2364:
2154:
1478:
858:
Please just forget using the impact factor or any journal-related metric ever again in a Knowledge discussion and I guarantee you'll be better off!
549:
501:
1121:
Newcomers and experienced Wikimedians are welcome to participate alongside SPIE conference attendees. Admission is free. Training will be provided.
563:
1998:
1699:
1360:, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links",
843:
publications. I understand that a lot of the best researchers will flock to such famous journals, but fraudsters will too, for the same reasons.
531:
and EBCAM is on it (under Alternative medicine, which disqualifies that journal from use on medical topics). We can find a better ref, perhaps
2230:
redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
1681:
1115:, at Park Central Hotel (Franciscan I, 3rd Level / 50 Third Street / San Francisco, California), on Sunday, February 2, 2020, at 5:00-7:00pm.
721:
945:
340:, and hope you look at ignorance as an opportunity for education. I think we should consider doing conference calls when things get heated.
2013:
883:
2279:
1879:
1733:
862:
837:
816:
797:
595:
376:
1002:
204:
1204:
934:
2264:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the
1844:
1724:
1554:
1517:
1459:
1375:
1309:
1200:
973:
912:
780:
653:
518:
497:
393:
351:
195:
2042:
1129:
1112:
122:
117:
112:
107:
102:
97:
50:
46:
42:
38:
34:
30:
2284:
2163:
2074:
1173:? In particular, adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.
997:
828:
Most medical authors would also attest that getting an article published in NEJM may be the most difficult of all journals. --
627:
who will not be updating it. Hopefully we'll have more work to rely upon - things like Retraction Watch, more "stings", maybe
2217:
2162:
1251:
1184:
318:
2360:
2150:
2023:
1955:
1808:
1077:
528:
266:
667:
761:
447:
2057:
1585:
1170:
361:
163:
156:
the tech news weekly - at some point, determine whether a more active role is in scope and sign up as an ambassador at
613:
1417:
1610:
935:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Medical_laboratory&curid=12941686&diff=898189564&oldid=898184087
2356:
2146:
2019:
1951:
1804:
1073:
262:
1637:
1536:
1495:
1353:
1256:
708:
680:
582:
1364:). If you do not cease making baseless personal attacks, I will report you to the administrators noticeboard.
1668:
1445:
1304:
1288:
983:
1581:
988:
I replied to your comment on Potassium bicarbonate, but now it does not exist. Has it been deleted? _ _ _ _
2330:
2183:
2120:
1925:
1779:
1628:
1619:
1431:
1361:
1048:
245:
2216:
disambiguates only one extant Knowledge page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a
2342:
2132:
2041:
people from the WikiSalon community participate! For more information and registration, please check out
1937:
1791:
1448:), is it just normal now to accuse people of being paid spammers w/o evidence? What is my recourse here?
1060:
430:
257:
1663:, after going through the reasons mentioned in this AfD discussion and also as per the points raised in
670:, who describes its articles as 80% of 'useless rubbish' with a peer-review system that is 'farcical'.
2261:
463:
2052:
In case we run out of space, it's first-come-first-serve so let us know soon! Hope to see you there.
825:
1848:
1313:
1596:) or something near about like that. In short, it doesn't have much citations from sites listed on
790:
277:
2190:
1714:
1660:
1564:
1544:
1507:
1449:
1385:
1365:
1190:
963:
902:
643:
508:
487:
424:
383:
341:
302:
185:
805:
2275:
1153:
527:"there is no black/white list". Actually, WP does maintain a source blacklist called "Crapwatch"
287:
809:
1406:
Per Skip the drama at the top of the page, I'm tagging some recently active admins for advice:
483:
2318:
2108:
1913:
1767:
1500:
Template_talk:Undisclosed_paid#Make_talk_page_discussion_mandatory_when_this_template_is_used
1411:
1036:
959:
233:
1159:
2329:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
2119:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
1924:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
1778:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
1601:
1179:
1047:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
412:
372:
314:
244:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
1645:
I apologize for not providing these proofs in the first place and creating this ruckus. -
8:
2069:
1503:
1142:
617:
337:
1276:
1247:
899:
851:
786:
479:
2271:
1870:
1706:
1677:
1650:
1530:
1489:
1397:
1347:
1333:
704:
676:
578:
537:
282:
I had other priorities. And then I realized that I care too much about this project.
2241:
2300:
2090:
1896:
1750:
1702:
1474:
1439:
1019:
884:
We Tried to Publish a Replication of a Science Paper in Science. The Journal Refused.
745:
741:
306:
220:
1589:
438:. Best to avoid citing literature from EBCAM for WP medical content. Kind regards --
136:
63:
2349:
2314:
2245:
2227:
2139:
2104:
1944:
1909:
1798:
1763:
1425:
1407:
1229:
1067:
1032:
993:
716:
688:
590:
229:
466:), there is no such thing as a "MEDRS" journal, as noted at the last paragraph at
2203:
1174:
749:
532:
408:
368:
310:
2260:
tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with
2202:
requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under
2326:
2266:
2116:
1921:
1775:
1267:
1138:
1044:
847:
833:
776:
757:
712:
698:
Which shouldn't be much of a surprise, given the pay-to-publish model it has.
684:
586:
545:
457:
443:
294:
241:
1218:
1091:
You are cordially invited to the SPIE Photonics West edit-a-thon on 02.02.2020
896:
132:
59:
2322:
2112:
2065:
1917:
1866:
1771:
1710:
1695:
1673:
1664:
1646:
1526:
1485:
1393:
1389:
1357:
1343:
1329:
1040:
877:
869:
859:
821:
813:
794:
700:
672:
639:
625:
621:
606:
574:
478:, and so on. As I'm sure you are aware, impact factor is controversial - see
475:
435:
237:
78:
21:
1977:
I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and
1567:, the necessary proof has been added to my nomination for your kind perusal;
1388:, personal attack?? I apologize for the inconvenience. Ok, please report at
1978:
1597:
1540:
1470:
1435:
1103:
928:
886:- in my admittedly limited experience (I stopped reading regularly reading
638:
Also, as mentioned in the talk, ultimately these efforts should merge with
628:
471:
768:
767:
For II's skepticism concerning WP editors and choices for source quality,
561:, actually being about alt med alone isn't disqualifying on its own. E.g.
2182:
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read
1421:
989:
804:
Zefr, NEJM is not an example of a "rigorously reviewed journal": in fact
2333:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
2123:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
1928:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
1782:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
1098:
Join us for the SPIE Photonics West edit-a-thon this Sunday, 02.02.2020!
1051:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
248:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
138:
64:
2310:
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
2100:
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
2012:
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from
1906:
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
1760:
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
1029:
are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
612:
don't follow scholarly publishing like I used to (altho apparently I'm
2251:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may
2223:
disambiguates zero extant Knowledge pages, regardless of its title; or
1576:
are completely sponsored ones and part of either press release sites (
642:
which aims to make automatic quality-checking easier. Exciting stuff!
2291:
2081:
1970:
Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Knowledge
1888:
1742:
1011:
873:
829:
772:
753:
602:
556:
541:
468:
Knowledge:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Biomedical_journals
453:
439:
211:
157:
134:
61:
1254:
whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining
2346:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
2136:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
2033:
Invitation to Local Wikimania Event in San Francisco this Friday
1941:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
1795:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
1217:
please help translate this message into your local language via
1210:
Thank you for being one of Knowledge's top medical contributors!
1064:. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add
2336:
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
2304:
is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All
2126:
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
2094:
is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All
1931:
If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review
1785:
If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
1054:
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review
251:
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review
1900:
is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All
1754:
is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
139:
65:
1855:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Industrial Hygiene Foundation
1321:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/BlueFocus Communication Group
958:, hmm, sorry, that was an accident. But linking LDT there is
895:
impact factor (P < 0.0001 by Spearman rank correlation)"
536:
the opinion of other medical editors, I suggest an entry on
2256:
2246:
see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information
2199:
2167:
1166:
1023:
is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All
666:
more going against it than just Beall's word. See, e.g.
2317:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
2107:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
1912:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
1837:
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
1766:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
1302:
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
1035:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
232:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
1158:
Thanks for identifying the source of the material in
1843:
is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to
1308:
is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge according to
72:
15:
2206:, because it is a disambiguation page which either
2058:
Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here
808:by a large margin and its articles on average have
791:
they declare a conflict of interest for this reason
1246:across any language of Knowledge. Thank you from
567:is very likely fine, for example. The issue with
2244:, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please
1189:Ah, ok. I'll take a look and do that next time.
962:- it's the first thing linked in that sentence.
752:although not with much satisfaction (for me). --
564:Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies
158:https://meta.wikimedia.org/Tech/Ambassadors/List
2204:section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion
2064:On behalf of the Bay Area Wiki Salon team and
148:Note to self on commitments and subscriptions
1102:
1672:need to adhere, with absolute integrity. -
668:the thoughts of one of its founding editors
305:(where the vandalism was quite subtle) and
173:categories of economy, trade, and companies
882:, thought of this conversation when I saw
218:Hello, ImperfectlyInformed. Voting in the
486:, altho that's a topic for another time.
2043:meta:Wikimania 2022/San Francisco Meetup
1667:, I had withdrawn my AfD nomination for
1165:This type of edit does get picked up by
2184:the guide to writing your first article
166:Requests for Comment at 1 per month of:
103:Archive 2 (February 2009 - August 2010)
108:Archive 3 (August 2010 - October 2012)
1997:The survey is accessible through the
1618:3. Just a couple passing mentions in
750:was done for rikkunshito and ghrelin,
123:Archive 6 (June 2015 - November 2018)
2301:2023 Arbitration Committee elections
2091:2022 Arbitration Committee elections
1897:2021 Arbitration Committee elections
1751:2020 Arbitration Committee elections
1113:SPIE Photonics West 2020 edit-a-thon
1111:I am delighted to invite you to the
1020:2019 Arbitration Committee elections
954:2601:643:8680:158F:5972:9BD:41CB:349
938:2601:643:8680:158F:5972:9BD:41CB:349
221:2018 Arbitration Committee elections
113:Archive 4 (March 2013 - August 2013)
98:Archive 1 (April 2008 - January 2009
2285:ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
2262:Knowledge's policies and guidelines
2189:You may want to consider using the
2075:ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
1880:ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
1845:Knowledge's policies and guidelines
1734:ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
1310:Knowledge's policies and guidelines
1274:along with the rest of the team at
13:
2172:
1213:
1171:Knowledge:Copying_within_Wikipedia
1003:ArbCom 2019 election voter message
810:questionable statistical qualities
205:ArbCom 2018 election voter message
164:Knowledge:Feedback_request_service
118:Archive 5 (August 2013 - May 2015)
14:
2378:
1853:The article will be discussed at
1319:The article will be discussed at
1260:, there are no associated costs.
787:their employer sells that product
2290:
2080:
1887:
1831:
1741:
1295:
1228:
1010:
210:
77:
20:
2340:and submit your choices on the
2130:and submit your choices on the
1935:and submit your choices on the
1789:and submit your choices on the
1058:and submit your choices on the
255:and submit your choices on the
1609:2. Just 4 passing mentions in
1137:See you soon! All the best, --
1:
2365:00:28, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
2319:Knowledge arbitration process
2155:00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
2109:Knowledge arbitration process
2049:workshops/learning sessions.
2028:22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
1960:00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
1914:Knowledge arbitration process
1840:Industrial Hygiene Foundation
1824:Industrial Hygiene Foundation
1813:01:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
1768:Knowledge arbitration process
1669:BlueFocus Communication Group
1305:BlueFocus Communication Group
1289:BlueFocus Communication Group
1205:15:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
1185:13:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
1082:00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
1037:Knowledge arbitration process
417:10:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
356:08:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
319:08:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
271:18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
234:Knowledge arbitration process
179:Politics, government, and law
176:Math, science, and technology
2242:criteria for speedy deletion
2193:to help you create articles.
1875:18:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
1362:Knowledge:Casting_aspersions
1242:In 2019 you were one of the
1147:06:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
806:it tops the retraction index
398:14:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
377:10:54, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
7:
1729:07:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
1682:06:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
1655:16:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
1559:13:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
1522:12:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
1479:12:59, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
1464:12:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
1402:12:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
1380:11:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
1338:06:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
1277:Wiki Project Med Foundation
742:the EBCAM review ("Mogami")
10:
2383:
2357:MediaWiki message delivery
2280:16:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
2147:MediaWiki message delivery
2020:MediaWiki message delivery
1952:MediaWiki message delivery
1805:MediaWiki message delivery
1539:), I see that you created
1074:MediaWiki message delivery
863:10:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
838:16:42, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
817:16:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
798:15:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
781:15:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
762:14:11, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
722:07:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
694:07:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
658:07:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
596:21:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
550:17:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
523:04:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
502:04:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
448:02:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
362:Page for Richard T. Burke?
263:MediaWiki message delivery
200:17:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
2198:A tag has been placed on
1281:18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
1227:
917:07:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
18:
2354:to your user talk page.
2144:to your user talk page.
1949:to your user talk page.
1847:or whether it should be
1803:to your user talk page.
1392:. I'll meet you there. -
1312:or whether it should be
1244:top ~300 medical editors
1072:to your user talk page.
998:13:16, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
978:01:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
946:01:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
484:PageRank-based algorithm
480:Impact_factor#Criticisms
303:Law of the United States
288:argument from ignorance
2267:deleting administrator
2253:contest the nomination
2195:
2177:
1107:
333:
2315:Arbitration Committee
2298:Hello! Voting in the
2180:
2176:
2105:Arbitration Committee
2088:Hello! Voting in the
1910:Arbitration Committee
1894:Hello! Voting in the
1764:Arbitration Committee
1748:Hello! Voting in the
1266:Thanks again :-) --
1252:thematic organization
1106:
1033:Arbitration Committee
1017:Hello! Voting in the
984:Potassium bicarbonate
328:
230:Arbitration Committee
1974:Dear fellow editor,
1127:Details and sign-in
429:Hello -- I reverted
2006:Associate Professor
1661:ImperfectlyInformed
1565:ImperfectlyInformed
1386:ImperfectlyInformed
1236:The 2019 Cure Award
618:academic publishing
336:I also must stress
2331:arbitration policy
2178:
2121:arbitration policy
2008:Hanyang University
1926:arbitration policy
1780:arbitration policy
1707:advertising agency
1149:via MassMessaging
1108:
1101:
1049:arbitration policy
246:arbitration policy
2367:
2257:visiting the page
2157:
2061:
1967:
1966:
1962:
1819:
1818:
1620:Academic articles
1264:
1263:
1095:
1088:
1087:
746:systematic review
616:in authorship of
307:Product liability
145:
144:
71:
70:
2374:
2355:
2353:
2294:
2269:
2175:
2145:
2143:
2084:
2055:
2018:
2014:the mailing list
1950:
1948:
1891:
1884:
1883:
1835:
1834:
1802:
1745:
1738:
1737:
1717:
1547:
1510:
1452:
1368:
1299:
1298:
1272:
1248:Wiki Project Med
1232:
1225:
1224:
1193:
1182:
1177:
1071:
1014:
1007:
1006:
966:
957:
905:
881:
769:background here.
720:
692:
646:
610:
594:
560:
511:
490:
425:Rikkunshito edit
386:
344:
214:
188:
140:
81:
73:
66:
24:
16:
2382:
2381:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2373:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2369:
2347:
2295:
2287:
2265:
2196:
2173:
2171:
2164:Speedy deletion
2160:
2159:
2137:
2085:
2077:
2035:
2010:
2004:Piotr Konieczny
1972:
1942:
1882:
1864:
1836:
1832:
1828:
1796:
1736:
1715:
1574:media citations
1545:
1508:
1450:
1366:
1300:
1296:
1293:
1284:
1268:
1212:
1191:
1180:
1175:
1156:
1154:Investment_fund
1151:
1100:
1093:
1065:
1005:
986:
964:
951:
931:
903:
867:
826:impact factors.
699:
671:
644:
600:
573:
554:
509:
488:
427:
384:
364:
342:
280:
275:
274:
215:
207:
186:
150:
141:
135:
86:
67:
62:
12:
11:
5:
2380:
2338:the candidates
2307:eligible users
2296:
2289:
2288:
2286:
2283:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2224:
2221:
2191:Article Wizard
2179:
2170:
2166:nomination of
2161:
2128:the candidates
2097:eligible users
2086:
2079:
2078:
2076:
2073:
2070:Effeietsanders
2034:
2031:
2009:
2007:
2005:
1971:
1968:
1965:
1964:
1933:the candidates
1903:eligible users
1892:
1881:
1878:
1830:
1829:
1827:
1822:Nomination of
1820:
1817:
1816:
1787:the candidates
1757:eligible users
1746:
1735:
1732:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1643:
1641:
1636:5. Nothing on
1634:
1632:
1627:4. Nothing on
1625:
1623:
1616:
1614:
1607:
1605:
1570:
1568:
1524:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1294:
1292:
1287:Nomination of
1285:
1262:
1261:
1239:
1238:
1233:
1223:
1222:
1211:
1208:
1155:
1152:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1096:
1094:
1092:
1089:
1086:
1085:
1056:the candidates
1026:eligible users
1015:
1004:
1001:
985:
982:
981:
980:
930:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
856:
844:
802:
801:
800:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
636:
632:
426:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
401:
400:
363:
360:
359:
358:
327:
326:
295:User:Arrivisto
279:
278:Okay, I'm back
276:
253:the candidates
216:
209:
208:
206:
203:
183:
182:
181:
180:
177:
174:
168:
167:
160:
149:
146:
143:
142:
137:
133:
131:
128:
127:
126:
125:
120:
115:
110:
105:
100:
92:
91:
88:
87:
82:
76:
69:
68:
60:
58:
55:
54:
26:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2379:
2368:
2366:
2362:
2358:
2351:
2345:
2344:
2339:
2334:
2332:
2328:
2324:
2320:
2316:
2311:
2309:
2308:
2303:
2302:
2293:
2282:
2281:
2277:
2273:
2272:Shhhnotsoloud
2268:
2263:
2258:
2254:
2249:
2247:
2243:
2229:
2225:
2222:
2219:
2218:primary topic
2215:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2205:
2201:
2194:
2192:
2187:
2185:
2169:
2165:
2158:
2156:
2152:
2148:
2141:
2135:
2134:
2129:
2124:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2110:
2106:
2101:
2099:
2098:
2093:
2092:
2083:
2072:
2071:
2067:
2062:
2059:
2053:
2050:
2046:
2044:
2038:
2030:
2029:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2015:
2002:
2000:
1995:
1991:
1987:
1983:
1980:
1975:
1963:
1961:
1957:
1953:
1946:
1940:
1939:
1934:
1929:
1927:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1905:
1904:
1899:
1898:
1893:
1890:
1886:
1885:
1877:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1863:
1859:
1856:
1850:
1846:
1842:
1841:
1825:
1815:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1800:
1794:
1793:
1788:
1783:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1759:
1758:
1753:
1752:
1747:
1744:
1740:
1739:
1731:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1712:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1697:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1670:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1642:
1639:
1635:
1633:
1630:
1626:
1624:
1621:
1617:
1615:
1612:
1608:
1606:
1603:
1602:WP:RSPMISSING
1599:
1595:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1569:
1566:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1542:
1538:
1535:
1532:
1528:
1525:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1494:
1491:
1487:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1447:
1444:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1430:
1427:
1423:
1419:
1416:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1352:
1349:
1345:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1325:
1322:
1317:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1306:
1290:
1283:
1282:
1279:
1278:
1273:
1271:
1259:
1258:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1240:
1237:
1234:
1231:
1226:
1221:
1220:
1215:
1214:
1207:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1187:
1186:
1183:
1178:
1172:
1168:
1163:
1161:
1150:
1148:
1144:
1140:
1132:
1131:
1126:
1125:
1120:
1119:
1114:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1099:
1084:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1069:
1063:
1062:
1057:
1052:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1028:
1027:
1022:
1021:
1016:
1013:
1009:
1008:
1000:
999:
995:
991:
979:
975:
971:
967:
961:
955:
950:
949:
948:
947:
943:
939:
936:
918:
914:
910:
906:
900:
897:
893:
889:
885:
879:
875:
871:
866:
865:
864:
861:
857:
853:
849:
846:When you see
845:
841:
840:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
820:
819:
818:
815:
811:
807:
803:
799:
796:
792:
788:
784:
783:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
765:
764:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
723:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
697:
696:
695:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
669:
665:
661:
660:
659:
655:
651:
647:
641:
640:meta:WikiCite
637:
633:
630:
626:
623:
622:Jeffrey Beall
619:
615:
608:
604:
599:
598:
597:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
570:
566:
565:
558:
553:
552:
551:
547:
543:
539:
534:
530:
526:
525:
524:
520:
516:
512:
505:
504:
503:
499:
495:
491:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
462:
459:
455:
452:
451:
450:
449:
445:
441:
437:
436:impact factor
432:
418:
414:
410:
405:
404:
403:
402:
399:
395:
391:
387:
381:
380:
379:
378:
374:
370:
357:
353:
349:
345:
339:
335:
334:
332:
323:
322:
321:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
299:
296:
291:
289:
283:
273:
272:
268:
264:
260:
259:
254:
249:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
226:
223:
222:
213:
202:
201:
197:
193:
189:
178:
175:
172:
171:
170:
169:
165:
161:
159:
155:
154:
153:
130:
129:
124:
121:
119:
116:
114:
111:
109:
106:
104:
101:
99:
96:
95:
94:
93:
90:
89:
85:
80:
75:
74:
57:
56:
53:
52:
48:
44:
40:
36:
32:
27:
25:
23:
17:
2341:
2335:
2312:
2305:
2299:
2297:
2252:
2250:
2239:
2197:
2188:
2181:
2131:
2125:
2102:
2095:
2089:
2087:
2063:
2054:
2051:
2047:
2039:
2036:
2011:
2003:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1984:
1979:User:Piotrus
1976:
1973:
1936:
1930:
1907:
1901:
1895:
1865:
1860:
1852:
1838:
1826:for deletion
1790:
1784:
1761:
1755:
1749:
1720:
1694:
1550:
1541:GO_Navigator
1533:
1513:
1504:WP:GOODFAITH
1492:
1455:
1442:
1428:
1414:
1371:
1350:
1326:
1318:
1303:
1301:
1291:for deletion
1275:
1269:
1265:
1255:
1235:
1216:
1196:
1188:
1164:
1157:
1136:
1128:
1097:
1059:
1053:
1030:
1024:
1018:
987:
969:
932:
908:
891:
887:
738:
663:
662:EBCAM has a
649:
568:
562:
514:
493:
460:
428:
389:
365:
347:
338:WP:GOODFAITH
329:
300:
292:
284:
281:
256:
250:
227:
219:
217:
191:
184:
151:
83:
28:
19:
2343:voting page
2133:voting page
1994:function).
1938:voting page
1792:voting page
1408:Doug Weller
1176:S Philbrick
1167:Copy Patrol
1061:voting page
960:overlinking
482:. I like a
258:voting page
2327:topic bans
2240:Under the
2117:topic bans
1922:topic bans
1776:topic bans
1703:WP:SUMMARY
1045:topic bans
409:Carlsonaar
369:Carlsonaar
311:Coolcaesar
242:topic bans
29:Archives:
2323:site bans
2113:site bans
1999:LINK HERE
1918:site bans
1772:site bans
1469:anyone.--
1270:Doc James
1160:your edit
1139:Rosiestep
1041:site bans
789:and that
431:this edit
298:threat.
238:site bans
2228:orphaned
2066:Bittakea
1867:Cupper52
1696:Hatchens
1674:Hatchens
1647:Hatchens
1572:1. Its'
1537:contribs
1527:Hatchens
1496:contribs
1486:Hatchens
1446:contribs
1432:contribs
1418:contribs
1394:Hatchens
1354:contribs
1344:Hatchens
1330:Hatchens
878:Headbomb
870:Nemo bis
822:Nemo_bis
744:- was a
701:Headbomb
673:Headbomb
629:Cabell's
614:still #3
607:Headbomb
575:Headbomb
464:contribs
84:Archives
2350:NoACEMM
2140:NoACEMM
1945:NoACEMM
1849:deleted
1799:NoACEMM
1471:Wehwalt
1436:Wehwalt
1314:deleted
1068:NoACEMM
888:Science
876:, and
474:, then
331:stingy.
2226:is an
1711:WP:DYK
1698:, Wrt
1665:WP:ANI
1422:Vsmith
1390:WP:ANI
1358:WP:NPA
1181:(Talk)
990:83d40m
892:Nature
620:) but
538:WT:MED
476:WP:RFC
325:topic:
1659:Dear
1629:JSTOR
1611:Books
1598:WP:RS
1563:Dear
1384:Dear
852:Wiley
569:EBCAM
533:this.
529:here,
472:WP:3O
2361:talk
2313:The
2276:talk
2270:.
2200:AAIS
2168:AAIS
2151:talk
2103:The
2037:Hi!
2024:talk
1956:talk
1908:The
1871:talk
1809:talk
1762:The
1678:talk
1651:talk
1531:talk
1502:and
1490:talk
1475:talk
1440:talk
1426:talk
1412:talk
1398:talk
1348:talk
1334:talk
1257:here
1219:meta
1143:talk
1130:here
1078:talk
1031:The
994:talk
942:talk
929:Huh?
890:and
874:Zefr
860:Nemo
850:and
834:talk
830:Zefr
814:Nemo
795:Nemo
777:talk
773:Zefr
758:talk
754:Zefr
605:and
603:Zefr
557:Zefr
546:talk
542:Zefr
540:. --
458:talk
454:Zefr
444:talk
440:Zefr
413:talk
373:talk
315:talk
267:talk
228:The
162:the
2255:by
2248:.
1719:| (
1638:NYT
1600:or
1549:| (
1512:| (
1454:| (
1434:),
1420:),
1370:| (
1195:| (
968:| (
907:| (
848:OUP
664:lot
648:| (
513:| (
492:| (
388:| (
346:| (
190:| (
2363:)
2352:}}
2348:{{
2325:,
2278:)
2220:);
2153:)
2142:}}
2138:{{
2115:,
2068:,
2045:.
2026:)
2001:.
1958:)
1947:}}
1943:{{
1920:,
1873:)
1851:.
1811:)
1801:}}
1797:{{
1774:,
1727:)
1723:-
1716:II
1680:)
1653:)
1592:,
1588:,
1584:,
1580:,
1557:)
1553:-
1546:II
1520:)
1516:-
1509:II
1506:.
1477:)
1462:)
1458:-
1451:II
1400:)
1378:)
1374:-
1367:II
1336:)
1316:.
1203:)
1199:-
1192:II
1162:.
1145:)
1080:)
1070:}}
1066:{{
1043:,
996:)
976:)
972:-
965:II
944:)
915:)
911:-
904:II
872:,
836:)
812:.
779:)
771:--
760:)
715:·
711:·
707:·
687:·
683:·
679:·
656:)
652:-
645:II
589:·
585:·
581:·
548:)
521:)
517:-
510:II
500:)
496:-
489:II
446:)
415:)
396:)
392:-
385:II
375:)
354:)
350:-
343:II
317:)
269:)
261:.
240:,
198:)
194:-
187:II
49:,
45:,
41:,
37:,
33:,
2359:(
2274:(
2186:.
2149:(
2060:)
2056:(
2022:(
2016:.
1954:(
1869:(
1807:(
1725:c
1721:t
1676:(
1649:(
1640:.
1631:.
1622:.
1613:.
1604:.
1594:5
1590:4
1586:3
1582:2
1578:1
1555:c
1551:t
1534:·
1529:(
1518:c
1514:t
1493:·
1488:(
1473:(
1460:c
1456:t
1443:·
1438:(
1429:·
1424:(
1415:·
1410:(
1396:(
1376:c
1372:t
1351:·
1346:(
1332:(
1201:c
1197:t
1141:(
1076:(
992:(
974:c
970:t
956::
952:@
940:(
913:c
909:t
880::
868:@
832:(
775:(
756:(
719:}
717:b
713:p
709:c
705:t
703:{
691:}
689:b
685:p
681:c
677:t
675:{
654:c
650:t
609::
601:@
593:}
591:b
587:p
583:c
579:t
577:{
559::
555:@
544:(
519:c
515:t
498:c
494:t
461:·
456:(
442:(
411:(
394:c
390:t
371:(
352:c
348:t
313:(
265:(
196:c
192:t
51:6
47:5
43:4
39:3
35:2
31:1
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.