User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere/Archive 7

2942:

doesn't work too well is that it includes both naive but possible articles, and articles from people with COI that are usually never going to be suitable. The first thing we need to do there in practice is see which class they draft falls into, and proceed differently. The ones that are developable need help, the others need rejection. What tends to happen is that they all get a little bit of help, which isn't enough for the weak protoarticles, and unnecessarily draws out the process of removing the spam. If we combined all three tracks, we'd make the situation worse yet, because the majority of the articles in NPP simply need checking, tagging, and acceptance, with the remainder usually simply needing quick deletion. It will be quite difficult to deal with all this in the same workstream, and I predict that the result will be that more decent material gets unwisely rejected, and more spam accepted--and still the drafts that need and deserve the help get insufficient assistance. There are tow different types of experience needed--one is to know what is acceptable and not, which any careful editor can learn with sufficient experience, and the much more difficult job of assisting the contributors who need it, which relatively few people can do well. The real need perhaps is in quickly sorting out those articles and putting them in a true draft space with drafts that are going to be improvable.

2736:

and looking for ways to guide them into better working practices. It would also need those experienced reviewers to learn how to coach co-workers, and for the other reviewers (who are volunteers) to be willing to accept review and (positive) criticism of their work. None of that is easy to establish, although I'm convinced that once working, such a system would pay off and quickly become accepted as a "good thing". Once you know you have a team of reviewers who are all "singing off the same hymn sheet" (more or less), then you will find that tackling secondary issues like the best wording for Wizards, etc. becomes much more manageable. I think a lot of work has gone into getting AfC this far, and it would be a pity to see it wither, as it performs both its gatekeeper and helper functions reasonably well some of the time. I'm optimistic enough to believe that it could be made to work more consistently, but to do so will require the creation of some degree of hierarchy within the reviewers. And that will depend on the willingness of the most experienced to take on extra duties, and the consent of all involved. Not an easy ask, but it would be worth it. --

2950:--this is my sketch--where should I put it -- somewhere more visible than here. Where is the discussion of merging the streams taking place--it needs to be stopped and rethought. The WMF is capable of adapting the good tools on any space with only a little juggling, but they will need encouragement. And at worst, we need a way to insist that their plan not be implemented without a good very public RfC with wide participation--experience has shown that it is possible to stop them. (And I have very little patience with any argument that they have insufficient resources. They have more than enough resources if they are willing to use them, and we do nowadays have an influence over this, though of course they prefer to avoid our using it. All developers naturally want to develop what they want to develop. The reason we pay some of them is so they can be gotten to do what is needed. 3019:

permanently implement ACTRIAL during which the AfC as the main opposer complained about a possibly foreseeable increase in the workload, the WMF offered to examine the situation. They sent an envoy who didn't identify the fact that the actual cause is the low number of AfC reviewers and the inconsistency of reviewing, but nevertheless recommended that as they had been lookimg into ORES for NPP they could add an additional function to the New Pages Feed to accommodate a feed for AfC. This is not a merger. Look at it as two transportation companies using the same network of roads and traffic signals. One of the companies is specialised in trash disposal while the other takes partly finished parts to a factory for completion.

2989:

question: *first sketch) .do you have a coi as 1/the subject or a close associate (no need to specify exactly) 2/an employee or staff member of the subject (if making the article is not part of your job & you were not paid for it, no need to specify) 3/ a paid editor or PR firm . Or are you 4/not connected, but interested in making an article on the subject (no need to give details or explanation). And if they check items 2 or 3, give a full explanation. Obviously people can lie, but this was they'd have to explicitly lie, rather than later claim ignorance. I have also thought of requiring this question for all articles on an organization. We coulf even have a box : decline to state.

2695:, "besides the theoretical one of guiding new editors, is to have two successive stages of review, as a better defense agains both promotionalism and the lack of knowledge of good faith new editors." By operating AfC and NPPfrom the same interface, those checks and balances would continue to exist. Those who prefer to process drafts in the feed can choose to do just that. The problem with AfC is not related to their scripts or templates, it's purely a social issue of inconsistent reviewing and not enough reviewers. I can't remember what your stats were on the ratio of rejected:accepted drafts, but it would be worth taking a closer look at them and comparing pre and post ACTRIAL samples. 3084:

similar experience should start checking all the reviews by someone who does a poor review, and trying to teach them, and if necessary removing them from the list,but neither I nor anyone else has time to do it. It would be better to organize some of this automatically, and I can think of way (eg search systematically for people accepting AfCs that get deleted.) But it is so much easier just doing it ourselves. Perhaps the way to go is to stop bothering about article creation at RfA, but ask for dozens of 90% correct NPP and AfC reviews. What we have essentially forgotten is that it take

2627:

the benefits adequately. The thing to make clear to the 'gatekeeper' camp is that rather than giving an easier path to mainspace, it will actually help us in the removal of problematic content once we can hit it with the NPP tools. To the 'help-the-newbies' camp we should appeal to their sense of morality by explaining the current situation traps editors in the AfC system. To the 'efficiency' crowd, this change reduces backlogs, and NPP is better at dealing with the crap once and for all rather than repeated reviews at AfC. I'm happy to help draft such an RfC if you like. —

2617:

running, we can't really tell them that they can't continue (and will never get support for it). In my mind there are two realistic options: 1) maintain the status quo and let AfC putter along as is and perhaps eventually it will die a natural death with overflowing backlogs and an increasing wait time for reviews (not a great solution). Or 2) Rework all the decline templates and pending-review templates with messages that the users can move the page themselves (visible only to Autoconfirmed editors). Yes this shunts the problem pages onto NPP, and it runs a bit afoul of

1710:

concern (we have plenty of NPR rights holders who themselves haven't been active for the last 90 days, but we don't take the right off them). In my request I also recommended he check the criteria, so if he follows my advice, I guess he won't apply. If you think he shouldn't apply for behavioural reasons, perhaps you should leave a comment on his talk page to that effect, or tell me what this is all about. In any case he will see the message even if I remove it as he will get pinged to it. I will leave a message indicating that activity level might be a concern though. —

3198:

for your session. This may not be evident to users who do not regularly use the New Pages Feed. The old feed will not benefit from the selectivity or the new meta information that will be displayed. My own personal analogy to compare the old feed and the New Pages Feed is like the difference between MacOS and Windows, or a car with an automatic transmission and on with a shift stick. When you've tried the more convenient and easier to operate system, you don't go back, and I wouldn't dream of using the old feed and I won't be able yo be convinced otherwise.

2866:

to find GNG, NPROF, NORG, etc. (but don't expect them to learn all of that immediately). The trainee should observe the trainer performing the task; then attempt the task themselves; then when correct, they repeat it under supervision. Can you see how that translates into teaching N? Sure, it's time-consuming, but you'll get results and it becomes worth it in the long-run. It's better to spend time proactively creating the structures you want than to be forever reacting to problems and trying to fix each one in isolation. --

3309:

make thefirst part of it a formal course, but there is noway to explicitly teach the knowledge of what actually works (though one can assist a learner by explaining from our own experience -- our experience, not primarily our knowledge of what are supposed to be the rules-- why things happen. And the first thing to clarify in doing this is that WP does not necessarily follow the rules and that one must be prepared to deal with the erraticness of our processes without getting upset when bad decisions are made.

2303: 1141: 31: 2293: 1123: 2480: 3074:, where's the link where they said they couldn't use ORES on AfC. I can think of a number of work-arounds, such as a separate feed just like NPP but with a different name, that would avoid the confusion. I think ORES is potentially useful, though in practice I have not yet used it--mainly for lack of time to do the checks I had hoped to do with it. I really care about not having a merged list, to the extent I would urge the rejection of improvements if it required that. 2457: 1251: 2611:. Because of this, people submitting drafts have no idea whether they are going to get hit by a 'gatekeeper' reviewer or if they are going to be helped by a 'helper' reviewer. I don't see any good way of getting consensus on deciding on a direction for AfC, and this indecision extends to the idea of deprecating AfC as well (good luck getting agreement on it). AfC started as a volunteer project. Is it essential? No. But nevertheless it is here to stay... 1509: 2373: 1224: 1286: 1638:, but many of my invites were likely deleted by users that clean their talk page and don't keep talk page archives). 73 users joined NPR, of which 15 had not done any reviewing as of end Feb (in general the users invited formed a power-law curve with their review counts, very similar to the one found when all NPR right holders are tallied). Hope that gives some clarity, and I'll update my list a little later on this evening. — 1407: 2342: 1168: 3226:

wouldn't dream of tryign to learn this) , & computer experts (as distinct from experts in other fields using computers, like me) use something like Unix which lets them control what the computer does, instead of trusting the MacOS will get things right. But for anyone starting, Id certain recommend the curation interface. Something like it would be helpful for AfC also -- is it part of the WMF proposal?

1920:, I am well aware, but I also didn't want your comment to scare away other potential AfC applicants (and I went to you first to politely ask if you would refactor it to be in line with the granting conditions, you declined). Admin discretion is fine, but your comment on that particular user was essentially redesigning the NPR criteria as you saw fit (or could easily be construed as such). — 2282: 1112: 2274: 1104: 3361:, not the underpinning knowledge – but that's a very minor point. I was thinking earlier of how we might balance the twin aspects of gate-keeping and assisting, so perhaps we are looking for slightly different outcomes? I do agree though that AfD is a good training ground for AfC, and time spent in study there would definitely pay off in better decisions by the reviewers. -- 3139:: We have also been already discussing this extensively. Dozens of AfC reviewers were asked in a mass mailing to apply for the NPR right, but unfortunately not enough background checks were made before asking them, and consequently a lot of good faith requests at PERM were correctly rejected, leaving a bitter taste with those who had been asked to apply. 2701:

the tools they asked for and we're left with 90% of the work being done by the top 10 reviewers (and for some odd reason I'm still in the top 20-40). Because the extended dialog at AfC between creator and reviewer takes place on their own talk pages and not on the talk page of the article, no one knows how good or how bad the reviewing is.

1565:. We don't know if the final result of the RfC will meet the publication deadline - much depends on the present composition of the editorial board. If you would like to look it over, I would be grateful. If you wish to add anything, particulary some limited stats, you may like to be considered a co-author of the article. 3051:

By bullying the NPP reviewers into accepting a user right for their job and getting them organised, in little over a year we got the backlog down from 22,000 to 4,000 and it's still 20 or 30 of the reviewers who are doing 90% of the work. Either the AfC organises itself and gets its reviewers trained as

3308:

learning whether to accept an article is a relatively easy thing: one first looks at the rules, then one observes passively AFD -- then one tries actively to comment and see how the comments are received. That's what I did, back 11 years ago, and that's what I recommend to those who ask me. We could

3242:

In 2004 only 17.6% of new car sales in the UK and Europe were automatics. It probably doesn't make them better drivers though. AFAIK, the WMF is not planning on building a completely separate feed for AfC and I have explained above why I believe this is, so I assume they will be building an AfC feed

3167:

That last point about marking for deletion is actually necessary: people need to learn. And, more important, the page shows up at CSD or Prod, where an admin will have to look at it if it is to be deleted. There are now very few admins who still delete everything they see there without thinking about

2988:

the three would be as follows: 1/people who choose to use draft space 2/people who are required to, as either new or coi users, and the third is ordinary NPP. 1 & 2 feed into 3--we need that second step. I have also thought about requiring for new users something like the file upload copyright

2941:

We actually need three separate processes--one for developing articles to the stage they can be accepted, one for a preliminary screen of articles that are likely to be particularly unsuitable, and a third process for screening them. We've bene using draft space for the first two, and the reason it

2735:

Well, you can probably guess what I'd be recommending as the most effective mechanism to improve AfC: train the reviewers. That would need the most experienced reviewers to set aside some of their time and spend it in working with other reviewers, giving them feedback, making constructive criticisms,

2700:

Supervision of reviewers is still required at NPP but nothing like on the scale that it was before the New Page Reviewer right was rolled out. We still supervise and occasionally catch one who is not performing correctly, but of the 630 reviewers, discount those who havce never or rarely used

2626:

I think an RfC on #2 is the best path forward for AfC reform, as it addresses the backlog problem, the wait-time problem, the can't-judge-vs-notability problem, and the trapped-in-AfC-forever problem and is likely to garner a decent level of support from many different camps as long as we can explain

1848:

keeps the list clear of inactive reviewers so everyone on the list I put together has reviewed drafts within the last 6 months. Since the list used to be self add, some users may never have been vetted, do just enough reviews to stay active, and not done anything bad enough to get kicked off. So this

1802:

who simply diplomatically withdrew from the discussions to avoid the persistent harassment. He then turned his attention to an outright plan of harassment of several admins and had gone well past the threshold of the banhammer before he finally understood and desisted, but not without having another

1725:

User talk:Sb2001 nearly got himself banned for persistent harrasement of established editors and admins. His character is totally unsuitable for roles that bring him contact with new users. You need to sharpen up your criteria for compiling lists. I've come across another of your 'AfC' invitees whose

219:

Almost as a rule I don't do extra work for editors that create company articles as a clear COI. I won't be merging or adding anything to the parent company's article. This article isn't quite promotional enough for G11, but it is basically a directory listing. I'm not going to argue over the CSD with

3312:

what is much harder than all this is training someone to communicate properly with the contributors. I can give advice for this, and I could probably summarize the advice in writing, & give a collection of good or bad examples, but nothing replaces having a proper frame of mind. I an tell people

3093:

I'm not willing to just let things go--not because of article quality as such, but because of the need to remove promotionalism. The most effective thing we can do is to use the sort of work we just did in specifying NCORP, and now going back and retrospectively applying it to all relevant articles.

3050:

We are faced with either accepting what little the WMF is prepared to give us right now and finding ways to make them understand that it's not enough, or telling them to cancel what they are doing and keeping the status quo with an AfC that is never going to improve itself from within its own ranks.

2970:

Strengthen the tools to remove the Hopeless (easier deletion, maybe by mainspacing). Improve the process for working with creators on the Promising (use the talkpage, don't reject just comment?) and train reviewers to Accept the Acceptable sooner than later, not when it is perfect but when the topic

2925:

So to sum up, we all think AfC is a bit broken, or at least a bit inconsistent. Training reviewers is an idea, but unlikely to succeed unless we can agree on what exactly they should be trained to do (and this is generally the crux of the problem). We seem generally in agreement about having a go at

2865:

As for the way to teach notability to someone who's new: first of all it's skills-training, not just knowledge-training. You generally find that works best by demonstration, practice and repetition. The trainee should at least know where to find the underpinning knowledge, i.e be familiar with where

427:

to the ACTRIAL report commissioned by the Wikimedia Foundation strongly reiterates our long-time on going requirements for the NPP and AfC processes to be improved. Within minutes of the trial being switched off, the feed was swamped with inappropriate creations and users are being blocked already.

182:

policy): If a notable parent exists, the project and its readers are usually better served by merging/redirecting to the parent's article (or here, grandparent's) instead of deletion. And 2) If a notable parent exists, chances are high, the subsidiary has received some coverage as well. For example,

3319:

Not all submissions are worth full analysis. The ones that are obviously impossible do not need to go through a checklist. We already have G11 and G12. We need a similar criteria not for "no possible notability " but the broader "no possible chance of a WP article". We've been declining drafts as

3206:

see in the feed, is that a lot of people go for the low hanging fruit, and that's mainly people who are not holders of the user right, so they just mark pages for deletion with Twinkle - and frequently get it wrong and it is a disservice to good faith new users. But that's what the community voted

3197:

I do not believe it's intended to lump everything into one feed list - that would be counter productive to what I am hoping will be achieved. We already have a (far too short) list of filter preferences in the New Pages Feed and this would be a new one. Once you've chosen your track, you stay on it

3083:

to make the two match. There's the possibility of doing AfC without the script, but almost nobody would bother, just as almost nobody nominatesAfD without using Twinkle. The real problem on quality control fo reviewing NP/AFC is actually doing it. Nobody does, except incidentally. I & those of

3034:

my influence, but whereas improving NPP as our only official gatekeeper has been my focus for the last 7 years, I'm not going to tell them we don't want it. IMO we should be grateful for small mercies, because we have no ways whatsoever of convincing those developers that they are there first and

1629:

which lists all of the users I invited, those who applied, and their review counts up to the 26th February (I haven't updated it since then, but I'll have a crack at it tonight). The users I invited had done 11,000 total reviews by end of Feb, and I suspect it will be around 15,000 total reviews by

3201:

I've done a lot of patrolling over the years and I still do (but these days only for the purpose of monitoring the system - but it still puts in the top few patrollers). I think the majority of my patrols were done back in the days before the Curation system was developed, and I still consider the

3142:

What a lot of people forget is that while only accredited New Page Reviewers can mark a page as patrolled', the community in its wisdom insisted that all inexperienced users and newbies continue to be allowed to mark pages for deletion - which largely defeated the object in the purpose of creating

3126:

merge the two processes, nor does NPP 'usurp' the functions of AfC. Look at it as two different trains that share the same railroad track: One train, an express train, takes new articles to mainspace or deletion, while the other train, a lumbering freight train, takes articles - mainly junk - for

3045:

despite the roll out of ACTRIAL, the backlog has once again increased significantly. There is little to be gained by the WMF evangelising and paying WiR and pushing for more articles if they refuse to provide us with the tools back here in the maintenance departments of AfC and NPP to cope with it.

2904:

criticism with the observation that there was a generally accepted standard that you were adhering to. How many reviewers will eventually wander off and do something else when they regularly get criticised justifiably for applying idiosyncratic reviewing standards simply because they never had any

2769:

If it's any help, I had 30 years of experience working with a major exam board here in the UK, who were constantly looking at ways of standardisation of marking papers and tacking the problem of grade drift over time. My experience was that the more time they spent training their markers, the more

2588:

done that would be a first step in their recognition that sofware upgrades are required that are beyond the remit of the volunteers. The backlog will continue to increase at AfC and the main cause is not software at all but a social issue comprising the inconsistent standards of

2711:

to comment, because like me, he has decades of experience in helping people to understand simple instructions and knows the difference between cognitive perception and UX; where we diverge is that he is an expert also in computer language whereas my focus is on that other branch of communication:

2706:

If someone came up with a ready made, plausible solution for AfC it would probably carry just as easily as a user's good faith iteration of the Wizard did without the voters noticing that he had reduced the Wizard to four four-line pages, effectively cut out all the essential help and advice the

1709:

I'm not really certain what behavioural issues you are speaking of (clean block log, etc). Given the goal of getting the AfC reviewers on board to unify the rights, and the fact that we are talking about users who already have a similar right, I do not think that activity level is that large of a

3225:

FWIW, I do not use the curation interface much, and especially not its tools. I mainly look for articles likely to be problems, and I do it by scanning the old New Pages feed. find it easier to scan. To follow your analogy, people who are expert drivers use stick shifts (I am not an expert &

3044:

that there is absolutely no truth in the Foundation's claims that they don't have sufficient resources. This is a myth that they put about which seriously needs to be debunked. This last weekend NPP was again flooded with substandard articles that obviously came from an editathon somewhere and

3024:

Hence the WMF decided they would help relieve some of the work for AfC by making it easier for them to detect COPYVIOS etc. This requires a software solution and that solution is, for the time being, ORES. They will do that by incorporating ORES into the New Pages Feed, and channeling Drafts to

3189:

Look at it as two different trains that share the same railroad track: One train, an express train, takes new articles to mainspace or deletion, while the other train, a lumbering freight train, takes articles - mainly junk - for recycling. Users can select in the feed which train they want to

3157:

As for your analogy--I think almost all users are likely to simply go thru the least one after another, regardless of track, and not pay attention to the different standards. I personally patrol selectively, using the popups or previews to find things I'm likely to be appropriate for, but most

2861:

as a starting point and spend some time examining a sample of their interactions there. Of course, before I started offering constructive criticism, I'd want to make sure that it was welcome beforehand. With volunteers, it's very important to establish cooperative relationships – the aim is to

2836:

Been thinking about this - I endorse Insertcleverphrasehere's #2 Plan and RFC. The idea of training AfC volunteers sounds good but seems impractical to me. There is no log of actions I can check as a trainer. How do I train someone on what is notable except say go read up on N? Anyone with some

2616:

Realistically, the new page reviewing community (AfC and NPP together) might be better off if AfC didn't exist at all (simply tell new editors that they have to wait, tough cookies). However, AfC exists, and for better or worse some editors continue to put value in the project and in keeping it

1730:

drafts have been declined by other reviewers in the past few days. All this is making a huge impact on the work load of admins which you do not appear to have taken into consideration. Actions like these are good ideas and initiatives but they need to be thought out more carefully and obtain a

3127:

recycling. Users can select in the feed which train they want to drive. None of this however does, or can, address the actual quality of reviewing which remains totally subjective depending on the competency of the reviewers and their inclination to do all the theoretically required checks. As

3018:

First, bear with me - I want to clear up any misunderstandings about my role in this. I have been having discussions with Heilman, Dianna, and and Negrin about how NPP can benefit from better tools to identify UPE and other undesirable 'articles'. In the aftermath of the very successful RfC to

491:

Good catch. Not sure how I got the reminder text was swapped in the left side boxes, but it seems to have been that way from when I first added it. Its fixed and I uploaded a new file, but you might not see the new image unless you clear your browsing image cache. Thanks for bringing it to my

146:

I'm not really sure why this is a good reason to decline the CSD. CCSI is an essay, not policy or guideline (which I note that you yourself wrote). Furthermore, Sead Studios is a subsidiary of a company that does not have an article (Primeworks Distribution), which is itself a subsidiary of

2690:

eloquently described the differences between the two systems, but the irony is that if they were merged, the actual AfC processing time would be faster not slower, and its backlog would not grow. The two tier article vetting system would not be compromised. "The real point of AfC", says

2685:

Thank you so much for this, ICPH. It all echoes my own thoughts almost entirely. The WMF will not contribute directly to the development of AfC and its system because it's not an official process, whereas they will for NPP if we put them under enough pressure. In another venue, you and

2496:(Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Knowledge on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Knowledge and as president of Wikimedia Australia. 2418:

that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only

2880:

Sure I could be trained, but I already get enough inappropriate criticism from various editors inside and outside the AfC project - with no extra reward and another layer of oversight I'd likely wander off and do something other than review PAID, COI, and SPAM drafts for fun.

2765:

And inconsistent standards are the main source of your problems. I'm pretty certain it would help, although it may require many experienced reviewers to compromise until they reached general agreement. You'd also need to look at ways of making sure standards don't drift over

2621:, but once the page is in mainspace we can take it to AfD and have access to CSD criteria that make reviewing problematic submissions so much easier. ACREQ will continue to hold back the flood of 'driveby editors', so this is also not a sidestep of the core reasons for ACREQ. 2862:

improve their reviewing and the value is that the job of reviewing is done more consistently, leading to a more predictable experience for the new editor. Without some means of standardisation, you'll be forever chasing a moving target when trying to make any improvement.

2580:, but I'm getting very close to considering that the only solution is to deprecate AfC altogether - which is a solution that has occasionally been under serious consideration. The argument is now centred on the Article Wizard. I'm not sure of what 2584:'s thoughts would be on this. In anycase, the help that the WMF is working on will only be included in the New Pages Feed - and that was not my influence, although I have been working hard in the background with the Board and the WMF to get at least 585:

The Arbitration Committee recommends that well-publicized community discussions be held to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article and how those factors should be

1772:

From an AFC perspective, sb2001 started out rough but following that I have not noticed any major issues. Hell, they made up with McCandlish, which is impressive in and of itself. Do they merit NPR? No idea, but I find them to be a reasonably useful AFC reviewer.

2707:

creators really need, and without realising that he had possibly contributed to the backlog by making it too easy to click through without any 'Sorry, pal,game over' no-way-back endings for those who come for the wrong reasons. At this juncture, I'm inviting

396:

Sorry, but at the moment I am working through a randomised list, for statistical purposes, and not really reviewing anything else. You got lucky that tyour other article was on the list. I'm sure someone will come along at some point to review that one. —

1671:

Can you withdraw this: User talk:Sb2001? Due to previous behavioural issues, I would be totally opposed to according this user any extended rights at this time. The problem is that not all admins who work the PERM requests will be aware of his history.

1864:

I've noticed that of late you have somewhat shifted your focus from NPR to AfC - indeed both systems need looking at very closely now, especially as ACTRIAL is almost cretain to go permanent. That said, you may wish to comment

1075:

Fair enough, I wanted to get some input from the AfC guys with regard to what they thought about the stats, and most of them don't watch the other page. I think that discussion has largely finished, so the other page is a good place to leave it. —

1635: 1380:

Hi ya. The rating doesn't really matter, as its just a way of each wikiproject to keep track of the length of each of its articles. I'd say its still probably 'stub' in terms of the length of prose, but could possibly also classify as 'start'. —

2819:

I think I would support encouraging "qualified" editors to move their pages directly to mainspace so we can apply Ax CSD and AfD and PROD. I've noticed that when junk is moved from AfC to Mainspace it generally gets dealt with pretty quick.

1213: 422: 529:

Just out of curiosity, did my attempted ping at the April Fools poll work? Or did you find your way to the poll by other means? I would like to know for future reference as the instructions for the ping template are not entirely clear.

302:

has vandalized this page before, and you left a warning that they would be blocked. I don't have much experience dealing with persistent vandals, so I thought I'd follow up with you to see what you think is the right course of action.

155:

doesn't really apply anyway, even if the giant media company in the umbrella above it might be. You know that this has previously been deleted via A7 as well? I'll take it to AfD instead, but I'm not in agreement with your decline. —

1365:, a stub-class. Today I am going through and getting all the pages up to a good standard in my eyes. I believe that I have done so with this page. I'd appreciate it if you could check it out and possibly get me a new rating. Thanks! 3121:

leading up to it. The WMF is not going to build a separate feed for AfC. My guess is 1). because it only a WikiProject and therefor not supported, and 2). because a feed already exists for NPP which can double up for NPP. This does

1056: 2852:

There's more than one way of skinning a cat, and training isn't something that you can do by precise formulation; you can only have general guidelines and you need to be aware of how your trainees learn best. If I wanted to train

1397: 1018:

is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Knowledge and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the

2750:

I'm not sure if that will help, because many experienced reviewers don't really agree on what standard to apply; or atleast, some people who I think need to be more accepting of drafts are reasonably experienced reviewers.

599: 3313:

to watch what I say, and watch what other careful reviewers say. (this is analogous to my experience teaching library school students how to deal with questions at a reference desk, and, I suspect, other professions also)

1059:

page. I think anything that discusses or impacts both systems should preferably be in one venue. It also saves cluttering the AfC talk page wich is used more generally for AfC reviewers asking for advice.

1423: 981:

While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the

561: 3118: 2577: 3469:

I think i Need to run the black pipes up the right side but not the left? But it is also slightly around the back, so not certain that this would be visible from a direct front view like the one in the svg. —

589:

All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general.

1433:

Venice Boulevard is SR 187. The only reason Culver Boulevard has a redirect is because its northern terminus is at Venice Boulevard. With the page already being created, why not create the page or delete it.

2770:

consistent the marks; and that they really had to have a refresher each year to keep it stable. Obviously volunteers are a lot harder to manage than paid staff, but that's no excuse for not managing them. --

1753:, both Tony and Amory have already volunteered to review extra AfC applicants at PERM, so the extra work load on admins has been considered. This 'initiative' has been being discussed for a few days over at 2809:

Simply moving crap to mainspace to apply mainspace tools will get you sanctioned. Some editors have the idea that Draft space is a sacred place where notability and (too a lessor extent) verifability don't

2364:

which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate

2899:

criticism. The extra reward (a better experience for the new editor and an easier job of making improvements) would need to be an upfront message from the start, and you would have the ability to counter

3272: 592:

For canvassing editors to this case, Volvlogia (talk · contribs) is admonished. They are warned that any further instances of canvassing related to arbitration processes will likely result in sanctions.

3489:

the pipe on the left side (top in the photo mentioned above) must be white (which is odd), but still not certain that either would be visible in the direct front view at the scale we are looking at. —

1601:

Did we ever get a report from you on the effectiveness of your patroller recruiting programme? How many new reviewers were created from it, and how many of them have done any significant patrolling?

220:

you, life is too short and I already took it to AfD. I mostly regret having to waste other people's time at AfD. And to be clear, I did a search before tagging it with CSD. I didn't find anything. —

3164:

I think most volunteers can be educated--I've abut half the time been able to improve someone's quality if I go at it gently. But is hard to do, & I'll discuss later how I think it can be done.

1209: 615: 3114: 3161:

as for merging the right,s we can discuss it again. Or we can just do it directly: the AFC reviewers not qualified for NPR are in my opinion not qualified for AfC either, & should be removed.

462: 203:

To clarify: These are merely deliberations based on the article's content. If the basic fact that the studio is a subsidiary cannot be sourced, I, too, will support deletion via AFD. Regards

3419: 1298: 174:

is an essay that I wrote but which collects what previously has and has not been deemed reasons to speedy delete articles. In this case, the reason for declining is basically twofold: 1)

1464:

You reverted my edit on Culver Boulevard. There should be no redirect to SR 187 because Venice Boulevard is SR 187 between Interstate 10 and Pacific Coast Highway, not Culver Boulevard.

2816:

The stupid templates go on the face of the page, encourage discussion at Teahouse, the reviewer's talk amd AfC help - everywhere except on the article talk page. We HAVE to change that.

562: 379: 2837:

competence is going to get the obvious declines and obvious accepts, so we are really talking Edge cases which tend to sit until a experienced and/or confident reviewer looks at them.

3499: 2550: 3194:

For a better analogy, look at it as two parallel tracks on the same track bed, with a set of points (AE:switch) which allows the train driver to choose which destination he wants.

969: 3136:

NPP is a Userright, but we are supposed to be accomplishing essentially the same thing with the permission to use the AFCH script. We could decide ourselves to make the two match

1520: 1350: 579:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes.

430:

This is now the moment to continue to collaborate with the WMF and their developers to bring the entire Curation system up to date by making a firm commitment to addressing the

2534: 1312:. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes. 1492: 1473: 1459: 1263: 569:

An arbitration case regarding civility in infobox discussions has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1558: 3025:

their own section in the feed so that AfC can benefit from selecting in their preferences 'Drafts' and then they can review them and use their templates in the normal way.

1391: 3035:

foremost to service the immediate demands of the practical requirements for running an electronic encyclopedia and not pursue the international politics of the Foundation.

1529: 1411: 1399: 1041: 727: 413: 3466: 1866: 1479: 516: 502: 407: 3432: 2936: 2665: 2651: 555: 1782: 3480: 2637: 2178: 2170: 2058: 1989:

I have been inactive since last few days, so I am not up to date with few things. When is ACREQ going to be operational? Is there any confirm daye, or an estimation? —

1970: 1952: 1930: 1767: 1744: 1720: 1662: 1648: 1590: 1086: 649: 2256: 1187: 328: 283: 2799:

We are currently reducing the backlog but it's (maybe largely?) because I've spent days processing drafts. Appearently I'm the top AfC reviewer by a wide margin now)

2361: 2210: 2162: 1844:

Part of the discussion was to look at who did not qualify for NPR. If a user is found unsuitable for the NPR flag they should arguably be removed from the AfC list.

1502: 681: 230: 198: 166: 2998:

I do not like the idea of moving hopeless into mainspace so we can delete them. We can, technically, do this now, and it has always been considered bad practice

2334: 2330: 2322: 2318: 2306: 2218: 2080: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1144: 673: 1374: 1198: 2021: 1180: 2202: 2154: 2130: 2106: 1134: 1007: 689: 665: 641: 3275:

where the devs are asking for feedback on its talk page. I think that at this point we should give ICPH his talk page back and continue the discussion there.

2546: 441: 137: 2114: 1869:, but do note that the emphasis there is finding a way to convincing the very top level at the WMF that we need some dedicated committment to 1750: 1029: 657: 3284: 3064: 2721: 2469: 2043: 1904: 1890: 3357:

I would not demur one iota from the practicalities of what you wrote above. I should point out that things we know we cannot teach are almost invariably

1826: 1812: 450: 3370: 2914: 2890: 2875: 2779: 2760: 1701: 1681: 2967:

I'm not seeing three processes because we can't get the crestors to self select, but three types of Draft pages. Hopeless, Promising, and Acceptable.

2566: 1194: 817: 3345: 3331: 3105: 3009: 2961: 2745: 1092: 1630:

now. The hit rate of how many I invited to how many applied ended up being around 10-15%, though I don't have entirely firm stats on that (I invited

3260: 3216: 3179: 3152: 1183:

to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.

214: 3079:

NPP is a Userright, but we are supposed to be accomplishing essentially the same thing with the permission to use the AFCH script. We could decide

2122: 2095: 987: 2262: 1201:. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable. 1186:

Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are

2656:

Rather than entirely deprecating AfC it could be greatly reduced, with only draftifications or people who really need help being directed there.

2511: 2226: 2138: 1327: 1130: 863: 485: 348: 267: 3237: 2399:, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new 939:

Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator

2240: 2194: 1878: 1443: 1205: 868: 711: 697: 431: 390: 111: 104: 102: 2314: 3460: 2516: 2146: 1332: 629: 419:

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere, thank you for your efforts reviewing New Page and AfC submissions and your support for the ACTRIAL initiative.

1858: 1057:

Wikipedia_talk:The_future_of_NPP_and_AfC#Some_stats_on_the_AfC_process_compared_to_NPP_and_notability_and_some_ideas_to_float_for_AfC_reform

2186: 1356: 894: 368: 3055:

suggests, or it will go the way of the dinosaurs of its own accord. We will then be left with NPP and that might not be such a bad thing.

2858: 1610: 921:

users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the

436:

to the excellent suite of tools the WMF developed for Curation. Some of these are already listed at Phabricator but may need a boost.

774: 94: 2506: 1881:

have been ignored for too long by the WMF middle management, and they are not issues that can be addressed at community level.

1322: 798: 340: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 2310: 3486: 2002: 1754: 733: 620: 3251:, I scan the feed looking for problem pages (and problem deletion tagging), leaving the lower hanging fruit for other reviewers. 1069: 757: 1126: 650:

Ironing out issues in infoboxes; not sure yet about New Jersey; and an administrator who probably wasn't uncivil to a sockpuppet.

256: 252: 3465:

kinda... I'm not certain that they are visible from the front view (and do they run down both sides or just one side?) Based on

1574: 312: 2244: 715: 3452: 539: 2980: 2846: 2829: 2540: 2267: 1817:

Fair enough. I honestly haven't been paying much attention to them lately so really all I've seen is the AFC side of things.

1097: 1960:

In due time, I'm in no hurry. I honestly don't look forward to people like myself accusing me of abusing my discretion.😉 —

1895:

I'll also point out that your comments at PERM are not always seen in the best light. Admin discretion is admin discretion.

2598: 2530: 2252: 1803:

final stab with an immature last word. His tag-team partner in his harassment schedule has since been blocked and banned.

1547: 1465: 1435: 1346: 1037: 723: 600:

Knowledge talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions closed

458: 1266:

a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at

2068: 750: 1516: 242: 957:

The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant

887: 767: 47: 17: 2526: 2248: 1626: 1342: 1033: 719: 454: 853: 1014:

that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections.

810: 469: 2555:(This notice has been sent to all who participated in the prior RfC, regardless of which side they supported). 3131:

points out, that is a question of training, but IMO volunteers (on any project) are reluctant to be educated.

829: 824: 786: 2235: 1415: 805: 791: 781: 706: 373: 3243:

within the New Pages Feed as I detailed above with the aid of analogies. I only use the Page Curation and

3493: 3474: 3426: 2930: 2712:

applied linguistics. For the purpose of helping new Knowledge users, however, it's a good combination...

2631: 2052: 1964: 1924: 1761: 1714: 1642: 1584: 1486: 1453: 1385: 1080: 880: 858: 549: 496: 401: 322: 277: 224: 160: 1309: 964:

Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for

1596: 836: 38: 1216:

is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

2403:

function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to

3202:

Curation system one of the best software developments that ever came out of the WMF stable. What I

2926:

an RfC to adopt #2 so I'll draft something and ask you guys for input sometime in the next week. —

1469: 1439: 1428: 1302: 1053:

Some stats on the AfC process compared to NPP and notabilty and some ideas to float for AfC reform.

334: 251:

I have seen that you are a new page reviewer and so I would like you to review two of my articles.

343:– a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as 2551:

Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal: A US-only CentralNotice in support of Net Neutrality

2031: 1993: 1362: 983: 1757:. I have clearly stated that users should check the criteria in the messages that I sent out. — 110:

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

2326: 1512: 1370: 1001: 470: 378:

I have one more draft waiting for submission will you please check it if possible here is link

299: 2435: 918: 3244: 2302: 1692:

may need to revise your selection criteria - some of these people haven't edited in years.

1140: 922: 743: 611: 512: 481: 386: 362: 8: 3341: 2976: 2886: 2842: 2825: 2756: 2661: 2647: 2562: 2027: 2017: 1854: 1653:

Thanks. Good work. Don't worry about updating, it was perfect for what I wanted to know.

535: 1361:

Hey there. I don't know if you remember, but a while back you rated the page I created,

2680: 1822: 1778: 1046: 573:

Any uninvolved administrator may apply infobox probation as a discretionary sanction.

476:

Just letting you know that you mixed up A1 and A3: A1 is no context, A3 is no content.

352: 148: 2292: 1122: 3448: 3280: 3256: 3212: 3148: 3060: 2717: 2594: 2431: 2420: 2408: 2039: 1948: 1900: 1886: 1808: 1740: 1697: 1677: 1658: 1606: 1570: 1543: 1366: 1065: 914: 666:

Real sports, real women and an imaginary country: what's on top for Knowledge readers

289: 1006:

has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including

351:. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at 117: 2384: 2354: 1552: 958: 308: 263: 121: 2442: 2427: 2415: 2404: 2388: 2009: 1236: 3366: 2910: 2871: 2775: 2741: 2618: 2578:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/AfC Process Improvement May 2018

1799: 607: 508: 477: 382: 356: 295: 209: 193: 132: 2396: 2392: 46:

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

3438: 3413: 3406: 3337: 2972: 2882: 2854: 2838: 2821: 2813:

Some of the best pages come from IPs, which is why AfC was started I understand

2803: 2752: 2687: 2657: 2643: 2581: 2558: 2013: 1850: 1689: 1525: 1275: 944: 531: 171: 152: 3158:

people go in sequence. But if I cannot convince even you, I may giveup onthis.

2802:

There are a few editors that make deletion of drafts at MfD pretty tough (see

3327: 3233: 3175: 3101: 3005: 2957: 2446: 1982: 1940: 1845: 1818: 1795: 1787: 1774: 1732: 1240: 970:

Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?

965: 545:

Your second re-ping definitely went off. I got a ping before that as well. —

344: 175: 3273:

Knowledge:WikiProject Articles for creation/AfC Process Improvement May 2018

3444: 3399: 3276: 3252: 3208: 3144: 3071: 3056: 2947: 2730: 2713: 2604: 2590: 2035: 1957: 1944: 1915: 1896: 1882: 1804: 1736: 1706: 1693: 1673: 1654: 1616: 1602: 1566: 1539: 1271: 1267: 1061: 738:

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

524: 114:, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: 2479: 2571: 2353:

The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely

2107:

Photo of Kim Jong-un. Stephen Hawking death tops hits on many Wikipedias.

1534: 304: 259: 184: 183:

in this case, you could easily just add a sub-entry to the list found at

3385: 3362: 3302: 3128: 3052: 2906: 2867: 2771: 2737: 2708: 2407:. This information is currently only available to those with access to 449:

Knowledge:The future of NPP and AfC. To opt-out of future mailings, go

204: 188: 143: 127: 1305:, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice. 2456: 1412:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 4#Soumyabrata Gupta

1400:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 April 4#Soumyabrata Gupta

1250: 1208:(ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has 1480:

Knowledge:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_9#Culver_Boulevard

3392: 3352: 3322: 3248: 3228: 3184: 3170: 3110: 3096: 3041: 3000: 2952: 2895:

Then whoever does the training would need to know how to make only

2692: 563:

Knowledge:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions

3418:, I have put together a draft of an RfC for #2 above. Please see: 2211:

Coming soon: Books-to-PDF, interactive maps, rollback confirmation

339:

Hi, Insertcleverphrasehere. I'm just posting to let you know that

116:

Being part of a notable entity indicates importance/significance (

2372: 1285: 1223: 2449:, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time. 1751:

Wikipedia_talk:The_future_of_NPP_and_AfC#Qualification_Alignment

1243:, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time. 151:. If its parent company Primeworks Distribution isn't notable, 2341: 1167: 3168:

the article (at least at CSD--Prod can still be more erratic)

2547:

Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 147#Net neutrality

2034:

again. This risks becoming the same fiasco as Bugzilla 2011.

1308:

The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the

187:

under "Primeworks Distribution" instead of deletion. Regards

2281: 2273: 2227:

A look at some famous and not as well-known border tripoints

2155:

It's time we look past Women in Red to counter systemic bias

1274:

prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at

1190:

by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.

1111: 1103: 2434:

on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on

658:

The media on Knowledge's workings: the good and not-so-good

294:

Hi, I just had a problem with a vandal IP messing with the

2589:

reviewing at AfC and the lack of sufficient reviewers.

1197:

has been substantially rewritten following the closure of

1179:

Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity

929:. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day. 318:

Looks like the issue has been dealt with in my absence. —

2171:

No new cases, and one motion on administrative misconduct

1521:

the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page

917:'s six month experiment restricting new page creation to 2607:

The fact is that no one can agree precisely what AfC is

2492: 1301:

which concluded that administrators are not required to

438:

The conclusions also make some recommendations for AfC.

968:. A further discussion is currently taking place at: 575:

See the full decision for details of infobox probation.

3336:

I've CSD G2 tagged hundreds of pages declined as test

925:

again, and the backlog has since increased already by

582:

Cassianto is indefinitely placed on infobox probation.

1449:

I'm not sure what the context of this comment is. —

1195:

notability guideline for organizations and companies

414:

ACTRIAL - next steps for the Future of AfC & NPP

3301:: I have in mind a different sort of training that 2576:I don't know if you are aware of the thread at 2203:

A quiet place to wrestle with the articles of March

1519:. You are invited to comment on the discussion at 2387:has received numerous improvements, including an 1503:Nomination for deletion of Template:Sources exist 3320:"test pages"--we should just be removing them. 3115:this for the WMF decision on what they will do 1879:Knowledge:Page Curation/Suggested improvements 1873:rathern than palliative discussions on what 2549:. The same proposal has been posted again at 2139:Guideline for Organization Notability revised 2115:The rise of Knowledge as a disinformation mop 888: 642:Wiki Conference roundup and new appointments. 440:A place to discuss these issues initially is 1688:Also, the user is only semi active. You and 2426:The block notice shown on mobile will soon 444:where you are already a task force member. 2545:A month ago you participated in an RfC at 2219:Featured content selected by the community 1798:. They didn't so much make it up with 1410:You are invited to join the discussion at 976:Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled 895: 881: 341:List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches 3422:and comment on the talk page. Cheers, — 3291:One more points, which I started here: 2195:Our Favorite Places to Whine About Stuff 347:for March 26. The TFL blurb can be seen 1561:to my Special Report in the last 1093:Administrators' newsletter – April 2018 257:2016 African Nations Championship Final 253:2011 African Nations Championship Final 14: 2147:World War II Myth-making and Knowledge 952:Subject-specific notability guidelines 682:Timeless skin review by Force Radical. 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2795:Thanks for the ping. AfC is broken. 2472:to help with the arbitration process. 2263:Administrators' newsletter – May 2018 1939:want that kind of discretion, RfA is 1580:I'll have a look later on. Cheers, — 1000:The next issue Knowledge's newspaper 507:No problem, thank you for making it! 2131:ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide 2048:Looks like they are on to it now. — 1625:effective. My invitee stats page is 1357:Harry Chapin Sunday Morning Sunshine 1206:autoconfirmed article creation trial 25: 3443:B5 has black stripes on the sides. 3420:User:Insertcleverphrasehere/AfC_RfC 2268:News and updates for administrators 2123:Admin reports board under criticism 1188:now automatically considered banned 1098:News and updates for administrators 961:nominating an article for deletion. 23: 2859:their contributions to Draft space 2421:occurs when hard-blocking accounts 2272: 2270:from the past month (April 2018). 2075: 1102: 1100:from the past month (March 2018). 1028:To opt-out of future mailings, go 1023:editorial team for the next issue. 624: 24: 3513: 3271:The updated WMF proposals are at 2414:When blocking anonymous users, a 2405:see which filters are the slowest 2355:restricted to autoconfirmed users 380:Draft:Aisi Hai Tanhai (TV series) 3119:the long discussion on this page 2478: 2455: 2371: 2340: 2301: 2291: 2280: 1849:has a quality control function. 1507: 1405: 1284: 1249: 1222: 1166: 1139: 1121: 1110: 734:New Page Review Newsletter No.10 621:Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018 606:For the arbitration committee, 29: 18:User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere 2012:unknown seems to be the answer 1935:Correct: admin discretion. If 13: 1: 2971:is shown to meet Notability. 2541:Another RfC on Net Neutrality 2187:Why the world reads Knowledge 2026:ACTRIAL → ACREQ: Please see 1051:I have copied your thread: 298:redirect. I saw that this IP 2642:I agree with all the above. 2470:is seeking additional clerks 2179:WikiProject Military History 1794:That's only half the story, 1755:WT:The future of NPP and AfC 751:General notability guideline 7: 2362:proposal is being discussed 966:organisations and companies 943:, and submit the issue to 869:Why was my article deleted? 818:Organizations and companies 758:Subject-specific guidelines 10: 3518: 2527:MediaWiki message delivery 2468:The Arbitration Committee 2257:01:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC) 2249:MediaWiki message delivery 2236:Read this Signpost in full 2059:22:38, 25 April 2018 (UTC) 2044:11:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC) 2022:08:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC) 2003:08:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC) 1971:16:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 1953:16:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 1931:16:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 1905:15:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 1891:15:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 1859:15:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 1827:17:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC) 1813:22:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 1783:17:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 1768:14:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 1745:14:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 1721:13:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 1702:13:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 1682:12:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 1663:07:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC) 1649:05:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC) 1611:04:31, 10 April 2018 (UTC) 1591:02:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC) 1575:02:19, 12 April 2018 (UTC) 1548:01:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC) 1530:02:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC) 1343:MediaWiki message delivery 1262:The Arbitration Committee 1042:08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC) 1034:MediaWiki message delivery 728:18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC) 720:MediaWiki message delivery 707:Read this Signpost in full 616:08:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 556:10:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 540:07:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 517:20:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC) 503:18:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC) 486:14:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC) 463:19:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 455:MediaWiki message delivery 408:13:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 391:13:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 243:Request for a page review. 103:Speedy deletion declined: 2346:Guideline and policy news 1877:be done. Our requests at 1493:05:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC) 1474:05:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC) 1460:19:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC) 1444:19:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC) 1424:05:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC) 1392:23:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC) 1375:17:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC) 1351:01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC) 1172:Guideline and policy news 1087:06:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC) 1070:04:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC) 674:Animals, Ships, and Songs 369:23:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 329:20:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 313:16:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 284:09:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 268:09:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 231:14:21, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 215:14:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 199:14:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 167:13:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 138:09:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 3500:09:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC) 3481:09:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC) 3453:07:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC) 3433:02:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC) 3371:10:41, 12 May 2018 (UTC) 3346:07:11, 12 May 2018 (UTC) 3332:06:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC) 3285:02:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC) 3261:02:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC) 3238:15:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC) 3217:06:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC) 3180:05:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC) 3153:05:06, 10 May 2018 (UTC) 3106:03:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC) 3010:00:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC) 1987:Hi. I hope you are well. 1199:this request for comment 864:Common deletion outcomes 3065:17:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC) 2981:07:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC) 2962:04:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC) 2937:23:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 2915:17:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 2891:16:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 2876:16:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 2847:14:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 2830:12:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 2780:16:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 2761:14:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 2746:14:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 2722:09:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 2666:06:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 2652:06:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 2638:04:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 2599:01:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 2567:20:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC) 2535:07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC) 2507:Discuss this newsletter 2397:search existing filters 1363:Sunday Morning Sunshine 1323:Discuss this newsletter 3494:Insertcleverphrasehere 3475:Insertcleverphrasehere 3427:Insertcleverphrasehere 2931:Insertcleverphrasehere 2632:Insertcleverphrasehere 2416:cookie will be applied 2277: 2096:Future directions for 2053:Insertcleverphrasehere 1965:Insertcleverphrasehere 1925:Insertcleverphrasehere 1762:Insertcleverphrasehere 1715:Insertcleverphrasehere 1643:Insertcleverphrasehere 1585:Insertcleverphrasehere 1517:nominated for deletion 1513:Template:Sources exist 1487:Insertcleverphrasehere 1454:Insertcleverphrasehere 1386:Insertcleverphrasehere 1107: 1081:Insertcleverphrasehere 550:Insertcleverphrasehere 497:Insertcleverphrasehere 471:File:NPP flowchart.png 402:Insertcleverphrasehere 323:Insertcleverphrasehere 300:User talk:167.99.8.168 278:Insertcleverphrasehere 249:Insertcleverphrasehere 225:Insertcleverphrasehere 161:Insertcleverphrasehere 2441:There will soon be a 2430:and point users to a 2286:Administrator changes 2276: 2163:The future of portals 1478:Please comment here: 1299:discussion has closed 1235:There will soon be a 1116:Administrator changes 1106: 345:Today's featured list 42:of past discussions. 3245:special:NewPagesFeed 3088:to maintain quality. 3040:I wholly agree with 2177:WikiProject report: 2169:Arbitration report: 1310:Interaction Timeline 775:Astronomical objects 648:Arbitration report: 433:list of requirements 374:Draft for submission 2428:be more informative 2393:syntax highlighting 2209:Technology report: 2161:Discussion report: 1214:request for comment 830:Sports and athletes 799:Geographic features 680:Technology report: 2278: 2217:Featured content: 2088:presses roll again 2079:From the editors: 1597:New page reviewers 1557:I have drafted a 1108: 672:Featured content: 149:Media Prima Berhad 3496: 3477: 3429: 3207:for - bizarre... 2933: 2857:then I'd look at 2684: 2634: 2556: 2537: 2055: 1967: 1927: 1791: 1764: 1717: 1645: 1587: 1489: 1456: 1388: 1353: 1083: 1032: 905: 904: 859:Guide to deletion 854:Notability essays 597:Discuss this at: 552: 499: 465: 404: 325: 280: 227: 163: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3509: 3492: 3473: 3464: 3425: 3417: 3410: 3403: 3396: 3389: 3356: 3143:the user right. 2929: 2734: 2678: 2630: 2554: 2524: 2495: 2482: 2459: 2402: 2375: 2344: 2323:Knowledge Seeker 2305: 2295: 2284: 2201:Traffic report: 2153:Community view: 2129:Special report: 2105:News and notes: 2085: 2051: 2001: 2000: 1998: 1963: 1923: 1919: 1785: 1760: 1731:consensus. FYI 1713: 1641: 1583: 1511: 1510: 1485: 1452: 1429:Culver Boulevard 1421: 1409: 1408: 1384: 1340: 1288: 1253: 1226: 1181:are now required 1170: 1143: 1125: 1114: 1079: 1027: 897: 890: 883: 740: 739: 698:WikiWorld Reruns 690:ACTRIAL wrap-up. 688:Special report: 664:Traffic report: 640:News and notes: 630:Death knell for 548: 495: 448: 400: 365: 359: 335:TFL notification 321: 276: 223: 159: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3517: 3516: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3458: 3441: 3411: 3404: 3397: 3390: 3383: 3350: 3277:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 3253:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 3209:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 3145:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 3057:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 2728: 2714:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 2591:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 2574: 2543: 2538: 2522: 2521: 2491: 2443:calendar widget 2400: 2265: 2260: 2259: 2231: 2083: 2074: 2072:: 26 April 2018 2036:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1994: 1991: 1990: 1985: 1945:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1913: 1897:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1883:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1805:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1737:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1694:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1674:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1655:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1603:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1599: 1567:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1555: 1540:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1537: 1508: 1505: 1431: 1416: 1406: 1403: 1359: 1354: 1338: 1337: 1237:calendar widget 1153:Sebastiankessel 1095: 1062:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 1049: 1044: 1010:ACTRIAL wrap-up 919:(auto)confirmed 901: 841: 736: 731: 730: 702: 623: 567: 527: 474: 467: 416: 376: 363: 357: 337: 296:Barack H. Obama 292: 260:Chabota Kanguya 245: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3515: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3440: 3437: 3436: 3435: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3293: 3292: 3288: 3287: 3268: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3223: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3199: 3195: 3192: 3165: 3162: 3159: 3140: 3132: 3090: 3089: 3076: 3075: 3068: 3067: 3047: 3046: 3037: 3036: 3027: 3026: 3021: 3020: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2965: 2964: 2944: 2943: 2939: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2863: 2855:User:Legacypac 2835: 2833: 2832: 2817: 2814: 2811: 2807: 2800: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2767: 2726: 2704: 2702: 2698: 2696: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2654: 2623: 2622: 2613: 2612: 2573: 2570: 2542: 2539: 2523: 2520: 2519: 2514: 2509: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2439: 2424: 2412: 2377:Technical news 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2358: 2338: 2337: 2299: 2264: 2261: 2232: 2230: 2229: 2222: 2221: 2214: 2213: 2206: 2205: 2198: 2197: 2190: 2189: 2182: 2181: 2174: 2173: 2166: 2165: 2158: 2157: 2150: 2149: 2142: 2141: 2134: 2133: 2126: 2125: 2118: 2117: 2113:In the media: 2110: 2109: 2102: 2101: 2091: 2090: 2076: 2073: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 1988: 1984: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1908: 1907: 1893: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1685: 1684: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1634:450, based on 1598: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1554: 1551: 1536: 1533: 1504: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1466:104.172.39.100 1436:104.172.39.100 1430: 1427: 1402: 1398:Discussion at 1396: 1395: 1394: 1358: 1355: 1339: 1336: 1335: 1330: 1325: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1306: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1264:is considering 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1228:Technical news 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1210:been published 1204:The six-month 1202: 1191: 1184: 1164: 1163: 1137: 1131:Cordless Larry 1094: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1048: 1045: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1021:The Signpost's 992: 991: 973: 972: 962: 949: 948: 941:if appropriate 931: 930: 903: 902: 900: 899: 892: 885: 877: 874: 873: 872: 871: 866: 861: 856: 848: 847: 843: 842: 840: 839: 833: 832: 827: 821: 820: 814: 813: 808: 802: 801: 795: 794: 789: 784: 778: 777: 771: 770: 764: 761: 760: 754: 753: 747: 746: 737: 735: 732: 703: 701: 700: 693: 692: 685: 684: 677: 676: 669: 668: 661: 660: 656:In the media: 653: 652: 645: 644: 637: 636: 625: 622: 619: 604: 603: 594: 593: 590: 587: 583: 580: 577: 566: 560: 559: 558: 526: 523: 522: 521: 520: 519: 473: 468: 446: 439: 437: 429: 424:The conclusion 417: 415: 412: 411: 410: 375: 372: 336: 333: 332: 331: 291: 288: 287: 286: 244: 241: 240: 239: 238: 237: 236: 235: 234: 233: 107: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3514: 3501: 3498: 3497: 3495: 3488: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3479: 3478: 3476: 3468: 3462: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3454: 3450: 3446: 3434: 3431: 3430: 3428: 3421: 3415: 3408: 3401: 3394: 3387: 3382: 3381: 3372: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3354: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3343: 3339: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3329: 3325: 3324: 3318: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3304: 3300: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3294: 3290: 3289: 3286: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3270: 3269: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3250: 3246: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3230: 3224: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3205: 3200: 3196: 3193: 3191: 3186: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3172: 3166: 3163: 3160: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3141: 3138: 3137: 3133: 3130: 3125: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3109: 3108: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3098: 3092: 3091: 3087: 3082: 3078: 3077: 3073: 3070: 3069: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3049: 3048: 3043: 3039: 3038: 3033: 3029: 3028: 3023: 3022: 3017: 3016: 3011: 3007: 3003: 3002: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2978: 2974: 2968: 2963: 2959: 2955: 2954: 2949: 2946: 2945: 2940: 2938: 2935: 2934: 2932: 2924: 2923: 2916: 2912: 2908: 2903: 2902:inappropriate 2898: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2888: 2884: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2851: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2818: 2815: 2812: 2808: 2805: 2801: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2768: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2743: 2739: 2732: 2727: 2725: 2724: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2710: 2705: 2703: 2699: 2697: 2694: 2689: 2682: 2681:edit conflict 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2636: 2635: 2633: 2625: 2624: 2620: 2615: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2596: 2592: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2569: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2552: 2548: 2536: 2532: 2528: 2518: 2515: 2513: 2510: 2508: 2505: 2504: 2494: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2481: 2471: 2467: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2458: 2448: 2447:Special:Block 2444: 2440: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2422: 2417: 2413: 2410: 2406: 2401:equals_to_any 2398: 2395:, ability to 2394: 2390: 2389:OOUI overhaul 2386: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2374: 2363: 2359: 2356: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2343: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2316: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2298: 2294: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2283: 2275: 2271: 2269: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2237: 2228: 2224: 2223: 2220: 2216: 2215: 2212: 2208: 2207: 2204: 2200: 2199: 2196: 2192: 2191: 2188: 2184: 2183: 2180: 2176: 2175: 2172: 2168: 2167: 2164: 2160: 2159: 2156: 2152: 2151: 2148: 2144: 2143: 2140: 2136: 2135: 2132: 2128: 2127: 2124: 2120: 2119: 2116: 2112: 2111: 2108: 2104: 2103: 2100: 2099: 2093: 2092: 2089: 2087: 2078: 2077: 2071: 2060: 2057: 2056: 2054: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2041: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2011: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2004: 1999: 1997: 1992:usernamekiran 1972: 1969: 1968: 1966: 1959: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1929: 1928: 1926: 1917: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1892: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1876: 1872: 1868: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1847: 1846:User:Primefac 1828: 1824: 1820: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1810: 1806: 1801: 1797: 1793: 1792: 1789: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1766: 1765: 1763: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1729: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1719: 1718: 1716: 1708: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1699: 1695: 1691: 1687: 1686: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1670: 1669: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1647: 1646: 1644: 1637: 1633: 1628: 1624: 1623: 1618: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1592: 1589: 1588: 1586: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1550: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1532: 1531: 1528: 1527: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1494: 1491: 1490: 1488: 1481: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1471: 1467: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1458: 1457: 1455: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1426: 1425: 1422: 1420: 1419:Winged Blades 1413: 1401: 1393: 1390: 1389: 1387: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1334: 1331: 1329: 1326: 1324: 1321: 1320: 1311: 1307: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290:Miscellaneous 1287: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1252: 1242: 1241:Special:Block 1238: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1225: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1203: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1189: 1185: 1182: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1169: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1124: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1113: 1105: 1101: 1099: 1088: 1085: 1084: 1082: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1058: 1054: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1022: 1017: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1005: 1004: 999: 998: 997: 996: 989: 986:' user right 985: 984:Autopatrolled 980: 979: 978: 977: 971: 967: 963: 960: 956: 955: 954: 953: 947:if necessary. 946: 942: 938: 937: 936: 935: 928: 924: 920: 916: 913: 912: 911: 909: 898: 893: 891: 886: 884: 879: 878: 876: 875: 870: 867: 865: 862: 860: 857: 855: 852: 851: 850: 849: 845: 844: 838: 835: 834: 831: 828: 826: 823: 822: 819: 816: 815: 812: 809: 807: 804: 803: 800: 797: 796: 793: 790: 788: 785: 783: 780: 779: 776: 773: 772: 769: 766: 765: 763: 762: 759: 756: 755: 752: 749: 748: 745: 742: 741: 729: 725: 721: 717: 713: 709: 708: 699: 695: 694: 691: 687: 686: 683: 679: 678: 675: 671: 670: 667: 663: 662: 659: 655: 654: 651: 647: 646: 643: 639: 638: 635: 633: 627: 626: 618: 617: 613: 609: 602: 601: 596: 595: 591: 588: 584: 581: 578: 576: 572: 571: 570: 564: 557: 554: 553: 551: 544: 543: 542: 541: 537: 533: 518: 514: 510: 506: 505: 504: 501: 500: 498: 492:attention. — 490: 489: 488: 487: 483: 479: 472: 466: 464: 460: 456: 452: 445: 443: 435: 434: 426: 425: 420: 409: 406: 405: 403: 395: 394: 393: 392: 388: 384: 381: 371: 370: 366: 360: 354: 350: 346: 342: 330: 327: 326: 324: 317: 316: 315: 314: 310: 306: 301: 297: 285: 282: 281: 279: 272: 271: 270: 269: 265: 261: 258: 254: 250: 232: 229: 228: 226: 218: 217: 216: 213: 212: 208: 207: 202: 201: 200: 197: 196: 192: 191: 186: 181: 177: 173: 170: 169: 168: 165: 164: 162: 154: 150: 145: 142: 141: 140: 139: 136: 135: 131: 130: 125: 123: 119: 113: 106: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3491: 3490: 3472: 3471: 3442: 3424: 3423: 3358: 3321: 3316: 3298: 3227: 3203: 3188: 3169: 3135: 3134: 3123: 3095: 3085: 3080: 3031: 2999: 2969: 2966: 2951: 2928: 2927: 2905:guidance? -- 2901: 2896: 2834: 2794: 2629: 2628: 2608: 2585: 2575: 2544: 2483: 2477: 2460: 2454: 2376: 2370: 2345: 2339: 2296: 2285: 2279: 2266: 2234: 2098:The Signpost 2097: 2082:The Signpost 2081: 2070:The Signpost 2069: 2050: 2049: 2010:phab:T192455 1995: 1986: 1962: 1961: 1936: 1922: 1921: 1874: 1870: 1843: 1759: 1758: 1727: 1712: 1711: 1640: 1639: 1631: 1621: 1620: 1600: 1582: 1581: 1562: 1556: 1538: 1524: 1506: 1484: 1483: 1451: 1450: 1432: 1418: 1404: 1383: 1382: 1367:Citybuild122 1360: 1303:enable email 1289: 1283: 1254: 1248: 1227: 1221: 1171: 1165: 1115: 1109: 1096: 1078: 1077: 1052: 1050: 1020: 1016:The Signpost 1015: 1009: 1008: 1003:The Signpost 1002: 994: 993: 975: 974: 951: 950: 940: 934:Paid editing 933: 932: 926: 907: 906: 705: 632:The Signpost 631: 605: 598: 574: 568: 547: 546: 528: 494: 493: 475: 447: 432: 423: 421: 418: 399: 398: 377: 338: 320: 319: 293: 275: 274: 248: 246: 222: 221: 210: 205: 194: 189: 179: 158: 157: 133: 128: 118:WP:CCSI#CORP 115: 112:Sead Studios 109: 105:Sead Studios 78: 43: 37: 3247:, but like 2897:appropriate 2461:Arbitration 2385:AbuseFilter 2245:Unsubscribe 2241:Single-page 2032:Tthe ticket 1636:THIS search 1255:Arbitration 837:Web content 716:Unsubscribe 712:Single-page 355:. Regards, 185:Media Prima 126:Thank you. 122:WP:CCSI#ORG 36:This is an 3487:this image 3467:this image 2484:Obituaries 2315:Gryffindor 2121:In focus: 2094:Signpost: 1800:McCandlish 1135:ClueBot NG 1047:AfC vs NPP 744:Notability 608:GoldenRing 509:BethNaught 478:BethNaught 383:KarthikSKS 358:Giants2008 95:Archive 10 3485:Based on 3414:Galobtter 3407:Legacypac 3338:Legacypac 3305:explains. 3081:ourselves 3030:This was 2973:Legacypac 2883:Legacypac 2839:Legacypac 2822:Legacypac 2757:pingó mió 2753:Galobtter 2688:Legacypac 2662:pingó mió 2658:Galobtter 2648:pingó mió 2644:Galobtter 2586:something 2582:Legacypac 2559:Guy Macon 2512:Subscribe 2493:Lankiveil 2432:help page 2327:Lankiveil 2225:Gallery: 2137:Opinion: 2018:pingó mió 2014:Galobtter 1851:Legacypac 1790:on reply) 1690:Legacypac 1559:follow up 1526:Lojbanist 1515:has been 1328:Subscribe 1145:Gogo Dodo 768:Academics 586:weighted. 532:Gatoclass 290:Vandal IP 90:Archive 9 85:Archive 8 79:Archive 7 73:Archive 6 68:Archive 5 60:Archive 1 3299:Training 2619:WP:BEANS 2525:Sent by 2409:Logstash 2307:Chochopk 2193:Humour: 1941:thataway 1819:Primefac 1796:Primefac 1786:(please 1775:Primefac 1733:Primefac 1632:at least 1563:Signpost 1553:Signpost 1341:Sent by 1055:to the 846:See also 696:Humour: 353:TFL talk 273:Sure. — 3445:Nergaal 3400:Kudpung 3072:Kudpung 2948:Kudpung 2804:WP:NMFD 2731:Kudpung 2517:Archive 2436:desktop 2335:Rjd0060 2331:Peridon 2145:Op-ed: 2028:T192455 1916:Kudpung 1619:It was 1333:Archive 1276:WP:ARCA 1161:SoLando 945:WP:COIN 915:ACTRIAL 908:ACTRIAL 811:Numbers 628:Op-ed: 178:(which 172:WP:CCSI 153:WP:CCSI 39:archive 3461:Nergal 3439:B5 svg 3359:skills 3317:Triage 3190:drive. 3117:, and 2810:apply. 2365:limit. 2311:Coffee 2185:Blog: 1996:(talk) 1157:Seicer 1127:331dot 959:BEFORE 825:People 787:Events 565:closed 305:Enwebb 176:WP:ATD 3386:RexxS 3363:RexxS 3353:David 3328:talk 3303:RexxS 3234:talk 3176:talk 3129:RexxS 3113:, see 3102:talk 3053:RexxS 3006:talk 2958:talk 2907:RexxS 2868:RexxS 2772:RexxS 2766:time. 2738:RexxS 2709:RexxS 1983:ACREQ 1875:could 1871:tools 1272:WP:AN 1268:WP:AE 1030:here. 806:Music 792:Films 782:Books 453:From 451:here. 16:< 3449:talk 3367:talk 3342:talk 3281:talk 3257:talk 3213:talk 3149:talk 3086:work 3061:talk 2977:talk 2911:talk 2887:talk 2872:talk 2843:talk 2826:talk 2776:talk 2742:talk 2718:talk 2595:talk 2563:talk 2531:talk 2319:Jimp 2297:None 2253:talk 2040:talk 2008:per 1949:talk 1901:talk 1887:talk 1867:here 1855:talk 1823:talk 1809:talk 1788:ping 1779:talk 1749:Per 1741:talk 1698:talk 1678:talk 1659:talk 1627:HERE 1622:very 1607:talk 1571:talk 1544:talk 1482:. — 1470:talk 1440:talk 1371:talk 1347:talk 1212:. A 1193:The 1149:Pb30 1066:talk 1038:talk 995:News 988:HERE 927:~30% 923:feed 724:talk 612:talk 536:talk 525:Ping 513:talk 482:talk 459:talk 442:here 387:talk 364:Talk 349:here 309:talk 264:talk 255:and 3393:DGG 3323:DGG 3249:DGG 3229:DGG 3185:DGG 3171:DGG 3124:not 3111:DGG 3097:DGG 3042:DGG 3032:not 3001:DGG 2953:DGG 2693:DGG 2609:for 2572:AfC 2445:at 1937:you 1728:own 1535:YGM 1414:. 1270:or 1239:at 247:Hi 211:Why 195:Why 134:Why 3451:) 3369:) 3344:) 3330:) 3283:) 3259:) 3236:) 3215:) 3204:do 3187:: 3178:) 3151:) 3104:) 3063:) 3008:) 2979:) 2960:) 2913:) 2889:) 2874:) 2845:) 2828:) 2778:) 2759:) 2744:) 2720:) 2664:) 2650:) 2597:) 2565:) 2557:-- 2553:. 2533:) 2391:, 2360:A 2333:• 2329:• 2325:• 2321:• 2317:• 2313:• 2309:• 2255:) 2247:* 2243:* 2239:* 2233:* 2042:) 2030:• 2020:) 1951:) 1943:. 1903:) 1889:) 1857:) 1825:) 1811:) 1781:) 1743:) 1700:) 1680:) 1661:) 1609:) 1573:) 1546:) 1523:. 1472:) 1442:) 1417:~ 1373:) 1349:) 1297:A 1159:• 1155:• 1151:• 1147:• 1133:• 1129:• 1068:) 1040:) 910:: 726:) 718:* 714:* 710:* 704:* 614:) 538:) 515:) 484:) 461:) 389:) 367:) 311:) 266:) 206:So 190:So 180:is 129:So 124:). 120:, 64:← 3463:: 3459:@ 3447:( 3416:: 3412:@ 3409:: 3405:@ 3402:: 3398:@ 3395:: 3391:@ 3388:: 3384:@ 3365:( 3355:: 3351:@ 3340:( 3326:( 3279:( 3255:( 3232:( 3211:( 3174:( 3147:( 3100:( 3059:( 3004:( 2975:( 2956:( 2909:( 2885:( 2870:( 2841:( 2824:( 2806:) 2774:( 2755:( 2740:( 2733:: 2729:@ 2716:( 2683:) 2679:( 2660:( 2646:( 2605: 2593:( 2561:( 2529:( 2438:. 2423:. 2411:. 2357:. 2251:( 2086:s 2084:' 2038:( 2016:( 1958: 1947:( 1918:: 1914:@ 1899:( 1885:( 1853:( 1821:( 1807:( 1777:( 1739:( 1735:. 1707: 1696:( 1676:( 1657:( 1617: 1605:( 1569:( 1542:( 1468:( 1438:( 1369:( 1345:( 1278:. 1064:( 1036:( 990:. 982:' 896:e 889:t 882:v 722:( 634:? 610:( 534:( 511:( 480:( 457:( 385:( 361:( 307:( 262:( 144: 50:.

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

Index