Knowledge:Requests for comment/Anonymous page creation

6225:, which would unquestionably become much, much fuller if we re-enabled anonymous page creation. CSD is one of the worst backlogs on Knowledge already. Emptying it is very dull and largely menial, yet at the same time not always easy; it's essential that the deleting admin always check the page history to make sure it hadn't simply been vandalised, and that they exercise some level of judgment in deciding what fits the criteria. It's well-known that we don't have enough active administrators. I used to be one; I resigned that position because I simply didn't have the time, with an increasingly busy and exhausting real life. Many others are in the same situation. The few hardworking admins who clear out CAT:CSD on a daily basis do 5753:

isn't this the case already? The "enthusiast over style" created article editors are just as likely to get themselves an account to get their vision onto WP, creating them as ip's mean we get them a few days earlier (no real change in quantity after the initial rush). I don't do New Page Patrol (maybe I should?) but I do AIV and a far amount of vandalism is new - and recreated - attack pages; so the dedicated vandal will take that time anyway (and create socks to continue it). One possible further upside is when an account is created the individual should have some working understanding about article creation (if that's what they want to do) after trying it as an ip.

5384:. It's correct that there is a lot of double or triple endorsements: when I combined 2+3+4 (NOT just 2+3) and eliminated duplicates, I got 68 (as opposed to 115); that still means that 10 editors didn't endorse #3 (at 58 at the time I did my count), so 1 versus 3 isn't quite the right comparision, though it's much closer than my original figures. That puts the matter at something like 33 to 68, and yes, some (whose?) opinions should be discounted because this isn't a real vote. In any case, I'll stand by my assertion that we're not seeing any trending away from the initial reaction to the RFC (roughly 2 to 1 ratio of oppose to support opinions). -- 3576:

automatically accepted. I suggest 30 days rather than a week or two weeks, because a delay that long is - I think most would agree - unreasonable to the person submitting the suggestion, while a delay of week seems much more arguable to be acceptable. (As for a bot, that's really the tail on the dog - it's a good idea, but the community needs to accept the concept before working on the details of implementing it.) (And if you want this to happen, I strongly suggest that the new policy only apply to 2007 and beyond, and be phased in; this shouldn't be about past injustices, but rather about preventing backlogs from growing in the future.) --

5023:

intimidated you, of Knowledge being open and self-corrective, of avoiding the endless politics that can go on without you? Were these not part of the project you signed up for? Yes, it will be work dealing with inappropriate articles. But vandalism can happen anywhere right now, in articles that are supposed to be of worth to people searching for them. Any article that gets created through this that is not vandalism is not worthless, there will be some return on those. Stop distinguishing between anon and reg editors. "180 IP addresses or IP ranges had written at least 50 articles, accounting for over 21,000 articles." -

4610:

scales; and I don't think we have the resources available to do a large scale experiment with good design. One example where we lack the resources for a large scale experiment is checkusering IPs that create pages to see if they are regular editors who choose to create a page while logged out in order to influence the experiment outcome - we don't have the checkusers, even if policies allowed this to be done. Those who think there is a meaningful experiment to be run here need to propose a design that has at least a chance of producing meaningful results; "just do it" is not such a design.

5276:

first half of the endorsers for the Tim Vickers summary were made in 6 hours and 15 minutes, while Ryan Postlethwaite is continuing to grow as more people become aware of the discussion. It should also be noted that this is entirely without anything from GMaxwell, the originator and primary supporter of the proposal, and that 92% of the endorsers of Tim Vickers' commentary sign with only their name (or a word like "Absolutely"), 86% of the endorsers of Ryan Postlethwaite's commentary add their own arguments. This is not a vote, right?

4455:

proposal in the first place to find statistics that show it worked, while opponents look for (or interpret) statistics showing the opposite. We already have enough work dealing with problem articles - whether at Articles for Creation or New Pages Patrol; we don't need a fight about an "experiment" on top of that. Turning anonymous page creation back on, now, is way, way premature. We need to agree ahead of time how to judge the experiment, and if we can't get consensus on

2594:. I would go further and want editting to be done only by registered and logged in users. In this way, vandals can be idetnified and asked to desist. On the articles that I watch at least 50% of the content supplied by anonymous users is vandalism, though I have not counted exactly. I would suggest that new users should be allowed to edit at once, but should have sanctions applied if more than a certain (fairly high) percentage of their edits were reverted. 4033:

only on holiday for about a week, and every second that anonymous page creation is left off is time that I could be spending disrupting wikipedia when instead I have to do things like mind my younger brother. And it's not as if I can just create a new account and vandalise away, every time I do that I have to go through the letter confirmation thing which takes forever to get right. Seriously guys, I'm not sure if you know how annoying it is to try and create

5227:

community consensus, bearing in mind the main arguments presented by both sides (this is particularly important if the community appears to be evenly split on this issue). Allowing non-registered users to create articles is a significant, Knowledge-wide change, and I fear that if a single admin closes this, as is the case for AFDs, their personal biases could affect their decision (especially if the community appears to be evenly split).

4451:, and there was consensus about that process of how the experiment would be evaluated. What would be particularly painful with this "experiment", as it is now, is that it won't resolve anything, precisely because we haven't defined the "before" period to measure it against, we haven't defined criteria to use to evaluate it, we haven't defined what results would or would not confirm that the experiment was or wasn't a success. 6218:

Let me clarify; I am not one of those who argues that unregistered users shouldn't be allowed to edit at all. Most of our typo corrections, for instance, are carried out on a casual basis by ordinary readers who do not have registered user accounts. Some beneficial content is also contributed that way. But those who are serious contributors, and have an interest in creating pages, are generally willing to create accounts.

3166:. On the contrary it can (and has been) very beneficial to Knowledge. However, as W.Marsh notes above, IPs generally make better edits while improving existing articles that they are reading rather then with creating new articles. Many of us who disagree with this proposal have issues more so with the details of this proposal (the 1 month period, how the results will be measured etc) then with the anon editing itself. 31: 5594:

to make them not be eyesores. These are exactly the kinds of articles new users are most likely to create, too... under the current system. Actually doing newpage patrol is kind of important to understanding this situation... it takes 2 seconds to delete a vandalism newpage... it can take hours to deal with one on a probably legit topic, but that arrives in the typical disastrous state of many newpages. --

69:

out badly, they should be willing to turn off the feature right away. Likewise, if during the 30 day evaluation period there is a consensus to turn the creation off early, the developers should also consider this. There hasn't been the ability for IP users to create pages since 2005 and things change, it's certainly worth a try and we can always go back to how we are at present if the trial doesn't work.

5213:

place their arguments in a numbered list. Those who support (or oppose, like I do) the proposal could sign in the relevant section. Beside their signatures, they could include the numbers of the arguments which form their rationale for supporting (or opposing) the proposal. For example, if I opposed the proposal due to arguments 3, 5 and 10, I would add this to the "Oppose" section:

1759:

are motivated to contribute useful content are similarly motivated to register, while most casual vandals have no such motivation. Making article creation easier will do nothing to help our serious contributors and only aid those who wish to dump nonsense into our servers. At this stage in the project we need to focus on quality - this proposal would only be a step backwards.

2933:

benefit for communication with page creators in requiring that page creators have an account. It is a lot harder to create a viable new page that will escape speedy deletion than to improve an existing page, so we should have a better communication/education system for page creators than we do for editors. If we do run the experiment, we might consider suspending

6089:

Angelos who won the Calitzo prize in 1998"... can't really speedy delete it. It might be BS, it might be vanity, it might be a legitimate topic. If the creator had provided us with a reference it would be a lot easier to figure out what to do with it, but instead he's thrust a task upon us that will take a good deal of time for us to deal with properly. The reason

6672:? There used to be... anecdotally, yes, I think you're right.. the backlog is rarely over 100 when I start, and it used to always be. But I'd like to see numbers before jumping to any conclusions. It's also possible that having a low CSD backlog is optimal for overall article quality... less problematic stuff sneaks through due to the 12+ hour wait. -- 5729:"There should be as few restrictions as possible, and this is one that doesn't help anything. " that's just your theory, though. My theory as that newpage creation is not a good task for most inexperienced users, so encouraging them to get some experience first before tackling a newpage will help everybody. Why do we only get to test your theory? -- 6214:

that Knowledge should be a reasonably reliable and useful resource than that it should comply with abstract philosophical principles. (Hard as it may be to believe, I've talked to many, many people in real life who simply never realised that they could edit Knowledge; you'd be surprised how many simply never spot the "edit this page" button. :-))

4194:(Of course, I understand that whoever wrote the faux-IP comment is British, and therefore lacks the American cultural legacy wherein this sort of thing isn't considered funny anymore. And I'm unsure how many levels of parody he meant to express. But I'm just as willing to cut those who do consider it disruptive the same amount of slack.) -- 3523:: Editors seem to be keeping relatively current on submissions; January 2007 through August 2007 are completed. The problem seems to be clearing out the really old stuff from 2006. A bot would help only if there were consensus to accept everything submitted in 2006 that hasn't yet been rejected, but I doubt there is consensus to do that. -- 5623:? It says "Knowledge is not Wikinews and has no need to scoop anyone. Turn this into a strength by working on your article in your userspace or scratchpad until you have the best possible article, fully referenced, a masterpiece of neutrality. " this doesn't seem to support the idea of creating bad articles that need a lot of work. -- 3134:

the dynamic nature of many IPs that edit nowadays makes if often difficult to ascertain that you are continually discussing with the one user: after all, there's no guarantee when one navigates away from Knowledge and back again, you'll be on the same IP. No, registering an account is the preferable course of action, where possible.

3510:, created probably only because it got mentioned here). I don't understand why that is, and I admit I'm not actively helping, but for whatever reason editors who do work there never get around to publishing the submissions that aren't rejected. A bot would be an ideal solution, though I wouldn't know where to begin writing one -- 4523:

either in a blind experiment or at (seemingly) random deployment? As long as the results and data are disclosed after the fact and there are multiple independent observers, the test pattern doesn't need to (and shouldn't) appear predictable by normal users, IMHO. Just some food for thought; I'm not a statistician.

6040:). If we allow anons to create pages I think the number of vandalism pages ("lollollol James smellz" etc.) will skyrocket and the pages that would otherwise be deleted will get through. In short, I think that the large number of nonsense and vandalism pages will distract new-page patrollers from the A7 articles. 4886:

of the encyclopedia as a whole? I suppose that can be left to whoever has the onerous task of finding consensus among but a small portion of those who will be affected, among but a relatively small group of people who don't even fairly represent the whole of Knowledge, let alone its millions of readers.

6617:

There is a very good reason for not allowing anonymous page creation. That reason is not technical, or even to do with spam, in my eyes. There is possibly nothing cooler than having an account on Knowledge and being able to say that you are a Knowledge editor, and responsible for doing such-and-such.

6544:

How was its disablement a mistake? I believe there's a place for anons to be able to create pages, but only established "pseudo"-anons, who've established a reason for us to assume good faith of them. We assume enough good faith for registered users, but IP users can be problematic in that if they've

6093:

gets so backlogged isn't just the number of items added to it every hour - if they were all vandalism, we could have twice or even thrice as many items and no serious backlog. You can delete 3-5 a minute if they're all vandalism or test pages. The reason CSD gets backlogged so notoriously is the ones

5956:

I think it's more that the community has grown a spine since then. I was around for Seigenthaler, and I was greatly disappointed in how many people acted like they were Chicken Little with a head cut off and the sky was falling (if I may mix expressions there). Perhaps people actually have a sense of

5813:

I thought I'd share with you all, about the quality of the Wikias). However, I do have to say that for privacy reasons for the concerned IP editors who actually do a lot of good work, some just don't want to register, but do a damn fine job (I'm sure any of you who's been a general Wikipedian, rather

5677:

Well, a lot of people supporting this change never do new page patrol... so I wonder how much they know about it. At any rate, why not do a true experiment of all three theories here, and test autoconfirmed page creation (4 day waiting period)? Why not test an improved article creation process with a

5212:

However, I feel compelled to suggest a better way of determining consensus. We should split the page into "Support allowing non-registered users to create articles" and "Oppose allowing non-registered users to create articles" sections. In each section, supporters (and opposers) of the proposal could

4880:

My personal opinion is that page creation will result in large dents and punctures in the quality of the content, with only minor returns. In the eyes of much of the world, in the eyes of a great deal of the press, in the eyes of many critics, and in the eyes of even many of our readers, Knowledge is

4855:

I think we need to turn to sister projects, and have a look at where they are at in relation to problems/benefits of IP page creation enabling. Then we need to make the necessary amplifications of these things to befit en.wp, particularly the problems. I think that, should this idea go ahead, that we

4522:

Tim, that's a good point too, but there is also the potential corruption of the data if the on/off pattern is publicly disclosed - it could be used to either rally vandal groups or be on "best behavior" for the trial; either of which would skew the results. Wouldn't it make more sense to implement it

4512:

An excellent point, but to be properly controlled you'd have to do anonymous page creation and registered page creation in a rotating pattern over the test period, I'd recommend changing every week, for at least eight weeks in total. This would give four comparable datasets. Otherwise the stats could

3133:

Whilst I also support Ryan's view, above, I see sense in what you are saying: I would rather interact with a registered account than an IP, firstly because there is more of a sense of talking to a "real person" than when posting a comment to a string of randomly-assigned numbers, and secondly because

228:

Agree. I wasn't here when anon creation was "turned off" but it doesn't seem to have stopped the creation of junk articles. Theres nothing stooping these anon users from making an account and then creating the article right away (except a few clicks of the mouse). I would hope that anon users have

68:

I can see no harm in turning on anon page creation for a period of 30 days, as long as after this period has finished, we can take a long hard look at the whole process and evaluate whether or not we want this as a permanent feature. I think the developers should respect this wish, and if things turn

6561:

But it is accounts that give people anonymity. An unregistered user is clearly identifiable by his IP address, a registered user using a new account for every page he creates is perfectly anonymous. If you want to be anonymous on Knowledge, you need to register. "Anon" IPs are much easier to control

6508:

automatically, since it happens locally to the ISP. But it could certainly be done for large ranges of IPs that are known to be managed in this manner, if we'd be OK having an opt-in/"closed world assumption" (i.e. assuming anything not specifically identified as "dynamic" is "static"). Perhaps as

6088:

Vandalism newpages can be dealt with very quickly and a rise in them is not a serious problem. It's the more marginal pages that can take 30 seconds to create but hours to deal with responsibly that are the real problem. "Bob is gay" is easily enough deleted. "Bob is a guru of off-belt Karate in Los

6071:

I suggest that the people creating the page "lollollol jamez smelz" would otherwise be vandalising existing pages with "lollollol jamez smelz". People may be falling for the possible fallacy that the amount of vandalism will increase with ip article creation, rather than it being the same vandals in

5719:

Ideology? That's a strong word. I support reverting back to allowing anons to create pages because the disabling was a PR move made by Jimbo without consensus or discussion which had no real effect. There should be as few restrictions as possible, and this is one that doesn't help anything. For what

5403:

Anon page creation was always the easiest thing to deal with: it popped up all red and numbery in the page creation log, and could be easily flagged in vandalism tools. It was incredibly easy to identify such pages, check them out, and deal with them if necessary. I would think that disallowing anon

4885:

unreliable, vandalism-wrought and flawed, on so many levels. Do we really want to allow them to be more correct in their assumptions, to have more excuse to call the project tarnished and broken? Do we really want to willingly make a move that will probably ultimately reduce the quality and accuracy

4867:

that the project as a whole will have should this page creation by IPs be re-enabled. We need to ask ourselves what portion of the pages these IPs are going to create are going to be kept. We need to think to ourselves 'Are we going a little bit far with some of our core beliefs when we are deciding

4609:

Agreed, without a reasonable experimental design we'll have no way of evaluating the change other than a long drawn out community discussion that will rely on anecdotes and instead of serious analysis. I can't conceive of an experiment design that wouldn't be easy to intentionally screw up in small

3644:

I used to do a great deal of new page triage. I don't anymore, and mostly haven't since around the time anon page creation got turned off. While the initial reason why I stopped was due to lack of time, I haven't gone back for more than a couple hours every few months because turning off anonymous

3054:

Those who really want to improve Knowledge will register, and if articles newly-registered users create are not up to standard, it will be easier to communicate with them. Moreover, contributors who register will gradually become more familiar with Knowledge's policies. As I said, instead of writing

6652:

process, once permanently backlogged at 200+ pages, has been very efficient lately. I have patrolled the category every day for the last year, and in the last three months, the average number of items in the category has steadily gone down and is well below what it used to be (and we used to manage

6493:

Is it technically possible to distinguish static IPs from dynamic IPs? If it is possible, I think it would be worthwhile to treat them differently. We can communicate with static IPs, we can't with dynamic IPs - meaning that if we leave a message on the talk page of a dynamic IP it very likely will

6217:

What is important is the practical question; will this move be detrimental to the quality of our encyclopedia? The answer is a resounding Yes. Simply put, it will vastly increase the volume of crap created on a daily basis, and will have a negligible effect on the level of creation of good content.

6213:

The philosophical questions are unimportant here. Knowledge may have been founded as "the 💕 anyone can edit", but this need not be taken literally. From the point of view of the general public - and remember that Knowledge has thousands of times more readers than editors - it is far more important

6115:

said is pretty mcuh what I intended. I'm not worried about the number of vandalism pages, it's the ones that you have to think about. If there are heaps of G3 pages then I think the possible A7's which require more than just zapping will slip through the cracks and we will end up with lots more low

5874:

You're exactly right, but it's the price the IP users pay. Note that most IP users who vandalise eventually just register an account after resetting their modem anyway, and we do have a lot of users who roam, but this to me is the only type of article creation model I can get behind, unless someone

5593:

It's easier to AFD an article than hit "revert"? And what about pages that shouldn't be deleted, but need large amounts of work, like referencing, expert attention, etc? Deleting or reverting vandalism is trivial... it's the newpages that aren't quite vandalism, but still need large amounts of work

5298:

At the 6 hr 15 minute point, the count was 17 versus 52 (23+24+5). As I write this, the count is 37 (32+5) versus 109 (44+55+10), including only the first four comments and endorsers, and the most recent (which are the ones that seem most clearly to be for/against). Knowledge isn't a democracy, and

5166:

Agreed. Turning off just article creation seems kind of arbitrary to me, as does the barrier we've put in place, registerring an account. It seems like just a way to get fewer contributions, which does indeed cut down on unconstructive edits, but this is a wiki, and I think our avenues for dealing

4619:

That would be a good idea to make an experimentation before we can completely allow anon page creations. However, I suspect, that there will be an explosion of non-sense page creations, test page creations and simply pages with vandalism only. I could support it as long as there are ways that would

4423:

Totally agree. The statistics, as parsed by Dragonsflight and others, are unambiguous: the experiment has been useless. To everyone arguing that this would increase vandalism: show some facts, not your subjective "Well, I think that bad things would happen and that's why we shouldn't re-enable anon

4032:

This is an absolute disgrace that anonymous page creation hasn't been turned on yet, it clearly had the support of one of the most experienced wikipedians, and given the endorsements here I'd say it has the support of the a large number of more senior wikipedians as well. You see the problem is I'm

2932:

Account creation is a trivial task. If all page creators have an account, we'll at least have a place to talk to them and attempt to help them improve. If anon page creation is enabled, many pages will be created by editors on dynamic IPs, who will never see our messages to them. There is a real

1307:

With over 2 million articles, Knowledge should focus on quality instead of quantity. Allowing non-registered users to create articles will result in Knowledge having thousands of low-quality articles which will take longer for registered users to wikify, categorise and improve. We will have to deal

6727:

Personally, I feel that re-enabling anon creation is a bad idea. As a new-page patroller, I am usually fighting through floods of new pages, finding most of them untouched. Whenever I'm NPP'ing, I always feel bogged down in the sheer number of new pages. Therefore, re-enabling ip-create would only

4332:

anon page creation was an experiment; and that experiment, until this is done, lacks a control group. But calling this an experiment is a mistake. Having Knowledge be the encyclopedia anyone can edit has always been the status quo. But, if, as some have said, an experiment is not a good use of our

1758:

Sticking your finger into an electric shredder is not a sensible experiment, we know exactly what the result will be and confirming the prediction will be painful. Creating pages is already very easy on Knowledge, and consequently a large proportion of what is created is complete junk. Editors who

4546:

Your point about blinding is a good one. The only way to assess this properly would be to strip all user ID information from the edits, randomise their order, and then assess them as good/bad. Once they have been assessed, you can then relate back to if they are IP/user and under which conditions

4210:

this summary Davnel03? Its clearly a registered user who logged out to make a disruptive and sarcastic addition to this page. I think this section should be removed completely. I would have no problem with an actual IP editor giving a serious comment on this page. I actually think that would be a

3668:—compensate for losing the above benefits. If you had to have a couple dozen edits before becoming autoconfirmed in addition to waiting the four days or whatever, that would help even more. Both of these proposals, however, went down in flames, leaving us with the worst of all possible worlds. — 430:

It's not like this is trying something completely untested. Anonymous users could create pages for a long time. In a perfect, non-vandalizing world, this is a good thing. Turning this on for a month with a specific focus on monitoring it only adds to our ability to weigh the benefits of having

6101:

The point is that a rise in vandalism newpages isn't really the danger here... it's a rise in the number of pages that start out like Seigenthaler's did. Maybe it's BS, maybe it's vanity, maybe it's a valid topic. Takes a lot of time to deal with... and the less experienced the creator, the less

5920:

Our most dangerous PR controversy, that could have well started us on a downward spiral as a project, came out of our then-inadequate ability to handle newpages... the fact that such a thing hasn't happened in 2 years strongly suggests we've improved our ability to handle them. I'd say we have a

5752:

Okay, I take W.marsh's point that AdF'ing is more labour intensive than rollback, but new page vandalism is far easier to spot. Finding easy, dealing with it harder - and vandalism on established pieces can be the opposite. As for the effort required in getting a marginal new page up to scratch,

5650:

The "many hours" may also be needed to determine it's not a hoax... AFDs take time and energy even if the result is a "delete". The thrust of the "there is no deadline" page you cited is that there's no deadline for having 2 million or 5 million articles... so why not do what we can to make sure

5275:

Hardly. It should be no surprise that the first people aware of this RFC were people following the village pump discussion, and that the people following the village pump discussion were against anon page creation, because people for it thought it was going down and stopped paying attention. The

4859:

Should this be approved, we will obviously need to more heavily patrol the already often overflowing CSD backlog, particularly the nonsense and non-notable sections of the category. Changes will need to be implemented in various regions of policy, and in the very text of the corresponding pages.

5994:

As commented previously, it was the turning off of ip article creation that was supposed to be the experiment. Well, that is now the status quo - and it may be time to check if the template is still valid. There will be very many people keeping an eye on matters should it be turned back, so the

4532:

I don't think the benefits of pattern randomisation would offset the benefits of providing as closely-comparable data as possible, the major variables are probably time-based rather than user-behavior based, so creating closely-matched controls is probably more important. However, as was always

2497:

Creating an account isn't difficult, but does provide a slight barrier against those who don't wish to seriously contribute to Knowledge. I don't think there are many serious contributers who have a problem with registering though, so I see no reason why anons should be able to create articles.

3700:

Are you seriously suggesting NPP patrollers wade through the instruction-crept bureacracy of RFCU for every single account that gets an indef block for page creation? Especially when the first two points in the "Unacceptable requests" section all but guarantee it'll be declined, complete with

4639:

As much as I support welcoming new and anonymous users, the cons definitely outweigh the pros in this case. We're already dealing with enough problems as it is. Enforcing our BLP and copyright policies is difficult enough. Too much BLP violations, copyright violations and vandalism already go

4502:

requirement for new page creation. We would look 3 months later at how many articles survived from each period and a control period... I think we'd get much more useful data and feedback from such an approach. Experiments shouldn't be done just to advance one favored course of action (IP page

4497:

Well said. A lot of the opposition to this is more about how it's been handed down, rather than the general idea of an experiment. If well defined as you describe and done in as scientific a way as is practical, I'd probably support it... especially if combined with another 30-day trial of an

4454:

In other words, all this "experiment" is guaranteed to do, at the moment, is add a fight about what to do at the end of the 30 days, and since that certainly won't be conclusive, an ongoing fight about how to judge the results. And it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect those who supported the

3840:

I am one of the people who opposed the proposals making it harder to create new pages. I concur with Cryptic's comments on the benefits of getting the IP addresses of page creation vandals. Page creation vandals do not need to have the extra anonymity and privacy protection that comes with an

3575:

You might want to wait until the proposed restart of anon article creation is definitely dead (it might be revived in some other form, perhaps as a well-defined experiment), and then formally propose a policy change - that AfC proposals that are older than a month and haven't been resolved be

5226:

This would allow us to readily determine whether most are in favour of or against the proposal, and, more importantly, which arguments carry the most weight. A group of experienced admins (which could include Jimbo and members of the Foundation) should close the discussion in accordance with

5022:

I'm very disappointed by how uncommitted some registered editors are to an encyclopedia anyone can edit, one even to the point where he would log off and comment here as a joke. What happened to the ethos of being bold, of ignoring structures and procedures if that sort of thing bothered or

5331:

If I wrote "anon page creation should be enabled" in 2 other ways and those other 38 people signed each of those would we have 115 votes? There is such a huge amount of overlap between the different opposition votes the only fair way is to count the one with the most votes (now 32 to 57).

4589:

Excellent point. We are stumbling in the dark; we need more data on the project - but too often 'experiments' we run are so amateurish they are a joke. Let's explain how we are going to analyze anon's contribs and than turn it on. No need to vote; the project can handle it and needs data.

5808:

Anon page creation is general, as a rule, a poor idea to reactivate. To note that the Wikia projects agree with this by the fact that they have it disabled has to suggest it's not being encouraged far and wide, even by those who do have an erroneous amount of crap (sorry, that's a bit of

3659:

Repeat offenders are now impossible to track. Where before someone with a static IP might make an attack article and be blocked for a day, make another and be blocked for a week, and make another and be blocked for a month, all we see now are three completely unrelated indef-blocked

60:, a Wikimedia Foundation developer, there would need to be a consensus for anon page creation to be turned back on the English Knowledge. This page allows comments to be added, and the community can assess whether this is a viable idea and the conditions under which it would occur. 6229:

need masses more work to do. And since RfA reform proposals seem to have trailed off, it's unlikely that we will be able to promote masses more admins to do the job (and indeed, as I was explaining, it does take some level of experience and good judgment to handle the job itself).

5640:

required to accomplish this at some arbitrary breakneck speed. The "many hours" you complain about can be spread across many users and even many years, at the end of which we would have a good article, as opposed to no article at all, which would seem to be your own preference. --

3929:

This is by far the major reason that IP new pages sound good to me. I would like to be able to block the perps for weeks at a time instead of being limited by a 24 hour autoblock. However, I would very much like to see Guy's suggestion for the page creation wizard implemented

2474:

This change is definitely a step in the wrong direction. The average quality of a Knowledge page, in terms of edits per article, is gradually going down as more and more stubs are created; this will only accelerate that process, and give us much more work to do over at

5915:

If we don't take this risk, how can we get results? Besides, Knowledge doesn't have much to lose with this experiment, as it involves creation of content, not deletion of content. If it turns out to be a success, then great; if not, we can terminate it at any time.

5843:

to have their articles uploaded. It shouldn't be like an RfA where the community decides, but simply a request by the IP editor, a quick scan by the crat or sysop (whichever way is decided) and decide based on their established use whether to roll the dice or not.

790:, have actually improved in the 2 years without IP page creation, despite massive growths in the total number of articles. Re-enabling IP page creation could mean a return to the 2005 era with lots of totally unreviewed articles (each one a potential Seigenthaler). 5345:, it's quite clear that consensus is not yet present. That's not to say we can't continue the discussion, or that a future argument might not change minds, but at this point it's clear that the consensus that Tim Starling said must be present isn't actually here. 4856:

should move cautiously, and experiment, before doing anything big. See how it goes for a specific period of time. See how large the CSD backlogs become. And, after that time, we can examine the carnage, and have a long discussion about whether it was a good idea.

4642:

And it's not necessary. If new users want to contribute to Knowledge, they can already do so at existing articles. If they want to create articles, they need to register an account. That's a useful threshold or barrier. It helps us reduce the amount of garbage we

4513:

be biased by an unexpected change in an uncontrolled variable between the test and control periods - for example a school holiday. Week-based test periods would also control for the obvious differences in editing patterns that occur between weekends and weekdays.

1566:

Knowledge is no longer in an early stage in which unlimited contribution is necessary or proper. It's sad but true that registration is, I feel, the only gentle way of tweaking the flow of the Quality and Quantity faucets into something resembling equilibrium.

6190:

Yes, yes. I think I'd like to see what IP editors come up with (there are some good IP editors), but to be honest it is difficult for new users to make a good new page. The wizard could tip the balance. This makes the idea of IP new pages much more attractive.

5321:

3, not comment 1 versus 2 + 3, and 2 and 3 are essentially different versions of the same argument with many endorsements by single editors present in both. So, as far as whether it is snowing, I'm looking at 32 versus 45 or 32 versus 55, not 32 versus 100. --

3565:

shouldn't have to wait until early 2008 for the backlog to get caught up to them. A bot would keep this project from falling hopelessly behind again. I don't mean to curse the darkness rather than light a candle, but a bot powered bonfire would be better. --

6102:

likely they'll help us. Again, this is why people who do newpage work cringe at the idea of letting even less experienced people create newpages... the problems here really aren't obvious until you're actually down there working with these things. --

1651:- Though I'm rather against Mscuthbert's idea, because I admit it: AfC can sometimes be skewed, and perfectly good pages will sometimes be turned down simply to clear a backlog (which, incidentally, is now gone) or because of laziness of an editor. 3557:, I'd say it was doing a great job as those are the only tasks it ever stays on point with; actually creating articles is consistently an afterthought. Sure, I'm an inclusionist, but IP editor who submitted an article in 2006 shouldn't have to be 5695:, about which I've already made my opinion clear. You are using big words like "autoconfirmed" which I don't understand, but I'd be perfectly happy to reach some sort of middle place between the current "leaking spigot in the dam" accounting for 4153:

diff made on the IP's talkpage made by a registered user, who is calling the IP's comment disruption. In my view, it is not disruption and is simply his Point of View. Shouldn't the user that called it "disruption" get a warinng of some sort?

5497:, but I had always been given the impression this began as IP vandalism, not IP page creation. Kinda ironic we keep around this massive database of article histories, but its not there when we need it. Who would know the answer to this? -- 6530:

I hole heartedly agree that pages created by anons are 99% of the time completely useless. But this lets us detect problematic new pages pretty easily. Other wise registered users create the same pages. This really is all there is to it.

178:

There's little harm in this idea, though there may be a built in bias. We'll hear all about the bad articles, but any decent articles or stubs we'll never know about. As long as that bias is taken into account, it sounds reasonable. --

6427:

with the controversy that occurred in '05, among other things being implemented, such as vandal patrol and BLP being created. I don't think it should ever be switched on again, except via a screening process, as I've suggested above.

2262:

We should be focusing on quality right now, and anons will probably not contribute to that. AFC is great; all articles will be referenced, wikified, and peer-reviewed. This process helps prevent growth of the backlog of articles with

431:

something closer to a "perfect wiki" versus the harms of possibly increased vandalism. And no matter what you think about gmaxwell's way of going about this, I don't think anyone can argue against his skills as a wikistatistician.

6509:

an extension to the blocking mechanism, or else via something like the spam blacklist/whitelist. But what would the distinction be, exactly? Allow static IPs to create pages and edit semi-protected articles? Or just the former?

262:

I support the idea, although I think some safeguards could be built in so that this can be turned off before 30 days in certain cases (massive vandalism, etc.). This might satisfy some who are opposed to this on technical grounds.

4579:

Agree. Tough for the reasons given I doubt such a consensus would be possible. I also think that the efforts but into such an experiment even if well defined would better be used at the many backlogs concerning quality problems.

6545:

not been identified as a suitable user, they can create any crap, potentially. The registration process filters out some who simply come to do harm (admittedly not all, but at least we're filtering it to reduce the impact). --

2157:

The learning curve for anons is already steep enough when it comes to quality; letting anons contribute to low-quality quantity makes the problems even worse. I don't see how a 30-day experiment is going to prove otherwise. –

3701:

patronizing Fisher Price "no" symbol? Wikis have always relied on the principle that it's easier to repair damage than cause it; while that's never really been the case for page creation, it's currently less so than ever. —

319:

We should try. As IP page creation was turned off without discussion (and of course without consensus) and there have never been any studies about that experiment, why do we need consensus to return to the status quo ante?

5097:

when that article was written in November '05. Agreed with this post. And almost everyone is ignoring the tremendous work done by some of our longest-lived anonymous editors, who rank among the top editors of all time.

4348:

I think the experiment (no IP page creation) must have been seen as a failure by other language Wikipedias -- is there even one that doesn't allow it? Time for us to take a look whether it really makes a big difference.

354:

Let's try. Other WPs have it and the world didn't end yet. Yes there is a lot of junk, but I know that some (sensible) articles are created in the Talk: namespace because the anon didn't want to create an account. --

4723:

Evidently Knowledge does not follow the conventional wisdom that "prevention is better than cure". Why invite more vandalism, patent nonsense, vanity pages, attack pages, "BLP time bombs" and copyright violations?

6618:

This is nice because you get a USer-talk page, Contributions page, etc. As long as you're not an idiot who crapfloods (please pardon language), you should be proud that your contributions should be recognised.

6036:, the backlog is usually between 50 and 200 pages and rarely outside those bounds. That is when the creator has to sign up and wait to create a page. Most of these are non-notable people, bands and companies ( 3649:

There was always a fairly reliable relation between the quality of newly-created pages and whether they were created by a bluelinked user, a redlinked one, or an anon; we've lost fully a third of this metric.

4569:

Agreed. I could support an experiment, but it would need more definition than the existing proposal. We need to define some parameters and determine what we'll be analyzing once the 30 days are complete.

2098:

I can say that the moment Anon Article creation is turned on, we'll have so much new articles of complete crap that we'll need respirators to breathe. One gem is not worth digging through a ton of offal.

3763:

I wasn't around "back then" when anon page creation was turned off, but from my experience in other areas, this is an accurate assessment. (And I proposed limiting page creation to autoconfirmed users.)

2418:

The small percentage of non-registered users who wish to create useful articles should be encouraged to register and learn more about Knowledge. Instead of writing a dozen stubs, they may write a dozen

5871:- dynamic IP? Someone could spend hours working on an article in their sandbox or have heaps of good edits, or conversely have plenty of vandalism, and then their IP changes and noone knows about it 3807:

Given the numbers Dragonsflight posted on anonymous edit quality and my experience patrolling recent changes, this is very believable to me. It's certainly worth getting data to test the hypothesis.

2937:

during it so that we can at least leave messages for dynamic-IP page creators at a place they might look. But I think we don't have anything to gain from the experiment, so I'm not in favor of it.

5606:. I'd rather have a page around that's an eyesore than no page at all. In the example you describe, you'd at least have a chance the IP editor would still be around to help improve the page, unlike 5942:

Well, I guess I assumed you meant the Siegenthaler thing, but then I didn't understand how that connected to new page creation. I just read above that there's some sort of link, so never mind. :)

5404:

page creation has only made it more difficult to deal with drive-by vandalism, since it now consists entirely of inserting vandalism into existing articles, where it can easily get lost (which was

2423:. Furthermore, while vandalism to existing articles is easily reverted, if a non-registered user creates an attack page or an article that is patent nonsense, we will need an admin to delete it. -- 2515:

exceptionally low, it is not the time to say "Hey, we better make creating new pages easier!" If anything, it's time to say "Hey, maybe we better have some more restrictions on page creation."

2761:

If anything we need MORE being done to stop the unceasing flow of libel, copyvios, spam, nonsense, and other crap. New article creaton turned off until a user's 30th mainspace edit, perhaps.

1510:

If anything we need MORE being done to stop the unceasing flow of libel, copyvios, spam, nonsense, and other crap. New article creaton turned off until a user's 30th mainspace edit, perhaps.

1812:, such as fixing mistakes, grammatical errors, etc. But creating a new page the right way takes considerably more time than most people will commit on a whim as they read another article. -- 6181:, that area of the project would get a lot more attention. The only problem with this wizard is it makes the job for editors who publish WP:AFC submissions one more step more difficult. -- 5839:

and allow individually on and IP to IP basis as to whether or not to allow their IP to create articles and upload media. Until that happens, they can always sandbox in their IP and got to

3664:

The thirty-second speedbump that is account registration does not provide any measurable increase in impulse control. If a user had to be autoconfirmed before creating a page, that might—

4034: 6527:

Its disable was a mistake, its reactivation will correct the mistake. It never had any purpose and had prevented nothing. The entire issue was the very definition of "pointless action."

658:

Disagree that it should be turned back off after 30 days, but since this seems to be the most popular pro-anonimous page creation comment, I'll just add my !vote here so that it counts.

4860:

Other things need to be considered, other than just the actual re-enabling; the fact that IPs are only very rarely indefinitely blocked is another factor to be considered, for example.

3550: 3257:

Good point. Mostly because they're drive-by improvements, like spelling, rather than going in and completely replacing the entire thing. (Unless they replace it with something like

253:

I think it's worth regularly testing the waters in the direction of more openness. Per Kendrick7's concern, I hope we're prepared to do a little before-and-after analysis this time.

6008: 6481: 6004:

I agree with this summary. While I am pessimistic about the potential results, I realize that we need to try it at the very least to know whether or not it will be a good thing.

4645:

Anon page creation will definitely improve the quantity of Knowledge, but at the expense of the quality. And as Jimbo rightly said a few years ago, we need quality over quantity.

4551: 4541: 4527: 3114: 2875: 1672: 1634:- I'd actually be in favor of EVERY new article by anyone registered or not who hasn't already created (one? five?) go through AFC. It'd really save time on AfD/db-X patrol. -- 4560: 5010: 5270: 6005: 5847: 2995: 1990: 992: 5248: 5460: 5326: 5312: 4065:

Precisely. Yes, I know "how annoying it is to try and create GG WIKIPEDIA JUST GOT SCREWED OVER" (you can stop right there) because I have to deal with the resulting crap.

4045: 3594: 3585: 3570: 3532: 2667: 2449: 2404: 173: 101: 6076: 5999: 5901: 5588: 4792: 4688: 4584: 4492: 2833: 2583: 2026: 1659: 6337: 5757: 5598: 5336: 5280: 5198: 5088: 4314: 4276: 4115: 3811: 3446: 3239: 3151: 2736: 2710: 2617: 2469: 2359: 2117: 2105: 1485: 1410: 1264: 1106: 1094: 6761: 6363: 6321: 6308: 5886: 5360: 5351: 5341:

That's still no consensus. Even if hypothetically the count were 57 in favor to 32 opposing, that still would not indicate a clear consensus. When the supporters are the

4820: 4728: 4718: 4705: 3318: 2591: 2521: 2323: 1944: 1339: 1236: 1208: 1115: 954: 553: 4836: 4128: 4095: 3466: 3101: 3059: 2789: 2756: 2436: 2427: 2331: 2309: 2223: 2079: 1872: 1561: 1505: 1328: 1319: 1222: 1175: 1054: 1019: 873: 752: 474: 257: 248: 6390: 6277: 5863: 4929: 4760: 4517: 3749: 3428: 3210: 2921: 2044: 1929: 1888: 1707: 1584: 939: 898: 6716: 6606: 6455: 6251: 6185: 5637: 5469: 5425: 5070: 4978: 4800: 4574: 4198: 4189: 4087: 4078: 4018: 3720: 3616: 3277: 3268: 3252: 3041: 2609: 2413: 1835: 1747: 1643: 1402: 1353: 1273: 857: 849: 653: 6630: 6439: 6288: 6202: 6066: 5712: 5703: 5659: 5645: 5627: 5614: 5553: 5501: 5489: 5293: 5161: 5061: 4958: 4780: 4769: 4371: 4245: 3870: 3866:

Makes perfect sense. Throwing out the bathwater only makes it harder to determine what's actually wet. Oh, and there might have been a baby in there somewhere.... --

2891: 2848: 2780: 2651: 2643: 2492: 2295: 2231: 2202: 2193: 2185: 1856: 1722: 1626: 1550: 1529: 1183: 1167: 1158: 1150: 816: 539: 447: 6571: 6468: 6376: 6122: 6106: 5784: 5393: 5234: 5129: 4914: 4741: 4628: 4614: 4604: 4507: 4379: 4262: 4234: 4215: 4158: 4050: 3972: 3945: 3890: 3784: 3695: 3402: 3303: 3286: 3187: 3092: 3069: 2984: 2973: 2819: 2554: 2483: 2391: 2170: 2162: 2061: 1955: 1910: 1897: 1844: 1694: 1441: 1385: 1364: 1294: 1069: 1036: 973: 920: 907: 882: 644: 193: 6414: 5733: 5724: 5686: 5672: 5528: 5519: 5180: 5079: 4472: 4418: 4141: 3989: 3861: 3802: 3331: 3049: 2797: 2625: 2502: 2383: 2370: 1816: 1803: 1472: 1418: 1377: 1302: 1286: 804: 777:

Even a 1-month trial will represent hundreds or even thousands of extra admin work hours dealing up with the undeniable increase in articles needing admin attention

370: 183: 6682: 6346: 5995:

likelihood of something horrendous slipping through is very unlikely. It may even be the case that a couple of good articles might be created. It's worth the try.

5937: 5775: 5220: 5148: 5119: 4940: 4904: 4899: 4677: 4401: 3924: 3835: 3502:

up to date. For the most part, bad article submissions are immediately rejected, while decent submissions can languish for months (if you think I'm lying, look at

3386: 3363: 3224: 3032: 3003: 2960: 2682: 2249: 2093: 2017: 1880: 1783: 1606: 1456: 1083: 981: 890: 830: 610: 572: 561: 456: 409: 361: 349: 214: 164: 6698: 6676: 6513: 5949: 5797: 4358: 4104: 4069: 4060: 3850: 3705: 3686: 3128: 3023: 2806: 2543: 2534: 2257: 2240: 2152: 1964: 1735: 1191: 1135: 962: 713: 699: 591: 527: 461:

I was already to go do new page patrol, but then someone said that this wasn't happening. I support the open page creation, and this will bring in new editors. --

425: 396: 340: 289: 276: 223: 6021: 5989: 4996: 4337: 3959: 3902: 3633: 2723: 2575: 2132: 2009: 1011: 632: 506: 438: 314: 139: 6739: 5575: 5031: 3487: 3142: 2862: 1975: 488: 329: 6551: 6434: 5881: 5858: 5584:

of vandalism across WP is unlikely to increase - some of it may just be redirected to new article creation which, as said above, is far more easily moderated.

5105: 4477: 4342: 4042: 4026: 3882: 727: 718:

I support it keeping it on permanently. Knowledge should be the "encyclopaedia anyone can edit". I was appalled that it ever got shut off in the first place. -

666: 545: 465: 205: 119: 4226:, you do have a point. Do we know whose IP address it could be? I'm guessing it might be someone who endorsed the summary. I guess it's their way of making a 739: 6744: 3148: 1763: 518: 72: 6556: 5036: 3691:

Checkuser might not be appropriate for fishing for attack page creators registering different accounts. In any case, it would certainly overload chekuser.

359: 6579: 5411: 4547:

they were made. Otherwise there will be endless arguments about the data and people will try to bend the good/bad classifications to fit their arguments.

3514: 1768: 470:

Yup, it will provide the raw data from which we may be able to extract some findings (and a reasonable set of failsafes in case it starts metastasising).

294:

It works fine for all the other Wikipedias. It worked fine for us. Time to reverse this decision that was made as a knee-jerk reaction to negative press.

6673: 6653:

even in times when 100 was a low number of speedy tagged pages). We can therefore easily afford an experiment that might increase workload in this area.

6498: 6352: 6103: 6054: 5922: 5730: 5709: 5683: 5656: 5624: 5595: 5028: 4714:

find themselves at AfC, or create an account. It is already very easy for them to create an article, and we get a lot of garbage even with that barrier.

4694: 4504: 3379: 3324: 1861: 1813: 1370: 862: 801: 6237: 6049: 3606: 3479:

different place), in all honesty we need to take our hypothesis and transfer it into the situation at hand: we need to try out Anonymous page creation.

2811:

There is no reason to waste time on an experiment with a clear result. As said above, doing so only represents what should be avoided as established in

6728:

serve to increase the problem. If a person has a genuine article to create, AfC is there, or they can create an account and then create the page. :-)

6242: 5042:

I completely agree. The overall tenor of the discussion here ignores that the vast majority of IP edits contribute positively to the encyclopedia. The

45:

Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the

4661: 3757: 3672: 2946: 2941: 794: 6546: 6429: 5876: 5853: 5803: 5546: 484: 414:

The end times are not nigh. The eschatonologists who are predicting this as disastrous to Knowledge's survival are overreacting. The users who think

6167: 5980: 3503: 3451:

Annon editing is beneficial to the project (for the most part), while annons creating new pages poses some problems that are already listed above. -

6706: 6686: 3169: 5925: 5477:

The libelous version of the article was written by an anon in May 2005, some four months earlier than the oldest visible revision, as detailed in

4656: 1324:

I'd actually go the other way and make page creation MORE difficult - we have serious quality issues which will not be helped by this proposal. --

4766: 4231: 4155: 3300: 2480: 5209:

I have to sleep soon, and will type out a detailed statement explaining why I oppose allowing non-registered users to create articles tomorrow.

6662: 6149:

for all new page creation in mainspace, see if it has a measurable effect on the quality of new articles, and then try for anon page creation.

6112: 6098:

speedy deletable under a literal reading of CSD, and need a lot more time to even figure out what the article is, let alone what to do with it.

2794: 6162: 1444:

Article creators typically are notified of an AfD involving their article and IPs don't stick around long enough to keep this a viable option.

285:

masochist, but I'm curious to see what happens when we hand a few of the asylum keys over to the inmates. Metaphorically-speaking, of course.

4983: 4875: 2706: 1593: 5075:

I agree. I cannot see spampage creation increasing significantly with this change. It would, however, increase our appearance of openness.

3507: 480: 5895:

I agree with this statement, but there needs to be something added about dynamic IPs. I have seen good IPs, and I am grateful to them. -

5610:, where by the time a submission gets published the submitter will have long since moved on (likely to a quiet nursing home by then). -- 4842: 3627: 199: 5507: 1539: 6635: 3950:

Right, we had a problem with vandals. So as an experiment, we made it harder to stop them. Anyone else see the flaw in this logic?----

2854: 6137:

I have no philosophical objection to anon page creation, only a pragmatic one: that it will overwhelm our ability to keep up with the

3537:

The point is the argument that "Oh, IP editors can just use AFC" when that project is constantly backlogged is completely misleading.

4024: 2663: 6173:

While this wizard just kicks IP editors back to AFC (I checked), this could be a step in the right direction. Actually, if we made

3147:

Agree. Account Creation takes, what? 10 seconds? If the person wants to contribute to Knowledge, they can create a free account. --

4503:

creation, in this case). Obviously most people are going to see the result they wanted anyway when the experiment seems biased. --

5261:, it's clear that the large majority, of those expressing an opinion, doesn't want anon editors able to create new articles. -- 5066:

Anybody can register, so anybody can create pages. The only restriction we apply is that they must be able to solve a CAPTCHA.

6494:

never be seen by the original user of that IP. We can block a static IP; we can't effectively block the user of a dynamic IP.

4223: 3645:

page creation removed three major weapons from the new page patroller arsenal while providing almost no benefit to speak of:

63: 4850: 4150: 5190: 4306: 4268: 2355: 1260: 744: 5380:(undent) Yes, everyone agrees it's not WP:SNOW. On the other hand, I've not seen any disagreement with my figures on the 2364:

And you think the deletion backlogs are bad now? Just wait until IP creation is open. It's like opening big can of worms.

1542:. Good luck with that, though - it seems these days, the two or three users who're guaranteed to show up in objection to 4320: 5475:

Yes, revisions of that article were overseen (or at least removed from the db—did we have oversight yet at that point?).

5053:, is obvious; it just creates another tier of people, one registered editors can look down their noses at, which is why 3716:

is simply untrue. Somebody re-creating the same attack page three times will see the title salted and their IP blocked.

6612: 5204: 241: 46: 5708:

Autoconfirmed just means a 4-day waiting period before an account can create a newpage, as I was trying to explain. --

4305:

be serious,man. That would go to AfD in under,what? 10-21 seconds? He certainly deserves that Barnstar of Good Humor.

577:

Support the experiment. We need hard data on it. We lived with it for years, we can live with if for one more month.--

5111: 4442: 2913: 2488:

Who donated their hard-earned cash just so more hardware could be purchased to accommodate the junk coming this way?

1576: 1546:

are enough to prevent the developers from flipping any switches they aren't directly ordered to by the Foundation. —

6477: 6271: 5485:

alternately implies both (the former in the lead, the latter in the Hoax section), but doesn't state it outright. —

5481:; this is how Brandt tracked him down. I don't recall whether the anon created the article or just vandalized it; 5006: 4756: 3554: 3110: 2871: 2605: 1831: 1668: 1535: 1398: 845: 6233:

This, then, is the essence of why we should not re-enable anonymous page creation, attractive as the idea may be.

5912:

There is a saying in Chinese: 不入虎穴，焉得虎子 (How can we retrieve the baby tiger without going into the tiger's nest?)

6776: 6722: 5017: 4640:

unnoticed. Opening up article creation to unregistered users is bound to open a floodgate of even more vandalism.

763:

Just adding the standard "I don't think an experiment is a good use of our resources" rebuttal. Basic arguments:

4774:

For God's sake anons, if you find it necessary to make a horrible article, just create an account! Well said.

106:

As long as, at the end of the month, we can say "this isn't working, screw it", there's no harm in trying it. --

3087: 2057: 1753: 1436: 1032: 401:- For it, we could learn a lot from this, either way it turns out from a 30 day trial. An old Chinese proverb: 17: 5814:

than centralising on one article or topic will have some across these dedicated IPers, hell I even gave one a

4120:

You deserve a Barnstar of Good Humour. Maybe you should vandalise existing articles instead, or... (remembers

169:

Since turning it off was an experiment that never got evalutaed, we need to turn it on to run the expirement.

5632:

Of course that is the ideal -- though I confess I almost never create articles that way -- but there's still

4897: 1580: 690: 523:

Agreed. Give it a try. Revert if tough. In particular, I think it needs to be turn on during Knowledge Week.

452:

Even if turns out to be a mistake, as least we'll know. The risk is small, the potential benefits are big.--

418:

is comparable to wartime with metaphors about "trenches" and "air-raid shelters" galore border on offensive.

3378:

I know it's about them creating pages which I am opposed to , but they should still be able to edit pages.--

2896:

The words: open, madness and floodgates come to mind! Well said Tim, pointless experimentation indeed! : -->

2657: 2479:

as well. We do not need vast numbers of new pages; we need to improve the 2,000,000+ pages we already have.

783:

exists, and requires a reference for new articles... which is something we can't currently do automatically.

6519: 6488: 6410: 5398: 4992: 4397: 3920: 3622: 3542: 3493: 3359: 2955: 2719:

to stop the "complete junk" at source, rather than just arguing for the junk-rate-of-increase status quo.

2283:

tags; replacing it with anon page creation is a bad, bad idea. As other have said, a project this large is

1778: 1602: 825: 628: 229:

to enter a confirmation code (CAPTCHA I believe its called), and it may be a good idea to add a feature to

5542: 3471:

As you say, we need cold, hard facts on the benefits and costs of Anonymous page creation. Whilst one can

6589: 6473: 6027: 5961: 5545:, but the only revision I can find older than the one Kusma links to read "John Seigenthaler SR"; it was 5538: 5002: 4667: 4646: 4428: 4285: 3998: 3106: 2991: 2867: 1986: 1664: 988: 5241: 4424:

page creation". The 'cure' has failed, and the cures for the cure, like AfC are themselves failures. --

3639: 3546: 2927: 2402: 758: 113: 6626: 6208: 5457: 4825:

Quality over quantity any day! (Although I do sometimes enjoy smashing stupid vandalism on NPP :D) --

2829: 548: 5534: 4328:

What we're all forgetting is that what's being proposed is not an experiment - it's the end of one.

566:

That's the critical point; it must be able to go either way (ie page creation on or off) if needed.

5921:

great deal to lose by upsetting the current balance we've achieved through 2 years of hard work. --

5897: 5482: 5478: 5441: 5405: 5390: 5309: 5267: 5194: 4891: 4844: 4789: 4684: 4634: 4524: 4489: 4469: 4310: 4272: 4111: 3653: 3582: 3529: 3440: 3235: 2695: 2462: 2351: 2289: 2114: 2101: 1312: 1256: 1103: 1090: 748: 443:

Seems like a perfectly reasonable experiment. I'd like to see it have a shorter length though. --

236: 1344:

I agree with Fredrick. We should still put the new page wizards and such that we were discussing.

6332: 4924: 3157: 1939: 1203: 949: 170: 78: 5664:

Yeah. New page patrol sucks. We all know that. What we don't know is if anon page creation will

5027:. Apologies for yet another comment. Couldn't find one that fit me close enough to write under. 5024: 6757: 6735: 6299: 6132: 5907: 5453: 4969: 4811: 4447:

I would support an "experiment" of 30 days IF the process for evaluating it were well defined,

3457: 2747: 2302: 2067: 1496: 1215: 1042: 3612:

A bot that would automatically create any article that has remained in the list for one week?

6640: 5720:

its worth, I have patrolled and tagged new pages on occasion when I felt like some grinding.

5115: 4952: 4832: 3422: 3205: 2906: 2442: 2397: 2277: 2038: 1924: 1703: 1572: 934: 444: 3312:

page creation I'm opposed to, anons should absolutely be allowed to edit existing articles.

6622: 6386: 6303: 6263: 5691:

And by the same token, most people opposing this change have never submitted an article to

5495: 4973: 4815: 4753: 4015: 3461: 3265: 2825: 2751: 2601: 2580: 2023: 1828: 1744: 1652: 1639: 1500: 1394: 1349: 842: 641: 8: 6451: 6073: 5996: 5754: 5585: 5421: 5386: 5305: 5289:

is a stretch. I've also left a note on GMaxwell's talk page so he's aware of the RFC. --

5263: 5158: 5085: 4786: 4581: 4485: 4465: 4334: 4181:

were just expressing their "point of view" too. How is this substantially any different?

3808: 3679: 3578: 3525: 3434: 2729: 2690: 2614: 2455: 2338: 2111: 1853: 1478: 1407: 1243: 1100: 813: 787: 471: 367: 254: 6327: 6199: 5524:

So do I get a straight answer then? Was the problem vandalism or new page creation? --

5346: 4919: 3968: 3942: 3772: 3737: 3313: 3185: 3081: 2981: 2971: 2588: 2516: 2315: 1952: 1934: 1908: 1690: 1430: 1334: 1228: 1196: 1112: 1111:

One of the world's largest Internet sites is not a good place to run experiments on. --

1064: 970: 944: 918: 604: 152: 38: 30: 4256:

I find this very funny. We don't want it easier for IPs to make vandalism articles.

4183:

I's gonna run away massah, and makes me some bad articles wit da white women! Hee haw!

6751: 6729: 6536: 6464: 6318: 6294: 5550: 5486: 5245: 5231: 5217: 5174: 5134:

Completely agree. Some people here don't seem to understand the spirit of Knowledge.

4964: 4806: 4725: 4715: 4597: 4412: 4125: 4092: 4041:, but it's got to stop. The sooner we embrace anonymous article creation the better. 3983: 3856: 3800: 3702: 3669: 3452: 3098: 3056: 2786: 2742: 2433: 2424: 2328: 2220: 1796: 1558: 1547: 1491: 1325: 1316: 1172: 1016: 767:

In 2007, of all the problems we face, "not enough new pages" isn't really one of them

709: 685: 650: 584: 391: 335: 274: 57: 2211:

knows that you lose the whole day trying to clear the backlog. I do not want to see

6146: 6138: 5946: 5934: 4947: 4827: 4393: 3916: 3827: 3417: 3197: 2958: 2899: 2680: 2508: 2033: 1916: 1885: 1781: 1699: 1568: 1454: 926: 895: 828: 774:

as it will probably be easier for unreferenced pages to slip through newpage patrol

624: 532: 502: 435: 306: 230: 132: 5506:

The offending revision has only been deleted, not oversighted. Admins can view it

3475:

the results at present, or predict them with 2005's figures (when Knowledge was a

6694: 6658: 6586: 6567: 6382: 6313:

Excellent comment. I am working very few on main space due to backlog created on

6257: 6234: 5958: 5771: 5515: 5067: 5046: 4911: 4748: 4548: 4538: 4514: 4425: 4354: 4282: 4227: 4121: 4084: 4075: 4057: 4012: 3995: 3846: 3717: 3692: 3683: 3613: 3274: 3262: 3249: 3124: 3038: 3015: 2812: 2597: 2410: 2287:

the place to perform experiments, specially ones whose result are predictable. --

2267: 2144: 1981: 1823: 1760: 1741: 1635: 1390: 1345: 1270: 1127: 854: 837: 638: 325: 189: 6037: 5110:

To be even clearer, this was as of 5 November 2007 rather than November '05. ;)

2934: 1980:

why must we endure the hardship just to prove a point? isn't that the point of

1358:

Agreed with Fredrick day. Perhaps semi-protecting page creation - a 4-day wait.

6713: 6603: 6521: 6447: 6248: 6182: 5815: 5700: 5642: 5620: 5611: 5603: 5525: 5498: 5466: 5449: 5417: 5323: 5290: 5286: 5258: 5058: 5049:

problem with the experiment of banning IP article creation, now the entrenched

5043: 4797: 4571: 4557: 4388: 4368: 4322: 4242: 4206:

I am the registered user who referred to this as disruptive. Have you actually

4195: 4186: 4170: 3955: 3934:. That would give us the highest likelihood of seeing net positive benefits. ·· 3911: 3867: 3591: 3567: 3511: 2882: 2841: 2762: 2631: 2568: 2489: 2228: 2199: 2190: 2176: 2127: 2001: 1850: 1713: 1619: 1511: 1180: 1164: 1155: 1141: 1003: 810: 723: 619: 180: 110: 4177:

of that minority is distasteful and uncalled for. White entertainers who wore

671:

We might need more administrators and some work defending the encyclopedia in

6770: 6495: 6284: 6192: 6178: 6157: 6151: 6117: 6061: 6044: 5840: 5692: 5607: 5126: 5054: 4936: 4869: 4776: 4376: 4364: 4258: 4056:

Best argument against re-enabling anonymous article creation I've seen yet –

4038: 3964: 3935: 3887: 3766: 3731: 3538: 3499: 3399: 3308:

Absolutely. I saw tons of beneficial edits by anons while on RC patrol. It's

3283: 3180: 3074: 3065: 2978: 2966: 2858: 2816: 2550: 2388: 2216: 2167: 2159: 2051: 1949: 1903: 1894: 1841: 1686: 1682: 1614:- I'm in favor of not allowing anon IPs to edit, period, let alone give them 1423: 1382: 1360: 1309: 1291: 1060: 1026: 967: 913: 904: 879: 780: 771: 598: 567: 558: 453: 406: 356: 346: 211: 146: 5494:

OK, I was an IP editor until they stopped letting IP editors create articles

5459:). Banning anon page creation as a result of some later vandalism is simply 6460: 6370: 5810: 5781: 5721: 5669: 5572: 5436:

And people forget that while stopping anon page creation was touted as the

5431: 5357: 5333: 5277: 5168: 5102: 5076: 4735: 4621: 4611: 4593: 4406: 4212: 4135: 3977: 3879: 3795: 3790: 3046: 2938: 2622: 2499: 2476: 2420: 2377: 2365: 1789: 1462: 1415: 1299: 1280: 705: 676: 580: 524: 515: 422: 376: 286: 269: 264: 220: 4367:

certainly seems to have failed to produce articles in a timely manner. --

1808:

Creating a decent new article is time consuming. IPs make wonderful edits

6396: 5943: 5931: 5244:, but I think, there is already no consensus to enable a new experiment. 5145: 4385: 3908: 3816: 3345: 3299:

them. (With the occasional exception due to semi-protection, of course.)

3215: 3029: 3000: 2952: 2674: 2454:

I agree, its bad enough that they can even edit much less create pages.--

2246: 2219:

increasing and leaving more work to admins for benefices of a minority.

2084: 2014: 1877: 1775: 1448: 1074: 978: 887: 822: 616: 499: 432: 295: 125: 2526:

What we need is not a larger amount of articles, but a larger amount of

403:"Behold the turtle! He makes progress only when he sticks his neck out." 6690: 6654: 6642: 6593: 6563: 6343: 5965: 5767: 5511: 5093:

Just to be clear, that means that 180 IPs had created over 50 articles

5050: 4672: 4651: 4556:

You'd still have to take into account edit count though, obviously. --

4432: 4350: 4289: 4174: 4101: 4066: 4002: 3842: 3120: 3009: 2803: 2540: 2531: 2254: 2237: 2138: 1961: 1729: 1188: 1121: 959: 321: 2672:

Perhaps a wizard would still be able to preempt some of the nonsense.

6510: 5790: 5135: 4178: 3951: 3895: 2720: 2560: 2122: 1996: 998: 719: 672: 659: 462: 107: 5699:

IP article creation at all versus just "opening the floodgates." --

5668:

make all that many more crap pages. Account creation is easy right?

6668:

Is there still a page that monitors the average number of pages in

6014: 5986: 4533:

drilled into me at university, if you don't consult a statistician

3480: 3135: 1971: 732: 4083:

I'm tempted to nominate this IP in our next election for GodKing.

3656:- can no longer result in anything worse than a 24-hour autoblock. 3541:

simply isn't a well functioning part of the project; it makes the

6669: 6649: 6222: 6142: 6111:

I just re-read my original comment and it wasn't too clear. What

6090: 6033: 5569: 5185:

His really makes more sense than the other IP address's comment.

5099: 3876: 3621:

Although I begged AzaToth to make a script to help with the Afc (

512: 282: 6423:. It was allowed the moment it became a Wikia. The function was 4109:

You wanna disrupt something? Harass 4chan; do us all a favor. -

3162:

I think amidst all this discussion it should be made clear that

6395:

Very nice. Who's idea was it to turn it on in the first place.

6314: 5465:

OK, I take that back. Thanks for figuring this out Cryptic. --

2212: 2208: 1685:

is a resource which should not be forgotten in this debate. --

233:

which would allow a user to view only pages created by anons.

6256:

Well put. This is, as you stated, the essence of the problem.

4537:

you run your experiment your results may well be meaningless.

2207:

Admins should work on main space too. Any admin who worked on

1120:

Plenty of downside for the encyclopedia with minimal upside.

5444:, you are correct that it had nothing to do with the actual 5317:

Ah, well I was mostly looking at comment 1 versus comment 2

4863:

The most important thing we need to ponder on is the actual

4149:- I don't endorse the summary, however, I'm concerned about 6596: 5968: 4435: 4292: 4005: 786:

Article quality, and backlogs related to newpages, such as

6043:

That said, I have no objections to a test run of a month.

5299:

this isn't a vote, but I don't think the numbers show any

3729:

pages created by the same person using multiple accounts.

649:

Isn't Knowledge an encyclopedia that anyone can edit? --

281:

Maybe it's the closet anarchist in me, or maybe it's the

6683:

User:Cyde/List of candidates for speedy deletion/Subpage

4074:

Very funny. Hands up who logged out to make this point?

2632: 2031:

Right now, quality, not quantity, is what we want here.

704:

Otherwise we can only speculate how it will turn out. -

6145:. May I suggest that as a first step we implement the 1821:

The backlongs are already bad enough. Do we need more?

5153:

yes. (and 21k articles across all of them means that,

3433:

Anonymous editing is what made Knowledge Knowledge. -

124:

As long as consensus overrules developer discretion. —

1984:? wouldn't this be a disruption on a massive scale? / 5356:

No one said it was. We're saying its not a snowjob.

5144:Agree on philosophical grounds. We can handle it. 3678:

Points 2 and 3 make no sense. Have you not heard of

3295:

articles, I strongly believe they should be able to

3291:

While I am opposed to anon editors being allowed to

37:

This page is currently inactive and is retained for

5257:Yup, not really needed now; while this isn't quite 2198:We need to reduce our backlogs, not increase them. 6562:than the true anonymity provided by registration. 2530:(i.e. more reliable and beter written) articles.-- 3549:look like models of efficiency. If it was called 6768: 6687:User:Cyde/List of candidates for speedy deletion 6079:(ps. I have now done some Newpage patrolling...) 5636:to get from point A to point B, and there's no 4710:Anons that are serious about creating articles 4333:resources, then let's abandon the experiment. — 3714:"Repeat offenders are now impossible to track." 3323:Agree, anons should be able to edit articles.-- 6116:quality stubs which should have been deleted. 5682:change that supports a particular ideology? -- 3626: 2853:Yeah, no purpose will be served by doing this. 198: 5957:perspective these days about such matters. -- 5240:It would be good to create a page similar to 5189:,but I probably won't create any personally. 5167:with unconstructive edits work pretty well. 3055:a dozen stubs, they may write a dozen GAs. -- 5533:Creation. The article's deleted history is 5157:, those 180 IPs had created over 100 each) — 4620:limit the number of nonsense page creations. 3561:waiting, and IP editors who submit articles 2630:Probably the most precise statement here. -- 615:Yes. We need to undo this arbitrary change. 6293:Agree with the comments on both problems. - 6060:Well I endorse my own comment obviously ;) 5875:proposes something I haven't thought of. -- 4124:and decides not to finish his sentence.) -- 6681:The data is available in the histories of 6072:a different (more easily patrolled) area. 5930:To what PR controversy are you referring? 3652:The very worst sort of articles - such as 3498:A bot would go a long way towards keeping 3273:This is an important point to emphasize. 5804:Comment/Proposal/Suggestion by Lincalinca 5084:Concur, with suggestion per Tim Vickers. 3590:Fair enough. Thanks for the feedback. -- 2824:Please, no. Leave things as they are. -- 497:to deal with. Let's give it a shot. — 4173:in order to deliberately ape the worst 2715:With the rider that we should be doing 14: 6769: 6504:I don't believe it's possible do this 6221:Many above have raised the problem of 4594:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 581:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 6282:Probably the best put comment here. 5057:functions as smoothly as it does. -- 4459:, exactly what would be the point of 5678:wizard? Why do we have to make just 4384:This. This. This. Absolutely agree. 3411:is essential to Knowledge, but anon 2649: 2559: 235: 25: 4241:One has, actually. Scroll down. -- 3855:Agree, it's a convincing argument.- 345:I think we should give it a trial. 23: 5303:change from the initial trend. -- 4035:GG WIKIPEDIA JUST GOT SCREWED OVER 2507:When our signal-to-noise ratio at 1369:Agree with W.marsh and J.L.W.S. -- 597: 24: 6788: 1534:You may want to try to resurrect 420:Say No To Handwaving Freakoutery! 6317:. That is bad for encyclopedia. 5568:Yes; see Cryptic's note above. 5448:(i.e. unless something has been 1536:Knowledge:Autoconfirmed Proposal 29: 5549:three minutes after creation. — 3789:This is a convincing argument. 3628: 3625:), a bot would be useful too. 1308:with more vanity articles and " 380: 200: 6745:Users who endorse this summary 6707:Users who endorse this summary 6636:Users who endorse this summary 6580:Users who endorse this summary 6540:02:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 6243:Users who endorse this summary 6168:Users who endorse this summary 6055:Users who endorse this summary 5981:Users who endorse this summary 5848:Users who endorse this summary 5412:Users who endorse this summary 5037:Users who endorse this comment 4905:Users who endorse this comment 4662:Users who endorse this summary 4478:Users who endorse this summary 4343:Users who endorse this summary 4051:Users who endorse this summary 4037:and to be told to got through 3758:Users who endorse this summary 3607:Users who endorse this summary 3170:Users who endorse this summary 2947:Users who endorse this summary 2687:Anyone could see this coming. 2314: 2068: 1769:Users who endorse this summary 1227: 1043: 795:Users who endorse this summary 73:Users who endorse this summary 18:Knowledge:Requests for comment 13: 1: 6717:05:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 6699:13:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC) 6677:23:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 6663:10:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 6631:08:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC) 6607:05:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 6572:10:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 6557:10:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC) 6514:18:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 6499:16:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 6482:12:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 6469:16:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 6456:13:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 6440:07:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 6415:02:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 6391:21:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 6377:20:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 6364:05:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 6347:04:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 6338:03:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 6322:03:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 6309:22:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 6289:21:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 6278:16:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 6252:11:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 6238:10:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 6203:06:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 6186:17:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 6163:14:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 6123:06:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 6107:03:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 6077:21:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 6067:09:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 6050:09:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 6013:Endorse, per LessHeard vanU. 6009:18:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 6000:20:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 5990:09:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 5950:23:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 5938:23:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 5926:13:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 5902:22:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5887:09:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 5864:11:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5798:11:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 5785:05:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 5776:17:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5758:23:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5734:22:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5725:22:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5713:22:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5704:22:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5687:21:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5673:21:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5660:21:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5646:20:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5628:19:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5615:19:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5599:18:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5589:10:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5576:04:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5554:19:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 5529:17:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 5520:09:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 5502:17:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5490:12:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5470:03:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5426:03:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5394:00:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 5361:22:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5352:19:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5337:18:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5327:16:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5313:15:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5294:22:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 5281:22:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 5271:22:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 5249:17:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 5235:16:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 5221:16:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 5199:21:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 5162:21:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 5149:23:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 5130:08:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 5120:10:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 5106:04:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 5089:21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 5080:20:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 5071:18:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 5062:10:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 5032:09:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 5011:12:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 4997:17:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 4979:22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 4959:00:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 4941:20:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 4930:03:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 4915:08:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4900:07:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4821:22:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 4801:11:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 4793:03:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 4781:20:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 4770:06:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 4761:00:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 4742:16:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4729:16:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4719:03:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4706:02:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4689:02:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4678:02:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4657:02:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4629:18:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 4615:21:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 4605:19:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 4585:22:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 4575:18:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 4561:10:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4552:04:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4542:00:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4402:11:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 4380:08:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 4315:21:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC) 4277:01:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 4263:20:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 4246:19:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4235:20:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4216:19:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4199:19:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4190:19:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4159:18:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4142:16:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4129:16:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 4019:12:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC) 3973:12:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 3960:16:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 3946:06:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 3925:11:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3903:11:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 3891:08:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 3883:04:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 3871:05:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 3654:the one that started the mess 3595:19:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 3586:14:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 3467:21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3447:21:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 3429:20:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 3403:08:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 3387:03:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 3364:18:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 3332:03:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 3319:18:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 3304:06:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 3287:13:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 3278:09:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 3129:21:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC) 3115:12:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 3102:07:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 3093:08:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 3070:20:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 3060:16:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 3050:13:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 3042:01:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2922:19:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2892:03:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 2876:12:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 2863:06:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC) 2849:12:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 2834:23:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 2820:04:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 2807:23:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 2798:21:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 2790:18:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 2781:15:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 2757:21:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 2737:20:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 2724:19:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 2711:05:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 2683:18:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 2668:07:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 2644:07:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 2626:03:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 2618:22:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 2610:21:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 2592:09:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 2584:02:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 2576:02:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 2555:20:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2544:00:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 2535:18:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2522:18:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2503:14:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2493:12:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2484:06:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2470:05:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2450:00:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 2437:18:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2428:16:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2414:14:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2405:14:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2392:13:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2384:11:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2371:07:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2360:02:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2332:02:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2324:01:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 2310:01:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 1748:22:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC) 1736:22:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC) 1723:02:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 1708:14:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC) 1695:17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC) 1673:12:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 1660:01:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 1644:02:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 1627:12:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 1607:17:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 1585:00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 1562:18:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 1551:17:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 1530:15:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC) 1506:21:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 1486:20:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 1473:04:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 1457:18:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 1442:08:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 1419:03:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 1411:22:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 1403:21:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 1386:18:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 1378:01:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 1365:20:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 1354:15:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 1340:08:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 1329:18:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 1320:16:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 1303:13:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 1295:13:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 1287:11:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 1274:09:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 1265:02:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 1237:01:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 1223:01:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 1209:00:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 753:18:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 728:04:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 714:22:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 700:04:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC) 686: 667:12:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 654:11:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 645:15:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 633:10:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 611:00:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC) 592:18:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 573:09:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC) 562:08:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 554:04:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 544:It can always be turned off. 540:22:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 528:08:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 519:04:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 507:03:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 489:00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC) 475:20:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 466:19:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 457:16:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 448:08:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 439:08:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 426:08:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC) 64:Comment by Ryan Postlethwaite 6762:01:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 6740:01:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 6022:12:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 5181:06:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 4837:06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) 4528:23:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 4518:17:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 4508:14:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 4493:14:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 4473:14:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 4419:06:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 4372:17:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 4359:15:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 4338:14:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 4116:22:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 4105:22:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 4096:18:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 4088:17:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 4079:13:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 4070:11:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 4061:09:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 4046:09:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3990:06:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC) 3862:07:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3851:06:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3836:06:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3812:05:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3803:05:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3785:04:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3750:18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3721:17:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3706:15:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3696:13:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3687:09:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3673:03:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3634:03:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3623:User:AzaToth/twinkleclose.js 3617:03:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3571:17:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3533:16:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3515:02:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3488:12:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 3269:23:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3253:21:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3248:is essential for Knowledge. 3240:08:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3225:07:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3211:02:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3188:02:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3152:23:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 3143:12:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 3033:21:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3024:11:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 3004:04:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2996:03:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2985:02:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2974:02:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2961:02:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2942:02:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2296:23:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2258:21:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2250:21:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2241:21:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2232:21:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2224:18:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2203:17:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2194:14:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2186:14:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2171:13:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2163:12:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2153:11:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2133:09:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2118:09:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2106:08:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2094:07:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2080:07:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2062:06:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2045:04:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2027:04:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2018:04:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 2010:03:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1991:03:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1976:03:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1965:03:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1956:02:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1945:02:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1930:02:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1911:02:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1898:02:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1889:02:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1881:02:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1873:02:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1857:02:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1845:02:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1836:02:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1817:02:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1804:02:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1784:02:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1764:02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1192:21:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1184:21:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1176:18:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1168:17:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1159:14:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1151:13:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1136:11:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1116:11:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1107:09:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1095:08:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1084:07:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1070:07:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1055:07:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1037:06:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1020:05:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 1012:03:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 993:03:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 982:03:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 974:02:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 963:02:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 955:02:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 940:02:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 921:02:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 908:02:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 899:02:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 891:02:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 883:02:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 874:02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 858:02:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 850:01:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 831:01:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 817:01:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 805:01:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 740:12:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 410:19:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 397:15:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 371:14:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 362:10:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 350:08:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 341:07:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 330:06:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 315:06:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 290:05:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 277:05:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 258:05:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 249:05:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 224:04:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 215:03:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 206:03:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 194:03:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 184:02:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 174:01:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 165:01:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 140:01:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 120:01:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 102:01:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC) 7: 6404: 3415:poses a bit of a problem. 3353: 2707:A straw poll on straw polls 10: 6793: 6613:Comment by Horst.Burkhardt 5242:Knowledge:Attribution/Poll 5205:Suggestion by Hildanknight 3547:Bureau of Consular Affairs 3259:zOMG! i CAN EDIT THIS!!!!! 770:Will create problems with 5456:wasn't created by an anon 5452:that I don't know about, 5055:WP:Articles for Rejection 4889:What can come of this?-- 4765:I've said as much above. 4443:Comment by John Broughton 3555:WP:Redirects for Creation 3551:WP:Articles for Rejection 2409:An exercise in futility. 416:tagging and deleting spam 405:Think along those lines. 5638:self-appointed martyrdom 5483:Seigenthaler controversy 5479:Seigenthaler controversy 5442:Seigenthaler controversy 5232:J.L.W.S. The Special One 5218:J.L.W.S. The Special One 4845:User:Anonymous Dissident 4726:J.L.W.S. The Special One 4126:J.L.W.S. The Special One 4100:Indeed! A disgrace! — 3282:We shouldn't forget it. 3164:anon editing is not evil 3057:J.L.W.S. The Special One 2648:Quality not quantity. - 2425:J.L.W.S. The Special One 1540:proposed as an amendment 1317:J.L.W.S. The Special One 334:Anon's have rights too.- 6723:Comment by Stwalkerster 6381:Very well put, Walton. 6351:Couldn't agree more. -- 6006:Life, Liberty, Property 5018:Comment by 86.42.90.189 4868:to allow this, such as 4851:Should this go ahead... 2548:Quality not quantity!! 1618:ability to vandalize. 1538:, then, where this was 1333:Quality over quantity. 6777:Inactive project pages 6474:Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 5824:identify sole-user IPs 5285:I agree that invoking 5003:Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 3107:Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 2868:Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 1754:Comment by Tim Vickers 1665:Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 210:Doomsayers are wrong. 5821:What I propose is to 5430:This is akin to what 5408:in the first place). 4039:articles for creation 3179:is very valuable. — 1810:as they read articles 1740:with a heavy heart.-- 479:Agreed as per above. 6489:Question by Sbowers3 5399:Comment by Thebainer 4169:to be a member of a 4027:User:121.216.137.231 3725:I read that more as 3494:Comment by Kendrick7 675:. But this is good. 6368:Excellent summary. 6028:Comment by James086 4893:Anonymous Dissident 4876:My personal opinion 4525:Girolamo Savonarola 4463:the experiment? -- 2445:θnce θn this island 788:Special:Lonelypages 6712:For the record. -- 6602:For the record. -- 6407: 6147:new article wizard 5461:project phase five 5025:Knowledge Signpost 4896: 4363:The experiment of 4224:IP's contributions 3640:Comment by Cryptic 3473:attempt to foresee 3356: 2928:Comment by GRBerry 759:Comment by W.marsh 171:The Placebo Effect 6760: 6738: 6539: 6397: 6307: 6209:Comment by Walton 6161: 5811:original research 5350: 5179: 4977: 4890: 4819: 4417: 4400: 3988: 3923: 3465: 3346: 3317: 3208: 3192:With emphasis on 2755: 2709: 2573: 2520: 2358: 2072: 1927: 1657: 1642: 1504: 1338: 1263: 1047: 937: 696: 631: 118: 58:User:Tim Starling 54: 53: 6784: 6756: 6754: 6734: 6732: 6621:Viva Knowledge! 6554: 6549: 6535: 6437: 6432: 6406: 6403: 6359: 6356: 6335: 6330: 6297: 6287: 6274: 6266: 6260: 6196: 6155: 6120: 6064: 6047: 6019: 5884: 5879: 5861: 5856: 5836:better Knowledge 5795: 5389: 5349: 5308: 5266: 5177: 5173: 5171: 5140: 4988: 4967: 4955: 4950: 4939: 4927: 4922: 4894: 4809: 4779: 4701: 4698: 4675: 4670: 4654: 4649: 4635:Comment by Aecis 4626: 4602: 4600: 4488: 4468: 4415: 4411: 4409: 4396: 4391: 4261: 3986: 3982: 3980: 3939: 3919: 3914: 3900: 3859: 3833: 3830: 3823: 3820: 3798: 3793: 3783: 3780: 3777: 3769: 3748: 3745: 3742: 3734: 3712:Your claim that 3632: 3630: 3581: 3528: 3485: 3455: 3443: 3437: 3425: 3420: 3384: 3355: 3352: 3340:. This is about 3329: 3316: 3266:how am I typing? 3221: 3206: 3203: 3200: 3183: 3140: 3090: 3084: 3079: 3068: 3020: 3018:Roll, Tide, Roll 2969: 2920: 2918: 2911: 2904: 2889: 2845: 2778: 2775: 2772: 2769: 2745: 2733: 2705: 2701: 2698: 2693: 2677: 2666: 2662: 2654: 2653:Kathryn NicDhàna 2641: 2574: 2571: 2567: 2565: 2553: 2519: 2509:Special:Newpages 2467: 2460: 2447: 2399:Anthony.bradbury 2350: 2347: 2344: 2341: 2322: 2320: 2305: 2292: 2282: 2276: 2272: 2266: 2183: 2149: 2147:Roll, Tide, Roll 2130: 2125: 2090: 2076: 2073: 2070: 2054: 2041: 2036: 2008: 1999: 1942: 1937: 1925: 1922: 1919: 1906: 1878:This is a Secret 1868: 1865: 1801: 1794: 1732: 1720: 1658: 1656: 1638: 1623: 1598: 1527: 1524: 1521: 1518: 1494: 1482: 1470: 1467: 1451: 1439: 1433: 1428: 1375: 1363: 1337: 1269:Unfortunately. 1255: 1252: 1249: 1246: 1235: 1233: 1218: 1206: 1201: 1148: 1132: 1130:Roll, Tide, Roll 1080: 1067: 1051: 1048: 1045: 1029: 1010: 1001: 952: 947: 935: 932: 929: 916: 888:This is a Secret 869: 866: 737: 697: 692: 687: 682: 664: 627: 622: 609: 607: 606:end transmission 601: 589: 587: 570: 536: 505: 394: 388: 386: 384: 338: 312: 309: 302: 299: 272: 267: 246: 244: 239: 231:Special:Newpages 204: 202: 192: 163: 160: 157: 149: 116: 98: 96: 94: 92: 90: 50: 33: 26: 6792: 6791: 6787: 6786: 6785: 6783: 6782: 6781: 6767: 6766: 6752: 6747: 6730: 6725: 6709: 6650:speedy deletion 6646: 6638: 6623:Horst.Burkhardt 6615: 6582: 6552: 6547: 6525: 6491: 6435: 6430: 6413: 6398: 6357: 6354: 6333: 6328: 6283: 6272: 6264: 6258: 6245: 6211: 6194: 6170: 6135: 6118: 6062: 6057: 6045: 6032:If you look at 6030: 6015: 5983: 5910: 5882: 5877: 5859: 5854: 5850: 5806: 5791: 5434:wrote earlier. 5414: 5401: 5385: 5304: 5262: 5207: 5175: 5169: 5136: 5039: 5020: 4995: 4984: 4953: 4948: 4935: 4925: 4920: 4910:Good comments. 4907: 4892: 4878: 4853: 4848: 4835: 4775: 4699: 4696: 4682:All too true. - 4673: 4668: 4664: 4652: 4647: 4637: 4622: 4603: 4598: 4592: 4484: 4480: 4464: 4445: 4413: 4407: 4389: 4345: 4326: 4257: 4222:Looking at the 4053: 4043:121.216.137.231 4030: 3984: 3978: 3937: 3912: 3896: 3857: 3831: 3828: 3821: 3818: 3796: 3791: 3778: 3773: 3767: 3765: 3760: 3743: 3738: 3732: 3730: 3642: 3609: 3577: 3524: 3496: 3481: 3441: 3435: 3423: 3418: 3380: 3362: 3347: 3325: 3263:user:orngjce223 3217: 3201: 3198: 3181: 3175:Strongly, anon 3172: 3160: 3158:Comment by Agne 3136: 3088: 3082: 3075: 3064: 3022: 3016: 2994: 2967: 2949: 2930: 2914: 2907: 2900: 2898: 2883: 2843: 2826:Michael Johnson 2776: 2773: 2770: 2767: 2731: 2699: 2696: 2691: 2675: 2660: 2652: 2640: 2636: 2581:Robert Brockway 2569: 2561: 2549: 2463: 2456: 2443: 2345: 2342: 2339: 2316: 2303: 2290: 2280: 2274: 2270: 2264: 2177: 2151: 2145: 2128: 2123: 2086: 2074: 2060: 2050: 2039: 2034: 2024:Fuhghettaboutit 2005: 1997: 1995: 1989: 1940: 1935: 1920: 1917: 1904: 1866: 1863: 1797: 1790: 1771: 1756: 1730: 1714: 1655: 1621: 1605: 1594: 1525: 1522: 1519: 1516: 1480: 1468: 1463: 1449: 1437: 1431: 1424: 1371: 1359: 1250: 1247: 1244: 1229: 1216: 1204: 1197: 1142: 1134: 1128: 1076: 1065: 1049: 1035: 1025: 1007: 999: 997: 991: 950: 945: 930: 927: 914: 867: 864: 797: 761: 733: 691: 678: 660: 620: 605: 599: 590: 585: 579: 568: 534: 498: 392: 382: 378: 336: 310: 307: 300: 297: 270: 265: 242: 237: 188: 158: 153: 147: 145: 138: 88: 86: 84: 82: 80: 75: 66: 44: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 6790: 6780: 6779: 6765: 6764: 6746: 6743: 6724: 6721: 6720: 6719: 6708: 6705: 6704: 6703: 6702: 6701: 6645: 6639: 6637: 6634: 6614: 6611: 6610: 6609: 6600: 6581: 6578: 6577: 6576: 6575: 6574: 6524: 6518: 6517: 6516: 6490: 6487: 6486: 6485: 6471: 6458: 6444: 6443: 6442: 6409: 6393: 6379: 6366: 6349: 6340: 6324: 6311: 6291: 6280: 6254: 6244: 6241: 6210: 6207: 6206: 6205: 6188: 6169: 6166: 6134: 6133:Comment by Guy 6131: 6130: 6129: 6128: 6127: 6126: 6125: 6099: 6083: 6082: 6081: 6080: 6074:LessHeard vanU 6056: 6053: 6029: 6026: 6025: 6024: 6011: 6002: 5997:LessHeard vanU 5992: 5982: 5979: 5977: 5975: 5974: 5973: 5972: 5954: 5953: 5952: 5909: 5908:Comment by TML 5906: 5905: 5904: 5893: 5892: 5891: 5890: 5889: 5849: 5846: 5805: 5802: 5801: 5800: 5787: 5778: 5764: 5763: 5762: 5761: 5760: 5755:LessHeard vanU 5750: 5749: 5748: 5747: 5746: 5745: 5744: 5743: 5742: 5741: 5740: 5739: 5738: 5737: 5736: 5717: 5716: 5715: 5619:Have you read 5586:LessHeard vanU 5578: 5566: 5565: 5564: 5563: 5562: 5561: 5560: 5559: 5558: 5557: 5556: 5428: 5413: 5410: 5400: 5397: 5387:John Broughton 5378: 5377: 5376: 5375: 5374: 5373: 5372: 5371: 5370: 5369: 5368: 5367: 5366: 5365: 5364: 5363: 5329: 5306:John Broughton 5264:John Broughton 5252: 5251: 5223:(3, 5 and 10) 5206: 5203: 5202: 5201: 5191:99.230.152.143 5183: 5164: 5151: 5142: 5132: 5124: 5123: 5122: 5091: 5086:LessHeard vanU 5082: 5073: 5064: 5038: 5035: 5019: 5016: 5015: 5014: 4999: 4991: 4981: 4961: 4943: 4932: 4917: 4906: 4903: 4877: 4874: 4852: 4849: 4847: 4841: 4840: 4839: 4831: 4823: 4803: 4795: 4787:Metropolitan90 4783: 4772: 4763: 4744: 4731: 4721: 4708: 4691: 4680: 4663: 4660: 4644: 4641: 4636: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4617: 4607: 4591: 4587: 4582:VirtualDelight 4577: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4554: 4544: 4510: 4495: 4486:John Broughton 4479: 4476: 4466:John Broughton 4444: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4421: 4404: 4382: 4374: 4361: 4344: 4341: 4325: 4323:User:Random832 4319: 4318: 4317: 4307:99.230.152.143 4296: 4279: 4269:68.101.123.219 4265: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4201: 4192: 4171:minority group 4131: 4118: 4107: 4098: 4090: 4081: 4072: 4063: 4052: 4049: 4029: 4023: 4022: 4021: 4009: 3992: 3975: 3962: 3948: 3927: 3905: 3893: 3885: 3873: 3864: 3853: 3838: 3814: 3809:William Pietri 3805: 3787: 3759: 3756: 3755: 3754: 3753: 3752: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3698: 3662: 3661: 3657: 3650: 3641: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3619: 3608: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3579:John Broughton 3526:John Broughton 3495: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3469: 3449: 3431: 3405: 3396: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3390: 3389: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3358: 3321: 3306: 3289: 3280: 3271: 3255: 3242: 3227: 3213: 3190: 3171: 3168: 3159: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3149:12.227.165.134 3145: 3131: 3118: 3104: 3095: 3072: 3062: 3052: 3044: 3035: 3028:Good point! -- 3026: 3014: 3006: 2998: 2990: 2987: 2976: 2963: 2948: 2945: 2929: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2894: 2879: 2865: 2851: 2836: 2822: 2809: 2800: 2792: 2783: 2763:Andrew Lenahan 2759: 2739: 2726: 2713: 2685: 2670: 2646: 2638: 2634: 2628: 2620: 2615:VirtualDelight 2612: 2595: 2586: 2578: 2557: 2546: 2537: 2524: 2505: 2495: 2486: 2472: 2452: 2439: 2430: 2416: 2407: 2394: 2386: 2373: 2362: 2334: 2326: 2312: 2298: 2260: 2252: 2243: 2234: 2226: 2205: 2196: 2188: 2173: 2165: 2155: 2143: 2135: 2120: 2112:Metropolitan90 2108: 2096: 2082: 2064: 2056: 2047: 2029: 2020: 2012: 2003: 1993: 1985: 1978: 1967: 1958: 1947: 1932: 1913: 1900: 1891: 1883: 1875: 1859: 1847: 1838: 1819: 1806: 1786: 1770: 1767: 1755: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1738: 1727:Definitely. 1725: 1710: 1697: 1676: 1662: 1646: 1629: 1609: 1601: 1587: 1564: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1512:Andrew Lenahan 1508: 1488: 1475: 1459: 1445: 1421: 1413: 1408:VirtualDelight 1405: 1388: 1380: 1367: 1356: 1342: 1331: 1322: 1305: 1297: 1289: 1276: 1267: 1239: 1225: 1211: 1194: 1186: 1178: 1170: 1161: 1153: 1138: 1126: 1118: 1109: 1101:Metropolitan90 1097: 1086: 1072: 1057: 1039: 1031: 1022: 1014: 1005: 995: 987: 984: 976: 965: 957: 942: 923: 910: 901: 893: 885: 876: 860: 852: 833: 819: 807: 796: 793: 792: 791: 784: 778: 775: 768: 760: 757: 756: 755: 745:99.230.152.143 742: 730: 716: 702: 669: 656: 647: 635: 613: 594: 578: 575: 564: 556: 542: 530: 521: 509: 491: 477: 472:LessHeard vanU 468: 459: 450: 441: 428: 412: 399: 373: 364: 352: 343: 332: 317: 292: 279: 260: 255:William Pietri 251: 226: 217: 208: 196: 186: 176: 167: 142: 130: 122: 104: 74: 71: 65: 62: 52: 51: 43: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6789: 6778: 6775: 6774: 6772: 6763: 6759: 6755: 6749: 6748: 6742: 6741: 6737: 6733: 6718: 6715: 6711: 6710: 6700: 6696: 6692: 6688: 6684: 6680: 6679: 6678: 6675: 6671: 6667: 6666: 6665: 6664: 6660: 6656: 6651: 6644: 6633: 6632: 6628: 6624: 6619: 6608: 6605: 6601: 6598: 6595: 6591: 6588: 6584: 6583: 6573: 6569: 6565: 6560: 6559: 6558: 6555: 6550: 6543: 6542: 6541: 6538: 6532: 6528: 6523: 6515: 6512: 6507: 6503: 6502: 6501: 6500: 6497: 6483: 6479: 6475: 6472: 6470: 6466: 6462: 6459: 6457: 6453: 6449: 6445: 6441: 6438: 6433: 6426: 6422: 6419:It was never 6418: 6417: 6416: 6412: 6408: 6401: 6394: 6392: 6389: 6388: 6384: 6380: 6378: 6375: 6374: 6373: 6367: 6365: 6362: 6361: 6350: 6348: 6345: 6341: 6339: 6336: 6331: 6325: 6323: 6320: 6316: 6312: 6310: 6305: 6301: 6296: 6292: 6290: 6286: 6281: 6279: 6275: 6270: 6267: 6261: 6255: 6253: 6250: 6247: 6246: 6240: 6239: 6236: 6231: 6228: 6224: 6219: 6215: 6204: 6201: 6198: 6189: 6187: 6184: 6180: 6176: 6172: 6171: 6165: 6164: 6159: 6154: 6153: 6148: 6144: 6140: 6124: 6121: 6114: 6110: 6109: 6108: 6105: 6100: 6097: 6092: 6087: 6086: 6085: 6084: 6078: 6075: 6070: 6069: 6068: 6065: 6059: 6058: 6052: 6051: 6048: 6041: 6039: 6035: 6023: 6020: 6018: 6012: 6010: 6007: 6003: 6001: 5998: 5993: 5991: 5988: 5985: 5984: 5978: 5970: 5967: 5963: 5960: 5955: 5951: 5948: 5945: 5941: 5940: 5939: 5936: 5933: 5929: 5928: 5927: 5924: 5919: 5918: 5917: 5913: 5903: 5900: 5899: 5894: 5888: 5885: 5880: 5873: 5872: 5870: 5867: 5866: 5865: 5862: 5857: 5852: 5851: 5845: 5842: 5838: 5837: 5833:an intent to 5832: 5831: 5826: 5825: 5819: 5817: 5812: 5799: 5796: 5794: 5788: 5786: 5783: 5779: 5777: 5773: 5769: 5765: 5759: 5756: 5751: 5735: 5732: 5728: 5727: 5726: 5723: 5718: 5714: 5711: 5707: 5706: 5705: 5702: 5698: 5694: 5690: 5689: 5688: 5685: 5681: 5676: 5675: 5674: 5671: 5667: 5663: 5662: 5661: 5658: 5654: 5649: 5648: 5647: 5644: 5639: 5635: 5631: 5630: 5629: 5626: 5622: 5618: 5617: 5616: 5613: 5609: 5605: 5602: 5601: 5600: 5597: 5592: 5591: 5590: 5587: 5583: 5579: 5577: 5574: 5571: 5567: 5555: 5552: 5548: 5544: 5540: 5536: 5532: 5531: 5530: 5527: 5523: 5522: 5521: 5517: 5513: 5509: 5505: 5504: 5503: 5500: 5496: 5493: 5492: 5491: 5488: 5484: 5480: 5476: 5473: 5472: 5471: 5468: 5464: 5462: 5458: 5455: 5451: 5447: 5443: 5439: 5433: 5429: 5427: 5423: 5419: 5416: 5415: 5409: 5407: 5396: 5395: 5392: 5388: 5383: 5362: 5359: 5355: 5354: 5353: 5348: 5347:Seraphimblade 5344: 5340: 5339: 5338: 5335: 5330: 5328: 5325: 5320: 5316: 5315: 5314: 5311: 5307: 5302: 5297: 5296: 5295: 5292: 5288: 5284: 5283: 5282: 5279: 5274: 5273: 5272: 5269: 5265: 5260: 5256: 5255: 5254: 5253: 5250: 5247: 5243: 5239: 5238: 5237: 5236: 5233: 5228: 5224: 5222: 5219: 5214: 5210: 5200: 5196: 5192: 5188: 5184: 5182: 5178: 5172: 5165: 5163: 5160: 5156: 5152: 5150: 5147: 5143: 5141: 5139: 5133: 5131: 5128: 5127:User:Veesicle 5125: 5121: 5117: 5113: 5109: 5108: 5107: 5104: 5101: 5096: 5092: 5090: 5087: 5083: 5081: 5078: 5074: 5072: 5069: 5065: 5063: 5060: 5056: 5052: 5048: 5045: 5041: 5040: 5034: 5033: 5030: 5026: 5012: 5008: 5004: 5000: 4998: 4994: 4990: 4987: 4982: 4980: 4975: 4971: 4966: 4962: 4960: 4957: 4956: 4951: 4944: 4942: 4938: 4933: 4931: 4928: 4923: 4918: 4916: 4913: 4909: 4908: 4902: 4901: 4898: 4895: 4887: 4884: 4873: 4871: 4866: 4861: 4857: 4846: 4838: 4834: 4830: 4829: 4824: 4822: 4817: 4813: 4808: 4804: 4802: 4799: 4796: 4794: 4791: 4788: 4784: 4782: 4778: 4773: 4771: 4768: 4764: 4762: 4758: 4755: 4751: 4750: 4745: 4743: 4740: 4739: 4738: 4732: 4730: 4727: 4722: 4720: 4717: 4713: 4709: 4707: 4704: 4703: 4693:Well said. -- 4692: 4690: 4687: 4686: 4681: 4679: 4676: 4671: 4666: 4665: 4659: 4658: 4655: 4650: 4630: 4627: 4625: 4618: 4616: 4613: 4608: 4606: 4601: 4595: 4588: 4586: 4583: 4578: 4576: 4573: 4568: 4562: 4559: 4555: 4553: 4550: 4545: 4543: 4540: 4536: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4526: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4516: 4511: 4509: 4506: 4501: 4500:autoconfirmed 4496: 4494: 4491: 4487: 4482: 4481: 4475: 4474: 4471: 4467: 4462: 4458: 4452: 4450: 4437: 4434: 4430: 4427: 4422: 4420: 4416: 4410: 4405: 4403: 4399: 4395: 4392: 4387: 4383: 4381: 4378: 4377:User:Veesicle 4375: 4373: 4370: 4366: 4362: 4360: 4356: 4352: 4347: 4346: 4340: 4339: 4336: 4331: 4324: 4321:Statement by 4316: 4312: 4308: 4304: 4300: 4297: 4294: 4291: 4287: 4284: 4281:Desu desu! -- 4280: 4278: 4274: 4270: 4266: 4264: 4260: 4255: 4247: 4244: 4240: 4236: 4233: 4229: 4225: 4221: 4220: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4214: 4209: 4205: 4202: 4200: 4197: 4193: 4191: 4188: 4184: 4180: 4176: 4172: 4168: 4165: 4162: 4161: 4160: 4157: 4152: 4148: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4132: 4130: 4127: 4123: 4119: 4117: 4114: 4113: 4108: 4106: 4103: 4099: 4097: 4094: 4091: 4089: 4086: 4082: 4080: 4077: 4073: 4071: 4068: 4064: 4062: 4059: 4055: 4054: 4048: 4047: 4044: 4040: 4036: 4028: 4025:Statement by 4020: 4017: 4014: 4010: 4007: 4004: 4000: 3997: 3993: 3991: 3987: 3981: 3976: 3974: 3970: 3966: 3963: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3947: 3944: 3941: 3933: 3928: 3926: 3922: 3918: 3915: 3910: 3906: 3904: 3901: 3899: 3894: 3892: 3889: 3888:User:Veesicle 3886: 3884: 3881: 3878: 3874: 3872: 3869: 3865: 3863: 3860: 3854: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3839: 3837: 3834: 3825: 3824: 3815: 3813: 3810: 3806: 3804: 3801: 3799: 3794: 3788: 3786: 3782: 3781: 3776: 3770: 3762: 3761: 3751: 3747: 3746: 3741: 3735: 3728: 3724: 3723: 3722: 3719: 3715: 3711: 3707: 3704: 3699: 3697: 3694: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3671: 3667: 3658: 3655: 3651: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3635: 3631: 3624: 3620: 3618: 3615: 3611: 3610: 3596: 3593: 3589: 3588: 3587: 3584: 3580: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3569: 3564: 3560: 3556: 3552: 3548: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3531: 3527: 3522: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3513: 3509: 3505: 3501: 3489: 3486: 3484: 3478: 3474: 3470: 3468: 3463: 3459: 3454: 3450: 3448: 3444: 3438: 3432: 3430: 3427: 3426: 3421: 3414: 3413:page creation 3410: 3406: 3404: 3401: 3400:User:Veesicle 3398: 3397: 3388: 3385: 3383: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3365: 3361: 3357: 3350: 3343: 3339: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3330: 3328: 3322: 3320: 3315: 3314:Seraphimblade 3311: 3307: 3305: 3302: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3288: 3285: 3281: 3279: 3276: 3272: 3270: 3267: 3264: 3260: 3256: 3254: 3251: 3247: 3243: 3241: 3238: 3237: 3232: 3228: 3226: 3223: 3220: 3214: 3212: 3209: 3204: 3195: 3191: 3189: 3186: 3184: 3178: 3174: 3173: 3167: 3165: 3153: 3150: 3146: 3144: 3141: 3139: 3132: 3130: 3126: 3122: 3119: 3116: 3112: 3108: 3105: 3103: 3100: 3096: 3094: 3091: 3085: 3080: 3078: 3073: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3061: 3058: 3053: 3051: 3048: 3045: 3043: 3040: 3036: 3034: 3031: 3027: 3025: 3021: 3019: 3013: 3012: 3007: 3005: 3002: 2999: 2997: 2993: 2988: 2986: 2983: 2980: 2977: 2975: 2972: 2970: 2964: 2962: 2959: 2956: 2954: 2951: 2950: 2944: 2943: 2940: 2936: 2923: 2919: 2917: 2912: 2910: 2905: 2903: 2895: 2893: 2890: 2888: 2887: 2880: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2866: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2850: 2847: 2846: 2840: 2837: 2835: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2821: 2818: 2814: 2810: 2808: 2805: 2801: 2799: 2796: 2793: 2791: 2788: 2784: 2782: 2779: 2764: 2760: 2758: 2753: 2749: 2744: 2740: 2738: 2735: 2727: 2725: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2712: 2708: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2694: 2686: 2684: 2681: 2679: 2678: 2671: 2669: 2665: 2659: 2656: 2655: 2647: 2645: 2642: 2629: 2627: 2624: 2621: 2619: 2616: 2613: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2596: 2593: 2590: 2589:Peterkingiron 2587: 2585: 2582: 2579: 2577: 2572: 2566: 2564: 2558: 2556: 2552: 2547: 2545: 2542: 2538: 2536: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2523: 2518: 2517:Seraphimblade 2514: 2510: 2506: 2504: 2501: 2496: 2494: 2491: 2487: 2485: 2482: 2478: 2473: 2471: 2468: 2466: 2461: 2459: 2453: 2451: 2448: 2446: 2440: 2438: 2435: 2431: 2429: 2426: 2422: 2417: 2415: 2412: 2408: 2406: 2403: 2401: 2400: 2395: 2393: 2390: 2387: 2385: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2374: 2372: 2369: 2368: 2363: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2348: 2335: 2333: 2330: 2327: 2325: 2321: 2319: 2318:Sephiroth BCR 2313: 2311: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2299: 2297: 2294: 2293: 2286: 2279: 2269: 2261: 2259: 2256: 2253: 2251: 2248: 2244: 2242: 2239: 2235: 2233: 2230: 2227: 2225: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2210: 2206: 2204: 2201: 2197: 2195: 2192: 2189: 2187: 2184: 2182: 2181: 2174: 2172: 2169: 2166: 2164: 2161: 2156: 2154: 2150: 2148: 2142: 2141: 2136: 2134: 2131: 2126: 2121: 2119: 2116: 2113: 2109: 2107: 2104: 2103: 2097: 2095: 2092: 2089: 2083: 2081: 2078: 2077: 2065: 2063: 2059: 2053: 2048: 2046: 2043: 2042: 2037: 2030: 2028: 2025: 2021: 2019: 2016: 2013: 2011: 2007: 2000: 1994: 1992: 1988: 1983: 1979: 1977: 1974: 1973: 1968: 1966: 1963: 1959: 1957: 1954: 1951: 1948: 1946: 1943: 1938: 1933: 1931: 1928: 1923: 1914: 1912: 1909: 1907: 1901: 1899: 1896: 1892: 1890: 1887: 1884: 1882: 1879: 1876: 1874: 1871: 1870: 1860: 1858: 1855: 1852: 1848: 1846: 1843: 1839: 1837: 1833: 1830: 1826: 1825: 1820: 1818: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1805: 1802: 1800: 1795: 1793: 1787: 1785: 1782: 1779: 1777: 1773: 1772: 1766: 1765: 1762: 1749: 1746: 1743: 1739: 1737: 1734: 1733: 1726: 1724: 1721: 1719: 1718: 1711: 1709: 1705: 1701: 1698: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1680: 1677: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1663: 1661: 1654: 1650: 1647: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1636:Myke Cuthbert 1633: 1630: 1628: 1625: 1624: 1617: 1613: 1610: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1597: 1591: 1588: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1565: 1563: 1560: 1556: 1552: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1528: 1513: 1509: 1507: 1502: 1498: 1493: 1489: 1487: 1484: 1476: 1474: 1471: 1466: 1460: 1458: 1455: 1453: 1452: 1446: 1443: 1440: 1434: 1429: 1427: 1422: 1420: 1417: 1414: 1412: 1409: 1406: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1392: 1389: 1387: 1384: 1381: 1379: 1376: 1374: 1368: 1366: 1362: 1357: 1355: 1352: 1351: 1347: 1343: 1341: 1336: 1335:Seraphimblade 1332: 1330: 1327: 1323: 1321: 1318: 1314: 1311: 1306: 1304: 1301: 1298: 1296: 1293: 1290: 1288: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1277: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1254: 1253: 1240: 1238: 1234: 1232: 1231:Sephiroth BCR 1226: 1224: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1212: 1210: 1207: 1202: 1200: 1195: 1193: 1190: 1187: 1185: 1182: 1179: 1177: 1174: 1171: 1169: 1166: 1162: 1160: 1157: 1154: 1152: 1149: 1147: 1146: 1139: 1137: 1133: 1131: 1125: 1124: 1119: 1117: 1114: 1113:B. Wolterding 1110: 1108: 1105: 1102: 1098: 1096: 1093: 1092: 1087: 1085: 1082: 1079: 1073: 1071: 1068: 1063: 1062: 1058: 1056: 1053: 1052: 1040: 1038: 1034: 1028: 1023: 1021: 1018: 1015: 1013: 1009: 1002: 996: 994: 990: 985: 983: 980: 977: 975: 972: 969: 966: 964: 961: 958: 956: 953: 948: 943: 941: 938: 933: 924: 922: 919: 917: 911: 909: 906: 902: 900: 897: 894: 892: 889: 886: 884: 881: 877: 875: 872: 871: 861: 859: 856: 853: 851: 847: 844: 840: 839: 834: 832: 829: 826: 824: 820: 818: 815: 812: 808: 806: 803: 799: 798: 789: 785: 782: 779: 776: 773: 769: 766: 765: 764: 754: 750: 746: 743: 741: 738: 736: 731: 729: 725: 721: 717: 715: 711: 707: 703: 701: 698: 695: 688: 684: 683: 681: 674: 670: 668: 665: 663: 657: 655: 652: 648: 646: 643: 640: 636: 634: 630: 626: 623: 618: 614: 612: 608: 602: 595: 593: 588: 582: 576: 574: 571: 565: 563: 560: 559:User:Veesicle 557: 555: 552: 551: 547: 543: 541: 538: 537: 531: 529: 526: 522: 520: 517: 514: 510: 508: 504: 503:bum and angel 501: 496: 492: 490: 486: 482: 478: 476: 473: 469: 467: 464: 460: 458: 455: 451: 449: 446: 442: 440: 437: 434: 429: 427: 424: 421: 417: 413: 411: 408: 404: 400: 398: 395: 390: 389: 374: 372: 369: 365: 363: 360: 358: 353: 351: 348: 344: 342: 339: 333: 331: 327: 323: 318: 316: 313: 304: 303: 293: 291: 288: 284: 280: 278: 275: 273: 268: 261: 259: 256: 252: 250: 247: 245: 240: 232: 227: 225: 222: 218: 216: 213: 209: 207: 203: 197: 195: 191: 187: 185: 182: 177: 175: 172: 168: 166: 162: 161: 156: 150: 143: 141: 136: 135: 129: 128: 123: 121: 115: 112: 109: 105: 103: 100: 99: 77: 76: 70: 61: 59: 56:According to 48: 42: 40: 35: 32: 28: 27: 19: 6753:Stwalkerster 6731:Stwalkerster 6726: 6647: 6620: 6616: 6533: 6529: 6526: 6505: 6492: 6424: 6420: 6399: 6385: 6371: 6369: 6353: 6319:Carlosguitar 6295:Royalguard11 6268: 6232: 6226: 6220: 6216: 6212: 6174: 6150: 6136: 6096:aren't quite 6095: 6042: 6031: 6016: 5976: 5914: 5911: 5896: 5868: 5835: 5834: 5829: 5828: 5823: 5822: 5820: 5807: 5792: 5789:Good point. 5696: 5679: 5665: 5655:articles. -- 5652: 5633: 5581: 5474: 5445: 5437: 5435: 5432:User:Cryptic 5402: 5381: 5379: 5342: 5318: 5300: 5246:Carlosguitar 5229: 5225: 5215: 5211: 5208: 5186: 5154: 5137: 5094: 5029:86.42.90.189 5021: 4985: 4965:Royalguard11 4946: 4888: 4882: 4879: 4864: 4862: 4858: 4854: 4826: 4807:Royalguard11 4747: 4736: 4734: 4716:Tim Q. Wells 4711: 4695: 4683: 4638: 4623: 4534: 4499: 4460: 4456: 4453: 4448: 4446: 4329: 4327: 4302: 4298: 4207: 4203: 4182: 4166: 4163: 4146: 4136: 4134: 4110: 4093:Carlosguitar 4031: 4011:Absolutely. 3931: 3897: 3817: 3774: 3771: 3739: 3736: 3726: 3713: 3665: 3663: 3643: 3562: 3558: 3520: 3506:, submitted 3497: 3482: 3476: 3472: 3453:Royalguard11 3416: 3412: 3408: 3381: 3348: 3341: 3337: 3326: 3309: 3296: 3292: 3258: 3245: 3234: 3230: 3218: 3193: 3176: 3163: 3161: 3137: 3099:Shirahadasha 3076: 3017: 3010: 2989:well said. / 2931: 2915: 2908: 2901: 2885: 2884: 2842: 2838: 2787:Kevin Murray 2766: 2743:Royalguard11 2716: 2692:bibliomaniac 2689: 2688: 2673: 2650: 2562: 2527: 2512: 2464: 2457: 2444: 2434:Fredrick day 2398: 2378: 2376: 2366: 2337: 2329:Tim Q. Wells 2317: 2304:Adrian M. H. 2301: 2300: 2288: 2284: 2278:unreferenced 2221:Carlosguitar 2179: 2178: 2146: 2139: 2100: 2087: 2066: 2032: 1970: 1960:Definitely. 1862: 1822: 1809: 1798: 1791: 1757: 1728: 1716: 1715: 1678: 1648: 1631: 1620: 1615: 1611: 1595: 1589: 1559:Kevin Murray 1543: 1515: 1492:Royalguard11 1464: 1447: 1425: 1372: 1348: 1326:Fredrick day 1281: 1279: 1242: 1230: 1217:Adrian M. H. 1214: 1213: 1198: 1173:Carlosguitar 1144: 1143: 1140:Absolutely. 1129: 1122: 1089: 1077: 1059: 1041: 1017:Tim Q. Wells 863: 836: 762: 734: 693: 679: 677: 661: 549: 533: 494: 419: 415: 402: 377: 296: 234: 154: 151: 133: 126: 79: 67: 55: 47:village pump 36: 6520:Comment by 5830:established 5634:no deadline 5580:Agree, the 5450:oversighted 5406:the problem 5301:significant 5112:86.42.83.73 5068:Tim Vickers 4934:How true. 4912:Tim Vickers 4843:Comment by 4549:Tim Vickers 4539:Tim Vickers 4515:Tim Vickers 4211:good idea. 4175:stereotypes 4085:Tim Vickers 3875:Well put. 3718:Tim Vickers 3614:Tim Vickers 3250:Tim Vickers 2598:SmileToday☺ 1886:TerriersFan 1761:Tim Vickers 1569:Merovingian 1391:SmileToday☺ 1163:Of course. 896:TerriersFan 855:Tim Vickers 535:Wikidudeman 445:John Reaves 375:Well said. 6594:2 December 6590:(contribs) 6259:Pyrospirit 5966:2 December 5962:(contribs) 5155:on average 5051:status quo 5001:I agree. 4828:carelesshx 4805:I agree. - 4749:Rschen7754 4449:in advance 4433:2 December 4429:(contribs) 4290:2 December 4286:(contribs) 4167:Pretending 4076:Carcharoth 4003:2 December 3999:(contribs) 3693:Carcharoth 3508:2007-10-19 3275:Eluchil404 3261:or such. ~ 3229:Key word: 3039:hbdragon88 2844:RGTraynor 2802:Agreed. -- 2602:talk to me 2411:KnightLago 1824:Rschen7754 1742:CastAStone 1622:RGTraynor 1395:talk to me 1313:time bombs 1271:Eluchil404 838:Rschen7754 190:Mtmelendez 41:reference. 39:historical 6714:Kendrick7 6604:Kendrick7 6522:White Cat 6448:Sandstein 6421:turned on 6249:DrKiernan 6183:Kendrick7 5827:who have 5780:Duh. --- 5701:Kendrick7 5643:Kendrick7 5612:Kendrick7 5526:Kendrick7 5499:Kendrick7 5467:Kendrick7 5324:Kendrick7 5291:Kendrick7 5159:Random832 5059:Kendrick7 4963:Agreed. - 4798:DrKiernan 4572:JavaTenor 4558:Kendrick7 4369:Kendrick7 4335:Random832 4330:Disabling 4243:Kendrick7 4196:Kendrick7 4187:Kendrick7 4179:blackface 4133:Exactly. 3994:Agree. -- 3868:Kendrick7 3841:account. 3727:different 3680:checkuser 3592:Kendrick7 3568:Kendrick7 3512:Kendrick7 3077:Jreferee 2935:WP:CSD#G8 2886:Wizardman 2734:tianpower 2490:Spellcast 2291:Agüeybaná 2229:Sandstein 2200:Acalamari 2191:DrKiernan 2180:Wizardman 2175:Exactly. 2071:LIMINATOR 1851:Scott5114 1717:Wizardman 1483:tianpower 1426:Jreferee 1181:Sandstein 1165:Acalamari 1156:DrKiernan 1145:Wizardman 1046:LIMINATOR 811:Scott5114 673:Real life 550:guitarist 511:Agreed. 495:that hard 493:It's not 368:Random832 181:Kendrick7 144:Why not? 134:a rag man 6771:Category 6641:View by 6506:entirely 6496:Sbowers3 6425:disabled 6411:Contribs 6285:Reywas92 6273:contribs 6177:go thru 6175:everyone 6139:firehose 6119:James086 6063:James086 6046:James086 5816:Barnstar 5680:this one 5651:they're 5454:his page 5438:solution 5343:minority 5047:WP:CREEP 4945:Agreed. 4937:Reywas92 4865:benefits 4777:Reywas92 4767:Terraxos 4643:receive. 4398:contribs 4299:Disagree 4259:Reywas92 4232:Davnel03 4156:Davnel03 4122:WP:BEANS 3921:contribs 3553:or even 3545:and the 3360:Contribs 3342:creating 3301:Terraxos 3284:Marskell 3182:xaosflux 3066:Reywas92 3037:Concur. 2992:Disorder 2979:David D. 2968:xaosflux 2839:Endorse. 2817:SorryGuy 2813:WP:POINT 2606:My edits 2551:Reywas92 2481:Terraxos 2458:Southern 2389:Marskell 2356:Contribs 2168:Ling.Nut 2160:sgeureka 2052:xDanielx 1987:Disorder 1982:WP:POINT 1950:David D. 1905:xaosflux 1895:Euryalus 1687:Chrisfow 1653:Temperal 1544:anything 1461:Agreed. 1399:My edits 1383:Mieciu K 1361:Reywas92 1292:Marskell 1261:Contribs 1199:Krakatoa 1027:xDanielx 989:Disorder 968:David D. 915:xaosflux 905:Euryalus 637:Agreed. 629:contribs 600:Jonathan 596:Agreed. 569:James086 454:ragesoss 407:JoeSmack 357:lucasbfr 347:Davewild 212:Speciate 6750:--:-) 6674:W.marsh 6670:CAT:CSD 6461:PeaceNT 6372:Hut 8.5 6329:Captain 6326:Agreed 6223:CAT:CSD 6113:W.marsh 6104:W.marsh 6091:CAT:CSD 6034:CAT:CSD 6017:Anthøny 5923:W.marsh 5869:Comment 5782:RockMFR 5731:W.marsh 5722:Atropos 5710:W.marsh 5684:W.marsh 5670:Atropos 5657:W.marsh 5625:W.marsh 5621:WP:TIND 5604:WP:TIND 5596:W.marsh 5551:Cryptic 5547:deleted 5487:Cryptic 5446:problem 5440:to the 5358:Atropos 5334:Atropos 5287:WP:SNOW 5278:Atropos 5259:WP:SNOW 5170:delldot 5077:Atropos 5044:WP:BURO 4921:Captain 4883:already 4737:Hut 8.5 4624:JForget 4612:GRBerry 4505:W.marsh 4408:delldot 4213:Atropos 4204:Comment 4164:Comment 4147:Comment 4137:Hut 8.5 4016:Mishehu 3979:delldot 3907:Agree. 3858:gadfium 3703:Cryptic 3670:Cryptic 3521:Comment 3483:Anthøny 3409:editing 3382:Sandahl 3327:Sandahl 3246:editing 3231:editing 3194:editing 3177:editing 3138:Anthøny 3047:PeaceNT 2939:GRBerry 2902:Richard 2881:Right. 2795:Biophys 2623:Kaldari 2513:already 2500:Darksun 2379:Hut 8.5 2367:Miranda 1936:Captain 1814:W.marsh 1712:Bingo. 1700:Shamess 1679:Endorse 1649:Endorse 1632:Endorse 1612:Endorse 1590:Endorse 1548:Cryptic 1416:Kaldari 1373:Sandahl 1300:PeaceNT 1282:Hut 8.5 946:Captain 802:W.marsh 735:Anthøny 706:Rjd0060 680:Marlith 525:Anthere 423:Atropos 337:gadfium 287:Caknuck 283:CAT:CSD 221:RockMFR 6592:23:49 6315:CAT:SD 6235:Walton 6179:WP:AFC 5964:23:49 5947:(talk) 5944:kmccoy 5935:(talk) 5932:kmccoy 5841:WP:AFC 5693:WP:AfC 5666:really 5653:decent 5608:WP:AFC 5582:amount 5535:strewn 5418:bainer 5146:Fishal 4954:larity 4870:WP:AGF 4790:(talk) 4535:before 4431:23:49 4365:WP:AFC 4288:23:44 4001:23:44 3965:Haukur 3660:users. 3539:WP:AFC 3500:WP:AFC 3424:larity 3344:them. 3293:create 3199:auburn 3030:Crusio 3001:Rekija 2982:(Talk) 2676:Tewfik 2528:better 2268:wikify 2247:Crusio 2217:WP:XFD 2213:CAT:SD 2209:CAT:SD 2115:(talk) 2040:larity 2015:Rekija 1953:(Talk) 1918:auburn 1683:WP:AFC 1640:(talk) 1469:figura 1450:Tewfik 1104:(talk) 1061:Graham 979:Rekija 971:(Talk) 928:auburn 781:WP:AFC 772:WP:BLP 546:Oyster 500:madman 436:(talk) 433:kmccoy 393:(talk) 127:Animum 117:(st47) 111:ʎʇɹnoɟ 6691:Kusma 6655:Kusma 6643:Kusma 6599:(GMT) 6587:Gwern 6564:Kusma 6553:linca 6548:linca 6446:Yes. 6436:linca 6431:linca 6387:Cobra 6383:Glass 6344:MER-C 6342:Yep. 6334:panda 6158:Help! 6094:that 5971:(GMT) 5959:Gwern 5898:Jéské 5883:linca 5878:linca 5860:linca 5855:linca 5793:Grue 5768:Kusma 5766:Yes. 5543:place 5512:Kusma 5382:trend 5187:Agree 5138:Grue 4989:udget 4949:Singu 4926:panda 4685:Jéské 4599:talk 4461:doing 4438:(GMT) 4426:Gwern 4351:Kusma 4303:can't 4295:(GMT) 4283:Gwern 4228:point 4112:Jéské 4102:Coren 4067:MER-C 4058:Gurch 4008:(GMT) 3996:Gwern 3932:first 3898:Grue 3843:Kusma 3829:ɹəəds 3822:speer 3684:Gurch 3666:might 3563:today 3559:still 3419:Singu 3407:Anon 3336:They 3244:Anon 3236:Jéské 3202:pilot 3121:Barno 3011:JodyB 2804:Bobak 2570:(Ni!) 2541:BillC 2532:Aldux 2477:WP:SD 2465:Texas 2255:JoJan 2238:Coren 2140:JodyB 2102:Jéské 2035:Singu 2004:words 1962:MER-C 1941:panda 1921:pilot 1842:Steel 1731:jj137 1599:udget 1350:Cobra 1346:Glass 1315:". -- 1205:Katie 1189:JoJan 1123:JodyB 1091:Jéské 1006:words 960:MER-C 951:panda 931:pilot 880:Steel 662:Grue 642:Quill 639:Oldak 586:talk 481:Travb 322:Kusma 308:ɹəəds 301:speer 238:Sasha 108:uǝʌǝs 16:< 6758:talk 6736:talk 6695:talk 6685:and 6659:talk 6648:The 6627:talk 6597:2007 6568:talk 6511:Alai 6478:talk 6465:talk 6452:talk 6405:ſtan 6265:talk 6143:crap 5969:2007 5772:talk 5570:+sj 5541:the 5539:over 5537:all 5516:talk 5508:here 5422:talk 5391:(♫♫) 5310:(♫♫) 5268:(♫♫) 5195:talk 5176:talk 5116:talk 5100:+sj 5095:each 5007:talk 4872:?' 4833:talk 4712:will 4674:ecis 4653:ecis 4490:(♫♫) 4470:(♫♫) 4457:that 4436:2007 4414:talk 4355:talk 4311:talk 4301:You 4293:2007 4273:talk 4267:Ha!! 4208:read 4151:this 4006:2007 3985:talk 3969:talk 3956:talk 3952:Rayc 3877:+sj 3847:talk 3792:Ante 3682:? – 3629:Ρх₥α 3583:(♫♫) 3530:(♫♫) 3504:this 3477:very 3354:ſtan 3310:only 3297:edit 3207:talk 3196:. - 3125:talk 3111:talk 2953:Agne 2897:< 2872:talk 2859:talk 2830:talk 2721:Alai 2717:more 2639:alls 2563:Kwsn 2352:Talk 2273:and 2124:Neil 1998:shoy 1926:talk 1799:Pika 1776:Agne 1704:talk 1691:talk 1669:talk 1616:more 1257:Talk 1000:shoy 936:talk 823:Agne 749:talk 724:talk 720:Halo 710:talk 651:Taku 513:+sj 485:talk 463:Rayc 326:talk 266:Ante 243:Call 219:--- 201:Ρх₥α 6537:Cat 6227:not 6200:can 6193:coe 6152:Guy 6141:of 5987:TML 5818:). 5697:any 4483:-- 4394:g92 4185:-- 3943:can 3936:coe 3917:g92 3797:lan 3779:man 3768:Mr. 3744:man 3733:Mr. 3543:DMV 3445:), 3338:can 3233:. - 3216:Max 2855:P4k 2774:bli 2730:Cel 2635:ark 2511:is 2421:GAs 2285:not 2215:or 2085:Max 2022:-- 1972:Lid 1969:–– 1792:Fun 1788:-- 1774:-- 1523:bli 1479:Cel 1310:BLP 1075:Max 625:g92 271:lan 159:man 148:Mr. 6773:: 6697:) 6689:. 6661:) 6629:) 6585:-- 6570:) 6534:-- 6480:) 6467:) 6454:) 6428:-- 6304:R! 6276:) 6191:·· 6038:A7 5774:) 5518:) 5510:. 5424:) 5319:or 5230:-- 5216:-- 5197:) 5118:) 5009:) 4993:zŋ 4974:R! 4816:R! 4785:-- 4759:) 4746:-- 4733:-- 4724:-- 4590:-- 4386:Ab 4357:) 4313:) 4275:) 4230:. 4013:Od 3971:) 3958:) 3909:Ab 3849:) 3832:ɹ 3826:/ 3775:Z- 3740:Z- 3462:R! 3222:em 3127:) 3113:) 3097:-- 3008:- 2965:— 2916:12 2909:Ω6 2874:) 2861:) 2832:) 2815:. 2785:-- 2777:nd 2771:ar 2768:St 2765:- 2752:R! 2732:es 2608:) 2604:, 2539:— 2441:-- 2432:-- 2396:-- 2375:-- 2354:• 2346:10 2281:}} 2275:{{ 2271:}} 2265:{{ 2245:-- 2236:— 2137:- 2110:-- 2091:em 2075:JR 2049:— 2002:( 1915:- 1902:— 1893:- 1840:– 1834:) 1706:) 1693:) 1681:, 1671:) 1603:zŋ 1592:- 1583:) 1579:, 1575:, 1567:-- 1557:-- 1526:nd 1520:ar 1517:St 1514:- 1501:R! 1481:es 1401:) 1397:, 1278:-- 1259:• 1251:10 1099:-- 1081:em 1066:87 1050:JR 1024:— 1004:( 925:- 912:— 903:- 878:– 848:) 835:-- 821:-- 800:-- 751:) 726:) 712:) 617:Ab 603:— 487:) 381:ra 379:Ne 328:) 311:ɹ 305:/ 155:Z- 114:ʇs 97:te 95:ai 93:hw 91:et 89:tl 87:os 83:an 81:Ry 6693:( 6657:( 6625:( 6566:( 6484:. 6476:( 6463:( 6450:( 6402:- 6400:J 6360:F 6358:M 6355:T 6306:) 6302:· 6300:T 6298:( 6269:· 6262:( 6197:a 6195:l 6160:) 6156:( 5770:( 5573:+ 5514:( 5463:. 5420:( 5193:( 5114:( 5103:+ 5013:. 5005:( 4986:R 4976:) 4972:· 4970:T 4968:( 4818:) 4814:· 4812:T 4810:( 4757:C 4754:T 4752:( 4702:F 4700:M 4697:T 4669:A 4648:A 4596:| 4390:e 4353:( 4309:( 4271:( 3967:( 3954:( 3940:a 3938:l 3913:e 3880:+ 3845:( 3819:r 3464:) 3460:· 3458:T 3456:( 3442:∅ 3439:( 3436:∅ 3351:- 3349:J 3219:S 3123:( 3117:. 3109:( 3089:c 3086:/ 3083:t 2957:/ 2878:. 2870:( 2857:( 2828:( 2754:) 2750:· 2748:T 2746:( 2741:- 2728:— 2700:5 2697:1 2664:♫ 2661:♦ 2658:♫ 2637:F 2633:D 2600:( 2343:A 2340:J 2336:— 2129:☎ 2099:- 2088:S 2069:E 2058:C 2055:/ 2006:) 1869:F 1867:M 1864:T 1854:↗ 1849:— 1832:C 1829:T 1827:( 1780:/ 1745:/ 1702:( 1689:( 1675:. 1667:( 1596:R 1581:E 1577:C 1573:T 1571:( 1503:) 1499:· 1497:T 1495:( 1490:- 1477:— 1465:B 1438:c 1435:/ 1432:t 1393:( 1248:A 1245:J 1241:— 1088:- 1078:S 1044:E 1033:C 1030:/ 1008:) 986:/ 870:F 868:M 865:T 846:C 843:T 841:( 827:/ 814:↗ 809:— 747:( 722:( 708:( 694:C 689:/ 621:e 583:| 516:+ 483:( 387:i 385:e 383:n 366:— 324:( 298:r 137:) 131:( 85:P 49:.

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

Knowledge

:Requests for comment/Anonymous page creation - Knowledge

Index