Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 86

4619:.....I've thought about this quite a lot and I've come to the conclusion that we can't actually use that as an excuse anymore. Knowledge is not an "encyclopedia". It is a hub for all knowledge. When people want to know something, they will always to go Knowledge - not to Wiktionary, or to Wikinews, or Wikicommons etc. Knowledge is the be all and end all. That's the same reason why I oppose transwikiing. By all means have a wiktionary article as well, but keep the Knowledge article as if its not on Knowledge, it doesn't exist . And it naturally follows that I'm starting to think that just as Urban Dictionary is creating new memes and popular culture that even the media haven't picked up on, maybe it is our job to document them.... screw notability!!! My point is that people go onto Knowledge to have easy access to things they find interesting. Yes, the info they get can often be sub-quality, but I for one sure as hell love it when the Knowledge article is a Simple-English style article that has all the basic facts in simple sentences/paragraphs instead of massive articles that i have to skim through to find what I'm looking for.... and I'm sure for others it's the same. In the same way, making life slightly easier for our readers will be of such great use to them. I don't see how fear of skewing from the "encyclopedic" format is a valid argument. All I am saying is that this might be a very useful little shortcut for people.-- 8393:. In my experience I've seen some admins who have contributed frankly nothing to the project in terms of content blocking some of our great content contributors who've done 1000 times the amount of work that they have with a weak blocking rationale. And when I've seen it happen its usually when the veteran is in the middle of doing constructive work or plans on improving the content of wikipedia and the admin hampers them from doing so for the sake of playing cop and saying "I'm more powerful than you are". When that happens, it strikes me as out of place in the same way it would the Grade 7 pupil placing his 60 year science teacher in detention. I'm not saying that some blocks aren't justified but to me the rookies blocking the content contributing veterans illustrates one of the main problems with RFA. Although the problem is edit count as such is not really an effective measure of one's constructive contributions, articles created, however, or good articles would be.Oh and 10076:) on the toolserver which compile contributions from multiple wikis into a single page. I'm a little surprised that watchlisting of contributions has not already been implemented, as it is simply one of the next logical steps in the ideology of how improvements to the usefulness and usability of Knowledge/MediaWiki are made, and it also fits very well with the open source software mindset as a whole. The idea of having such a feature be limited to being used by or used on specific users is preposterous. Everyone's contributions are already public; it does not make an ounce of sense to make a feature with takes public information and makes it more useful in a way that anyone could do themselves manually or with a script and then make that feature a restricted or private feature. There is no reason to add extra complication to a feature just because it is new when every other similar feature is publicly available and unrestricted. — 11889:@Yair rand. Thanks for the heads up on this. Didn't know. I'm in the middle of watching the video conference about it. I was quite annoyed to hear it said that the future of the desktop is dead. So many projects seem to be taking this literally. At some level this "prophesy" will be self-fulfilling if vendors and organizations simply stop developing for the desktop and cause users to leave. This "let's bet the farm on mobile" type thinking is dangerous. Look at KDE 4 and GNOME 3, those are both projects where it is obvious that mobile and tablet-orientated thinking caused them to derail. I worry that mobile fever has infected the WMF. That said, I'm kind of liking Harris' design. I'll be anxious to see more. A good user interface tends to transfer from one platform to another with only minor tweaking. Maybe 1463:. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. If we did this then some talk pages would be considered quasi-articles by many readers – and by some editors who would start speculating in spreading their crap on talk pages when it's kept out of articles. All sorts of unverifiable nonsense and rude discussions are already on talk pages. If people want to learn more about the subject than the article and they aren't studying Knowledge culture then they are better off searching elsewhere on the Internet. Talk pages are also treated less strictly than articles concerning legal issues like BLP violations and copyvios - especially when it's discussed whether something in the article is exactly that. We shouldn't give the impression that we want readers to read talk pages. They are for editors. 8435:

massively increasing his/her edit count, a better contributor than those who use preview more conscienciously? What about assessing quality of edits? I just don't see raw edit count with no analysis as a secure enough basis to judge this on. Then there's the issue of strict cutoff points. The range of editors that a particular admin wouldn't be allowed to block would in some cases change frequently over fairly short time intervals, especially where two editors edit at different times of day. The most likely outcome would probably be that the class of power-hungry admins who I'm assuming this proposal is mostly targeted at would just make a lot of semi-automated edits to increase the number of editors they can block, which probably wouldn't be a good thing. Call this a

11454:– What potential problems does it have that are so serious as to necessitate the overhead and complexity of a user right? If you have an argument regarding the implementation of this feature, it should be listed here, even if similar arguments have been made before about rollback. I was not involved in the discussion about the implementation of non-admin rollback, but a big difference immediately comes to mind between this feature and rollback: the rollback feature adds a link that in one click instantly causes an action, an action which can sometimes be used in edit wars and disruption; this proposed feature is totally different in that it simply gives people information they already have access to in a more convenient way, and in a way that is quite likely to 8020:- I find it rather ironic and hypocritical that so many editors are saying that edit count is almost irrelevant and yet its required in order to submit an RFA (not written in the rules but try and get it without a large amount), get access to AWB (500 main space) and a whole variety of other things. If edit count was truly irrelevant then it wouldn't be required for those things. I also find it a little argumentative to say things like (if they just get millions of edits) well if they do then they probably should be an admin and there probably should be some pause before they are blocked. Lets not forget that even using tools like Twinkle and AWB it takes a very long time to hit a million edits. As far as I can tell no editor has even done yet after ten years. 11703:

sourcing and notability requirements as any other content, there are additional considerations, obviously. There do seem to be a number of doubtful entries in that list - which are certainly not things that are "memes" as I understand the term, in the sense of their not being in any way pervasive. I'll offer one thought that may or may not be useful - when judging these items for inclusion, notability, verifiability etc. are not, in themselves enough. The criterion which are being used to define something to be a "meme" are obviously crucial, and maybe some entries have not been subjected rigorously enough to that "test" - merely being notable and verifiable isn't enough. That's a discussion for

3922:

clicking (mouse use is painful to some people with carpal tunnel syndrome), then our wiki links will likely be a problem for you; if you are blind, you won't be able to see the images; if you're Deaf, you won't be able to hear our audio files (including the spoken Knowledge articles); if you have trouble typing, then you will find your ability to edit pages limited; and so forth. Basically, we'd be telling people what they already know and expect, and I'd expect many of them to be insulted by such a patronizing statement (because no matter how you phrase it, telling a person that their reading difficulties don't disappear merely because they are on Knowledge is fundamentally patronizing).

8344:, is this not just a way of bringing up the same issue? As it happens, I do support a prerequisite for adminship, but after a certain point as a few people have said edit count means very little. I'm not going to say that there are no bolshy admins, but sorting out a community de-sysop should be the focus there. Taking myself as an example (as arrogant as that sounds), I have about 10,000 edits, but I've been around, know policies very well, know my limitations and have a level head on me. I have never blocked an established editor, but the idea that I should be able to block someone with 35,000 edits, but not someone with 45,000 seems like madness. 8323:. That's a most odd proposal. "Edit count" means precisely nothing. I propose that administrators ought not to be allowed to block content editors until they have themselves made at least 25 per cent of the content contribution that their victim has made (whatever that means). Anyway it is an abysmally stupid system we have here, making "admins" out of all sorts of odd people with no clue about adding value to an encyclopedia, and then allowing them to run roughshod over the people who do contribute. The whole mess has ceased to be a joke, and is now mired in unmovable muck. It's a waste of time trying to shift it. -- 6465:

syntactic marker which designates the first sentence. (4) Because there is no syntactic marker, there is no way for software to create an automatic anchor. (5) Software magicians might someday overcome this insuperable difficulty. Therefore (6) anchors to the first sentence won't be allowed because they might interfere with some future magic trick. It appears that the much heralded "democratization" of information that was to be the hallmark of Knowledge has devolved into a politburo of self-appointed bureaucrats intent on vetoing proposals that they themselves don't directly benefit from. Shades of the Soviet Union!

7527:. I think this is sound in principle, but flawed in application/proposal. So an established user blatantly edit warring couldn't be blocked by a new-ish admin if that admin is the only one who happens to have come across the warring? Perhaps a compromise solution is reachable; such as requiring a noticeboard block discussion (although I can see that any admin who would 'meet' any criteria could just take one look at the issue and block). If the issue is about admins with less than a certain number of edits then that needs to be dealt with separately. Instituting an arbitrary percentage cut-off is unnecessary. 10060:. Currently I have a list of a few users and IPs that I try and check up on every so often, but it's pretty difficult without a feature such as this. It seems more like something that would be on the toolserver at least initially, since the toolserver is where most hacked up tools like this go, but this would be a very useful feature to be integrated into MediaWiki. It also fits with the ideology here of openness and usability. I was just thinking of this recently and how it would be similar to the concept of Linux filesystems, where everything, including devices, act as a file and can be addressed as such ( 2643:- None of the oppose rationales seem to make sense. Yes, it would be possible for an IP user to abuse this feature, but that is already possible. If a committed vandal or sock-puppeteer is going to abuse the fact that they can see their IP's contributions, they will do so regardless of whether there is an easy link for them to use. Preventing such a link will not deter those who actually want to abuse it. Despite what people have said, there is not requirement to create an account; users only encouraged to create an account insofar as some pages describe the benefits. Nowhere does it say that IP users 7548:- The motive behind this proposal seems to be Malleus' belief that administrators should abide by the same rules as everyone else and should not be given any special treatment just because of their position. I completely agree. I would also extent that to any editor. All editors should abide by the same rules as everyone else and should not be given any special treatment just because of their position - that is regardless of userrights, length of tenure or edit count. I agree that admins shouldn't be given privileged status; neither should anyone else, including those with a high edit count. 7587:: A solution looking for a problem. If a particular callow new admin is in the habit of thoughtlessly banning experienced editors, or if one or two of my fellow old-timers is a frequent victim, then it's a particular problem not calling for a new general rule. My habit of making fiddly little changes (picture layouts, geographical coordinates, etc) give me a larger edit count than many admins who tend to larger issues but that's not a reason for exempting me from their power, reasonably applied. And if unreasonably applied, sanctions exist which again have little do do with edit count. 2400:

anonymous IP experience deliberately more difficult" is silly. There's a VERY valid reason -- the whole POINT of making an account is to make things easier, on everyone. You might have a static IP but for even so it's not your account. If you ever move, you'll change your IP and someone else will potentially use it. It's not "you" any more. Not to mention editing from elsewhere. So yes, if you want an easy way to find all your contribs, register an account. If you refuse, well there's other ways of keeping track what pages you edited -- your broswer's bookmarks for instance.

10244:: Not that I think this tool would enable more stalking, but perhaps if its implementation were very transparent it would help assuage some of these concerns. If the users/IPs being watched were visible on one of the monitoring user's subpages, anyone could see who they're watching and stalking can be easily identified. Likewise the addition of a "Who is watching me" link in the toolbox would be helpful for quickly finding everyone who has you watchlisted. Since it hasn't been created yet we can make a wishlist for the development of the tool, right? — 9806:

make another edit that hides the edit from most watchlists. (I doubt that the vast majority of recent changes get patrolled by a human user, even one using a script.) Usually these are blatantly POV statements or factual inaccuracies (often inserted in front of an already cited source), which while not technically vandalism, though these users will often have edit histories that contain genuine vandalism. Presumably if users who reverted the obvious vandalism were able these users, these seemingly valid edits would be subject to stricter scrutiny. --

9870:. This editor has put in guerilla vandalism across dozens of articles before getting noticed and having the vandalism removed. The editor was blocked 5 times, and as soon as the block is over, the exact same type of vandalism starts again. Now, if we had this tool, I would easily see when this person started editing again, and check to see if they were up the same same shenagins, and perhaps nip the issue in the bud before too many articles were disrupted. Currently, I'd literally have to mark a calender to check the IP once the block is lifted. 1567:- if we encourage users to actually go on talk pages, there would be a more social and collaborative aspect to the encyclopedia. By encouraging people to use the talk pages, we encourage new WikiProjects to actively improve a certain subject on Knowledge, and improve the existing and mostly moribund ones. This will also aid in editor retention (our number 1 priority now), as it will allow a forum for discussion of articles. I understand that Knowledge is not a forum or message board, but discussion on articles does contribute to their quality. 11140:. Anyone could reproduce the tool in a couple hours using the public Mediawiki API, and they will if they're denied access to it (and give it to all their friends). The proposal would require a request and approval process that would involve considerable overhead. Any barrier to using it will result in less people using it, and it producing less benefit. I think a better strategy in the short-term is to simply ask me to ban users who are abusing the tool. Since the lists of followed users are public, you can tell if this is happening. 11563:

nobody has given any reasonable, substantive argument for the limiting of this feature, and I have already responded so several of these proposals elsewhere in this discussion. I do not understand what people are afraid of. There are already so many processes in place for dealing with abuse. The "potential for abuse" arguments given so far are useless as they demonstrate no more potential for abuse than other long-accepted core features. There is no need for any of these proposals and not a single person has demonstrated otherwise. —

1548:: Yes, readers should read more deeply. I meet people and brag about being a Knowledge editor, one of millions, and tell them it's one of those iceberg things, 90% underwater. I advise them to use the tabs at the top of the page, and the "About Knowledge" on the left edge, and the "Help" also on the left, all of which lead them to read the highly informative underwater parts. It's all there; just have to point, click and read though perhaps "Help" ought to be made more immediately helpful to readers and less focused on editors. 8005:- Edit count is no measure of edit quality, it is not even a fair measure of edit quantity. It is quite possible to do 10000 legitimate and uncontested edits with no noticeable quality improvement whatsoever, it is also possible to do only one edit, which nevertheless has significant and lasting value, and which could be quite large. Edit counts per se should be considered almost irrelevant, and not only for this application. If there was a way of measuring actual useful contribution, there might be some value in the proposal. 9490:. When I see these users, I try to add text to whatever template I'm using (this is another reason I refuse to use scripts). These users in particular it makes sense to monitor, because they can become genuine Wikipedians. (I'm a minor case-in-point; my 2004-2005 contribs tended to reflect an anti-Boston bias that I've now outgrown.) Is it better to have Huggle users templating them until a non-script-using user gets fed up and reports them, resulting in a block, or users who can monitor them and attempt to talk to them? -- 896:: can be annoying for regular editors who don't want all their edits filled with the text they add to the articles and are used to adding manual edit summaries for their own edits. Should be enabled by default to allow the benefits discussed above. Edit summary has a limit so there won't be issues of huge amounts of text flooding. On a side note, this can not be taken as an alternative for manual edit summary, so this should be marked as an 'auto-edit summary' like a filter so that the issue is not hidden under the carpet. -- 9975:

chance to rewrite the script accordingly. I understand the concerns that people could get stalked - I don't know how big a problem it is but surely the solution to that would be to either restrict access to contributions pages (which is never going to happen) or to just make people more aware that anything they post on here is public, and hence to avoid posting anything they later regret. Even if people here aren't keen on a feature like this, it's perfectly possible for third party websites to implement this sort of thing.

8603:

endless on other editor's talk pages. Or they chime in on every ANI issue or AFD with off-topic or repetitious comments. Or they ask silly trollish questions or make make silly joke responses to questions at Ref Desk. Or they generate thousands of low-value stub article new articles by basically robotically copying from some public-domain book they found online. Someone who hits the "Save" button a lot is not always someone who should be above the law, or who should be blockable only by some admin of similar editing habits.

10311:. This would come in very handy in several ways. One common scenario is a newly-created account that vandalizes a couple of articles, is warned, then stops... for a while. Being able to add their contributions to your watchlist and getting a heads up when and if they resume editing would be extremely helpful. Another case is for long-term IP blocks; it'd be nice to see, when the block expires, whether it served its purpose or another block is needed. The advantages of such a feature far outweigh any downsides, in my view. 11353:'s prototype tool. From my use of it, I conclude that a similar on-wiki tool would be a pretty poor tool for stalkers. Only showing editors' last edits cannot be as useful to stalkers as Special:Contributions already is as it shows all edits by their target. I have already found the prototype tool very useful (caught the first edit/vandalism from a vandal just released from a block. Reverted and reported to AIV, result is an extended block, probably saving lots of further warnings before reblocking. 11218:– People should give actual reasons why they think the added complexity of a user right is warranted. The number of votes is irrelevant; it's the quality of the arguments that matters. So far I have not seen a single good argument for making this a user right, and furthermore it doesn't much matter at this point since it is not currently an available feature of the software. Therefore, what would be helpful is a discussion based on reason and argument, not simply on the number of supporters. — 2946:. This is a simple matter of making an existing, useful feature more accessible to users who edit while logged out. Being able to review their own edits allows new users to reflect on their work, learn from their experiences, and grow as an editor. Even registered users usually have some edits they made before registration that they would like to review, but if they can't figure out how, they won't be able to learn from it. It shouldn't be interpreted as endorsing editing while logged out. 7933:

make this work" and gradually become jaded. Similarly those with specialist knowledge or skills get tired of explaining the same thing to J. Random editor, especially if they have the social graces of a water buffalo in free-fall. But I do wonder if some kind of "hang on - are you really going to block this editor?" intervention would be a good idea sometimes. Especially with what Jon Vandenberg calls the "First mover advantage" (I.E. some action is drawn to the attention of

8090:. But the point stands - all other things being equal, the decision to block comes down to how many edits the editor has, yes? If you don't trust the administrator to exercise judgement, then get them desysop'ed. Bad judgement is bad judgement - and established users can screw up just as easily as new ones. Any policy that would exempt editors from compliance with policy due to any form of "tenure" is unwise, inequitable, and not in the best interests of the project. 6933:. If an established user gets blocked, they're free to appeal the block via an unblock request. That will get wider consideration of the block. If a block is to be reviewed, I'd rather it be on the merits of the block (editor's history, was the block preventative rather than punitive, is there an agenda with the block/is the blocking admin non-independent) rather than doing math on edit counts. Besides, edit count numbers can be deceiving due to deleted edits. — 8059:. Any metric that involves edit count can be gamed in multiple ways. If the intent of the proposal is to give established users "mulligans" or "Get out of trouble free" cards, then that can be done in other ways. What the proposal says, essentially, is that established users get to breach policies at will, if there's the slightest veil of justification. So if I find an edit war, what do I do? Block the newer user and slap the established editor on the wrist? 8665: 7220:. Utterly silly. Makes it nearly impossible to block accounts with many edits (no matter how minor), even in the case of a grave offense like (say) uploading child pornography, and does nothing to protect established users from abuse, since sometimes the abusive admins happen to be the ones who also have a lot of edits. Moreover, it would provide an incentive for all users to make more edits at the expense of quality - enshrining editcountitis in policy in 12472:), and removing these links would make it rather inconvenient. In reality, this proposal is backward: if we remove the links from anyone, it would be better to remove them for logged-in users, since they're more likely to know how to find the template page before editing it, while non-logged-in people are more likely to be unable to find the template and consequently be confused why they see a big box when the code is simply {{template}}. 9727:

watchlisted. "Special" pages do NOT consist of existing text, the "special" pages simply pull info from a database and the page is generated on the fly; there's nothing for one to "watchlist" because the things the watchlist looks for (changes to stored text) don't exist in "special" pages. I don't think this is implementable easily. I suppose it could be kludged by the devs, but it isn't something as easy as flipping a switch. --

9308: 340: 275: 10544:. I think that this has become a very interesting discussion. My first reaction had been to oppose out of concerns about hounding, but I've been won over by how useful this could be, both for monitoring problem users and for collaborative projects. I like the ideas of making it a user-right assigned, on request, by administrators, and of having a "who watches here" link available, as two ways of combating misuse. -- 512:: Yes, please, speak to Geoff. The language of that wording is very specific ("by clicking the save page", implies affirmative consent, for instance). It's really really important that the WMF's Legal and Community Advocacy department be made aware of what language is decided upon here, prior to implementation. I know that Geoff will work with you, but there are some things that have to be, for legal reasons. 10599:

you used multiple tabs, you wouldn't be able to look through several editor's contributions at once. Adding a feature to the watchlist, allowing someone to bulk watch editors, makes stalking extremely convenient. While it might be useful for watching vandals, it would be highly prone to abuse. Particularly during heated content disputes, making it more likely for a dispute to spill out into multiple articles.

9469:." I always try to assume good faith whenever there's any doubt, even with users who add anti-Semitic comments to articles (this is a real example, I tried to reach out to the user). But some vandalism is pretty damn obvious, like adding nonsense or spam. When you see a user who has a long history of vandalism, it's pretty clear that the vandalism will continue until the IP is reassigned or the user grow up. 6481: 11801: 10156:

because it's too much trouble. In the past I tried adding links to users' contributions to my user page for my own convenience - I'm not sure if making the list of watched users public encourages or discourages hounding, is this a good idea? If the devs aren't amenable to it, I might consider implementing a Toolserver tool for this, which would be quite simple and probably isn't against the privacy policy.

12306:

people actually use a particular section edit link compared to how many read the article, but they're still useful to have. More seriously though, I think the benefit of the VTE links outweighs the cost (access vs. 'clutter'), and it's not hard to find out what they do (click or mouse over). And when a user does click or mouse over one, they can see how easy it is to access and edit such pages. --

8477:. There are some Knowledge editors who are handicapped and can only edit with a mouthstick or a device that scrolls letters by to be selected with a mouth puff. These editors are physically incapable of making a large number of edits. Any policy that discriminates against editors based upon quantity of edits rather than quality of edits could be argued as being a violation of the Disabilities Act. -- 2747:. Account registration isn't required. It is an option open to allow IP editors extra tools (i.e. rollback, adminship, scripts, edit protected pages, etc.). What is the harm in adding a link to their contributions page in the top right corner near the login button. The page already exists, so how can a simple link be abused. All it will do is make it easier for IPs to find their contributions page. 221:. Of course if the old file revision has been deleted we have to decide whether to show a red link, or the current revision. Old file revisions that are copyvios need to be deleted anyway - merely uploading over them is not sufficient - so that's not an argument against it. Note however that transcluded templates present exactly the same problem - do we want to use older revisions of those too? 6579:) with the extra tools. There is no indication in this thread that it has changed and the consensus of the community is to keep things the way they are. Though administrators may need to be more careful when issuing blocks (as noted by some of the users commenting) this does not mean the community has lost trust in all administrators to issue appropriate blocks for long term project users. -- 8456:

users. I for one would take much more time and would be much more hesitant to block a very established editor, not doing so without double and triple checking the facts, my rationale, and what effects it would likely have, and in some ways this means any block I were to make of a very established user might very well be one of the more thought out blocks I would make; this is pretty much

10730:; a tool like this could be quite useful. Personally, a lot of the areas I work in involve editors who aren't outright vandals or perfect editors, but somewhere in the grey area inbeweeen, and a tool like this would be helpful (though I already use a certain offsite tool, that's not a perfect solution). For instance, dealing with educational projects (lots of new student editors). 6412:, which is precisely where external glossary references would normally want to point. If the software could be made to recognize and anchor that internal Knowledge standard, that would be great, but such an enhancement is unlikely in the near term. Hence my current request is merely to be able to anchors to first sentences without their being removed by over-zealous editors. 10771:. Very useful for vandalism response and at the same time this tool would also allow to help new editors out. No violation of AGF here - at that point then we should stop Huggle highlighting contribs from warned users. Should not really limit to any user group, it would just create another status for no real reason: anybody can check other user's contributions already. -- 6899:: Make sense—someone with four times the edit count of an admin (considering it's hard to become an admin with less that 5,000 edits) without already being indeffed or banned isn't likely here to be a nuisance. It would be respectful of that editor's large contribution to Knowledge that someone with a likewise vestment in the project make the determination on a block. — 3550:@Josh: That would be me. I keep a record of the number of templates missing descriptions that I update once a week, though I admit it's more for my own purposes than anything else. And no, I don't think that bots are the best answer to this one - slightly ironically, persondata was made so that biographies could be made accessible to machines, and bots are in fact the 1870:- self-explanatory. This category should deal with pages which have issues in the amount of content they have, if articles are stubs, and whether the article explains in depth and with many examples the topic that it covers. This section will also deal with whether lists comprehensively cover what they are supposed to and have basic properties of all of their subjects 8564:. Sensible admins have almost no incentives to block useful editors, and non-sensible admins would have perverse incentives to boost their edit count artificially. The problem of non-sensible admins blocking non-sensible but useful editors inappropriately needs the solution "knock heads together", not anything in the way of silly metrics as is being suggested here. 7394:, the good judgement and/or (in)competence of administrators cannot be measured in the number of edits, and even if it could, it has little to do with the ethics of an administrator when it comes to blocking established editors. As for judgement, it can only be evaluated after the fact, through the proper procedure. Blanket restrictions are not the answer. 3393:(In fact I remember participating in a similar thing with interlanguage links a few year ago, where editors compared articles in different languages and pressed a button to say if the articles were about the same subject or not. If enough people agreed a bot automatically added the links, and if they disagreed that pairing was taken off the database.) 7562:: per nominator's idea and Mark Arsten. The obvious exemptions would be intentional unambiguous, repeated vandalism, per consensus or bot accounts. On any other reasons when an experienced admin isn't available, community consensus should be sought. Some one with four times the experience of an admin would have a rather better judgement than him. -- 9933:

monitoring of only one or two. Also, as noted, there's no reason to allow watchlisting of logged-in users. The actions of logged-in users already tend to be subject to stricter scrutiny, I think in part because they're easier to recognize than an IP number, and in part because blocking a user will only affect that user, whereas blocking a vandal

7971:- I also agree that too many administrators have too much power and too frequently don't use it correctly. They frequently take the easiest possible solution without reviewing the whole problem. In general I support eliminating the role of administrator and replace that role by granting the tasks in sets (like rollbacker, File mover, etc.). 483:: yeah, I looked and thought about the last proposal as well. But it got bogged down in the need for the legal team to have a look. Since none of them were around, it was rather pushed into the long grass. Also as I recall WikiEd or somesuch reorganises the lower sections. Speak to Geoff or someone and come back with approval, I think. 767:

the proper definition of a minor edit. See, we need to push editors to provide edit summaries, understand it well, not use it as a text-messaging service and be clear about why the summary means so much. Of course there are editors who simply want to make it hard for others to see what they've done and refuse to summarise anything.--

8581:. If anything, it should be easier to block problem users, and there are plenty of avenues to appeal a block and plenty of administrators willing to unblock. This would only further entrench long-term problem users. (For the record my comments don't refer to anyone in this discussion or under discussion here.) 6916:: In general, Admins have too much power and long-term Editors have too little, this goes towards evening out the balance a bit, although ultimately I think the cure is to require Admins to re-run for Adminship periodically. Until then, we can expect Admins to continue to treat Editors with a lack of respect. 7811:. If there's some statistic that objectively indicates a person's skill and judgment with some degree of accuracy, this might be a good idea. That statistic is certainly not edit count (and if such a thing were discovered, I think it would be a major scientific achievement). PS. This proposal looks pretty 12290:

Sure, if they happen to guess that "E" is a link to edit the template. So maybe half of people who want to edit the template would actually use the links, and the percentage of people who want to edit the template is maybe 0.001% of the people who read the article. So for half of 0.001% of our users,

11562:

There is no good reason for any of these proposals. Not a single person has given a single good reason on this page for why this shouldn't be a fully available built-in feature if it is implemented. I can respond point-by-point to each one of these proposals, but this shouldn't really be necessary as

11385:

as a right granted in a fashion similar to rollback. I would characterize rejection of this proposal as comparable to gun laws -- more detrimental to people who would use it legitimately than to those who would abuse it. Stalking is already very easy for those who want to do it, and is a silly reason

11321:

anyway. I know that may be a contentious issue, but people wanting to weigh in on this particular discussion need to give actual reasons, not just "support" or "oppose". Votes of opposition mean nothing without actual arguments behind them; I don't know how many times that needs to be said. There are

11298:

I hear what you're saying. My response, though, would be to point out, that despite rollback being accessible in other forms to non-admins, there is still an idea that rollback itself should be an admin privilege. So to here, just because there are ways to accomplish the same task without privileges,

11272:

can use, has a rollback feature as well. Any user losing his rollback priveleges can still rollback i.e. the approval process is more or less useless. Is regular rollback easier than Twinkle rollback? Slightly, yes. But there is no way to stop someone from using rollback or undo or opening a previous

10736:

I really don't see the stalking concerns. I've seen a few vandals start editing dozens of pages as soon as they are off their block before being blocked again. If this tool was available, anybody who reported that user could immediately see when the edits start and check if they are indeed vandalism.

10598:

I believe it could be possible such a feature would increase stalking problems. Right now, in order to stalk an editor, you have to look up their contributions page. Most editors don't constantly stalk another user's contributions. Additionally, you really can only stalk one person at a time. Even if

10168:

I would use this for the students in the classes for which I am an online ambassador. Then I can provide more timely assistance when they actually edit. There already is somthing for this on the tool server, but it is pretty locked down so that it takes a while to get new stuff in. I don't mind if it

8937:

The issue at hand is not so much with the ability of admins to block established editors, as if they do so for no reason. The issue is with established editors who might edit in ways that deserve a block, relying on their knowledge that someone will step in to unblock them if they do get blocked. The

7721:

Kumioko (your edit history gives you away, btw), this is no place for personal attacks. You've already gone after everyone else you feel has wronged you, and have now finally gotten around to posting again on my talk page. Please stop hiding behind an IP while sniping at me. My vote has nothing to do

7650:

Would not a reasonable move be to require all blocks of editors with over (say) 8,000 article and article talk page edits to be vetted by at least two admins at the start? For socks etc. I doubt this would be exceedingly onerous a requirement, but it might stop "quick finger blocks" which have a fair

6672:

Come to think of it, I don't think this will be a good idea. Experience is not by number, it is by quality. Also, there will times for emergency cases, like the Bot example I gave, that could go out of control. How can we block a bot with over a million edits? I think only a few people, if ever, will

6489:

First, you're not helping your cause by being so insulting. This isn't something to be fixed here on en.wikipedia. Manually adding html anchors to specific pages is just bad form, and would lead to frustration & confusion when someone tries to link back to a page where they're not implemented. It

5401:

One other approach would be to increase our use of hidden infobox fields, and make sure they search properly. It's not much help to prominently display relatively technical identifiers in an article, but if we used something like persondata - a hidden metadata template - this would be a great use for

5397:

Rather than onwiki namespaces, it might be possible to do something using a simple lookup database - toolserver.org/UID/Ensembl/ENSG00000163914 spits out the relevant article, with the option of adding /en or /de to the URL to select the desired language, etc. I do like the idea very much - I can see

3307:

is a small snip-it of AWB code that will add Footballer if the SHORT DESCRIPTION field is blank. This will probably be all you need if you are getting a list of articles based off of a category. I agree with Kumioko, that the big ones should be knocked out first and sportspeople is the #1 big one.

12435:

This proposal relies on two flawed assumptions: That all non registered people are not interested in editing, and that all non registered people don't understand how the templates work. Both are obviously incorrect. There are many non-registered editors who make use of the ability to edit templates

12414:

What your proposing would have the same effect as semi-protecting the whole of template space, with the downside that experienced vandals can circumvent it easily by going to the template page directly. We already protect way too many templates because they are "high risk", I would definitely oppose

11435:

Whether we like it or not, this has potential problems written all over it. Better to start this way, at least for now. I remember the discussions about the implementation of rollback, and how there were those who said that that should not be a separate userright. I don't see much of a difference in

10946:

Added note: I've been considering renaming this to "Followed users" and allow you to "Follow/unfollow" a user. The intention is to make it sound a bit less sinister (e.g. "we are watching you") and suggest a similarity with other websites where following just lets you check out what other people are

10282:

The marginal increase in convenience to wiki-stalkers–nothing unless they are stalking multiple users–is worth the potential for fostering collaboration, as Mlm42 points out, and for adoptors and mentors monitoring the edits of their charges. I wish this sort of option had been easily available when

10155:

for both IPs and registered users. It's not uncommon for warned users to "lay low" after receiving a warning, and return to vandalizing a few months later. There are several occasions on which I've failed to follow up on users after giving them a "I will block you if this behavior continues" warning

9805:

The other point I'd like to make is that I've seen a number of cases where problematic IP edits have gone unnoticed for months or even years, and I'm sure there's more we've all missed. All it takes is for a bot or user to revert vandalism by one IP but not the one that preceded it, or for a user to

9749:

That's why I observed that it might be difficult. However page-protection already shows up in watchlists, and then there's the watchlist itself. It would seem to be a relatively simple matter of transcluding (not the right word, I know), any new user contributions to the Special:Watchlist page, as

8973:

That's a key part of the proposal. Yes there will be a little more caution in blocking people and maybe some vested contributors will get warnings instead of blocks. But when a vested contributor is blocked then I'd be surprised if it didn't stick until either the block expired or the blocked editor

8911:

If you'll excuse the sweeping generalization, any admin who's never blocked anyone with 1,000 edits probably tends to stay away from ANI drama. In my experience, plenty of established users do get blocked, but you wouldn't know it if you just patrol AIV etc. That's not a judgment -- I try to keep my

8412:

Under this proposal there are only 8 editors who I wouldn't be "qualified" to block, and a large proportion of admins wouldn't be qualified to block me. Yet a large proportion of my edits are minor and flagged as such. I don't dispute that blocking of experienced members of the community needs to be

8265:

editors have a perfectly clean block log, and even if fully of half your blocks were truly improper, then you'd still be on the list of people who have a far longer block log than average. As a result, your proposal still smells like an editor who's been blocked a lot of times trying to cut down on

7224:

is a terrible idea. The correct solution is to provide: 1. a good solution for appealing blocks; 2. desysoping of admins who abuse blocks consistently; 3. a policy which would allow (in certain situations) temporary reversal of a block for the purpose of having a consensus discussion regarding it in

6861:

This seems like a basically good idea, I tend to think that only experienced admins should be blocking experienced users. One potential problem, there is one user with almost a million edits, but there are very few admins with 250,000 edits that could block him (not saying he needs blocking, this is

5589:

article. I don't see any harm in adding these types of redirects, but at the same time I do not see any particular advantages either, especially considering that search engines can rapidly locate the desired article. For the rhodopsin article alone, there would be an almost endless list of possible

5458:

being able to do a practical demonstration, which risks becoming a vicious circle... (Transferring a proof-of-concept database to the wiki should be relatively simple, if the namespaces are later enabled - it'd be a matter of running a script to populate the redirects. The converse is true, as well,

5326:

redirect system. Redirects are cheap, and I can't see how the it would interfere. If other commenters have a negative outcome in mind, then I may need to re-evaluate. At the moment I can't see it. Not sure what "A better approach would be to reuse the data already in infoboxes to seed the interface,

4964:

2) The proposal is unclear as to where this edit link is to appear. You mention a "reference" section: does this mean specifically a section titled "References"? Or some other section? Or is the edit link to follow the citation (reference) wherever it is displayed? Or do you propose that these edit

4938:

I just tried the demo. Very, very good. But hey, I do AWB once a month. I really need to learn HotCat, to use it once a month. Maybe I am a TWinkle-editor, once a month. You get my point? I am a serious editor, with many edits, but having to (learn to) use an App is not good. Just give me an click,

4390:

Just above the actual content of the watchlist is a dropbox that says "Namespace". If you select "Talk" from that and click the "Go" button, it will show you only the recent changes to talk pages. Slightly less convenient that having them highlighted amongst all the others, yes, but it should help a

4117:

and including any of the various cat:csd's you feel like, lets you have a regular steam of csd's on your watchlist, and is handy for other backlogs too like requests for unblock, or edit requests. If enough admins used this script those backlogs would be a lot lower. (Yes this is a blatant plug, but

1788:

This one is excellent, been using it since quite some time.. but it saves its settings to your browser, so you won't have the same settings on another computer. Some thing like this should be rolled out in general instead. There was also a consensus for recent watchlist changes... what ever happened

695:

The issue really is that editors don't leave proper edit summaries. This proposal would hide the problem by putting automatic text in for the edit summary. At least seeing it blank is an opportunity to educate the user to proper Wiki etiquette. Plus, no computer system is going to be smart enough to

12305:

Eh, by those stats, we could also get rid of section 'edit' links and especially interwiki links. I have no idea what most of the languages are by looking at them, so perhaps we should get rid of all interwikis and use a gadget to re-add them for those who want a particular language? And very few

12275:

Removing the links and adding a gadget to re-add them sounds like a solution in search of a problem. The links are helpful for inexperienced editors to find and edit the templates, and the clutter is minimal. Hiding them on the mobile version might be fine (but there may be some technical hurdles

11687:

Well, no, what you should be doing (or what the community should be doing), is analysing whether that article needs to be pruned. Some phenomena come and go, others remain. It's not for Wiki to record everything that gets posted on Reddit. Frankly, making geeks feel good about themselves is not how

10688:

as a useful tool to monitor for trouble; suggestions for restriction to IPs are misguided, as plenty of vandalism comes from user accounts, and spammers, COIs, SPAs use accounts too. An ability to only show all fresh edits would be very helpful. Extending this convenience to all editors will have a

10615:

It could be abused, I agree. I'd hate to lose a useful feature just because people might abuse it, though; there's a case on AN/I right now where action is being tabled because the editor has stopped editing (for now, at least). I would be really helpful to know (without having to remember to check

9974:

I actually made a userscript that did this years ago - it would take any user pages on your watchlist, then put those names into the wikipedia api, get out their recent contributions then display the results in a formatted list. Unfortunately the api then changed significantly and I haven't had the

9825:

I am more than a little puzzled by the fears expressed here about people misusing the capability proposed. On the one hand, there is nothing to prevent anyone from looking at the contributions of a given Knowledge user at any time so this will hardly be opening up some kind of Pandora's box. On the

9726:

Without regard to the supposed moral hazard this presents, I'm not sure that this is technically feasible using the way that watchlists work. Actual "pages" in Knowledge consist of text which is only changed when someone changes it; the text itself is stored in the database, which is why it can be

8955:

On the other hand, if only crats were able to reverse blocks that were made by crats, then allowing only crats to perform these blocks might provide some net benefit. The main issue is not really with the blocking, it's with blocking followed immediately by unblocking. The difficulty, of course, is

8718:

I agree with what Edison says to an extent about the edit count not always being reflective of quality article and article work but I have experienced some situations where editors who have contributed practically nothing to the encyclopedia itself with tools who seem to relish blocking some of the

8455:

Upon reading my comment further I should probably clarify. My issue with this proposal isn't necessarily how I would fare as an admin under the proposal, more that edit count doesn't equate with the ability or lack thereof to make well-reasoned, policy based blocks, and that includes of established

8397:

That's very true and if you can't admit that that's what goes on in the running of wikipedia... Unfortunately it is wiki lawyering for being "more equal than others" which qualifies, not content contribution. I also believe content contributors with years of experience should be given the authority

8142:

I'd never read that essay before, but I'm struck by "no editors are more equal than others". That's a nice and cosy ideal, but it just doesn't match the real world. Is a 10-year-old who doesn't even understand what an encyclopedia is as valuable to the project as a university professor? Is a Korean

7932:

This is a case of "I know what you mean but..." The fact is that the dynamic of WP administration, especially admin on admin and established editor on established editor abuse is far more complex than that. Many admins start off all starry eyed and AGFy, and "Blocks aren't punitive" and "Leets

7160:

So you make it so that it has to be done at ANI or something and discussed rather than just leave it to one admin to do a "knee jerk reaction". I don't know whats worse in that statement Sarek. The inferance that Kumioko was just some vandal or that an editor that makes a lot of edits, automated or

6431:

pages (or none) get this enhancement. Manually creating anchors for the particular pages you want to reference from an outside site is a terrible idea, it would require a massive clean up work when/if a better way to link to the lead is ever implemented. Your better option is to submit the feature

5958:

It's a complicated problem. I'd suggest tagging the image (rather than the article), except that most of our images are at Commons, and the English Knowledge can't really go tag the image files over at Commons for non-compliance with our standards. Additionally, the image could be perfectly fine,

5465:

adding alternate-language capacity via the same URL, without having to seperately query xx.wp and xy.wp and xz.wp to see if there are entries in the preferred languages. (I can imagine a case where a database would say "We need results in Polish, alternatively falling back to German or Russian, and

5357:

I'm not convinced that "who knows" is a sufficient reason to spend the time & resources of the WikiMedia on fixing a problem which does not yet exist, when they could be used to fix problems that we do know exist. If I've just not fully understood the proposal (which may well be the case), just

3849:

Sometimes government organizations have to put in some sort of disclaimer where they have not been able to cater properly for people with a disability because of requirements on them to deal with such problems. However the only requirement on Knowledge is a moral one so no disclaimer is needed just

3580:

I have done some work on this, and it is not that hard. However using cats as is being done now is not that great an idea. The reason is that the categories are as readily available as the short description parameter, so that not only is no information added, but the ease-of-use gain is negligible.

3531:

like a good idea in theory but in reality Knowledge is the modal of crowdsourcing and these entries have been empty for years (and apparently will be empty for years to come) so if you have a good idea then please present it. You are both very good programmers so I imagine you both have some really

3033:

I revert a lot of vandalism, and a lot of this is from unregistered IPs (and lets drop the "anon" part - IPs make more identity visible than disposable accounts). I would find it enormously useful to have this link, and having it would allow me one-click access to a page that I need to read, rather

2623:

it is quite sensible to have a tab for IPs to see their contributions. Although they don't have an account, they may want to check back on a page they previously edited. Before creating an account, I edited as an IP, and it was very annoying trying to check back on edits I previously made. There is

2597:

There aren't any serial sockpuppeteers that don't know how to get to a contributions page. This change will only make it easier for IP editors to find out what edits came from their IP. How on earth is that a bad thing. The page is already generated, it can't be abused, so what is the problem here?

11665:

I support the addition of any article which meets our criteria for inclusion. If the articles not linked from the article you mentioned don't exist, and they meet our criteria, then I support their creation. If someone wants to create redirects for the items in the meantime, until the articles get

9104:

authority when it comes to blocking established editors, because some other admin will always come along and unblock the established editor. So in fact even a well-deserved block of an established editor is hard to keep in effect, much less an ill-advised one. Admins don't "get away" with anything

7371:

This isn't a completely bad idea, as it would be a good way of preventing admin overreaching or abuse, but I think it would be extremely difficult to maintain as a guideline or policy. So, my question is this: what if an "established editor" repeatedly disrupts an article, a process, or blatantly

6301:

and the long post that DrFree wants an anchor when the "main text" starts after any hatnotes, message boxes, infoboxes, images and whatever. That would be difficult to determine for mw. A possible combined editor/mw solution would be that editors could place an anchor with a standardized name like

5890:

be changed to a link. Contributors should be encouraged to edit, and no one should revert changes merely because they are not properly formatted, so invalid links are not a big deal. As stated above, it would be best for an experienced editor to review the text and decide on the appropriate action

3921:

Additionally, what Graham says about the variety of disabilities is important. The list of possible statements is nearly endless. In addition to "if you have trouble reading in general, you'll probably have trouble reading Knowledge" (dyslexia), we could equally well say that if you have trouble

3077:

been saved as IP, when you get automatically signed off. All these are little issues, but would overall increase the editing experience. I don't suggest placing those links where the signed-in user's links are (that would confuse a lot of folks), but instead in one of those dropdowns, or a new one

2842:

I can't give a better rationale than CharlieEchoTango or Alpha Quadrant, so this support is per their comments. I too, fail to understand what "abuse" this virtual, dynamic list of contributions is likely to cause. There are many very productive IP editors to whom this would be a boon, and I can't

2820:

per Alpha Quadrant. None of the opposes make sense to me, how can one abuse a Special:Contributions page? It's a page no one has control over and it already exists since it is dynamically generated; linking it would be useful for many unregistered contributors just like it is useful for registered

766:

There is another problem revealed here: many editors do not fully comprehend how an edit summary should be written. I believe some of them don't even see the box when they edit, or simply don't know what to put. I myself as a raw newbie used to mark too many edits as 'minor' because I did not know

735:

It seems unlikely that such a thing could be done accurately. I love the idea, I just think it is technologically unfeasible. How is the editing process itself supposed to detect then summarise edits not summarised by the editor? See my proposal below... I do actually think my proposal is a better

12326:

This is just food for thought, but maybe hide them from IP editors, and let them display by default to registered users (no gadget required)? Navboxes are UI elements, rather than article content or discussion that should be considered as part of the "anyone can edit" principle applied elsewhere.

11598:

are; if a user harasses another user based on stalking their contributions (using this or any other tool), they can be blocked for harassment without any extra complexity of permissions needing to be added to this tool. Why not log every time a user checks a contributions page and give admins the

11593:

of Knowledge) for harassment purposes, they are already able to be blocked. Why add more complexity? If a user cannot keep themselves from abusing this or any other tool or feature of Knowledge for harassment or other policy-breaching purposes, they can be blocked. There is nothing wrong with any

10925:

There is no benefit of the extra complexity and overhead it would take to implement and support such a permission system. People who want to abuse Knowledge will do so with or without this feature. Even if this tool was used for stalking/harassment it would likely just make it easier to find such

10837:

That would be great, although I see no need for watchlists to be public. Users could take offense thinking that they are being accused of vandalism or sockpuppetry. But really it's just not necessary. As has been stated, a tool such as this would not add any new information, simply make available

9542:

after reading other arguments. Stalking is probably not as big of a deal, and stalkers already stalk contributions, this will only make it marginally easier. On the other hand, this is very useful for rarely-editing users/IPs so every one doesn't need to be checked manually. Although I'd like for

7670:

Fails to take account of security issues. Sometimes accounts of long-established contributors get hacked and the person goes on a campaign of vandalism. It's perfectly reasonable to block those however many edits they've got. Also, some of our most long-standing admins have few edits, because way

7467:

reinforces vested contributors. Furthermore, does not account for minor contributions and AWB runs and page move warriors, so the metric is useless anyway. (For the record, I have 55,000+ edits and am an admin anyway, so there's only a small handful of editors that I could theoretically not block

6645:

I'm not getting the point you are giving. But I don't think this is a good idea. For example, a sysop with only 5000 edits is free to block a user who has around 50000 edits who is revealed to be a sockpuppet of a banned user, as long as he/she has a very good understanding of Knowledge policies.

5790:

It could have a limited benefit, but overall I think the impact would be negative. People need to realize that a full URL includes the scheme. Some popular browsers are now omitting the scheme in the address bar by default (or in the case of Chrome, totally removing the option of ever showing the

4451:

I'd love that! Sometimes when I'm at the uni, I get kicked out of the computer room because there's lessons. When hat happens, I must rush to add the template "in progress" and save, or I lose the whole work. With that, I could leave the computer easily and resume the work somewhere else. Thanks!

3502:

Yeah, they shot it down because any bot would produce an error, therefore a bot can't work on it. It sounded like they didn't even like "normal" people working on it because of the errors a normal human would produce. As the number of articles missing the description parameter has gone up every

2562:

Yes, it is a reason to create an account, but it is technically possible to add an IP editor as well. With that said, the second part of your comment is plain wrong. IP editors already have a Special:Contributions page, it is just hard to find because it isn't in a prominent location. Sockpuppets

2204:

The obvious consensus here is to add a contributions link for anon IP editors to the interface. Looking through the comments on the RfC, it would be reasonable to say that it should be logically named, and not say "My contributions" but something to indicate there could be more than one editor on

12394:

It's precisely because they aren't contained in the current page that I'm thinking there's reason to consider this (not inviting navbox edits from "just anyone"). It's relatively easy to make a mistake, intentional disruption, or controversial change affecting lots of articles. And those changes

9849:

the idea, although its implementation might not be doable inside the current Special:Watchlist functionality. I don't find arguments about the dangers of stalking to be at all compelling. Stalkers already have a single page where they can see all of their target's contributions, so it's merely a

9394:

Yes, with what Izno points out, and the substantial changes needed to software (I think) to "subscribe" to specific versions of what is a virtual "Special" page, I can't see this gaining much traction. There are so many "stalking" concerns it would be bound to open up, and truly, I share some of

8723:

is a problem and in certain situations, especially when it is a veteran editor with years of experience edit conflicting with a newbie, I believe the well established editor's perception on what or what is not appropriate for the article should be taken into consideration. I believe a lot of ANI

6354:

Such a slippery slope is far-fetched, but the benefits to the encyclopedia are obvious: the ability to reference particular items of information, rather than whole pages or just the predefined sections, would make Knowledge the natural collection of background information to be referenced by web

6316:

All I am really asking is for a more permissive attitude towards anchors. In general it is difficult to anticipate where in an article an author might want to point. The only special place that perhaps needs an automatic anchor is the lead paragraph, which the MOS requires to have both the topic

5631:

That's why bots were invented. When we have large numbers of articles with specific unique identifiers, a bot will not have difficulty figuring out the one that's applicable to each article. This is a simple enough task that I doubt we'll see false positives except for occasional vandalism and

4021:

Many admins will have a dashboard that tells us of backlogs in areas where we are active. Posting on admin noticeboards about all backlogs is liable to be counterproductive, I'd suggest we reserve that for backlogs at AIV and the deletion of attack pages. With RFA broken the number of admins has

3815:

I think you misunderstood what I was suggesting. I didn't mean another disclaimer page, because I don't think this is something to be "disclaimed" rather something along the lines of a page with advice on using Knowledge for the differently-abled, much like Microsoft Windows has an accessibility

3322:

If you have the code ready, then by all means use it. Knock a big one out. WikiProject Football has 37,000 articles missing the short description. Infobox footballer could be a football player or manager if you use that, by the way. So, sometimes a manager who has never played football will have

3255:

I would suggest starting with the big win categories, Actors, Athletes, politicians and military persons. Depending on how detailed you want the description (can you say American politician or does it need to be Arizona governor) could depend on how easy or difficult the logic need be. Frankly I

3175:

I could possibly write this up if there's consensus. My initial thought was a user script, but my second thought was a Web page that just rotates through articles, shows the article title, lead, maybe an infobox if there is one, some automatically-suggested short descriptions, then lets the user

10854:

Well, a number of the supporters above noted it could also be used for collaboration, for Knowledge in the classroom, for helping newbies, or even a mentor who they follow to learn from, so I think it would be erroneous for people to infer anything from being on someone's list. A notice to that

5665:

If wikipedia uses the codes it already has, to crate redirects to the appropriate train station or protein page, then by making one simple change in my website code, I can link all of my train station entries to wikipedia: my users can navigate from my website record to the apropriate wikipedia

5367:

It's hard to say, ItsZippy. Who knows what's in your head? What I know is this: right now anyone who has an app which uses UIDs finds wikipedia inaccessible. If we re-use UIDs to enable access to article text, it becomes utterly trivial for any third party dealing in UIDs to access our content.

5178:

I think the main reason that we don't have dates visible in "citation needed" tags is that it would take up more space and, actually, it wouldn't in practice be a very good guide to how seriously to take the tag. Sometimes the tag can be there a long time and it turns out that the info is true.

3390:

of adding descriptions based on infoboxes/categories/project banners, and requesting human confirmation (using Madman's idea on the Toolserver or somewhere else) on the ones it doesn't like. Though I was just jotting ideas down at the time, it was made to address the problem of articles with no

718:

It seems like it would be easy to add some kind of marker to visually distinguish automatic edit summaries from manual ones, so that nothing is being "hidden." Moreover, intention can often be inferred easily from the content of the edit (for example, if it's "changed serius to serious" you can

11702:

That's also a very fair point. I was trying to avoid the details of the article and respond in general, because I don't think this is the right place to discuss a specific article, but, in the context, yes, we are not a directory of internet memes, and, while they should be subject to the same

11579:

I agree with that - in fact I'm not sure exactly what abuse people have in mind other than a vague uneasiness about "stalking". I'm hoping that this set of proposed solutions will at least provoke thought about exactly what the issue is so we can get a clearer explanation. I do believe certain

9153:

However, putting in an actual guideline for what process to follow when you disagree with an admin action might be beneficial. Right now, it basically involves running straight to AN/I or ArbCom, which just tends to exacerbate things. As you say, CBM, established editors already get a lot more

8769:

I doubt if we have many vandals who get near enough edits to get immunity under this proposal before they get blocked. Copyvio, plagiarism and running unauthorised bots on their main account, yes that all happens. But when did we last encounter an account committing vandalism after more than a

8602:

A high edit edit count is not a meaningful basis for protecting an editor from a block by an admin with less than 1/4 as many edits. Some editors boost their edit count by a profusion of small edits: add a comma, remove it, add a phrase, move it somewhere else, move it back. Or they chit-chat

8434:

I can see the point behind the general idea, but this particular implementation would have all sorts of problems. Chief amongst them is the use of edit count as a metric. Should minor edits be valued equally to major ones? Is someone who takes ten edits to do what others manage in one, thereby

7485:

There are not different levels of administrators. The RFA process is the time to worry about whether an editor has enough edits to be an admin. Once the editor becomes an admin, the issue of whether they have enough experience is settled. Moreover, the proposed system might give a way for some

6464:

So the situation appears to be: (1) The first sentence of an article is important enough to have very special standards applied to it by the Manual of Style. (2) Those very standards make it an attractive point of reference to other web sites, both within and without Knowledge. (3) There is no

6407:

Separating the general question of allowing editors to insert anchors where they find them useful, from the question of anchoring the lead paragraph, it would appear that this is not a software enhancement, because it is based on an internal Knowledge standard which assigns special status to a

5604:

The particular claimed advantage is that a third party database using UIDs can link to wikipedia articles at something like nil marginal cost. Given that we have UIDs in articles, leveraging them to create redirects is also pretty much nil marginal cost. There may be many redirects to a single

3517:

That's a reasonable summation. A crowdsourced solution ought to address both problems, by waiting until enough humans agree on what the short description ought to be. I think someone pointed out earlier that the backlog was getting smaller, but I haven't sighted any data one way or the other.

995:

are what you see when you print a page. We dont realy have a need to do this for our readable version because the print version will make the ugly hard to read references automatically. Are you saying you like the url to be seen at all the time? We have templates to prevent this from happening

680:

tool automatically produces detailed edit summaries describing exactly what was added, removed, or modified. For larger edits we'd just need a bit of technology to automatically summarize the edit in a useful manner (e.g. I could imagine an automatic program producing "Add paragraph to Cuisine

11643:

You'd have to challenge each article one by one. If a discrete phenomena article meets notability then it is legitimate for the article to remain as is. There are many list pages that shell out into discrete articles. So no, no support from me for a blanket "should redirect to the list page".

10583:

It's been my observation that stalky types tend to focus on a small handful of editors, often just one or two. They can easily do that now by bookmarking the contributions pages of their targets; are you concerned that these people will expand their stalking to more editors with this feature?

8491:

That's a pretty bizarre interpretation of US law, let's hope that you're not a lawyer. On the other hand, the US has so many more lawyers than any other country on Earth that I suppose they have to have something to argue about, to keep them busy. So long as someone else is paying, of course.

5495:

Yes; a project would be a good idea. Google searching would be one benefit, but the primary purpose would be so that other websites (online databases) and apps could programmatically create URLs like, say, http://en.wikipedia.org/UID/Ensembl/Foo, where "Foo" is a UID, and be redirected to the

3339:

I would do it by category and not infobox. I can do those that have both footballer and manager categories and then do just the individual categories. The same procedure can then be done for other sports. I think things would be more complicated for politicians, arts and the other groups.

3010:, no need for any new UI features such as a tab, since the UI is cluttered enough already (or at most, "meh"). Adding to Special:SpecialPages seems to satisfy the original proposer who first asked for the feature. I've been editing from IP addresses for ages and have never had trouble using 2399:

Er, I'm not following. Yes, there's no requirement to EDIT Knowledge, and there never will be. But people ARE "strongly encouraged" to get an account. I'm not opposed per se to making it easier for IPs to see their contributions, but to say that "There is no valid reason I can see to make the

9932:

As another user noted above, stalking users is already possible through the Special:Contributions page. It's also possible to watch vandals the same way, of course. The difference is that fighting vandals effectively requires the monitoring of many pages, while stalking a user requires the

5719:- a unique UID namespace would be the best way to go about this - redirects are going to be cluttered, as one would require an exact format in order to obtain the page. With a UID namespace, people will not have to follow the exact format and UIDs will actually be a useful part of Knowledge. 5057:

And I find it quite inexplicable how you find "Reducing cite options to just harv is no way forward". I certainly have not suggested "reducing cite options" – I suggested an available option that is likely more useful, and certainly easier, than what you are proposing. That many editors are

2480:

is plain wrong: nobody is supposed to assume the good faith of each and every human being. This policy is the editing policy, it is applicable on individual talk pages. Still, anonymous IP edits are not difficult at all, and there was a good way provided to facilitate tuning of the editors'

1184:

Maybe because the user who tagged the pages didn't know any better? Maybe because he took a quick look and didn't realize that those are full bibliographic citations? People make mistakes all the time, and Knowledge is so complicated that nobody can keep up with all the details. Have you

10005:

That's my workaround as well -- I make bunches of bookmarks of potential problem-user contribs (typically new user names that remind me of banned users, or historically troublesome IPs, things like that) and then periodically open them all in tabs. Easy to do, requires no software update.

794:

This will automatically incorporate any attacks, copyvios or other bad edits ("poop fuck shit hahahahahah") into the edit summary. It's bad enough when they occur and aren't revdeleted, but now, instead of being hidden in a prior version and only likely to be discovered or viewed if a user

246:

Performance issues are not stable over the years, given changes in both software design and hardware design. Nor, as a function of implementation tradeoffs, is it necessary that there must be performance delays. I'm not one of the devs, I'm just saying that these are general principles.

2018:, I have voted there as well, and left some comments for the very defensive (and incorrect) developer. Let's hope they leave their rather entrenched position and actually listen to what we are suggesting, or that they at least provide some good examples of where this change is beneficial. 6984:

Leaving aside, for the moment, the question of whether self-respect is necessary to edit Knowledge; C.Fred, would you then also agree that (if this proposal were successful) if an administrator's block were procedurally overturned on the basis of this rule, without discussion, by another

5795:, and there is always the preview function; we don't need to encourage laziness in editing. Browsers are usually designed to be "friendly" in that they will try to figure out what you meant, but when writing an article we need to be specific with exactly what we're referring to. See also 2867:

but oppose on every page. Most unregistered visitors are only readers and many would be confused by a link for edits made by "their" IP address. In most cases there will be no edits anyway, but checking this and only displaying the link if there are edits would probably be too expensive.

3718:. I agree with Huntster, though, that in order to enable it here you would need to show a good reason and how it would be used to improve the encyclopedia, to overcome the concerns described. Incidentally, if you want to see Users' edit counts while browsing talk and contribution pages, 11935:

under the false assumption thinking you had something to do with it. I quickly realized I was in error again but got distracted and forgot to come back and fix the remark. Probably the work of many people, I guess, but maybe Harris is main designer. Don't know. Sorry for the confusion.

10897:

This does seem like something best done off-wiki, at least for now. But if it ever does come on-wiki, it should be done "by permission only," sort of like "Friends" on social networking sites. Privileged users such as administrators would be able to bypass this provided it was logged.

11277:

to do exactly what this tool just makes it a little easier to do. I have pointed this out more than once and as yet nobody has given any actual counter-argument, which gives even more credence to the viewpoint that the "potential for abuse" arguments given so far are not well founded.

8034:

Lack of a decent edit count is a pretty good indicator that one doesn't have enough experience, sure. But that doesn't mean the converse should be true (that a high edit count means one does necessarily have any sort of qualification), which is the claim being made with this proposal.

11864:

colorful enough? I can't imagine it would be too hard to add a couple extra dimensions to it, and more importantly, it has the advantage of having helpful mixed-Russian-Japanese redlinks. (By the way, it seems that the WMF actually does have plans to switch over to a new skin, called

7057:. I'm surprised that Malleus Fatuorum hasn't shown up to address this proposal; He can usually be relied upon to argue stridently against the power of privileged, elite editors who are not governed by the same standards of conduct as the newer, less-experienced, or less-connected. 5289:

I absolutely endorse this proposal - I'd be happy to be considered a co-proponent - which accords with moves to increase Knowledge's metadata and machine readability; as well as interoperability with other websites and apps. Alternative formats (and there will be others) would be

8844: 5845:

cleanup interests, which are way, way more important than extlink formatting cleanup interests. This would effectively hide a symptom indicative of an untreated disease, as it were. PS: poorly coded links are also one of the easiest ways to find crap in articles that violates

8870:

rare that longstanding editors get blocked or unblocked. All this talk about edit counts made me curious, so I took a look at my admin log. Turns out the last 14 accounts I blocked had edit counts of 158176, 318300, 260, 1, 3, 5, 5243, 6664, 19, 2, 3737, 191, 499 and 125630.

6426:

I agree that random creation of anchors by editors at arbitrary points is different than a sistematic anchoring of the lead paragraph, and that creating an automatic anchor for all the leads is a good thing. That said, this should be created by modifying the software so that

5402:

it. Including this alongside the referrer database or redirect would also help ensure we don't get errors creeping in due to page moves (which is likely if we start using geographical or personal identifiers); we can have a script patrolling for mismatches and flagging them.

4084:

Yeah, but that would defeat the purpose of the idea, which is to canvass more admins to do AIV/RPP/UAA work; therefore, I believe an opt-out would be a better idea if you want it this way, but I'd find it more efficient to just post at AN or ANI since these are very heavily

9135:

NB that I oppose this, even though it could theoretically benefit me. Malleus, who started this discussion, could only be blocked by 30% of the admin corps, but if his proposal was approved, only 12% of it could block me, and less than 1% could block Rich Farmbrough.

10800:

for IPs and redlinked accounts. (Easy way for a registered user to not have this work on them: edit their user page.) I also agree that this should be a userright handed out like rollback. (Wikihounding concerns don't seem enough to prevent this tool, but I think they

8143:

who can't speak a word of English as valuable as an experienced copy-editor? (I've nothing against either 10-year-olds or Koreans, they're just two actual examples I've come across recently). We should be encouraging the competent and discouraging the incompetent. --

11599:

ability to block users from viewing contributions pages? Contributions are public for a reason, and logs of viewed contributions pages are private for a reason. There is no need to add extra complexity simply because it may be easy from a technological perspective. —

6331:

No. While you may want anchors in articles at certain places for your website, other people may want anchors at different places for their websites. How would that benefit the encyclopedia? Articles are not formatted for the convenience of external websites without

5654:

THere are standard codes for train stations. THere are standard codes for Proteins. I run a web site or database dealing with train stations. And another dealing with proteins. I use these standard codes in my website. Right now, I cannot use these codes to link to

1331:

That's not what CITEVAR says. Read it again. "Editors may choose any option they want", and it is "considered helpful" to seek consensus before changing the citation style. CITEVAR is not policy. It's possibly questionable as a guideline. The controling policy is

7436:

to make a proposal that would leave only a handful of Admins available to block him). And as we know, any editor can suddenly develop problems that can only be stopped by blocking them. By the way, do we really have a system of edit counts that is 100% reliable?

4968:

3) If the core problem is the difficulty of template coding being mixed in with article text (and I agree that is a problem), then there is a much easier solution: gather all the templates together in one section (e.g., "References") and link to them using Harv.

4562:

but this isn't really what they are for. It would also require frequent updates and often be out of date. And many countries air foreign shows with a delay of weeks or months. I don't support going down this road but if we do then I think it should be a field in

8460:

I would have such a low edit count compared to the more established user I would be blocking. All in all, in my opinion, edit count differences should not preclude admins from making well-reasoned, policy based blocks of any user, including established users.

4425:

Sort of - Instead of the red notification icon, which is a bit in your face, and not very wikipedia; I think something subtle like a different text colour that is bold, just as a small reminder that something has changed since your last edit or visit Ideas?

10186:- it's already possible to follow a user's contributions, this proposal would only make it slightly easier to do so. I think the concerns about 'wikistalking' are outweighed by the potential benefits of keeping an eye on vandals and other problematic users. 11273:

version of a page, clicking edit, then clicking save. The point being that there are numerous ways to do what is essentially rollback without going through the approval process, or even if one loses their approval. The same is true for this feature. It is

7706:

Constant reversions of others edits also does that Mark with no real improvement to the project. Its obvious your referring to Kumioko but I should remind you that the majority of Kumioko's edits where not in adding WikiProject banners but in mainspace?

3073:. I often edit via IP when on public PCs and I must agree, this can be quite helpful by easing the way to keep track of what's done. At the same time, for those who have occasional cashe issues like myself; it would help to keep track of what edits have 996:

because some Urls are simply to long and thus makes pages looks sloppy and unprofessional. A bare url does not help our readers and in fact I would say long urls impede readers ability to read references properly. We have tools to help you with this see

11182:. So adding this as a MediaWiki feature and then limiting it will not have the intended effect anyway. Also, it would add completely unneeded complexity and overhead to make it a per-user permission and have a request process. It's simply a bad idea. — 10630:

I often track multiple users in multiple tabs, while doing other things totally unrelated to Knowledge, without breaking a sweat. It is already not at all hard to "stalk" multiple people, and this feature would have many very useful legitimate uses.

8546:, "long-term editors" should never be granted special treatment of any type. Being a good editor is already far too much of a license for abuse, and that problem needs to be fixed, not made worse. If anything, longer-term editors should be held to a 719:

reasonably infer it was a spelling correction). If an editor omits an explanation or justification for a controversial edit, they're more likely to be reverted and have to explain it on the talk page, so the incentive to include one is still there.

12395:

won't be detected as easily, since generally they won't be showing up in watchlists for people who edit articles where they're transcluded. Relatively few people actually have navboxes watchlisted, and the rest would need to catch errors visually.

2734:

IP editors are already capable of editing. They already have a contributions page. This proposal is about making it easier for IP editors to actually find their contributions page. Presently, they have to figure out what their IP address is, visit

11386:

to eschew the benefits this tool could have for vandal fighters. I used to use Tra's script tool a long time ago, back when it worked, and found it very useful for keeping an eye on known vandals who were smart enough to spread out their edits.

8889:

I doubt if I've ever blocked someone with a thousand edits. Such blocks are probably not even a daily event, so I doubt that our current crats would be stretched by them. If they were then very few extra crats would be needed to cover the load.

12067:

This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, in most cases, by clicking the "edit" tab at the top of the article or section you want to change. In some cases, however, you will find yourself unable to edit an article, since it may have been

9850:

matter of convenience. Stalkers are obsessive and they're already stalking without this tool, so this proposal would only change things for actual vandal fighters who don't watch vandals as closely as they might if it were easier to do so. —

7736:

I am not trying to hide. I closed out the Kumioko account, removed the password and scrambled it so its unrecoverable so any edits I make from this point will be by IP. Thanks to you and a few others User:Kumioko is dead and not coming back.

5453:

Firstly, in the short term, it's simpler. We can set up a test database of these links elsewhere as a demo without approval, since it doesn't have to tie directly into the wiki; going straight for onwiki namespaces involves getting consensus

112:

I don't see the point in that. If an individual revision was a copyright violation it was likely deleted; if not, including it in a historical version here is no different than displaying that historical version of the file page at Commons.

853:

there is one of two things we can try: a simple prompt to encourage edit summaries with emphasis on what an edit summary is; or, a simple indicator of an edit's length, such as we now have with the indication of words added/removed in the

9830:" is a serious form of personal harassment which is often criminal - looking at what someone edits on Knowledge is not stalking by any reasonable definition and the overuse of the word does a disservice to victims of real-life stalking.) 5496:

relevant article. Hopefully, this would also, eventually, be possible through the API, too. The use of categories would serve to provide lists of such articles. A bot could create the redirects, by scanning, for example, sub-templates of

2481:

experience: registering the account. You are not obliged to state your personal details if you don't want to, but re-inventing accounts just to save the ability to indicate your IP instead of random word just doesn't make sense at all. —

1312:

Not exactly. Exactly like you can't convert from British to American spelling "if you think it improves the article", you can't unilaterally convert citation styles from the authors' choice to your preference. The rules are outlined at

10133:

feature has been and will be available. Your opposition is to the entire idea of tracking contributions, which the community and the software already support. Your comment is not about the proposed feature and is therefore not relevant.

6523:(you're showing proper attribution and licensing, right?), and it occupies only about 8Gbs (much less if you trim all articles to just their lead, and a trivial weight for the few articles that you could tag by hand). Why request -no, 3897:

on their watchlist), I don't understand why a new disclaimer page is needed at all. It'd be very difficult to write a page about using Knowledge for people with disabilities because users' needs vary enormously. The closest we have is

2292:

Some IP addresses are static, and some dynamic ones persist with the same customer for months, depending on the ISP. Such is the case with me. It wouldn't be useful for AOL users, who get a different address on each HTTP request.

8742:- What a silly proposal. I'm no authoritarian, but this is just plain stupid. This would cause even more disruption because it would encourage troublesome editors to dig themselves in by making a whole bunch of rapid crap edits. 3666:

That consensus is on another website. Historically, the consensus at en.wiki has been that too much attention to one's number of edits may lead to editcountitis, the symptoms of which make for a very unhappy editing environment.

3034:

than the current hoopla through intermediate pages to find it. In fact I needed this so much that I wrote some JavaScript to provide it as a hack, just for myself (this is only a hack - I'm not going to release or maintain it).

10754:. Increases effective openness and accountability within WP. Vague concerns about "wiki-stalking" are unconvincing--editing here is not a private act, and any abuses should be handled after the fact, in the normal WP fashion. -- 8799:

Counter proposal. A vandal who makes a thousand, five thousand, ten-thousand edits before starting to vandalise happens basically never. They're much more likely to become a positive contributor on the way. Remember, we do have

11956:

The logo I can agree on, everything else no. Logos and identity have moved on a lot, things are much more streamlined and minimalist. So if there's going to be another year-long vote/debate/argument about the logo, count me in

8201:

Fascinating proposal. Of course, if it were implemented, I expect more than one admin would make 500,000 or so script-assisted minor edits to a userspace draft in short order so they could continue to block whomever they like.

10855:

effect could be included. However, such a feature would have actual uses beyond mere transparency (for example, checking whether someone is already watching a vandal, so you can avoid cluttering your own watchlist with them).

10226:

I'd certainly find this useful in fighting vandalism. We can deal with stalkers, that's not a good reason not to make this tool available, particularly if it is a userright that we can grant or withdraw rather than a default.

9513:. There are very many vandals from different IPs/usernames and some recurring individuals could use an oversight. But I don't think the ability to follow their edits arbitrarily outweighs the enabled misuse of the feature for 5963:(someone might be confused into thinking it's a real photograph rather than some artist's vision of the planeet), but I'm sure that we could agree that such an image would be a perfectly fine illustration for an article about 8413:

done with great sensitivity, but I'm not convinced that this is the right proposal to improve the quality of such admin decisions. Perhaps we should upbundle a few things from admins to crats, starting with civility blocks.

2507:. Accounts already have it through a button called "my contributions" in the top right corner. It is technically feasible to add such a link to an IP editor. For example, if 66.159.220.134 clicked the link, it would lead to 10292:

Ah, and I didn't even think of the wonders of being able to watchlist the contributions of corporate/institutional accounts that appear to be abandoned to make sure that they stay abandoned. That would be super for work at

4209:"That's how we've always done it" isn't exactly a reason to ignore innovation, though. And this sounds like a nifty idea, though it won't see use among the average editor. Having that option could be very useful, though. — 5469:

more versatility in what we send back - some users might want microformat metadata, some might want full articles, some might want mobile ones, some might want us to spit out a copy of just the lead or the infobox image,

5053:

this edit tab is to appear is a key part of the proposal, and not something that can be "decided later"; the lack of that detail suggests that the proposal has not been adequately worked out. (Could you provide us with a

5327:

so that we're not double entering data." means. Automatically creating (or even maintaining) redirects based on infoboxes could be suitably trialled and implemented, I would think, if that's the sort of thing you meant.

11299:

doesn't automatically mean that limiting it to sysops is moot. It may be debatable whether any admin rights that are mirrored by other functions need be privileges only granted to some, but that's a different question.

11255:

My point, though, is that nobody has given any real argument for the necessity of an admin approval process. Everyone just cries "potential for abuse", like that in itself is any kind of worthy argument at all. Look at

5985: 1606:'s idea sounds interesting, but I would think like the above proposal, it doesn't totally jive with WP as an encyclopedia. All of the behind-the-scenes work should be accessible, but probably shouldn't be to prominent. 9768:

I support the principle here, and know of times myself it would have been useful, but also am worried about the potential for abuse in the form of stalking and hounding. Maybe it could say only work on newbies with :

5003:

re JJ: 1) Indeed, "(or such)" is where I ended up. 2) As for where the is to appear: I think I described that in the first sentence. A more exact location can be decided later, and is not essential for the proposal.

739:. My idea in its basis is to try to strongly encourage edit summaries but also to make it clear what the edit summary IS and what it is NOT. Why make things easier for those who are already abusing the edit summary?-- 10701:

I already use externals tools to do this, not least to follow what people I collaborate with on certain projects are doing, so I can assist, and avoid duplication of effort; the proposal would make life much easier.

9826:

other hand, I recall that there is some javascript that can be added to a userpage to do exactly this (a search of common tools would probably find it, although I can't be bothered). (On a slightly different note, "

5445:

I'm certainly not wedded to the idea of an off-wiki solution (and toolserver was just an arbitrary suggestion), but I think it's worth considering the benefits. The model I'm thinking of here is the very successful

3878:

As in the very first definition in athe first dictionary I googled 'of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules ofright conduct or the distinction between right and wrong;ethical: moral attitudes.'

1880: 1492:) already link to a given article's talk page. While these template messages are principally aimed at editors, other readers are certainly able to discern the presence of a dispute and view any related discussion. 9598:

IPs by for instance restricting them to be unable to create new articles? I am not sure the community would support the idea, but I do not think it should be outright rejected as being in contradiction to the five

9124:

I'm basically with CBM: These proposals are based on the idea that some editors are so incredibly valuable that they shouldn't be subject to the same rules as everyone else. They want a special set of rules for

6302:"lead", and if mw detects there is no such anchor on a page then mw automatically makes it at #mw-content-text right below the pagename and tagline. I don't know how much such a feature would be used in practice. 1153:

Then why are formats tagged as "link rots" or something like that? MLA optionally includes URLs separately, but I use the MLA's URL format because I don't like templates as much as MLA. Is this of all MLA formats

361:,and that a hyperlink or URL will be considered sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. 312:,and that a hyperlink or URL will be considered sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. 6840:

are", isn't that a huge loophole? Wouldn't it be better to leave out "established" entirely, just on the assumption that the number of operational admins with less than (say) 2500 edits is going to be near-zero?

5740:

This sounds like a problem that a bot could fix. If the pattern you observe appears the bot could isnert the http:// . If the text is missing it would be better to convert to a raw url without square brackets.

1888: 9665:

Because we are talking about recurring IPs. They may be blocked for 6 months, then return after two more months and start vandalizing articles until caught and re-blocked. This could facilitate catching them on

3925:

Finally, telling people that Knowledge may not work so well for them isn't really a method of solving any actual problems. If you want to make a difference for users with disabilities, then I'd suggest reading

2087:(Edit summary). I have no idea why the devs added the extra periods, but I can't thing of any reason for having those four extra periods on either side of the page size count. It just takes up extra page space. 12452:

I concur with Resolute, this is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit. We already discriminate against anonymous users enough, no need to take it further, especially given there's no pressing reason to do so.

8724:

reports would be avoided if veteran editors who are not necessarily admins at least have some element of trust in them to deal with content issues and stop what they believe is causing disruption to content.♦

9132:

And beyond the (IMO) inappropriateness of this, the proposals are poorly thought out. For example, these proposals would have prevented Guerillero from blocking Betacommand at ArbCom's direction last month.

8938:

title of the thread ("get away with") already seems to establish a sort of bias about the contents. In general, it is not the admins who are "getting away with" things when these circumstances arise. — Carl

6520: 2739:, and enter their IP. Either that, or they have to edit a page and use the contributions link on the history tab. There are many, many IP editors that are more active than some logged in users. For example, 6831:

It seems an unnecessary grey area - if an administrator can block someone and then justify their ignoring this rule by saying "in my opinion they were not established in the same way as prolific users like

5671:

That's it in a nutshell. And yes, there are a number of train station and protein web services out there; and ditto the very many other database systems dealing in entities which have UIDs. Does that help?

2166:

With the creation of any new IRC channel there is the danger it will remain underpopulated and die due to lack of interest. I think it's better to discuss proposals in existing channels like #wikipedia-en.

1996:

Thanks for providing this information. I have voted and apparently a developer has been "assigned" the bug (I assume that means the fix has been greenlighted and put in a queue for that person to take care

9442:

I don't think I follow the reasoning here. By this logic, we also shouldn't watchlist or protect any commonly vandalised articles, AGF they won't be vandalized again. That's really the exact reason why we

7854:

I don't wish. This proposal had no shot, and whoever brought it is either stupid and inexperienced enough to think it did, or is just trying to stir the pot. And I know you're not stupid or inexperienced.

1812: 5072:

JJ, how did I offend you? I am here on this page to drop an immature proposal. Maybe more than just my detailed world is involved (it is: another "" utton on a page!), but we are here to let it evoluate.

4468:

The second paragraph describes it, and I also linked to a post with more information. Basically, I want to save drafts of edits in progress when the user leaves the page, rather than just throwing up a

12227:

Since everybody (whether or not they have an account, or they are logged on) is a potential editor, then everybody needs to see the VTE links - otherwise, how can people edit the template or talk pages?

3490:

Two bot tasks have had BRFAs raised, and they look likely to fail due to unacceptable error rates. I now believe that crowdsourcing is the only viable solution, and encourage development in that area.

408:). And I fail to see how either of the above gigantic boxes are more consolidated than what we have now. I'd oppose this, except that I hide the whole mess with my user CSS anyway so I wouldn't see it. 3554:

of this backlog thanks to mass automated additions that should have been reined in before they started. At the moment, the best move is for more people to get involved with the backlog - tools such as

1425:. Remove the "article notes" and "reviews" (first screenshot), since we're on the way to a visual editor. Even still, I don't know if the Wikimedia Foundation has the server resources to implement it. 586:

The edit filter (the way we would implement this) is dumb. How can you expect it to provide such a detailed edit summary? Or, are you talking about putting the diff into the edit summary (impossible)?

438:

Oh, it's an easter egg link. It seems to me that "CC-BY-SA 3.0" and "GFDL" should instead link to the texts of those licenses, and a link with the text "Terms of use" should link to the terms of use.

6553: 5182:

I would say that the only way to check out whether tagged info is reliable is to research it yourself. Of course, you should also add what you find out to Knowledge so that everyone can benefit. --

2454:

The only way to do this is to change the MediaWiki software, as these special pages are marked in the code as "unlisted" and this cannot be overridden; to request such a change, file a request on

11136:. Ideas of the feature being abused are pure speculation at this point. If someone wants to harass a particular user by following their contributions, it's straightforward to do that today using 11008: 9770:

50/25 edits, or something along those lines. Could also be useful for adopters and mentorers to track their adoptee/mentoree easily. I'm not sure if this could be technically implemented though.

7619: 809:

If a lack of edit summaries is such a concern, and I'm not sure that it is, a much simpler and easier solution would be to have the "prompt for edit summary" option in prefs enabled by default --

11670:. I don't, however, really see what the "proposal" is here. All of these actions are standard, and possible already. Sorry if you meant something else, but if so, I'm afraid I don't understand. 9150:

I agree with both of you, actually. The current proposals are really just duct-tape over the actual issue at hand, which is mistrust of Admins. And there's very little we can do to assuage that.

11237:

I believe people didn't flesh out their rationale here because it synthesizes discussions already made above, i.e. administrator approval is the remedy for avoiding abuse people mention above.

6113:

I'm sure Equazcion knows this but for people considering this script who might not, there's a "User contributions" item in the Toolbox menu on the left-hand sidebar when you are on a userpage.

9889:

I watchlist the user pages of some vandal IPs, and when I see Cluebot, et al., leave additional warnings I'll double check to see if they have committed enough vandalism to warrant a block.

6590: 6527:- that the whole project accommodate to your needs, when you already have been given permission to do as you please - at your private space, without interfering with others? ("Soviet Union", 10265:? WikiProject members, for example, would probably like to know "what everyone else is up to", because it might be fun to join in and help out. Knowledge is all about collaboration, right?! 9335:

It's easy to wikistalk a single user. What this proposal would do is allow the watchlisting of a lot of users, which isn't a tool wikistalkers need. They already have what they need, which

9214:

This is not necessary--if an admin exercises good judgement, then it should stay irrespective of edit count. If he doesn't, then it shouldn't. I don't understand why this needs to exist... —

7432:

Both CharlieEchoTango and Nigel Ish have pointed out some obvious problems. And it's hardly appropriate for someone with as many edits as the proposer (who is currently 93rd) in the list at

10960:

Follow/Unfollow is a bit facebooky. Watch/unwatch is probably the most neutral. Another possibility would be stalk/unstalk, but that brings a negative connotation. "Track" might also work.

11500:

Disadvantages: The damage may already be done before the abuse is discovered; users may stop following others to cover their tracks. (should log and publicise all follow/unfollow actions?)

10994: 6088: 3304: 12358:

links in navboxes is because navboxes are virtually always in a separate template, and they provide the means for accessing that template's talk page or for editing it. There are rarely

1439:

This is not WMF sponsored. These designs are done by a volunteer as suggestions; they are not currently anywhere in the plan. You may safely ignore this or delete this entire section.--

10068:, etc.) The watchlist is not a "page" in and of itself; it's more of a "virtual page", so any action performed with/on it that treats it like a "regular" page will involve some type of 4841:

It isolates, for editing, the single reference code input (template usage on the page) from other code. Especially since the code is in line, it is complex when editing the full page. -

3290:

Sorry I'm not really interested in doing any bot work. There are plenty of other folks that can do that though if you take it to the Bot requests page someone may volunteer to do it. --

10831: 2720:). Furthermore anyone wishing to have the benefit of having all their contributions shown in one place should simply register an account. I don't see the net benefit of this proposal. 2216: 2182: 90:

But if the prior version was removed or altered for cause (like copyright or usage issues) then that would also be a "bad result." I would suggest that where an image is altered for

5541:

Tagishsimon, POTW, ... will you please stop having good ideas before I have them! .... :-) I'm currently talking to Library catalogue folks in Sheffield. I think we have an agenda! (

4689:

I wouldn't like that hat, because the user can find that information in better places (like the infobox). Plus, with so many series around here, it would get outdated very easily. --

1508:

Its just more clutter theres a tab at the top of the page already for the talk page, adding a template at the top is just going to detract from a persons ability to read the article

2155: 936: 11477: 6688:

You kind of elaborate on my point. Any so-called sockpuppet that makes 50,000 edits clearly isn't a problem. The problem is the wanky administrator that wades in without thinking.

2240: 650:

Editsummary field has a limit, so we actually can add (as much allowed in that limit) the text that was added or removed with an indication of which ever on a blank editsummary. --

9796:, whether the 3RR is violated or not), presumably on the principle that it could affect more people than just the vandal. And it seems to me that the vast majority of persistent 9154:

leeway, because Admins recognize their contributions to the 'pedia. Right now, though, if someone thinks they got a raw deal, there's no real process in place for them to act on.

11533:

Disadvantages: Rollback is evaluated according to different criteria, and may not be given to users who don't participate in antivandal but want followed users for collaboration.

11494:

Proposal: Users who abuse the tool are banned from using it; any administrator can be given the ability to do so; misuse can be detected because followed user lists are public.

10737:

At worst, it would prevent editors from having to check dozens of edits in this case. At best, it could prevent guerilla vandalism from staying on pages when no one notices it.

6018: 2886:

into the search bar. IPs already have this page. I don't think it would be that difficult for the devs to work something out so that it only displays for IPs with actual edits.

264: 9338:

There's no need to allow watchlisting of registered users. Logged-in vandals are generally dealt with in a timely manner; it's mostly the IP vandals who slip under the radar.

8152: 7049: 11972: 8646: 6718: 6677: 2546:: This would remove a big reason to create an account and could be as a tool for sockpuppetry: just hop to a new IP and there's all the articles edited by the last one. Best, 782: 11061: 7606:

as completely unfeasible. Are we seriously going to make a situation where an admin goes, "oh, I only have 24% as many edits as this person, I can't block them for violating

7359: 7341: 6826: 6814: 6730: 6695: 6666: 6650: 3474:

German wiki is the only other wiki to use persondata. Persondata actually started there. How do you steal German language words to put in the short description parameter?

11666:

created (if they do), and the redirects meet our criteria, then I support that too. Anyone who doesn't want to (or can't) create the articles themselves can, of course, use

9788:

In response to some of the comments I've seen above: I think I agree that if created, this should only apply to IPs. One thing I've noticed is that admins seem to apply a

9365:: While I acknowledge the advantage of watchlisting vandals but this will have much adverse affects on the constructive contributors who regularly get hounded or stalked. -- 7881: 7540: 7407: 3592: 3220: 2310: 2047:

overly redundant, and there was no consensus for the change in the first place. While we are at it, the two periods around the page size should also be removed. For example

84: 9326: 8293: 7988:- "Support in theory" not practical to implement. Edit history of editors should be taken into account and explanations pursued before action is taken by an admin anyways. 7149:...my point here being that to make yourself unblockable, all you would need to do would be to perform many automated edits, which would lead to gaming in the worst way. -- 869: 754: 12221: 12050: 9071: 8429: 7092: 7078: 7066: 5964: 4022:

fallen by more than a quarter since its peak, and will continues to decline, so we will either have to reform RFA or find other ways to do things that we need admins for.

3442: 2776: 2758: 2729: 2711: 2149: 11511:

Disadvantages: Prevents non-admins from using the tool in anti-vandal activities. Giving permission may confuse newbies in mentor relationships. Adds overhead and delays.

9839: 8730: 8364: 8029: 7841: 7596: 7155: 7144: 7128: 4251:

This does seem to happen for me... periodically. Sometimes the tooltip will show the article I will arrive at, other times it will just show the title of the redirect. -

3403: 3202: 3170: 2326: 2098: 1525:: Hi ACEOREVIVED, it goes without saying that talk is used to settle disputes, improve the article, etc. However, sometimes it goes... well, way beyond. Please check out 804: 8786: 8309: 8279: 8256: 8244: 8100: 8081: 7960: 7271: 7006: 6994: 6850: 6795: 6217:

opens the page at the redirect paragraph, closer but still half an inch lead paragraph. Sorry to be picky, but a web page can only allocate a narrow frame for footnotes.

6131:

Yeah I do :) As evidenced by the three or so scripts that existed for this under Monobook though, many users like to have this in a tab. It feels like it should be one.

4232:

I agree. What would even more useful would be to expand redirects into their destination article for their tooltips (not to hijack your proposal, but it seems related).

4092: 4079: 4058: 4038: 3495: 3467: 3229: 2915: 2834: 2812: 2689: 2635: 1921: 1822: 11771: 11377: 8683: 8660: 7980: 7716: 7337:

Malleus still hasn't replied to my question. Assuming that this proposal is accepted, how can prolific bots be blocked if they malfunction? What do you think Floydian?

7256: 7244: 7170: 6871: 6617: 6605: 3061: 1744: 1726: 713: 11043: 9250: 9088: 8819: 7480: 7457: 7185: 5761: 5750: 3809: 3567: 3512: 2932: 2574: 2449: 2302: 2262: 1759: 1645: 1454: 886: 256: 11998: 10763: 10178: 9167: 9145: 8836: 8763: 8499: 8232: 8174: 8069: 7519: 7424: 7299: 7202: 5230:

Yeah it does. But what I'm saying is if you think a five year old tag is necessarily more for a reader to worry about that a two month old tag, you're not correct. --

4175:

This is a very good feature request. I completely agree that having a little widget next to every table allowing easy export would be great. You should file a bug at

3545: 3454: 3246: 2897: 1783: 1501: 631: 617: 593: 10578: 9200: 9047: 9033: 9012: 8906: 8880: 8859: 8634: 8404: 8137: 8012: 7552: 7415:- This would effectively mean that a few long term editors could do what ever they want without any chnace of repremand. Editors should expect to to treated equally. 7372:

and knowingly violates policy to the point where a block is necessary? And what if the admin who's the most available has less edits than the object of the block?

7330: 7229: 7027: 7015: 5554: 5450:, which does a similar trick of going through an intermediate layer before resolving a specific Knowledge article, rather than leaping straight to an enwiki address. 5318: 4195:

Why not just copy the table data and paste it into MS Excel or any other spreadsheet, then save it in whatever format you want? That's worked for the last decade...

3709: 3483: 3365: 3349: 3334: 3299: 3285: 3137: 3043: 3023: 2348:

thing is guaranteed to be abused by bad-faith dynamic IP users, who would only add select contributions to their lists and then pretend that this is all they did. —

2307:

For an easier way to see your contributions, simply click edit on any unprotected Knowledge page, type four tildes (~~~~), which can be done automatically using the

2177: 2006: 1987: 1828: 1557: 12122: 11144: 11000:

Perhaps more useful for collaboration would be to allow multiple watchlists per account and allow watchlists to be public rather than private. If I could create a

10722: 10384:- I have wished for this feature and think it would significantly improve our ability to locate and control vandalism. Some ideas for addressing concerns of abuse, 9579:

Really? I think you first need to establish that an IP editor is less entitled to protection from "stalking" than a registered (still possibly anonymous) username.

9186: 8701: 8448: 8332: 7927: 7680: 7386: 6770: 6540: 6355:

sites doing the original research that Knowledge eschews. It would become an integral part of the world wide web of information, not a mere, self-contained island.

5709: 3655: 3637: 3616: 3184: 2877: 2039: 1964: 1432: 1359: 838: 562:

You should be looking at ways to reduce the amount of text, rather than simply trying to consolidate it. Nobody reads the warnings because they're too much text. --

549: 535: 521: 11759: 11423: 11229: 11193: 11166: 10984: 10971: 10376: 10044: 10000: 8573: 8529:, I'd still be able to block all but the top 15 editors so this !vote is not about concern for my own personal ability to block an experienced editor run amok.) - 7764: 7746: 7731: 7640: 7577: 6956: 6944: 6925: 6908: 6889: 6749: 6635: 5833:

I concur with DanHash. Sloppy link coding like this is actually one of the easiest ways to find would-be reference citations that need to be verified and properly

5545:- our resources are volunteers - the resource is infinite! We just need discussions about where the value and the enthusiasm best match. This might be one of them 5140: 4772: 4384: 3957: 3753: 2999: 2609: 2592: 2522: 2490: 2357: 2122: 1907: 1858:- this should deal with various aspects such as the prose of the pages, its grammar and spelling, the formatting of its contents, whether they use neologisms, etc. 1472: 1448: 820: 685: 571: 504: 12140: 12042: 12031: 11851: 11246: 11210: 10746: 10693: 10625: 10610: 10593: 10207: 9969: 9902: 9879: 9534: 8125: 7699: 5536: 5484: 5440: 5014:

is a good example. 3) Reducing cite options to just harv is no way forward, and not "easier" (more simple it is, as in "choose any black color for your T-Ford").

4698: 4218: 4012: 4000: 2985: 2431: 2409: 1947: 1662: 1255: 1233: 1212: 1198: 1167: 1148: 723: 645: 392: 12118: 12014: 11945: 11922: 11908: 11100: 11091: 10553: 10533: 10445: 10236: 9815: 9759: 8990: 8950: 8211: 7801: 7660: 5785: 5626: 5348: 4998: 4790: 4668: 4542: 4508: 3939: 3387: 2950: 2802:

This is the contribution page listing the edits performed from this IP address. Please note that the edits might be attributable to several distinct individuals.

2659: 2555: 1515: 1405: 930: 911: 211: 50: 11966: 11880: 11442: 10680: 10414: 10216: 10013: 9946: 9923: 9779: 9574: 9499: 9460: 8556: 7498: 6985:

administrator, then that would be acceptable since the blocking administrator could appeal for the reinstatement of their block at WP:ANI or a similar venue? --

6503: 5900: 5679: 5599: 5411: 5384: 5375: 4145: 4129: 3844: 3687: 2967: 2716:

Strictly speaking they are not. Yet no editor owns a specific IP address and there is nothing prohibiting another user from making edits under the same IP (see

2027: 1538: 472: 445: 433: 415: 12062: 11651: 11629:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

11412:– But why does this feature need to be a user right? You have not given any argument for why you think abuse will be a problem more than with other features. — 10805:

enough to prevent widespread access.) And further, admins should be given a userright to view who may be watching someone's contributions, for transparency. -

10195: 10160: 10031: 9742: 9556: 9231: 8381: 6311: 6099: 5979: 5949: 5933: 4594: 4576: 4494: 4402: 3522: 3114: 3089: 2853: 2465: 1326: 1118: 192: 12285: 12190: 11992: 11830: 11736: 11033: 10920: 10320: 10087: 9675: 9313:

I have added an RfC tag at this timestamp: 01:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC). Because this RfC proposes a significant change to watchlists, I have listed this at

9003:

get in a stupid, disruptive edit war and continue to ignore warnings to stop, I can block User:44edits but have to go find a 'crat to block User:250000edits?

8196: 7997: 7789: 6402: 6326: 6200: 6176: 5998: 5881: 5828: 5612: 5362: 4754: 4740: 4435: 4420: 4204: 3913: 3827: 3799: 3780: 3732: 1864:- this category should specifically deal with pages which have accuracy issues, or have some issue with regard to the style and placement of their references. 1598: 1576: 12389: 12270: 12250: 12236: 11697: 10951: 10825: 10786: 10338: 10287: 10253: 10124: 10107: 9859: 9405: 9380: 9117: 6662:

because established users are trusted. However, occasional exceptions might apply in emergency cases. Still, this remains a solution in search of a problem.

6445: 6033: 5810: 5641: 5082: 5067: 5037: 4981: 4850: 4836: 4314: 4266: 4188: 354:, used for discussion of various aspects of Knowledge. Please stay positive, and don't forget to sign your posts (type four tildes, ~~~~), to sign your post. 12447: 12424: 12315: 12300: 12203: 11717: 11610: 11584: 11574: 10890: 10859: 10849: 10274: 9694: 9640: 9608: 9589: 9486:. I've seen many users who persistently add biased or verifiably inaccurate information despite warnings to stop, and I assume that they genuinely believe 8513:

as privileging editors who make many small edits in series rather than using preview and making multiple edits (or, as I often do, creating whole articles (

8486: 6965:

a long time ago along those lines. Back then the appeal process needed work, don't have enough experience with it these days to say if things have changed.

6421: 6012: 5269: 5239: 5213: 5191: 4897: 4883: 4461: 4350: 4330: 3692:

What would be the benefit of letting everyone see everyone else's edit counts so easily? This should stay in preferences where it is not being broadcast. ▫

3265: 1804: 1275: 12481: 12463: 12215: 10937: 10811: 10642: 10563:

Yes, I agree it would assist in tracking problem users. With that said, what about the editors in good standing. Why should they be subject to unnecessary

10052:– Enough with the "stalking" crap. Stalkers don't need extra tools to stalk—they are already stalking just fine. (By the way has anyone actually looked at 9660: 9355: 9038:

Would I need to figure out which crats are currently online, or would there be an Established Editor Noticeboard manned by crats that I'd need to post to?

8592: 8538: 6548: 6364: 6349: 5728: 5462:

Secondly, it has greater potential for future development. Using an intermediate layer makes it a lot easier to expand the functionality with things like:

4642: 4628: 4374: 3859: 3763: 3412: 3317: 2385: 2371: 2171: 237: 12169: 12086: 11680: 11333: 11308: 11289: 11178:

is limited (which it isn't). There is no way to keep anyone from making an external tool to do this either, since the entirety of this feature request is

11053: 10145: 9982: 9565:

We can implement this feature for IP contributions only to indeed avoid stalking. Then it will make sense for static IP with recurring vandalism issues.--

6293: 6275: 6080: 6061: 6047: 4614: 3888: 3873: 2362:

What would stop them from doing this right now, consider several easy workarounds are available? Why would they suddenly start doing so with this change?

1843: 1021: 665: 10301: 9867: 9705: 8612: 8469: 6474: 6226: 6153: 5571: 5510: 4948: 4925: 1623: 1615: 1479:

I'm inclined to agree with PrimeHunter. I will note, however, that many of the article cleanup templates that flag content disputes or biased articles (

1411: 167: 153: 11589:

Every action on Knowledge is already logged, and admins are already able to block/unblock users based on their actions. If a user is abusing Knowledge (

11469: 11108: 8249:

It's a rather telling feature of the inequity here that bad blocks remain in the victim's block log, but there's no record in the blocking admin's log.

4651:. I really don't want Knowledge to become haven for all the fancruft that would allow, as well as minor bands, trivial locations, etc. Just because you 3242:, so that a human can view it and approve it very quickly. I already do this for names, and doing it for short descriptions is an obvious next feature. 1217:

I suspect that it was just an honest mistake of the sort that all of us make on occasion, but I've left a note for the user in case he wants to comment.

225: 11580:

measures - such as logging all follow/unfollow actions, and allowing any admin to block/unblock a user from using the tool - are perfectly reasonable.

8956:

that crats tend to be quite conservative and might always think there is "no consensus". So I still have far to go to be convinced, I'm afraid. — Carl

8757: 5398:

an obvious application involving LCSH headings resolving to specific Knowledge articles, for one thing! Please let me know if you go ahead with this...

3176:

enter one and press Enter to move on. If two or three people agree on the short description, it's removed from the rotation and assigned to the bot. —

122: 103: 7690:: Tagging articles for wikiprojects can inflate edit counts quickly... one could just get around the idea by spending a little time doing that. Best, 636:

Perhaps if none is given, something descriptive could be added. For instance, "X characters added/deleted to Y sections" or something of that nature.

602:

Whatever is inserted or removed will be shown in the edit summary (e.g. if "abcde" is inserted in the article then the edit summary will say "abcde".

11742: 5734: 5590:

redirects starting the rhodopsin ensemble accession numbers for a half dozen additional species, the refseq RNA and protein IDs, UniProt IDs, etc.

2767:, but neither is editing under an IP. It seems reasonable to me to require anyone wishing to have the benefits of an account to register an account. 2624:

no requirement whatsoever for users to create accounts. Providing a link to an IP's contributions page would be extremely beneficial for IP editors.

11128: 10457:, I selected the 10 most prolific named users and made a link to each one's contribution page. Together the 10 links constitute the following list. 9094: 921:

would the automatic summary actually be helpful? This already happens on page creation, and its not necessarily clear what is going on from that...

11004: 10489: 10454: 10346:. I've often wished we had this. Would be really useful keeping an eye on persistent spammers, whose edits are often not spotted for long periods. 8968: 6387:

If there is value here, then the anchor should be applied to every article, not just a select few. I checked, but don't see this listed, so file a

5416:

Why would we put something on the toolserver, when Knowledge itself can host it adequately? Also, I'm not in favour of hidden fields. We should be

5660:

Knowledge has standard codes for train stations in its train station articles. Knowledge has standard codes for proteins in its protein articles.

1243: 405: 94:

reason, that links in userspace be noted and an "original image unavailable" notice be returned. Wouldn't that accomplish as much as you wish?

12128: 5500: 4226: 3759: 3504: 3475: 3341: 3309: 11688:

the project should continue. I'd be happy to cull almost everything in that article; we're not supposed to be a directory service, after all.

10022:. It's slightly clumsy (you have to use an RSS reader) but it does work (and it can scale as a long-term solution for mostly-inactive users). 9910:

I can appreciate where the nominator is coming from, but suspect that this will create problems - particularly an increase in unconstructive

9318: 7346:

Fatuorum's proposal was likely not intended to target bots, so it's reasonable to assume they would be exempted from the eventual guideline.

6740: 6706:

I can think of several administrators with less than 10000 edits who have a good understanding of Knowledge policy. Also, it's not about the

2232: 12072:. In this case, do what Mabdul suggested and request a change on the article talk page, which you should be able to edit with no problem. 4819: 3124:: I'm not what idea is better. If the tab idea is a non-starter, the placing of it on Special:SpecialPages (where it would be accessible to 1717:

This is only a rough outline to get an idea of what I have in mind. Additional options for "fine tuning" your watchlist might be desirable.

1658:- it lists changes to any page linked to from a given page. You populate a page with the pages you want to watchlist, and tada you're done. 158:

I'd be OK with having a deleted version end up as a redlink in the history version - though of course a bluelink would be a better outcome.

11544:

Disadvantages: Requires config changes to Knowledge; high process overhead; barrier to use leading to low use; unclear evaluation criteria.

11011:, that would be useful. Even better if watchlists weren't owned by a particular user and could be created directly in WikiProject space. 6122: 2843:

see any reason to deny them what appears to be merely a convenience link to a page that already exists, unless there are technical issues.

1266:. You are free to use any referencing format you want, but other editors are also free to change it if they think it improves the article. 8525:,etc.)) in a single edit. The number of edits made says little about the quality of the contributions, only the quantity. (And at #309 on 5166: 1955:; blatantly redundant. Does anyone know what happens if the user changes name? Could we end up with lists displaying two different names? 12377:

template generates tooltips "View this template", "Discuss this template" and "Edit this template" shown when you mouseover the links. --

11261: 10838:

information more usable. No use to make lists of watched users public for people to complain about and start asking to be removed from. —

1849: 4499:

I don't see a practical way of doing that. The dialog at least warns them their changes won't be saved, which is better than nothing. —

9237: 4063:

Maybe we need some sort of specific alert that admins can opt in to that emails us about urgent backlogs that they particularly cover.

2224: 12468:

I likewise oppose. I occasionally edit templates when logged out (when on public computers, and I don't have the time to log into my

11752:

more colorful. However, I don't know if the Wikimedia Foundation can afford the server resources necessary to serve up fancy CSS, etc.

10212:

The proposal as I understand it was to show only the most recent edit of each of the watched users, which would obviate this problem.

4473:

saying "This page is asking you if you want to leave..." since I don't think the average user is likely to understand that dialog. --

1583:

What I wouldn't mind seeing is a count on the 'Talk' tab of the number of recent discussion sections added or updated. (For example: '

5581:

as the top two hits. It is also worth noting that at least one external database can be search for ENSG00000163914 (see for example

3052:

this idea. Perhaps, on the side toolbox instead, "User contributions", rather than uptop and an obstruction to non-contributive IPs.

2160: 1876:- this includes articles that are cruft of any kind, non-encyclopedic, example farms, promotional, tl;dr self-shrines, libelous, etc. 10095:. The benefits of being able to watch for frequent vandals far outweigh any supposed danger of facilitating Wikistalking, and if we 4808: 4411:

You mean like Facebook's little red square? That would be fine to me. Only problem is, there are too many pages to keep track of. --

1939:

This comment isn't intended to discourage discussion, as gaining consensus here may help in convincing the devs to make this change.

12153: 5179:

Sometimes it may have only just been put there, but put there for a very good reason. I don't think there's any real rule about it.

4161: 3973: 2744: 1203:

I'm not an administrator or experienced yet. I wonder if you can contact him about this issue. Sometimes, he dislikes bare URLs. --

7780:. Silly proposal. Obvious incentive for vandals to do millions of edits. Why are people wasting their tie on proposals like this? 7020:

I think you missed the point. What I said was that no user would any self-respect would appeal a block, not that no editor would.

624:

We can't afford to do that, especially for page blanking, unless we greatly expand the edit summary field (which is not feasible).

9482:

On the other hand, if a user has a history of non-constructive edits, even if they seems to be in good faith, it runs up against

8074:

That's not at all the intention, and I find it quite telling that your response to coming across an edit war is to issue blocks.

4915:

Gadgets. It doesn't work exactly as you describe, but it's somewhat similar, I think, and worth a look if you've never tried it.

3256:

don't think it would be that hard to kock them out and it should be rather easy to write a script that could be done by a bot. --

1630: 8237:

You would do well to open your mind. Even ArbCom has recently admitted that an unspecifed number of those blocks were improper.

6185:, which links to the title of the page (below the site notice, if any). In general, if you look at the page source any tag with 4521:. That seems perfectly practical to me. Honestly, I think issues of practicality are for the developers to decide, not us. -- 1001: 12257:

IPs do edit navboxes, so I think there is merit for those links. It certainly is easier to get to navboxes' markup this way. —

7536: 3151: 292: 67: 11174:

as nonsense. Not a single credible argument has been made demonstrating the need for this feature to be limited any more than

10073: 7311:- Sounds like a way for an established editor with many edits to gain immunity from a percentage of administrators. If you're 7192: 11322:

still, as far as I can tell, no good, actual reasons given so far for making this proposed feature limited by a user right. —

5914: 4745:

No one looks at talk pages. Especially in this talk page there is a proposal that has not been answered sonce March 2010...--

3053: 1043: 7315:, no admin that has been entrusted by the community should be prevented from blocking you based on arbitrary edit counts. - 5970:

I don't really know what the best way to tag such a problem is. I think I'd skip the tag and just head for the talk page.

5817:

A bot can easily handle 10000+ pages. The hard part is finding all the pages with this problem, which sounds like a job for

2583:

socks already know the process. I get where you're coming from, but I still feel there's no reason to make it easier. Best,

676:

This makes a lot of sense to me. In fact, for small edits I routinely copy paste the text I added into the edit summary. My

9270:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

8021: 7972: 7738: 7708: 7162: 6999:

I never suggested that self respect was necessary to edit Knowledge, simply that noone with any would ever appeal a block.

3758:

I'm sure that may be useful for some people, thanks for sharing it. You can list scripts like that which you've created at

3537: 2907: 2508: 2423: 2294: 2080: 2060: 1771: 12362:

links in infoboxes because the infobox is almost always in the page itself, so you use the normal edit links for the page.

12347: 10397:

restrict watching to a limited subset of accounts, e.g. accounts with recent level 4 warnings and recently expired blocks.

10203:

It will nearly be flooding a user's watchlist if the user whose contributions are being looked upon edits too frequently.

9246:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

9191:... what? My post said nothing about "non-admins having no power," so I don't know precisely what you're opposing here. — 9129:(usually called "experienced editors" or some such phrase), and then the regular rules for all those unimportant plebians. 3147:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

11861: 10718: 8266:

the number of admins who could block him. If that's not your goal, of course, then feel free to propose that we do this

6516: 5532: 5436: 5314: 4746: 4445: 3431: 10616:

their contribs manually every few days) when they're resumed editing so the issues with their editing can be addressed.

3762:, to make them easier for other users to find. There are already a couple listed there which do something similar, like 2958:. It seems pretty uncontroversial to make a link that's already available from the search bar a little more accessible. 12437: 11635: 10348:

I agree that it might be best as a userright that could be withdrawn if an editor is found guilty of hounding/stalking.

9317:. Please allow for sufficient time for editors who watchlist that page to comment here before closing this discussion. 8170: 8096: 8065: 7181: 5283: 3129: 3015: 142:. Of course, user pages should not have non-free files, but you would have to have some mechanism to differentiate. --- 45: 40: 17: 11541:

Advantages: Low potential for abuse; can be given based on criteria specific to this tool; easy to add/remove on-wiki.

7045:

But what if prolific bots like ClueBot NG malfunction? There would be a shortage of admins to do the emergency block.

5924:

about whether images can be banned from Commons for violation the English Knowledge's "No original research" policy.

5175:

I don't think that is what the poster is asking about, 28, since the bot-added date isn't visible on the article page.

233:

you're going to have to deal with templates as well as files. I suspect the devs may so "no" on performance grounds.

12114: 10494: 10484: 9594:

Well, this is obviously an issue for discussion, but did not the community decide to have higher level of protection

6433: 5876: 4633:

To put it simply: Just because people may use a resource for something doesn't mean that's what the resource is for.

4301: 1400: 1354: 1136: 737: 57: 12327:

Just throwing that out there, I'd be interested to hear why or why not, though I can predict some of the responses.

10040:. In another project I'm currently using my userscript similar to Tra's above but utilizing browser localStorage. — 8550:

behavioral standard than others—they know the rules, so when they're breaking them, they're doing so intentionally.

7011:

This is false. Many users have successfully appealed incorrect blocks, many of which were simple misunderstandings.

3988: 3987:

will put up an admin backlog notice on that page when the queue reaches 10. An example of the notice may be seen in

10517: 10509: 10438: 10422: 8113: 7476: 7453: 7284:

Judgment by an uninvolved human who can weigh criteria too numerous to list and come to a rationalized decision. -

5886:

I agree. In addition, I have sometimes seen stuff like "an example of a host name is www.example.com" which should

4585:

What's the view against going down this road? It seems like a logical, helpful thing to do from my perspective...--

4552: 3225:

I've seen articles with multiple infoboxes, for example both Aussie Rules and NFL players. Categories might work.

2511:. I don't see how that could be abused, it would merely be adding a helpful feature that accounts currently enjoy. 1930: 1818:

Note there is a complementary request to rename such categories to "Category:Knowledge categories named after...".

9800:

vandals are spammers, who can be safely indef-blocked, while most IP vandals seem to have no such external agenda.

9625:

How about sysops being able to tag only the vandals who can then be watchlisted or monitored through RSS feeds? --

6575:

The community as has stated before expects "Administrators to uphold the trust and confidence of the community" (

5133:

Be serious. Why would we put some half-assed scheme to make a card game out of wikipedia on the main page. ffs. --

3274:. I like your idea. Would you like to volunteer to program the bot? Or will you leave soon? (I saw your userpage) 11704: 11667: 10675: 10479: 10351:

Not necessary to be a userright, wouldn't be as useful for stalkers as standard Special:Contributions is already.

9314: 8814: 8617: 5343: 4399: 3945: 499: 35: 10036:

Support the idea although I don't think it will be implemented any time soon: devs discussed this since 2004 in

10019: 6336:

good reason (I am unaware of any such cases, although there are some attempts to put some metadata, for example

3832:

Shortcomings in the medium are not things to be disclaimed. Note how no other site has disclaimers for these. --

10499: 10474: 10099:

want to prevent users from abusing this feature, why not give it only to autoconfirmed users in good standing?

7325: 7294: 5260:

Well, sure. I'm just telling him how to find the information he's looking for. How he uses it is up to him. :)

5058:

prejudiced against it is unfortunate, as it does not suffer from the problem you apparently want to address. ~

4760: 4345: 4261: 3738: 3681: 2117: 1009: 577: 365: 351: 316: 202:

I think that this is possible and practical, by adding a time parameter to the picture-retrieving subroutine.

9543:

there to be a way to be excluded from this in cases of obvious stalking. Or some other kind of restriction. —

1224:. As with all such templates, if one is added to an article when it shouldn't be, any editor can remove it. 11522:

Disadvantages: Prevents collaborative uses such as mentor/mentee, or following collaborators on Wikiprojects.

11023: 10910: 10880: 10469: 9991:. On the other hand, I've done it myself on occasion with nothing more complicated than a simple bookmark. 9835: 9436: 8341: 8289: 8148: 7119: 5046: 4534: 4486: 3793:

Thanks for giving the feedback. I will continue to develop simple tools using JavaScript when I get time...!

3158: 3014:

and I don't see any comments from anyone in this thread saying they have ever personally had such a problem.

2902:

That's an interesting idea, to make the link visible only if the IP has edits. Another idea would be to have

9177:

totally un-needed. And with regards to non-admins having no power, I don't really think that's the case. --

8220: 2921: 12131:

which contains the functionality requested (currently in testing, so it's not yet available at all pages).

10504: 10115:- It's not good to trace a user's edits. I think it will be approach more to Wikihounding than patroling. ● 8629: 8302:

WhatamIdoing however many of those blocks were improper I think speaks volumes for your lack of integrity.

8284:

I reckon preventing 70% of admins from blocking Malleus would be of significant benefit to the project. --

7834:

I think you may wish to retract that accusation. Or at least you would if you had even a scrap of honesty.

7401: 7353: 6743: 5380:

To be honest, I don't know a great deal about UIDs. If you think it's beneficial, then I won't be opposed.

5102: 3894: 3555: 3239: 3208: 2828: 677: 62: 10169:

is a userright or available to everyone, the information is there already, it makes it quicker to access.

7671:

back when, it was a lot easier to pass RfA than it is now, when you basically need 10,000 edits minimum. —

6299: 5582: 11039: 10464: 9699:

RSS feeds are already available for everybody about everybody! I'm already stalking some person by this!

9223: 9024: 8981: 8897: 8777: 8420: 6509: 5959:

but misused in a particular article. For example, you seem to object to using artistic illustrations of

5295: 4564: 4070: 4029: 3362: 3331: 3282: 1655: 938: 862: 775: 747: 11505:

Proposal: Permission-only system: non-administrators may only follow other users with their permission.

10947:

up to (as in "following your progress"). I know this is a small detail but let me know if you disagree.

6409: 6284:

seems inappropriate, for what I am questioning are Knowledge standards applied within the Wiki software.

5564: 5157:

There should be a bot that comes along and adds the date to the tag... perhaps it's down at the moment.

11768: 11636: 9017:

Yup. But if the block is justified then I'm sure a crat will act and no other crat will overturn them.

8680: 8643: 8569: 8496: 8360: 8306: 8253: 8241: 8134: 8078: 7878: 7838: 7798: 7532: 7253: 7141: 7075: 7024: 7003: 6953: 6823: 6727: 6692: 6614: 5146: 4796: 4321: 3930:

and figuring out what you personally could do to improve actual access to articles that interest you.

3678: 2808: 2772: 2725: 2685: 1722: 1093: 308:

Ensure you know your rights: you agree to license all text contributions you submit to Knowledge under

9517:. I might consider this if users/IPs were "watchlist-tagged" by sysops. But this does sounds a little 301:. If you wish to experiment or test edits before publishing them in a Knowledge article, please use a 12069: 11123: 11027: 10914: 10884: 10759: 10174: 7954: 5746: 4391:

little. Keep in mind you'll have to switch back to "all" to get the non-Talk pages to show back up. —

3601: 3586: 3216: 3057: 2322: 2142: 2002: 1221: 834: 800: 252: 207: 188: 11042:. For example, if you want to watch the pages for the letters of the alphabet, you could just go to 9158:

isn't quite the right one for that, but dumping it on AN/I doesn't seem productive in most cases. —

2436:

There seems absolutely no reason why it should be omitted from the list. I'll post a request on the

12056:

You could either do it on your own; or you could suggest a change at the talk page of the article!

11538:

Proposal: Create a new user right for it, which is not given initially but then given by an admin.

10966: 10605: 10573: 9831: 8285: 8144: 8025: 7976: 7742: 7712: 7166: 7088: 7062: 6025: 4958: 3980: 3541: 2911: 2892: 2753: 2706: 2630: 2604: 2569: 2517: 2427: 2422:? Where is the argument that a comprehensive list of special pages must omit this particular link? 2298: 2093: 2074: 2054: 1497: 736:

idea because what has been originally stated here is a branch of the problem I have addressed below

607: 545: 517: 420:

Actually, "both the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL" is linked to that. Wouldn't that be enough?

12352:

We don't include edit links in other templates like infoboxes, so why do we have them in navboxes?

12148: 5755:

I don't think the bot could handle so much. There may be more than 10,000+ pages with this issue.

4517:

requesting that the developers figure something out. For example, they might test and/or install

12107: 10714: 9227: 9066: 8621: 7592: 7486:

editors to avoid perfectly appropriate scrutiny. So I would oppose this sort of proposal. — Carl

7197: 7150: 7123: 5697: 5528: 5432: 5310: 5291: 5151: 4750: 4276: 4114: 3424: 3011: 2883: 2669: 2415: 2274: 2250: 1916: 1887: 1553: 427: 401: 12036:

User pages should begin with UE as US:USERNAME makes me feel of a user coming from US and such.

4271:

Probably when the link text shows a shortcut but is actually pointing to the full page address.

795:

specifically looks at prior versions, will now be evident just by looking at the edit history.--

12113:

to request a change to a protected article. Both of these are used on the article's talk page.

11369: 11083: 10368: 9996: 9866:

I have thought of this too, and here is a perfect example of an IP where this would be needed:

9141: 9105:

under the current system, although it could be argued that some established editors do. — Carl

9019: 8976: 8892: 8795:

The only ways I've seen that happen is when someone wants to stop themselves ever coming back.

8772: 8415: 8275: 8228: 7338: 7268: 7105: 7046: 6990: 6846: 6811: 6791: 6767: 6715: 6674: 6663: 6647: 5975: 5929: 5705: 4065: 4024: 3935: 3651: 3612: 3563: 3532:

good ideas about how to solve this problem other than writing it off to crowdsourcing that you

3463:

What about using PersonData from interwikis? We could just steal the values from other wikis.

3399: 3355: 3324: 3275: 3198: 3166: 3133: 3099:: should be made accessible ... more preferably alongside the "login/create account" option. -- 3039: 3019: 2973: 2445: 2258: 2228: 1819: 1526: 1322: 1229: 1194: 1144: 882: 855: 768: 740: 183:

We don't allow editors to revise old revisions, why do we allow software to revise revisions?

29: 11489:

Disadvantages: High overhead; barrier to use leading to less use; unclear evaluation criteria.

9427:. We have to assume that they won't reoffend once warned - even if they almost invariably do. 4724:

to subarticles. The galleries should either be moved to the subarticles or removed completely.

2906:

default to have the username field pre-filled with the username or IP address as appropriate.

12187: 12097: 11941: 11904: 11848: 11840: 11765: 11756: 11648: 11549:

Proposal: A delay is built in where new edits are not made visible for some number of hours.

11318: 11175: 11137: 11096:

No, I just forgot to implement that. :-) I've updated it and it now allows following of IPs.

10742: 10690: 9966: 9896: 9875: 9395:

them. I think you're stuck with another way of doing this if you need to do it legitimately.

9182: 8827:

this matches well the spirit of consensus and seems free from problems of original proposal.

8725: 8677: 8656: 8640: 8565: 8493: 8399: 8345: 8303: 8250: 8238: 8131: 8075: 8009: 7875: 7835: 7795: 7528: 7395: 7347: 7250: 7241: 7138: 7072: 7021: 7000: 6950: 6885: 6867: 6820: 6724: 6689: 6611: 6307: 6172: 6118: 6095: 5995: 5866: 5676: 5609: 5550: 5372: 5137: 4572: 4142: 4089: 4055: 4009: 3747: 3631: 3519: 3492: 3464: 3226: 2903: 2873: 2822: 2804: 2768: 2736: 2721: 2681: 2504: 2107:

No, they add some much needed breathing room. We don't need to design for 640x480 anymore. -

1718: 1659: 1468: 1429: 1390: 1344: 628: 590: 234: 11857:

Hmmm... Extra dimensions, with somewhat unsupported CSS? Sounds like a good idea to me......

6862:

purely hypothetical). Also, would this rule be waived if admins are blocking fellow admins?

6089:

Knowledge:Village pump (technical)/Archive 97#Can we get talk archives to point to the main?

5700:. We should be able to set up something like that using a bot, based on infobox contents. 4364: 3741:

which adds a Edit Count link in your personal toolbar. That is of X!'s, but that will help.

2920:

I doubt devs will add any "conditional" link because of caching issues, for the same reason

1034: 12136: 12028: 11555:

Disadvantages: Prevents rapid response to vandal activity, or prompt replies to discussion.

11118: 10755: 10549: 10529: 10433: 10232: 10170: 9959: 9942: 9811: 9755: 9495: 8444: 8328: 7951: 7923: 7676: 7610:." Malleus, I get that you don't like the current admin culture, but this isn't helping. — 7473: 7449: 7441: 6536: 6441: 6337: 6246: 6107: 5796: 5792: 5742: 5063: 4995: 4977: 4832: 3996: 3953: 3899: 3841: 3583: 3212: 3006: 2995: 2864: 2419: 2318: 2278: 2135: 1998: 1755: 1641: 1444: 1264: 1261: 1186: 1081: 830: 796: 613: 373: 324: 248: 203: 184: 5420:

UIDs in infoboxes; but that's a separate issue and should not be conflated with this one.

4518: 3646:

I didn't ask whether it was accurate, but what benefit it would bring to an encyclopedia.

358: 309: 8: 12469: 12405: 12385: 12337: 12266: 12232: 12180: 12010: 11962: 11918: 11876: 11786: 11693: 11396: 10961: 10669: 10600: 10568: 10409: 10010: 9979: 9962:

may find it useful, but its potential for abuse requires it to be a restricted function.

9919: 9775: 9671: 9604: 9570: 9552: 9530: 9456: 9084: 8922: 8810: 8526: 8482: 8045: 7896: 7865: 7825: 7515: 7433: 7420: 7312: 7084: 7058: 6975: 6833: 6803: 6786:, but the word "established" in the proposal is either superfluous, or needs defining. -- 6585: 6141: 6008: 5622: 5339: 5122: 4768: 4431: 4395: 4289: 4242: 4184: 3869: 2981: 2887: 2748: 2701: 2625: 2599: 2564: 2512: 2211: 2088: 2070: 2050: 1982: 1779: 1675:

I am not sure this works for me. What I need would be the following watchlist categories:

1512: 1493: 1422: 1333: 1251: 1208: 1163: 1114: 603: 567: 541: 531: 513: 495: 6531:). Your proposal here looks like an over-engineered solution to a non-existent problem. 5791:

http:// scheme), but this is a mistake that we don't have to make. Editors need to have

12444: 12311: 12281: 12019:

UT has been proposed and shot down before. Check the archives. I too wish we had UT. --

11660: 11257: 10705: 10191: 10130: 10027: 9735: 9653: 9389: 9193: 9160: 8832: 8587: 8551: 8534: 8121: 7760: 7727: 7695: 7612: 7588: 7323: 7292: 6496: 6345: 5921: 5896: 5519: 5480: 5423: 5407: 5301: 5235: 5187: 4694: 4661: 4501: 4457: 4416: 4360: 4343: 4310: 4259: 4211: 4200: 4127: 3908: 3825: 3694: 3675: 3418: 2740: 2588: 2551: 2486: 2381: 2353: 2115: 1960: 1549: 1534: 818: 706: 422: 388:- I like the idea; it will make the important notices clearer and more comprehensible. 11999:

Knowledge:Perennial proposals#Create shortcut namespace aliases for various namespaces

2376:

Nothing. They do this, and I see no reason why we should facilitate such behaviour. —

969: 12477: 12296: 12246: 12167: 12081: 11826: 11818: 11605: 11594:

user following any other users' contributions. The problem comes in what that users'

11569: 11483:

Proposal: An administrator must first approve any user before they can use the tool.

11464: 11418: 11357: 11328: 11284: 11265: 11224: 11188: 11159: 11071: 11019: 10932: 10906: 10876: 10844: 10637: 10621: 10589: 10356: 10316: 10140: 10082: 10069: 10041: 9992: 9793: 9432: 9137: 9043: 9008: 8876: 8855: 8697: 8271: 8224: 8207: 8165: 8091: 8060: 7656: 7381: 7176: 7113: 6986: 6842: 6787: 6271: 6164: 6075: 6052:

Also a very valid idea, either would be much better, IMO, than the current situation.

6042: 5971: 5925: 5818: 5805: 5701: 5637: 5265: 5209: 5162: 5008: 4866: 4786: 4638: 4624: 4590: 4559: 4529: 4481: 4325: 4176: 3931: 3647: 3608: 3559: 3508: 3479: 3395: 3345: 3313: 3295: 3261: 3194: 3162: 3035: 2963: 2929: 2455: 2441: 2405: 2254: 1934: 1903: 1318: 1314: 1225: 1190: 1140: 1040: 974: 878: 641: 302: 99: 1109:

Which article talk page? Not specific article, such as "Frasier Crane", isn't it? --

12420: 12208: 12196: 12184: 12057: 12037: 11986: 11937: 11900: 11844: 11753: 11733: 11714: 11677: 11645: 11304: 11242: 11206: 11201:

as I was earlier going to make the same point. Glad to see that there's a section.

11050: 10820: 10779: 10738: 10335: 10249: 10204: 9963: 9891: 9871: 9855: 9700: 9691: 9633: 9586: 9402: 9373: 9322: 9178: 8652: 8608: 8398:

to overide ips or newbies during moments of edit conflicts and trusted to do so. ♦

8270:

that you personally be subject to blocking by any admin regardless of edit count.

8187: 8006: 7570: 7238: 6940: 6921: 6904: 6881: 6863: 6837: 6807: 6746: 6630: 6602: 6470: 6417: 6360: 6322: 6303: 6289: 6222: 6197: 6168: 6114: 6091: 6057: 5992: 5943: 5861: 5825: 5756: 5724: 5673: 5606: 5595: 5546: 5369: 5134: 5078: 5033: 5023: 4944: 4922: 4893: 4846: 4815: 4607: 4568: 4371: 4139: 4086: 4052: 4006: 3927: 3794: 3777: 3767: 3742: 3729: 3719: 3626: 3179: 3107: 3084: 2869: 2850: 2462: 2367: 2236: 1944: 1797: 1611: 1592: 1587:'.) That way I can tell at a glance whether discussions are taking place. Regards, 1572: 1464: 1426: 1385: 1339: 1271: 1135:

citation style, including styles they've just made up. See the second question at

926: 904: 658: 625: 587: 465: 442: 412: 376:

from other websites; most content found online cannot legally be used on Knowledge.

327:

from other websites; most content found online cannot legally be used on Knowledge.

8186:... Um, no, per many well-explained examples/reasons above. As for edit counting, 6490:

would require a code-change to apply to all articles, which means you should file

6214: 6210: 6182: 4138:

Would be really nice if that could be installed and enabled by default for admins.

2396:. There is NO requirement to create an account on Knowledge to participate here. 1933:

for technical details. In short, it will require a code change which will require

12372: 12132: 12020: 10545: 10525: 10516:

Any Wikipedian wishing to make such a list can easily do so. (Here is a link to

10428: 10421:

As noted above, we already allow contributions to be tracked via RSS/atom (e.g.,

10270: 10228: 10053: 9988: 9938: 9911: 9807: 9751: 9514: 9491: 9487: 9447:

want to watchlist recurring vandals, for the very likely case they will again. —

9420: 9416: 9343: 9219: 8523: 8520: 8517: 8514: 8440: 8377: 8324: 8087: 7919: 7812: 7753:

You keep saying those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean...

7672: 7470: 7445: 6714:

of the work he does. I think there is an essay about that, but I can't remember.

6576: 6532: 6437: 6256: 6242: 6066:

A good idea; the current appearance is rather weird and potentially misleading.

5059: 4987: 4973: 4911: 4828: 4721: 3992: 3949: 3833: 2717: 2652: 1751: 1637: 1440: 1072: 959: 11764:

Not me. Perhaps you have four dimensions in your universe, but I don't in mine.

7108:

language. And that would make it pretty darned difficult to block, for example,

4872:

has that feature, but it only works because each reference is a subtemplate. ---

3308:

I could run this as a bot or if somebody else wants to have some fun, go for it.

1065:

Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV

1036:

Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV

952:

Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV

136: 12397: 12378: 12329: 12259: 12228: 12200: 12003: 11958: 11914: 11872: 11778: 11689: 11388: 10662: 10404: 10007: 9915: 9771: 9681: 9667: 9600: 9566: 9545: 9523: 9518: 9466: 9449: 9351: 9126: 9080: 8914: 8806: 8750: 8478: 8037: 7993: 7888: 7857: 7817: 7785: 7633: 7508: 7416: 6967: 6580: 6491: 6395: 6238: 6133: 6004: 5855: 5847: 5834: 5778: 5618: 5335: 5114: 4888:

Spot on. We could limit it to cite templates, I have cast the net a bit wide. -

4876: 4764: 4736: 4712: 4427: 4392: 4281: 4234: 4180: 3984: 3884: 3865: 3855: 3271: 2977: 2206: 2023: 1977: 1839: 1775: 1509: 1247: 1204: 1159: 1128: 1110: 1089: 1017: 992: 701: 563: 527: 491: 297: 146: 10328:

My initial concerns are minor compared to the good reasons given for support.

4043:

That's what I'm thinking about, AIV, UAA, and RPP only, where backlogs really

12441: 12307: 12277: 12212: 11931:

while watching the video. I hastily edited the message thinking I had made a

11581: 11350: 11141: 11097: 10981: 10948: 10856: 10567:? The potential negativity of this greatly outweighs the potential benefits. 10294: 10213: 10187: 10157: 10037: 10023: 9728: 9646: 9483: 9424: 9419:, and have regularly (daily, even) thought how useful this feature would be, 9346:. I don't think I can agree that this would be beneficial, however useful. -- 9112: 8963: 8945: 8828: 8582: 8530: 8117: 7756: 7723: 7691: 7607: 7549: 7493: 7317: 7286: 7226: 7012: 6962: 6646:

Also, wouldn't this be instruction creep, a solution in search of a problem?

6388: 6341: 5892: 5542: 5476: 5403: 5381: 5359: 5231: 5183: 5109: 4804: 4690: 4514: 4453: 4412: 4337: 4335:

I think that may also play a part in making the code I placed above work. -

4306: 4253: 4196: 4119: 3904: 3817: 3670: 3243: 2947: 2656: 2584: 2563:

already know the process, and they know how to get to IP contribution pages.

2547: 2482: 2477: 2393: 2377: 2349: 2168: 2109: 2036: 1956: 1530: 1239: 984: 810: 720: 682: 389: 369: 320: 222: 163: 118: 11817:

4D? If we're going to be making changes, I can't support anything less than

11748:

For one thing, I think the best replacement for Vector would be something a

11530:

Advantages: Users with rollback already have some degree of community trust.

9792:

standard to blocking usernames than blocking IPs (usually on the pretext of

5986:

Cool news, HighBeam Research to donate free, 1-year accounts for Wikipedians

3323:

Infobox footballer. @Kumioko It's okay, I wasn't forcing you to make a bot.

2253:. Due to dynamic IP-addresses, I'm not sure how useful the link would be. -- 12473: 12456: 12292: 12242: 12160: 12073: 11822: 11600: 11564: 11459: 11413: 11323: 11279: 11219: 11183: 11154: 11012: 10927: 10899: 10869: 10839: 10632: 10617: 10585: 10564: 10312: 10135: 10077: 9428: 9155: 9039: 9004: 9000: 8996: 8872: 8851: 8693: 8395:

All Wikipedians are equal, but some Wikipedians are more equal than others.

8203: 7652: 7373: 7109: 6267: 6067: 6037: 6003:

Indeed this is welcome news. Ditto on the kudos. Thanks for sharing this.--

5851: 5842: 5800: 5633: 5261: 5205: 5158: 4782: 4634: 4620: 4586: 4524: 4476: 3291: 3257: 2959: 2503:

I believe what 66.159.220.134 is proposing the implementation of a link to

2437: 2401: 2392:

Thanks Czarkoff, I have rarely seen a more blatant example of disregarding

1899: 1486: 637: 95: 11516:

Proposal: Allow following of IPs only, or users with very few edits only.

8184:

All Wikipedians are equal, but some Wikipedians are more equal than others

7874:

It's quite clear that you on the other hand have done no thinking at all.

6340:, in articles). Anchors are for linking one Knowledge article to another. 3234:

I think what makes more sense is to develop a script that can make a good

1881:

The new, redundant automatic edit summary on page moves should be reverted

357:

You agree to license all text contributions you submit to Knowledge under

11981: 11728: 11709: 11672: 11300: 11238: 11202: 11047: 10772: 10330: 10298: 10284: 10245: 10116: 10101: 10065: 10056:

recently?) This is a feature that I have wished for for a long time, and

9851: 9686: 9627: 9581: 9397: 9367: 8845:

Counter proposal II - upgrade block/unblock longstanding editors to crats

8651:

The lack of a comma in your sentence insinuates something else entirely.

8604: 8462: 7564: 7161:

otherwise, is somehow reduced to the notion they are gaming the system.

6935: 6917: 6900: 6625: 6466: 6413: 6356: 6318: 6285: 6218: 6206: 6194: 6160: 6053: 5939: 5838: 5822: 5720: 5591: 5074: 5029: 5019: 4940: 4917: 4889: 4842: 4811: 4728: 4720:

It is kind of odd, especially given the fact that every section has been

4648: 4601: 4599:

Opposing view would be something like... wikipedia is an encyclopedia? --

4368: 4272: 3946:

desirability of using language templates to mark up foreign language text

3772: 3724: 3207:

I would guess that this is too difficult for a bot to do accurately. See

3101: 3079: 2845: 2459: 1941: 1791: 1745:

Knowledge:Help desk/Archives/2010 October 30#Multiple personal watchlists

1607: 1603: 1588: 1568: 1060: 1030: 947: 922: 898: 652: 459: 439: 409: 287: 6880:

this as a guideline, noting that exceptions may apply in extreme cases.

5516:

for Rhodopsin. I like your ideas of a bot reporting suspicious changes.

3722:

includes that functionality (using the API) when you hover a user name.

3161:, disambiguation text should trump infobox text, or both could be used. 1973: 11552:

Advantages: Prevents "pouncing" on new edits made by established users.

10266: 9215: 8669: 8373: 8340:

Since a minimum edit count at RfA has been rejected by the community a

6205:

Thank you for the suggestions but none have the require functionality:

6163:. #mw-content-text links to the start of the article body, for example 6024:

Or the article tab could like back to the main article, for example on

5767: 4470: 3503:

year since persondata was started, this categroy will never be empty.

1898:. As you say, it's redundant and it bloats diffs, logs, contribs, etc. 988: 12103:

to request a change to an article you don't want to edit. You can use

11866: 7237:- edit count is not supposed to be a direct metric of user experience. 4324:

is a very thorough script for colouring links. I find it very useful.-

4305:

gadgets) will show target articles for redirects, among other things.

2924:

is disabled here (I think you can see the result of that option here:

2700:

This oppose doesn't make any sense. IP editors are not role accounts.

829:

I proposed that in the past and it was rejected but I still support.--

526:

Hmm, you really do try to have your finger in every pie, don't you? --

12211:

is a much better solution for the proposed uses, and is open-source.

11438: 10807: 10424:). So there is a precedent for methods to more easily "track" edits. 10261:. I'm surprised nobody has pointed out that such a tool would likely 9347: 8743: 8192: 7989: 7781: 6029: 5960: 5693: 5586: 5578: 5045:

You have not explained why this venue is more appropriate than (say)

4732: 3880: 3851: 2019: 1835: 1813:

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Eponymous categories

1629:

I had a similar idea, but I did not mention it outside my talk page (

1085: 1013: 11928: 11519:

Advantages: Would prevent abusive following of most long-term users.

10018:

User contributions can be pseudo-watchlisted through RSS feeds - eg

6213:

open the page at the title, a wasted inch above the lead paragraph.

4005:

Yeah, but admins do not see it unless they manually navigate to RPP.

2672:. Where is the page showing the Foundation supports such a feature?. 9976: 9827: 9108: 9079:. The underlying issue with restricting the block ability remains. 8959: 8941: 7489: 6262:

is inappropriate. If you want this functionality go get it done at

2309: 159: 135:

Comment: Most non-free files have had the old versions deleted per

114: 11726:

Yes, sorry, I should have been more clear - I linked my post now.

8223:, that 70% of the admin corps be disqualified from blocking him. 6554:

Administrators should be restricted in what they can get away with

3918:

I think that such a statement is beyond the scope of a disclaimer.

3238:

at what the short description should be, then incorporate it into

11836: 10976:

Well I already went ahead with followed users, but on reflection

8850:

That would pretty much put an end to successful RfBs, I'd think.

7267:

Try the number of FAs, GAs and DYKs a person has contributed to.

5689: 5447: 3715: 3527:

I feel compelled to point out that a crowdsourced solution might

2925: 2340:: there is already a mechanism for watching one's contributions: 11899:

whoever's design will work well on the desktop too. We'll see.

11808:

contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous

9100:

The ironic part of the proposal is that admins have essentially

8974:

agreed to make the requested change in their editing behaviour.

6802:

I think what he means is established, as in prolific users like

3558:

allow for semi-automatic additions but with human intervention.

12367:

if they happen to guess that "E" is a link to edit the template

11038:

You can do the public collaborative watchlist thing now, using

10980:

is probably a bit better. I think current name is okay though.

10061: 7468:

under this proposal; but ideologically, I disagree with it). --

4759:

If you're getting no responses at the article's talk page, try

4713: 2972:

The easiest way to find your "My contributions" link is to get

12291:

it is useful, for everyone else it's just mysterious clutter.

11800: 10926:

users (their contributions could obviously also be watched). —

9987:

I like the idea, but am concerned that it might be abused for

8719:

heavy contributors who are not admins because they can do so.

7629:: Edit counts have no relationship to knowledge or wisdom. --- 997: 8389:

in principal even if its unlikely to be considered feasible.

12440:). I see this proposal as a solution that lacks a problem. 11067:

Any reason why the tool doesn't allow the following of IPs?

7071:

Perhaps you missed the fact that I initiated this proposal?

6480: 4647:

I don't think you'll get much traction for trying to revoke

2249:

If you want to see your own contributions quickly, just use

12241:

The same way they edit every other template and talk page.

12181:

Knowledge won't get itself closer to being a social network

9680:

Aren't we getting a bit close to being back in HELLKNOWZ's

9415:

Whilst I've often experienced the very same frustration as

8130:

That's pretty much one of the daftest essays ever written.

3607:

What benefit would such a page bring to this encyclopedia?

2800:

or something similar and with a note saying something like

2134:- Marcus Qwertyus supports the removal of this redundancy. 681:

section beginning `Fish are commonly eaten in Japan...'").

11776:

Even though this is clearly a joke, I'm totally on board.

11044:

Special:RecentChangesLinked/Template:Latin alphabet navbox

8261:

It doesn't really matter if a few of them were improper.

6281: 6263: 5696:

to redirect to that page, using a predictable format like

5617:

You don't see any cost to adding millions of redirects? --

5585:) that leads to a link that points back the the Knowledge 406:

meta:Licensing update/Implementation#Terms for edit screen

10072:. We already have crosswiki contributions tools (here is 9645:

If they are vandals, why aren't they already blocked? --

5837:; having a bot "fix" them would actually do harm to real 2156:

Request for comment: Adoption of new unblock appeals tool

983:

I am not sure what your asking - but the format used at

10670: 10663: 9465:

We can also remember something that Jimbo pointed out: "

9282: 4827:. Can you explain what are the benefits of this change? 4763:. Per Izno, this isn't the appropriate venue. Thanks. -- 4113:

With regards to speedy deletion, I recommend installing

1382:

The last thing we need is yet another citation style. —

1220:

By the way, you might like to read the documentation at

9750:

they would appear on the Special:Contributions page. --

6508:

If you want those anchors so badly, why don't you just

6019:

Proposed Removal of Article tab in Archived Talk pages.

364:

Ensure your contributions are legal: any content which

315:

Ensure your contributions are legal: any content which

265:

Again, consolidating those editnotices under the Editor

11973:

Maintain a shortcut for User pages and User talk pages

11497:

Advantages: Addresses a problem only where one exists.

9277: 5605:

article, agreed, but I don't see that as a problem. --

4961:(or such) be a more appropriate place to discuss this? 3816:

section with things such as page zoom and speech etc--

3391:

defining features, and those with multiple infoboxes.

12179:- Something makes me think you proposed this before. 12082: 11508:

Advantages: Effectively prevents abuse in most cases.

8219:. Basically, I see this as a proposal from Malleus, 7382: 6949:

No self-respecting editor would ever appeal a block.

6159:

The built in #top links to the pagename, for example

6076: 5770:

to create the link, and a lot of websites do not use

1026:

This is more user friendly and professional looking

1002:

Knowledge:Citing sources#Citation templates and tools

85:

History revisions should use historical file versions

12222:

Only show the V • T • E links in navboxes to editors

12051:

Create an option to allow people to suggest a change

9297: 6568:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2197:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

2067:. . (Edit summary) would take up much less space as 12348:

Template talk:Navbar#Getting rid of the V T E links

8688:Reminds me of that Lynne Truss/Robert Sutton book, 7137:be difficult to block, not the knee-jerk reaction. 5991:

Very welcome news; kudos to you and to HighBeam. --

4168: 970:

http://www.library.cornell.edu/resrch/citmanage/mla

10388:, (my support is not contingent on any of these): 9251:Allow watchlisting of Special:Contributions/ pages 6167:. As in this example, it will often be a hatnote. 3810:Adding another disclaimer page about Accessibility 1529:... is that what you're trying to engender? Best, 1455:Getting people to pay more attention to talk pages 975:http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/747/01/ 9287: 6492:via the bug reports & feature requests system 5891:(often external links are undue, or plain spam). 2178:General discussion of occupational categorization 1829:Citation Style templates- centralizing talk pages 11005:Special:Watchlist/User:Davidwr/WikiProjectPoland 10490:Special:Contributions/Ser Amansup;tio di Nicolao 10455:Knowledge:List of Wikipedians by number of edits 10394:automatically expire watches after N (30?) days, 10391:make it an assigned userright (per Jasper Deng), 5920:This presumably is related to the discussion at 5018:you got the issue right when acknowledging it. - 4727:That said, this isn't the place to bring it up. 4385:Subtle notification of Article Talk page changes 4167:Of course there's an API. It's available at < 2183:"My contributions" link for anonymous IP editors 1631:User talk:Wavelength/Archive 1#Watchlist folders 6961:I actually agree there to some degree. I wrote 6036:. Either way, this would be a useful feature. — 4914:? You can activate it in your Preferences-: --> 3893:As a totally blind person (who happens to have 1244:Template:Did you know nominations/Sam and Diane 8190:(and others) said it well and clear enough. - 8086:Yes, clearly we don't block for edit warring. 6317:title and a concise definition or explanation. 4567:with both episode name and original air date. 3189:The remainder of the first sentence after the 6571:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 6252:I didn't read it all either, but this use of 5204:But if you mouse over it, it shows the date. 3944:I think that most editors are unaware of the 3128:, not specifically us IPs.) would be useful. 2414:Pardon, but where is the argument to exclude 2200:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 1073:http://books.google.com/books?id=ymAWgveoxW8C 960:http://books.google.com/books?id=ymAWgveoxW8C 11527:Proposal: Give only to users with rollback. 7755:". (With apologies to Enigo Montoya). Best, 6549:Adding a NOINDEX tag to unpatrolled articles 4513:Um, I'm trying to get consensus in order to 2926:http://wikitech.wikimedia.org/view/Main_Page 1931:WP:VPT#Moving saves username in edit summary 457:and add "not forum" point for talk pages. -- 12074: 11046:(because that template links to them all). 8116:(an essay, but should be policy, frankly). 7374: 6154:Proposal: allow anchors to lead paragraphs. 6068: 5294:or to set up a UID namespace, for example: 4965:links be collected in some special section? 3864:Can you elaborate a "moral one", please? -- 1624:Make it possible to have several watchlists 1412:New WikiPedia Desktop and Mobile UI Designs 1067:. New York: Broadside–HarperCollins, 2011. 1029: 954:. New York: Broadside–HarperCollins, 2011. 9467:our social policies are not a suicide pact 2317:, and then click your linked IP address.-- 359:both the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL 310:both the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL 11743:Time for new logo and default skin change 10676: 6519:after all as long as you comply with the 5735:Allow to move to a website even if it is 5567:within the en.wikipedia.org domain gives 4986:Not everyone like Harvard referencing. -- 4781:You're right anyway - just clean it out. 368:will be deleted on sight unless properly 319:will be deleted on sight unless properly 12183:. Besides, Skype does not work that way. 7794:As opposed to their cravat do you mean? 7225:which the blocked user can participate. 6673:have the technical capability to do so. 6512:and edit it to your heart's content? It 4807:(Policy) because of letter "P" mistake. 3714:The example that you linked to uses the 1260:I am happy they did. Seriously, compare 542:Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation 540:That's rather what I get paid for. :) 514:Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation 8182:- This proposal seems to suggest that: 7506:. Edit count is not a valid measure. — 4731:would have been more appropriate. :) -- 3625:It is as accurate as your preferences. 3211:for a tool to assist human editors. -- 700:the edit was made. You can look at the 14: 11009:Knowledge:WikiProject Poland/Watchlist 9292: 8639:Quit accusing me of trolling asshole. 7651:likelihood of being overturned later. 6436:or some other interested wikiproject. 6432:request, maybe recruiting the help of 4558:Those italicised sentences are called 4227:Add a gadget to colour redirects green 3850:an effort to deal with such problems. 3766:. As I mentioned, the API result from 3270:Both examples would be okay according 3159:Knowledge:Persondata#Short_description 2765:"Account registration isn't required." 2655:expresses most of my feelings nicely. 1702:Pages where I perform NFCC enforcement 704:if you want to see the edit itself. — 12396: 12328: 11777: 11458:deal with vandalism and disruption. — 11387: 8913: 8475:Possibly Illegal under current US law 8036: 7949:-1 will be reluctant to wheel war). 7887: 7856: 7816: 6966: 6237:The topic caught my attention, but – 6132: 5113: 5108:There's a card game in development - 4280: 4233: 2647:to create an account, just that they 1127:MLA is already acceptable. In fact, 11795: 11486:Advantages: Low potential for abuse. 10386:if we need that to achieve consensus 9914:- more than it will bring benefit.-- 9302: 9264:The following discussion is closed. 8912:distance from drama these days too. 8221:who has been blocked 17 times so far 6562:The following discussion is closed. 4359:is added by MediaWiki itself (since 2509:Special:Contributions/66.159.220.134 2273:I amend this suggestion to ask that 2191:The following discussion is closed. 1772:User:UncleDouggie/smart watchlist.js 334: 285:Ensure that encyclopedic content is 269: 12470:account for use on public computers 11180:based on totally public information 10995:Shared watchlists and collaboration 9283:Shared watchlists and collaboration 6510:download your own copy of Knowledge 6410:MOS: Lead paragraph: First_sentence 5766:The MediaWiki software detects the 4655:do a thing, it does not follow you 2796:under the caveat that it is called 2651:and that there are benefits to it. 1850:Maintenance Category Reorganization 1006:there is no set way for referencing 404:that is required by Wikimedia (see 23: 11913:Um, what? It's not my design... -- 11810:. Please do not take it seriously. 9488:they're improving the encyclopedia 9423:vandals' edits shows a failure to 8298:That it clearly doesn't matter to 7918:. Bad metric, even worse idea. ~ 6758:Anyway, my point is, it's not the 5854:, and "fixing" it would also harm 4169:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php 1238:Not only that user; also those at 24: 18:Knowledge:Village pump (proposals) 12495: 12276:that need working out first). -- 11623:The discussion above is closed. 10832:Proposal for Toolserver prototype 10536:and 19:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 10495:Special:Contributions/Dr. Blofeld 10485:Special:Contributions/Woohookitty 9278:Proposal for Toolserver prototype 6601:"edits" defined as "edit-count"? 6434:Knowledge talk:Semantic Knowledge 5475:...to take a couple of examples. 4302:Knowledge:Tools/Navigation popups 4279:shows "Knowledge:Verifiability". 2161:Village pump official irc channel 1137:Knowledge talk:Citing sources/FAQ 12154:Knowledge official skype account 11799: 11349:I strongly recommend trying out 10518:Special:Contributions/Wavelength 10510:Special:Contributions/Tassedethe 9306: 9242:The discussion above is closed. 8663: 8114:Knowledge:No vested contributors 6479: 6028:, the article tab would link to 5466:if all else fails use English.") 4162:Exporting table data as CSV file 4118:only cos it's so damn useful) -- 3974:Bot to notify admins of backlogs 3143:The discussion above is closed. 3048:As an IP address contributor, I 2308: 2035:the removal of this redundancy. 1886: 400:You're missing the reference to 366:infringes third-party copyrights 338: 317:infringes third-party copyrights 273: 78:Village pump (proposals) archive 12129:Knowledge:Article Feedback Tool 11668:Knowledge:Articles for Creation 11478:Solutions for controlling abuse 10480:Special:Contributions/Waacstats 9315:Template:Centralized discussion 9298:Solutions for controlling abuse 6710:of edits a sysop does, but the 5771: 3948:embedded in English Knowledge. 3748: 3743: 3632: 3627: 3416: 2143: 1972:- You can vote for the bug fix 12354:): The main reason for having 10500:Special:Contributions/Alansohn 10475:Special:Contributions/Rjwilmsi 8618:Knowledge:Don't feed the divas 7249:Can you suggest a better one? 6739:/yawn at silly timewasting. -- 3152:Persondata backlog done by bot 2798:All contributions from this IP 2136: 1010:Knowledge:Verification methods 298:from an unbiased point of view 13: 1: 12438:{{Colorado Avalanche roster}} 11247:18:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 11230:17:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 11211:20:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 11194:20:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 11167:16:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 11145:02:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 11129:20:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 11101:03:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 11092:03:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 11054:21:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 11034:21:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 10952:00:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 10938:20:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 10921:21:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 10891:21:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 10860:20:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 10850:19:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 10723:10:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 10694:03:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 10681:04:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 10643:20:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 10626:01:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 10611:00:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 10594:00:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 10579:20:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 10554:20:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 10534:17:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 10470:Special:Contributions/Bearcat 10446:06:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 10415:03:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 10377:02:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 10339:02:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 10321:02:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 10302:07:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 10288:01:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 10275:22:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 10254:14:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 10237:09:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 10217:13:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC) 10208:15:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 10196:17:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC) 9557:17:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC) 9327:01:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 5915:Image or caption dispute tag? 5613:21:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC) 5600:20:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC) 5555:10:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 5537:10:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 5485:12:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 5441:23:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 5412:22:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 5385:22:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 5376:21:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 5363:21:48, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 5349:21:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 5319:21:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 5047:Knowledge talk:Citing sources 4123: 3958:13:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC) 3821: 3513:21:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 3496:11:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 3484:21:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 3468:11:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 3455:20:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 3404:00:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3366:16:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3350:05:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3335:04:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3318:01:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3300:00:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 3286:21:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 3266:20:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 3247:19:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 3230:11:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 3221:09:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 3203:06:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 3193:is another likely contender. 3191:Forename, surname (19xx-19yy) 3185:03:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 3171:02:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 2986:05:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 2968:02:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 2951:20:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC) 2933:02:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 2916:23:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 2898:04:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 2878:04:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 2854:04:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 2835:09:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC) 2813:21:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 2777:16:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC) 2759:16:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC) 2730:16:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC) 2712:15:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC) 2690:09:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC) 2660:20:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC) 2636:19:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC) 2610:15:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC) 2593:12:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC) 2575:19:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC) 2556:14:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC) 2523:20:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC) 2491:11:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC) 2466:19:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC) 2450:13:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC) 2432:19:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 2410:16:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 2386:11:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC) 2372:14:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 2358:13:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 2327:13:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 2303:22:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 2263:22:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 1599:23:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 1558:19:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 1539:15:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 1516:01:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 1502:00:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 1473:00:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 1327:16:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 1276:09:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 1256:04:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 1234:04:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 1213:04:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 1199:03:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 1168:03:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 1149:03:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 1119:20:12, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 1022:07:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 931:20:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 912:01:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 887:21:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC) 870:14:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 839:14:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 821:13:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 814: 805:13:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 783:13:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 755:13:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 724:15:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 714:14:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 686:14:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 666:11:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 646:05:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 632:05:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 618:05:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 594:05:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 522:09:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 505:14:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 473:11:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 446:15:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC) 434:13:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 416:02:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 393:21:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 346:Before you save your changes: 281:Before you save your changes: 257:03:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC) 238:05:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC) 226:00:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC) 212:18:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC) 193:18:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC) 168:20:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC) 154:16:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC) 123:15:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC) 104:15:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC) 12149:User scripts cleanup project 11124: 11062:Prototype tool now available 10819:, RSS is already available! 10505:Special:Contributions/Hmains 10179:01:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC) 10161:22:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC) 10146:15:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC) 10125:09:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC) 10108:22:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC) 10088:18:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC) 10058:it would be extremely useful 10045:22:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 10032:12:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC) 10014:04:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC) 10001:21:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 9983:17:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 9970:06:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 9947:23:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9924:20:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9903:20:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9880:18:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9860:18:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9840:17:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9816:17:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9780:16:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9760:17:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9743:14:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9695:16:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9676:15:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9661:15:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9641:15:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9609:15:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9590:14:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9575:14:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9535:14:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9500:17:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9461:14:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9406:13:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9381:13:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9356:13:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 9288:Prototype tool now available 8347: 6658:Ahhh, I get your point now. 6624:Seems reasonable to me IMO. 5026:) 16:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC) 4120: 3895:Knowledge:General disclaimer 3818: 3209:Knowledge:Persondata-o-matic 2928:in the right top corner). — 2922:mw:Manual:$ wgShowIPinHeader 2440:asking for it to be done. -- 811: 678:Knowledge:Persondata-o-matic 7: 11119: 11040:Special:RecentChangesLinked 10465:Special:Contributions/Koavf 8197:02:33, 12 March 2012‎ (UTC) 7941:is a large number - if any 6087:This was also discussed at 5296:UID/Ensembl/ENSG00000163914 4565:Template:Infobox television 4446:Keep drafts of edited pages 2438:administrator's noticeboard 2313:edit pane button, click on 1693:Village pumps and help desk 1690:Articles I am interested in 1656:Special:RecentChangesLinked 939:Modern Language Association 10: 12500: 12482:14:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC) 12464:19:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC) 12448:15:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC) 12425:15:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC) 12390:22:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC) 12316:22:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC) 12301:22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC) 12286:21:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC) 12271:21:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC) 12251:22:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC) 12237:21:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC) 12216:01:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC) 12204:06:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC) 12191:05:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC) 12170:05:38, 24 March 2012 (UTC) 12141:10:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 12123:10:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 12087:02:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 12063:21:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 12043:10:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 12032:08:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 12015:08:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 11993:06:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 11967:18:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 11946:00:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 11923:00:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC) 11909:18:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 11881:08:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 11852:07:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 11831:03:51, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 11772:03:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 11760:03:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 11737:09:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 11718:03:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 11698:02:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 11681:01:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 11652:00:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 11637:List of Internet phenomena 11470:16:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 11443:23:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 11424:16:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 11264:for getting rollback, but 10985:00:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 10826:22:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 10812:23:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 10787:13:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 10764:02:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 9706:22:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 9232:19:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 9201:20:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 9187:17:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 9168:12:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 9146:19:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 9118:19:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 9089:21:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 9072:19:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 9048:21:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 9034:21:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 9013:19:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 8991:18:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 8969:17:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 8951:17:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 8907:16:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 8881:16:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 8860:16:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 8837:15:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 8820:21:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 8787:15:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 8758:06:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 8731:21:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 8702:02:49, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 8684:00:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 8661:21:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 8647:21:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 8635:21:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 8620:. Malleus, quit trolling. 8613:04:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 8593:21:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 8574:19:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 8557:17:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 8539:13:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 8500:03:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 8487:12:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 8470:17:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 8449:01:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 8439:of this precise proposal. 8430:15:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 8405:15:19, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 8382:14:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 8365:08:56, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 8333:04:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 8310:02:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 8294:12:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 8280:19:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 8257:04:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 8245:03:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 8233:03:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 8212:05:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 8175:02:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 8153:12:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 8138:02:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 8126:01:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 8101:02:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 8082:01:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 8070:01:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 8030:13:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 8013:08:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 7998:04:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 7981:04:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 7961:02:03, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 7928:19:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7882:01:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 7842:03:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 7802:03:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 7790:15:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7765:03:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 7747:14:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 7732:13:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 7717:13:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 7700:14:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7681:14:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7661:14:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7641:13:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7620:13:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7597:13:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7578:13:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7553:12:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7541:12:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7520:11:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7499:11:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7481:11:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7458:11:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7425:10:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7408:10:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7387:06:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7360:10:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7342:05:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7331:04:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7300:04:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7272:04:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7257:04:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7245:04:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7230:04:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7203:03:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 7186:01:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 7175:I see what you did there. 7171:04:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 7156:19:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7145:04:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7129:04:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7093:04:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7079:03:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7067:02:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7050:02:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7028:02:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 7016:05:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 7007:04:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6995:03:51, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6957:02:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6945:02:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6926:02:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6909:02:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6890:02:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6872:02:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6851:02:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6827:01:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6815:01:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6796:01:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6771:01:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6750:01:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6731:01:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6719:01:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6696:01:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6678:04:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6667:02:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6651:01:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6636:01:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6618:01:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6606:01:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 6591:09:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC) 6541:21:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 6504:20:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 6475:19:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 6446:16:18, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 6422:15:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 6403:10:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 6365:15:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 6350:10:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 6327:22:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 6312:02:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 6294:22:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 6276:01:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 6227:22:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 6201:01:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 6177:23:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 6123:03:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC) 6100:01:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 6081:22:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 6062:15:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 6048:15:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 6013:20:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC) 5999:14:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 5980:00:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC) 5965:Illustration of exoplanets 5950:23:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 5938:Only indirectly. Regards, 5934:00:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 5901:02:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 5882:19:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 5829:17:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 5811:14:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 5786:13:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 5762:13:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 5751:11:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 5729:18:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC) 5710:00:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 5284:UID interface to Knowledge 5270:20:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 5240:20:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 5214:19:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 5192:19:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 5167:17:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 5141:13:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC) 5083:00:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC) 5068:00:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 4791:22:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC) 4773:19:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 4755:19:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 4741:16:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 4699:19:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 4669:18:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 4643:16:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 4629:15:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 4615:12:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 4595:10:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 4543:23:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 4509:20:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 4495:18:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 4462:19:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 4436:07:51, 14 March 2012 (UTC) 4421:19:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 4403:06:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC) 4375:00:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 4351:22:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 4331:21:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 4322:User:Anomie/linkclassifier 4315:22:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 4267:22:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 4219:18:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 4205:19:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 4189:19:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 4146:00:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 4130:22:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 4093:22:22, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 4080:22:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 4059:17:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 4039:13:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 4013:03:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 4001:03:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 3983:generally used to archive 3940:03:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC) 3593:20:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 3138:19:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC) 3115:13:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 2217:01:47, 20 April 2012 (UTC) 2150:03:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC) 1131:says that editors may use 12350:, which has the question 11611:19:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC) 11585:19:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC) 11575:14:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC) 11378:04:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC) 11334:22:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC) 11317:Adminship, generally, is 11309:12:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC) 11290:15:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 10972:00:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC) 10747:17:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC) 8164:, per my comments above. 8110:Strongest possible oppose 6165:Causality#mw-content-text 5680:15:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC) 5642:14:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC) 5627:14:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 5038:22:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC) 4999:05:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC) 4982:17:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC) 4949:22:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC) 4926:10:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC) 4898:11:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC) 4884:10:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC) 4851:10:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC) 4837:10:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC) 4820:10:48, 8 March 2012 (UTC) 4577:15:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC) 4179:. (Or I will shortly.) -- 3914:15:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 3889:12:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 3874:12:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 3860:11:48, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 3845:07:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 3828:02:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 3800:05:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC) 3781:09:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 3754:09:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 3733:06:10, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 3710:06:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 3688:05:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 3656:08:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 3638:05:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 3617:22:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC) 3568:15:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 3546:04:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 3523:02:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 3090:08:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC) 3062:01:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC) 3044:10:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 3024:04:09, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 3000:11:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 2338:Strongest possible oppose 2241:19:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 2172:22:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC) 2123:20:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC) 2099:19:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC) 2040:19:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC) 2028:09:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC) 2007:15:37, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 1988:20:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC) 1965:20:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC) 1948:18:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC) 1922:13:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC) 1908:13:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC) 1874:Suitability for Inclusion 1844:14:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 1823:17:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 1805:11:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC) 1784:22:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 1760:21:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 1727:20:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 1663:20:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 1646:20:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 1616:14:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 1577:03:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC) 1449:04:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC) 1433:04:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC) 1406:15:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC) 1360:15:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC) 1222:Template:Cleanup-link rot 572:14:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 550:18:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 536:14:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC) 12410:22:46, 24 Mar 2012 (UTC) 12342:22:01, 24 Mar 2012 (UTC) 11862:the original puzzle ball 11791:03:46, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC) 11626:Please do not modify it. 11401:14:30, 12 Mar 2012 (UTC) 11007:then transclude it into 9267:Please do not modify it. 9244:Please do not modify it. 8927:17:27, 13 Mar 2012 (UTC) 8690:Eats Shoots and Assholes 8050:16:51, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC) 7901:05:34, 12 Mar 2012 (UTC) 7870:13:31, 11 Mar 2012 (UTC) 7830:15:44, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC) 6980:01:11, 14 Mar 2012 (UTC) 6603:Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 6565:Please do not modify it. 6146:03:23, 21 Mar 2012 (UTC) 6026:Talk:FL Studio/Archive 1 5127:15:15, 14 Mar 2012 (UTC) 4553:Latest ep of a TV series 4294:23:28, 12 Mar 2012 (UTC) 4247:19:20, 12 Mar 2012 (UTC) 4047:backlogs. We don't have 3760:WikiProject User scripts 3737:OK. I have developed my 3145:Please do not modify it. 2194:Please do not modify it. 1071:. Web. 04 Feb. 2012 < 958:. Web. 04 Feb. 2012 < 9195:The Hand That Feeds You 9162:The Hand That Feeds You 7614:The Hand That Feeds You 6498:The Hand That Feeds You 5698:Ensembl-ENSG00000163914 5666:record. Ditto proteins. 5292:Ensembl:ENSG00000163914 5049:. I think that exactly 4663:The Hand That Feeds You 4503:The Hand That Feeds You 4213:The Hand That Feeds You 4115:User:Ais523/catwatch.js 3012:Special:MyContributions 2884:Special:MyContributions 2670:Knowledge:Role accounts 2416:Special:MyContributions 2275:Special:MyContributions 2251:Special:MyContributions 1189:what he was thinking? 1000:for an example More at 764:Addendum to my comment: 708:The Hand That Feeds You 402:foundation:Terms of use 12127:Also, you can use the 12093:@138.162, You can use 11927:Sorry. I noticed your 11262:admin approval process 9956:Support as a userright 9937:affect other users. -- 9484:competence is required 9259: 9258: 6762:of Wiki-work, but the 6408:particular sentence: 6215:Causality#firstHeading 6211:Causality#firstHeading 6189:may be linked to with 6183:Causality#firstHeading 4300:If it's any interest, 4051:admins w/ a dashboard. 3991:, just below the TOC. 2277:appear on the list at 2271:Thanks. In that case, 1527:talk:Gustave Whitehead 941:format into Knowledge? 877:per Fuhgettaboutit. - 578:Automatic edit summary 12415:something like this. 11705:the Article talk page 11176:Special:Contributions 11138:Special:Contributions 10283:I did more adopting. 10263:improve collaboration 9257: 9256: 9065:per editcountitis. -- 8676:Only to an American. 5858:cleanup interests. — 5692:code for the protein 5028:Struck my arrogance - 4304:(in preferences : --> 2904:Special:Contributions 2737:Special:Contributions 2505:Special:Contributions 2283:Currently it doesn't. 2069:00:00, March 9, 2012 2049:00:00, March 9, 2012 1696:Specific policy pages 1004:. "All that said" - 374:do not copy and paste 325:do not copy and paste 140:Unused non-free media 11871:, at some point.) -- 9413:Oppose (reluctantly) 9068:SarekOfVulcan (talk) 7199:SarekOfVulcan (talk) 7152:SarekOfVulcan (talk) 7125:SarekOfVulcan (talk) 6389:software enhancement 6193:in modern browsers. 5797:robustness principle 5563:A google search for 5103:wikipedia board game 4635:♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 4275:shows "WP:V", while 3900:Knowledge:Using JAWS 3007:Special:SpecialPages 2865:Special:SpecialPages 2456:Wikimedia's bugzilla 2420:Special:SpecialPages 2402:♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 2279:Special:SpecialPages 1918:SarekOfVulcan (talk) 1585:| Talk (2 updates) | 638:♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 10689:dramatic net good. 9832:Delicious carbuncle 8286:Boing! said Zebedee 8145:Boing! said Zebedee 6034:FL Studio/Archive 1 4519:mw:Extension:Drafts 3716:Editcount extension 3354:Sounds good to me. 2993:per Alpha Quadrant 2794:Conditional support 2743:, an IP editor has 2677:Conditional support 2483:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 2378:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 2350:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff 1856:Cleanup and Grammar 1834:Go be bold, imo. -- 12346:(Coming here from 9684:, by now, though? 7313:pissing people off 5147:Proposed guideline 4797:editing references 3770:is enough for me. 3556:Persondata-o-matic 3240:Persondata-o-matic 3183: 2745:almost 12,000 edit 2741:User:220.101.28.25 2063:) . . 2,000 bytes 1185:considered asking 1054:Then this I think 894:Support as opt-out 12409: 12341: 12269: 12013: 11990: 11814: 11813: 11790: 11664: 11609: 11573: 11468: 11436:argument here. - 11422: 11400: 11332: 11288: 11228: 11192: 11109:Upon request only 11032: 11031: 10936: 10919: 10918: 10889: 10888: 10848: 10784: 10641: 10144: 10086: 10070:abstraction layer 9868:User:173.168.93.7 9555: 9533: 9459: 9425:assume good faith 9393: 9332: 9331: 9293:Upon request only 9116: 8967: 8949: 8926: 8591: 8555: 8372:- editcountitis. 8188:Peter (Southwood) 8173: 8099: 8068: 8049: 8007:Peter (Southwood) 7964: 7900: 7869: 7829: 7518: 7497: 7461: 7444:comment added by 7339:Narutolovehinata5 7269:Narutolovehinata5 7184: 7047:Narutolovehinata5 6979: 6876:I suppose I will 6812:Narutolovehinata5 6768:Narutolovehinata5 6716:Narutolovehinata5 6675:Narutolovehinata5 6664:Narutolovehinata5 6648:Narutolovehinata5 6145: 6046: 5879: 5809: 5126: 5040: 4959:WP:Citing sources 4822: 4560:Knowledge:Hatnote 4293: 4246: 3720:Navigation Popups 3685: 3602:Special:EditCount 3596: 3394: 3177: 2998: 2680: 2653:IPs are human too 2342:create an account 1940: 1868:Comprehensiveness 1403: 1357: 1098: 1084:comment added by 1045:978-0-06-193477-3 1039:. HarperCollins. 848:Agree, partially: 382: 381: 333: 332: 12491: 12459: 12411: 12404: 12402: 12381: 12376: 12361: 12357: 12343: 12336: 12334: 12262: 12258: 12209:Knowledge:Mumble 12165: 12112: 12106: 12102: 12096: 12084: 12078: 12040: 12026: 12006: 12002: 11984: 11929:Athena Prototype 11869: 11858: 11803: 11796: 11792: 11785: 11783: 11735: 11731: 11716: 11712: 11679: 11675: 11658: 11628: 11603: 11567: 11462: 11416: 11402: 11395: 11393: 11374: 11366: 11365: 11362: 11326: 11282: 11275:already possible 11222: 11186: 11165: 11162: 11157: 11126: 11121: 11088: 11080: 11079: 11076: 11017: 11016: 10969: 10964: 10930: 10904: 10903: 10874: 10873: 10842: 10782: 10778: 10775: 10721: 10712: 10708: 10678: 10672: 10665: 10635: 10608: 10603: 10576: 10571: 10444: 10441: 10436: 10431: 10412: 10407: 10373: 10365: 10364: 10361: 10337: 10333: 10138: 10121: 10106: 10080: 9899: 9894: 9738: 9731: 9693: 9689: 9656: 9649: 9639: 9588: 9584: 9548: 9544: 9526: 9522: 9452: 9448: 9404: 9400: 9387: 9379: 9310: 9309: 9303: 9269: 9196: 9163: 9106: 9069: 9031: 9027: 9022: 9001:User:250000edits 8988: 8984: 8979: 8957: 8939: 8928: 8921: 8919: 8904: 8900: 8895: 8818: 8817: 8784: 8780: 8775: 8770:thousand edits? 8764:Counter proposal 8748: 8728: 8667: 8666: 8632: 8628: 8624: 8585: 8566:Charles Matthews 8554: 8467: 8427: 8423: 8418: 8402: 8358: 8354: 8353: 8169: 8095: 8064: 8051: 8044: 8042: 7959: 7902: 7895: 7893: 7871: 7864: 7862: 7831: 7824: 7822: 7722:with you. Best, 7636: 7615: 7576: 7529:Strange Passerby 7511: 7507: 7487: 7460: 7438: 7404: 7398: 7397:CharlieEchoTango 7384: 7378: 7356: 7350: 7349:CharlieEchoTango 7320: 7289: 7200: 7195: 7180: 7153: 7126: 6981: 6974: 6972: 6633: 6628: 6588: 6583: 6567: 6499: 6483: 6398: 6298:It appears from 6261: 6255: 6192: 6188: 6147: 6140: 6138: 6078: 6072: 6040: 5880: 5875: 5874: 5872: 5803: 5781: 5773: 5759: 5688:So you want the 5576: 5570: 5535: 5526: 5522: 5515: 5509: 5505: 5499: 5439: 5430: 5426: 5347: 5332: 5317: 5308: 5304: 5128: 5121: 5119: 5027: 5013: 5007: 4993: 4924: 4920: 4879: 4871: 4865: 4802: 4664: 4613: 4537: 4532: 4527: 4504: 4489: 4484: 4479: 4401: 4367:in early 2008). 4358: 4340: 4328: 4295: 4288: 4286: 4256: 4248: 4241: 4239: 4214: 4125: 4122: 4077: 4073: 4068: 4036: 4032: 4027: 3911: 3839: 3823: 3820: 3797: 3779: 3775: 3751: 3745: 3731: 3727: 3706: 3703: 3700: 3697: 3686: 3673: 3635: 3629: 3591: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3448: 3438: 3427: 3421: 3392: 3360: 3329: 3280: 3182: 3113: 3087: 3082: 2994: 2895: 2890: 2882:Logout and type 2852: 2848: 2831: 2825: 2824:CharlieEchoTango 2805:Toshio Yamaguchi 2769:Toshio Yamaguchi 2756: 2751: 2722:Toshio Yamaguchi 2709: 2704: 2682:Toshio Yamaguchi 2674: 2633: 2628: 2607: 2602: 2572: 2567: 2520: 2515: 2476:Your reading of 2346:my contributions 2312: 2214: 2209: 2196: 2147: 2140: 2112: 2096: 2091: 2086: 2066: 1985: 1980: 1938: 1919: 1890: 1803: 1719:Toshio Yamaguchi 1586: 1491: 1485: 1404: 1399: 1398: 1396: 1358: 1353: 1352: 1350: 1097: 1078: 1077: 1049: 998:Google book tool 964: 910: 867: 860: 816: 813: 780: 773: 752: 745: 709: 664: 621: 503: 488: 471: 432: 430: 425: 342: 341: 335: 293:reliable sources 277: 276: 270: 149: 79: 54: 12499: 12498: 12494: 12493: 12492: 12490: 12489: 12488: 12457: 12398: 12379: 12370: 12359: 12355: 12330: 12260: 12224: 12195:Have a look at 12161: 12156: 12151: 12110: 12104: 12100: 12094: 12053: 12039:Dipankan says.. 12038: 12024: 12004: 11975: 11965: 11867: 11856: 11779: 11745: 11729: 11727: 11710: 11708: 11696: 11673: 11671: 11640: 11633: 11624: 11480: 11389: 11372: 11363: 11360: 11359: 11160: 11155: 11152: 11111: 11086: 11077: 11074: 11073: 11064: 10997: 10967: 10962: 10834: 10780: 10773: 10756:Hobbes Goodyear 10710: 10704: 10703: 10606: 10601: 10574: 10569: 10439: 10434: 10429: 10425: 10410: 10405: 10371: 10362: 10359: 10358: 10352: 10349: 10331: 10329: 10171:Graeme Bartlett 10117: 10100: 9897: 9892: 9736: 9729: 9687: 9685: 9654: 9647: 9626: 9582: 9580: 9546: 9524: 9450: 9398: 9396: 9366: 9307: 9265: 9260: 9253: 9248: 9247: 9240: 9194: 9161: 9127:the power users 9097: 9067: 9029: 9025: 9020: 8986: 8982: 8977: 8915: 8902: 8898: 8893: 8847: 8809: 8805: 8782: 8778: 8773: 8766: 8754: 8744: 8726: 8664: 8630: 8626: 8622: 8463: 8425: 8421: 8416: 8400: 8356: 8346: 8038: 7920:J. Johnson (JJ) 7889: 7858: 7818: 7634: 7613: 7563: 7509: 7439: 7402: 7396: 7354: 7348: 7328: 7318: 7297: 7287: 7198: 7191: 7151: 7124: 7106:WP:BATTLEGROUND 6968: 6631: 6626: 6598: 6586: 6581: 6563: 6556: 6551: 6497: 6396: 6259: 6253: 6243:J. Johnson (JJ) 6190: 6186: 6156: 6134: 6110: 6021: 5988: 5917: 5870: 5865: 5859: 5779: 5774:in the URL. --- 5758:Dipankan says.. 5757: 5743:Graeme Bartlett 5737: 5574: 5568: 5565:ENSG00000163914 5524: 5518: 5517: 5513: 5507: 5503: 5497: 5428: 5422: 5421: 5333: 5328: 5306: 5300: 5299: 5286: 5154: 5152:Citation needed 5149: 5115: 5105: 5060:J. Johnson (JJ) 5011: 5005: 4991: 4974:J. Johnson (JJ) 4918: 4916: 4910:Have you tried 4877: 4869: 4863: 4799: 4717: 4662: 4600: 4555: 4535: 4530: 4525: 4502: 4487: 4482: 4477: 4448: 4398: 4387: 4356: 4348: 4338: 4326: 4282: 4264: 4254: 4235: 4229: 4212: 4164: 4075: 4071: 4066: 4034: 4030: 4025: 3976: 3909: 3837: 3812: 3796:Dipankan says.. 3795: 3773: 3771: 3725: 3723: 3704: 3701: 3698: 3695: 3668: 3604: 3443: 3432: 3430: 3429: 3425: 3419: 3356: 3325: 3276: 3213:John of Reading 3178: 3154: 3149: 3148: 3100: 3085: 3080: 3054:184.146.126.165 2893: 2888: 2846: 2844: 2829: 2823: 2754: 2749: 2707: 2702: 2631: 2626: 2605: 2600: 2570: 2565: 2518: 2513: 2319:Fuhghettaboutit 2316: 2246: 2225:Buzilla request 2212: 2207: 2192: 2185: 2180: 2163: 2158: 2120: 2110: 2094: 2089: 2084: 2064: 1999:Fuhghettaboutit 1983: 1978: 1917: 1915:, redundant. -- 1883: 1852: 1831: 1815: 1790: 1699:User talk pages 1626: 1584: 1489: 1483: 1457: 1414: 1394: 1389: 1383: 1348: 1343: 1337: 1079: 1059: 1046: 1033:(31 May 2011). 946: 943: 897: 863: 856: 831:Fuhghettaboutit 797:Fuhghettaboutit 776: 769: 748: 741: 707: 651: 611: 580: 489: 484: 458: 428: 423: 421: 339: 274: 267: 249:Unscintillating 204:Unscintillating 185:Unscintillating 147: 87: 82: 80: 77: 74: 48: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 12497: 12487: 12486: 12485: 12484: 12450: 12433: 12432: 12431: 12430: 12429: 12428: 12427: 12363: 12324: 12323: 12322: 12321: 12320: 12319: 12318: 12255: 12254: 12253: 12223: 12220: 12219: 12218: 12206: 12193: 12173: 12172: 12155: 12152: 12150: 12147: 12146: 12145: 12144: 12143: 12108:Edit protected 12091: 12090: 12089: 12052: 12049: 12048: 12047: 12046: 12045: 12017: 11995: 11974: 11971: 11970: 11969: 11961: 11954: 11953: 11952: 11951: 11950: 11949: 11948: 11891:Harris' design 11884: 11883: 11859: 11854: 11833: 11812: 11811: 11804: 11794: 11793: 11774: 11762: 11744: 11741: 11740: 11739: 11723: 11722: 11721: 11720: 11692: 11684: 11683: 11655: 11654: 11639: 11634: 11632: 11631: 11619: 11618: 11617: 11616: 11615: 11614: 11613: 11559: 11558: 11557: 11556: 11553: 11547: 11546: 11545: 11542: 11536: 11535: 11534: 11531: 11525: 11524: 11523: 11520: 11514: 11513: 11512: 11509: 11503: 11502: 11501: 11498: 11492: 11491: 11490: 11487: 11479: 11476: 11475: 11474: 11473: 11472: 11446: 11445: 11429: 11428: 11427: 11426: 11404: 11403: 11380: 11343: 11342: 11341: 11340: 11339: 11338: 11337: 11336: 11319:not a big deal 11312: 11311: 11293: 11292: 11260:: there is an 11250: 11249: 11232: 11213: 11196: 11169: 11147: 11131: 11110: 11107: 11106: 11105: 11104: 11103: 11063: 11060: 11059: 11058: 11057: 11056: 10996: 10993: 10992: 10991: 10990: 10989: 10988: 10987: 10963:Alpha_Quadrant 10955: 10954: 10943: 10942: 10941: 10940: 10894: 10893: 10865: 10864: 10863: 10862: 10833: 10830: 10829: 10828: 10814: 10789: 10766: 10749: 10731: 10725: 10696: 10683: 10654: 10653: 10652: 10651: 10650: 10649: 10648: 10647: 10646: 10645: 10602:Alpha_Quadrant 10570:Alpha_Quadrant 10557: 10556: 10538: 10537: 10522: 10521: 10514: 10513: 10512: 10507: 10502: 10497: 10492: 10487: 10482: 10477: 10472: 10467: 10459: 10458: 10448: 10418: 10417: 10401: 10400: 10399: 10398: 10395: 10392: 10379: 10350: 10347: 10341: 10323: 10306: 10305: 10304: 10277: 10256: 10239: 10221: 10220: 10219: 10198: 10181: 10163: 10150: 10149: 10148: 10110: 10090: 10050:Strong support 10047: 10038:mediazilla:470 10034: 10016: 10003: 9985: 9972: 9952: 9951: 9950: 9949: 9927: 9926: 9905: 9883: 9882: 9863: 9862: 9843: 9842: 9819: 9818: 9802: 9801: 9785: 9784: 9783: 9782: 9763: 9762: 9746: 9745: 9723: 9722: 9721: 9720: 9719: 9718: 9717: 9716: 9715: 9714: 9713: 9712: 9711: 9710: 9709: 9708: 9616: 9615: 9614: 9613: 9612: 9611: 9562: 9561: 9560: 9559: 9507: 9506: 9505: 9504: 9503: 9502: 9475: 9474: 9473: 9472: 9471: 9470: 9409: 9408: 9384: 9383: 9359: 9358: 9340: 9339: 9336: 9330: 9329: 9311: 9301: 9300: 9295: 9290: 9285: 9280: 9274: 9273: 9272: 9255: 9254: 9252: 9249: 9241: 9239: 9236: 9235: 9234: 9216:Justin (koavf) 9208: 9207: 9206: 9205: 9204: 9203: 9171: 9170: 9151: 9133: 9130: 9121: 9120: 9096: 9093: 9092: 9091: 9074: 9060: 9059: 9058: 9057: 9056: 9055: 9054: 9053: 9052: 9051: 9050: 8934: 8933: 8932: 8931: 8930: 8929: 8884: 8883: 8863: 8862: 8846: 8843: 8842: 8841: 8840: 8839: 8822: 8790: 8789: 8765: 8762: 8761: 8760: 8752: 8736: 8735: 8734: 8733: 8713: 8712: 8711: 8710: 8709: 8708: 8707: 8706: 8705: 8704: 8615: 8596: 8595: 8576: 8559: 8541: 8507: 8506: 8505: 8504: 8503: 8502: 8452: 8451: 8432: 8407: 8384: 8367: 8342:fair few times 8335: 8318: 8317: 8316: 8315: 8314: 8313: 8312: 8296: 8247: 8214: 8199: 8177: 8159: 8158: 8157: 8156: 8155: 8107: 8106: 8105: 8104: 8103: 8054: 8053: 8052: 8022:71.163.243.232 8015: 8000: 7983: 7973:71.163.243.232 7966: 7965: 7937:admins, where 7930: 7912: 7911: 7910: 7909: 7908: 7907: 7906: 7905: 7904: 7903: 7847: 7846: 7845: 7844: 7806: 7805: 7804: 7774: 7773: 7772: 7771: 7770: 7769: 7768: 7767: 7739:71.163.243.232 7709:71.163.243.232 7703: 7702: 7684: 7683: 7664: 7663: 7644: 7643: 7635:Gadget850 (Ed) 7623: 7622: 7600: 7599: 7581: 7580: 7556: 7555: 7543: 7522: 7501: 7483: 7462: 7427: 7410: 7389: 7365: 7364: 7363: 7362: 7334: 7333: 7326: 7306: 7305: 7304: 7303: 7302: 7295: 7277: 7276: 7275: 7274: 7262: 7261: 7260: 7259: 7232: 7215: 7214: 7213: 7212: 7211: 7210: 7209: 7208: 7207: 7206: 7205: 7163:71.163.243.232 7104:, "victim" is 7099: 7098: 7097: 7096: 7095: 7085:TenOfAllTrades 7059:TenOfAllTrades 7052: 7040: 7039: 7038: 7037: 7036: 7035: 7034: 7033: 7032: 7031: 7030: 6982: 6928: 6911: 6894: 6893: 6892: 6858: 6857: 6856: 6855: 6854: 6853: 6834:TenPoundHammer 6804:TenPoundHammer 6799: 6798: 6780: 6779: 6778: 6777: 6776: 6775: 6774: 6773: 6737: 6736: 6735: 6734: 6733: 6701: 6700: 6699: 6698: 6683: 6682: 6681: 6680: 6654: 6653: 6639: 6638: 6622: 6621: 6620: 6597: 6596: 6595: 6594: 6593: 6558: 6557: 6555: 6552: 6550: 6547: 6546: 6545: 6544: 6543: 6487: 6477: 6461: 6460: 6459: 6458: 6457: 6456: 6455: 6454: 6453: 6452: 6451: 6450: 6449: 6448: 6397:Gadget850 (Ed) 6376: 6375: 6374: 6373: 6372: 6371: 6370: 6369: 6368: 6367: 6296: 6250: 6234: 6233: 6232: 6231: 6230: 6229: 6155: 6152: 6151: 6150: 6149: 6148: 6126: 6125: 6109: 6106: 6105: 6104: 6103: 6102: 6085: 6084: 6083: 6020: 6017: 6016: 6015: 6001: 5987: 5984: 5983: 5982: 5968: 5955: 5954: 5953: 5952: 5916: 5913: 5912: 5911: 5910: 5909: 5908: 5907: 5906: 5905: 5904: 5903: 5815: 5814: 5813: 5780:Gadget850 (Ed) 5736: 5733: 5732: 5731: 5714: 5713: 5712: 5683: 5682: 5668: 5667: 5662: 5661: 5657: 5656: 5651: 5650: 5649: 5648: 5647: 5646: 5645: 5644: 5560: 5559: 5558: 5557: 5492: 5491: 5490: 5489: 5488: 5487: 5473: 5472: 5471: 5467: 5460: 5451: 5399: 5394: 5393: 5392: 5391: 5390: 5389: 5388: 5387: 5352: 5351: 5321: 5285: 5282: 5281: 5280: 5279: 5278: 5277: 5276: 5275: 5274: 5273: 5272: 5249: 5248: 5247: 5246: 5245: 5244: 5243: 5242: 5221: 5220: 5219: 5218: 5217: 5216: 5197: 5196: 5195: 5194: 5180: 5176: 5170: 5169: 5153: 5150: 5148: 5145: 5144: 5143: 5130: 5129: 5104: 5101: 5100: 5099: 5098: 5097: 5096: 5095: 5094: 5093: 5092: 5091: 5090: 5089: 5088: 5087: 5086: 5085: 5055: 4966: 4962: 4955: 4954: 4953: 4952: 4951: 4929: 4928: 4907: 4906: 4905: 4904: 4903: 4902: 4901: 4900: 4878:Gadget850 (Ed) 4856: 4855: 4854: 4853: 4824: 4823: 4798: 4795: 4794: 4793: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4725: 4716: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4702: 4701: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4672: 4671: 4645: 4617: 4580: 4579: 4554: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4545: 4465: 4464: 4447: 4444: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4438: 4406: 4405: 4386: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4346: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4262: 4228: 4225: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4192: 4191: 4173: 4163: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4133: 4132: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4018: 4017: 4016: 4015: 3975: 3972: 3971: 3970: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3923: 3919: 3891: 3830: 3811: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3805: 3804: 3803: 3802: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3735: 3712: 3690: 3663: 3662: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3641: 3640: 3620: 3619: 3603: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3597: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3538:71.163.243.232 3499: 3498: 3487: 3486: 3471: 3470: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3440: 3407: 3406: 3386:BCS refers to 3383: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3250: 3249: 3232: 3223: 3205: 3187: 3173: 3153: 3150: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3118: 3117: 3093: 3092: 3078:all together. 3067: 3066: 3065: 3064: 3027: 3026: 3002: 2988: 2970: 2953: 2944:Strong support 2941: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2935: 2908:66.159.220.134 2889:Alpha_Quadrant 2857: 2856: 2837: 2821:contributors. 2815: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2750:Alpha_Quadrant 2703:Alpha_Quadrant 2693: 2692: 2662: 2638: 2627:Alpha_Quadrant 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2601:Alpha_Quadrant 2566:Alpha_Quadrant 2559: 2558: 2540: 2539: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2514:Alpha_Quadrant 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2424:66.159.220.134 2390: 2389: 2388: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2314: 2295:66.159.220.134 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2266: 2265: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2229:bugzilla:36121 2221: 2220: 2219: 2187: 2186: 2184: 2181: 2179: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2162: 2159: 2157: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2118: 2102: 2101: 2090:Alpha_Quadrant 2083:) 2,000 bytes 2071:Alpha Quadrant 2068: 2051:Alpha Quadrant 2048: 2042: 2030: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2009: 1991: 1990: 1967: 1950: 1924: 1910: 1892: 1891: 1882: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1871: 1865: 1859: 1851: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1830: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1814: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1748: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1700: 1697: 1694: 1691: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1649: 1648: 1634: 1625: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1580: 1579: 1561: 1560: 1542: 1541: 1519: 1518: 1505: 1504: 1494:TenOfAllTrades 1476: 1475: 1456: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1436: 1435: 1413: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1218: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1122: 1121: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1044: 1024: 993:Diane Chambers 978: 977: 972: 966: 965: 942: 935: 934: 933: 915: 914: 890: 889: 872: 844: 843: 842: 841: 824: 823: 807: 788: 787: 786: 785: 758: 757: 729: 728: 727: 726: 689: 688: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 634: 616:comment added 604:Till I Go Home 597: 596: 579: 576: 575: 574: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 554: 553: 552: 476: 475: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 395: 380: 379: 378: 377: 362: 355: 343: 331: 330: 329: 328: 313: 306: 278: 268: 266: 263: 262: 261: 260: 259: 241: 240: 228: 215: 214: 196: 195: 177: 176: 175: 174: 173: 172: 171: 170: 148:Gadget850 (Ed) 128: 127: 126: 125: 107: 106: 86: 83: 81: 76: 75: 73: 72: 71: 70: 65: 60: 55: 43: 38: 25: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 12496: 12483: 12479: 12475: 12471: 12467: 12466: 12465: 12462: 12461: 12460: 12451: 12449: 12446: 12443: 12439: 12434: 12426: 12422: 12418: 12413: 12412: 12408: 12407: 12403: 12401: 12393: 12392: 12391: 12387: 12383: 12374: 12368: 12364: 12353: 12349: 12345: 12344: 12340: 12339: 12335: 12333: 12325: 12317: 12313: 12309: 12304: 12303: 12302: 12298: 12294: 12289: 12288: 12287: 12283: 12279: 12274: 12273: 12272: 12268: 12264: 12256: 12252: 12248: 12244: 12240: 12239: 12238: 12234: 12230: 12226: 12225: 12217: 12214: 12210: 12207: 12205: 12202: 12198: 12194: 12192: 12189: 12186: 12182: 12178: 12175: 12174: 12171: 12168: 12166: 12164: 12158: 12157: 12142: 12138: 12134: 12130: 12126: 12125: 12124: 12120: 12116: 12109: 12099: 12092: 12088: 12085: 12079: 12077: 12071: 12066: 12065: 12064: 12061: 12060: 12055: 12054: 12044: 12041: 12035: 12034: 12033: 12030: 12027: 12023: 12018: 12016: 12012: 12008: 12000: 11996: 11994: 11991: 11988: 11983: 11977: 11976: 11968: 11964: 11960: 11955: 11947: 11943: 11939: 11934: 11930: 11926: 11925: 11924: 11920: 11916: 11912: 11911: 11910: 11906: 11902: 11898: 11896: 11892: 11888: 11887: 11886: 11885: 11882: 11878: 11874: 11870: 11863: 11855: 11853: 11850: 11846: 11842: 11839:, but I am a 11838: 11834: 11832: 11828: 11824: 11820: 11816: 11815: 11809: 11806:This section 11805: 11802: 11798: 11797: 11789: 11788: 11784: 11782: 11775: 11773: 11770: 11767: 11763: 11761: 11758: 11755: 11751: 11747: 11746: 11738: 11734: 11732: 11725: 11724: 11719: 11715: 11713: 11706: 11701: 11700: 11699: 11695: 11691: 11686: 11685: 11682: 11678: 11676: 11669: 11662: 11661:edit conflict 11657: 11656: 11653: 11650: 11647: 11642: 11641: 11638: 11630: 11627: 11621: 11620: 11612: 11607: 11602: 11597: 11592: 11588: 11587: 11586: 11583: 11578: 11577: 11576: 11571: 11566: 11561: 11560: 11554: 11551: 11550: 11548: 11543: 11540: 11539: 11537: 11532: 11529: 11528: 11526: 11521: 11518: 11517: 11515: 11510: 11507: 11506: 11504: 11499: 11496: 11495: 11493: 11488: 11485: 11484: 11482: 11481: 11471: 11466: 11461: 11457: 11453: 11450: 11449: 11448: 11447: 11444: 11441: 11440: 11434: 11431: 11430: 11425: 11420: 11415: 11411: 11408: 11407: 11406: 11405: 11399: 11398: 11394: 11392: 11384: 11381: 11379: 11376: 11375: 11368: 11367: 11356: 11352: 11348: 11345: 11344: 11335: 11330: 11325: 11320: 11316: 11315: 11314: 11313: 11310: 11306: 11302: 11297: 11296: 11295: 11294: 11291: 11286: 11281: 11276: 11271: 11267: 11263: 11259: 11254: 11253: 11252: 11251: 11248: 11244: 11240: 11236: 11233: 11231: 11226: 11221: 11217: 11214: 11212: 11208: 11204: 11200: 11197: 11195: 11190: 11185: 11181: 11177: 11173: 11172:Strong oppose 11170: 11168: 11164: 11163: 11158: 11151: 11148: 11146: 11143: 11139: 11135: 11132: 11130: 11127: 11122: 11116: 11113: 11112: 11102: 11099: 11095: 11094: 11093: 11090: 11089: 11082: 11081: 11070: 11066: 11065: 11055: 11052: 11049: 11045: 11041: 11037: 11036: 11035: 11029: 11025: 11021: 11014: 11010: 11006: 11003: 10999: 10998: 10986: 10983: 10979: 10975: 10974: 10973: 10970: 10965: 10959: 10958: 10957: 10956: 10953: 10950: 10945: 10944: 10939: 10934: 10929: 10924: 10923: 10922: 10916: 10912: 10908: 10901: 10896: 10895: 10892: 10886: 10882: 10878: 10871: 10868:Sounds good. 10867: 10866: 10861: 10858: 10853: 10852: 10851: 10846: 10841: 10836: 10835: 10827: 10824: 10823: 10818: 10815: 10813: 10810: 10809: 10804: 10799: 10798: 10793: 10790: 10788: 10785: 10783: 10781:it's my world 10776: 10770: 10767: 10765: 10761: 10757: 10753: 10750: 10748: 10744: 10740: 10735: 10732: 10729: 10726: 10724: 10720: 10716: 10711:Pigsonthewing 10707: 10700: 10697: 10695: 10692: 10687: 10684: 10682: 10679: 10674: 10673: 10667: 10666: 10660:per 28bytes. 10659: 10656: 10655: 10644: 10639: 10634: 10629: 10628: 10627: 10623: 10619: 10614: 10613: 10612: 10609: 10604: 10597: 10596: 10595: 10591: 10587: 10582: 10581: 10580: 10577: 10572: 10566: 10562: 10559: 10558: 10555: 10551: 10547: 10543: 10540: 10539: 10535: 10531: 10527: 10523: 10519: 10515: 10511: 10508: 10506: 10503: 10501: 10498: 10496: 10493: 10491: 10488: 10486: 10483: 10481: 10478: 10476: 10473: 10471: 10468: 10466: 10463: 10462: 10461: 10460: 10456: 10452: 10449: 10447: 10443: 10442: 10437: 10432: 10423: 10420: 10419: 10416: 10413: 10408: 10403: 10402: 10396: 10393: 10390: 10389: 10387: 10383: 10380: 10378: 10375: 10374: 10367: 10366: 10355: 10345: 10342: 10340: 10336: 10334: 10327: 10324: 10322: 10318: 10314: 10310: 10307: 10303: 10300: 10296: 10291: 10290: 10289: 10286: 10281: 10278: 10276: 10272: 10268: 10264: 10260: 10257: 10255: 10251: 10247: 10243: 10240: 10238: 10234: 10230: 10225: 10222: 10218: 10215: 10211: 10210: 10209: 10206: 10202: 10199: 10197: 10193: 10189: 10185: 10182: 10180: 10176: 10172: 10167: 10164: 10162: 10159: 10154: 10151: 10147: 10142: 10137: 10132: 10131:contributions 10128: 10127: 10126: 10122: 10120: 10114: 10111: 10109: 10105: 10104: 10098: 10094: 10091: 10089: 10084: 10079: 10075: 10071: 10067: 10063: 10059: 10055: 10051: 10048: 10046: 10043: 10039: 10035: 10033: 10029: 10025: 10021: 10017: 10015: 10012: 10009: 10004: 10002: 9998: 9994: 9990: 9986: 9984: 9981: 9978: 9973: 9971: 9968: 9965: 9961: 9957: 9954: 9953: 9948: 9944: 9940: 9936: 9931: 9930: 9929: 9928: 9925: 9921: 9917: 9913: 9909: 9906: 9904: 9901: 9900: 9895: 9888: 9885: 9884: 9881: 9877: 9873: 9869: 9865: 9864: 9861: 9857: 9853: 9848: 9845: 9844: 9841: 9837: 9833: 9829: 9824: 9821: 9820: 9817: 9813: 9809: 9804: 9803: 9799: 9795: 9791: 9787: 9786: 9781: 9777: 9773: 9767: 9766: 9765: 9764: 9761: 9757: 9753: 9748: 9747: 9744: 9741: 9740: 9739: 9732: 9725: 9724: 9707: 9704: 9703: 9698: 9697: 9696: 9692: 9690: 9683: 9679: 9678: 9677: 9673: 9669: 9664: 9663: 9662: 9659: 9658: 9657: 9650: 9644: 9643: 9642: 9637: 9636: 9631: 9630: 9624: 9623: 9622: 9621: 9620: 9619: 9618: 9617: 9610: 9606: 9602: 9597: 9593: 9592: 9591: 9587: 9585: 9578: 9577: 9576: 9572: 9568: 9564: 9563: 9558: 9554: 9550: 9541: 9538: 9537: 9536: 9532: 9528: 9520: 9516: 9512: 9509: 9508: 9501: 9497: 9493: 9489: 9485: 9481: 9480: 9479: 9478: 9477: 9476: 9468: 9464: 9463: 9462: 9458: 9454: 9446: 9441: 9440: 9439: 9438: 9434: 9430: 9426: 9422: 9418: 9414: 9411: 9410: 9407: 9403: 9401: 9391: 9390:edit conflict 9386: 9385: 9382: 9377: 9376: 9371: 9370: 9364: 9361: 9360: 9357: 9353: 9349: 9345: 9342: 9341: 9337: 9334: 9333: 9328: 9324: 9320: 9316: 9312: 9305: 9304: 9299: 9296: 9294: 9291: 9289: 9286: 9284: 9281: 9279: 9276: 9275: 9271: 9268: 9262: 9261: 9245: 9238:Archive this? 9233: 9229: 9225: 9221: 9217: 9213: 9210: 9209: 9202: 9199: 9197: 9190: 9189: 9188: 9184: 9180: 9176: 9173: 9172: 9169: 9166: 9164: 9157: 9152: 9149: 9148: 9147: 9143: 9139: 9134: 9131: 9128: 9123: 9122: 9119: 9114: 9110: 9103: 9099: 9098: 9090: 9086: 9082: 9078: 9075: 9073: 9070: 9064: 9061: 9049: 9045: 9041: 9037: 9036: 9035: 9032: 9028: 9023: 9016: 9015: 9014: 9010: 9006: 9002: 8998: 8994: 8993: 8992: 8989: 8985: 8980: 8972: 8971: 8970: 8965: 8961: 8954: 8953: 8952: 8947: 8943: 8936: 8935: 8925: 8924: 8920: 8918: 8910: 8909: 8908: 8905: 8901: 8896: 8888: 8887: 8886: 8885: 8882: 8878: 8874: 8869: 8866:And it's not 8865: 8864: 8861: 8857: 8853: 8849: 8848: 8838: 8834: 8830: 8826: 8823: 8821: 8816: 8812: 8808: 8803: 8798: 8794: 8793: 8792: 8791: 8788: 8785: 8781: 8776: 8768: 8767: 8759: 8756: 8755: 8749: 8747: 8741: 8738: 8737: 8732: 8729: 8722: 8717: 8716: 8715: 8714: 8703: 8699: 8695: 8691: 8687: 8686: 8685: 8682: 8679: 8675: 8674: 8673: 8671: 8662: 8658: 8654: 8650: 8649: 8648: 8645: 8642: 8638: 8637: 8636: 8633: 8625: 8619: 8616: 8614: 8610: 8606: 8601: 8598: 8597: 8594: 8589: 8584: 8580: 8577: 8575: 8571: 8567: 8563: 8560: 8558: 8553: 8552:Seraphimblade 8549: 8545: 8542: 8540: 8536: 8532: 8528: 8524: 8521: 8518: 8515: 8512: 8509: 8508: 8501: 8498: 8495: 8490: 8489: 8488: 8484: 8480: 8476: 8473: 8472: 8471: 8468: 8466: 8459: 8454: 8453: 8450: 8446: 8442: 8438: 8433: 8431: 8428: 8424: 8419: 8411: 8408: 8406: 8403: 8396: 8392: 8388: 8385: 8383: 8379: 8375: 8371: 8368: 8366: 8362: 8355: 8352: 8351: 8343: 8339: 8336: 8334: 8330: 8326: 8322: 8319: 8311: 8308: 8305: 8301: 8297: 8295: 8291: 8287: 8283: 8282: 8281: 8277: 8273: 8269: 8264: 8260: 8259: 8258: 8255: 8252: 8248: 8246: 8243: 8240: 8236: 8235: 8234: 8230: 8226: 8222: 8218: 8215: 8213: 8209: 8205: 8200: 8198: 8195: 8194: 8189: 8185: 8181: 8178: 8176: 8172: 8167: 8163: 8160: 8154: 8150: 8146: 8141: 8140: 8139: 8136: 8133: 8129: 8128: 8127: 8123: 8119: 8115: 8111: 8108: 8102: 8098: 8093: 8089: 8085: 8084: 8083: 8080: 8077: 8073: 8072: 8071: 8067: 8062: 8058: 8055: 8048: 8047: 8043: 8041: 8033: 8032: 8031: 8027: 8023: 8019: 8016: 8014: 8010: 8008: 8004: 8001: 7999: 7995: 7991: 7987: 7984: 7982: 7978: 7974: 7970: 7967: 7962: 7957: 7956: 7953: 7948: 7944: 7940: 7936: 7931: 7929: 7925: 7921: 7917: 7914: 7913: 7899: 7898: 7894: 7892: 7885: 7884: 7883: 7880: 7877: 7873: 7872: 7868: 7867: 7863: 7861: 7853: 7852: 7851: 7850: 7849: 7848: 7843: 7840: 7837: 7833: 7832: 7828: 7827: 7823: 7821: 7814: 7810: 7807: 7803: 7800: 7797: 7793: 7792: 7791: 7787: 7783: 7779: 7776: 7775: 7766: 7762: 7758: 7754: 7750: 7749: 7748: 7744: 7740: 7735: 7734: 7733: 7729: 7725: 7720: 7719: 7718: 7714: 7710: 7705: 7704: 7701: 7697: 7693: 7689: 7686: 7685: 7682: 7678: 7674: 7669: 7666: 7665: 7662: 7658: 7654: 7649: 7646: 7645: 7642: 7639: 7638: 7637: 7628: 7625: 7624: 7621: 7618: 7616: 7609: 7605: 7602: 7601: 7598: 7594: 7590: 7589:Jim.henderson 7586: 7583: 7582: 7579: 7574: 7573: 7568: 7567: 7561: 7558: 7557: 7554: 7551: 7547: 7544: 7542: 7538: 7534: 7530: 7526: 7523: 7521: 7517: 7513: 7505: 7502: 7500: 7495: 7491: 7484: 7482: 7479: 7478: 7475: 7472: 7466: 7463: 7459: 7455: 7451: 7447: 7443: 7435: 7431: 7428: 7426: 7422: 7418: 7414: 7411: 7409: 7405: 7399: 7393: 7390: 7388: 7385: 7379: 7377: 7370: 7367: 7366: 7361: 7357: 7351: 7345: 7344: 7343: 7340: 7336: 7335: 7332: 7329: 7324: 7322: 7321: 7314: 7310: 7307: 7301: 7298: 7293: 7291: 7290: 7283: 7282: 7281: 7280: 7279: 7278: 7273: 7270: 7266: 7265: 7264: 7263: 7258: 7255: 7252: 7248: 7247: 7246: 7243: 7240: 7236: 7233: 7231: 7228: 7223: 7219: 7216: 7204: 7201: 7194: 7189: 7188: 7187: 7183: 7178: 7174: 7173: 7172: 7168: 7164: 7159: 7158: 7157: 7154: 7148: 7147: 7146: 7143: 7140: 7136: 7132: 7131: 7130: 7127: 7121: 7118: 7115: 7111: 7107: 7103: 7100: 7094: 7090: 7086: 7082: 7081: 7080: 7077: 7074: 7070: 7069: 7068: 7064: 7060: 7056: 7053: 7051: 7048: 7044: 7041: 7029: 7026: 7023: 7019: 7018: 7017: 7014: 7010: 7009: 7008: 7005: 7002: 6998: 6997: 6996: 6992: 6988: 6983: 6978: 6977: 6973: 6971: 6964: 6960: 6959: 6958: 6955: 6952: 6948: 6947: 6946: 6942: 6938: 6937: 6932: 6929: 6927: 6923: 6919: 6915: 6912: 6910: 6906: 6902: 6898: 6895: 6891: 6887: 6883: 6879: 6875: 6874: 6873: 6869: 6865: 6860: 6859: 6852: 6848: 6844: 6839: 6835: 6830: 6829: 6828: 6825: 6822: 6818: 6817: 6816: 6813: 6809: 6805: 6801: 6800: 6797: 6793: 6789: 6785: 6782: 6781: 6772: 6769: 6765: 6761: 6757: 6756: 6755: 6754: 6753: 6752: 6751: 6748: 6745: 6742: 6738: 6732: 6729: 6726: 6722: 6721: 6720: 6717: 6713: 6709: 6705: 6704: 6703: 6702: 6697: 6694: 6691: 6687: 6686: 6685: 6684: 6679: 6676: 6671: 6670: 6669: 6668: 6665: 6661: 6656: 6655: 6652: 6649: 6644: 6643:Strong Oppose 6641: 6640: 6637: 6634: 6629: 6623: 6619: 6616: 6613: 6609: 6608: 6607: 6604: 6600: 6599: 6592: 6589: 6584: 6578: 6574: 6573: 6572: 6569: 6566: 6560: 6559: 6542: 6538: 6534: 6530: 6526: 6522: 6518: 6515: 6511: 6507: 6506: 6505: 6502: 6500: 6493: 6488: 6486: 6482: 6478: 6476: 6472: 6468: 6463: 6462: 6447: 6443: 6439: 6435: 6430: 6425: 6424: 6423: 6419: 6415: 6411: 6406: 6405: 6404: 6401: 6400: 6399: 6390: 6386: 6385: 6384: 6383: 6382: 6381: 6380: 6379: 6378: 6377: 6366: 6362: 6358: 6353: 6352: 6351: 6347: 6343: 6339: 6338:WP:Persondata 6335: 6330: 6329: 6328: 6324: 6320: 6315: 6314: 6313: 6309: 6305: 6300: 6297: 6295: 6291: 6287: 6283: 6279: 6278: 6277: 6273: 6269: 6265: 6258: 6251: 6248: 6244: 6240: 6236: 6235: 6228: 6224: 6220: 6216: 6212: 6208: 6207:Causality#top 6204: 6203: 6202: 6199: 6196: 6184: 6181:There's also 6180: 6179: 6178: 6174: 6170: 6166: 6162: 6161:Causality#top 6158: 6157: 6144: 6143: 6139: 6137: 6130: 6129: 6128: 6127: 6124: 6120: 6116: 6112: 6111: 6101: 6097: 6093: 6090: 6086: 6082: 6079: 6073: 6071: 6065: 6064: 6063: 6059: 6055: 6051: 6050: 6049: 6044: 6039: 6035: 6031: 6027: 6023: 6022: 6014: 6010: 6006: 6002: 6000: 5997: 5994: 5990: 5989: 5981: 5977: 5973: 5969: 5966: 5962: 5957: 5956: 5951: 5947: 5946: 5941: 5937: 5936: 5935: 5931: 5927: 5923: 5919: 5918: 5902: 5898: 5894: 5889: 5885: 5884: 5883: 5878: 5868: 5864: 5863: 5857: 5853: 5849: 5844: 5840: 5836: 5832: 5831: 5830: 5827: 5824: 5820: 5816: 5812: 5807: 5802: 5798: 5794: 5789: 5788: 5787: 5784: 5783: 5782: 5769: 5765: 5764: 5763: 5760: 5754: 5753: 5752: 5748: 5744: 5739: 5738: 5730: 5726: 5722: 5718: 5715: 5711: 5707: 5703: 5699: 5695: 5691: 5687: 5686: 5685: 5684: 5681: 5678: 5675: 5670: 5669: 5664: 5663: 5659: 5658: 5653: 5652: 5643: 5639: 5635: 5630: 5629: 5628: 5624: 5620: 5616: 5615: 5614: 5611: 5608: 5603: 5602: 5601: 5597: 5593: 5588: 5584: 5580: 5573: 5566: 5562: 5561: 5556: 5552: 5548: 5544: 5540: 5539: 5538: 5534: 5530: 5525:Pigsonthewing 5521: 5512: 5502: 5494: 5493: 5486: 5482: 5478: 5474: 5468: 5464: 5463: 5461: 5457: 5452: 5449: 5444: 5443: 5442: 5438: 5434: 5429:Pigsonthewing 5425: 5419: 5415: 5414: 5413: 5409: 5405: 5400: 5396: 5395: 5386: 5383: 5379: 5378: 5377: 5374: 5371: 5366: 5365: 5364: 5361: 5358:let me know. 5356: 5355: 5354: 5353: 5350: 5345: 5341: 5337: 5331: 5325: 5322: 5320: 5316: 5312: 5307:Pigsonthewing 5303: 5297: 5293: 5288: 5287: 5271: 5267: 5263: 5259: 5258: 5257: 5256: 5255: 5254: 5253: 5252: 5251: 5250: 5241: 5237: 5233: 5229: 5228: 5227: 5226: 5225: 5224: 5223: 5222: 5215: 5211: 5207: 5203: 5202: 5201: 5200: 5199: 5198: 5193: 5189: 5185: 5181: 5177: 5174: 5173: 5172: 5171: 5168: 5164: 5160: 5156: 5155: 5142: 5139: 5136: 5132: 5131: 5125: 5124: 5120: 5118: 5111: 5107: 5106: 5084: 5080: 5076: 5071: 5070: 5069: 5065: 5061: 5056: 5052: 5048: 5044: 5043: 5042: 5041: 5039: 5035: 5031: 5025: 5021: 5017: 5010: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4997: 4994: 4990: 4985: 4984: 4983: 4979: 4975: 4971: 4970: 4967: 4963: 4960: 4956: 4950: 4946: 4942: 4937: 4936: 4935: 4934: 4933: 4932: 4931: 4930: 4927: 4923: 4921: 4913: 4909: 4908: 4899: 4895: 4891: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4882: 4881: 4880: 4868: 4862: 4861: 4860: 4859: 4858: 4857: 4852: 4848: 4844: 4840: 4839: 4838: 4834: 4830: 4826: 4825: 4821: 4817: 4813: 4809: 4806: 4801: 4800: 4792: 4788: 4784: 4780: 4774: 4770: 4766: 4762: 4758: 4757: 4756: 4752: 4748: 4747:188.4.233.216 4744: 4743: 4742: 4738: 4734: 4730: 4726: 4723: 4719: 4718: 4715: 4700: 4696: 4692: 4688: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4670: 4667: 4665: 4658: 4654: 4650: 4646: 4644: 4640: 4636: 4632: 4631: 4630: 4626: 4622: 4618: 4616: 4611: 4610: 4605: 4604: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4592: 4588: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4578: 4574: 4570: 4566: 4561: 4557: 4556: 4544: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4533: 4528: 4520: 4516: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4507: 4505: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4485: 4480: 4472: 4467: 4466: 4463: 4459: 4455: 4450: 4449: 4437: 4433: 4429: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4418: 4414: 4410: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4404: 4400: 4397: 4394: 4389: 4388: 4376: 4373: 4370: 4366: 4363:was fixed by 4362: 4354: 4353: 4352: 4349: 4344: 4342: 4341: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4329: 4323: 4320: 4316: 4312: 4308: 4303: 4299: 4292: 4291: 4287: 4285: 4278: 4274: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4265: 4260: 4258: 4257: 4250: 4249: 4245: 4244: 4240: 4238: 4231: 4230: 4220: 4217: 4215: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4202: 4198: 4194: 4193: 4190: 4186: 4182: 4178: 4174: 4170: 4166: 4165: 4147: 4144: 4141: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4131: 4128: 4126: 4116: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4094: 4091: 4088: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4078: 4074: 4069: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4057: 4054: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4041: 4040: 4037: 4033: 4028: 4020: 4019: 4014: 4011: 4008: 4004: 4003: 4002: 3998: 3994: 3990: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3977: 3959: 3955: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3942: 3941: 3937: 3933: 3929: 3924: 3920: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3912: 3907: 3906: 3901: 3896: 3892: 3890: 3886: 3882: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3862: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3843: 3840: 3836: 3831: 3829: 3826: 3824: 3814: 3813: 3801: 3798: 3792: 3791: 3790: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3782: 3778: 3776: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3756: 3755: 3752: 3750: 3746: 3740: 3736: 3734: 3730: 3728: 3721: 3717: 3713: 3711: 3708: 3707: 3691: 3689: 3683: 3680: 3677: 3672: 3665: 3664: 3657: 3653: 3649: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3639: 3636: 3634: 3630: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3618: 3614: 3610: 3606: 3605: 3594: 3589: 3588: 3585: 3579: 3578: 3569: 3565: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3543: 3539: 3535: 3530: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3521: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3510: 3506: 3501: 3500: 3497: 3494: 3489: 3488: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3473: 3472: 3469: 3466: 3462: 3461: 3456: 3449: 3446: 3439: 3436: 3428: 3423: 3422: 3414: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3405: 3401: 3397: 3389: 3385: 3384: 3367: 3364: 3361: 3359: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3347: 3343: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3333: 3330: 3328: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3315: 3311: 3306: 3303: 3302: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3284: 3281: 3279: 3273: 3269: 3268: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3248: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3233: 3231: 3228: 3224: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3206: 3204: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3188: 3186: 3181: 3174: 3172: 3168: 3164: 3160: 3156: 3155: 3146: 3139: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3123: 3120: 3119: 3116: 3111: 3110: 3105: 3104: 3098: 3095: 3094: 3091: 3088: 3083: 3076: 3072: 3069: 3068: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3032: 3029: 3028: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3008: 3003: 3001: 2997: 2992: 2989: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2969: 2965: 2961: 2957: 2954: 2952: 2949: 2945: 2942: 2934: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2900: 2899: 2896: 2891: 2885: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2875: 2871: 2866: 2862: 2859: 2858: 2855: 2851: 2849: 2841: 2838: 2836: 2832: 2826: 2819: 2816: 2814: 2810: 2806: 2803: 2799: 2795: 2792: 2791: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2757: 2752: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2733: 2732: 2731: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2714: 2713: 2710: 2705: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2678: 2673: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2661: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2639: 2637: 2634: 2629: 2622: 2619: 2618: 2611: 2608: 2603: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2573: 2568: 2561: 2560: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2542: 2541: 2524: 2521: 2516: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2479: 2475: 2467: 2464: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2447: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2398: 2397: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2336: 2335: 2328: 2324: 2320: 2311: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2291: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2282: 2280: 2276: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2248: 2247: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2227:was filed at 2226: 2222: 2218: 2215: 2210: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2198: 2195: 2189: 2188: 2173: 2170: 2165: 2164: 2151: 2148: 2146: 2141: 2139: 2133: 2130: 2129: 2124: 2121: 2116: 2114: 2113: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2100: 2097: 2092: 2082: 2079: 2076: 2072: 2062: 2059: 2056: 2052: 2046: 2043: 2041: 2038: 2034: 2031: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2014: 2013: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1989: 1986: 1981: 1975: 1971: 1968: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1951: 1949: 1946: 1943: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1925: 1923: 1920: 1914: 1911: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1894: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1884: 1875: 1872: 1869: 1866: 1863: 1860: 1857: 1854: 1853: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1832: 1824: 1821: 1817: 1816: 1806: 1801: 1800: 1795: 1794: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1781: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1746: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1701: 1698: 1695: 1692: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1664: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1632: 1628: 1627: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1596: 1595: 1590: 1582: 1581: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1563: 1562: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1550:Jim.henderson 1547: 1544: 1543: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1521: 1520: 1517: 1514: 1511: 1507: 1506: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1488: 1482: 1478: 1477: 1474: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1459: 1458: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1438: 1437: 1434: 1431: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1415: 1407: 1402: 1392: 1388: 1387: 1381: 1361: 1356: 1346: 1342: 1341: 1335: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1262: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1219: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1210: 1206: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1134: 1130: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1120: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1107: 1095: 1091: 1087: 1083: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1062: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1053: 1047: 1042: 1038: 1037: 1032: 1028: 1027: 1025: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1003: 999: 994: 990: 986: 985:Frasier Crane 982: 981: 980: 979: 976: 973: 971: 968: 967: 961: 957: 953: 949: 945: 944: 940: 932: 928: 924: 920: 917: 916: 913: 908: 907: 902: 901: 895: 892: 891: 888: 884: 880: 876: 873: 871: 868: 866: 861: 859: 852: 849: 846: 845: 840: 836: 832: 828: 827: 826: 825: 822: 819: 817: 808: 806: 802: 798: 793: 790: 789: 784: 781: 779: 774: 772: 765: 762: 761: 760: 759: 756: 753: 751: 746: 744: 738: 734: 731: 730: 725: 722: 717: 716: 715: 712: 710: 703: 699: 694: 691: 690: 687: 684: 679: 675: 667: 662: 661: 656: 655: 649: 648: 647: 643: 639: 635: 633: 630: 627: 623: 622: 619: 615: 609: 605: 601: 600: 599: 598: 595: 592: 589: 585: 582: 581: 573: 569: 565: 561: 560: 551: 547: 543: 539: 538: 537: 533: 529: 525: 524: 523: 519: 515: 511: 508: 507: 506: 501: 497: 493: 487: 482: 478: 477: 474: 469: 468: 463: 462: 456: 453: 447: 444: 441: 437: 436: 435: 431: 426: 424:ViperSnake151 419: 418: 417: 414: 411: 407: 403: 399: 396: 394: 391: 387: 384: 383: 375: 371: 367: 363: 360: 356: 353: 349: 348: 347: 344: 337: 336: 326: 322: 318: 314: 311: 307: 304: 300: 299: 294: 290: 289: 284: 283: 282: 279: 272: 271: 258: 254: 250: 245: 244: 243: 242: 239: 236: 232: 229: 227: 224: 220: 217: 216: 213: 209: 205: 201: 198: 197: 194: 190: 186: 182: 179: 178: 169: 165: 161: 157: 156: 155: 152: 151: 150: 141: 138: 134: 133: 132: 131: 130: 129: 124: 120: 116: 111: 110: 109: 108: 105: 101: 97: 93: 89: 88: 69: 68:Miscellaneous 66: 64: 61: 59: 56: 52: 47: 44: 42: 39: 37: 34: 33: 32: 31: 27: 26: 19: 12455: 12454: 12416: 12406: 12399: 12366: 12351: 12338: 12331: 12176: 12162: 12098:Request edit 12075: 12058: 12021: 11979: 11932: 11894: 11893: 11890: 11807: 11787: 11780: 11749: 11625: 11622: 11595: 11590: 11455: 11451: 11437: 11432: 11409: 11397: 11390: 11382: 11370: 11358: 11354: 11346: 11274: 11269: 11234: 11215: 11198: 11179: 11171: 11153: 11149: 11133: 11114: 11084: 11072: 11068: 11001: 10977: 10821: 10816: 10806: 10802: 10796: 10795: 10791: 10777: 10768: 10751: 10733: 10727: 10719:Andy's edits 10715:Talk to Andy 10706:Andy Mabbett 10698: 10685: 10668: 10661: 10657: 10560: 10541: 10450: 10426: 10385: 10381: 10369: 10357: 10353: 10343: 10325: 10308: 10279: 10262: 10258: 10241: 10223: 10200: 10183: 10165: 10152: 10118: 10112: 10102: 10096: 10092: 10066:device files 10057: 10049: 9993:WhatamIdoing 9955: 9934: 9912:wikistalking 9907: 9890: 9886: 9846: 9822: 9797: 9789: 9734: 9733: 9701: 9652: 9651: 9634: 9628: 9595: 9539: 9510: 9444: 9431: 9412: 9374: 9368: 9362: 9266: 9263: 9243: 9211: 9192: 9174: 9159: 9138:WhatamIdoing 9101: 9076: 9062: 9018: 8997:User:88edits 8975: 8923: 8916: 8891: 8867: 8824: 8801: 8796: 8771: 8751: 8745: 8739: 8720: 8689: 8668: 8599: 8578: 8561: 8547: 8543: 8527:WP:MOSTEDITS 8510: 8474: 8464: 8457: 8436: 8414: 8409: 8394: 8390: 8386: 8369: 8349: 8348: 8337: 8320: 8299: 8272:WhatamIdoing 8267: 8262: 8225:WhatamIdoing 8216: 8191: 8183: 8179: 8166:UltraExactZZ 8161: 8109: 8092:UltraExactZZ 8061:UltraExactZZ 8056: 8046: 8039: 8017: 8002: 7985: 7968: 7950: 7946: 7945:blocks, the 7942: 7938: 7934: 7915: 7897: 7890: 7866: 7859: 7826: 7819: 7808: 7777: 7752: 7687: 7667: 7647: 7631: 7630: 7626: 7611: 7603: 7584: 7571: 7565: 7559: 7545: 7524: 7503: 7469: 7464: 7440:— Preceding 7434:WP:MOSTEDITS 7429: 7412: 7391: 7375: 7368: 7316: 7308: 7285: 7234: 7221: 7217: 7177:UltraExactZZ 7134: 7116: 7101: 7083:Not at all. 7054: 7042: 6987:Demiurge1000 6976: 6969: 6934: 6930: 6913: 6896: 6877: 6843:Demiurge1000 6819:I did, yes. 6788:Demiurge1000 6783: 6763: 6759: 6711: 6707: 6659: 6657: 6642: 6577:See WP:ADMIN 6570: 6564: 6561: 6528: 6524: 6517:free content 6513: 6495: 6484: 6428: 6393: 6392: 6333: 6142: 6135: 6108:Contribs tab 6069: 5972:WhatamIdoing 5944: 5926:WhatamIdoing 5887: 5860: 5776: 5775: 5716: 5702:WhatamIdoing 5533:Andy's edits 5529:Talk to Andy 5520:Andy Mabbett 5455: 5437:Andy's edits 5433:Talk to Andy 5424:Andy Mabbett 5417: 5329: 5323: 5315:Andy's edits 5311:Talk to Andy 5302:Andy Mabbett 5123: 5116: 5050: 5016:I must say, 5015: 4988: 4957:1) Wouldn't 4874: 4873: 4660: 4656: 4652: 4608: 4602: 4523: 4522: 4500: 4475: 4474: 4336: 4290: 4283: 4252: 4243: 4236: 4210: 4064: 4048: 4044: 4023: 3989:this version 3932:WhatamIdoing 3903: 3834: 3749: 3693: 3648:Phil Bridger 3633: 3609:Phil Bridger 3582: 3560:1ForTheMoney 3551: 3536:won't work. 3533: 3528: 3444: 3434: 3417: 3396:1ForTheMoney 3357: 3326: 3277: 3235: 3195:Stuartyeates 3190: 3163:Stuartyeates 3144: 3130:72.137.97.65 3125: 3121: 3108: 3102: 3096: 3075:accidentally 3074: 3070: 3049: 3036:Andy Dingley 3030: 3016:67.117.145.9 3005:Just add to 3004: 2990: 2974:this warning 2955: 2943: 2860: 2839: 2817: 2801: 2797: 2793: 2764: 2676: 2675:Switched to 2665: 2664: 2648: 2644: 2640: 2620: 2580: 2543: 2442:He to Hecuba 2363: 2345: 2341: 2337: 2315:show preview 2272: 2255:He to Hecuba 2205:that IP. -- 2199: 2193: 2190: 2144: 2137: 2131: 2108: 2077: 2057: 2044: 2032: 2015: 1969: 1952: 1935:filing a bug 1926: 1912: 1895: 1873: 1867: 1861: 1855: 1798: 1792: 1593: 1564: 1545: 1522: 1480: 1460: 1423:WP:NOTSOCIAL 1421:for now per 1418: 1384: 1338: 1334:WP:CONSENSUS 1319:WhatamIdoing 1267: 1226:WhatamIdoing 1191:WhatamIdoing 1155: 1141:WhatamIdoing 1132: 1080:— Preceding 1069:Google Books 1068: 1064: 1061:Shapiro, Ben 1035: 1005: 956:Google Books 955: 951: 948:Shapiro, Ben 918: 905: 899: 893: 879:Purplewowies 874: 864: 857: 850: 847: 791: 777: 770: 763: 749: 742: 732: 705: 697: 692: 659: 653: 583: 509: 485: 480: 466: 460: 454: 397: 385: 345: 303:sandbox page 296: 295:and written 286: 280: 230: 218: 199: 180: 144: 143: 139: 91: 30:Village pump 28: 12185:Jasper Deng 12115:64.40.61.74 11938:Jason Quinn 11901:Jason Quinn 11895:your design 11754:Jasper Deng 11646:Tagishsimon 10739:Angryapathy 10691:Josh Parris 9989:WP:HOUNDing 9964:Jasper Deng 9893:Will Beback 9872:Angryapathy 9515:WP:STALKing 9511:Weak oppose 9179:Eraserhead1 8727:Dr. Blofeld 8672:likes this. 8653:Killiondude 8437:weak oppose 8401:Dr. Blofeld 7239:Jasper Deng 6882:Mark Arsten 6864:Mark Arsten 6838:WhisperToMe 6808:WhisperToMe 6304:PrimeHunter 6169:PrimeHunter 6115:Jason Quinn 6092:PrimeHunter 5993:Tagishsimon 5862:SMcCandlish 5674:Tagishsimon 5607:Tagishsimon 5547:Victuallers 5459:of course!) 5370:Tagishsimon 5135:Tagishsimon 4803:Moved from 4729:Talk:Gentry 4569:PrimeHunter 4541:@011, i.e. 4493:@796, i.e. 4357:mw-redirect 4140:Jasper Deng 4087:Jasper Deng 4053:Jasper Deng 4007:Jasper Deng 3520:Josh Parris 3493:Josh Parris 3465:Josh Parris 3227:Josh Parris 2870:PrimeHunter 1789:to that? -- 1660:Josh Parris 1465:PrimeHunter 1427:Jasper Deng 1417:Sorry, but 1386:SMcCandlish 1340:SMcCandlish 1031:Ben Shapiro 626:Jasper Deng 612:—Preceding 588:Jasper Deng 235:Josh Parris 12365:Regarding 11835:Call me a 11707:, though. 11125:Napolitano 10546:Tryptofish 10526:Wavelength 10229:Dougweller 10008:Antandrus 9939:Quintucket 9808:Quintucket 9798:registered 9794:WP:EDITWAR 9752:Quintucket 9599:pillars.-- 9492:Quintucket 9417:Quintucket 8804:vandals.-- 8441:Alzarian16 8325:Epipelagic 7955:Farmbrough 7886:Good one. 7673:Tom Morris 7446:Dougweller 7222:any manner 5961:exoplanets 5819:WP:WPCHECK 5793:competence 5768:URI scheme 5655:wikipedia. 5418:displaying 4515:file a bug 4471:dialog box 3993:EdJohnston 3739:own script 3587:Farmbrough 3420:Rcsprinter 2996:Nobody Ent 1752:Wavelength 1638:Wavelength 1441:Jorm (WMF) 1315:WP:CITEVAR 1156:acceptable 989:Sam Malone 350:This is a 288:verifiable 51:persistent 12400:Equazcion 12332:Equazcion 12229:Nigel Ish 12201:Peachey88 12197:WP:MUMBLE 12070:protected 11997:See also 11915:Yair rand 11873:Yair rand 11781:Equazcion 11391:Equazcion 11364:Crocodile 11078:Crocodile 10363:Crocodile 9916:JayJasper 9772:Acather96 9668:Ymblanter 9601:Ymblanter 9567:Ymblanter 9081:Ironholds 8917:Equazcion 8807:Gilderien 8479:Guy Macon 8040:Equazcion 7891:Equazcion 7860:Equazcion 7820:Equazcion 7417:Nigel Ish 7369:Question. 7190:You mean 6970:Equazcion 6723:I can't. 6280:Going to 6136:Equazcion 6030:FL Studio 6005:JayJasper 5694:Rhodopsin 5619:MZMcBride 5587:Rhodopsin 5583:GeneCards 5579:Rhodopsin 5330:Grandiose 5117:Equazcion 4939:please. - 4765:JayJasper 4659:do it. — 4428:Mr.weedle 4393:Scott5114 4284:Equazcion 4237:Equazcion 4181:MZMcBride 3950:LittleBen 3928:WP:ACCESS 3866:George Ho 3768:WP:NAVPOP 3764:User tabs 3744:Dipankan 3628:Dipankan 3126:all users 2978:Sole Soul 1776:Yair rand 1248:George Ho 1205:George Ho 1160:George Ho 1111:George Ho 865:imacowboy 778:imacowboy 750:imacowboy 584:Question: 564:MZMcBride 528:MZMcBride 486:Grandiose 372:. Please 352:talk page 323:. Please 46:Proposals 41:Technical 12308:CapitalR 12278:CapitalR 12213:Dcoetzee 11978:Why UE? 11933:faux pas 11769:Fatuorum 11591:any part 11582:Dcoetzee 11351:Dcoetzee 11268:, which 11258:rollback 11142:Dcoetzee 11117:as nom. 11098:Dcoetzee 11024:contribs 10982:Dcoetzee 10949:Dcoetzee 10911:contribs 10881:contribs 10857:Dcoetzee 10565:stalking 10451:Comment: 10224:Support' 10214:Dcoetzee 10205:Dipankan 10188:Robofish 10158:Dcoetzee 10054:WP:STALK 10024:Shimgray 9828:stalking 9823:Comment: 9629:lTopGunl 9519:WP:SHEDy 9421:stalking 9369:lTopGunl 9344:WP:STALK 9030:Chequers 8987:Chequers 8903:Chequers 8829:Audriusa 8815:Contribs 8802:reformed 8783:Chequers 8681:Fatuorum 8644:Fatuorum 8583:Gamaliel 8531:Dravecky 8497:Fatuorum 8426:Chequers 8391:At least 8307:Fatuorum 8254:Fatuorum 8242:Fatuorum 8135:Fatuorum 8118:Robofish 8079:Fatuorum 7879:Fatuorum 7839:Fatuorum 7799:Fatuorum 7757:Markvs88 7724:Markvs88 7692:Markvs88 7566:lTopGunl 7550:ItsZippy 7454:contribs 7442:unsigned 7319:ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ 7288:ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ 7254:Fatuorum 7227:Dcoetzee 7196:? :-) -- 7142:Fatuorum 7120:contribs 7076:Fatuorum 7043:Question 7025:Fatuorum 7013:Dcoetzee 7004:Fatuorum 6954:Fatuorum 6824:Fatuorum 6760:quantity 6728:Fatuorum 6708:quantity 6693:Fatuorum 6615:Fatuorum 6485:Facepalm 6342:Johnuniq 6187:id="foo" 5893:Johnuniq 5877:Contrib. 5835:WP:CITEd 5632:typos. 5572:PBB/6010 5543:ItsZippy 5511:PBB/6010 5477:Shimgray 5404:Shimgray 5382:ItsZippy 5360:ItsZippy 5344:contribs 5232:FormerIP 5184:FormerIP 5054:mockup?) 5009:cite doi 4867:Cite doi 4691:NaBUru38 4603:lTopGunl 4454:NaBUru38 4413:NaBUru38 4339:ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ 4307:Shimgray 4255:ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ 4197:Franamax 4177:Bugzilla 4085:watched. 4076:Chequers 4035:Chequers 3671:Huntster 3435:Contribs 3244:Dcoetzee 3103:lTopGunl 2948:Dcoetzee 2763:You say 2718:WP:SHARE 2657:ItsZippy 2585:Markvs88 2548:Markvs88 2169:Dcoetzee 2145:Qwertyus 2111:ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ 2081:contribs 2061:contribs 2037:ItsZippy 1957:Favonian 1862:Accuracy 1793:lTopGunl 1531:Markvs88 1401:Contrib. 1355:Contrib. 1094:contribs 1082:unsigned 900:lTopGunl 858:Djathink 771:Djathink 743:Djathink 733:Comment: 721:Dcoetzee 696:explain 683:Dcoetzee 654:lTopGunl 500:contribs 461:lTopGunl 390:ItsZippy 370:exempted 321:exempted 223:Dcoetzee 58:Idea lab 12474:Nyttend 12458:Snowolf 12293:Kaldari 12243:Kaldari 12163:Prodego 11959:doktorb 11843:man. – 11837:luddite 11823:28bytes 11766:Malleus 11690:doktorb 11601:danhash 11596:actions 11565:danhash 11460:danhash 11452:Comment 11433:Support 11414:danhash 11410:Comment 11383:Support 11347:Comment 11324:danhash 11280:danhash 11270:anybody 11266:Twinkle 11235:Comment 11220:danhash 11216:Comment 11199:Support 11184:danhash 11150:Support 11115:Support 11013:davidwr 10978:tracked 10928:danhash 10900:davidwr 10870:davidwr 10840:danhash 10817:Support 10792:Support 10769:Support 10752:Support 10734:Support 10728:Support 10699:Support 10686:Support 10658:Support 10633:danhash 10618:28bytes 10586:28bytes 10542:Support 10382:Support 10344:Support 10326:Support 10313:28bytes 10309:Support 10280:Support 10259:Support 10242:Comment 10184:Support 10166:Support 10153:Support 10136:danhash 10093:Support 10078:danhash 9960:Mentors 9887:Comment 9847:Support 9682:WP:SHED 9666:time.-- 9540:Support 9429:Yunshui 9095:Comment 9040:28bytes 9005:28bytes 8873:28bytes 8852:28bytes 8825:Support 8797:Support 8694:28bytes 8678:Malleus 8641:Malleus 8631:Windows 8579:Oppose' 8494:Malleus 8458:because 8387:Support 8304:Malleus 8251:Malleus 8239:Malleus 8204:28bytes 8132:Malleus 8076:Malleus 8057:Comment 8018:Comment 7969:Support 7876:Malleus 7836:Malleus 7815:to me. 7813:pointed 7796:Malleus 7653:Collect 7648:Comment 7560:Support 7403:contact 7355:contact 7251:Malleus 7139:Malleus 7122:)... -- 7110:Kumioko 7073:Malleus 7055:Comment 7022:Malleus 7001:Malleus 6951:Malleus 6914:Support 6897:Support 6878:Support 6821:Malleus 6784:Support 6766:of it. 6764:quality 6725:Malleus 6712:quality 6690:Malleus 6660:Neutral 6612:Malleus 6587:(ʞlɐʇ) 6521:license 6268:Alarbus 6239:WP:TLDR 6038:danhash 5856:WP:NPOV 5850:and/or 5848:WP:SPAM 5801:danhash 5717:Support 5690:Ensembl 5634:Nyttend 5506:; like 5448:QRpedia 5324:Support 5262:28bytes 5206:28bytes 5159:28bytes 4912:ProveIt 4783:Johnbod 4621:Coin945 4587:Coin945 4327:gadfium 3985:WP:RFPP 3505:Bgwhite 3476:Bgwhite 3426:(orate) 3388:my idea 3342:Bgwhite 3310:Bgwhite 3292:Kumioko 3272:WP:DATA 3258:Kumioko 3157:As per 3122:Support 3097:Support 3071:Support 3050:support 3031:Support 2991:Support 2960:28bytes 2956:Support 2861:Support 2840:Support 2830:contact 2818:Support 2641:Support 2621:Support 2544:Oppopse 2213:(ʞlɐʇ) 2132:Support 2045:Support 2033:Support 2016:Support 1970:Support 1953:Support 1927:Comment 1913:Support 1900:Jenks24 1896:Support 1565:Support 1523:Comment 1129:WP:CITE 937:Adding 919:Comment 854:diff.-- 614:undated 510:Comment 481:Comment 455:Support 398:Comment 386:Support 231:Comment 219:Support 200:Support 181:Comment 96:Collect 12417:Yoenit 12382:rose64 12373:navbar 12369:- the 12188:(talk) 12177:Oppose 12159:Nope. 12059:mabdul 12029:(talk) 11982:Isarra 11868:Athena 11757:(talk) 11730:Begoon 11711:Begoon 11674:Begoon 11649:(talk) 11301:Aslbsl 11239:Aslbsl 11203:Aslbsl 11156:Liam98 11134:Oppose 11048:Anomie 11028:e-mail 11002:public 10968:(talk) 10915:e-mail 10885:e-mail 10822:mabdul 10774:Mark91 10664:Eagles 10607:(talk) 10575:(talk) 10561:Oppose 10332:Begoon 10299:Danger 10295:WP:UAA 10285:Danger 10246:Bility 10201:Oppose 10119:Mehran 10113:Oppose 10103:ZZArch 10097:really 10062:procfs 10042:AlexSm 10011:(talk) 9980:(Talk) 9967:(talk) 9908:Oppose 9852:Bility 9730:Jayron 9702:mabdul 9688:Begoon 9648:Jayron 9583:Begoon 9399:Begoon 9363:Oppose 9319:Cunard 9212:Oppose 9175:Oppose 9077:Oppose 9063:Oppose 8995:So if 8740:Oppose 8623:Fences 8605:Edison 8600:Oppose 8562:Oppose 8548:higher 8544:Oppose 8511:Oppose 8465:Ks0stm 8410:Oppose 8370:Oppose 8338:Oppose 8321:Oppose 8217:Oppose 8180:Oppose 8162:Oppose 8003:Oppose 7986:Oppose 7916:Oppose 7809:Oppose 7778:Oppose 7688:Oppose 7668:Oppose 7627:Oppose 7608:WP:NLT 7604:Oppose 7585:Oppose 7546:Oppose 7525:Oppose 7504:Oppose 7465:Oppose 7430:Oppose 7413:Oppose 7392:Oppose 7309:Oppose 7242:(talk) 7235:Oppose 7218:Oppose 7135:should 7102:Oppose 6963:WP:EHP 6936:C.Fred 6931:Oppose 6918:StuRat 6901:Bility 6741:Onorem 6529:indeed 6525:demand 6467:DrFree 6414:DrFree 6357:DrFree 6319:DrFree 6286:DrFree 6257:anchor 6219:DrFree 6195:Anomie 6054:Naraht 6032:, not 5996:(talk) 5922:WT:NOR 5823:Anomie 5721:Wer900 5677:(talk) 5610:(talk) 5592:Boghog 5456:before 5373:(talk) 5138:(talk) 5110:WP:TCG 5075:DePiep 5030:DePiep 5020:DePiep 4996:(talk) 4941:DePiep 4919:Begoon 4890:DePiep 4843:DePiep 4812:DePiep 4805:WP:VPP 4714:Gentry 4657:should 4369:Anomie 4365:r30871 4361:T14968 4143:(talk) 4090:(talk) 4056:(talk) 4049:enough 4010:(talk) 3981:script 3905:Graham 3842:(talk) 3774:Begoon 3726:Begoon 3696:Johnny 3363:(Talk) 3332:(Talk) 3283:(Talk) 3180:madman 2930:AlexSm 2894:(talk) 2847:Begoon 2755:(talk) 2708:(talk) 2679:below. 2666:Oppose 2632:(talk) 2606:(talk) 2579:Well, 2571:(talk) 2519:(talk) 2478:WP:AGF 2460:Anomie 2394:WP:AGF 2364:Yoenit 2344:. The 2233:Cunard 2138:Marcus 2095:(talk) 2085:(+200) 2065:(+200) 1997:of?)-- 1942:Anomie 1608:Aslbsl 1569:Wer900 1546:Oppose 1461:Oppose 1430:(talk) 1419:oppose 1268:Yoenit 1242:. See 1240:WP:DYK 991:, and 923:Aslbsl 875:Oppose 792:Oppose 693:Oppose 629:(talk) 591:(talk) 440:Anomie 410:Anomie 36:Policy 12436:(eg: 12360:v-t-e 12356:v-t-e 12263:KNOWZ 12133:Diego 12083:TALK 12025:cobra 12022:Cyber 12007:KNOWZ 11963:words 11849:names 11845:Allen 11694:words 11120:Paolo 10453:From 10435:COMMS 10430:ƒETCH 10411:lozzo 10267:Mlm42 9790:lower 9549:KNOWZ 9527:KNOWZ 9453:KNOWZ 9445:would 9185:: --> 9156:WP:DR 9026:Spiel 8983:Spiel 8899:Spiel 8779:Spiel 8670:Logan 8627:& 8422:Spiel 8374:RJFJR 7512:KNOWZ 7383:TALK 6610:Yes. 6533:Diego 6438:Diego 6391:. --- 6077:TALK 5867:Talk⇒ 5852:WP:EL 5843:WP:RS 5051:where 4992:cobra 4989:Cyber 4829:Diego 4722:split 4536:Kevin 4488:Kevin 4172:. :-) 4171:: --> 4124:16888 4072:Spiel 4031:Spiel 3838:cobra 3835:Cyber 3822:16888 3552:cause 3236:guess 2645:ought 2418:from 1984:lozzo 1513:garra 1391:Talk⇒ 1345:Talk⇒ 1075:: --> 962:: --> 815:16888 429:Talk 16:< 12478:talk 12445:lute 12442:Reso 12421:talk 12386:talk 12312:talk 12297:talk 12282:talk 12267:TALK 12261:HELL 12247:talk 12233:talk 12137:talk 12119:talk 12011:TALK 12005:HELL 12001:. — 11987:talk 11942:talk 11919:talk 11905:talk 11877:talk 11827:talk 11606:talk 11570:talk 11465:talk 11456:help 11439:jc37 11419:talk 11329:talk 11305:talk 11285:talk 11243:talk 11225:talk 11207:talk 11189:talk 11020:talk 10933:talk 10907:talk 10877:talk 10845:talk 10808:jc37 10797:ONLY 10794:but 10760:talk 10743:talk 10671:24/7 10638:talk 10622:talk 10590:talk 10550:talk 10530:talk 10406:Joja 10317:talk 10271:talk 10250:talk 10233:talk 10192:talk 10175:talk 10141:talk 10129:The 10083:talk 10028:talk 10020:this 9997:talk 9943:talk 9920:talk 9898:talk 9876:talk 9856:talk 9836:talk 9812:talk 9776:talk 9756:talk 9672:talk 9635:talk 9605:talk 9596:from 9571:talk 9553:TALK 9547:HELL 9531:TALK 9525:HELL 9521:. — 9496:talk 9457:TALK 9451:HELL 9375:talk 9352:talk 9348:Izno 9323:talk 9183:talk 9181:< 9142:talk 9113:talk 9085:talk 9044:talk 9021:Ϣere 9009:talk 8999:and 8978:Ϣere 8964:talk 8946:talk 8894:Ϣere 8877:talk 8868:that 8856:talk 8833:talk 8811:Talk 8774:Ϣere 8746:Reyk 8721:That 8698:talk 8657:talk 8609:talk 8588:talk 8570:talk 8535:talk 8483:talk 8445:talk 8417:Ϣere 8378:talk 8361:talk 8350:Worm 8329:talk 8290:talk 8276:talk 8263:Most 8229:talk 8208:talk 8193:jc37 8149:talk 8122:talk 8088:Ever 8026:talk 7994:talk 7990:Moxy 7977:talk 7952:Rich 7924:talk 7786:talk 7782:Dmcq 7761:talk 7743:talk 7728:talk 7713:talk 7696:talk 7677:talk 7657:talk 7593:talk 7572:talk 7537:cont 7533:talk 7516:TALK 7510:HELL 7494:talk 7477:7754 7474:chen 7450:talk 7421:talk 7193:here 7167:talk 7114:talk 7089:talk 7063:talk 6991:talk 6941:talk 6922:talk 6905:talk 6886:talk 6868:talk 6847:talk 6792:talk 6537:talk 6494:. — 6471:talk 6442:talk 6418:talk 6361:talk 6346:talk 6334:very 6323:talk 6308:talk 6290:talk 6272:talk 6247:talk 6241:. ~ 6223:talk 6209:and 6191:#foo 6173:talk 6119:talk 6096:talk 6058:talk 6043:talk 6009:talk 5976:talk 5945:talk 5930:talk 5897:talk 5839:WP:V 5806:talk 5747:talk 5725:talk 5706:talk 5638:talk 5623:talk 5596:talk 5577:and 5551:talk 5481:talk 5470:etc. 5408:talk 5340:talk 5266:talk 5236:talk 5210:talk 5188:talk 5163:talk 5079:talk 5064:talk 5034:talk 5024:talk 4978:talk 4945:talk 4894:talk 4847:talk 4833:talk 4816:talk 4787:talk 4769:talk 4751:talk 4737:talk 4733:Izno 4695:talk 4649:WP:N 4639:talk 4625:talk 4609:talk 4591:talk 4573:talk 4458:talk 4432:talk 4417:talk 4355:No, 4311:talk 4277:WP:V 4273:WP:V 4201:talk 4185:talk 4067:Ϣere 4026:Ϣere 3997:talk 3979:The 3954:talk 3936:talk 3885:talk 3881:Dmcq 3870:talk 3856:talk 3852:Dmcq 3652:talk 3613:talk 3584:Rich 3564:talk 3542:talk 3534:know 3529:seem 3509:talk 3480:talk 3400:talk 3346:talk 3314:talk 3305:Here 3296:talk 3262:talk 3217:talk 3199:talk 3167:talk 3134:talk 3109:talk 3058:talk 3040:talk 3020:talk 2982:talk 2964:talk 2912:talk 2874:talk 2809:talk 2773:talk 2726:talk 2686:talk 2668:per 2589:talk 2581:some 2552:talk 2487:talk 2446:talk 2428:talk 2406:talk 2382:talk 2368:talk 2354:talk 2323:talk 2299:talk 2259:talk 2237:talk 2223:The 2075:talk 2055:talk 2024:talk 2020:Fram 2003:talk 1979:Joja 1974:here 1961:talk 1929:See 1904:talk 1840:talk 1836:Izno 1799:talk 1780:talk 1774:. -- 1770:Try 1756:talk 1743:See 1723:talk 1654:Try 1642:talk 1612:talk 1594:talk 1573:talk 1554:talk 1535:talk 1510:Gnan 1498:talk 1481:e.g. 1469:talk 1445:talk 1336:. — 1323:talk 1272:talk 1252:talk 1246:. -- 1230:talk 1209:talk 1195:talk 1164:talk 1158:? -- 1145:talk 1115:talk 1090:talk 1086:Moxy 1041:ISBN 1018:talk 1014:Moxy 1008:see 927:talk 906:talk 883:talk 835:talk 801:talk 702:diff 660:talk 642:talk 608:talk 568:talk 546:talk 532:talk 518:talk 496:talk 467:talk 253:talk 208:talk 189:talk 164:talk 119:talk 100:talk 12380:Red 12076:dci 11897:(!) 11860:Is 11750:lot 11371:…… 11361:Hot 11085:…… 11075:Hot 11026:)/( 11022:)/( 10913:)/( 10909:)/( 10883:)/( 10879:)/( 10803:are 10713:); 10677:(C) 10520:.) 10370:…… 10360:Hot 10074:one 9977:Tra 9935:may 9769:--> 9109:CBM 8960:CBM 8942:CBM 8753:YO! 8300:you 8268:and 8171:Did 8097:Did 8066:Did 7943:one 7490:CBM 7376:dci 7182:Did 7133:it 6836:or 6806:or 6747:Dil 6632:man 6627:Reh 6429:all 6282:mw: 6264:mw: 6070:dci 5940:RJH 5888:not 5869:ɖ∘¿ 5799:. — 5772:www 5527:); 5501:PBB 5483:| 5431:); 5410:| 5309:); 4761:Rfc 4653:can 4313:| 4121:Jac 4045:are 3819:Jac 3702:Nin 3447:Rcs 3445:Not 3413:FYI 3358:BCS 3327:BCS 3278:BCS 3086:man 3081:Reh 2863:at 2649:can 1820:SFB 1604:RJH 1589:RJH 1487:POV 1393:ɖ∘¿ 1347:ɖ∘¿ 1317:. 1263:to 1187:him 1139:. 1133:any 1012:. 812:Jac 698:why 291:by 160:Wnt 115:Wnt 92:any 63:WMF 12480:) 12423:) 12388:) 12375:}} 12371:{{ 12314:) 12299:) 12284:) 12249:) 12235:) 12199:. 12139:) 12121:) 12111:}} 12105:{{ 12101:}} 12095:{{ 12080:| 11980:— 11944:) 11921:) 11907:) 11879:) 11841:2D 11829:) 11821:. 11819:5D 11644:-- 11355:⊃° 11307:) 11245:) 11209:) 11069:⊃° 10762:) 10745:) 10717:; 10624:) 10592:) 10552:) 10532:) 10354:⊃° 10319:) 10297:. 10273:) 10252:) 10235:) 10194:) 10177:) 10123:● 10064:, 10030:| 10026:| 9999:) 9958:- 9945:) 9922:) 9878:) 9858:) 9838:) 9814:) 9778:) 9758:) 9737:32 9674:) 9655:32 9607:) 9573:) 9498:) 9354:) 9325:) 9230:☯ 9144:) 9111:· 9102:no 9087:) 9046:) 9011:) 8962:· 8944:· 8879:) 8858:) 8835:) 8700:) 8692:. 8659:) 8611:) 8572:) 8537:) 8485:) 8447:) 8380:) 8363:) 8331:) 8292:) 8278:) 8231:) 8210:) 8151:) 8124:) 8112:. 8028:) 8011:: 7996:) 7979:) 7958:, 7926:) 7788:) 7763:) 7745:) 7730:) 7715:) 7698:) 7679:) 7659:) 7632:— 7595:) 7539:) 7535:• 7492:· 7471:Rs 7456:) 7452:• 7423:) 7406:) 7380:| 7358:) 7169:) 7091:) 7065:) 6993:) 6943:) 6924:) 6907:) 6888:) 6870:) 6849:) 6841:-- 6810:. 6794:) 6582:DQ 6539:) 6514:is 6473:) 6444:) 6420:) 6394:— 6363:) 6348:) 6325:) 6310:) 6292:) 6274:) 6266:. 6260:}} 6254:{{ 6225:) 6175:) 6121:) 6098:) 6074:| 6060:) 6011:) 5978:) 5948:) 5932:) 5899:) 5873:þ 5821:. 5777:— 5749:) 5727:) 5708:) 5672:-- 5640:) 5625:) 5598:) 5575:}} 5569:{{ 5553:) 5531:; 5514:}} 5508:{{ 5504:}} 5498:{{ 5479:| 5435:; 5406:| 5368:-- 5346:) 5342:, 5338:, 5336:me 5313:; 5298:. 5268:) 5238:) 5212:) 5190:) 5165:) 5112:. 5081:) 5066:) 5036:) 5012:}} 5006:{{ 4980:) 4972:~ 4947:) 4896:) 4875:— 4870:}} 4864:{{ 4849:) 4835:) 4818:) 4789:) 4771:) 4753:) 4739:) 4697:) 4641:) 4627:) 4593:) 4575:) 4460:) 4452:-- 4434:) 4419:) 4309:| 4203:) 4187:) 3999:) 3956:) 3938:) 3910:87 3902:. 3887:) 3872:) 3858:) 3705:ja 3699:Mr 3669:— 3654:) 3615:) 3590:, 3566:) 3544:) 3511:) 3482:) 3415:. 3402:) 3348:) 3316:) 3298:) 3264:) 3219:) 3201:) 3169:) 3136:) 3060:) 3042:) 3022:) 2984:) 2976:. 2966:) 2914:) 2876:) 2833:) 2811:) 2775:) 2728:) 2688:) 2591:) 2554:) 2489:) 2458:. 2448:) 2430:) 2408:) 2384:) 2370:) 2356:) 2325:) 2301:) 2261:) 2239:) 2231:. 2208:DQ 2026:) 2005:) 1976:. 1963:) 1937:. 1906:) 1842:) 1782:) 1758:) 1725:) 1644:) 1633:). 1614:) 1597:) 1575:) 1556:) 1537:) 1500:) 1490:}} 1484:{{ 1471:) 1447:) 1397:þ 1351:þ 1325:) 1274:) 1254:) 1232:) 1211:) 1197:) 1166:) 1147:) 1117:) 1096:) 1092:• 1063:. 1020:) 987:, 950:. 929:) 885:) 851:If 837:) 803:) 644:) 610:) 570:) 548:) 534:) 520:) 502:) 498:, 494:, 492:me 255:) 210:) 191:) 166:) 145:— 137:F5 121:) 102:) 12476:( 12419:( 12384:( 12310:( 12295:( 12280:( 12265:▎ 12245:( 12231:( 12135:( 12117:( 12009:▎ 11989:) 11985:( 11940:( 11917:( 11903:( 11875:( 11847:4 11825:( 11663:) 11659:( 11608:) 11604:( 11572:) 11568:( 11467:) 11463:( 11421:) 11417:( 11373:+ 11331:) 11327:( 11303:( 11287:) 11283:( 11278:— 11241:( 11227:) 11223:( 11205:( 11191:) 11187:( 11161:7 11087:+ 11051:⚔ 11030:) 11018:( 11015:/ 10935:) 10931:( 10917:) 10905:( 10902:/ 10887:) 10875:( 10872:/ 10847:) 10843:( 10758:( 10741:( 10709:( 10640:) 10636:( 10631:— 10620:( 10588:( 10548:( 10528:( 10524:— 10440:/ 10427:/ 10372:+ 10315:( 10269:( 10248:( 10231:( 10190:( 10173:( 10143:) 10139:( 10134:— 10085:) 10081:( 9995:( 9941:( 9918:( 9874:( 9854:( 9834:( 9810:( 9774:( 9754:( 9670:( 9638:) 9632:( 9603:( 9569:( 9551:▎ 9529:▎ 9494:( 9455:▎ 9437:水 9435:‍ 9433:雲 9392:) 9388:( 9378:) 9372:( 9350:( 9321:( 9228:M 9226:☺ 9224:C 9222:☮ 9220:T 9218:❤ 9198:: 9165:: 9140:( 9115:) 9107:( 9083:( 9042:( 9007:( 8966:) 8958:( 8948:) 8940:( 8875:( 8854:( 8831:( 8813:| 8696:( 8655:( 8607:( 8590:) 8586:( 8568:( 8533:( 8522:, 8519:, 8516:, 8481:( 8443:( 8376:( 8359:( 8357:· 8327:( 8288:( 8274:( 8227:( 8206:( 8168:~ 8147:( 8120:( 8094:~ 8063:~ 8024:( 7992:( 7975:( 7963:. 7947:n 7939:n 7935:n 7922:( 7784:( 7759:( 7751:" 7741:( 7726:( 7711:( 7694:( 7675:( 7655:( 7617:: 7591:( 7575:) 7569:( 7531:( 7514:▎ 7496:) 7488:( 7448:( 7419:( 7400:( 7352:( 7327:¢ 7296:¢ 7179:~ 7165:( 7117:· 7112:( 7087:( 7061:( 6989:( 6939:( 6920:( 6903:( 6884:( 6866:( 6845:( 6790:( 6744:♠ 6535:( 6501:: 6469:( 6440:( 6416:( 6359:( 6344:( 6321:( 6306:( 6288:( 6270:( 6249:) 6245:( 6221:( 6198:⚔ 6171:( 6117:( 6094:( 6056:( 6045:) 6041:( 6007:( 5974:( 5967:. 5942:( 5928:( 5895:( 5871:¤ 5841:/ 5826:⚔ 5808:) 5804:( 5745:( 5723:( 5704:( 5636:( 5621:( 5594:( 5549:( 5523:( 5427:( 5334:( 5305:( 5264:( 5234:( 5208:( 5186:( 5161:( 5077:( 5073:- 5062:( 5032:( 5022:( 4976:( 4943:( 4892:( 4845:( 4831:( 4814:( 4810:- 4785:( 4767:( 4749:( 4735:( 4693:( 4666:: 4637:( 4623:( 4612:) 4606:( 4589:( 4571:( 4531:Y 4526:N 4506:: 4483:Y 4478:N 4456:( 4430:( 4415:( 4396:↗ 4372:⚔ 4347:¢ 4263:¢ 4216:: 4199:( 4183:( 3995:( 3952:( 3934:( 3883:( 3868:( 3854:( 3684:) 3682:c 3679:@ 3676:t 3674:( 3650:( 3611:( 3595:. 3562:( 3540:( 3507:( 3478:( 3450:) 3441:( 3437:) 3433:( 3398:( 3344:( 3312:( 3294:( 3260:( 3215:( 3197:( 3165:( 3132:( 3112:) 3106:( 3056:( 3038:( 3018:( 2980:( 2962:( 2910:( 2872:( 2827:( 2807:( 2771:( 2724:( 2684:( 2587:( 2550:( 2485:( 2463:⚔ 2444:( 2426:( 2404:( 2380:( 2366:( 2352:( 2321:( 2297:( 2281:. 2257:( 2235:( 2119:¢ 2078:· 2073:( 2058:· 2053:( 2022:( 2001:( 1959:( 1945:⚔ 1902:( 1838:( 1802:) 1796:( 1778:( 1754:( 1750:— 1747:. 1721:( 1640:( 1636:— 1610:( 1591:( 1571:( 1552:( 1533:( 1496:( 1467:( 1443:( 1395:¤ 1349:¤ 1321:( 1270:( 1250:( 1228:( 1207:( 1193:( 1162:( 1143:( 1113:( 1088:( 1076:. 1048:. 1016:( 963:. 925:( 909:) 903:( 881:( 833:( 799:( 711:: 663:) 657:( 640:( 620:. 606:( 566:( 544:( 530:( 516:( 490:( 479:' 470:) 464:( 443:⚔ 413:⚔ 305:. 251:( 206:( 187:( 162:( 117:( 98:( 53:) 49:(

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

Knowledge

:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 86 - Knowledge

Index