Knowledge talk:WikiProject Articles for creation

5751:, I think I was unclear, or perhaps I do not understand your objection. I am not proposing anything different at Afc, nor proposing a new process of source analysis to be created somewhere else; so the review process, in my proposal, would remain entirely as it is now. The only difference would be to recommend that OKA users create a draft translation of no more than a few sentences with impeccable sourcing clearly establishing notability, and submit it. Then, the normal Afc processes would take over. With luck, the draft will be reviewed in a few days, and the OKA editor can pick up the article again in main space, and carry on as before, translating the rest of it. Win-win: a much easier review for the Afc reviewer, a slightly smaller backlog for all the other reviewers, and much faster throughput for the OKA editor. I do not see a downside, here. If you do, please elucidate. 3173:, I understand your point, but my concern is that we need to focus on constructive guidance, such as giving additional sources, ways to delete peacock-promotional language, etc., rather than simply knowing whether a draft was rejected or declined. In this context, 'decline' is a more suitable term for not accepting a submission, whereas 'reject' comes across as more absolute and dismissive, implying 'this can never be accepted'. On another note, reject gives no room for resubmission while decline does, hence if one says their draft was rejected but actually, was declined, it isn't a problem. What they need is how to go further. It can then be a different case if it was actually rejected, then tell the editor that there is no room for resubmission with reasons. Is that a big deal? 5964:

them don't intend to become Knowledge editors (That's how I have perceived AfC in the past three years). There are significantly more submissions than there is reviewing capacity. Reviewing a single draft, if it's supposed to be done right, requires effort worth one hour, at least (ignoring drafts that are obviously unacceptable). I agree that, in general, in an ideal AfC system, the same reviewer should not review an article multiple times. However, given the current situation, I oppose introducing such a policy. I would support a submission limit per draft, i.e., that a draft can be submitted only once in a specified time period, for example, once per week. This would force submitters to improve their drafts rather than resubmitting them with the same obvious errors.

5893:

submitted with no or very few sources it may be impossible without looking externally to tell if they are notable, if more sources are added for the second submit it may become clear that the claims about the subject are not notable. If it's the case I think it is then you did try to ask and have not got a reply. I would suggest either poke the question again (in case it was just missed or forgotten about), ask at the help desk from the button on the reject notice, or add the article in question here. I would say the issue in this presumptive case, is not the multiple reviews but the rejection. If someone else had done the first decline would you not still be asking for clarification on the reject? Cheers

5593:, which has been pending review for a while. It is 25kb and has 17 citations, most of them in German; in other words, a lot for an Afc reviewer to review. What if I picked the best four sources in English, moved them into the lead (adjusting the lead as needed), and deleted everything else in the draft? That would leave a one-paragraph, seven-sentence, sourced draft with clear notability. My theory is, that in this stub form, the draft would be much more likely to get reviewed quickly, than the draft in its current state. I would be curious what Afc reviewers would think about that. 931: 2910:

has to say that it may or may not be acceptable with more work. Note that the notice posted on the submitters page does not even mention the word decline. The message on the submission does though but explains the issue - people just don't/won't read what it says. A lot of the time submitters ask why a submission was "rejected" when it was declined and I think regardless of what wording is used for a declined draft they will still see, and refer to it, as a rejection, which is what happened in this case.

7607: 6461: 517: 2810:, it seems like the confusion is on your end because you don't quite grasp the AFC process and terminologies. Instead of asking for clarification or seeking help to understand the terms, you jumped to conclusions with your question, implying that the phrases in question only exist in the minds of AFC reviewers. Really?To clarify, "rejection" as it was already explained by Primefac, applies to drafts that are not notable and will not be for the time being, or falls under 485: 5388:(172kb at release). But don't be befuddled—this is an Afc page, and the discussion is about the burden of long drafts on Afc reviewers, which is a real issue worth discussing. But it doesn't apply to you, because it is not how about long drafts should be in general, or when experienced users working outside the Afc system should release their draft or how big it should be. It's also isn't concerned with when I finally get off my duff and release my two-year old 347: 336: 6040: 438: 3001: 7450:'s thinking. I know a good, neutral article improves Knowledge. I know, too, that a poor article that is not susceptible to improvement which is deleted improves Knowledge. I know that a poor article that is improved itself improves Knowledge. I just cannot bring myself to trigger the payment of an invoice to a paid editor for something wrenched into neutrality by others. This may be a minority view, but it is the view I hold. 🇺🇦 329: 9613:

you what to do to get your draft accepted, and provides a means to submit it for review. The implication is that the draft is not acceptable, nor will it be acceptable without independent review. Could we replace this with something that clearly presents AfC review as an option, not as something mandatory, and presents the alternative of moving it to the mainspace yourself? This could seriously reduce the backlog.

2573: 396: 378: 3008: 459: 9678: 2818:. Perhaps, hed suggest that the decline message should exclude Teahouse as where to ai question about the decline to avoid all this confusion, as some editors from there seem to misinterpret AFC wording and try to favor unintentionally non-notable drafts in the name of fighting for new cheated editors. Next time, please ask questions instead of making assumptions or final conclusions. Cheers! 8152: 7671: 8396: 1857: 5987:

submitting it lowers that chance – submitters will keep submitting their drafts no matter how bad the drafts are or whether or not these submitters are even aware of their drafts' quality. The result is the huge number of unreviewed submissions. Therefore, I believe that, and unfortunately so that reviewers must retain the right to decline a draft more than once. Best regards, --

2750:" Indeed. This is exactly the problem which I seek to resolve. You've already acknowledged that "there is sometimes confusion", and that there is cultural bias in the jargon being used. You have advanced no argument (except, perhaps one equating to "we have always done it this way") why the status quo offers more benefits than does fixing the issue. 9916:. Deleting solid but uncited content in practice means rejecting new editors ("Wait, it vanished! I put a lot of effort into that, and it still isn't good enough? I give up."); citing it, improving it or promptly tagging it with "cn" actually encourages new editors ("I made a useful edit! Someone noticed and wants to make it even better! Yay, I am 9248:. The latter is currently a redirect but it used to be an article. Is it appropriate to put Db-afc-move on a redirect that has a history? And more broadly, is it appropriate to accept the draft at all, or should it be rejected as "article already exists" and the submitter asked to edit the existing redirect? Thanks 20:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 1477:. I see you adding |1= to some of the talk pages, and moving up the WPAFC banner on some of the talk pages. Are these edits necessary? If I am missing something let me know. I can always code AFCH to do these edits for you, if it is worth the effort. But it's my understanding that |1= isn't needed, and the order of WPAFC isn't too important. – 9582:

because a draft has an AfC tag added does not mean you cannot move to main-space yourself in most cases (unless under community enforcement or paid editing etc). If your happy your articles are now notable and verifiable you can move main-space, or if you want a second opinion can can add to the AfC !queue... but it can take a while. Regards

9910:

because the people reading this article will be people who use these screws, even if I don't fix it myself in a few minutes' time once I've read some sources. The ratio of misinformed to informed editors varies by subject, but even if the misinformed ones are a noisy majority, the statement will get challenged and corrected and cited.

1617:, particularly) where there was a WP banner (AFC), followed by a translated-page template, followed by an OKA banner. I left all of the other banners alone due to the new functionality of the gadget, but would the AFCH capture all of that into the shell, or select only from a list of "approved" banners to shell-ify? 6409:, which includes AfC drafts and seems like a really useful and interactive way to browser AfC submissions! Pages can be filtered and sorted, sort of like the watchlist/recent changes. How should we incorporate links to this? The tab for submissions is squished enough already, and I can't decide where to put it. 9581:

can be used to defend from deletion or draftifying, but it is not meant to encourage creating unsourced articles based on "I have the sources but I've not added them". However I may have just misunderstood your last point and you are just talking about inline citations. Back to your first point, just

7930:

I like the template, it's friendly and welcoming, and conveys many important points succinctly. The one thing I would like to see is making it even clearer when to go to the Teahouse vs. the AfC help desk (general editing questions vs. questions specifically about the review process). We don't get so

7613:

I have gone ahead and accepted the draft. Although I tidied it up and ignored paid editing lifestyle of the creating editor, I'd think she is learning how to promote herself but first, to see others. I also removed the paid tag because it's likely that I rewrote a handful; you may revert if you feels

6379:

that reviewers not do multiple reviews on the same article (unless the creator requests it e.g the reviewer is guiding them). Two things I've seen....one is rejections for article quality issues which are not in the AFC standard. The other (I'm an active NPP'er and just an occasional AFC reviewer)

6015:

That seems like too long to me. I think 10 or 15 minutes might be a more reasonable "worst case scenario" time. The bulk of the time spent during NPP and AFC is checking citations for GNG. If it's REFBOMBed with 100 citations, then just checking the most promising looking ones is probably acceptable,

5567:

I dont think this is a good idea, as it introduces even more process for OKA editors, and could in some cases lead to rejections of the draft. Eg, we translated many "History of Xxx" articles, which only deserve their own article if the main content is long enough. These articles would be rejected if

5114:

problem) with setting a size limit is that it would make it difficult to translate a fully-fledged comprehensive article from another language version, because it would require the translator to first prepare a précis or synopsis of some sort, get that accepted, and only then replace it with the full

4585:

I'm kinda split on this. On the one hand, you're right, and more information could be helpful. On the other hand... they can't really do anything about it, and my default reply for the last ten years helping out on IRC has been "we have no control over search engines". Is it better or worse for us to

2256:

removed WikiProject Musicians and I removed WikiProject Sportspeople, removing these two problematic templates from being able to be selected on the accept screen of AFCH. If Ahectbot doesn't readd these in 4 hours when it makes its daily edit, we should be good. I'll go ahead and abandon my patch to

946:

When I accept an arti0cle, the script asks me to assign it to WikiProjects. Sometimes the originator has already assigned WikiProjects to it in draft. Sometimes I know what WikiProjects the new article should be assigned to. But sometimes I am simply not familiar with the WikiProjects in the area.

9897:

Even wild-west early Knowledge was not much like modern social media. It worked. People fixed stuff that was wrong (more than they do now); the ancient uncited "dog" article was actually pretty reliable, with the single really dodgy statement being the one cited to an inline link. Lots of readers do

9562:

with no sources are likely to be drafted if they still have no sources after an hour of existing, although if still being edited are usually left until they have not been touched for an hour (or more) after the last update. I'm not sure on your third point as you say you realise that articles should

9127:

It says that it's a copyvio in the decline notice so if already deleted when they go to look they will have a reason, so yet another template is a bit overkill. Rather than add another template the copyvio decline message maybe should say something like "some or all of your article may be deleted to

7749:

I wanted to post the template here to gather any feedback other reviewers might have regarding the template, and am hoping that it could be more widely adopted by AfC reviewers. Eventually I'd also like to see an option added to AFCH to leave the welcome message prior to a decline to soften the blow

7741:

In using this template over the past several months I've seen very good rates of engagement from recipients (far above what I usually get with welcome templates) and users have let me know that the resources have been helpful. I've started leaving the welcome message almost always prior to declining

7654:

around 3-4 months ago after noticing the lack of a welcome message suitable for users who have already gone through the process of creating a draft, but still may need help with getting it suitable for mainspace. I've been reviewing drafts at AfC for several years now and included links to resources

7590:

I wonder how much time this editor has taken up indirectly with all the posting here and so much more with all those notified/reading this thread? IMHO if you don't wont to engage with a submitter for whatever reason, just don't. Just leave it for someone who will/wants to review or let it fester in

7136:

If one of us wanted to do the paid editor a favor that they do not deserve, one of us could delete about half of the draft, the most blatantly promotional portions. Then the draft might be acceptable. The paid editor should do that themselves, or forget about it. We, the Knowledge community, have

6183:

Same. I don't think it's a good idea for the same reviewer to decline a draft multiple times, since that can lead to problems if that reviewer's standards are out of step with everyone else's, and also because it encourages submitters to keep hassling the same reviewer every time they resubmit their

4764:

How many times per year do you think this question is asked? In which help forums? More data may be helpful since there is a tradeoff here: reducing questions about this for tens/hundreds of editors per year, versus providing complex information to thousands or tens of thousands of editors per year.

3064:

Got any ideas for new terms? I can't think of anything better than decline and reject. Could change the two terms to "fix and resubmit" and "do not resubmit", but then those don't work well as nouns. "Your articles for creation submission has been tagged as 'do not resubmit'" is a bit of a mouthful.

2909:

This comes up semi-regularly but I've not yet seen a suggestion that gets more approval that the status-quo. "Referred for further work" along with similar suggestion is often criticised for suggesting that with further work it will get accepted which is often not true. Declined (or its replacement)

2731:

You know as well as I do that such a thing doesn't exist; the words are different, and have been used to mean different things by this WikiProject for six years now. The fact that one user has come up with (in my opinion) a short and simple way of remembering those differences does not mean they are

1163:

for instance). Warnings are warnings, someone needs to fix them not revert them and sweep them under the rug. It is fine to feed the gnomes while this gets sorted. If the reviewer doesn't do the cleanup after a revert like this, information they added to the article during the accept is likely lost.

9947:

There are some cases where this philosophy works, but in a lot of situations it is better to be safe rather than sorry. I don't write anything in an article if a source doesn't back it up - if it's not verifiable, it doesn't belong on wikipedia, that's just how the site works and how a whole lot of

9909:

The social context matters. For example, anyone who has used confirmat screws must know some basic facts about them, and I can't imagine very many people would make up stories about confirmat screws anyway, and any misinformation about a screw isn't exactly slander, and will probably get fixed soon

9844:

from 2004 is a terrible argument. That was 20 years ago from the very wild-west beginnings of Knowledge and also it was not actually unsourced it had one reference and 12 external links. Yes some editors are experts in an area and can write from knowledge, but there are way more who think they know

9659:

Citing sources is much harder. I just find it slower; new editors often find it difficult. If experienced editors add sources to the new editor's text, or tag it with {{cn}}, then the new editor has made a useful contribution and will probably stick around. Knowledge also has useful new content. If

8987:

We appear to have to stabilised on the number of outstanding, but the more important metric of oldest is down to 2 months. That is amazing on it's own as in the last 9+ years of doing this I don't remember it happening out of an official backlog drive. If we can get down to < 2 months that truly

8312:

Looking back at the discussion in June, the issue was the links to Google and Bing. Google is used in both the Editor resources and Review tools sections but Bing is only used for Reviewer tools. Removing Google from Editor resources helped a little but because the links are also used in Reviewer

7214:

My point is that other editors are likely to feel differently and they will have their own principles that I assume could be argued to be just as valid, e.g. we're here to improve the encyclopedia and blocking a submission on principle prevents others from doing the work to that end and so blocking

7165:

I have done it with unsourced biographies, and I'm pretty sure we could do it here (haven't had a chance to really look at the draft) but if there are large swathes of unsourced or overly promotional material, but the rest of it is sourced, neutral, and demonstrates notability, then just remove the

6282:

I'm going to make a guess. My guess is that you may have moved a draft to mainspace when you thought it ought to be there. That is a good thing, even if you were in good faith error. The request (I hope it was a request) was potentially "When you do this, please tidy the AFC artefacts from the head

5284:

in it, and that targets different pages depending who is looking at the link. For example, when I clicked it, it went to *my* userspace and tried to bring up a page there, which is surely not what you wanted. Feel free to revert my edit if you feel you need to, but I believe this change will allow

5173:

Note to reviewers that, since these are translations from other languages, earwig is useless on these articles if you run it in English. Make sure you run it in the language of the original page. The editors always attribute their translations correctly in edit summaries, so it's easy to find which

5028:

Oh, to be clear, I agree with your above comment. Myself, I'd quickly skim the whole list of sources for reliability rather than spot-checking a subset, but I'd skip over the ones that weren't obviously one way or the other unless I found that was an alarming % of the total. In the end I think that

4994:

Every so often I poke away at a userspace essay about how to get through AfC quickly, and "Article is just really heckin' long" is indeed one of the "Common reasons for delay" I list. I think it's worth letting submitting editors know that longer isn't better, but I think setting a hard limit would

4691:

The idea is to shield NPP from potential badgering from new editors, hence in my proposed text it simply reads as "editing community". My wording of simply "up to three months" is also to keep the timeline vague and to lower the expectations of a review will happen earlier than the three months. If

3240:

is this confusion dealt with? If someone comes to TEA with a declined draft and they say "my draft was rejected, help!" do they still receive help, or is the knee-jerk reply from the first helper "your draft was rejected you can't do anything about that"? Like... if someone says the wrong word, and

1643:

I spot checked about 8 articles and about half had |1=, and it made the shell more readable when the shell had a lot of parameters, so I decided to include |1=. I also checked around 5 OKA banner articles and about half had it in the shell, so I decided to write AFCH to include it in the shell from

976:

Probably. Some (even here) would argue that tagging WikiProjects is unnecessary, and some are insistent that every page needs to be assigned to a WikiProject. If you can't think of who would want to be "assigned" a draft, don't feel obligated. There aren't any temples to request a WikiProject or to

9612:

less than ten minutes after the draft was created and while it was still being actively edited). But I understood it to mean "I think something is seriously wrong with your article (like an editor COI), and you shouldn't edit it without independent review before it goes in the mainspace". It tells

9492:

tagged it for AFC, three minutes after I had last edited it, so I left it for a while. I've now edited it a bit more, as it was going to expire, but I'm still unsure about what I ought to do next. Am I required to go through the AfC process before moving it into the mainspace? It's not quite ready

8860:

It's at the level that the declines from the older reviews getting resubmitted starts pushing up the daily submits making clearing harder. Also having a smaller !queue encourages some to submit more. It happens in the backlog drives, but then we push through, which is more difficult with a stealth

6289:

AFC welcomes experienced editors finding wheat in the chaff and handling it well, with or without the toolset. The only extra things the toolset gives you when you accept a draft are pleasant "Your draft has been accepted" notes on the submitting editor's talk page, and that it does the tidying up

5911:

as you are an experienced editor and article creator do remember AfC is not mandatory for you (unless you've been paid to work on the article, etc.) So if you think your changes are enough for notability then you could move to main-space yourself (and remove the AfC templates etc). The reviewer or

4955:

the entire draft. For a draft with 140 references, I would probably spot-check maybe 15-20 of them (10%) to see if they're reliable. If they are, then I would check to make sure everything is reasonably supported. If things are more or less supported by more or less all of the references, the page

4732:

I frequently notice that drafts I've accepted into mainspace appear on search engines especially Google, before they're reviewed by NPP. However, I believe there are folks (NPPers) that nomally review newly accepted drafts, people like Slgrandson, e.t.c. And let's be clear, we do have control over

4635:

My concern whenever I see this is why are they asking? I usually see it as a red flag that they are trying to use Knowledge for promotion in some way. I would be happy to see a note saying something like "Please note we have no control over search engines" (which I admit is a bit of a lie as we do

2976:

I don't think there's too much wrong with the terminology. Yes, it may be that it's no immediately obvious to a newbie, but then neither is the difference between 'page' and 'article', or that between AfC and AfD, or any number of terms of the trade. Until the meaning is explained to you, and then

1331:

Please keep an eye on your draft talk diffs for a couple days for any problems. This was a complete rewrite of that part of the code, so new bugs may spring up. I would appreciate it if you could report diffs of bugs here. This is also a good time for me to work on these types of bugs while I have

7871:

I like the template also and will prefer that it'd be navigated easily through the AFC accept and decline buttons just as the TeaHouse invitation check box, which can be auto-unchecked if it already exist. It's good especially when we usually have new unwelcomed users submit drafts daily. Cheers!

7034:

Agree. We cannot accept an overly promotional draft just because it has been declined too many times before. Especially if that draft was composed by a paid editor. Paid editors capable enough to create high-quality articles exist but who ever wrote that draft isn't one of them. I don't feel that

5963:

The problem we've got with AfC is that it's being used in a way it wasn't designed for. Instead of being a place used to improve drafts so they eventually become articles, it has become a place for conflict of interest submissions. Most AfC submitters just want to get their stuff through; most of

5892:

That largely depends, some reviewers try never to do multiple reviews end on end, others do. I do if it's obvious fail (for example: no sources resubmitted still with no sources). Otherwise it depends on the the case, and I would always say first talk to the reviewer in question. If a article was

5723:

for help with source analysis. If we want to make a big push to have folks get source analyses before writing drafts, we should probably put it in our messaging somewhere such as in editnotices and templates. Although in the long run that may be more inefficient/complicated than just submitting a

5676:

For an experienced editor it may be easy enough to look at a lengthy article with lots of sources, pick the bits that establish notability, skip the rest, and still weave it into a coherent draft. But we're seldom dealing with experienced editors, for obvious reasons. Many new editors, meanwhile,

3321:

Andy, look at what I am saying: it's still not bad advising a rejected draft, it can help the editor and may not for the draft anymore. However, Teahouse is to help editors right? It serves as a general help guide to the editors to know what -and-what to do to the drat and subsequent articles. If

1178:

Agreed, removing valid projects and details because they are not in the current preferred formatting is ridiculous and if a new user did this they would be getting warnings for vandalism or disruptive editing. The new warnings do make it ugly as, but removing rather than fixing is disruptive that

8960:

I also care not for the number but I do for the !queue length and in reality they heavily linked. When you accept one that has been waiting several months and then see the submitter disengaged and did no more editing it's easy to see the long queue length is anti editor retention. Which is why I

1497:

Force of habit a bit, I've always had WPAFC as the first banner on a talk page among all the WikiProject banners (as that's often the most "relevant" towards the lifecycle of the draft-to-article). It felt (and still feels as of now) odd to see a WPAFC banner tucked between two other banners for

8270:

indicating that the rate limit is still showing as an issue for folks trying to submit. Does anyone know if we've made nay progress on fixing that? It looks like the proposed fix was denied (I'll hold off on my thoughts about that...), and I'm not sure if anything better has been thought of to

5986:

thing to do. But who knows that? In my perception, COI submitters who go the fast route – and seek to avoid learning how Knowledge works – will never know. Due to the system's submission incentivisation – not submitting a draft is equal to a 100 per cent chance at the draft not being accepted,

2647:

greater distinction between rejection and declination, where the former is a hard "you done fucked up" and the latter is more of a polite thing. Of course, this comes as a native English speaker; anecdotally most of the confusion seems to come from ESL speakers (and even more anecdotally, from

4914:

I agree it would be better we did not get extremely long submissions aimed more about showing notability, but I don't like the limitation to be "one paragraph (80 words maximum)". I would prefer drafts to be up to Start-class rather than Stub-class, I like to see articles 200-1000 words long.

3259:

They get helpful advice, of course. First to clear up the confusion caused by the terminology, and then, to address the reason for the draft not being published. The former, in addition to being an unnecessary cognitive load on the new editors, is an unnecessary burden on Teahouse volunteers.

2342:

No, it need to be kept to "keep these off the list". It is an edit to add them to the blocklist as the bot auto detects the wikiprojects and then uses that file to add a few that are not auto-detected (I assume as they have a / character in the names), but also removes/ignores the ones in the

1531:

Since the AFCH banner has always (to my knowledge) been placed at the top, I think it's probably helpful if the revised script keeps doing that, since that's where people will look for it. Won't make much of a difference for most articles, but it will for those articles that have half a dozen

3168:

Separately, I suggest unchecking Teahouse for editors whose drafts have been reviewed and declined/rejected. What they always ask is about their draft's review and ways to improve it. Both AFC helpdesk and Teahouse should re-examine the draft and corresponding decline or reject messages when

9667:

The rule is, indeed, that the burden of verifiability is on the person who thinks the content should be in the encyclopedia. This is a way of resolving disputes. If someone says that a statement I've added or restored is unverifiable, or removes it as unverifiable, I mayn't just say "Is too

5981:

citing sources doesn't yield a Knowledge-compliant result. Adding sources to such a draft as an "afterthought" isn't going to work, at least that's what I reckon. There is a very high chance that the sources won't support the article as they ought to, thus, the draft is having a hard time

2222: 7304:

This one, however, is one where they are taking no real notice of advice. I have no interest in helping them to get paid. I have no longer any interest in assisting this editor, either. If others want her to be able to present her invoice and be paid for it, that is on their conscience.

1938:

I can't see how we can fix that as the issue was all post AFCH. We should have added the "WikiProject Biography" and the issue was first adding "WikiProject Musicians" without removing the now redundant "WikiProject Biography" (but an understandable editor issue). The main issue is with

3322:

someone says "my draft was rejected (though it was declined)", won't you help? If another says "my draft was rejected (though it was rejected)", won't you also help? At this point, I think it is not due for change because it serves as a general term out here: decline equals to reject.

2068:. This patch is invisible to the AFC reviewer. The reviewer can still pick WikiProject Musician and WikiProject Biography. The only difference is that AFCH with this patch would silently fix/consolidate the talk page wikicode. This is a bit of a corner case but is easy enough to fix. – 2134:

Eh... fair enough. If it's done and it's short that's fine, just wanting to make sure we're not coding for an exception and missing the rule (and if it's not obvious, I really do appreciate the work you put into this project; I mainly don't want to see you doing more than necessary!)

7535:

and based on the DRV, we're probably about to have a long slog with her autobiography. That's what kicked it all up again after a summer hiatus. Happy to help paid editors in general, but not this paid editor. I did so for several months and it got us nowhere but legal threats and

6349:

In general moving AfC drafts to mainspace directly is a bad idea since the vast majority of people who do this are doing so disruptively, so it's reasonably likely someone will assume the same of you. In your case, better imo to avoid AfC entirely, and simply let NPP handle it, as

1498:

content/material-related WikiProjs. So I've always ensured it's listed first, as it contains vital info about the status of the page when it was a draft, and useful for audits and etc. If that's not built into the gadget, that'd be a personal recommendation of mine to incorporate.

7442:

The editor is following the rules. They seem to follow them without following through completely and doing 100% of what is suggested (they are free to do so), but the re-askng what they should do. I have an abundance of good faith, but am no longer deploying it actively in their

7180:

We don't have to do it here; it can be done in mainspace by editors that are more generous or have more time for this sort of thing than us. If you don't believe it will be improved, try it sometime, accept something marginal and keep it on your watchlist; you may be surprised.

8136:), specifically implementing the suggestions about making it clearer where to ask questions and linking to the simplified MOS. This version also has a named parameter for the linked article to conform to other welcome templates (hopefully making Twinkle implementation easier). 9170:

I wanted to bring attention to the two top redirect requests that have been stuck at the top of that page for more than a week now, while other topics have already been archived several times. If someone else could quickly re-look over it, that would be great. Cheers :-).

6876:

The org is likely notable, but this is not helped by the paid editor who is failing to heed advice. I'm not interested in helping them get paid. I see them as a promotion only account, but do not feel able to report them as such since I have been trying hard to help them,

995:

Somewhat related - the AFCH script isn't playing nice with the new format of the wikiproject talk page banners and is generating a lot of ugly errors if multiple wikiprojects are added. If there isn't a ticket open for this on phab already, someone ought to start one. --

1984:

Oh, my mistake I didn't notice that the update was also AFCH! Yes, so AFCH could fix the issue of conflicting WikiProjects. Although, AnomieBOT should also have been able to fix when change "WikiProject Musicians" to "WikiProject Biography" with musician-work-group=yes.

2444:

As for a drive, a couple of months ago I might have suggested one, also, when we were hovering (IIRC) around the 3.5-4K mark. Since then, we've been slowly but consistently coming down, and now are at < 2.5K, which is okay, IMO. (If anything, we could benefit from a

9267:

is for. The easiest thing to do in this situation may be to move the existing redirect to another title without leaving a redirect, which would then allow you to accept and move the draft to the old title. I can do that for you here if you'd like, or you could make a

1097:. I personally disagree with this change, and am fighting it. You are welcome to participate (or not) in the discussion, but just note that I am not necessarily advocating anyone do so (and they should probably mention that they were pointed to that discussion by me). 3188:

confusion in the first place. I understand where Andy's coming from, but unless someone can come up with a more clear (but still as succinct) way of separating this "decline/reject" issue I think TEA helpers will just have to include the explanation in their answer.

160: 7375:

If I wasn't Involved I'd have blocked her months ago. Gold stars to you Paid is fine but she's literally only here to promote herself and her fellow film workers. She is not here to improve the project and we're not missing anything without her walled garden.

6198:

I'll third that; I personally do not re-review drafts, with the only exceptions really being when something hits the back of the queue twice and I'm the only one that seems to want to deal with it (and I think that's only happened a few times over the years).

1583:

Fwiw the "1=" bit might not be super important in the grand scheme; I'm willing to align to whatever most banner shells use (with or without the "1="). That aspect is more on the cosmetic / aesthetic side so if nobody else is putting that on there, I won't

8941:

number we're holding steady at, as long as we're holding steady. Psychologically (and somewhat anecdotally) we seem to do better keeping "on top of things" when the queue is 1-2k deep, probably because we see it as "a backlog" but not so much of one that

6257:

We need to have the courage to risk being wrong, to accept borderline drafts, and to allow the community to look at such a draft and make their decision. I'm always disappointed when I have been shown to be wrong, but take that disappointment cheerfully.

6095:

I do think that "conflict of interest submissions" are kinda the entire point of AfC being there; we encourage people to go through AfC if they have a conflict with the subject matter to make sure it's neutral. I will still reject blatant advertisements.

5714:

I think both this and the above section are too complicated and too much a departure from our normal workflows. Our normal workflows are to either just write a draft and submit it and get a notability review that way, or to post a list of sources at the

7949:

Maybe take out the manual of style link to reduce information overload, or replace it with a link to MoS/Layout, which might be more immediately useful to a new user (to know what the bones and structure of a Knowledge article is supposed to look like)

9708:, honestly, I don't think anyone should be adding AfC templates to drafts that are not theirs, unless they've moved them to draftspace themselves as part of page patrolling (as happened to your stub article yesterday - that one I would say is fine). @ 6313:. Whoever warned you in the past was probably mistaken. Since you are autopatrolled though, if you are not confident that what you're moving is a notability pass, you should probably un-autopatrol it after the move to get a second set of eyes on it. – 7392:

If she is following the rules, it doesn't really matter what her motivations are; if we have neutral articles on subjects that we did not have before, the project is improved (not every editor has to contribute more than one or two articles to WP).

7195:

This is true, of course. But on a point of principle, I don't think a paid editor should rely on the community to get their draft/article up to an acceptable state, not 'mainspace editors' any more than AfC reviewers. I for one don't mind providing

5515:, especially if the original is long, consider translating the minimum necessary to pass Afc. A shorter draft has a much higher chance of being reviewed quickly, possibly within 24-48 hours. A typical minimum is three solid references to establish 7508:

Please keep in mind that regardless of advice or even telling them what to do, some of the AfC authors you'll encounter will be unable to follow the advice for whatever reason. I don't know how much it helps to try to figure out why in each case.

5574:

If the main concern is that AfC reviews of long articles is daunting, wouldn't a better solution be to only require from AfC reviewers to check overall notability? I think it would be easier to change the review criteria than what gets submitted

4573:. I see many people coming to help forums asking about why their page doesn't appear in Google/Bing search results. It could also be demotivating to see that their article has less viewership due to them not showing up in general search engines. 1079:. The message asks for the banner shell to be added, and the ratings to be applied to the shell. I vaguely remember seeing somewhere that this was changing, so it could be the wizard needs updating to comply with whatever the new practice is? -- 1055:

That's the primary one, but I will say that all of those are inter-connected issues that have cropped up over the years as the banner format and ideology has changed. I suspect a fix for one will likely include fixes for most if not all of them.

3622: 3951: 6247:

With regard to being unsure on the notability front, our standing instructions are to accept any draft which we believe has a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. That means we are entitled to be unsure, but only

7035:

it's right to waste reviewers' time by writing advertisements disguised as Knowledge articles. Declinging – or even gelevening them – is reasonable. The paid editor must do the work, and if he is unable to do so, the former applies. Best, --

6547:. I believe it is likely to be a comment that was copy/pasted into an external processor, formatted by said processor, and then copied back to Knowledge. If not, I have no idea what it is or why it is there, but the weird formatting on the 7434:

My view is different from yours. I think it's a case of an apparent willingness to take help and advice, but a selective ear for the advice. See my own talk page, the culmination of substantial well delivered, correct advice comes down to

7931:

many general questions at the HD (although we do get some occasionally), but I often see questions at the Teahouse which (I think) would be better asked at the HD. And perhaps also make in this context the point that they should ask at

9898:

have knowledge of subjects they read about, and many start with Knowledge and then learn about a topic in detail, coming back to fix any errors. Unsourced content was and is really valuable as a starting point for sourced content. Even

4650:

Proposed text: "For content moderation purposes, all new articles are not indexable by search engines for up to three months while the editing community collectively review new articles, including this, for infringements of Knowledge's

1505:, "1=" is the parameter name so if I'm making multiple edits to the banner shell I tend to throw that in there too, adds a bit of clarity towards which param is which. I find it helpful, but it might not be for everyone, which is fair. 7322:

Tim, frankly, I reckon that this is dragging you down. I hope you won't perceive this as insolent, but let me give you advice: stop wrapping your head around it. Fellow reviewers have taken sufficient note of the matter. All the best,

7267:

willing to improve promotional drafts may still do so at AfC; drafts can easily be found through the search function. Nobody is prevented from improving promotional drafts by a reviewer not accpeting such drafts, i.e., I disagree with

5765:

The one I can immediately see is that many of the OKA drafts are getting tagged with various maintenance tags by AfC reviewers and NPPers, and if they get accepted through AfC in an abbreviated form, they'll miss that second look. --

6091:

I am more than willing to reject it multiple times if it's blatantly non-notable or deficient. If it's something I personally believe but not super obvious I will usually just leave a resubmit that I don't think passes to a second

9894:

I entirely support the idea that sources make articles better, but there is excellent unsourced content on the wiki, even today (Dog was an example of historical practice; I showed the diff in which it gained its first citation).

9002:

What is depressing is the oldest ones which have not had a first review. A good proportion of these are easy acceptances. A further proportion are just the right side of the border. We need never be shy of dipping into the oldest.

8961:

think AfC should have a max hold time then automatically moved to main-space for NPP... but I know that will never happen. We are here to protect the main project from junk and promotion, but we also demotivate good contributors.

2049:

which is used to suggest WikiProjects to reviewers, so hopefully this was a short-term issue that will be resolved the next time the project list is updated (assuming these are being placed due to the suggested tags by the tool).

4351: 1323:

Seconds ago I went ahead and deployed an AFCH patch that fixes 6 outstanding bugs related to the wikitext that AFCH writes to draft talk pages. These bugs all involved how AFCH wrote WikiProject banner code. Details can be found

9449: 4146: 1813:. What change do you recommend I make? At the moment the script user can pick from the following options. Should I delete some of these? Which ones? B, C, start, stub, list, disambig, template, redirect, portal, project, NA – 5490:

I'd like to brainstorm some suggested verbiage to add to translator instructions and would like to hear from Afc reviewers and other interested parties about this. (Note that for OKA translators there is already a section,

2883:

Find an alternate phrase instead of "Declined"; one which actually relates to what is being done - maybe "Referred for further work". I'm not precious about the exact phrase, nor clear whether a single-word verb is needed.

9672:. I have to either add a cite or admit it's unverifiable and leave it out of Knowledge. But, on the other hand, I also may not challenge the verifiability of things I think are verifiable, even if they aren't sourced yet. 8712:(and others). We have had people burn out before, some just disappear, others take a break: so it's important to recognise when to slow down before you burn out.. although I understand the draw of just one more review.... 4016: 7591:

the !queue for months. There are plenty of good submissions from good-faith submitters that are awaiting review. This thread has given this submitter so much attention and thus taken it away from those patiently waiting.

9493:

yet, but getting there (contribs very welcome). I've been editing for about two decades, though I don't think I've ever actually used AfC before. Should I avoid using the draftspace in the future, to avoid clogging AfC?

7166:

offending content and accept. Honestly I don't give a rats arse whether someone is getting paid for their edits as long as we can get a reasonable article out of it and they're following our other rules like disclosure.

5356:

I find this whole discussion befuddling. I have, at times, created really long drafts in the process of making a draft thorough and fully fleshed out before moving it to mainspace. I can't be the only one who does that.

4394:

matter to someone, somewhere. So as it stands, wishing those willing to save those topics good luck--and thanks to the AFC reviewers/participants alike for all your hard work. (Feel free to leave me talk-page feedback.)

2642:

We've been using this wording since rejection was brought in to use in 2018. Yes, there is sometimes confusion about the terms, but it is easy enough to clarify as you just indicated above. Personally speaking, I find a

9660:

the new content just disappears, the new editor will be discouraged and go away. It doesn't matter if it was reversibly reverted or draftified; new editors won't know, they often don't realize they have a userpage. See

9504:

was challenging the verifiability of some or all of the article text, or challenging the notability of the topic, or both. I'm not saying my uncited stub was brilliant, but I'm not sure it makes sense to add it to AfC.

5279:

because no editor should change the comment of another, but I think it is justified in this case because I believe it represents your original intent. The problem with the link you posted, is that you included the term

5133:

PS: Open Knowledge Network, that's the 'foundation' I mentioned. (See the talk page of the author of the Tulunid Emirate draft, linked to by KylieTastic, above.) Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what this is? --

3821: 3691: 2829:

There is no confusion on my part, and no assumptions. I fully understand the process; having both submitted articles via AfC and reviewed and rejected and published others' submissions. The confusion is experienced -

3555:

hundreds and hundreds of articles in an ambitious, thankless one-man task--a few of which were never attended to since the early 2010s--it's time we finally discussed their chances for a change before it's too soon.

2107: 4286: 2290: 2218: 2155:

If that list is kept up-to-date then great. I have just manually edited to remove musicians but I expect this may be overwritten by the bot. I'm wondering how the bot knows which banners are valid and which are not

9558:, short answer no, you don't have to use AfC (in most cases). Sometimes people tag drafts so people can submit to AfC because they don't notice it's an experienced user just using draft to draft. New articles like 7411:(as directed, no issue there), there's at least one oppose, and she implements the merger anyway. I think she's poking the edges to see what we'll notice and what she can get away with. To me that's not good faith 5165:

In short, it's a person who has dedicated quite a bit of his time and also money to improving cross-wiki coverage. A rare example of paid editors without COI. They've now created their own wikiproject, which is at

5009:

Oh, don't get me wrong, a huge draft is a daunting task (and I will admit I have skipped pages like that before) but ideally speaking we should be operating a workflow that allows for reviewing long drafts without

4221: 6912:

We could just accept it and tag it for all the stuff that's wrong with it, but I'm uncomfortable bout writing a paycheck by doing that. Call me selfish, if you like. I just dislike paid editors who do not learn.

8173:

and helping to grow the encyclopedia. We appreciate your contributions and hope you stick around. I can see you've already started writing draft articles, so here are a few more resources that might be helpful:

7692:

and helping to grow the encyclopedia! We appreciate your contributions and hope you stick around. I can see you've already started writing draft articles, so here are a few more resources that might be helpful:

3886: 5299:

That looks intentional as they mentioned the link won't work if user already has a sandbox, and gave alternative link. Looks like user can click it then create a sandbox in their userspace using the template.

2838:

was given. But thank you for confirming my point, that the distinction is internal to AfC. That, no doubt, is why it is often misunderstood by people new to it, and why less ambiguous phraseology will benefit

4081: 3756: 5912:

anyone else can disagree if they want and take to AfD. Another option to consider is if you move it but want a second opinion, un-patrol it (as you are autopatrolled) and let NPP have a pass at it. Regards

9829:

As the others have said it is not normal to add that tag and yes I can see that it would confuse people into thinking they must use AfC. If anyone is going to tag to help the draft move onto the next step

9563:

be verifiable, (i.e they require sources) but then say "citations are only required for WP:BLPs". The BLP policies require some things to have inline citations, but citations should always be included per

8912: 5982:

demonstrating how the sources indicate notability. The sources must be sought prior to draft creation. Therefore, rewriting large sections of the draft from scratch – not all of it but most of it – is the

5876:

Is it good practice for the same reviewer to review and fail an article repeatedly? Particularly when this goes from 'not enough sources' to sources being added and it then rejected as 'just not notable'.

1201:

was approved to do these fixups, but looking in it's logs I can not see it doing it anymore. I only checked a few 1000 edits, I tried an edit summary search for "Task 26" but keep getting 502 bad gateway.

5814:. However, as they are paid editors that must use AfC for new articles. So if this just get a minimal draft through AfC then expand was encouraged, the question would be is the intent of the AfC check on 9809:, in my opinion, should avoid the helper script and just move it yourself. The helper script is more for when you're acting as an uninvolved reviewer. It gives a draft an official AFC seal of approval. – 9655:

from my own knowledge, and posted it (and then went looking for sources). There is research to show that new editors also often add content from their own knowedge. Typing up your own knowledge is easy.

8707:

Your intuition is correct, they are leading the charge by far and although still processing impressive amounts of submissions they slowed down from the rate in July when they did 2182 reviews! Good work

6222:

TBH, I'm not convinced this one even does demonstrate notability, although I have a few other sources to check first. But the only good archive for this stuff is physical access only and a hundred miles

5818:

just for nobility or for the editing as a whole? Considering the strong opinions on both paid editing and AfC I can see there been strong views on both sides, so it would probably be best to bring up at

5478:

This is a great idea. It might be hard to establish this as general practice among disparate, independent new editors (we can always try), but among one subset of editors, this is eminently doable. The

6135:

I do not see the vast proportion of those I review as being COI or Paid. The vast majority are real editors wishing to get a draft accepted. Many make a good job of it and get through first time. 🇺🇦

3616: 7729:

if you are unsure about anything Wiki related. It's a place where experienced editors answer questions and assist newcomers in the editing process. In addition, please do not hesitate to reach out on

3945: 2319: 1183:

is about having a single assessment, it does not give any validity to remove other information in those banners. Surprised though that a bot had not come along and fixed up before the revert anyway.

1114:

We really do need this project either to update the obsolete script or to stop using it. You have been given fair warning and plenty of notice about the changes in the assessment process... — Martin

857: 3496:

As to the substance of your restoration, I believe the resolution was that the project does not feel that any action needs to be taken, which is why discussion stopped and the thread was archived.

2612:

I'd love to know which dictionary makes this distinction. Or does it just exist in the minds of AfC reviewers? If so, please pick better terms, as the confusion between the two phrases quoted is a

7883:

That's kind of what I was thinking, Safari. Either replace the current 'hook on' that invites the User to the Teahouse or an additional one. One step at a time, though. Thanks for creating it @

5548:

Feel free to comment, steal & modify mercilessly, or come up with your own wording. I think this could really reduce Afc's workload wrt OKA editors, while speeding throughput for them. Adding

9474: 3333:

I don't disagree with your former point; but the issue you discuss is not what I am talking about. Your last sentence, however, makes no sense, since AFC folk keep telling us that the two terms

829: 824: 99: 4398:

Maybe it's time I, an AFC drafter myself, took brief breaks from WP as other off-site commitments compete for my time and attention. All that grading was already overwhelming to begin with... --

9712:, this was quite a while ago, so maybe you've stopped doing that, but if you haven't - please don't do this anymore. There's no obligation to use AfC and we shouldn't be implying that there is. 7650:

Hey folks - I'm looking to get some feedback on potentially introducing a new welcome template specifically tailored to AfC submitters who have already begun creating draft articles. I created

878: 850: 845: 9715:

I've resubmitted and accepted your article on the screw. My advice here is a weary "if you can't beat them...", I'm afraid: just make sure every stub you create has at least two footnotes. --

6333:

It was probably someone moaning about not removing the AFC-related templates and tags. Probably worth mentioning but this sounds more like someone complained rather than leaving a nice note.

5487:, thereby reducing the load on Afc reviewers considerably for OKA translations, while simultaneously getting OKA drafts reviewed and released to mainspace faster, in many cases, much faster. 2253: 2046: 126: 6944:

It could be remedied. I have done about 20% of what is needed, but just don't feel like it. Maybe I'm being unreasonable, but I have had more than sufficient dialogue with this editor. 🇺🇦

9235: 7917:

Definitely a +1 from me, this is pretty much what I envisioned as well. If it'd be possible to slip the welcome message in before the draft accept/decline one is left, that would be best. ~

810: 805: 800: 795: 790: 785: 6217:

That's the sort of thing I'd see as a good general policy. I was wondering if there was anything concrete about it. This was not about any one specific draft, just something that came up.

4457:

OK, I rated them all. Not sure if this is really an AFC matter. Some of these articles are years old. Once they pass AFC, then it's usually up to gnomes to rate them, the draft author and

961:

are requested to assist by assigning the categories. Will the category gnomes also assign WikiProjects? Is there a way to tag a new article to request WikiProject assistance by gnomes?

9324:

The title is now available for you to accept the draft. The cascading deletion of redirects would be unnecessary; there's almost always an available title to move to that can serve as an

8540: 5781:

The only difference would be to recommend that OKA users create a draft translation of no more than a few sentences with impeccable sourcing clearly establishing notability, and submit it

8263: 977:

add a project template, but there are some people who relentlessly (or in the case of Ser Amantio, using an unregistered bot account) add WikiProjects, so it will likely be picked up by

4810: 4345: 8267: 108: 8557: 8313:

tools, the issue still remained. SD was hesitant to remove Google and Bing from Reviewer tools. I never use those search links. Do any other reviewers? Any harm in removing them?

5453: 4140: 9257: 9186:

That page uses an unusual archive bot that may have custom code. Said custom code may be getting confused by having AfC comments outside the collapse bottom template. Let's see if

5656:

it is my understanding that the proposed process is opt in. So if you are confident the "History of" requires a long submission, that's fine, you would be able to keep doing that.

5115:

version. This isn't a hypothetical problem, either: there are at least a couple of editors working on a stipend or similar for a foundation of some sort, who submit very long, and

5409:

The proposed process would be opt-in, designed to reduce burden of working with coi editors. I could go as far as to say that coi editors do not benefit from writing long drafts.

4010: 2111: 4412: 2500: 9409:

of the subject. I found and added a couple of scholarly sources which might hold up a notability claim, but I don't believe the draft demonstrated that the subject passed the

1318: 8760: 8287: 3815: 3685: 3542: 837: 540: 95: 4856:

to demonstrate notability before they start a full draft? Maybe it was discussed before I did not have the capacity to check the prior discussions, sorry. Please advise.

4280: 63: 8988:

would be impressive. NPP is also having a very solid push at the same time that makes this even more impressive as the two side often peak and trough anti to each other.

2933:

Is there ever a case where an article is "declined" without a prose comment suggesting or implying that further work should be done? If not, the objection seems spurious.

1943:

that should have removed (or combined) the "WikiProject Biography" when converting the "WikiProject Musicians". Certainly should be logged as a bug but this one requires

6624:. The redirect was only created in Oct 2022 presumable because typing "Draft categories" was to much, but none of the tools and templates where updated to deal with it. 5561: 4215: 871: 773: 769: 765: 761: 757: 753: 749: 745: 741: 737: 733: 729: 725: 721: 717: 713: 709: 705: 701: 697: 693: 689: 685: 681: 677: 673: 669: 665: 661: 657: 653: 649: 645: 641: 637: 633: 629: 625: 621: 617: 613: 609: 605: 601: 597: 593: 589: 585: 581: 9500:, and it was moved into the draftspace and listed for AFC before I'd finished. I got a (template?) notification on my talk page, which I found a bit confusing; I think 8445:

Looks to be working, over the last 12 hours 112 successful submits, 0 captcha and 1 rate limited. Worth reviewing again in a few days just to check but looks positive.

5942:

Since you are a highly experienced editor, may I suggest that there is sufficient notability for it to survive in main space, and that you move it there yourself? 🇺🇦

2430:

where XYZ is their username. We have had various backlog stats over the years but currently graphs is out of commission and we do not have anything running currently.

8295: 7348:

I have stopped, my friend. I was just stating clearly my position. It is in the hands of whoever wishes to handle it. I may not even watch the outcome (bet you I will

5332:, thank you, I've clarified. I've changed link to point to a page which doesn't exist; if sandbox exists, the preload template does nothing, which may be confusing. -- 3880: 577: 573: 569: 565: 561: 557: 553: 549: 545: 494: 9180: 6251:

I accepted the draft on that basis. I feel it has a way better than 50% chance of survival. If it is sent for deletion I will remain neutral and watch with interest.

4706:

Any such message we add would be not applicable probably about half the time, since a lot of AFC reviewers are either autopatrolled or mark the page NPP patrolled. –

4075: 3362:

I was referring to what outside folk will think about: decline equals reject. I don't seem to find what you said is the best to replace. Can I see it here? Thanks.

1467: 3750: 1354: 89: 9346:

discussion if necessary. Also, make sure to target all the related redirects to the new article when you accept it. Let me know if you have any other questions!

5684:

All that said, this OKA group may be an exception, so it could be worth running this by them, and if they're amenable, trying this out on a couple of drafts. --

3571:--are under scrutiny at AFD; no further comments on those. Anyway, on with the chaff we found within the wheat--listed alphabetically. (All have been tagged for 1837:? I guess FA/FL/GA/A is unlikely or impossible for a new article so that leaves B, C, start, stub, list only. All the others are detected automatically — Martin 53: 5589:

No; Afc procedures have evolved over a long period, and that is pretty much a non-starter, imho. As a corollary, though, consider for example, OKA translation

5174:

one they've been working from. I warned them about this a ways back and I don't think I've seen a single copyvio since, but it's always worth a quick check. --

3551:...and from the moment of this writing, they may not be long for Knowledge in the next how many weeks unless some action is taken. After I spent countless days 9733: 9162: 9072:

4134 have been edited in the last week, 6691 in the last two weeks and 12559 in the last month.... so lots of potential incomming to re-fill up the backlog :/

8232:

If we think this is a good starting point I can go ahead and move it to the Template namespace and submit requests for AFCH/Twinkle integration. Thanks all!! ~

7272:". And even if others were prevented from doing the work, always keep in mind that someone is getting paid for that work, and it#s not the volunteers. Best, -- 4817:. I am sure for every question of this type asked, ten others did not, and became confused and demotivated that their hard research isn't even seen in Google. 4579: 2499:

At NPP, we got our backlog graph back up and running, by making our own bot and maybe also doing some data scraping using a Toolforge webservice. I also found

1198: 864: 7467:

I wholeheartedly concur with you on this, we have expended so much time on this draft when we could have been helping more deserving volunteer contributions.

5886: 1713: 1492: 970: 3637: 2651:

As a minor point, coming in and insulting us straight off the bat is a really good way for us to get defensive; there are better ways to start a discussion.

244: 117: 9616:"Verifiable" does not quite mean "cites reliable sources"; it means "reliable sources that could be cited exist". A statement may be verifiable but uncited. 8639:

It had been the silent backlog drive till this post..... I was quite enjoying it even though I haven't had the time as I used to hit the rally big numbers.

7501: 7292: 7101: 7070: 7055: 6031: 3966: 8484: 6391: 5539:. Aim to get just the minimum needed (plus a bit of safety margin, go ahead and use *four* great citations), keep it short, and that should speed approval. 5492: 3604: 79: 8702: 3933: 9465:

pages or recently deleted articles wouldn't solve the problem, it seems like an intuitive reminder to exercise caution when making the redirect. Cheers.

4806: 4553: 3560: 9461:

A few times now, users have requested redirect articles be made, and then create the article at that title, bypassing AfC. While reminding reviewers of

8648: 6013:

Reviewing a single draft, if it's supposed to be done right, requires effort worth one hour, at least (ignoring drafts that are obviously unacceptable).

8634: 7370: 7343: 7317: 7120: 6007: 5571:(another risk is that some may perceive this as going around the COI policy which requires that all articles from paid editors be created through AfC). 8684: 7614:

it's awkward and that the tag is still needed. We shouldn't have given much attention to this, as to me and my thinking, it doesn't worth it. Cheers!

5519:, with inline citations to match. A single paragraph, or even two, well-researched, well-cited sentences may be enough. Even very short articles with 5143: 3510:

Not so; there are unanswered questions; and others here have acknowledged the issue, which persists and which is causing unnecessary work for editors

3157: 3128: 3108: 3080: 3038:

In the two days since I raised the matter here, I have seen at east three more editors, at the Teahouse or Help Desk, who are confused by this issue.

2986: 2814:

to thr sight of God and man, and it's given no option for resubmission except in rare cases of re-review. "Decline" means the draft fails to meet the

2558: 8577:

We (some) are review are reviewing much more. A quick check says about 8380 in the last 30 days, for a long time AfC has run in the 5000-6000 range.

6328: 3393: 3368: 3357: 3328: 3314: 3179: 2863: 2824: 8721: 7555: 7462: 7422: 7402: 7387: 5832: 5160: 2969: 2919: 2522: 2494: 2352: 1763: 1426: 1409: 1385: 8095: 7979: 7864: 7175: 7160: 6431: 5902: 5707: 5095: 5081: 5067: 4519: 4499: 4476: 4452: 4433: 2977:

it's usually clear; it's called learning the ropes. Of the million things one needs to learn about Knowledge, I don't see this one as a biggie. --

2238:

Adding in an exception seems like a better (and more robust) solution than having to update the core module every time this sort of thing happens.

1571: 1461: 1266: 1088: 1050: 1029: 990: 9081: 6477: 6453: 6363: 5921: 4721: 3425: 3058: 2636: 2233: 2208: 2088:

Novem, the issue is that this isn't the only subst-only WikiProject banner. Genuinely out of curiosity, are you going to hard-code exceptions for

1215: 9435: 9382: 9368: 9319: 9294: 9226: 8932: 8906: 8808: 8786: 8600: 8586: 7476: 7144:

resubmitted. At about five or six resubmits, we often Reject a draft, and have been known to send drafts to MFD to reduce the waste of our time.

6970: 6956: 6939: 6925: 6907: 6560: 6342: 6082: 5802: 5760: 5739: 5693: 5528: 5483:

team of translators are organized, and if there is a consensus at Afc that this would be a good idea, something about this could be added to the

5257: 5205: 5183: 5128: 4798: 4794: 4539: 3534: 3505: 3487: 3473: 3448: 3280: 3254: 3231: 2904: 2878: 2784: 2770: 2741: 2726: 2660: 2577: 2540: 2476: 2458: 2272: 2144: 2129: 2101: 2083: 1109: 9524:

My understanding is that topics are required to be notable, and statements are required to be verifiable, but policy is that citations are only

8892:

At this writing, we're now at 1,347. Will this figure reach three digits for the first time in how long? Tune in to this thread and find out. --

8693:. Such volumes can come at a price and may not be sustainable in the long run, but nevertheless due credit to Scribe for the massive effort! -- 8499: 7878: 7781:

Another wonderful idea - unfortunately I'm not entirely sure how the process for that works, likely we'd have to contact a Twinkle maintainer? ~

7754: 7637: 7620: 6270: 6235: 5954: 4757: 3598: 3198: 1100:

That being said, yes, there is a ticket to update the wizard (along with a half-dozen other WPBS-related updates), see the link by Novem above.

9871:, so good to know it already exists. It might be improved by explicitly listing the "move" option, and saying when you should use which option. 9205: 9154: 9137: 9015: 8997: 8970: 8955: 8887: 8870: 8772: 8668: 8350: 8307: 7965: 7944: 7834: 7684: 7600: 6105: 4946: 4928: 3927: 3586: 2337: 2309: 2247: 2015: 1994: 1659: 1608: 1526: 1391: 1307: 1289: 9790: 9772: 9749: 8754: 8572: 7935:, not that they post the same question in quick succession at both (and then the general help desk, and the reviewer's talk page, and...). -- 7921: 7850: 6208: 6193: 5861: 5775: 5645: 5447: 5038: 5023: 5004: 1739: 1644:

now on. The shellify algorithm grabs any template that starts with WikiProject, Football, or OKA, and I may add more to this list as needed. –

1065: 1005: 9824: 9067: 8828: 8454: 7896: 7254: 7240: 7209: 7029: 7006: 6892: 6724: 6687: 6507: 6491: 6435: 4814: 4628: 4366: 3915: 3564: 2595: 1978: 1879: 1849: 1828: 1447: 1173: 1150: 203: 9053: 8855: 8336: 8322: 8251: 8033: 8011: 7263:, accepting promotional drafts gives paid editors an incentive not to do their job right, which, in the long run, does damage to Knowledge. 6302: 6279:

I hope you weren't 'warned off' in such a manner as to leave a nasty taste in your mouth, though it sounds as though you can still taste it.

6147: 6058: 5939:

Having looked at the draft I believe this was an erroneous rejection. I am about to have a conversation with the reviewer to ffer guidance.

5627: 5345: 5323: 5309: 5294: 5223: 4987: 4965: 4909: 4888: 2697: 2059: 1681: 1541: 9963: 9942: 9862: 9699: 9591: 8742: 7997: 7910: 6854: 6667: 6633: 6537: 6178: 6130: 4823: 4780: 4333: 3594: 2503:, which looks like a good format to plug into a bot, and which was turned off a few months ago but can be easily turned back on by editing 2190: 1192: 9724: 9039: 8813:

Yes it's when the form is opened, which typically occurs on clicking the submit buttons on AfC draft or declined templates, or the one on

8440: 7806: 7785: 7772: 5422: 5404: 5372: 4739: 3923: 2439: 2401:

Is there a way to see how many articles I've accepted/declined? I'm pretty sure I saw a website with that sort of data, but I've lost it.

1614: 1135:. Comments welcome. I'll leave it open for a few days for code review. Please ping me in a few days to remind me to merge and deploy it. – 272: 9913: 8364: 8210:

is where you can seek help from experienced editors. Questions about the draft creation and publishing process should be directed to the

8107: 8088: 8070: 8051: 8017: 7200:, but I won't do their work for them. (In this particular case even advice wasn't always well received, but that's a separate issue.) -- 5669: 5609: 5584: 5430: 4645: 4586:

say "thanks for waiting 3 months for us to review your draft, now wait up to another 3 months for us to patrol it so it can be indexed!"

4161: 3032: 1960: 1947:

to update not AFCH. Caveat: unless for some reason there is a magic parameter we can add to the first "WikiProject Biography" that makes

411: 383: 34: 8795:

above. Not 100% sure at what point the opened event is triggered but I believe it's when you get click on the "submit draft" as part of

8426: 7518: 7190: 6992: 6742: 4869: 2706:

difference in dictionary definitions; I asked which dictionary made the distinction which I quoted. I note you have no source for that.

2172: 1719: 1638: 1126: 9328: 8796: 8388: 8280: 8021: 4701: 4686: 4664: 4128: 2539:

is going to work on part 2 of this, getting a bot to place a backlog graph image and to update it frequently. This is similar to their

9548: 9187: 9121: 6604: 4850: 4606: 4595: 4418:

Are these just 12 AFC accepts that have not been rated? And you are asking for us to rate them on the talk page in the banner shell? –

4031: 3644: 1804: 1773: 465: 8875:

Yup. Well, I have hit my brick wall for the day. I've being trying hard on the oldest, with a bit of leavening from the newest. 🇺🇦

7492: 7334: 7283: 7092: 7046: 6983:

We don't often delete articles for the flaws identified here. Why do we think it is justified that we decline it (three times now)? ~

6482:

Other than having the first sentence of the draft, does this do anything different than just browsing the AFC submission pages/cats?

5998: 3973: 1933: 1918: 1910: 9845:

facts that are wrong. No one apart from another person with knowledge of the subject can tell facts from misunderstandings, errors,

8355:

Be bold, Primefac! :) SD added back the Google links in Editor resources so I suppose you will need to remove them there as well.

8236: 4680:

review your article or after 3 months, whichever is first. We have no control over search engines results beyond the 3-month hold."

3998: 1893: 9986: 8777:

Wow. I'm amazed by how much that captcha filter is saving us from being buried in nonsense. What's "opened" mean on that chart? --

7537: 6621: 6380:

is the AFC reviewers on average play it extra "safe" which means that many AFC reviewers have a tougher standard than NPP or AFD.

5871: 8222: 6420: 4919:

do tend to sit in the !queue longer probably due to length (16,915 words) and number of sources (140) and do clog up the process.

4894: 2775:

That's mostly because I wasn't trying; that is not how you phrased your initial post and not what you appeared to be looking for.

3836: 3706: 3292:"'decline' is a more suitable term for not accepting a submission, whereas 'reject' comes across as more absolute and dismissive" 1415: 5787:

as they would be the ones to benefit from it and AFC reviewers probably wouldn't need to be directly involved in the change :) –

4327: 1502: 1075:

When the submit wizard adds WikiProject tags to the draft talk page, these seem to be newly causing red error messages, see eg.

8408: 6582: 4301: 3803: 3673: 2178: 9513:, which was entirely appropriate at the time. If an editor who doubted the notability checked, and then either tagged it with 8405: 7431:

My recollection is that the merge was reverted prior to my opinion here to oppose, but my memory is hazy. Yours may be better.

6595:

detects when the article is moved to mainspace and does the right thing so as far as readers are concerned there's no issue. ~

4840: 2002:, well, all AnomieBOT is doing is auto-subst:ing the template. It doesn't know whether there's supposed to be multiple or not. 9846: 8468: 5272: 5086:

Great essay. When it's ready, this should be required reading for anyone about to embark on drafting their first article. --

4846: 4600:

I would certainly be happier to learn that my article will be indexed in a forseeable timeframe rather than seemingly never.

4268: 4236: 1546:

Sounds good. Just now I patched and deployed both putting WPAFC on top, and adding |1=. I also tweaked the edit summary, and

941: 6715:

isn't doing that. I don't know if that can be fixed. Even if it can, deleting the redirect seems to be an easier solution. ~

6226:

I wasn't going to move it to mainspace because I don't have the AfC tools and was previously warned off doing one manually.

4122: 3610: 2416: 2196: 1365: 9096:

If I decline a draft as a copyvio and tick the CSD box it does not seem to notify the creating editor of thge copyvio/CSD.

8200: 7985: 7223:

but that's a judgement call and the way we make that call is to ask ourselves, "Is this something that would be deleted at

4790: 4323: 4203: 3939: 3901: 178: 17: 9840:

is more appropriate as it gives both routes. As for the other point it is just a terrible idea not to give sources. Using

9539:

It's not that I don't appreciate review, but I seem to be adding to the AfC backlog, and I don't want to waste your time.

8403: 6244:, that it ought to be framed as good advice for which there may be exceptions. Making it a rule would be too prescriptive. 9533: 5527:

are rarely deleted at Afd. Once released to mainspace, you can continue working on it at your leisure. Further tips: see

3992: 3868: 3530: 3469: 3421: 3389: 3353: 3310: 3276: 3227: 3153: 3104: 3054: 2965: 2900: 2859: 2766: 2722: 2632: 295: 9651:

We could of course change policy to make sourcing mandatory. I don't think that would be a good idea, though. I created

9303:. Would I first need to nominate that redirect for speedy deletion, or is that something you can do as part of the move? 4096: 3016: 1094: 8689:

I haven't looked at any numbers, but my gut feel says a lot of the credit for the recent boost in performance goes to @

8469: 7496: 7338: 7287: 7096: 7050: 6002: 5244:

in draft writing wizard, with a note 'for new editors, this will reduce your writing time by a factor of five or ten'.

4733:

search engines! We can instruct them when to index or not, and page moves also impact their results sometimes. Hahaha!

4118: 3771: 9058:

I just checked and there are 47788 drafts (plus 201946 redirects) so only 2.6% of drafts are submitted at the moment.

7011: 6405:, an essay over at Meta opposing old WMF stuff that would've been done by the growth team nowadays. Examples included 4373: 4063: 9661: 8133: 8127: 7301:

eventually, after much shenanigans, and after not a small number of hostile posts from them. Even so I accepted that.

6825:

would also need to be updated in the removeFalsePositives() check to also detect these as it currently only supports

6525: 3738: 2504: 196: 4995:

be obnoxious to some editors and completely prohibitive to others (like the ones DoubleGrazing describes below). --

3988: 3797: 3667: 9263:

I don't personally think the deletion of redirects with history constitutes the "uncontroversial maintenance" that

8901: 8843:

1,350 seems to be a threshold that refuses to be broken. Every time it gets to 1,351 it races back up again. 🇺🇦

8535: 8377:. That way, it doesn't count as an external link and hence won't trigger captcha! Only Bing needs to be dropped. – 7645: 6544: 6064: 5856: 5442: 5381: 4494: 4447: 4407: 3544: 3020: 2485:

stopped getting updated (because of the graphs issue) so I can't even do a manual graph to show the history trend.

156: 59: 8511: 5484: 4262: 4168: 2463:

We're not getting yelled at (right now anyway) for either declining too many or accepting too much, so that's one

1782: 1011: 8170: 5385: 4652: 1364:. I have been having quick looks at the code changes but not done a full review. It appears to be working so far 402: 153: 8016:

That is a mess! It looks like at some point the shortcuts used were deleted. And what's worse is according to

4197: 8195: 7714: 6822: 6758: 6730: 5590: 4038: 3793: 3663: 3113:

Is your proposal to change declined to "Referred for further work"? What do you propose changing rejected to? –

2214: 2035: 2025: 1728: 5393:(pls ignore the Afc draft header; that is strictly a test and nothing to do with Afc or when it gets released) 3862: 470: 9241: 7970:

I think it's probably more confusing to be directed to a specific part of the MOS than the main MOS page. --

7486: 7328: 7277: 7086: 7040: 5992: 4504:

They've passed both AFC and NPP, so this may be outside of our scope. But I suppose it doesn't hurt to ask. –

4258: 2531:

setup an off-wiki tool to track the # of unreviewed drafts each day, and this data can be consumed by a bot.

1909:

Many thanks Novem! Next issue - I don't know if you can do anything to improve this. When you add Musicians (

6254:

I see "immediate" as being "in the next few days after acceptance without any significant intervening edits"

5632:

That reminds me, there is no way that I know of to filter new submissions by language of sources, is there?

4841:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:MyPage/sandbox?action=edit&preload=User:Gryllida/NewArticleBLPv1/preload

4339: 9485: 8341:

I also have never used them. I say we remove them right now and then see if anyone actually cares/notices.

7750:

new editors might get after their hard work is denied. Any feedback or suggestions are appreciated! Best, ~

4193: 4057: 1834: 1631: 1601: 1519: 501: 358: 280: 262: 189: 9213:, that is the issue, I talked about this with the botop back when I was active at AFCRC. It's intentional. 3843: 3732: 3713: 2482: 1206:

should this be running, and should it have fixed up the AFCH tools bad formatting before it annoyed MSGJ?

8653:

Is that like a silent disco? Sorry to make a noise. I was enjoying it too but it is worth shouting about!

8630: 7760:

I like the template. Can the eventual final template be added to the Twinkle Welcome list, please? 🇺🇦

6868: 5389: 4636:

control asking them not to index some things), but I don't think we should point them to patrolling/NPP.

3858: 2601: 2507:. I'll talk to some tech people and see what I can do. Please ping me in a week if a nudge is needed :) – 2426:

you can click the "reviews" link next to your name. NPR and Admins can also view their stats by going to

951: 913: 4308: 4134: 9949: 9426: 9359: 9285: 8002:

That does not look good... it has over 10 links too "read more ..." on the actual MOS that are broken.

7550: 7417: 7382: 7077:

Maybe this is an evening versus night perception cultural difference. You'll find the 'gel evening' at

5665: 5641: 5623: 5418: 5341: 5253: 5201: 4983: 4942: 4905: 4884: 4865: 4485:

to those articles or nominate them for deletion if unsuccessful, not rate them. Hope you understood. --

4315: 4110: 2869:

If you have an alternate suggestion, I'm all ears (and yes, this is a genuine statement, not sarcasm).

896: 406: 8563:

Are we reviewing much more than normal? Or are we just getting fewer new articles for some reason? --

7297:

I have tried to guide this paid editor, a paid editor who does shoddy work. I accepted their draft on

6496:

It's a more intuitive interface that can filter things and generally get to a draft to review faster.

4970:

Yes, yet long draft being written without understanding notability criteria leads to increased author

4243: 4053: 8911:

The last time we would have been at three digits was in the rebound a few days after it last reached

7156: 6839: 6829: 6795: 6765: 6751: 6696: 6652: 6614: 4677: 4004: 3728: 966: 9674:

In this case I'm not even sure if the verifiability of any of my statements were challenged or not!

6121:. The point was to reduce the prevalence of junk in the article space, not just COI or PAID drafts. 5536: 3908: 2404:

Additionally, is there a way to see how the drafts backlog has shifted over time (through a graph)?

9479: 7651: 7482: 7324: 7273: 7082: 7036: 6880:

Perhaps someone might take a look at the draft and make a decision. I no longer feel able to. 🇺🇦

6566: 5988: 5049: 1921:). If Biography was already there, then we now have a redundant banner which needs fixing — Martin 1038: 947:

If I am not familiar with the categories in the area, as I usually am not, I tag the article with

258: 7408: 5495:

and that would be the natural place for any new suggestions about this.) Here's my first attempt:

5192:

They can translate a part to demonstrate notability, and after approval they can expand it later.

4875:(I am helping on irc, I have not been formally reviewing for a while, though did that previously) 4655:. We have no control over how search engines may index the new articles beyond the 3-month hold." 1276:, if so that bot appears to be active adjusting those so probably just backlogged. Can you update 9850: 9819: 9778: 9737: 9605: 9564: 9397: 9307: 9300: 9214: 9200: 8698: 8412: 8190: 8076: 8039: 7960: 7940: 7860: 7829: 7709: 7472: 7250: 7205: 7066: 7024: 7002: 6966: 6935: 6903: 6805: 6682: 6533: 6448: 6323: 6077: 6026: 6016:

as analyzing 100 sources for GNG is probably not a reasonable thing to expect a reviewer to do. –

5797: 5734: 5689: 5472:

They can translate a part to demonstrate notability, and after approval they can expand it later.

5139: 5124: 5091: 5062: 4775: 4716: 4514: 4471: 4428: 4103: 3655: 3581:

unless otherwise noted; tag dates, and source-hunting links, are provided next to their titles.)

3526: 3465: 3436: 3417: 3385: 3349: 3306: 3272: 3223: 3149: 3123: 3100: 3075: 3050: 2982: 2961: 2896: 2855: 2762: 2718: 2628: 2553: 2517: 2454: 2332: 2267: 2124: 2078: 2003: 1966: 1874: 1823: 1758: 1708: 1654: 1566: 1487: 1404: 1349: 1295: 1254: 1145: 1084: 1076: 1024: 9648: 5170:. They tend to target GA- and FA-level articles, which is why so many of them are absurdly long. 3809: 3778: 3679: 2834:

experienced, as I said - by the people to whom I referred; not least the individual to whom the

9868: 9834: 9609: 9575: 9514: 8626: 7816: 6231: 5882: 5783:. Ah, I misunderstood. Sure, that sounds fine. Although maybe that idea should be discussed on 4831: 2815: 1160: 9024:

Just for clarification, this number is just drafts submitted for review, not all drafts, yes?

8290:, the mean rate limit hits was 42 times for 173 successes, so clearly still a big issue. Ping 8214:

instead, where you can get assistance directly from reviewers. Don't hesitate to reach out on

4274: 1784:). A genuine disambiguation page will be detected automatically and doesn't need any value in 1587:

Thanks for the prompt response though, and for prioritizing WPAFC at the top of the shell! o7

307: 9958: 9858: 9806: 9652: 9587: 9559: 9510: 9497: 9416: 9349: 9275: 9133: 9100: 9077: 9063: 8993: 8966: 8928: 8920: 8866: 8804: 8768: 8717: 8644: 8582: 8450: 8332: 8303: 8257: 8007: 7596: 7545: 7428: 7412: 7377: 6850: 6629: 6574: 6503: 6473: 6416: 6387: 6310: 5917: 5898: 5828: 5720: 5271:

altered your OP above, in order to fix the link so it points to your preload file located at

5156: 4924: 4916: 4641: 4534: 3980: 2915: 2702:

You're welcome to quote the insult you imagine I made, but meanwhile, I didn't say there was

2590: 2490: 2348: 2229: 2204: 2186: 2041:, and thus I see no reason to implement a change that (if I am reading this correctly) would 1990: 1956: 1745: 1735: 1422: 1381: 1373: 1285: 1211: 1188: 1035: 364: 67: 9334:, which is what I did in this case. There's some argument to be made that the disambiguator 8605:

I noticed this today too - exciting! Thanks to those who have put the effort in, especially

8218:

if you have any specific questions. Once again, welcome - I hope you enjoy your time here! ~

6898:

Won't be me, I don't want to get my head bitten off. Someone braver than me is needed... --

6761:(possibly others I'm not aware of?). AFCH would need to remove all the redirects as well as 5148:"a non-profit organization dedicated to improving Knowledge and other open platforms." See: 4209: 225: 9920:! I'll copy what they did! And I'll click on the tag and find out how to add a citation."). 9768: 9720: 9636: 9245: 9091: 9049: 8898: 8782: 8596: 8568: 8247: 8160: 7975: 7906: 7846: 7733:

if you have any specific questions. Once again, welcome! I hope you enjoy your time here.

7245:

I've given it a light trim if anyone wants to move it to main space with appropriate tags.

7152: 7014:

makes a good case that the last decline for being egregiously promotional was reasonable. –

6519: 6427: 6406: 6359: 6286:

I really hope it was along those lines, and hope, if it was me(!) it was as polite as that.

6189: 5853: 5811: 5771: 5703: 5524: 5516: 5439: 5179: 5077: 5034: 5000: 4802: 4491: 4444: 4404: 2065: 1677: 1537: 1457: 1325: 1132: 1046: 1001: 962: 898: 71: 9912:

And making it easier for newcomers to productively contribute is really valuable, because

9569:

The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material

8038:

I have fixed it. MOS: recently became a namespace, which broke all the MOS:#section links.

7812: 6702:

is to keep drafts unlisted in the category system until a draft is accepted. According to

4390:, I may be a bit sorry if they end up delisted. But these topics, diverse as they may be, 3874: 3184:

Philosophically, probably not a big deal, but I believe the concern here is that there is

8: 8680: 7625:

Thank you for resolving this. I disagree but will ignore the whole thing. Probably. 🇺🇦

6775: 6460: 4697: 4660: 4624: 4562: 4555: 3575: 2407:(Unrelated, but I think a backlog drive should be organized soon-ish. Just feels right.) 1277: 958: 299: 9536:

on this topic a while ago, because new editors are far more affected by this than I am.

3019:

the iconography on the reject talk page message to use the same more emphatic stop icon

2943:"A lot of the time submitters ask why a submission was "rejected" when it was declined" 2289:: I added Musicians and Sportspeople to the blocklist (which, as you figured out, is at 1965:

I suppose AFCH shouldn't be placing WikiProject Musicians separately in the first place.

1744:

Looks unrelated, but still always good to spot and report a bug. I went ahead and filed

9810: 9785: 9744: 9221: 9210: 9191: 9148: 9115: 9104: 9009: 8951: 8881: 8849: 8750: 8736: 8694: 8662: 8610: 8551: 8495: 8436: 8346: 8276: 8207: 8178: 8103: 8083: 8046: 7951: 7936: 7856: 7820: 7800: 7766: 7726: 7697: 7631: 7541: 7468: 7456: 7398: 7364: 7311: 7246: 7201: 7171: 7114: 7062: 7015: 6998: 6962: 6950: 6931: 6919: 6899: 6886: 6815: 6738: 6673: 6556: 6529: 6487: 6439: 6351: 6338: 6314: 6296: 6264: 6204: 6172: 6141: 6126: 6068: 6052: 6017: 5948: 5840: 5820: 5807: 5788: 5784: 5756: 5746: 5725: 5716: 5685: 5661: 5637: 5619: 5605: 5596: 5557: 5414: 5400: 5337: 5319: 5305: 5290: 5249: 5231: 5219: 5197: 5135: 5120: 5087: 5053: 5019: 4979: 4961: 4938: 4901: 4880: 4861: 4766: 4753: 4707: 4612: 4591: 4505: 4462: 4419: 4069: 3785: 3651: 3517: 3501: 3483: 3456: 3444: 3408: 3376: 3340: 3297: 3263: 3250: 3214: 3194: 3170: 3140: 3114: 3091: 3066: 3041: 2978: 2952: 2887: 2874: 2846: 2807: 2780: 2753: 2737: 2709: 2693: 2656: 2619: 2544: 2508: 2472: 2450: 2435: 2323: 2278: 2258: 2243: 2140: 2115: 2097: 2069: 2055: 2010: 1973: 1865: 1814: 1749: 1699: 1645: 1578: 1557: 1478: 1395: 1361: 1340: 1302: 1261: 1136: 1105: 1080: 1061: 1015: 986: 251: 217: 5029:

works out to the same result: draft is accepted, maybe with some maintenance tags. --

4561:

The template that is posted on the submitter's talk page when their draft is accepted

4387: 3744: 2608:"Rejected means stop, don't go on. Declined means it might be accepted with revision." 8709: 8690: 8606: 8480: 7874: 7616: 7524: 6869: 6785: 6709: 6642: 6589: 6458:

Ah, the problem was me attempting to make it "JS Feed" due to the page requiring JS.

6290:

for you, plus giving you prompts in its user interface for categories, etc etc. 🇺🇦

6276: 6241: 6227: 6114: 6101: 5974: 5929: 5908: 5878: 4745: 4735: 3364: 3324: 3175: 2820: 2666: 2464: 9484:

I don't usually use the draftspace, but some months ago I started an article there,

6402: 3431:

Please make sure when you restore discussions from the archive that you remove them

2532: 9953: 9854: 9709: 9597: 9583: 9489: 9470: 9406: 9176: 9129: 9073: 9059: 9034: 8989: 8962: 8924: 8916: 8862: 8824: 8814: 8800: 8764: 8713: 8640: 8614: 8578: 8446: 8422: 8384: 8328: 8299: 8215: 8003: 7730: 7592: 7532: 7215:

is not furthering the cause of improving the encyclopedia. This is certainly not a

6846: 6703: 6625: 6118: 5933: 5913: 5894: 5824: 5367: 5152: 4920: 4637: 4529: 4250: 2911: 2583: 2536: 2486: 2412: 2344: 2300: 2282: 2225: 2200: 2182: 1999: 1986: 1952: 1731: 1625: 1595: 1513: 1418: 1377: 1369: 1281: 1242: 1207: 1184: 284: 9902:

content is useful, because it tells us we need correct content on that topic, and

9635:

Historically, creating uncited articles has been both common and widely-accepted (

8946:

fixing, but yet isn't so low that folk think they don't need to help out as much.

7270:

blocking a submission on principle prevents others from doing the work to that end

4359: 4294: 4229: 4154: 4089: 4024: 3959: 3894: 3829: 3764: 3699: 3630: 2449:

initiative of some sort, to check how well we're all adhering to the 'rules'.) --

2291:

Knowledge:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/WikiProject_templates.json/config.json

2219:

Knowledge:WikiProject Articles for creation/WikiProject templates.json/config.json

930: 9764: 9729: 9716: 9450: 9392: 9378: 9315: 9253: 9163: 9045: 8893: 8778: 8592: 8564: 8360: 8318: 8243: 8211: 8184: 8066: 8029: 7993: 7971: 7902: 7892: 7842: 7703: 7148: 6396: 6355: 6185: 5848: 5767: 5699: 5580: 5532: 5520: 5434: 5175: 5167: 5073: 5030: 4996: 4486: 4439: 4399: 3552: 2939:

Isn't that the job of the prose component? The word "Declined" does not say that.

1673: 1533: 1453: 1155:

I'm glad this is being worked on. In the meantime, I think it crosses a line for

1042: 997: 7358:

Insolent? Not at all. Helful and showing empathy is what it is. Thank you. 🇺🇦

6620:

but not the redirect. Also the redirect version does not stop them appearing in

6111:"conflict of interest submissions" are kinda the entire point of AfC being there 4383: 9938: 9695: 9544: 9501: 9462: 9454: 9269: 8676: 8622: 7682:, and I've been editing here for a while. I wanted to thank you for submitting 7514: 7236: 7220: 7186: 6988: 6720: 6663: 6600: 6497: 6467: 6410: 5268: 4693: 4673: 4656: 4620: 4570: 4182: 4175: 3028: 2937:"Declined (or its replacement) has to say that it may or may not be acceptable" 2811: 2616:

cause of confusion among new editors commenting at The Teahouse and Help Desk.

2528: 2423: 2167: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1928: 1844: 1799: 1442: 1250: 1180: 1169: 1121: 1012:

https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/afc-helper/labels/draft-talk-page-wikitext

892: 9980: 9780: 9756: 9739: 9529: 9518: 9410: 9216: 9143: 9110: 9004: 8947: 8876: 8844: 8746: 8657: 8546: 8530: 8491: 8432: 8342: 8296:

MediaWiki_talk:Captcha-addurl-whitelist#Protected_edit_request_on_8_June_2024

8272: 8165: 8099: 8078: 8058: 8041: 7795: 7761: 7719: 7689: 7626: 7528: 7451: 7447: 7394: 7359: 7306: 7224: 7216: 7167: 7109: 7078: 6945: 6914: 6881: 6734: 6552: 6483: 6334: 6291: 6259: 6200: 6167: 6136: 6122: 6047: 6046:. Rejection reverted. I'll leave the rest of this discussion to others. 🇺🇦 5943: 5815: 5752: 5698:

I suspect this will confuse even the OKA editors more than it helps them. --

5657: 5633: 5615: 5601: 5553: 5512: 5480: 5459: 5410: 5396: 5333: 5329: 5315: 5301: 5286: 5276: 5264: 5245: 5235: 5215: 5193: 5015: 4975: 4957: 4951:

Just noting that even if a page is really long, we don't need to necessarily

4934: 4897: 4876: 4857: 4786: 4749: 4616: 4587: 4566: 4458: 3568: 3497: 3479: 3440: 3246: 3190: 2870: 2799: 2776: 2733: 2689: 2652: 2468: 2431: 2239: 2136: 2093: 2051: 2005: 1968: 1669: 1297: 1273: 1256: 1203: 1101: 1057: 982: 516: 7140:

It is justified for us to decline a draft three or six times if it is being

5681:

of notability, let alone objectively evaluate sources from that perspective.

5238:, I'm not proposing to set a hard limit, only make my linked template above 4565:

does not have a mention of the fact that an article has to be reviewed by a

3135:"maybe 'Referred for further work'. I'm not precious about the exact phrase" 2673:

decline often implies courteous refusal especially of offers or invitations.

9669: 9402: 9343: 9264: 7606: 7141: 6155: 6097: 5614:

Shortening could help a lot. I'd just computer-translate a foreign source.

5511:

When preparing a draft translated from another Knowledge for submission to

5503:

Mathglot's trial #1: suggested translator instructions for rapid Afc review

5210:

Actually, I think this is a great suggestion; I've expanded on this in the

4893:(If the link does not work for you because you already have a sandbox, try 4611:

I am split too, but my worry is that the new editors would start badgering

4482: 3850: 2396: 2322:

need to be reverted? I thought we had decided to keep these off the list. –

1550: 1328:. This patch will take effect in 10 minutes after the gadget cache clears. 9600:! Should I use the Articles for Creation helper script? Or just Tools: --> 5535:, and avoid the pitfalls listed in Afc reviewer instructions steps 1–3 at 2806:

is too strong a word, although your defensive response is understandable.

2293:), so the bot shouldn't re-add them on the next run in a couple of hours. 2021:

That's not an AFCH issue. I wouldn't expect an AFCH reviewer to know that

1781:

Please note that the banner shell does not like non-article classes (e.g.

9506: 9466: 9172: 9025: 8818: 8618: 8416: 8378: 8291: 8233: 8219: 7918: 7884: 7791: 7782: 7751: 7679: 7298: 7151:, and would have either declined or rejected it if I were the reviewer. 6930:

I have selfishly declined on the grounds that it is overtly promotional.

5377: 5358: 5211: 5119:

heavily referenced, translations from de./ru./fr.wikis (from memory). --

2427: 2408: 2315: 2296: 2157: 1619: 1589: 1507: 1474: 1246: 9532:, unless an editor challenges the verifiability/notability. I drafted a 9306:

Or am I making things too complicated? I could just request deletion of

6184:

draft. I do accept drafts I've previously declined reasonably often. --

2949:

reiterates my point - to most people, the two words are close synonyms.

484: 9388: 9374: 9311: 9249: 8356: 8314: 8062: 8025: 7989: 7888: 7746: 7655:

which I've found have been most helpful to submitters from experience.

5653: 5576: 5549: 2931:"criticised for suggesting that with further work it will get accepted" 1072:

Posted this as a separate thread... and only then read the above convo.

9763:

need to use AfC, so adding the template there makes perfect sense. --

9759:, this is just for non-confirmed editors though, right? Those editors 8937:

I believe I am in the minority here, but honestly I don't really care

8411:, no external link additions (except toolforge/wmflabs) were recorded 8374: 7147:

In case it isn't obvious, I concur with the declines for being overly

6757:

either need to be removed, updated by a bot, or supported by AFCH and

4933:"200-300" then? They need to not get carried away to write full page. 2254:

Knowledge:WikiProject Articles for creation/WikiProject templates.json

458: 9934: 9705: 9691: 9555: 9540: 8020:

it is also being used in the Growth Help panel. The other option is

7510: 7232: 7182: 7061:

A 'gel evening' sounds fun, where can I find one of these parties? --

6984: 6716: 6659: 6596: 4525: 4045: 3024: 2286: 2163: 1951:

work later, but that would be obscure. 17:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

1924: 1840: 1810: 1795: 1438: 1336: 1165: 1156: 1117: 9391:: No problem! I have a bit of feedback for you on this article (and 8915:. What will be first a 3-digit backlog or clearing the monthlies... 2064:

Sorry, I didn't see your reply just now so I wrote a patch for this

437: 8516: 4744:

Actually, not really; unpatrolled new pages cannot be indexed. See

3720: 3000: 894: 243:

If you want to ask a question about your draft submission, use the

9413:

when it was accepted. Just things to keep in mind for the future.

9236:

G6 / Db-afc-move deletion of a redirect that used to be an article

8415:, so unconfirmed users should no longer need to enter captchas. – 8268:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Submission wizard

5847:--but that's besides the point of this site's ultimate mission. -- 5285:

other users to see the preload page you intended to link. Cheers,

2678:

reject implies a peremptory refusal by sending away or discarding.

8541:

We are about to break through the 1,400 drafts barrier, DOWNWARDS

7407:

That's the issue, I don't think she is. She proposes a merger at

4818: 4681: 4601: 4574: 335: 9849:

and lies which IMHO make any unsourced content of little value.

6585:

to have been removed by the script when I accepted the article.

6309:

You can move whatever you want from draftspace to mainspace per

2533:

https://npptech.toolforge.org/npp/data.php?type=unreviewedDrafts

1159:

to be reverting the AFCH edits that produce these warnings (see

925: 8505: 7901:

Yes, also seconding the replace the Teahouse template idea. --

5844: 5568:

they were submitted as stub, as they would be unjustified fork.

2501:

Knowledge:WikiProject Articles for creation/Backlog chart/daily

288: 8741:

Probably a bit more reviewing, just going through for example

8490:

Not sure what you mean, it's pretty darn close to "not ever".

3007: 899: 9608:. It seems it is being added to every draft (it was added to 9395:, who reviewed it): none of the sources, except possibly the 9310:(which has no significant history) and move the draft there. 4748:

for the full table of what can be shown/overridden and when.

4461:

to try to save them if they're nominated for deletion, etc. –

2927:

I'm not surprised. As I say, the confusion occurs frequently.

1698:

I deployed again just now. Please keep an eye out for bugs. –

1435:

This is looking great. Thanks for your work on this — Martin

9903: 6997:

I declined it because it was over promotional paid editing.

3245:

they used the wrong word, do they still try to give advice?

9639:

did it all the time), and it is still permitted by policy.

8151: 7670: 2527:

Part 1 of getting our AFC backlog graph back is complete. @

395: 377: 8132:

I got around to making a revised version of the template (

7742:

with AFCH in hopes that submitters don't get discouraged.

4524:

At the very least I was able to find a couple sources for

3294:- to most people it does not, as I again addressed above. 1746:

https://github.com/wikimedia-gadgets/afc-helper/issues/377

934:

AFC unreviewed article statistics as of September 23, 2024

279:

In addition to this page, you can give feedback about the

9841: 9640: 9142:

That extra verbiage makes sense. I knew it was me! 🇺🇦

8745:

it looks like about the same number of pages every day.

8545:

This is by ordinary reviewing, not a backlog drive 🇺🇦

7355:

I don't let things here drag me down, nor should anyone.

5810:(WikiProject Okanagan) would be confused ;) it would be 5429:

As a supplement to this discussion, allow me to suggest

3023:. This should help especially if this is an ESL issue. ~ 1390:

Hmm, there's a blank |class= in that diff. Let's see if

9488:, because the topic and sourcing looked a bit complex. 7811:

When you're ready to have it added to Twinkle, you can

2606:

At the Teahouse, a colleague recently gave the advice:

250:

For questions on how to use or edit Knowledge, use the

9734:

Knowledge:Bots/Requests for approval/Qwerfjkl (bot) 15

9643:, the standard example article, had no cites for over 8791:

The high capture rate was caused by another issue see

8373:

I missed that Google exists on the interwiki map, eg.

7531:

but the merge was not one to proceed with unopposed. @

6692:

Patching AFCH won't fix the redirect. The intent with

5395:. Hope this has satisfactorily unfuddled you. Cheers, 4358: 4293: 4228: 4153: 4088: 4023: 3958: 3893: 3828: 3763: 3698: 3629: 3207:

confusion is inevitable. The concern is that there is

1613:

Speaking of OKA though, I think I had a situation (at

9887:

Uncited but verifiable content can be really valuable

9803:

Should I use the Articles for Creation helper script?

6524:

Anyone know what the 'page info' blurb on top of the

3137:. I have made no proposal to cease using "rejected". 2428:

https://apersonbot.toolforge.org/afchistory/?user=XYZ

9867:

Thanks to everyone. I was going to suggest creating

8759:

and the submits via the wizard agree with a mean of

7678:

Hello WELCOMEUSER, welcome to Knowledge! My name is

5843:: One of these moments I wish WP comments supported 5454:

Translations: do just a part to establish notability

5149: 5046:

userspace essay about how to get through AfC quickly

4836:Could the new authors be pointed to something like 510: 9853:is what makes Knowledge different to social media. 9496:I also created a mainspace stub article yesterday, 8266:, we're still having a ton of issues brought up at 7219:situation so I assume the basis for the decline is 4785:Here is couple I found from a very quick search in 3478:My apologies, I misread the timestamp of the edit. 7794:Once we have a consensus, that is the route. 🇺🇦 6638:If it doesn't work, we should probably delete the 6283:of the article before you declare your work done." 1041:an example of it from one I accepted recently. -- 428:Template:WikiProject Articles for creation (admin) 1335:This patch should hopefully resolve the problems 9978: 7855:Thirding that looks really friendly and useful. 7523:I may be wrong with timing of your decline and @ 6551:makes me think it's not directly related to us. 6432:Knowledge:WikiProject Articles for creation/tabs 6166:once only, and very rarely touch it again. 🇺🇦 6162:a draft once. I usually review it and accept or 5386:Offshoots of Operation Car Wash, rev. 937805602‎ 4438:Not yet rated, and in need of viable sources. -- 401:This page is used for the administration of the 145:Welcome—discuss matters concerning this project! 8061:! I didn't know MOS had not been a namespace. 5977:, would be such a situation: composing a draft 1833:Could you restrict to the 9 standard grades on 1788:. In this case, it was a set index article, so 1727:I just got an odd one - double decline notices 409:processes and is therefore within the scope of 3587:2023 World Seniors Darts Champion of Champions 1010:Does one of these tickets describe the issue? 468:discussions and keep related topics together, 9521:, it would avoid adding it to the AfC queue. 8478:Can anyone do justice to this draft. Cheers! 5973:The particular case that you have described, 5936:has encapsulated the theoretical answer well. 4372: 4307: 4242: 4167: 4102: 4037: 3972: 3916:National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program 3907: 3842: 3777: 3712: 3643: 2045:someone from attempting to do so. We do have 907:This page has archives. Sections older than 872: 197: 9405:on a quick glance, and many were lacking in 9299:Thank you. The current redirect could go to 8743:Category:AfC submissions by date/August 2024 8096:m:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Mooré 8075:It was a pseudo namespace before, like CAT:. 2543:so hopefully it won't be too much trouble. – 2181:needs admin or template editor perm to add. 1503:Template:WikiProject banner shell#Parameters 328: 9166:: redirect requests not archiving correctly 8913:zero @ ~20:22 UTC on the 20th November 2023 8206:If you have general editing questions, the 4849:, used as a preload template, for example, 4481:To clarify, I was asking for others to add 2665:Actually, to answer your asinine question, 425:Knowledge:WikiProject Articles for creation 8797:Knowledge:Articles for creation/Submitting 8512:WP:COIN#Request to give Kseni-kam a leeway 8094:If you're curious why it was changed, see 8022:Help:Introduction to the Manual of Style/1 7700:- ask Wikipedians for general editing help 5493:§ Don't always translate the whole article 1131:I started an update tonight. It's located 879: 865: 204: 190: 5314:If you think so, it's fine to revert it. 2221:is the configuration it uses rather than 2179:WikiProject_templates.json/blocklist.json 1319:AFCH WikiProject banner patch is deployed 1280:page to show Task 26 as inactive. Cheers 1095:Module talk:WikiProject banner § Warnings 357:does not require a rating on Knowledge's 333: 8150: 7669: 7446:I have long been tempted to agree with @ 6622:Category:AfC submissions with categories 3658:--but this might survive nonetheless) / 929: 8792: 8163:! I wanted to thank you for submitting 5275:. This change of mine is technically a 179: 14: 9979: 9904:motivates the creation of such content 8625:as the big hitters in the last month. 8409:Special:AbuseFilter/examine/1818758338 7706:- ask reviewers for draft article help 7544:, but I'm sure someone will help her. 6610:I believe it removes the full version 5110:While I empathise, the problem (well, 5072:Thanks! I'll finish it... someday. -- 4672:"Your article would not be indexed on 3236:Actually, I have a related question - 2197:WikiProject_templates.json/config.json 1249:runs on these pages (pinging operator 917:when more than 6 sections are present. 326: 9604:I think I've seriously misunderstood 9457:articles or recently deleted articles 8510:AfC reviewers might be interested in 5872:Multiple rejections by same reviewer? 5273:User:Gryllida/NewArticleBLPv1/preload 4847:User:Gryllida/NewArticleBLPv1/preload 3405:Restored from archive as unresolved. 2257:help keep the code in AFCH simpler. – 2110:. But yes, I did code exceptions for 1913:) it auto converts to Biography with 9914:more editors means more factcheckers 9675: 9668:verifiable, verify it yourself" and 7108:I like 'declinging' even more. 🇺🇦 6961:Let the paid editor earn his money. 6747:Any templates that are redirects to 5431:WP:Database reports/Long pages/Draft 5382:War guilt question, rev. 1011491911‎ 4692:it is indexed early, it is a bonus. 1615:Talk:Katowice Załęże railway station 1468:|1=, moving up the WPAFC banner, OKA 479: 471:Knowledge talk:Articles for creation 453: 346: 344: 340: 28: 9948:other guidelines get built up like 8242:Thanks again for creating this! -- 6672:Or we can write a patch for AFCH. – 4554:Add NPP, search engine indexing in 3559:At press time, two in the backlog-- 1668:a wikiproject template, as part of 1556:is now added to the banner shell. – 415:. Please direct any queries to the 363:It is of interest to the following 24: 9453:suggestion: Automatic reminder of 8591:Wow! Sure wasn't me. Go team!! -- 8470:Draft:List of storms named Pulasan 8187:- ask AfC reviewers for draft help 7984:I think many Welcome messages use 5529:Help:Your first article#Notability 5463: 4615:to get their articles reviewed if 3006: 2999: 2047:a bot-updated list of WikiProjects 1332:this particular code top of mind. 942:Assigning WikiProjects to Articles 25: 9998: 9777:That's true, I forgot about that. 9628:Why uncited content isn't all bad 9342:, but that can be handled with a 9329:R from unnecessary disambiguation 8134:User:Liance/s/afcwelcomerevision2 7690:WikiProject Articles for Creation 7481:Nothing more true can be said. -- 7137:no obligation to the paid editor. 6526:Draft:ExoSat Aerospace Industries 6434:? Seems like a great idea. How's 3435:the archive. In this case I have 2505:User:MusikBot/CategoryCounter/Run 1864:. Thanks for reporting the bug. – 1792:was appropriate. Thanks — Martin 911:may be automatically archived by 491:WikiProject Articles for creation 412:WikiProject Articles for Creation 9676: 8394: 7605: 7227:?" I beleive the answer here is 6459: 6065:Draft:Logan Henderson (engineer) 6038: 5677:struggle to even understand the 3453:YOU didnlt give me long enough. 2571: 1855: 1664:If it matters, the OKA template 1240:┌──────────────────────────────┘ 515: 483: 457: 436: 394: 376: 345: 334: 327: 9987:Project-Class AfC project pages 8212:Articles for creation Help Desk 8185:Articles for creation Help Desk 7704:Articles for Creation Help Desk 7409:Talk:David_Wicht#Merge_proposal 4972:frustration and reduced success 2746:"used to mean different things 9964:02:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC) 9943:01:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC) 9863:09:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 9825:07:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 9791:20:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 9773:19:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 9750:19:35, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 9725:01:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 9700:21:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 9592:20:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 9549:19:49, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 9475:18:13, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 9436:21:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 9383:21:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 9369:21:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 9320:21:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 9295:20:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 9258:20:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 9227:16:27, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 9206:01:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 9181:00:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 9155:17:04, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 9138:16:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 9122:16:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 9082:08:38, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 9068:08:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 9054:02:15, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 9040:02:00, 23 September 2024 (UTC) 9016:13:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC) 8998:20:14, 20 September 2024 (UTC) 8971:11:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 8956:11:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 8933:08:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 8907:07:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 8888:22:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 8871:22:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 8856:21:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 8829:07:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 8809:21:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8787:21:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8773:20:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8755:20:30, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8722:08:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 8703:05:12, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 8685:21:27, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8669:20:42, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8656:1,399 just flashed past! 🇺🇦 8649:20:37, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8635:20:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8601:20:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8587:20:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8573:20:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8558:20:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8536:01:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8500:13:38, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 8485:06:14, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 8455:14:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 8441:13:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 8427:19:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 8389:18:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 8365:15:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 8351:15:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 8337:15:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 8323:15:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 8308:15:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 8281:12:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC) 8252:20:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8237:17:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8223:17:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 8181:- ask editors for general help 8108:01:00, 18 September 2024 (UTC) 8089:20:33, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 8071:20:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 8052:16:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 8034:16:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 8012:14:19, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 7998:14:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 7980:22:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 7966:22:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 7945:16:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 7922:16:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 7911:16:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 7897:16:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 7879:21:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 7865:20:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 7851:20:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 7835:22:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 7807:20:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 7786:20:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 7773:20:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 7755:20:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 7638:07:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 7621:02:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC) 7601:18:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 7556:23:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 7519:20:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 7502:18:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 7477:18:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 7463:18:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 7423:13:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 7403:10:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 7388:02:21, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 7371:20:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 7344:18:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 7318:17:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 7293:17:35, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 7255:16:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 7241:16:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 7210:15:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 7191:15:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 7176:12:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC) 7161:20:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 7121:17:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 7102:09:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 7071:07:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 7056:06:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 7030:22:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 7007:20:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 6993:20:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 6971:17:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 6957:16:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 6940:16:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 6926:16:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 6908:16:40, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 6893:16:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 6855:13:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 6823:Module:AfC submission catcheck 6759:Module:AfC submission catcheck 6743:13:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 6731:Module:AfC submission catcheck 6725:12:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC) 6688:22:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 6668:20:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 6634:15:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 6605:14:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 6561:15:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 6538:14:14, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 6508:12:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 6492:12:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 6478:02:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 6454:02:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC) 5591:Draft:Viticulture in Stuttgart 5423:11:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 5096:12:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC) 3535:12:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 3506:12:34, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 3488:12:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 3474:12:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 3449:12:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 3426:12:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 3158:12:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC) 3086:""Got any ideas for new terms? 2925:"This comes up semi-regularly" 2215:User:Ahechtbot/wikiprojects.js 1339:is encountering. Thanks all. – 13: 1: 9338:is more straightforward than 9242:Draft:Mummification (Bondage) 8431:Thanks for sorting that out. 7986:WP:Simplified Manual of Style 7933:either one venue or the other 7646:AfC-tailored Welcome template 7437:shoudl I do this thing, then? 7012:Theroadislong's draft comment 6421:22:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 6392:18:48, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 6364:18:32, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 6343:15:59, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 6329:11:05, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 6303:09:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 6271:08:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 6236:23:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 6209:22:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 6194:22:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 6179:21:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 6148:21:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 6131:20:44, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 6106:18:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 6083:11:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 6059:18:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 6032:11:02, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 6008:18:11, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 5955:18:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 5922:17:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 5903:17:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 5887:15:56, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 5862:11:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 5833:10:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 5803:07:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 5776:23:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 5761:23:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 5740:19:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 5708:19:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 5694:08:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 5670:19:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 5646:19:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 5628:19:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 5610:08:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 5585:07:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 5562:07:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 5448:11:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC) 5405:05:52, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 5373:02:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 5346:02:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 5324:18:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 5310:21:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 5295:21:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 5258:02:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 5224:07:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 5206:02:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 5184:16:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 5161:15:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 5144:15:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 5129:15:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 5082:04:53, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 5068:00:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 5039:19:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 5024:17:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 5005:16:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 4988:02:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 4966:14:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 4947:11:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 4929:11:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 4915:However, I agree things like 4910:10:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 4889:10:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 4870:10:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 4824:10:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 4781:00:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 4758:19:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 4740:19:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 4722:00:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 4702:20:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 4687:13:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 4665:12:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 4646:11:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 4629:11:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 4607:10:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 4596:10:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 4580:07:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 4540:14:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC) 3211:- and avoidable - confusion. 2596:16:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC) 2353:14:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 2338:14:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 2310:02:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC) 2273:00:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC) 2248:10:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2234:08:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2209:07:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2199:as that also has a blocklist 2191:07:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2173:07:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2145:10:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2130:01:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2102:00:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2084:00:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC) 2060:23:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 2016:18:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 1995:18:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 1979:18:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 1961:17:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 1934:17:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 1880:04:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC) 1850:19:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 1829:17:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 1805:14:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC) 270:Put new text under old text. 9486:Draft:Regenerative dentistry 9411:general notability guideline 8155:Thanks for creating a draft! 7725:I highly recommend visiting 7674:Thanks for creating a draft! 6545:Special:Permalink/1245009798 3015:I have taken the liberty of 2688:a lexicological difference. 2031:is a subst-only wrapper for 1835:Knowledge:Content assessment 310: 7: 9509:had already tagged it with 8191:Creating your first article 7710:Creating your first article 6648:and any other redirects to 5485:OKA translator instructions 5390:Draft:French historiography 4520:00:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 4500:00:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 4477:00:34, 31 August 2024 (UTC) 4453:22:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 4434:20:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 4413:15:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC) 3394:17:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 3369:17:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 3358:16:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 3329:16:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 3315:14:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 3281:16:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 3255:15:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 3232:14:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 3199:13:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 3180:13:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 3169:providing feedback right? @ 3129:03:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 3109:14:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 3081:13:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 3059:13:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC) 3033:15:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2987:14:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2970:14:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2920:13:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2905:13:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2879:12:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2864:12:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2825:12:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2785:12:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2771:12:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2742:12:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2727:12:41, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2698:11:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2661:11:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2637:11:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2559:14:29, 29 August 2024 (UTC) 2523:12:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2495:11:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2477:10:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2459:05:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 2440:19:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC) 2417:19:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC) 1764:18:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 1740:17:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 1714:12:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC) 1682:23:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 1660:23:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 1639:23:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 1609:23:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 1572:23:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 1542:22:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 1527:22:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 1493:22:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 1462:15:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 1448:15:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 1427:14:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 1410:14:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 1386:13:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 1355:13:00, 23 August 2024 (UTC) 1308:17:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 1290:16:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 1267:15:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 1216:14:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 1193:14:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 1174:13:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC) 1151:11:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 1127:07:43, 21 August 2024 (UTC) 1110:11:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 1089:10:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC) 1066:19:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 1051:19:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 1030:19:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 1006:18:51, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 991:18:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 971:18:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC) 320: 239:Are you in the right place? 10: 10003: 9662:WP:Encourage the newcomers 8201:Simplified Manual of Style 6570: 5052:? Nice start. I like it. – 4316:John T. Wilson (born 1861) 4111:Society of Classical Poets 300:Ask questions, get answers 215: 9534:user information template 9519:nominated it for deletion 9373:That's great, thank you. 9240:I was planning to accept 9103:probably now deleted and 8196:Referencing for beginners 7720:Knowledge Manual of Style 7715:Referencing for beginners 3337:have different meanings. 1532:wikiprojects on them. -- 389: 371: 261:or request an article at 175:1,273 pending submissions 7745:With encouragement from 7652:User:Liance/s/afcwelcome 5458:Regarding translations, 5050:User:Asilvering/AfCguide 3241:the person helping them 2602:Problem with terminology 2252:Sounds good. Looks like 2092:one of these templates? 1915:|musician-work-group=yes 315: 257:Create an article using 9950:"righting great wrongs" 9851:Knowledge:Verifiability 9664:for the evidence base. 9606:Template:AfC submission 9565:Knowledge:Verifiability 9308:Mummification (bondage) 9301:Mummification (bondage) 9128:remove the violation". 7819:to start the process. – 7813:make a ticket on GitHub 5014:much extra time taken. 3133:What I wrote above was 3088:- Yes, answered above. 1077:Draft talk:Tony To Chin 1034:I think it's this one: 9869:Template:Draft article 9610:Regenerative dentistry 9515:Template:Sources exist 9270:technical move request 8902:egg-throwing coleslaw? 8327:I've never used them. 8156: 7675: 6581:I would have expected 6375:Probably good to just 5857:egg-throwing coleslaw? 5474: 5443:egg-throwing coleslaw? 4495:egg-throwing coleslaw? 4448:egg-throwing coleslaw? 4408:egg-throwing coleslaw? 3545:unassessed AFC backlog 3021:used on the draft page 3011: 3004: 1720:Double decline notices 1161:Talk:Thomas F. Baumert 935: 914:Lowercase sigmabot III 109:Reviewing instructions 9653:Draft:Confirmat screw 9560:Draft:Confirmat screw 9511:Template:Unreferenced 9498:Draft:Confirmat screw 9480:Do I need AfC review? 9101:User:Cmm66930/sandbox 8171:Articles for creation 8154: 7673: 7540:? Fully concur with @ 6571:Tracked in github.com 6567:Category machinations 6543:Removed, original in 5470: 4917:Draft:Tulunid Emirate 4653:core content policies 3981:Rountree, Springfield 3010: 3003: 2114:in the above patch. – 2036:WikiProject Biography 2026:WikiProject Musicians 1774:Auto-detected classes 933: 536:Articles for Creation 422:Articles for creation 403:Articles for Creation 384:Articles for creation 285:creating a new ticket 9407:significant coverage 9246:Mummification (BDSM) 8271:mitigate the issue. 8161:welcome to Knowledge 7538:do you know who I am 7439:" I am paraphrasing. 6658:while we're at it. ~ 6428:Special:NewPagesFeed 6407:Special:NewPagesFeed 5384:(141kb at release); 4956:should be accepted. 4619:is linked directly. 1894:WikiProject Musician 505:on 24 December 2018. 496:a WikiProject Report 18:Knowledge talk:AFC/C 8793:#Rate limit (redux) 8763:in the last month. 8475:Buongiourno tutti, 7663:AfC welcome message 6426:You propose to add 5521:three solid sources 4832:drafts are too long 4678:New Page Patrollers 4563:Template:AfC accept 4048:(September 2016) / 3723:(September 2023) / 3547:remain up for grabs 2748:by this WikiProject 1278:User:Qwerfjkl (bot) 1179:than constructive. 9109:Or is it me? 🇺🇦 9105:User talk:Cmm66930 8258:Rate limit (redux) 8157: 7676: 6729:Or we just update 6113:- not really; see 5380:, you're not. See 4253:(February 2023) / 4113:(November 2020) / 3983:(February 2019) / 3918:(November 2022) / 3853:(November 2021) / 3786:The Dream Wanderer 3652:Abki Baar 400 Paar 3012: 3005: 2808:User:Pigsonthewing 2481:Unfortunately the 1452:You're a hero. -- 952:Improve categories 936: 359:content assessment 294:New to Knowledge? 281:AFCH helper script 263:requested articles 9925: 9924: 9918:editing Knowledge 9823: 9736:my bot does this. 9686: 9685: 9434: 9367: 9293: 9204: 9092:AFCH and copyvios 8905: 8740: 8627:Curb Safe Charmer 8288:this month so far 8229: 8228: 8018:this edit summary 7964: 7833: 7738: 7737: 7500: 7342: 7291: 7123: 7104: 7100: 7073: 7054: 7028: 6870:Draft:Film Afrika 6686: 6520:Page info comment 6452: 6327: 6081: 6030: 6006: 5860: 5801: 5738: 5600: 5545: 5544: 5446: 5394: 5212:sub-section below 5150:https://oka.wiki/ 5066: 4779: 4720: 4569:to be indexed in 4518: 4498: 4475: 4451: 4432: 4411: 4318:(October 2023) / 3788:(January 2019) / 3561:Nathaniel Jenkins 3127: 3079: 2557: 2521: 2467:metric to go by. 2447:quality assurance 2336: 2271: 2171: 2128: 2082: 1932: 1878: 1848: 1827: 1803: 1762: 1712: 1658: 1570: 1491: 1446: 1414:Yes it did - see 1408: 1353: 1149: 1125: 1074: 1028: 921: 920: 858:Old AFCH requests 509: 508: 478: 477: 452: 451: 448: 447: 444: 443: 431:AfC project pages 316:Table of Contents 273:Start a new topic 214: 213: 161:Random submission 139: 138: 102: 74: 16:(Redirected from 9994: 9961: 9956: 9883: 9882: 9839: 9833: 9817: 9815: 9793: 9788: 9783: 9752: 9747: 9742: 9681: 9680: 9679: 9624: 9623: 9580: 9574: 9431: 9424: 9423: 9421: 9419:TechnoSquirrel69 9364: 9357: 9356: 9354: 9352:TechnoSquirrel69 9333: 9327: 9290: 9283: 9282: 9280: 9278:TechnoSquirrel69 9229: 9224: 9219: 9198: 9196: 9151: 9146: 9118: 9113: 9032: 9012: 9007: 8896: 8884: 8879: 8852: 8847: 8821: 8734: 8665: 8660: 8554: 8549: 8534: 8533: 8527: 8526: 8523: 8520: 8483: 8419: 8402: 8398: 8397: 8381: 8140: 8139: 8091: 8086: 8081: 8054: 8049: 8044: 7988:for a starter. 7958: 7956: 7877: 7827: 7825: 7803: 7798: 7769: 7764: 7659: 7658: 7634: 7629: 7619: 7609: 7553: 7548: 7490: 7459: 7454: 7429:Star Mississippi 7420: 7415: 7385: 7380: 7367: 7362: 7332: 7314: 7309: 7281: 7117: 7112: 7107: 7090: 7076: 7060: 7044: 7022: 7020: 6953: 6948: 6922: 6917: 6889: 6884: 6844: 6840:Draft Categories 6838: 6834: 6830:Draft categories 6828: 6820: 6814: 6810: 6804: 6800: 6796:Draft Categories 6794: 6790: 6784: 6780: 6774: 6770: 6766:Draft categories 6764: 6756: 6752:Draft categories 6750: 6714: 6708: 6701: 6697:Draft categories 6695: 6680: 6678: 6657: 6653:Draft categories 6651: 6647: 6641: 6619: 6615:Draft categories 6613: 6594: 6588: 6577: 6550: 6500: 6470: 6463: 6446: 6444: 6413: 6321: 6319: 6299: 6294: 6267: 6262: 6175: 6170: 6158:I am willing to 6144: 6139: 6075: 6073: 6055: 6050: 6042: 6041: 6024: 6022: 5996: 5951: 5946: 5851: 5795: 5793: 5750: 5732: 5730: 5594: 5540: 5499: 5498: 5437: 5392: 5365: 5283: 5060: 5058: 4773: 4771: 4738: 4714: 4712: 4537: 4532: 4512: 4510: 4489: 4483:reliable sources 4469: 4467: 4442: 4426: 4424: 4402: 4377: 4376: 4362: 4312: 4311: 4297: 4251:WDC UK Matchplay 4247: 4246: 4232: 4188:, April 2018) / 4187: 4181: 4172: 4171: 4157: 4107: 4106: 4092: 4042: 4041: 4027: 3977: 3976: 3962: 3912: 3911: 3897: 3847: 3846: 3832: 3782: 3781: 3767: 3717: 3716: 3702: 3654:(June 2024; per 3648: 3647: 3633: 3580: 3574: 3543:12 pages in the 3533: 3524: 3520: 3514:of the project. 3472: 3463: 3459: 3424: 3415: 3411: 3392: 3383: 3379: 3367: 3356: 3347: 3343: 3327: 3313: 3304: 3300: 3279: 3270: 3266: 3230: 3221: 3217: 3178: 3156: 3147: 3143: 3121: 3119: 3107: 3098: 3094: 3073: 3071: 3057: 3048: 3044: 2968: 2959: 2955: 2903: 2894: 2890: 2862: 2853: 2849: 2823: 2769: 2760: 2756: 2725: 2716: 2712: 2635: 2626: 2622: 2575: 2574: 2551: 2549: 2515: 2513: 2330: 2328: 2308: 2265: 2263: 2161: 2122: 2120: 2076: 2074: 2040: 2034: 2030: 2024: 2018: 2013: 2008: 1981: 1976: 1971: 1922: 1916: 1872: 1870: 1863: 1859: 1858: 1838: 1821: 1819: 1793: 1791: 1787: 1756: 1754: 1706: 1704: 1652: 1650: 1637: 1607: 1582: 1564: 1562: 1555: 1549: 1525: 1485: 1483: 1436: 1402: 1400: 1347: 1345: 1310: 1305: 1300: 1269: 1264: 1259: 1143: 1141: 1115: 1070: 1022: 1020: 956: 950: 916: 900: 881: 874: 867: 519: 511: 493:was featured in 487: 480: 473: 461: 454: 440: 433: 432: 429: 426: 423: 407:Files for Upload 398: 391: 390: 380: 373: 372: 350: 349: 348: 341: 338: 331: 228: 206: 199: 192: 183: 181: 169: 150: 149: 147: 94: 58: 29: 21: 10002: 10001: 9997: 9996: 9995: 9993: 9992: 9991: 9977: 9976: 9959: 9954: 9921: 9888: 9837: 9831: 9811: 9786: 9781: 9745: 9740: 9682: 9677: 9629: 9578: 9572: 9482: 9459: 9427: 9417: 9414: 9360: 9350: 9347: 9331: 9325: 9286: 9276: 9273: 9238: 9222: 9217: 9192: 9168: 9149: 9144: 9116: 9111: 9094: 9026: 9010: 9005: 8882: 8877: 8850: 8845: 8819: 8663: 8658: 8552: 8547: 8543: 8529: 8524: 8521: 8518: 8517: 8515: 8508: 8479: 8473: 8417: 8407:. According to 8395: 8393: 8379: 8294:as they raised 8260: 8230: 8159:Hello Example, 8145: 8130: 8128:Revised version 8084: 8079: 8047: 8042: 7952: 7873: 7821: 7801: 7796: 7767: 7762: 7739: 7664: 7648: 7632: 7627: 7615: 7551: 7546: 7457: 7452: 7418: 7413: 7383: 7378: 7365: 7360: 7351: 7312: 7307: 7153:Robert McClenon 7115: 7110: 7016: 6951: 6946: 6920: 6915: 6887: 6882: 6874: 6842: 6836: 6832: 6826: 6818: 6812: 6808: 6802: 6798: 6792: 6788: 6782: 6778: 6772: 6768: 6762: 6754: 6748: 6712: 6706: 6699: 6693: 6674: 6655: 6649: 6645: 6639: 6617: 6611: 6592: 6586: 6579: 6573: 6569: 6548: 6522: 6498: 6468: 6440: 6411: 6403:m:Wikiafication 6399: 6315: 6297: 6292: 6265: 6260: 6173: 6168: 6142: 6137: 6069: 6063:Courtesy link: 6053: 6048: 6039: 6018: 5949: 5944: 5874: 5789: 5744: 5726: 5546: 5510: 5504: 5456: 5359: 5281: 5054: 4834: 4767: 4734: 4708: 4669:How about this? 4559: 4535: 4530: 4506: 4463: 4420: 4380: 4319: 4254: 4189: 4185: 4179: 4114: 4049: 3984: 3919: 3854: 3789: 3724: 3659: 3590: 3589:(April 2023) / 3578: 3572: 3549: 3522: 3516: 3515: 3461: 3455: 3454: 3437:already done it 3413: 3407: 3406: 3381: 3375: 3374: 3363: 3345: 3339: 3338: 3323: 3302: 3296: 3295: 3268: 3262: 3261: 3219: 3213: 3212: 3174: 3145: 3139: 3138: 3115: 3096: 3090: 3089: 3067: 3046: 3040: 3039: 2957: 2951: 2950: 2892: 2886: 2885: 2851: 2845: 2844: 2819: 2816:WP:AFCSTANDARDS 2758: 2752: 2751: 2714: 2708: 2707: 2667:Merriam Webster 2624: 2618: 2617: 2604: 2572: 2545: 2541:BaranBOT task 3 2535:. Now I think @ 2509: 2399: 2324: 2294: 2259: 2195:Or it could be 2116: 2070: 2038: 2032: 2028: 2022: 2011: 2006: 1974: 1969: 1914: 1896: 1866: 1856: 1854: 1815: 1789: 1785: 1776: 1750: 1722: 1700: 1646: 1636: 1618: 1606: 1588: 1576: 1558: 1553: 1547: 1524: 1506: 1479: 1470: 1396: 1341: 1321: 1303: 1298: 1262: 1257: 1137: 1016: 963:Robert McClenon 954: 948: 944: 928: 912: 901: 895: 886: 885: 855: 834: 815: 524: 474:redirects here. 469: 430: 427: 424: 421: 420: 417:discussion page 339: 332: 325: 306: 305: 232: 231: 224: 220: 210: 177: 176: 167: 148: 143: 23: 22: 15: 12: 11: 5: 10000: 9990: 9989: 9975: 9974: 9973: 9972: 9971: 9970: 9969: 9968: 9967: 9966: 9923: 9922: 9893: 9890: 9889: 9886: 9881: 9880: 9879: 9878: 9877: 9876: 9875: 9874: 9872: 9827: 9807:WP:DRAFTOBJECT 9800: 9799: 9798: 9797: 9796: 9795: 9794: 9713: 9684: 9683: 9634: 9631: 9630: 9627: 9622: 9621: 9620: 9619: 9617: 9614: 9602: 9481: 9478: 9458: 9448: 9447: 9446: 9445: 9444: 9443: 9442: 9441: 9440: 9439: 9438: 9344:requested move 9304: 9237: 9234: 9233: 9232: 9231: 9230: 9167: 9161: 9160: 9159: 9158: 9157: 9093: 9090: 9089: 9088: 9087: 9086: 9085: 9084: 9056: 9021: 9020: 9019: 9018: 8984: 8983: 8982: 8981: 8980: 8979: 8978: 8977: 8976: 8975: 8974: 8973: 8890: 8841: 8840: 8839: 8838: 8837: 8836: 8835: 8834: 8833: 8832: 8831: 8732: 8731: 8730: 8729: 8728: 8727: 8726: 8725: 8724: 8687: 8673: 8672: 8671: 8654: 8542: 8539: 8507: 8504: 8503: 8502: 8472: 8467: 8466: 8465: 8464: 8463: 8462: 8461: 8460: 8459: 8458: 8457: 8443: 8371: 8370: 8369: 8368: 8367: 8286:From the uses 8259: 8256: 8255: 8254: 8227: 8226: 8204: 8203: 8198: 8193: 8188: 8182: 8147: 8146: 8143: 8138: 8129: 8126: 8125: 8124: 8123: 8122: 8121: 8120: 8119: 8118: 8117: 8116: 8115: 8114: 8113: 8112: 8111: 8110: 8092: 7947: 7928: 7927: 7926: 7925: 7924: 7915: 7914: 7913: 7869: 7868: 7867: 7841:Seconding. -- 7839: 7838: 7837: 7809: 7776: 7775: 7736: 7735: 7723: 7722: 7717: 7712: 7707: 7701: 7666: 7665: 7662: 7657: 7647: 7644: 7643: 7642: 7641: 7640: 7603: 7587: 7586: 7585: 7584: 7583: 7582: 7581: 7580: 7579: 7578: 7577: 7576: 7575: 7574: 7573: 7572: 7571: 7570: 7569: 7568: 7567: 7566: 7565: 7564: 7563: 7562: 7561: 7560: 7559: 7558: 7521: 7506: 7505: 7504: 7444: 7440: 7432: 7356: 7353: 7349: 7302: 7265:Casual editors 7145: 7138: 7134: 7133: 7132: 7131: 7130: 7129: 7128: 7127: 7126: 7125: 7124: 7009: 6981: 6980: 6979: 6978: 6977: 6976: 6975: 6974: 6973: 6873: 6867: 6866: 6865: 6864: 6863: 6862: 6861: 6860: 6859: 6858: 6857: 6806:Draft category 6745: 6578: 6572: 6568: 6565: 6564: 6563: 6521: 6518: 6517: 6516: 6515: 6514: 6513: 6512: 6511: 6510: 6401:I was reading 6398: 6395: 6373: 6372: 6371: 6370: 6369: 6368: 6367: 6366: 6354:explained. -- 6347: 6346: 6345: 6311:WP:DRAFTOBJECT 6307: 6306: 6305: 6287: 6284: 6280: 6255: 6252: 6249: 6245: 6224: 6219: 6218: 6214: 6213: 6212: 6211: 6152: 6151: 6150: 6093: 6089: 6088: 6087: 6086: 6085: 6036: 6035: 6034: 5968: 5967: 5966: 5965: 5958: 5957: 5940: 5937: 5926: 5925: 5924: 5873: 5870: 5869: 5868: 5867: 5866: 5865: 5864: 5837: 5836: 5835: 5778: 5721:WP:AFCHELPDESK 5712: 5711: 5710: 5682: 5674: 5673: 5672: 5650: 5649: 5648: 5630: 5572: 5569: 5543: 5542: 5506: 5505: 5502: 5497: 5476: 5475: 5455: 5452: 5451: 5450: 5427: 5426: 5425: 5407: 5354: 5353: 5352: 5351: 5350: 5349: 5348: 5282:Special:MyPage 5262: 5261: 5260: 5228: 5227: 5226: 5190: 5189: 5188: 5187: 5186: 5171: 5108: 5107: 5106: 5105: 5104: 5103: 5102: 5101: 5100: 5099: 5098: 5043: 5042: 5041: 4992: 4991: 4990: 4912: 4891: 4844: 4833: 4830: 4829: 4828: 4827: 4826: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4724: 4674:search engines 4670: 4648: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4609: 4571:search engines 4558: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4542: 4522: 4388:incrementalist 4379: 4378: 4313: 4248: 4176:Soroush Cinema 4173: 4108: 4043: 3978: 3913: 3848: 3783: 3718: 3649: 3583: 3548: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3491: 3490: 3403: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3396: 3319: 3318: 3317: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3166: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3036: 3035: 2998: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2989: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2940: 2934: 2928: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2684:So yes, there 2682: 2681: 2680: 2675: 2649: 2603: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2479: 2398: 2395: 2394: 2393: 2392: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2303: 2223:blocklist.json 2217:it looks like 2213:From the code 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 1895: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1775: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1721: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1662: 1622: 1592: 1585: 1510: 1499: 1469: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1450: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1320: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1241: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1232: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1199:Qwerfjkl (bot) 1197:It looks like 1098: 1068: 943: 940: 938: 927: 924: 919: 918: 906: 903: 902: 897: 893: 891: 888: 887: 884: 883: 876: 869: 861: 854: 853: 848: 842: 833: 832: 827: 821: 814: 813: 808: 803: 798: 793: 788: 782: 744: 704: 664: 624: 584: 533: 530: 529: 526: 525: 520: 514: 507: 506: 488: 476: 475: 462: 450: 449: 446: 445: 442: 441: 434: 399: 387: 386: 381: 369: 368: 362: 351: 324: 323: 321:Bottom of page 318: 313: 304: 303: 292: 277: 268: 267: 266: 259:Article wizard 255: 248: 234: 230: 229: 221: 216: 212: 211: 209: 208: 201: 194: 186: 185: 174: 171: 170: 164: 163: 159: 142: 141: 140: 137: 136: 134: 133: 129: 124: 122: 115: 113: 112: 105: 103: 93: 86: 84: 77: 75: 57: 50: 48: 41: 39: 32: 27: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 9999: 9988: 9985: 9984: 9982: 9965: 9962: 9957: 9951: 9946: 9945: 9944: 9940: 9936: 9933: 9932: 9931: 9930: 9929: 9928: 9927: 9926: 9919: 9915: 9911: 9907: 9905: 9901: 9892: 9891: 9885: 9884: 9873: 9870: 9866: 9865: 9864: 9860: 9856: 9852: 9848: 9843: 9836: 9835:Draft article 9828: 9826: 9821: 9816: 9814: 9813:Novem Linguae 9808: 9804: 9801: 9792: 9789: 9784: 9776: 9775: 9774: 9770: 9766: 9762: 9758: 9754: 9753: 9751: 9748: 9743: 9735: 9731: 9728: 9727: 9726: 9722: 9718: 9714: 9711: 9707: 9703: 9702: 9701: 9697: 9693: 9690: 9689: 9688: 9687: 9673: 9671: 9665: 9663: 9657: 9654: 9649: 9646: 9642: 9638: 9633: 9632: 9626: 9625: 9618: 9615: 9611: 9607: 9603: 9599: 9595: 9594: 9593: 9589: 9585: 9577: 9576:Sources exist 9570: 9566: 9561: 9557: 9553: 9552: 9551: 9550: 9546: 9542: 9537: 9535: 9531: 9527: 9522: 9520: 9516: 9512: 9508: 9503: 9499: 9494: 9491: 9487: 9477: 9476: 9472: 9468: 9464: 9456: 9452: 9437: 9432: 9430: 9422: 9420: 9412: 9408: 9404: 9400: 9399: 9394: 9390: 9386: 9385: 9384: 9380: 9376: 9372: 9371: 9370: 9365: 9363: 9355: 9353: 9345: 9341: 9337: 9330: 9323: 9322: 9321: 9317: 9313: 9309: 9305: 9302: 9298: 9297: 9296: 9291: 9289: 9281: 9279: 9271: 9266: 9262: 9261: 9260: 9259: 9255: 9251: 9247: 9243: 9228: 9225: 9220: 9212: 9211:Novem Linguae 9209: 9208: 9207: 9202: 9197: 9195: 9194:Novem Linguae 9189: 9185: 9184: 9183: 9182: 9178: 9174: 9165: 9156: 9152: 9147: 9141: 9140: 9139: 9135: 9131: 9126: 9125: 9124: 9123: 9119: 9114: 9107: 9106: 9102: 9097: 9083: 9079: 9075: 9071: 9070: 9069: 9065: 9061: 9057: 9055: 9051: 9047: 9043: 9042: 9041: 9038: 9037: 9033: 9031: 9030: 9023: 9022: 9017: 9013: 9008: 9001: 9000: 8999: 8995: 8991: 8986: 8985: 8972: 8968: 8964: 8959: 8958: 8957: 8953: 8949: 8945: 8940: 8936: 8935: 8934: 8930: 8926: 8922: 8918: 8914: 8910: 8909: 8908: 8903: 8900: 8895: 8891: 8889: 8885: 8880: 8874: 8873: 8872: 8868: 8864: 8859: 8858: 8857: 8853: 8848: 8842: 8830: 8826: 8822: 8816: 8812: 8811: 8810: 8806: 8802: 8798: 8794: 8790: 8789: 8788: 8784: 8780: 8776: 8775: 8774: 8770: 8766: 8762: 8758: 8757: 8756: 8752: 8748: 8744: 8738: 8737:edit conflict 8733: 8723: 8719: 8715: 8711: 8706: 8705: 8704: 8700: 8696: 8695:DoubleGrazing 8692: 8688: 8686: 8682: 8678: 8674: 8670: 8666: 8661: 8655: 8652: 8651: 8650: 8646: 8642: 8638: 8637: 8636: 8632: 8628: 8624: 8620: 8616: 8612: 8611:DoubleGrazing 8608: 8604: 8603: 8602: 8598: 8594: 8590: 8589: 8588: 8584: 8580: 8576: 8575: 8574: 8570: 8566: 8562: 8561: 8560: 8559: 8555: 8550: 8538: 8537: 8532: 8528: 8513: 8501: 8497: 8493: 8489: 8488: 8487: 8486: 8482: 8481:Safari Scribe 8476: 8471: 8456: 8452: 8448: 8444: 8442: 8438: 8434: 8430: 8429: 8428: 8424: 8420: 8414: 8410: 8406: 8404: 8401: 8392: 8391: 8390: 8386: 8382: 8376: 8372: 8366: 8362: 8358: 8354: 8353: 8352: 8348: 8344: 8340: 8339: 8338: 8334: 8330: 8326: 8325: 8324: 8320: 8316: 8311: 8310: 8309: 8305: 8301: 8297: 8293: 8289: 8285: 8284: 8283: 8282: 8278: 8274: 8269: 8265: 8262:As discussed 8253: 8249: 8245: 8241: 8240: 8239: 8238: 8235: 8225: 8224: 8221: 8217: 8213: 8209: 8202: 8199: 8197: 8194: 8192: 8189: 8186: 8183: 8180: 8177: 8176: 8175: 8172: 8168: 8167: 8166:Draft:Example 8162: 8153: 8149: 8148: 8142: 8141: 8137: 8135: 8109: 8105: 8101: 8097: 8093: 8090: 8087: 8082: 8074: 8073: 8072: 8068: 8064: 8060: 8056: 8055: 8053: 8050: 8045: 8037: 8036: 8035: 8031: 8027: 8023: 8019: 8015: 8014: 8013: 8009: 8005: 8001: 8000: 7999: 7995: 7991: 7987: 7983: 7982: 7981: 7977: 7973: 7969: 7968: 7967: 7962: 7957: 7955: 7954:Novem Linguae 7948: 7946: 7942: 7938: 7937:DoubleGrazing 7934: 7929: 7923: 7920: 7916: 7912: 7908: 7904: 7900: 7899: 7898: 7894: 7890: 7886: 7882: 7881: 7880: 7876: 7875:Safari Scribe 7870: 7866: 7862: 7858: 7857:Theroadislong 7854: 7853: 7852: 7848: 7844: 7840: 7836: 7831: 7826: 7824: 7823:Novem Linguae 7818: 7814: 7810: 7808: 7804: 7799: 7793: 7789: 7788: 7787: 7784: 7780: 7779: 7778: 7777: 7774: 7770: 7765: 7759: 7758: 7757: 7756: 7753: 7748: 7743: 7734: 7732: 7728: 7721: 7718: 7716: 7713: 7711: 7708: 7705: 7702: 7699: 7696: 7695: 7694: 7691: 7687: 7686: 7681: 7672: 7668: 7667: 7661: 7660: 7656: 7653: 7639: 7635: 7630: 7624: 7623: 7622: 7618: 7617:Safari Scribe 7612: 7608: 7604: 7602: 7598: 7594: 7589: 7588: 7557: 7554: 7549: 7543: 7542:Theroadislong 7539: 7534: 7530: 7526: 7522: 7520: 7516: 7512: 7507: 7503: 7498: 7494: 7488: 7484: 7480: 7479: 7478: 7474: 7470: 7469:Theroadislong 7466: 7465: 7464: 7460: 7455: 7449: 7445: 7441: 7438: 7433: 7430: 7426: 7425: 7424: 7421: 7416: 7410: 7406: 7405: 7404: 7400: 7396: 7391: 7390: 7389: 7386: 7381: 7374: 7373: 7372: 7368: 7363: 7357: 7354: 7347: 7346: 7345: 7340: 7336: 7330: 7326: 7321: 7320: 7319: 7315: 7310: 7303: 7300: 7296: 7295: 7294: 7289: 7285: 7279: 7275: 7271: 7266: 7262: 7258: 7257: 7256: 7252: 7248: 7247:Theroadislong 7244: 7243: 7242: 7238: 7234: 7230: 7226: 7222: 7218: 7213: 7212: 7211: 7207: 7203: 7202:DoubleGrazing 7199: 7194: 7193: 7192: 7188: 7184: 7179: 7178: 7177: 7173: 7169: 7164: 7163: 7162: 7158: 7154: 7150: 7146: 7143: 7142:tendentiously 7139: 7135: 7122: 7118: 7113: 7106: 7105: 7103: 7098: 7094: 7088: 7084: 7080: 7075: 7074: 7072: 7068: 7064: 7063:DoubleGrazing 7059: 7058: 7057: 7052: 7048: 7042: 7038: 7033: 7032: 7031: 7026: 7021: 7019: 7018:Novem Linguae 7013: 7010: 7008: 7004: 7000: 6999:Theroadislong 6996: 6995: 6994: 6990: 6986: 6982: 6972: 6968: 6964: 6963:Theroadislong 6960: 6959: 6958: 6954: 6949: 6943: 6942: 6941: 6937: 6933: 6932:Theroadislong 6929: 6928: 6927: 6923: 6918: 6911: 6910: 6909: 6905: 6901: 6900:DoubleGrazing 6897: 6896: 6895: 6894: 6890: 6885: 6878: 6871: 6856: 6852: 6848: 6841: 6831: 6824: 6817: 6807: 6797: 6787: 6777: 6767: 6760: 6753: 6746: 6744: 6740: 6736: 6732: 6728: 6727: 6726: 6722: 6718: 6711: 6705: 6698: 6691: 6690: 6689: 6684: 6679: 6677: 6676:Novem Linguae 6671: 6670: 6669: 6665: 6661: 6654: 6644: 6637: 6636: 6635: 6631: 6627: 6623: 6616: 6609: 6608: 6607: 6606: 6602: 6598: 6591: 6584: 6576: 6562: 6558: 6554: 6546: 6542: 6541: 6540: 6539: 6535: 6531: 6530:DoubleGrazing 6527: 6509: 6505: 6501: 6495: 6494: 6493: 6489: 6485: 6481: 6480: 6479: 6475: 6471: 6466: 6462: 6457: 6456: 6455: 6450: 6445: 6443: 6442:Novem Linguae 6437: 6433: 6429: 6425: 6424: 6423: 6422: 6418: 6414: 6408: 6404: 6394: 6393: 6389: 6385: 6384: 6378: 6365: 6361: 6357: 6353: 6352:Novem Linguae 6348: 6344: 6340: 6336: 6332: 6331: 6330: 6325: 6320: 6318: 6317:Novem Linguae 6312: 6308: 6304: 6300: 6295: 6288: 6285: 6281: 6278: 6274: 6273: 6272: 6268: 6263: 6256: 6253: 6250: 6246: 6243: 6239: 6238: 6237: 6233: 6229: 6225: 6221: 6220: 6216: 6215: 6210: 6206: 6202: 6197: 6196: 6195: 6191: 6187: 6182: 6181: 6180: 6176: 6171: 6165: 6161: 6157: 6153: 6149: 6145: 6140: 6134: 6133: 6132: 6128: 6124: 6120: 6116: 6112: 6109: 6108: 6107: 6103: 6099: 6094: 6090: 6084: 6079: 6074: 6072: 6071:Novem Linguae 6066: 6062: 6061: 6060: 6056: 6051: 6045: 6037: 6033: 6028: 6023: 6021: 6020:Novem Linguae 6014: 6011: 6010: 6009: 6004: 6000: 5994: 5990: 5985: 5980: 5976: 5972: 5971: 5970: 5969: 5962: 5961: 5960: 5959: 5956: 5952: 5947: 5941: 5938: 5935: 5931: 5927: 5923: 5919: 5915: 5910: 5906: 5905: 5904: 5900: 5896: 5891: 5890: 5889: 5888: 5884: 5880: 5863: 5858: 5855: 5850: 5846: 5842: 5841:Novem Linguae 5838: 5834: 5830: 5826: 5822: 5817: 5813: 5809: 5806: 5805: 5804: 5799: 5794: 5792: 5791:Novem Linguae 5786: 5782: 5779: 5777: 5773: 5769: 5764: 5763: 5762: 5758: 5754: 5748: 5747:Novem Linguae 5743: 5742: 5741: 5736: 5731: 5729: 5728:Novem Linguae 5722: 5718: 5713: 5709: 5705: 5701: 5697: 5696: 5695: 5691: 5687: 5686:DoubleGrazing 5683: 5680: 5675: 5671: 5667: 5663: 5659: 5655: 5651: 5647: 5643: 5639: 5635: 5631: 5629: 5625: 5621: 5617: 5613: 5612: 5611: 5607: 5603: 5598: 5597:edit conflict 5592: 5588: 5587: 5586: 5582: 5578: 5573: 5570: 5566: 5565: 5564: 5563: 5559: 5555: 5551: 5541: 5538: 5534: 5530: 5526: 5525:WP:Notability 5522: 5518: 5517:WP:Notability 5514: 5508: 5507: 5501: 5500: 5496: 5494: 5488: 5486: 5482: 5473: 5469: 5468: 5467: 5465: 5461: 5449: 5444: 5441: 5436: 5432: 5428: 5424: 5420: 5416: 5412: 5408: 5406: 5402: 5398: 5391: 5387: 5383: 5379: 5376: 5375: 5374: 5371: 5370: 5366: 5364: 5363: 5355: 5347: 5343: 5339: 5335: 5331: 5327: 5326: 5325: 5321: 5317: 5313: 5312: 5311: 5307: 5303: 5298: 5297: 5296: 5292: 5288: 5278: 5277:TPO violation 5274: 5270: 5266: 5263: 5259: 5255: 5251: 5247: 5243: 5242: 5237: 5233: 5232:DoubleGrazing 5229: 5225: 5221: 5217: 5213: 5209: 5208: 5207: 5203: 5199: 5195: 5191: 5185: 5181: 5177: 5172: 5169: 5164: 5163: 5162: 5158: 5154: 5151: 5147: 5146: 5145: 5141: 5137: 5136:DoubleGrazing 5132: 5131: 5130: 5126: 5122: 5121:DoubleGrazing 5118: 5113: 5109: 5097: 5093: 5089: 5088:DoubleGrazing 5085: 5084: 5083: 5079: 5075: 5071: 5070: 5069: 5064: 5059: 5057: 5056:Novem Linguae 5051: 5047: 5044: 5040: 5036: 5032: 5027: 5026: 5025: 5021: 5017: 5013: 5008: 5007: 5006: 5002: 4998: 4993: 4989: 4985: 4981: 4977: 4973: 4969: 4968: 4967: 4963: 4959: 4954: 4950: 4949: 4948: 4944: 4940: 4936: 4932: 4931: 4930: 4926: 4922: 4918: 4913: 4911: 4907: 4903: 4899: 4895: 4892: 4890: 4886: 4882: 4878: 4874: 4873: 4872: 4871: 4867: 4863: 4859: 4854: 4853: 4852: 4848: 4843: 4842: 4837: 4825: 4822: 4820: 4816: 4812: 4808: 4804: 4800: 4796: 4792: 4788: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4777: 4772: 4770: 4769:Novem Linguae 4763: 4759: 4755: 4751: 4747: 4743: 4742: 4741: 4737: 4736:Safari Scribe 4731: 4723: 4718: 4713: 4711: 4710:Novem Linguae 4705: 4704: 4703: 4699: 4695: 4690: 4689: 4688: 4685: 4683: 4679: 4675: 4671: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4662: 4658: 4654: 4649: 4647: 4643: 4639: 4634: 4630: 4626: 4622: 4618: 4614: 4610: 4608: 4605: 4603: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4593: 4589: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4578: 4576: 4572: 4568: 4564: 4557: 4556:TM:AfC accept 4541: 4538: 4533: 4527: 4523: 4521: 4516: 4511: 4509: 4508:Novem Linguae 4503: 4502: 4501: 4496: 4493: 4488: 4484: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4473: 4468: 4466: 4465:Novem Linguae 4460: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4449: 4446: 4441: 4437: 4436: 4435: 4430: 4425: 4423: 4422:Novem Linguae 4417: 4416: 4415: 4414: 4409: 4406: 4401: 4396: 4393: 4389: 4385: 4375: 4371: 4368: 4365: 4361: 4357: 4353: 4350: 4347: 4344: 4341: 4338: 4335: 4332: 4329: 4325: 4322: 4321:Find sources: 4317: 4314: 4310: 4306: 4303: 4300: 4296: 4292: 4288: 4285: 4282: 4279: 4276: 4273: 4270: 4267: 4264: 4260: 4257: 4256:Find sources: 4252: 4249: 4245: 4241: 4238: 4235: 4231: 4227: 4223: 4220: 4217: 4214: 4211: 4208: 4205: 4202: 4199: 4195: 4192: 4191:Find sources: 4184: 4177: 4174: 4170: 4166: 4163: 4160: 4156: 4152: 4148: 4145: 4142: 4139: 4136: 4133: 4130: 4127: 4124: 4120: 4117: 4116:Find sources: 4112: 4109: 4105: 4101: 4098: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4083: 4080: 4077: 4074: 4071: 4068: 4065: 4062: 4059: 4055: 4052: 4051:Find sources: 4047: 4044: 4040: 4036: 4033: 4030: 4026: 4022: 4018: 4015: 4012: 4009: 4006: 4003: 4000: 3997: 3994: 3990: 3987: 3986:Find sources: 3982: 3979: 3975: 3971: 3968: 3965: 3961: 3957: 3953: 3950: 3947: 3944: 3941: 3938: 3935: 3932: 3929: 3925: 3922: 3921:Find sources: 3917: 3914: 3910: 3906: 3903: 3900: 3896: 3892: 3888: 3885: 3882: 3879: 3876: 3873: 3870: 3867: 3864: 3860: 3857: 3856:Find sources: 3852: 3849: 3845: 3841: 3838: 3835: 3831: 3827: 3823: 3820: 3817: 3814: 3811: 3808: 3805: 3802: 3799: 3795: 3792: 3791:Find sources: 3787: 3784: 3780: 3776: 3773: 3770: 3766: 3762: 3758: 3755: 3752: 3749: 3746: 3743: 3740: 3737: 3734: 3730: 3727: 3726:Find sources: 3722: 3719: 3715: 3711: 3708: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3690: 3687: 3684: 3681: 3678: 3675: 3672: 3669: 3665: 3662: 3661:Find sources: 3657: 3653: 3650: 3646: 3642: 3639: 3636: 3632: 3628: 3624: 3621: 3618: 3615: 3612: 3609: 3606: 3603: 3600: 3596: 3593: 3592:Find sources: 3588: 3585: 3584: 3582: 3577: 3570: 3566: 3562: 3557: 3554: 3546: 3536: 3532: 3528: 3523:Pigsonthewing 3519: 3513: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3503: 3499: 3495: 3489: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3471: 3467: 3462:Pigsonthewing 3458: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3423: 3419: 3414:Pigsonthewing 3410: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3382:Pigsonthewing 3378: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3366: 3365:Safari Scribe 3361: 3360: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3346:Pigsonthewing 3342: 3336: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3326: 3325:Safari Scribe 3320: 3316: 3312: 3308: 3303:Pigsonthewing 3299: 3293: 3290: 3282: 3278: 3274: 3269:Pigsonthewing 3265: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3239: 3235: 3234: 3233: 3229: 3225: 3220:Pigsonthewing 3216: 3210: 3206: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3187: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3177: 3176:Safari Scribe 3172: 3171:Pigsonthewing 3167: 3159: 3155: 3151: 3146:Pigsonthewing 3142: 3136: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3125: 3120: 3118: 3117:Novem Linguae 3112: 3111: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3097:Pigsonthewing 3093: 3087: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3077: 3072: 3070: 3069:Novem Linguae 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3047:Pigsonthewing 3043: 3034: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3018: 3014: 3013: 3009: 3002: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2979:DoubleGrazing 2975: 2971: 2967: 2963: 2958:Pigsonthewing 2954: 2948: 2944: 2941: 2938: 2935: 2932: 2929: 2926: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2893:Pigsonthewing 2889: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2876: 2872: 2868: 2867: 2865: 2861: 2857: 2852:Pigsonthewing 2848: 2842: 2837: 2836:quoted advice 2833: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2822: 2821:Safari Scribe 2817: 2813: 2809: 2805: 2801: 2798: 2786: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2759:Pigsonthewing 2755: 2749: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2724: 2720: 2715:Pigsonthewing 2711: 2705: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2676: 2674: 2671: 2670: 2668: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2625:Pigsonthewing 2621: 2615: 2610: 2609: 2597: 2593: 2592: 2587: 2586: 2581: 2579: 2570: 2560: 2555: 2550: 2548: 2547:Novem Linguae 2542: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2519: 2514: 2512: 2511:Novem Linguae 2506: 2502: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2492: 2488: 2484: 2480: 2478: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2451:DoubleGrazing 2448: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2422:If you're on 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2405: 2402: 2354: 2350: 2346: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2334: 2329: 2327: 2326:Novem Linguae 2321: 2317: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2306: 2305: 2298: 2292: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2279:Novem Linguae 2276: 2275: 2274: 2269: 2264: 2262: 2261:Novem Linguae 2255: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2169: 2165: 2159: 2154: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2126: 2121: 2119: 2118:Novem Linguae 2113: 2109: 2108:only find two 2105: 2104: 2103: 2099: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2080: 2075: 2073: 2072:Novem Linguae 2067: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2048: 2044: 2037: 2027: 2020: 2019: 2017: 2014: 2009: 2001: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1983: 1982: 1980: 1977: 1972: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1930: 1926: 1920: 1912: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1881: 1876: 1871: 1869: 1868:Novem Linguae 1862: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1846: 1842: 1836: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1825: 1820: 1818: 1817:Novem Linguae 1812: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1801: 1797: 1783: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1765: 1760: 1755: 1753: 1752:Novem Linguae 1747: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1730: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1715: 1710: 1705: 1703: 1702:Novem Linguae 1697: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1661: 1656: 1651: 1649: 1648:Novem Linguae 1642: 1641: 1640: 1634: 1633: 1628: 1627: 1621: 1616: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1604: 1603: 1598: 1597: 1591: 1586: 1580: 1579:Novem Linguae 1575: 1574: 1573: 1568: 1563: 1561: 1560:Novem Linguae 1552: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1522: 1521: 1516: 1515: 1509: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1489: 1484: 1482: 1481:Novem Linguae 1476: 1472: 1471: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1451: 1449: 1444: 1440: 1434: 1428: 1424: 1420: 1417: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1406: 1401: 1399: 1398:Novem Linguae 1393: 1389: 1388: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1362:Novem Linguae 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1351: 1346: 1344: 1343:Novem Linguae 1338: 1333: 1329: 1327: 1309: 1306: 1301: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1270: 1268: 1265: 1260: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1239: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1200: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1147: 1142: 1140: 1139:Novem Linguae 1134: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1123: 1119: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1096: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1081:DoubleGrazing 1078: 1073: 1069: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1033: 1032: 1031: 1026: 1021: 1019: 1018:Novem Linguae 1013: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1003: 999: 994: 993: 992: 988: 984: 980: 975: 974: 973: 972: 968: 964: 960: 953: 939: 932: 923: 915: 910: 905: 904: 890: 889: 882: 877: 875: 870: 868: 863: 862: 860: 859: 852: 849: 847: 844: 843: 841: 840: 839: 831: 828: 826: 823: 822: 820: 819: 818:Helper script 812: 809: 807: 804: 802: 799: 797: 794: 792: 789: 787: 784: 783: 781: 780: 779:Reviewer help 776: 775: 771: 767: 763: 759: 755: 751: 747: 743: 739: 735: 731: 727: 723: 719: 715: 711: 707: 703: 699: 695: 691: 687: 683: 679: 675: 671: 667: 663: 659: 655: 651: 647: 643: 639: 635: 631: 627: 623: 619: 615: 611: 607: 603: 599: 595: 591: 587: 583: 579: 575: 571: 567: 563: 559: 555: 551: 547: 542: 538: 537: 532: 531: 528: 527: 523: 518: 513: 512: 504: 503: 498: 497: 492: 489: 486: 482: 481: 472: 467: 463: 460: 456: 455: 439: 435: 418: 414: 413: 408: 404: 400: 397: 393: 392: 388: 385: 382: 379: 375: 374: 370: 366: 360: 356: 352: 343: 342: 337: 330: 322: 319: 317: 314: 312: 309: 308: 301: 297: 293: 290: 286: 282: 278: 275: 274: 269: 264: 260: 256: 253: 249: 246: 245:AfC Help desk 242: 241: 240: 237: 236: 235: 227: 223: 222: 219: 207: 202: 200: 195: 193: 188: 187: 182: 173: 172: 166: 165: 162: 158: 155: 152: 151: 146: 135: 132: 131: 125: 123: 121: 120: 116: 114: 111: 110: 106: 104: 101: 97: 92: 91: 87: 85: 83: 82: 78: 76: 73: 69: 65: 61: 56: 55: 51: 49: 47: 46: 42: 40: 38: 37: 33: 31: 30: 26: 19: 9917: 9908: 9899: 9896: 9812: 9802: 9760: 9670:cock a snook 9666: 9658: 9650: 9644: 9568: 9567:that states 9538: 9525: 9523: 9495: 9483: 9460: 9428: 9418: 9398:Cosmopolitan 9396: 9361: 9351: 9339: 9335: 9287: 9277: 9239: 9193: 9169: 9108: 9098: 9095: 9044:Correct. -- 9035: 9028: 9027: 8943: 8938: 8710:SafariScribe 8691:SafariScribe 8607:SafariScribe 8544: 8509: 8477: 8474: 8399: 8261: 8231: 8216:my talk page 8205: 8179:The Teahouse 8164: 8158: 8144:Revised ver. 8131: 7953: 7932: 7822: 7744: 7740: 7731:my talk page 7727:The Teahouse 7724: 7698:The Teahouse 7685:Draft:Sample 7683: 7677: 7649: 7610: 7525:SafariScribe 7436: 7269: 7264: 7260: 7228: 7197: 7017: 6879: 6875: 6675: 6580: 6528:page is? -- 6523: 6464: 6441: 6400: 6397:NewPagesFeed 6382: 6381: 6376: 6374: 6316: 6277:Andy Dingley 6242:Andy Dingley 6228:Andy Dingley 6163: 6159: 6110: 6070: 6043: 6019: 6012: 5983: 5978: 5930:Andy Dingley 5909:Andy Dingley 5879:Andy Dingley 5875: 5790: 5780: 5727: 5678: 5547: 5509: 5489: 5477: 5471: 5457: 5368: 5361: 5360: 5241:a new option 5240: 5239: 5116: 5111: 5055: 5045: 5011: 4971: 4952: 4855: 4845: 4839: 4838: 4835: 4821: 4768: 4709: 4684: 4604: 4577: 4560: 4507: 4464: 4421: 4397: 4391: 4381: 4369: 4363: 4355: 4348: 4342: 4336: 4330: 4320: 4304: 4298: 4290: 4283: 4277: 4271: 4265: 4255: 4239: 4233: 4225: 4218: 4212: 4206: 4200: 4190: 4164: 4158: 4150: 4143: 4137: 4131: 4125: 4115: 4099: 4093: 4085: 4078: 4072: 4066: 4060: 4050: 4034: 4028: 4020: 4013: 4007: 4001: 3995: 3985: 3969: 3963: 3955: 3948: 3942: 3936: 3930: 3920: 3904: 3898: 3890: 3883: 3877: 3871: 3865: 3855: 3851:Nanjing Week 3839: 3833: 3825: 3818: 3812: 3806: 3800: 3790: 3774: 3768: 3760: 3753: 3747: 3741: 3735: 3725: 3709: 3703: 3695: 3688: 3682: 3676: 3670: 3660: 3640: 3634: 3626: 3619: 3613: 3607: 3601: 3591: 3558: 3550: 3531:Andy's edits 3527:Talk to Andy 3518:Andy Mabbett 3511: 3470:Andy's edits 3466:Talk to Andy 3457:Andy Mabbett 3432: 3422:Andy's edits 3418:Talk to Andy 3409:Andy Mabbett 3404: 3390:Andy's edits 3386:Talk to Andy 3377:Andy Mabbett 3354:Andy's edits 3350:Talk to Andy 3341:Andy Mabbett 3334: 3311:Andy's edits 3307:Talk to Andy 3298:Andy Mabbett 3291: 3277:Andy's edits 3273:Talk to Andy 3264:Andy Mabbett 3242: 3237: 3228:Andy's edits 3224:Talk to Andy 3215:Andy Mabbett 3208: 3204: 3185: 3154:Andy's edits 3150:Talk to Andy 3141:Andy Mabbett 3134: 3116: 3105:Andy's edits 3101:Talk to Andy 3092:Andy Mabbett 3085: 3068: 3055:Andy's edits 3051:Talk to Andy 3042:Andy Mabbett 3037: 2966:Andy's edits 2962:Talk to Andy 2953:Andy Mabbett 2946: 2942: 2936: 2930: 2924: 2901:Andy's edits 2897:Talk to Andy 2888:Andy Mabbett 2860:Andy's edits 2856:Talk to Andy 2847:Andy Mabbett 2840: 2835: 2831: 2803: 2767:Andy's edits 2763:Talk to Andy 2754:Andy Mabbett 2747: 2723:Andy's edits 2719:Talk to Andy 2710:Andy Mabbett 2703: 2685: 2677: 2672: 2644: 2633:Andy's edits 2629:Talk to Andy 2620:Andy Mabbett 2613: 2611: 2607: 2605: 2589: 2584: 2576: 2546: 2510: 2483:weekly stats 2446: 2406: 2403: 2400: 2325: 2301: 2260: 2160:?) — Martin 2117: 2112:both of them 2089: 2071: 2042: 1867: 1860: 1816: 1751: 1701: 1665: 1647: 1630: 1624: 1600: 1594: 1559: 1518: 1512: 1480: 1397: 1342: 1334: 1330: 1322: 1138: 1071: 1017: 978: 945: 937: 922: 908: 856: 838:Participants 836: 835: 817: 816: 778: 777: 544: 535: 534: 521: 500: 495: 490: 416: 410: 365:WikiProjects 355:project page 354: 271: 238: 233: 144: 127: 118: 107: 90:Participants 88: 80: 52: 44: 43: 35: 9855:KylieTastic 9805:When using 9710:Not0nshoree 9645:three years 9637:Wikidragons 9598:KylieTastic 9584:KylieTastic 9490:Not0nshoree 9130:KylieTastic 9074:KylieTastic 9060:KylieTastic 8990:KylieTastic 8963:KylieTastic 8925:KylieTastic 8917:KylieTastic 8863:KylieTastic 8801:KylieTastic 8765:KylieTastic 8714:KylieTastic 8641:KylieTastic 8615:KylieTastic 8579:KylieTastic 8447:KylieTastic 8375:google:test 8329:KylieTastic 8300:KylieTastic 8298:initially. 8004:KylieTastic 7815:or post at 7593:KylieTastic 7552:Mississippi 7533:KylieTastic 7419:Mississippi 7384:Mississippi 7299:David Wicht 7149:promotional 6847:KylieTastic 6771:so include 6704:KylieTastic 6626:KylieTastic 5934:KylieTastic 5914:KylieTastic 5895:KylieTastic 5825:KylieTastic 5717:WP:TEAHOUSE 5153:KylieTastic 4921:KylieTastic 4694:– robertsky 4657:– robertsky 4638:KylieTastic 4621:– robertsky 4384:eventualist 4346:free images 4281:free images 4216:free images 4141:free images 4076:free images 4011:free images 3946:free images 3881:free images 3816:free images 3751:free images 3686:free images 3617:free images 3565:Prateek Raj 2912:KylieTastic 2843:concerned. 2585:DreamRimmer 2537:DreamRimmer 2487:KylieTastic 2345:KylieTastic 2343:blocklist. 2283:KylieTastic 2226:KylieTastic 2201:KylieTastic 2183:KylieTastic 2000:KylieTastic 1987:KylieTastic 1953:KylieTastic 1790:|class=list 1732:KylieTastic 1419:KylieTastic 1394:fixes it. – 1378:KylieTastic 1370:KylieTastic 1282:KylieTastic 1243:KylieTastic 1208:KylieTastic 1185:KylieTastic 926:AFC backlog 311:Top of page 157:submissions 54:Submissions 9765:asilvering 9730:Asilvering 9717:asilvering 9393:Slgrandson 9046:asilvering 8894:Slgrandson 8779:asilvering 8593:asilvering 8565:asilvering 8244:asilvering 7972:asilvering 7903:asilvering 7843:asilvering 7817:WT:TWINKLE 7081:. Best, -- 6776:Draft cats 6575:Issue #381 6465:Self-trout 6356:asilvering 6186:asilvering 6115:WP:ACTRIAL 5849:Slgrandson 5768:asilvering 5700:asilvering 5523:establish 5435:Slgrandson 5176:asilvering 5074:asilvering 5031:asilvering 4997:asilvering 4746:WP:NOINDEX 4487:Slgrandson 4440:Slgrandson 4400:Slgrandson 3576:notability 3373:See what? 2832:frequently 2802:, I think 1674:asilvering 1534:asilvering 1454:asilvering 1360:Good work 1043:asilvering 998:asilvering 466:centralise 100:By subject 9900:incorrect 9502:Dan arndt 9463:WP:SALTed 9455:WP:SALTed 8815:WP:SUBMIT 8677:OhHaiMark 8623:OhHaiMark 8413:on submit 7443:direction 6816:Draft cat 6499:Aaron Liu 6469:Aaron Liu 6412:Aaron Liu 6383:North8000 6240:I think, 6119:WP:ACPERM 5932:I think @ 5267:, I have 5230:Besides, 4896:instead) 4526:ShipSpace 4046:ShipSpace 3656:talk page 3439:for you. 3017:improving 2529:MPGuy2824 2397:AfC stats 2320:this edit 1949:AnomieBOT 1945:AnomieBOT 1941:AnomieBOT 1251:kanashimi 851:2017–2018 846:2015–2017 830:2014–2018 825:2013–2014 184:to update 168:2+ months 119:Help desk 45:Talk page 36:Main page 9981:Category 9782:Qwerfjkl 9757:Qwerfjkl 9741:Qwerfjkl 9596:Thanks, 9526:required 9451:WP:AFCRD 9403:reliable 9218:Qwerfjkl 9190:helps. – 9164:WP:AFCRD 9099:Example 8948:Primefac 8899:How's my 8747:Primefac 8675:Thanks! 8492:Primefac 8433:Primefac 8343:Primefac 8273:Primefac 8208:Teahouse 8100:jlwoodwa 8080:Qwerfjkl 8059:Qwerfjkl 8057:Thanks @ 8043:Qwerfjkl 7611:Comment: 7529:Timtrent 7497:Articles 7493:Contribs 7483:Johannes 7448:Primefac 7395:Primefac 7339:Articles 7335:Contribs 7325:Johannes 7288:Articles 7284:Contribs 7274:Johannes 7261:reviewer 7168:Primefac 7097:Articles 7093:Contribs 7083:Johannes 7051:Articles 7047:Contribs 7037:Johannes 6786:Draftcat 6735:Primefac 6710:Draftcat 6643:Draftcat 6590:Draftcat 6553:Primefac 6484:Primefac 6335:Primefac 6201:Primefac 6123:Primefac 6092:opinion. 6044:Accepted 6003:Articles 5999:Contribs 5989:Johannes 5854:How's my 5812:WT:WPOKA 5753:Mathglot 5724:draft. – 5658:Gryllida 5634:Gryllida 5616:Gryllida 5602:Mathglot 5554:Mathglot 5537:WP:AFCRI 5533:WP:THREE 5460:Gryllida 5440:How's my 5411:Gryllida 5397:Mathglot 5334:Gryllida 5330:Mathglot 5316:Mathglot 5302:Indagate 5287:Mathglot 5265:Gryllida 5246:Gryllida 5236:Primefac 5216:Mathglot 5194:Gryllida 5168:WP:WPOKA 5016:Primefac 4976:Gryllida 4958:Primefac 4935:Gryllida 4898:Gryllida 4877:Gryllida 4858:Gryllida 4750:Primefac 4588:Primefac 4567:WP:NPPer 4492:How's my 4445:How's my 4405:How's my 3721:Alsace20 3498:Primefac 3480:Primefac 3441:Primefac 3247:Primefac 3209:frequent 3203:Not so: 3191:Primefac 2871:Primefac 2800:Primefac 2777:Primefac 2734:Primefac 2690:Primefac 2653:Primefac 2614:frequent 2469:Primefac 2432:Primefac 2240:Primefac 2177:See the 2137:Primefac 2106:I could 2094:Primefac 2052:Primefac 2007:Qwerfjkl 1970:Qwerfjkl 1299:Qwerfjkl 1274:Qwerfjkl 1258:Qwerfjkl 1204:Qwerfjkl 1102:Primefac 1058:Primefac 983:Primefac 522:Archives 502:Signpost 464:To help 252:Teahouse 218:Shortcut 81:Showcase 60:Category 9530:WP:BLPs 9401:, look 9336:bondage 9244:but as 8761:178/day 8264:in June 7221:WP:NPOV 6549:<!-- 6377:suggest 6248:unsure. 6164:decline 6156:Zxcvbnm 6098:ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ 5979:without 5845:upvotes 5679:concept 4352:WP refs 4340:scholar 4287:WP refs 4275:scholar 4222:WP refs 4210:scholar 4147:WP refs 4135:scholar 4082:WP refs 4070:scholar 4017:WP refs 4005:scholar 3952:WP refs 3940:scholar 3887:WP refs 3875:scholar 3822:WP refs 3810:scholar 3757:WP refs 3745:scholar 3692:WP refs 3680:scholar 3623:WP refs 3611:scholar 3567:, both 3553:grading 3512:outside 2812:WP:WWIN 2804:asinine 2732:wrong. 2669:gives: 2648:India). 2424:WP:AFCP 2318:. Does 2043:prevent 1911:example 1786:|class= 1584:either. 1366:example 1272:Thanks 1181:WP:PIQA 979:someone 909:20 days 499:in the 296:Welcome 128:Backlog 68:Sorting 9960:rabbit 9847:hoaxes 9732:, per 9571:. Yes 9507:Charmk 9467:LR.127 9265:CSD G6 9173:LR.127 9150:Faddle 9145:Fiddle 9117:Faddle 9112:Fiddle 9029:BD2412 9011:Faddle 9006:Fiddle 8883:Faddle 8878:Fiddle 8851:Faddle 8846:Fiddle 8820:SD0001 8664:Faddle 8659:Fiddle 8619:Utopes 8553:Faddle 8548:Fiddle 8418:SD0001 8380:SD0001 8292:SD0001 8234:Liance 8220:Liance 7919:Liance 7885:Liance 7802:Faddle 7797:Fiddle 7792:Liance 7783:Liance 7768:Faddle 7763:Fiddle 7752:Liance 7680:Liance 7633:Faddle 7628:Fiddle 7458:Faddle 7453:Fiddle 7366:Faddle 7361:Fiddle 7313:Faddle 7308:Fiddle 7225:WP:AFD 7217:WP:G11 7198:advice 7116:Faddle 7111:Fiddle 7079:WP:G11 6952:Faddle 6947:Fiddle 6921:Faddle 6916:Fiddle 6888:Faddle 6883:Fiddle 6872:- sigh 6298:Faddle 6293:Fiddle 6266:Faddle 6261:Fiddle 6174:Faddle 6169:Fiddle 6160:reject 6143:Faddle 6138:Fiddle 6054:Faddle 6049:Fiddle 5950:Faddle 5945:Fiddle 5821:WT:COI 5816:WP:PAY 5808:WT:OKA 5785:WT:OKA 5666:e-mail 5642:e-mail 5624:e-mail 5462:wrote 5419:e-mail 5378:BD2412 5362:BD2412 5342:e-mail 5269:boldly 5254:e-mail 5202:e-mail 4984:e-mail 4974:rate. 4953:verify 4943:e-mail 4906:e-mail 4885:e-mail 4866:e-mail 4787:WP:TEA 4676:until 4617:WP:NPP 4613:WT:NPP 4536:rabbit 4459:WP:ARS 4382:As an 4324:Google 4259:Google 4194:Google 4119:Google 4054:Google 3989:Google 3924:Google 3859:Google 3794:Google 3729:Google 3664:Google 3595:Google 2409:LR.127 2316:Ahecht 2297:Ahecht 2158:Ahecht 1917:(like 1670:WP:ITW 1620:Utopes 1590:Utopes 1508:Utopes 1475:Utopes 1247:Cewbot 1039:Here's 959:gnomes 957:, and 541:search 361:scale. 289:GitHub 226:WT:AFC 130:drives 9955:Recon 9601:Move? 9389:Mgp28 9375:Mgp28 9312:Mgp28 9250:Mgp28 9153:🇺🇦 9120:🇺🇦 9014:🇺🇦 9003:🇺🇦 8944:needs 8886:🇺🇦 8861:one. 8854:🇺🇦 8667:🇺🇦 8556:🇺🇦 8357:S0091 8315:S0091 8063:S0091 8026:S0091 7990:S0091 7889:S0091 7805:🇺🇦 7771:🇺🇦 7747:S0091 7636:🇺🇦 7527:'s, @ 7461:🇺🇦 7369:🇺🇦 7316:🇺🇦 7305:🇺🇦 7259:As a 7119:🇺🇦 6955:🇺🇦 6924:🇺🇦 6913:🇺🇦 6891:🇺🇦 6301:🇺🇦 6269:🇺🇦 6258:🇺🇦 6223:away. 6177:🇺🇦 6146:🇺🇦 6057:🇺🇦 5984:right 5953:🇺🇦 5907:Also 5654:7804j 5577:7804j 5550:7804j 5464:above 4531:Recon 4367:JSTOR 4328:books 4302:JSTOR 4263:books 4237:JSTOR 4198:books 4183:local 4162:JSTOR 4123:books 4097:JSTOR 4058:books 4032:JSTOR 3993:books 3967:JSTOR 3928:books 3902:JSTOR 3863:books 3837:JSTOR 3798:books 3772:JSTOR 3733:books 3707:JSTOR 3668:books 3638:JSTOR 3599:books 3243:knows 2947:again 2945:This 2580:filed 2090:every 1809:Hey @ 1672:. -- 1294:Done. 353:This 180:Purge 96:Apply 9939:talk 9935:HLHJ 9859:talk 9820:talk 9787:talk 9769:talk 9746:talk 9721:talk 9706:HLHJ 9696:talk 9692:HLHJ 9588:talk 9556:HLHJ 9554:Hey 9545:talk 9541:HLHJ 9528:for 9471:talk 9429:sigh 9379:talk 9362:sigh 9340:BDSM 9316:talk 9288:sigh 9254:talk 9223:talk 9201:talk 9188:this 9177:talk 9134:talk 9078:talk 9064:talk 9050:talk 8994:talk 8967:talk 8952:talk 8939:what 8929:talk 8921:talk 8867:talk 8825:talk 8817:. – 8805:talk 8783:talk 8769:talk 8751:talk 8718:talk 8699:talk 8681:talk 8645:talk 8631:talk 8621:and 8597:talk 8583:talk 8569:talk 8496:talk 8451:talk 8437:talk 8423:talk 8400:Done 8385:talk 8361:talk 8347:talk 8333:talk 8319:talk 8304:talk 8277:talk 8248:talk 8104:talk 8085:talk 8067:talk 8048:talk 8030:talk 8008:talk 7994:talk 7976:talk 7961:talk 7941:talk 7907:talk 7893:talk 7861:talk 7847:talk 7830:talk 7597:talk 7547:Star 7515:talk 7511:Kvng 7487:Talk 7473:talk 7414:Star 7399:talk 7379:Star 7329:Talk 7278:Talk 7251:talk 7237:talk 7233:Kvng 7206:talk 7187:talk 7183:Kvng 7172:talk 7157:talk 7087:Talk 7067:talk 7041:Talk 7025:talk 7003:talk 6989:talk 6985:Kvng 6967:talk 6936:talk 6904:talk 6851:talk 6835:and 6811:and 6739:talk 6733:... 6721:talk 6717:Kvng 6683:talk 6664:talk 6660:Kvng 6630:talk 6601:talk 6597:Kvng 6583:this 6557:talk 6534:talk 6504:talk 6488:talk 6474:talk 6449:talk 6436:this 6417:talk 6388:talk 6360:talk 6339:talk 6324:talk 6232:talk 6205:talk 6190:talk 6127:talk 6117:and 6078:talk 6027:talk 5993:Talk 5975:Andy 5918:talk 5899:talk 5883:talk 5829:talk 5798:talk 5772:talk 5757:talk 5735:talk 5704:talk 5690:talk 5662:talk 5652:Hi @ 5638:talk 5620:talk 5606:talk 5581:talk 5558:talk 5433:. -- 5415:talk 5401:talk 5338:talk 5320:talk 5306:talk 5291:talk 5250:talk 5234:and 5220:talk 5198:talk 5180:talk 5157:talk 5140:talk 5125:talk 5117:very 5092:talk 5078:talk 5063:talk 5035:talk 5020:talk 5001:talk 4980:talk 4962:talk 4939:talk 4925:talk 4902:talk 4881:talk 4862:talk 4851:this 4815:2023 4811:2022 4807:2022 4803:2021 4799:2020 4795:2020 4791:2018 4776:talk 4754:talk 4717:talk 4698:talk 4661:talk 4642:talk 4625:talk 4592:talk 4515:talk 4472:talk 4429:talk 4360:FENS 4334:news 4295:FENS 4269:news 4230:FENS 4204:news 4155:FENS 4129:news 4090:FENS 4064:news 4025:FENS 3999:news 3960:FENS 3934:news 3895:FENS 3869:news 3830:FENS 3804:news 3765:FENS 3739:news 3700:FENS 3674:news 3631:FENS 3605:news 3569:BLPs 3563:and 3502:talk 3484:talk 3445:talk 3433:from 3251:talk 3205:some 3195:talk 3124:talk 3076:talk 3029:talk 3025:Kvng 2983:talk 2916:talk 2875:talk 2781:talk 2738:talk 2694:talk 2657:talk 2645:much 2591:talk 2578:BRFA 2554:talk 2518:talk 2491:talk 2473:talk 2455:talk 2436:talk 2413:talk 2349:talk 2333:talk 2304:PAGE 2302:TALK 2287:MSGJ 2268:talk 2244:talk 2230:talk 2205:talk 2187:talk 2168:talk 2164:MSGJ 2141:talk 2125:talk 2098:talk 2079:talk 2066:here 2056:talk 2012:talk 1991:talk 1975:talk 1957:talk 1929:talk 1925:MSGJ 1919:this 1875:talk 1861:Done 1845:talk 1841:MSGJ 1824:talk 1811:MSGJ 1800:talk 1796:MSGJ 1759:talk 1736:talk 1729:this 1709:talk 1678:talk 1655:talk 1632:cont 1626:talk 1602:cont 1596:talk 1567:talk 1538:talk 1520:cont 1514:talk 1501:Per 1488:talk 1473:Hey 1458:talk 1443:talk 1439:MSGJ 1423:talk 1416:this 1405:talk 1392:this 1382:talk 1374:talk 1350:talk 1337:MSGJ 1326:here 1304:talk 1286:talk 1263:talk 1212:talk 1189:talk 1170:talk 1166:Kvng 1157:MSGJ 1146:talk 1133:here 1122:talk 1118:MSGJ 1106:talk 1093:See 1085:talk 1062:talk 1047:talk 1025:talk 1002:talk 987:talk 967:talk 811:2018 806:2017 801:2016 796:2015 791:2014 786:2013 72:Feed 64:List 9842:Dog 9641:Dog 9517:or 8506:OKA 8169:to 7887:! 7688:to 7495:) ( 7337:) ( 7286:) ( 7231:. ~ 7095:) ( 7049:) ( 6438:? – 6430:to 6001:) ( 5719:or 5513:Afc 5481:OKA 5328:Hi 5012:too 4374:TWL 4309:TWL 4244:TWL 4169:TWL 4104:TWL 4039:TWL 3974:TWL 3909:TWL 3844:TWL 3779:TWL 3714:TWL 3645:TWL 3525:); 3464:); 3416:); 3384:); 3348:); 3305:); 3271:); 3238:how 3222:); 3186:any 3148:); 3099:); 3049:); 2960:); 2895:); 2854:); 2841:all 2761:); 2717:); 2627:); 1748:. – 1551:OKA 405:or 287:on 283:by 154:AfC 9983:: 9952:. 9941:) 9906:. 9861:) 9838:}} 9832:{{ 9779:— 9771:) 9761:do 9738:— 9723:) 9698:) 9590:) 9579:}} 9573:{{ 9547:) 9473:) 9381:) 9332:}} 9326:{{ 9318:) 9272:. 9256:) 9215:— 9179:) 9136:) 9080:) 9066:) 9052:) 8996:) 8969:) 8954:) 8931:) 8923:) 8869:) 8827:) 8807:) 8799:. 8785:) 8771:) 8753:) 8720:) 8701:) 8683:) 8647:) 8633:) 8617:, 8613:, 8609:, 8599:) 8585:) 8571:) 8531:💬 8514:. 8498:) 8453:) 8439:) 8425:) 8387:) 8363:) 8349:) 8335:) 8321:) 8306:) 8279:) 8250:) 8106:) 8098:. 8077:— 8069:) 8040:— 8032:) 8024:. 8010:) 7996:) 7978:) 7943:) 7909:) 7895:) 7863:) 7849:) 7599:) 7517:) 7489:) 7475:) 7401:) 7350:👀 7331:) 7323:-- 7280:) 7253:) 7239:) 7229:no 7208:) 7189:) 7174:) 7159:) 7089:) 7069:) 7043:) 7005:) 6991:) 6969:) 6938:) 6906:) 6853:) 6845:. 6843:}} 6837:{{ 6833:}} 6827:{{ 6821:. 6819:}} 6813:{{ 6809:}} 6803:{{ 6801:, 6799:}} 6793:{{ 6791:, 6789:}} 6783:{{ 6781:, 6779:}} 6773:{{ 6769:}} 6763:{{ 6755:}} 6749:{{ 6741:) 6723:) 6713:}} 6707:{{ 6700:}} 6694:{{ 6666:) 6656:}} 6650:{{ 6646:}} 6640:{{ 6632:) 6618:}} 6612:{{ 6603:) 6593:}} 6587:{{ 6559:) 6536:) 6506:) 6490:) 6476:) 6419:) 6390:) 6362:) 6341:) 6234:) 6207:) 6192:) 6129:) 6104:) 5995:) 5920:) 5901:) 5885:) 5831:) 5823:. 5774:) 5759:) 5706:) 5692:) 5668:) 5664:, 5644:) 5640:, 5626:) 5622:, 5608:) 5583:) 5560:) 5552:. 5531:, 5466:: 5421:) 5417:, 5403:) 5344:) 5340:, 5322:) 5308:) 5293:) 5256:) 5252:, 5222:) 5214:. 5204:) 5200:, 5182:) 5159:) 5142:) 5127:) 5094:) 5080:) 5048:. 5037:) 5022:) 5003:) 4986:) 4982:, 4964:) 4945:) 4941:, 4927:) 4908:) 4904:, 4887:) 4883:, 4868:) 4864:, 4819:Ca 4813:, 4809:, 4805:, 4801:, 4797:, 4793:, 4789:: 4756:) 4700:) 4682:Ca 4663:) 4644:) 4627:) 4602:Ca 4594:) 4575:Ca 4528:. 4392:do 4354:) 4289:) 4224:) 4186:}} 4180:{{ 4149:) 4084:) 4019:) 3954:) 3889:) 3824:) 3759:) 3694:) 3625:) 3579:}} 3573:{{ 3529:; 3504:) 3486:) 3468:; 3447:) 3420:; 3388:; 3352:; 3335:do 3309:; 3275:; 3253:) 3226:; 3197:) 3152:; 3103:; 3053:; 3031:) 2985:) 2964:; 2918:) 2899:; 2877:) 2866:. 2858:; 2783:) 2765:; 2740:) 2721:; 2704:no 2696:) 2686:is 2659:) 2631:; 2594:) 2582:– 2493:) 2475:) 2465:QA 2457:) 2438:) 2415:) 2351:) 2295:-- 2285:, 2281:, 2246:) 2232:) 2207:) 2189:) 2166:· 2143:) 2100:) 2058:) 2039:}} 2033:{{ 2029:}} 2023:{{ 2004:— 1993:) 1967:— 1959:) 1927:· 1843:· 1798:· 1738:) 1680:) 1666:is 1629:/ 1599:/ 1554:}} 1548:{{ 1540:) 1517:/ 1460:) 1441:· 1425:) 1384:) 1376:) 1368:. 1296:— 1288:) 1255:— 1253:). 1245:, 1214:) 1191:) 1172:) 1120:· 1108:) 1087:) 1064:) 1049:) 1037:. 1004:) 989:) 981:. 969:) 955:}} 949:{{ 774:58 772:, 770:57 768:, 766:56 764:, 762:55 760:, 758:54 756:, 754:53 752:, 750:52 748:, 746:51 742:50 740:, 738:49 736:, 734:48 732:, 730:47 728:, 726:46 724:, 722:45 720:, 718:44 716:, 714:43 712:, 710:42 708:, 706:41 702:40 700:, 698:39 696:, 694:38 692:, 690:37 688:, 686:36 684:, 682:35 680:, 678:34 676:, 674:33 672:, 670:32 668:, 666:31 662:30 660:, 658:29 656:, 654:28 652:, 650:27 648:, 646:26 644:, 642:25 640:, 638:24 636:, 634:23 632:, 630:22 628:, 626:21 622:20 620:, 618:19 616:, 614:18 612:, 610:17 608:, 606:16 604:, 602:15 600:, 598:14 596:, 594:13 592:, 590:12 588:, 586:11 582:10 580:, 576:, 572:, 568:, 564:, 560:, 556:, 552:, 548:, 543:) 298:! 98:, 70:, 66:, 62:, 9937:( 9857:( 9822:) 9818:( 9767:( 9755:@ 9719:( 9704:@ 9694:( 9647:. 9586:( 9543:( 9469:( 9433:) 9425:( 9415:— 9387:@ 9377:( 9366:) 9358:( 9348:— 9314:( 9292:) 9284:( 9274:— 9252:( 9203:) 9199:( 9175:( 9132:( 9076:( 9062:( 9048:( 9036:T 8992:( 8965:( 8950:( 8927:( 8919:( 8904:) 8897:( 8865:( 8823:( 8803:( 8781:( 8767:( 8749:( 8739:) 8735:( 8716:( 8697:( 8679:( 8643:( 8629:( 8595:( 8581:( 8567:( 8525:A 8522:F 8519:C 8494:( 8449:( 8435:( 8421:( 8383:( 8359:( 8345:( 8331:( 8317:( 8302:( 8275:( 8246:( 8102:( 8065:( 8028:( 8006:( 7992:( 7974:( 7963:) 7959:( 7950:– 7939:( 7905:( 7891:( 7859:( 7845:( 7832:) 7828:( 7790:@ 7595:( 7513:( 7509:~ 7499:) 7491:( 7485:( 7471:( 7435:" 7427:@ 7397:( 7352:) 7341:) 7333:( 7327:( 7290:) 7282:( 7276:( 7268:" 7249:( 7235:( 7204:( 7185:( 7181:~ 7170:( 7155:( 7099:) 7091:( 7085:( 7065:( 7053:) 7045:( 7039:( 7027:) 7023:( 7001:( 6987:( 6965:( 6934:( 6902:( 6849:( 6737:( 6719:( 6685:) 6681:( 6662:( 6628:( 6599:( 6555:( 6532:( 6502:( 6486:( 6472:( 6451:) 6447:( 6415:( 6386:( 6358:( 6350:@ 6337:( 6326:) 6322:( 6275:@ 6230:( 6203:( 6188:( 6154:@ 6125:( 6102:ᴛ 6100:( 6080:) 6076:( 6067:– 6029:) 6025:( 6005:) 5997:( 5991:( 5928:@ 5916:( 5897:( 5881:( 5859:) 5852:( 5839:@ 5827:( 5800:) 5796:( 5770:( 5755:( 5749:: 5745:@ 5737:) 5733:( 5702:( 5688:( 5660:( 5636:( 5618:( 5604:( 5599:) 5595:( 5579:( 5556:( 5445:) 5438:( 5413:( 5399:( 5369:T 5336:( 5318:( 5304:( 5289:( 5248:( 5218:( 5196:( 5178:( 5155:( 5138:( 5123:( 5112:a 5090:( 5076:( 5065:) 5061:( 5033:( 5018:( 4999:( 4978:( 4960:( 4937:( 4923:( 4900:( 4879:( 4860:( 4778:) 4774:( 4765:– 4752:( 4719:) 4715:( 4696:( 4659:( 4640:( 4623:( 4590:( 4517:) 4513:( 4497:) 4490:( 4474:) 4470:( 4450:) 4443:( 4431:) 4427:( 4410:) 4403:( 4386:/ 4370:· 4364:· 4356:· 4349:· 4343:· 4337:· 4331:· 4326:( 4305:· 4299:· 4291:· 4284:· 4278:· 4272:· 4266:· 4261:( 4240:· 4234:· 4226:· 4219:· 4213:· 4207:· 4201:· 4196:( 4178:( 4165:· 4159:· 4151:· 4144:· 4138:· 4132:· 4126:· 4121:( 4100:· 4094:· 4086:· 4079:· 4073:· 4067:· 4061:· 4056:( 4035:· 4029:· 4021:· 4014:· 4008:· 4002:· 3996:· 3991:( 3970:· 3964:· 3956:· 3949:· 3943:· 3937:· 3931:· 3926:( 3905:· 3899:· 3891:· 3884:· 3878:· 3872:· 3866:· 3861:( 3840:· 3834:· 3826:· 3819:· 3813:· 3807:· 3801:· 3796:( 3775:· 3769:· 3761:· 3754:· 3748:· 3742:· 3736:· 3731:( 3710:· 3704:· 3696:· 3689:· 3683:· 3677:· 3671:· 3666:( 3641:· 3635:· 3627:· 3620:· 3614:· 3608:· 3602:· 3597:( 3521:( 3500:( 3482:( 3460:( 3443:( 3412:( 3380:( 3344:( 3301:( 3267:( 3249:( 3218:( 3193:( 3144:( 3126:) 3122:( 3095:( 3078:) 3074:( 3065:– 3045:( 3027:( 2981:( 2956:( 2914:( 2891:( 2873:( 2850:( 2779:( 2757:( 2736:( 2713:( 2692:( 2655:( 2623:( 2588:( 2556:) 2552:( 2520:) 2516:( 2489:( 2471:( 2453:( 2434:( 2411:( 2347:( 2335:) 2331:( 2314:@ 2307:) 2299:( 2277:@ 2270:) 2266:( 2242:( 2228:( 2203:( 2185:( 2170:) 2162:( 2156:( 2139:( 2127:) 2123:( 2096:( 2081:) 2077:( 2054:( 1989:( 1955:( 1931:) 1923:( 1877:) 1873:( 1847:) 1839:( 1826:) 1822:( 1802:) 1794:( 1761:) 1757:( 1734:( 1711:) 1707:( 1676:( 1657:) 1653:( 1635:) 1623:( 1605:) 1593:( 1581:: 1577:@ 1569:) 1565:( 1536:( 1523:) 1511:( 1490:) 1486:( 1456:( 1445:) 1437:( 1421:( 1407:) 1403:( 1380:( 1372:( 1352:) 1348:( 1284:( 1210:( 1187:( 1168:( 1164:~ 1148:) 1144:( 1124:) 1116:( 1104:( 1083:( 1060:( 1045:( 1027:) 1023:( 1014:– 1000:( 985:( 965:( 880:e 873:t 866:v 578:9 574:8 570:7 566:6 562:5 558:4 554:3 550:2 546:1 539:( 419:. 367:: 302:. 291:. 276:. 265:. 254:. 247:. 205:e 198:t 191:v 20:)

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

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Articles for creation - Knowledge

Index