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:
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:
17:
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
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
18:Knowledge talk:AfC
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.