Knowledge talk:What Knowledge is not/Archive 4

5091:

5-6 day limit, I think Super's comments (if you re-read them) simply suggest 5-6 days as a reasonable standard--he says "please" after all, not "you must". Perhaps a note should be added to this page. The rationale for his comment, which I hope you can understand, is that this policy page is often used in settling disputes. The most minor changes to the document may seriously influence people, since they come here and read the document, and assume what they read is policy. As a result, it's just standard wikipractice that, any time you want to edit or alter a page that is officially policy, the proposal goes to the talk page until you can get a few folks agreeing to it, and nobody disagreeing (in other words, consensus). Maybe that should be made more clear here. Honestly, it's a good habit to get into for editing any established page--usually, if I want to make a significant change to an article that is very stable (say a featured article), I do the same thing...posting the change to the talk page and inviting comment. It can be frustratingly slow, but it ensures that consensus prevails, and it avoids edit wars and hurt feelings pretty effectively. Thanks for the suggestion here--I really think you and Super have refined your idea into a solid addition to the page.

6696:. At any rate, when such things occur, I have no problem with excluding them. However, it seems that the level of notability which is required in order to filter out vanity, useless trivia, etc. is often used to filter out subjects which are arguably notable (not vanity, not trivia) but only of importance to a particular region or subculture. (WP:MUSIC is a good example; it practically demands that a band be nationally noticed before being deemed "notable"; I can think of many well-established, well-known regional acts that wouldn't qualify for inclusion under WP:MUSIC. Maybe I should go take it up there). I'd like to find ways of lowering the bar, to include more regional/alternative material, while still finding ways to keep out the true rubbish. And my bias is to err on the side of inclusion. -- 1189:

looking for. This is more a problem of organisation, rather than content. Myself, I looked at HP articles after reading the books, because I wanted to see what i had missed. I was rather startled to see the amount of long description deletion which has been going on. As with any article, the amount of input is likely to be proportionate to the amount of interest. Why is there still a debate about too much content on a non-paper encyclopedia? I would agree, a short jacket type introduction might be appropriate at the start of an article, but this is inadequate and needs an accompanying longer description, of a length which would make it a reasonable article by itself. I checked wikibooks, their own policies officially preclude hosting simple long plot summaries.

1043:

uninitiated. As said before, that should involve the most accessible lead section the subject allows and the minimum use of unexplained jargon. Sure, we could add another section to this policy page to make that even more clear (even though it is in many guideline and style pages), but you have to reallize, every time we expand policy pages and add new ones, there is a cost to the rest. Ever expanding policy is just harder and harder to use. So instead of adding a section, how could this be integrated into the guidelines to make them all easier to undertand? That would be the ideal solution to your aim and accomplish it not only for articles, but also for the guideline and policy pages. -

9184:

information" may be blurry, but there are some real standards that can be easily teased out from common sense and editing effort. After these standards are determined, the editors who have worked hard to do this should have an explicit reference to the rules... citing the policy on speculation, NPoV, and others frequently isn't enough. Stating explicitly in the rules that "Knowledge is not a fan site" would be a great assistance, because most people with familiarity with the Internet have probably seen a fansite, and know how it is different than an encyclopedia. The problem this proposal aims to fix, while directed initially at our never-ending battle over at the

10067:

spent time writing articles (about cars, Lego and computers mostly) and getting one of them all the way from being a stub to being the front page featured article, I've come to understand why my earlier view is wrong - and that Knowledge's scope must be artificially limited to some extent. The reason is that there are only a finite number of people who are able to contribute to things like Good Article review, Peer Review and Featured Article candidacy. If a large proportion of perfectly well written, illustrated and fact-checked articles are about matters so trivial, then the number of reviewers per article for each of those stages in an article's progress to

567:. There was discussion here, and several people where either 1) totally opposed to deletion or 2) would favor keeping recipe of significant recipe from a cultural point of view. I agree there were also a couple of people favoring plain removal, but actually, in the page, they were a minority. While I agree some recipes were listed on vfd and consequently moved to wikibooks, you also forget all the cultural recipes on which there was no discussion whatsoever, but that you moved in all cases. Of course, since there was no discussion but just a removal of content, there is no link to show on vfd for all those articles. 8834:

the USGS's call on what 10% of all flood-related information I need to know more than I trust yours. Does that mean I trust it to be infallible? No, and I may well disagree with its reccomendation of what <10% of all information about floods in the United States a general encyclopedia needs to include - especially if it reccomends an amount of information that starts creeping upwards. An encyclopedia's not supposed to contain the information people care about, it's supposed to contain the information they need to be able to start specialist research about something they don't care about.

7090:

the rhetorical wishes of deletionists, who have too much control over this page. I see no justification for it at all. It does not reflect practice on articles for deletion, where it fails so often. It is needlessly confrontational. It is not npov. Its use seriously misleads new voters on articles for deletion, who think that it means that articles about future events are not legitimate, when it has been agreed that they are acceptable in vote after vote. Finally, it doesn't even work. Please accept that this page should reflect actual practice, not what deletionists would like to be practice.

2472:; I'm somewhat at a loss for what to say on top of that to make that position clearer. Our primary purpose is to build an encyclopedia. We are a collection of people who all have the nerve to think that we are qualified to do this, and have the intelligence to have our own ideas as to how this should be done. If we take differing positions it's probably with reasoning behind it that deserves to be examined and weighed rather than summarised in one word as "support" or "oppose" for weighing and discussion to take place, and thus I believe voting has no place on Knowledge. 4133:

considered offensive because I have said it is very much open to interpretation. I would like a better understanding of this. But to begin with, certainly pictures of genitalia is one that many agree is inappropriate even in the West. So in the end, we have categories of these pictures and categories of those pictures. Mirrors and forks then do have an easier choice to not include which ever categories they want to. Perhaps an article in the Knowledge namespace can list those categories that are considered offensive for each denomination as a guide. --

1025:. If you didn't already know what it was do you think that could be explained much better? The best that can be done is to give an approachable lead section, and try to give as much context as possible for technical terms. The only facet of an academic paper we should avoid, is not covering the background material anywhere, and assuming the reader understands all the jargon. If that's all you're saying for "is not an academic text", I'm ok with it, but the guidelines already say that. - 31: 3284:-- in some cultures, it may be just fine for minors to see pictures of anatomy, they wouldn't expect this to be censored; in others, merely a picture with people in scant clothing, any appearance of distasteful language (even in say a quote, or article about the word), profanity would expected to be censored -- to respect other cultures, Knowledge might even have to suppress certain political ideas and imagery as well as violent, gory ideas, sexual ideas, etc. By trying to or 7122:

do. As I said, this section is a pov tool created for use by deletionists and does not reflect practice on articles for deletion. They must hope that newcomers will be influenced by the "colour" and not read the policy to find out that the detail is far less supportive of hard-line deletionism, or look around Knowledge and discover that a hard-line is not actually taken. In my opinion the phrase is misleading about both policy and practice, and deletionists exploit that.

1658:—who renders an opinion on that action. If this were the case, much fewer articles would be deleted from Knowledge and much fewer editors would see their candidacies for adminship succeed. Well, that is not the case here. It is very clear to me that procedural actions that affect what grand path Knowledge takes do not need the support of everyone who votes on them in order for them to go through. Sorry, but I do believe that the community behind Knowledge is 586:: there has never been a true consensus that recipes are always, under all circumstances, inappropriate on Knowledge. There are a few who are adamant that they are not appropriate. There are those who are equally strongly opinionated the other way. I do not recall any forum in which a true consensus was established on this matter. If this rule survived on this page for 6 months, then all it is evidence for is that many established contributors don't check 8027:? No. Why not? I don't think we need a Wikiproject for this. Most of the spammish links are hit-and-run. If I see a new link in an article I'm watching, I check it, and if I don't think it adds significantly to the article I just remove it. The people that put them in usually aren't serious Wikipedians, they just want to promote a site, and they don't usually come back to check. Or if they do, they don't revert-war. If they do, they can be engaged in Talk. 10289:"Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. The project and talk pages, likewise, are reserved for discussing changes to articles and the encyclopedia, not expressing opinions about the material covered"? 4913:

they always cast a dissenting vote for every change proposed and then declare that their dissent votes mean that no consensus was reached. Anyone trying to make a change to the template is quickly reverted. I believe it should be spelled out in writing that Knowledge is not monarchy. These guys are running a dictatorship in a 💕 and I am determined to stop it. There is probably othere instances of this elsewhere in Knowledge. Thoughts? --

1829:

decision. The discussions that accompany the voting processes are crucial means of reaching consensus. For example, a very important Knowledge process is determining which articles are not encyclopedic and should be deleted from Knowledge entirely. These decisions are made on the Knowledge:Votes for deletion page. However, voting is only a part of the process, along with discussion through which Wikipedians work to reach a consensus.

10156:, itself, is the definitive statement of our philosophy, because it isn't, and there's a definite risk (given its phrasing) of that happening if it's linked to from the top of a major policy page. New users on its talk have already asked why "such an important policy page" isn't protected; it's important that they understand that WP:5P is currently just an attempt to describe Knowledge's philosophy, albeit a good one. -- 5041:

to see what people have to say. If there is general agreement or still no responses after that time, then it is more reasonable to add a paragraph. Those general statements apply for any change, and are not my take (except for the specific recommended times) but Knowledge policy. Therefore, because policy requires consensus, I have removed the addition. My personal opinion on this specific change is below.

9215:

every single thing in the world, and not all of it can be included here. The aim of any encyclopedia is to synthesise the important elements, and provide a jumping off point for those who want to research a topic more fully. At some point, perhaps Wikibooks will become the veritable "sum of all human knowledge" and supersede all the world's libraries and Web pages— but Knowledge isn't the place to put

9122:. Since this is already banned, why not just add a fourth item to the crystal ball section that says something like: "Knowledge is not a repository for speculation on minor future events such as the plot of a future television episode, the outcome of a future sports game, etc." I do agree, though, that the Lost article should be cut down to only past episodes and official press releases from ABC. — 5379:'s energy needs," despite official statements to that effect. Nor is it enough to quality such statements with words like "claimed" or "planned" or "expected." Instead, descriptions should be provided only when they can be backed up by citations from independent sources who have had an opportunity to examine the work in progress and can report accurately on what has or has not actually been achieved. 7253:

other articles and it seems that some of these warnings, while no-one disputes that they may be helpful are not encyclopaedic and there is no clear line do draw on what warnings to allow and to not allow. I have no problem when such warnings are written into the article in an encyclopaedic tone, but when they are bolded or put in special boxes I think it crosses the line into being encyclopaedic.--

4401:(particularly on the mailing list), where many participants are assuming that Knowledge equivalents to appeals courts must function the same way as their real-world (specifically, American) equivalents do. This line of thought was refuted a few times, but persists. It occurs to me that "Knowledge is not the real world" has a more general application, and so could be useful in WP:NOT. -- 7797:

of rules and restrictions -- enforced with manic efficiency by monitors who devote an abnormal amount of time to this police activity -- the average contributor is likely to just feel that they are being exploited. And since so-called official sources are now the only kosher source of information, contributors have been reduced to mere relayers of information, plagiarists and pirates.

7793:

Wikipedians didn't feel compelled to conform in order to achieve mainstream acceptance; when Knowledge's basic nature couldn't be altered at the drop of a hat just because of a critical news article; when Wikipedians dealt with abuse of the system through their own effort rather than attempting to graft an artificial authoritarian system on to something that had grown up organically.

6224:. Knowledge is not a place for stating the self-evident. Knowledge is not a Brochure, Personal Improvement Book, Motivation Seminar, Examples Book, Infant's Encyclopedia, Collection of Philosophical Axioms, or List of Half-Baked Ideas. While it might be perfectly true that "setting realistic deadlines improves an employee's performance", statements of this type are unencyclopedic. 852:

a repository of trivia. Information should only be added if may be of interest to a range of people." I think it needs to be short and sweet like that - we can't even say "broad range" because that would exclude specialist academic matter, and going into more detail would just open up all the other issues on the page over again. But the current heading should go because Knowledge

9219:. Fans have numerous resources available to present material that isn't appropriate to being included here, from Web sites to discussion forums to fan clubs and newsletters. My proposal is to clarify why we shouldn't be attempting to be a substitute for fan sites— who have a specific, extremely detail-interested audience, which isn't the general audience that Knowledge serves. — 8122:. Understanding the full range of slang in a particular category (e.g., body parts or sex) is indeed useful and encyclopedic (isn't understanding the meaning of others' speech useful?). Now, one could easily argue that in the case of the vast majority of slang entries in such a comparative article, they would not merit individual articles, and I agree with that argument. 7304:"Copyrighted song lyrics are not allowed to be printed in whole in any Knowledge article. Song lyrics that are in public domain are allowed, but you have to provide additional information about the song, not only the songwriter, performer, album name and year of recording, but also the background, history or (unbiased) analysis of the music and content of the song." 136:

because he supported it and because of the habit of a few editors like Gentgeen to get rid of recipes on Knowledge. However, if there is an habit of a few bold editors, I do not think it is correct to put it as a policy as I did not see clear agreement for this. I would like to see the voting page where this was decided if this should stay here. Thanks

6037:

control and on-screen displays. Strategy guides, on the other hand, usually offer detailed walkthroughs and instructions for performing techniques and beating enemies and bosses. Regardless of the outcome of the "no instruction" debate, I would think we can all agree that strategy guides, as I've jsut defined them, are unencyclopedic. Am I wrong? --

2532:"vote", even for the opinions expressed in a non-binding poll (like "votes for deletion" and "votes for undeletion" and various policy discussion pages), -- even to the extent of unilaterally deleting a page that had the word "Votes" in the title. Can either of you suggest a specific rewording of the text that Kim wanted to delete, and for which 1271:

experience. In fact it's pretty discouraging. There's all these rules that you only know about after making the mistake--you provide another very good example: how was I supposed to know you've got to quadruple-tilde your messages to sign them? So as a newcomer, I view any kind of jargon in introductory documents as a roadblock to efficiency.

6326:, which states that Windows 95 was released in 95". That's not self-evident in my opinion. The reader has many valid reasons to assume why Windows 95 might not have been released in 1995 - perhaps is was developed in 95? perhaps it was only intended to be released in 95? perhaps Microsoft chose some future date for marketing resons? etc. -- 9963:

important ways different from prior encyclopedias but we still retain the self-image that we are creating an encyclopedia and deliberately choose to limit ourselves to that. History has repeatedly shown that when groups drift away from their unifying vision, the project inevitably fails. I strongly urge you to read (or perhaps re-read)

2881:" or just "polls" to further emphasize their limited authority in decision-making. The discussions that accompany the voting processes are often more important when reaching consensus. For example, Knowledge decides which pages to delete on ] page, partially through polling. However, in closing debates, administrators use votes 8330:

you aren't the first person I've seen misapply it this way, removed altogether. While we're on the subject of lists, though, I think it's past time for a section explicitly stating that making a list of items unacceptable individually does not make them collectively become acceptable because they've been compiled as a list.

5182:"It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis, because of Knowledge's prohibition on 3787:-Language:English -Theme:Censored for the protection of minors -Identity code for new edition:Enc -Things to be censored: --Swear words: ---Code for censorship (Swear word=----- ----) ---Ass=$ $ @ ---Bitch=317)# ---Fuck=6!(3 ---Nigger=^1663R ---Shit=$ %)7 --Pornography and nudity will be blurred unless there is some 6928:, which relies on this clause, has been rejected by all eight people who have commented on it so far. The phrase is needlessly provocative, and its main effect seems to be to give people false hope that doomed nominations have a chance, thereby creating frustration and ill feeling. I suggest it should be retitled: 7880:

is not only wishy-washy but outright wrong. A reader of an enyclopedia article is looking for facts. In recognition of that, encyclopedists of all epochs of history have included definitions for each and every topic of their articles. I can not imagine any reason why Knowledge should depart from that tradition.

4062:. If it's legal, relevant, and illustrative, it will be included without looking back. Furthermore, if the only purpose of the template is to alert mirrors, why is it visible on Knowledge? Just keep the template blank and you've served the purpose of allowing mirrors to filter out the pages. Something's fishy. 5071:"It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success or failure of future developments, proposals and projects, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis, because of Knowledge's prohibition on 10539:

It should have said Democracy all along - I conflated the terms in midnight error. The point is that we certainly use elections and strawpolls, even retrospective polling (position summaries) to justify actions (rather than say an appeal to principles such as respect of diversity or factual accuracy)

10364:

Sometimes you make huge mistakes about what you know, or something is wrong with the source data, only by discussions such as a public forum would such mistakes be uncovered, and corrected. I believe you would stiffle the very essence of the correcting the data feature of Knowledge of you make this a

10134:

I'd like to discuss that decision some more. I understand Aquillion's point that the Five Pillars page does not have an official "policy" tag on it but I think the page does accurately reflect Knowledge's vision, sustaining values and guiding philosophy. I think it does illuminate the core topic of

9925:

I think we need to be careful with the language. Knowledge is foremost a general encyclopedia, but it is also a specialist encyclopedia in so far as it doesn't conflict. This is usually possible because wiki is not paper, but it should be considered when we decide how to seperate up articles, how we

9741:

If you want to store your grocery lists online, set up your own wiki to do it. My household has a wiki, and one of the articles in it is, in fact, a shopping list. (Unfortunately, the server it was on blew a motherboard, so it's down right now. I need to get it back up sometime.) Knowledge is not

8908:

about being able to write articles about all my friends, or my pets, or quantum althieodynamics (the field of metaphysics which I just made up). I think the problem is that having an entry in an encyclopedia implies some level of notability on the subject's part, which to pick a furry example, my cat

8828:

Why should your opinion on floods matter as much as that of the USGS? Are you an expert in floods, and thus qualified to compare floods to each other? Are you qualified to distinguish between what someone who doesn't care about floods does need to know and what someone who doesn't care about floods

8640:

It's silly semantic wordplay to say that if "someone noted it", it's notable. The two aren't equivalent. Verifiability by itself doesn't fulfill the requisite needs of an encyclopedia: the organization of knowledge (not mere trivia) in an easy-to-use and understand way. This is the conclusion of the

8465:

Why is notability a touchy subject? My personal belief is that Knowledge is not the place for random information. I also feel that a consensus needs to be reached on what is and what is not notable. A lot of people seem to not get why creating an article on Joe Blo just because he won the high school

8036:

99% of this is just normal editing. No need to set up a special Wikiproject. Links don't seem to me to be very different from regular article content. If anything, they are easier to deal with because spammers are not (usually) as noxious or persistent as POV-warriors. They are usually interested in

7796:

I don't really see what the point of Knowledge is anymore. When it was open and free (speech, not beer), and the contributors dynamically determined what was appropriate rather than a small committee of overinterested zealots, it felt good to contribute. Now, with the ever-increasing, ponderous body

7060:

I don't know if not a "collection of unverifiable speculation" really improves on not "a crystal ball." The latter is more memorable, says the same thing, and is better distinguished from other points on the list. It often gets shot down in AfD?--so it does. I don't see how the new name makes it more

6826:

which provides value added information in terms of improving the ability of a user to find the appropriate page they desire. In this case, a castle can be found if you know what it looks like but have no other information (e.g. name or location) to allow a search string-based search. It is possible

6185:

Non-encyclopedic: "Colonel Affeschlüssel is the third boss in Attack of the Werkzeugkasten. His main attacks are a flying kick that hits high, banana projectiles that hit mid-section, and the leftover banana peels that come to life and bite Schraubenzieher's feet. The best way to get past him is to

6181:

Encyclopedic: "Colonel Affeschlüssel is a character in Attack of the Werkzeugkasten. Little about him is revealed in the course of the game, beyond his hatred for Schraubenzieher, the main character in the game, and his strange affinity for using bananas as projectile weapons. In the novelizations,

5433:

Information on unreleased products, software, games, or movies may be appropriate when the plans for the product are so notable that they are affecting many people in the present. However promised characteristics or planned features should never be presented as if they were simple facts. For example,

5040:

Carl, as the box at the top of the page says, you must have consensus before making significant changes to a policy page. It is not enough to remove them when controversy arises. You have to have general agreement beforehand. Please leave this talk page section around for at least five or six days

4468:

Didn't that entry used to be on this page? I'm slightly tired of having to tell people that Knowledge is not the place to commemorate the dead. I swear that used to be on this page. Whatever happened to it, it needs to be added again. Deaths are tragic, but unless they're notable, they shouldn't have

4288:

That's not necessarily a permanent and undisputed position as it is not one of the five pillars of wikipedia. An assumption that wikipedia should celebrate its lack of taste and restraint reflects wikipedia's unfortunate origin in the office of a soft porn company, and the biases of the highly skewed

4029:

in the not-censored section is offensive to me. The section clearly states that we will not change our content to avoid offending. Template:Offensive counters that. The section claimed the goal was only to "allow" censorship on mirrors, but in reality, the warning is visible here on Knowledge, and

3458:

and get rid of them. That problem is solved. However, I now see that the problem of anons adding edits is something that can't be addressed with policy... I just would like to see a stricter wording of the rule so IPs aren't as adamant about adding their links. I don't know if that is doable, though.

2905:

Count me with the "fringe". We have recently fallen into the habit of "voting" (that is, binding votes decided by either majority or supermajority) and it has been destructive to Knowledge in almost every case. As a community, we are now moving away from that bad habit and back to our wiki-roots of

2876:

Knowledge is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. Majority opinion does not necessarily rule. Various votes are regularly conducted, but their numerical results are usually only one of several means of making a decision. They are sometimes

1682:

Consensus does not require unanimity. Unanimous consensus does, for obvious reasons. According to the excellent American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, consensus means first "An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole." That certainly fits with the description of the page.

1516:

It was just a thought (briefly thrown around on IRC), but given the amount of wikilawyering I've seen going around (and increasing, at least from my subjective viewpoint), I thought it'd be simply to go beyond "bureaucracy" and get down to what people seem to throw policies and guidelines around for,

1486:

suggest that the article be at least two paragraphs long, and that it mention something about the site that makes it notable and different from every other fantasy-sports game. Can you cite a source that mentions it; for example, an article in a well-known print gaming magazine that calls it the best

1188:

A dust jacket will tell you what you might expect with extremely minimal spoilers. That is advertising, this is supposed to inform. I agree, there is a possible problem of telling someone what they did not want to know, but i think there is a greater problem of failing to tell them what they are here

1140:

an academic text", to emphasize that info of use only to PhD's is permitted, so long as an introduction is provided which is readable to the majority of people. As for the use of complex jargon, if it is the simplest way to describe a concept, it should be allowed. However, academics frequently use

1074:

If we adopt this, can we also get "WP is not a primary school textbook"? I'll have concise articles with the correct terminology hyperlinked for people who don't understand it, over wordy blathers full of colloquialisms and smart similes, any day, thank you. Sure, improve article style where you can,

1010:

I'm not saying jargon should never be used - just that it where it should be used we should think of the reader. This would mean not using too much jargon, and explaining in the article what the jargon means. I do disagree strongly with Raul654 - or maybe it's that I see "within reason" as a stronger

10180:

need to be protected? At a quick glance it doesn't seem to be particularly subject to vandalism, and edits have been conservative and helpful. Casual vandals mostly hit mainspace pages. (It does surprise me a bit is that it hasn't attracted the disruptive attention of people who (I'm trying to avoid

9948:

The word "encyclopedia" is a real problem for wikipedia. It plays into the hands of deletionists who want to restrict the scope of the project, but wikipedia has burst all bounds of previous encyclopedias and that is a thoroughly good thing. It should encompass reference books on every subject about

9810:

If you think everyone already knows this, why does it need to be on the page? As someone said, that's needless "instruction creep". When I reverted, I wasn't disputing whether it was true, but rather whether it should be enumerated. Knowledge isn't a pizza, but we're not going to say that because

9601:

For instance, Yellow Journalism, or Mccartism. We define yellow journalism as tabloid journalism, however the historical confines of this definition is that sometimes media can cause wars to happen. History sometimes helps coin phrases or words as part of the dictionary, not the other way around.

9075:

policies. As with those, this proposal aims to consolidate the disparate policy elements that would clarify why content that might be appropriate to a fan site would not be appropriate to Knowledge. Such a differentiation is as valuable as pointing out that, "Knowledge is not a free host or webspace

8833:

as a minimum: no less than 90% of everything is crap, ergo no less than 90% of everything in any given field doesn't need to be any any encyclopedia (i.e., no more than 10% of anything in a particular field belongs in an encyclopedia, and arguably no more than 10% of fields do, either). And I trust

8270:

I don't believe that information makes it a proper encyclopedia entry. Rule of thumb, if it can't be expressed in prose, it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I don't think that the issue of cruft/neologisms slipping in is what was the problem. I think the problem is that the only thing Knowledge

7121:

I don't follow a word of your reasoning. The phrase is not used to argue for deletion of "hocus pocus", but for things like elections and films. Why would you want this section to be "colorful" unless you were hoping to influence people in favour of deletion more than a neutrally worded policy would

6938:

This isn't going to change the outcome of any votes, but it should reduce the number of pointless nominations and cut down on any resulting ill feeling. Even with the text of the section softened, the attention grabbing title misleads would be deletionists about what the consensus really is articles

6660:

I agree; add the first paragraph, and not the second. As a preference, I'd prefer removing "Knowledge is not a Social Register". First of all, it detacts from the style to have a "Knowledge is not" within another. More importantly, the statement is mere repetition, and seems to implicitly condemn

6638:

If we are going to exclude vanity biographies, and verifiable descriptions of the five fire hydrants located on East Brewster Street, Harvey, North Dakota, and individual articles on the astronomical events expected to take place in the years 2619, 2620, and 2621—and I happen to think we do—then, by

5302:

Coordinating is probably too strong ;-) I share your concerns about categories of contributions that present special problems. However, there is only so much that the Knowledge can do in policy statements. Fans and promoters is not banned from contributing to the Knowledge. However they have to

5129:

I'm fine with you're proposed changes, Carl. However, on second thought(I should have said this before; sorry), doesn't it sound a bit awkward to speak of a development succeeding? I normally would say "something devloped", or "a development occured", but not "a devlopment succeeded". Does anyone

2863:

I agree. You can vote in an election, binding referendum(to make up a specific term), or a straw poll. I would still like to hear what Kim thinks the difference between poll and vote is, but in the mean time what about something like the below, which might satisfy him. By the way, I don't like VFD

2768:

I'm sorry to yell, but this point is being constantly ignored. WE HAVE BINDING VOTES!! The recent vote over criteria for speedy deletion is a prime example. Some of our votes/polls are not binding, but some ARE. We must say that in the WP:NOT page. Also, if you come up with a better version we'd

2743:

I think the desire to avoid even using the word "vote" is a valid one is we wish to avoid the idea that we are actually voting—there's currently a push to rename "votes for deletion" which has gained significant support, for example—as language does affect the way we think about things. I'll look at

2203:

for wiki things (the only binding votes people comment on are the Arbitrator elections, which aren't - they just inform Jimbo of community opinion, who can then appoint whomever he wants to to the Committee - and Board elections, which are very much not a wiki process). The policy as I understand it

1854:

That sounds good, but then, the original version sounded good to me too. Kim Bruning objected to it for some reason, which seems to have something to do with objections to calling this process "voting" when the results are not binding. I tried to rewrite it more briefly and in a way that addressed

1361:

I'm still unsure what it's supposed to be stopping; could it be explained before being added? It looks very much like an attempt to change policy in order to help SS in his dispute with FeloniousMonk. Changing Knowledge official policy as a move in a personal dispute is surely unacceptable, even if

851:

contain more "general knowledge" than things like travel guides and genealogical dictionaries. I don't think this subheading is helpful at all. I suggest that it is abolished, that the sub-subheadings below it are promoted, and that a further subheading is added along the lines of, "Knowledge is not

10544:

the moon to be made of cheese, they could quite easily prevail over the few voices who have actually been there. Rather than striving for the common denominator, we should establish precendents in which better research trumps original research, better cites trump lesser authorities, and a plurality

10071:

will be reduced and the quality of IMPORTANT articles will suffer. So whilst the physical infrastructure of Knowledge Is Not Paper, the number of brains able to review and maintain it are limited in ways comparable to that of a traditional paper encyclopedia (perhaps more so because we aren't paid

9580:

is a globule of molten lead useful for enhancing the growth of chickens." which is desirable and I think what you're talking about, and writing a list of terms. In the first case, the focus is on the concept (the globule), and the terms specified just for thoroughness and clarity, while the second

9019:

Writing policy to "provide guidance in consensus" would be the Knowledge version of "legislating from the bench." I agree that it has more to do with the nature of the coverage than the detail. For example, "speculation about future events" falls squarely in the "original research" and/or "lack of

9009:

goes. There's a subjective line between important detail and excessive minutia. I agree that editing is preferable, when deletion is unwarranted, but we need a policy basis for reigning in the excesses of certain individual fans. In the end, it comes down to the consensus of editors on a particular

8868:

should matter as much as the USGS, just that my opinion that Japanese Manga is important should be taken as seriously as the USGSs opinion that floods are important. I'm not talking about what goes in, just whether the topics are notable. By the way, your faith in the US government to tell you what

8054:

Yes, I removed the links. Though, it was a tedious process. I couldn't do in one go at it, and had to come back later and finish. Maybe there could be a place to list articles with very long lists of links that need help to sort through? The process I used for deleting the links was to copy all

7997:

I disagree that external links should go only to NPOV sites, as oftentimes articles express disputes, and the best way to reference these disputes is to offer POV articles from all the sides of the dispute. Also note that if you have an article about a political party, their official website would

7879:

revert: That paragraph started with "Of course, an article can and should always begin with a good definition" at least until March 2005 and that had been the wording for more than three years. I don't know why or when it was dropped or whether there was any discussion, and in any case, "sometimes"

7388:

An article should not consited entirely or mostly of song lyrics, but rather should be about the songs or the artists who composed or performed them. Short illusttrative quotations of lyrics may be appropriate in the context of an article. Complete lyrics would belong on wikisource if anywhere, and

7367:

The above would imply that quotes from songs are not acepteable, whereas they are valid fair use when a short quote is used as the basis for a discussion or analysis of a song. And the question of the encyclopedic value is really unrelated to the question of copyright status. A long article that is

7185:

I see 3 votes that are going the wrong way there. Mad Max 4 has verifiable "speculation," including interviews with Mel Gibson. Fisker is a real company that has produced actual cars, the fact that it's not notable yet is an issue of notability, not crystal balling. Ditto for realm fighter, real

5023:

The above prohibitions are not intended to suppress discussion of current trends and tendencies and how they may affect future events. In particular the Knowledge allows discussion about the arguments for and against whether developments and proposals will be successful provided that they are well

3814:

to insert a demonstrably false and unsourced statement about people in the otherkin subculture believing themselves to be "werehouses". The Otherkin page has since been reverted by me to the earlier version. I haven't reverted this one, however, since some of what he wrote may actually be good if

3520:

Should we say something that Knowledge is not a collection of indiscriminat tittle-tattle about people's private lives? In particular, it is not in the business of broadcasting information about people's medical history which most people would regard as confidential, particularly any mental health

2556:

Knowledge is not an experiment in democracy. It is guided in editorial decisions by consensus, which is discovered through discussion. Attempting to short-circuit this through "polls", or binding votes, is highly unhelpful and is generally considered unwiki and bad practice. Consensus does not mean

1533:

Hmm... makes some sense to me, in light of wikilawyering I've seen about things that should be so obvious as to not need a rule (I.E., don't put a VfD subpage up for deletion). Although, is there a potential downside, in advancing the "WP:IAR! WP:IAR!" defense of "Anything stupid's allowed, there

1032:

It's really a very, very small number of articles which, with clever wording, will be inaccessible to laymen, and it probably is maths and science ones that would fit this exception - and then only in the more esoteric areas. The problem at present is that very many articles which do not need to be

930:

Knowledge is not an academic text. Our readership is anyone in who searches the internet for English-language information. The style, language and approach of Knowledge articles should be such that as many people as possible can understand them. Clearly they should be factually correct and academic

10626:

A crude view says, that some of these are generally decided by voting, but it's still dubious if that makes them a democracy. The agreement to abide by a vote is not your right or anyone's right, as such. The test of that is, if it changed tomorrow, you would probably have no recourse to change it

8917:

violate NPOV to write about not-particularly-significant subjects, unless perhaps the articles note their own (un-)importance. (Pleasantly, it seems like requiring a nice notice at the top of the page saying, "The subject of this article is not particularly noteworthy. Wouldn't you like to look at

8329:

Read it in full. It gives "structured lists that assist in the organization of articles" an exception to the rule regarding a page that's nothing but internal links. It's also questionable; I feel it should be cut off after the phrase "disambiguation pages" and the structured list portion, which

7528:

If you are seriously asking why the particular word "notable" happened to be used, I'd guess it's because this is a word frequently used in encyclopedias and almanacs as the title of lists whose content is based on the judgement of the editor rather than something that can be objectively measured.

7252:

I think there needs to be some policy on helpful but unencyclopaedic warnings and advice given to readers in articles. Some examples of this are warnings in medicine articles to see a doctor in a case of overdose and not to look at the sun in the sun article. I have participated in some debates in

7169:

vote. In short, the facts do not seem to sustain your beliefs; if I may be blunt, I think you could be allowing the fervor of deletionist/inclusionist debates to cloud your judgement. I don't doubt that there are people misquoting Crystal Ball somewhere (just like there are people misquoting every

7089:

articles about the future. It is too colourful and when it is invoked on articles for deletion, so often in vain, it comes across as insulting, implying that serious well meaning users who have written articles about conventional real world subjects are fanticists. The phrasing is designed to meet

6362:

The availability of space in Knowledge means that it is not necessary for a somewhat obscure topic to be redirected to another topic which, though of more common usage, is not truly equivalent. It may be preferable to supply a "See also" section on both pages stating that further information on a

6175:

I agree. It would be possible to write an encyclopedic article about, say, a specific boss, but a strategy guide isn't encyclopedic. I'm not sure if I'm wording this well, so here's an example of each (with a character I'm making up off the top of my head; any resemblance to a real video game or

5799:

This was aggressively worded to favour deletion. In my experience, proponents of deletion who rely on this section in debates on an article very often lose. It did not reflect the balance of opinion revealed by votes. If we can have an example of one that (probably) would be deleted, we can have a

5090:

Carl, I like your version--I can't think of any improvements, and if nobody else chimes in during the next few days, I think it's close enough to Superm401's version that it could be added to the page as having consensus. It certainly reflects current practice fairly well, I think. As far as the

4132:

I now see that anything that is described as "offensive" is biased itself. But tagging images that are genitals is not biased, is it? If there are many photos of prophets then they can be all lumped together as "photos of prophets" to be removed. No, I am not an authority to know what is or not is

3942:

That's what I was thinking at first too; his main error seems to be thinking that it would not apply to himself as well as others. I'm not sure, though, adding it in even modified to be more NPOV might be taken by some users like himself as endorsement in their conflicts with others. Particularly

3411:

Huh? You want to do something about policy because of one questionable link in one article? I think this falls in the "so fix it" category. Assuming the link is currently still there, and assuming you have good reasons for thinking it's inappropriate—not just because it is a blog, but because this

2467:

I don't see Kim's position as "fringe". Actually, it seems to me that Kim's position is most closely in line with both the official policies and the ideals of Knowledge. If it is less vocally defended here it is only because it doesn't always occur to people that the sentiment is changing and that

1415:

when you are writing a Article the Begining to get to get this site is no Promoting yourself, Websites or something i can not remember.but what i was trying to say was we have a lot of websites like google in Wilkipedia so i was confused on that.so if you could clarify this it would be appreciated

1270:

A link will not solve the problem raised. The term is already explained within the section, and there is a link indeed. The problem is with the heading, which is cryptic (no pun intended). I must say that I don't find the beginning part of contributing to Knowledge to be a very simple or enjoyable

1020:

That attitude would have us excluding all kinds of information that Knowledge currently (rightly) has. There are some things that simply require an awful lot of background material and the average reader will never understand without reading and learning all that background. While I agree articles

694:

The Knowledge community exists to write an encyclopedia. If you are disrupting the writing of an encyclopedia through problems that make you unable to work well with others, it is not the community's responsibility to allow the disruption to continue while you resolve your issues, sympathise as we

420:

Those seem (I haven't checked them all) to be references to individual VfD votes on individual articles, not policy discussions. I could list individual articles with recipes in them that went through VfD and were kept. That wouldn't show the existence of consensus, in general, just consensus that

10562:

Ah, you want something that Knowledge is not (sorry about that, I couldn't resist). Open editing is fundamental to the idea of Knowledge, and I don't think you're going to be able to change that. For myself, I'm concentrating on pushing for better referencing of articles by example and by nudging

9656:

This has been discussed before, somewhere in the archives, in probably a number of different incarnations. Really, it's quite hard to work out how to draw that particular line since some future things are damn near certain to happen (and thus require no crystal ball) while others are tentative at

8664:

Here are my predictions. You're free to prove them wrong: There will never be consensus on notability. Knowledge will never primarily be a repository of knowledge, merely of information. And one man's (or culture's) trivia is another man's (culture's) information. Any definition of notability is

7966:

I propose a WikiProject where we nominate and work on such articles that need their external links weeded through to get rid of linkspam and be quality-checked. I have also put forth guidelines and philosophy regarding external links — primarily drawn upon "official" Knowledge policies set forth

5825:

Here it is the proposed amended part. It describes the actual state of play. On the other hand the existing section describes what deletionists would like to happen, but does not reflect the facts about the articles that exist or what happens when future events are put to the vote. There at least

5366:

Information on unreleased products, software, games, or movies may be appropriate when the plans for the product are so notable that they are affecting many people in the present. However, promised characteristics or planned features should never be reported as if they were facts. For example, in

4912:

I've encounted a pair of users (maybe more involved, I'm not sure) on a template page that are running something of a monarchy there. They claim that each and every change to the template should be brought up on the talk page and voted to consensus. Sounds reasonable right? Well when you do that,

4232:

do so to avoid a lawsuit possibly destroying Knowledge, and possibly because of members' sense of ethics. We are not doing it to "respect" the government, though it would still be a flawed comparison even if we were. We do not only respect the majority. If we did, we would have only one POV in

3597:

If you can't figure out how to behave civilly on your own and read and follow appropriate policies, there's no rule that we have to spend months trying to rehabilitate you. We're glad to welcome newbies and guide them around potential mistakes. But if you continue to break the rules or push the

1435:

may not be so well known but they are also significant. However, if someone just writes their own website, it doesn't become notable merely by existing on the internet. Anyone who then puts an entry on wikipedia is likely to see it nominated for deletion on grounds of 'vanity' (that is, imagining

842:

I think the overarching point of this section is to discourage trivia. The subheadings aren't really about "general knowledge" (eg What is the capital of France?) at all but rather about types of information which is deprecated as trivia and also about non-encyclopedic styles of content. The most

411:

I completely disagree on your assesment about recipes. I will concede that there was no consensus to delete in February 2004, however, Knowledge is not static. There has been nothing but consensus to delete since April 2004. Anthere, find some evidence that there is no consensus, or revert your

347:

established that there is simply no consensus, and none is likely to be reached in the foreseeable future. Debate on these areas is virtually guaranteed to be sterile. All actions in these areas are taken on the collective judgement of editors on a case-by-case basis on the particular article or

10525:

you take exception to. It still is not a democray. I sometimes wish AfD was democratic, since as it now stands a minority can prevent a consensus from being reached. The system is consensus-forming. The ideal would be for discussion to continue until everyone agrees on a position, but we are too

10066:

paper, there should be no unreasoable limits to people wanting to write articles on (to take a topical example) every single one of the several hundred Pokemon characters. If they want to write them - and the amount of disk space and bandwidth they consume is trivial - why not? However, having

9214:

There's a difference between being a mere enthusiast and being someone who adds excessive, extraneous and non-encyclopedic trivia. The task of writing useable articles requires that editors differentiate between what goes in and what stays out. There's an overwhelming amount of information about

8701:

Of course I realize it's a circular argument. And consensus doesn't require _everyone_ to agree, but almost. There is nowhere near consensus on notability, as a trip to AfD will show. There may almost be a consensus that _some_ notability measure should be applied, but that's useless since noone

7111:

is such an effective summary for this is because it perfectly captures the hocus-pocus nature of what is forbidden; articles can report verifiable plans or circumstances that will affect the future, or to report on properly encyclopedic predictions, but editors cannot play Nostradamus and try to

6339:

Well, you know, 1.7, even though broken into 7 subsections, is still pretty explicit: Knowledge Is Not An Indiscriminate Collection of Information. Yeah, there's seven specific examples, but there's still the 1.7.* to cover everything that's unencyclopedic or unnoteworthy. It's the catch-all.

5619:

Surely anything which is affecting many people right now is worthy of inclusion? How does that help to distinguish more difficult cases where some people might be affected now, or many people might be affected in the future? Or many people might be interested in something which has a better than

5250:

It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis, because of

3274:

to censor content in a way that would be adequate to protect minors, without compromising the way the Wiki works (I.E. that anyone can edit the page); to effectively protect minors, EVERY edit, and EVERY upload would have to be approved by a human before it could appear on the site -- this would

1042:

Well the way that needs to be done is the way it already is. A factually correct, but incomprehensible article needs to be edited for style and readability to improve it to a better state, that not only contains the juicy details for the specialist, but also is as approachable as possible to the

135:

On this edit, an editor added a policy. The problem I have with the addition is that I have no memory that this was ever clearly agreed by the community, quite the opposite as I remember quite well a long discussion on the topic and many mails. To me, it looks like a policy added by someone just

10321:

Honestly, my experience is that even with things explicitly in here, nobody seems to care. Anyway, what's anyone else think? I don't think 3 people's inconclusive discussion is enough to justify adding a section to a policy page. On which note, I think Zocky should've proposed it here before

8252:

The article in question included category descriptions, and the groupings within said categories are descriptive (i.e., the groupings explain how many terms are used to mean the same thing, and that should be informative to many). Further, many terms included info on their origins. There's no

7020:

Note that the Trivia guideline doesn't make a blanket statement "include if interesting but not important." It starts out with this thought in mind and unpacks it, offering advice like moving to a sister project etc. I'd suggest "Trivia may have a place on Knowledge but should be evaluated with

6460:

Well, personally I'd like to see any verifiable information on the subject provided in Knowledge. The editor's summary of the purpose of the article is atrocious and invalid under the "no original research" rule, among others, and the existing title breaks naming conventions ("Star Wars sequel

6249:

It may seem trivial to include this, but I feel the deletion process could be speeded up if users could simply quote the official policy "truism" in the AfD page. Apart from that, it's not always immediatly clear that an article contains truisms, for example when they are obscured by verbose

4576:

By far our most policies and guidelines are descriptive, rather than proscriptive. If many people intuitively use a certain term that is not definied in policy, it is not useful (nor, in fact, effective) to tell them to stop using it. Instead, the term should be described somewhere in policy or

4193:

Following the law is itself inherently biased, in regards to image copyright tagging, isn't it? We have to follow the obligations of a particular organisation being the government. We have to respect it because there is no other option for it. In the same way, I see there is a need to respect a

3245:

Yeah, I'm a minor, too, but I am (I hope) mature for my age, I can handle the stuff on here. But there's another aspect to be thought of: law suits. If a minor (read: an innocent 5 year old) was to see....questionable material, the parents might get angry. And yes, you can sue websites (*cough*

2058:

OK, sound better. (I bolded the words you added to my text.) I agree the last sentence sounds a bit odd, but it seemed necessary to address Kim Bruning's objections to any use of the term "vote". Let's give M. Bruning a while to read this and reply before we modify the text on the main page.

1634:

I think the page currently says it best. "Knowledge is not an experiment in democracy". It doesn't care what political structure it has, and doesn't waste time trying to define it or follow a particular method of decisionmaking. Instead, it just goes about its business, and that includes not

8678:

to agree. So long as there is a minority who believe everything and anything can be included in Knowledge, then there will be those who claim that "notability is non-NPOV". There's a vast difference between "subjective" and "non-neutral": the gathering of worthwhile information and editing of

8303:

do just that. I believe 1.5.2 already provides the "legal language" to back up my position, but I am seeking to extend the "slang guide" language to ensure that as long as 1.5.2 is satisified, then 1.2.3 is obviated. Further, these are guidelines to be used in making a decision--you think an

8012:

You're right about NPOV/POV links. I think they're okay, as you say for articles about political parties or other topics that in themselves are POV. Also, they're okay if POV links try to balance each other by including links from across the spectrum of an issues (e.g. democratic-leaning and

7792:

I miss the good old days of Knowledge, when people obsessed with it, who spend 5+ hours each day involved with it, were a minority rather than a dictating majority; when the only rules were to reflect truth and consensus; when Knowledge's goal wasn't to compete with Encyclopedia Brittanica and

6036:

I think video game strategy guides are a special case, though. First of all, "tutorials" has overtones of the above "no instruction" discussion. Also, "tutorial" has a specific meaning in video game terminology, refering to instructions or practice regarding the basics of gameplay such as play

5080:

Also I suggest that the top of the page be ammended to state that suggested changes must remain on the talk page for a specified time before editing the policy page. Otherwise it is just your say so that my suggestion must remain on the talk page for five or six days before editing the policy

4972:

Anarchy and anarchism are not the same thing, the title of the 'is not' is clear in its meaning of chaos, however where it says it is 'not a place to test anarchism' the writer nseems to be confusing the legitimate political system of anarchism (roughly meaning a decentralised form of comunity

2007:

Knowledge is not an experiment in democracy. Its primary method of finding consensus is discussion, not voting. That is, majority opinion does not necessarily rule in Knowledge. Various votes are regularly conducted, but their numerical results are usually only one of several means of making a

1828:

8767:

than Z." While it's still a subjective term— as all qualitative comparatives are— in my view, it's less restrictive and less definitionally loaded a term than the "Knowledge:Importance" proposal. It's an established term outside Knowledge used by educational, government, business and literary

8539:

I feel that strict guidlines for notability need to be set in stone, via a consensus. Some of the stuff I see around Knowledge and on the deletion pages (where they should be) is just plain ridiculous. I've seen local science teachers with no claim to fame even in their hometowns. The list is

6445:

which I expect, unfortunately, will go no consensus. George Lucas verifiably said he wanted to make a trilogy of sequels to Star Wars. He now says he won't and there is absolutely no plan for it. So why do we have a page entitled "The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy"? The person who created the page

6298:

I oppose it. The page is becoming too long. This section, while intentioned, is as general as much the articles it criticizes. We're better off with the specific sections we have now. If something more precise needs to be added, suggest it. This is unnecessary. Also, sometimes Knowledge

5962:

As things are hardly ever deleted on this basis of this section, it isn't really a threat to Knowledge's coverage of events of current interest. Conversely, as it fails to achieve the desired effect from the deletionist point of view, what is the point of insisting on maintaining a misleading

5907:

What you put in the article is neither what you first proposed nor the modified version I suggested. You have to specify exactly what you're going to put in before you do so. I'm reverting the changes you made. Place further comments or exact proposals about the crystal ball section in the

3029:

Despite my being an anti-voting crusader I like the supplementary line myself (well, I guess I ought to, or else I'd just have been trolling ;-))—because polls are indeed conducted, all the time, and we might as well spell out for those who are wondering just what they are and how they should

9962:

of the other wiki-efforts and why they have failed? Have you done any academic readings on why Knowledge is one of the very few successes? Again and again, the researchers attribute our survival to our community commitment to one goal - the creation of an encyclopedia. Yes, we are in some

7958:

One major annoyance I have with Knowledge is linkspam, as well as long lists of mediocre-quality external links at the end of articles. I believe the length of external link lists should be limited and include only a small number of the highest-quality, reputable, and informative websites.

5282:

Thanks. Sorry to have jumped in independently. You seem to be coordinating this, so... The most important thing to me is to have a special mention of a category of articles which present special problems, which you've done above. Can you think of some concise wording that expresses two of my

3635:

Oh, I mean a message aimed at the disruptive, not the confused. My point is some folks disrupt and then when they are called on it they like to drain resources by bogging people down in discussion about what they are doing is really appropriate or not. Some expect to be put on some kind of

7040:

I read back in the archives to see when this section was added (originally "wikipedia is not a general knowledge base") and it seems while there were people agreeing on the draft, no one actually discussed what the bullet points MEANT. There are tons of lists and categories on wikipedia on

5052:

I would rather it be rephrased as, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the success and future developments of proposals and protects, provided that discussion is properly cited. It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis, because of

4613:

Because people are lazy. I'm not making them use the word "notable", they do that of their own accord (and in fact lots of people do that, implying the word makes perfect logical sense to lots of people). People use words like "fancruft" all the time as well, and I wish they wouldn't, but I

1105:

I don't like this proposal at all. If an article is difficult, the remedy is to add an accessible introduction, not to remove the difficult material. Print encyclopedias have continuously dumbed themselves down to reach a high-school-student market, but we shouldn't. Take a look at the 1911

9899:

Earlier on this page, someone points out that part of the "Knowledge is not paper" section is confusing. And it is. I've tried to clarify by pointing out that Knowledge content is always encyclopedic, but not necessarily exactly what would appear in Britannica or World Book. Right now, the

9538:

In order to encourage the use of the Wikisaurus category at Wiktionary, clarify what Knowledge is not, and give the Knowledge better protection against entries that do not take the form of an encyclopedia entry, I think it would be a good idea to change the working from "Knowledge is not a

9183:

I agree with Leflyman's proposal and with The Literate Engineer's take. However, I'd also like to note that this is something I think is particularly important to state specifically. From games to movies to TV series, the line between what is crufty fan-site material and what is "essential

7212:

How does it do that? It is used to demean articles, and frequently deletionists who use it misrepresent the actual state of play, eg by implying that articles about future films are illegitimate when there are many of them. The phrasing is an attempt to bias the policy towards deletionism.

1119:

The way I see it, no information should ever be removed from Knowledge because it is too academic or complicated or inaccessible. Instead, the information should be made accessible, by whatever means necessary. That may include linking to more basic articles, explaining terms as they are

9058:

You're quite right in that much of the proposed addition is connected to established policies-- as is nearly everything in "What Knowledge is Not." For example, The first two sections, "Not a paper encyclopedia" and "Not a dictionary", merit expansion on their own separate policy pages.

4547:

I don't think it's about semantics at all, and I don't think there is any agreed upon definition of notability. Why is it that everything in the actual guidelines or policy is always claimed to be a synonym of notability, and people never actually reference the real guidelines or policy?

3752:

definition of bureaucracy as "a system of administration marked by constant striving for increased functions and power, by lack of initiative and flexibility, by indifference to human needs or public opinion, and by a tendency to defer decisions to superiors or to impede action with red

8882:

BTW, you opinion that we should only cover 10% of all information on a topic reveals a real disagreement. I believe we should have both broad and deep coverage (verified, neutral and sourced, of course). We shouldn't stop at 10% just because traditional encyclopedias ran out of paper.

8417:

The section was probably removed because of its triviality in its past form. the real problem is not that two wikipedians exchange opinions, but lengthy political rants and discussions of irrelevant things at talk pages. You are welcome to formulate the "not chat" section based on the

10281:"Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." 856:

the world's largest collection of "general knowledge". Virtually ever subject which might be asked about in a general knowledge quiz is covered by Knowledge. The section simply doesn't mean what its title implies it means and at the same time the main point about trivia is obscured.

7647:

I'm seeing a lot of new entries where it appears that a company representative cut-and-pastes the company's history and mission statement, with a link. The mission statement has a lot of POV/marketing language. For now, I've been using the following blurb on the poster's talk page:

904:

You're reading it wrong. It should read Knowledge is not a general "knowledge base", rather than Knowledge is not a "general knowledge" base. A knowledge base is anything that provides some form of information. General is used as the antonym of specific. I.E. if Knowledge was a

7938:

In consideration of this, I'll reinstate my change; please feel free to return to the original version or otherwise modify it, but not to "sometimes", as that had been obviously introduced by accident and is clearly against the spirit that has prevailed here for over three years.

2008:

1492:

WIth regard to "other" articles, they're irrelevant. There's no exact line between what's encyclopedic and what's not, so there's inconsistency about how borderline articles are handled. If you see an article that is obviously advertising, you should nominate it for deletion. Do

5575:'s energy needs" is not sufficiently important for this page. By all means offer such detailed advice on a particular page advising how to talk about expected future events, but on this a policy rather than advisory page it is a unnecessary addition to an already too long page. 8742:

is what we're trying to eke out. The problem with "notable" is in it being a protean word, which neither "side" of the debate can define satisfactorily. Perhaps we need a different word altogether, that doesn't fall into the subjective morass of whether something is (or isn't)

1206:"Soapbox" is a word that is not well understood by all English speakers in the sense that it's being used there. Also, there are items of two sorts in this list: outright propaganda, which is blatant abuse, and earnest critical thinking which is easy for newcomers to get into. 10502:

Perhaps the Zen of non-democratic policy is a Shangri-la. There is already overwhelming and demonstrated consensus for elections in the choice of Admins, ArbCom, RfD, etc ... Is it here suggested that truth ought to be vetted through the filter of popularity? What is - is. It

8931:

On the other hand, while I'm aesthetically attracted to having threads of articles which spiral into progressively more obscure and (globally) insignificant topics, I don't think it conveys quite the level of professionalism that WP is trying to present. Image is important. —

7738:

I detest this kind of article as much as you do, but personally I don't think it is actually company representatives that are doing this. I think it is a kind of "fan" activity, rather like wearing a T-shirt advertising a beer one identifies with, or a theme park, or a sports

7223:

That may be true, but the lack of it would mean that users could create articles on stuff that is not even close to happening yet with little factual information in them. It should be made clear in Knowledge policy that Knowledge is not the place for speculation and rumor. --

4198:

or censored. Knowledge can still continue to be the way it is, and more by offering differing versions of itself in content, format, and delivery even as read-only. I don't think this is too much to ask if a good information management system can easily provide this. See also

6461:

trilogy" would be better, but we could probably do even better than that). Phenomenons such as "the virtual sequels project," which last I checked appeared to have aborted, could be included as well. I'm not sure a separate article is really the right way to do it, though.

5446:'s energy needs," despite official statements to that effect. It is necessary, but not sufficient to qualify such statements with words like "claimed" or "promised" or "expected." A positive effort must be made to insure that the presentation is neutral and not promotional. 945:

Yes. Many of our scientific articles are inpenetrable to 99% of people. The 1% who can read them, probably have access to texts and journals - and they will be there first point of call, not an encyclopaedia. We should write to a level that people can actually understand...

7131:

Here are all the references to "crystal ball" I could find on AfD in the past few days. Note that this includes every one in the period I examined; I didn't omit any, and just went back from today until I thought I'd collected enough to serve as a representitive sample.

5936:

Individual scheduled or expected future events, should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include

4746: 7998:

necessarily be POV, so you would exclude that? While I understand the thrust of what you're trying to do, and agree that NPOV links should be regarded more highly than POV links, I also think that excluding POV links by rote could be very damaging to the Knowledge. —

7744:

A very common response to such articles is for people to vote them for deletion (properly) as "advertising," and for the article creator insist that they are not advertising because they are not connected with the company and do not make any money from publicizing it.

2115:

People have suggested in the past that voting only in the wikipedia namespace would be an ok idea (Quickpolls, IIRC (inaptly named too!) ). That too was shown to be fallacious, as quickpolls style voting quickly colonised the main namespace, and had to be stamped out.

1551:, WP:IAR is not a license to moon everyone - it's a plea for common sense. That's not the same as saying there are no rules, it's asking that people resolve things by discourse rather than by rigidly adhering to writ-in-stone rules... and what the addition is about. -- 10247:

Many things that happen around here, it seems like a no-brainer that they shouldn't. We can only wonder if that means many people around here have no brains. On the topical note, seems like this was already covered in part of "what the Knowledge community is not".

9657:

best (such as NewBandX ever releasing anything). I think that, generally, AfD tends to remove articles that deal with things that we do not currently have any stable information on. In the case of a film, this might be a stable and known cast-list, or to know that it

590:

for changes very often. I know that if I'd noticed such a rule had been added by someone, I'd have removed it too. I think most of us, for good or ill, read a page like this once, and then, once we understand what Knowledge is for, we never go back and check again.

4339:

is a commentary on content. To a lesser degree, it is a commentary on process. In both cases, it is a reinforcement of our primary mission - to create an encyclopedia. The page you suggest linking to is a style guide. While useful, I don't think it fits well on

1033:

restricted to academics, are. We really should be encouraging people to write articles that everyone can understand. Yes, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, but that should be as far as possible in favour of making as many articles accessible to all as possible,

876:

I also agree. By most people's definition a "general knowledge base" is exactly what Knowledge is. Perhaps the section should be "Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information," which is a phrase already used in the section's introduction. -

6858:. Whenever he has something he wants to explain to readers like a complex mathematical principal or something, he adds a link to the appropriate wikipedia article. I've hear it said by users that wikipedia is not in fact an encyclopedia. I think a section like " 931:

subjects should be written about and be sourced from academic texts, but we should not replicate academic wording. Writing about a complicated subject in a way that the general public can understand it is a very fulfilling thing. Albert Einstein did it with his

10276:

You're right, it's not in the community section, and actually, I should've been thinking "Not a soapbox" instead of the community section. Actually, what if under "Not a propaganda machine", in 1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind, we change the wording from

4194:

majority who are offended by certain content which is why traditional encyclopaedies do this well. However, I also appreciate that Knowledge strives to be free from external pressure to give accuracy and freedom in its content. So I do not wish Knowledge to be

4047:

Yes, yes, there are various opinions on what is offensive. It does not mean you can not continue to post up "offensive" material. It is used to contain "offensive" material for forks and mirrors as a different version so minors and others can use Knowledge. --

9631:

So where is the line in the sand? I understand that when a project is yet to be confirmed that it shouldn't have an article, but when it is definitely happening, I would suggest that that is when we should allow it. What is the ruling? What do other think?

10425:

I proposed that the following list of clear exceptions be added to the section asserting that wikipedia is not a democracy so that newcomers are not intentionally mislead into the false allusion that in fact voting isn't how everything meaningful is decided.

9717:

storage of non-encyclopedic entries such as grocery lists, notes to self, etc. You seem to have unlimited bandwidth ,and all kinds of pages get deleted anyways. If I would have put it on my home page instead of a seperate entry it probably wouldn't have been

6821:

page is a collection of castle images sorted by country with links to the appropriate pages for each castle. The page was nominated for deletion on the grounds that it is a collection of images. I and a few others feel that such a page actually serves as a

8055:

the links to the talk page and add my comments (delete, keep, maybe, ... and why). I left that on talk for more than enough time for others to weigh in with their opinions. No one did, though. A couple weeks later, I got around to finishing off this task.

7041:

everything (like all the "list of all software of this type" lists), but no criteria on what would qualify them as "directories." There's also the whole host of rambot and school articles which would be a "directory" as well, but those are included anyway.

8991:, but rather the tone and nature of coverage, and the audience for which it's written. The problem with a 'fansite' article is that it is useless to someone who doesn't already know about the subject. An encyclopedia article is written for the non-expert. 7523:, but it didn't really help. If the word "important" were used, we would simply have the same debates; people would just say, "Delete, unimportant," "Keep, important," and argue about whether "importance" is a valid organizing principle for an encyclopedia. 6263:. I don't like the particular example, either ("setting realistic deadlines improves an employee's performance") because at least one academic study found that programmer productivity was twice as high when no deadlines were set as when deadlines were set. 2111:

experimented with voting in the past. See if you can track down the old arbcom voting procedures. We've discovered that voting is typically a really bad idea. (see also: the (trivial) example above where an incorrect conclusion of fact is reached, based on

9469:, of course) seems to substantiate the quote on top of that page: "Policy pages such as "What Knowledge is not" are, for the most part, the opinions of just a few important people." Even if that's true, I don't think we should so dramatically prove it. -- 6632:

Now, what do we mean by "some segment of humanity?" You dodge this. The topic of a vanity biography is of enormous interest to "some" segment of humanity, namely one person, and in most cases of "some" interest to that person's couple of hundred personal

9828:

People do argue from a sense of urgency, however, from time to time. I can't quite tell what your point is: that we shouldn't include this section because while you agree with it, it's obvious? Or we shouldn't include it because you don't agree with it?

9623:

is confirmed to be in production and has its own IMDB database entry, with the specifics yet to be released, but is due to be released in 2006. Yet for reasons that I don't understand, it is going to be deleted. So where is the line in the sand there?

3159:

I'm a minor in my country, but I can moderate what I see myself as needed. I require no external bodies to censor themselves for me, and don't think I have the right to ask them to do so. I don't think Knowledge should censor for anyone. To do so is

3845:

again after he re-added the werehouses thing and "cited" it with a link to a "Research Paper" that actually pointed to the Illinois Movers and Warehousemen's Association. I'm new to Knowledge, what's the procedure for dealing with a user like this?

4523:

You're arguing semantics. "Must have a claim to fame" is roughly synonymous to notability. Please realize that most of your actions against the term seem based on the fact that you're using a different definition of "notability" than most people do.

884:

The phrase is misleading. Coming from the B-road debate I would prefer something like "Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of data". An encyclopedia is not a heap of data but a digest, it is data that has been distilled into information .

6230:

First of all, let me apologize for being so brash and not discussing this entry first! My motivation for including "Truisms" were a number of articles that were voted for deletion simply for being "unencyclopedic", but without further explanation.

5328:

If you mean the most recent version proposed in this talk section, with the advertising sentence at the end, I'm fine with it as well. We should leave it up here for a while before putting it in the main article to give others a chance to look.

7903:

It would be very interesting to know why that wording was changed at all. This is one of our central policy pages and I really wonder how such an important change can occur without receiving much discussion. I'll try to find out more about this.

6962:

It is supposed to be somewhat offputting, in the sense that it should lead to the section being quoted less often than it is now. I suppose collection could replace repository. But repository is not a technical term or jargon as you imply it is.

998:

This doesn't mean jargon shouldn't be used at all. Reading about it here helps by giving you terms to search for if you're doing more research on the subject. IMO we should use scientific wording if we can, but clearly explain it to the layman.-

4172:

Any category or tag used to mark some of wikipedia's content as offensive is inherently PoV and should be promptly deleted. A "stealth version" that is not redily visible in the tagged articles is even worse than an onply visible version, IMO.

3140: 9627:

There was another article about "the world's biggest rollercoaster" that was again being built, and was confirmed that when it is completed, estimated early 2007, it will be the biggest rollercoaster in the world - and that article was kept.

3279:

to be censored or not, because every user's community has different cultural ideas about what it is ok for minors to see, versus what needs to be hidden from them, different people will have different ideas of what we are claiming if we said

6357:

This also means you don't have to redirect one topic to a not fully equivalent topic that is of more common usage. A "See also" section that states further information on the topic is available on the page of a closely related topic may be

1497:

try to use borderline articles as a justification for inserting other borderline articles, or for expanding the borderline; it's like asking a judge to revoke a speeding ticket because the cop didn't stop other cars that were going faster.

10582:

Benjamin, please familiarize yourself with Knowledge process before making comments such as these. Of the six processes you mentioned, only two can be considered democratic, and at least one of those has a mitigating factor. A third often

8844:"didn't care". I do think it is a goal of an encyclopedia to create new interest where none may have existed before. Your core argument - that an encyclopedia can not and should not attempt to include all possible data - is persuasive. 8403:

without much explanation. This should be returned to an appropriate place in the policy, as it is an important clarification of why general chit-chat is not appropriate, even on Talk pages, and is likewise thus referenced in the guideline

7760: 2959:

Hm. This is more like it. If we must, perhaps a sentence clarifying the role of polls: "In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes."

1988:

It's simply incorrect that majority voting is not permitted. It may not be used often but is allowed and is used. Consider all of our elections(i.e. Board, Arbitration Committee...) as well as the Criteria for Speedy Deletion recently.

8737:

While this may not be the place, I'd like to float the proposition that the word "notable" is at fault. We get tied up in the semantic construct of what it means to be "of note." It's a difficulty with strict definitionalism, whereas the

7402:

But we already have guidelines on source material - no one is advocating that we should put large amount of source material here, it goes in WikiSource. Is there a problem that this is supposed to address, or just more instruction creep?

1795:

deleted some text explaining how VfD does not constitute democracy in the strict sense because we don't go strictly by a majority vote. I think we should add back some text along those lines, modified to meet objections; something like:

2389:

I apologize. You're probably right(given that you have been on the Committee, which I didn't know when I made that comment). You should explain it to me some time. However, there are still other binding votes, like for the CSD issue.

6399:

I propose the section be taken out -- it seems apppropriate that some Knowledge articles do give what can easily be construed as advise or how-to information, that describe a process. Strong objection to the addition of this section.

5287:

danger, in that promoters have an obvious interest in publicizing such information; therefore much of the information publicly available about such products is likely to have originated from promoters and to reflect the promoters' POV.

4177:

device used to mark some content as offensive is PoV, and unless we adopt a policy by consensus explicitly allowing some such device and creating standards and procedures on how to use it (which I don't expect) any such device violates

7368:

nothing but a series of texts of Kipling's verse, say, would not be a copyvio, because they texts are all PD by now, but it still wouldn't be a proper article. Nor do we want pages that are only the texts of Shakespear's sonnets, say.

6939:

about the future. The number of articles about the future is in four figures, but some people still seem to think that this section implies forward looking articles should automatically be deleted. They are being misled by the title.

4182:. Any fork is free to select or edit wikipedia's content to its own stndards, but it will have to do that without our assistance. That is why all three versions of the template, and the category that they use are all up for deletion. 2173:

rather than policy pages (until the recent conlangs policy debate sparked by somone nominating a bunch of conlangs for deletion back in July). So I admit I don't know all there is to know about Knowledge policy. Y'all hash it out.

1624:, which is in itself, is an evolutionary byproduct of democracy, and is close enough to it to be considered a close cousin since both sociocracy and traditional democracy depend on the "will of the people", if only in different ways. 8070:

But, should I come across other articles for the first time and see a long list of links... (1) it ain't useful to me (2) it's tedious to go through and weed out the bad ones. — if more people helped out, it could be done quicker.

8064:

editors (I and others) are always keeping on top of it, as you suggest. When someone adds linkspam, I also check their edit history and take care of linkspam they put elsewhere. That's ideal to deal with external links as they are

5398:

I don't like it. It's valid to report the claim of what will be done. However, you can also include other sources' opinions that it will not be done. The kind of independent verification you specify is very difficult in practice.

4937:

No, that does not sound reasonable. We do not generally vote on changes to anything, including templates, and if a vote is called, consensus does not have to be unanimity. I would like to hear which templates you're talking about.

1695:

The addition of "majoritarian" isn't needed. The line "Knowledge is not a democracy" is intended as a simple statement about certain ways of behavior; it is not inteded to be following formal definitions used in political science.

7925:, however the rewording of the introductory phrase that made sense only with the rewritten version was not. Thereafter, the text has remained essentially unchanged until now. The matter does not seem to have been discussed on the 4883:. And should probably be tagged as such. Many of our policies are in supplemented by guidelines - such as the fact that we have Naming Conventions (which is policy) and the wording of individual conventions (which are guidelines). 1021:

should be made as accessible as possible, some subjects simply do not lend themselves to being fully understood by everyone. Numerous math and science articles would fit this description, and if you'd like an example try reading

1654:, it has the word "unanimity" in its definition, which gives me the idea that a procedural action on Knowledge, such as deleting an article or promoting someone to the status of administrator, must have the support of everyone— 5620:

50/50 chance of happening, but unless it does no one will be affected? What about possible earthquakes in major cities? Very uncertain when they will happen. Certainly not on schedule. Might be considered important nonetheless

10000:

want Knowledge to be an encyclopedia... but try to obfuscate the issue by trying, like Humpty-Dumpty, to redefine the word to mean "that which I want Knowledge to be." As evidence, I present this exchange from a current AfD:

3879:, maybe that will help defuse things. I can't say I'm too hopeful, though... I've never seen blatant vandalism done to a forum by a non-newbie in this manner that wasn't the intentional work of someone acting as a dedicated 2629:

a binding vote. You may wish that it had not been(which I can understand) or believe the outcome was a debacle. However, regardless, that is the form the decision took. On this page, we are trying to explain how Knowledge

2319:

now binding votes(or elections). Jimbo does not select people using his judgement. The Arbitrators are chosen directly through voting. He has the right to dissolve the Committee completely, but has never used that right.

10218:

I think it would be useful to discuss both those issues, although I admit that I'm motivated by having seen people use this clause as justification for several lists that I believe should not be a part of the Knowledge.

3096:

To me consensus and democracy are synonymous. If you mean that 51% majority isn't necessarily a "consensus", there are many cases where democracies require a supermajority, such as when changing a nation's Constitution.

10091:

because Wikisource is currently contemplating deleting all mathematical and astronomical tables (including expansions of transcendental numbers, tables of logarithms, ephemerides, and so forth) and all source code. See

6538: 8216:

If it was a magnet for neologisms, I don't see that as a reason for deletion of an entire informative article, but rather a reason for challenging the neologisms that were added. It's like saying we should delete the

8132:

I would like to see the reference to "A usage guide, or slang and idiom guide." revised to allow comparative/grouping articles of slang, but continue to disapprove (generally) of individual articles for such things. —

5283:

concerns: first, all statements about the future are necessarily opinions and need to be handled as such (hence subject to NPOV, citing sources, etc.); second, forward-looking articles about unreleased products have a

3275:

break the foundation principle, that any visitor can edit any page (and don't have to register). In the situation where anyone can edit any page, how do we tell if some piece of text or imagery is bad enough that it

2504:

I agree that most issues should be resovled through discussions. However, Knowledge requires and uses voting to resolve a small minority of issues, some of which are important. That should not be ignored completely.

1517:

not as procedural guides (which is what "bureaucracy" implies), but as things with force of law. Hence, "In particular, Knowledge is not a system of law." Thoughts on this? Should it even be necessary as a reminder? --

10139:. For new users who discover WP:NOT first, it's a way to tell that that we are not overwhelmingly negative - that we do have a positive approach. I'm inclined to ask to put the reference back in. Other thoughts? 8308:, that's almost outside my request here, as that "consensus" was decided with a slight majority vote, which almost nobody would reasonably see as a true consensus. I believe there is full legal standing to undelete 8221:

article because it attracts vast amounts of vandalism. Just because contributors cannot keep up with verifying newly added content does not constitute an argument for "throwing out the baby with the bath water." —

7462: 4864: 3988:

reads like a travel guide. I've started an edit, but came here for guidance and didn't see what I was looking for. Sections such as "Getting to Siem Reap" and "Tourist information" don't seem to fit. Any takers?

6915: 3153: 8350:'d to Wiktionary and a cross-link provided in the appropriate Knowledge article. There are of course some exceptions but the vast majority of such lists that I've reviewed really would fit better in Wiktionary. 4642: 2137:

distinguish between a poll and a vote? I am unable to determine your criteria from context. As for VFD and other "votes" pages, no consensus has yet been reached to rename VFD. Please do not imply otherwise.

9665:

verifiable to put in the article, and media speculation isn't really encyclopedia material (imo). So I think the only way to handle such potential crystalball articles is to consider them one at a time in AfD.

8511:

is mentioned in that article only by name. As noted in the policy, "Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information." Eric is right, a statement about "Notability" is appropriate to this policy. —

2557:

majority rule, and certainly does not mean plurality rule. For example, when a sysop is needed to close a debate, they will use the stated opinions and comments to evaluate consensus opinion, if there is any.

1578:

into 'structured list' and the link was changed from a guideline page to another page (created by the person making the change). I did not see a discussion of this edit. Is it actually backed by consensus?

1436:

oneself to be more important than one actually is). Of course it would be ludicrous to suggest that the CEO of Google wrote the entry on Google because otherwise no-one would visit his site. Hope this helps.

792:

Why not? Contributing to a public work is certainly a therapy of sorts. A person should feel good about improving Knowledge, and anything that makes a person feel better about theirself can be therapeutic.

4503:

Memorials. It's sad when people die, but Knowledge is not the place to honor them. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives.

9317:

Fan data is most of the time the same as historical data, as long as they don't add rumors, or half truths, Getting fans to give information about their favorite artists is a very good source for authors.

5873:, should only be included if the event is notable. If planning or preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 5570:

I think it is going too far and is unnecessary. The difference between "The tower's designers say that 20% of the Freedom Tower will be powered by wind turbines" and "Wind turbines will provide 20% of the

3239: 2906:

discussion and consensus-seeking. As part of this course-correction, we need to return the wording of this page to it's old wording and intent. Looking at the history, I see that this change was made in

2827:"1 a : a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision; especially : one given as an indication of approval or disapproval of a proposal, motion, or candidate for office " 6275:

I would agree to including this entry. It would cover many of the things seen in speedy deletions as well as some non-encyclopedic entries on VfD. No harm in telling users what is not a good article. -

3316: 1487:

on-line sports game, or something like that? Any celebrities that have complained in interviews that they're not getting their work done because they spend too much time online playing Ice Hockey Manager?

4507:

Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of fame, achievement, or perhaps notoriety. One measure of achievement is whether someone has been featured in several external sources (on or

3370:

It would be a good idea, but you really can't genralize. If it's out of wikipedia and her sister projects, even if it's inspired by Knowledge, it can be anything, so long as it's editable by the public.

3341: 2634:, rather than decide how it should be. It would be wrong to imply that Knowledge never has binding votes when it in fact does. If you disagree with my assertion that it was a vote, please explain why. 2583:

I don't like that. Binding votes do exist on Knowledge, and are appropriate in some instances. We should discourage unnecessary voting, but that version goes too far in condemning all votes and polls.

2169:'s position seems to be more of a fringe position -- I've never seen this vehement insistence on poll rather than vote before -- but until fairly recently I've been mainly involved in, you know, editing 325: 9900:

explanation of this section really only has to do with article length and depth, not with subject matter. The second paragraph deals with subject matter is opaque. I tried to make it less so by adding:

9689:. Then verifiable material about the planning/pre-production/goverment grant/whatever can go in an appropiate article, there's no "crystal ball" as we're discussing things that are actually happening. 7084:

It was renamed after an entirely properly process, stood for some time and was then reverted rather quickly. It is needlessly provocative and, as explained before, seriously misleading as wikipedia has

6242:

Moon Time refers to the time experienced by a visitor to the Moon. Relativistic gravitational effects cause time to pass slower on the moon. Austronauts must adjust their equipment to adapt to moon time

4237:

the same as "traditional" encyclopedias, nor does anyone want it to be. You may claim(perhaps genuinely), that you don't want censorship. However, just as US studios censor themselves to maintain low

3738:

definition of bureaucracy is "systematic administration characterized by specialization of functions, objective qualifications for office, action according to fixed rules, and a hierarchy of authority".

4105: 2101:

Actually, you twiddled all the bits, except the bits that were actually confusing in the first place. As stated above, vote==majority vote==not permitted, poll==opinion poll==(bad, but what can we do?)

9553: 7963:), sorted through them (a tedious process) to only find 6 links that were truly informative and worthy. How do we expect readers to discern those 6 informative references out of such a lengthy list? 6741:

You continue to make that assertion that "notability just means 'what I like'" ignoring the fact that many of us (and based on my own analysis of the way the term is used, the vast majority of us) do

258:

Knowledge policy is formulated for the most part by consensus. This consensus may be reached through open debate over difficult questions, or it may simply develop as a result of established practice.

3149:

you don't know how many of these hits are being made by minors. We're people too, you know, and just because we may not be able to vote or other such things doesn't mean we should be ignored here. --

837: 4876:

Deletion precedents is a list of samples of 'common sense', as affirmed by what usually happens in the community. It consists mostly of sliding gray areas, as common sense seldom deals in absolutes.

4704: 4692: 9453:

I don't think it should be here either. It might be useful if it were an actual essay (like the fascinating pages I keep stumbling across in Uncle G's userspace), but it's just a list of quotes. —

9275:

I support LeFlyman's proposal, strongly; I believe that "not a fan site" deserves to get special policy mention, after seeing the constant barrage of fan-like material getting added/deleted on the

9098: 8346:

Personally, I think that such lists are far more lexical than encyclopedic. They fit only poorly in Knowledge but tend to fit very well in Wiktionary. I would argue that they should generally be

1201: 7513: 6648:

So, while I endorse the first paragraph and think it might do some good, I think the second is yet another failed attempt to cut the Gordian knot of "notability/importance" and is better omitted.

2835:" 4 a (1) : the casting or recording of the votes of a body of persons (2) : a counting of votes cast b : the place where votes are cast or recorded -- usually used in plural <at the polls: --> 8695:. Your prediction is likewise circular reasoning: "we can have no consensus because I do not agree with others who believe in notability, therefore we shall never have consensus on notability." — 5814:

you should give several days for people from around the community to comment. Four hours doesn't suffice. Also, propose changes in specific terms, so that people know what they're discussing.

895: 7202:

Yes, it does not imply that you cannot write about the future only that your own speculation doesn't belong. I really think you're over-stating it being "confrontational" or somehow offensive.

6994: 6943: 6533: 10469:

nothing: your only prior edit to this page in weeks had nothing to do with that. What you did was make an unproposed & undiscussed (and thus invalid) edit to a page that lists policies.

9154:

I hope that we will hold all topics to the same standard. Broad, deep coverage of science, art, literature and pop culture, all, of course, rigorously verified and sourced should be our goal.

5718:

Weakly disagree with "no instructions" policy itself. The section heading, "Knowledge is not instructive," seems to me to be almost an argument against the policy in itself. Let's try putting

9533: 2984:

Yes, returning to the old wording would be ideal. I'd be happy with that wording to a supplementary comment, too, if people feel that it is needed, though to me it seems a trifle unnecessary.

9606: 5981:

Some future events, especially natural ones, like eclipses or the return of Haley's Comet, are highly predictable and should be listed even if no "planning" for the event has yet occurred.

1261: 714:(partly reprinted below) contains admissions of mental instability and your use of Knowledge as a form of therapy. Perhaps you should consider banning yourself for the sake of Knowledge. -- 10563:

other editors. And elections and other decisions are by consensus, not by majority vote, and however frustrating that is to me on certain issues, I really would like to see it succeed. --

8192:

I saw it. I recommended deleting it. It was a magnet for people who wanted to legitimize their own neologisms. Vulgarity bothers me not at all, but non-verifiability is another story.

7971:. I expanded on "What should not be included in external links" and welcome discussion on these ideas. Maybe we could use these to improve the "official" Knowledge external link policy. 2279:, obviously. No, it doesn't say the word "banned", because in general we used to expect our editors to show rather greater level of better judgement than we've learnt we are able to do so. 9322: 8033:

For semi-useful links, you can add a one-sentence description if one isn't provided. A description can be neutral and yet give guidance as to which links the reader will want to follow.

7890:

I don't have any problem with the version you changed it to. However, others might, and they deserve a chance to weigh in. If no one objects after a week or so, feel free to add it in.

7170:

policy), but I don't see any evidence that it's the significent problem you claim. Judging from the number of times above where it is brought up in clear delete cases, though, I think it

264:

Here's some discussion and established practice from the project itself, not some outside communications not all users participate in, and definatly more recent than last February --: -->

10497: 10477: 5519:

I've taken it back out. The second proposed version was only on the talk page for one day. Give it about a week. Then, you can put it in and no one will have any grounds to complain.

3592: 9866:

means. And remember that the first impressions we give to new users matter, so don't suppose that saying "we're not on a deadline" is carte-blanche to allow rotten articles to fester. -

9728:

Our last bill for bandwidth was a quarter million dollars. Our next bill is projected to be higher. If you'd care to write a check, we will gladly allow you to store your grocery list.

8946: 7716: 4076: 10326: 9304: 9241: 8981: 7929:. Note that my version of yesterday was slightly different, but I'll be happy to revert to the original version (the one that we had before March) unless there are serious objections. 10335:

Well, if it makes things clearer, then it should stay. After all, we do see quite a lot of people going round 'posting' in wrong 'forums' when they are merely adding sections to the

8645:

policy itself: "ust because some information is verifiable, doesn't mean that Knowledge is the right place to publish it." It's specifically differentiated in the criteria guideline "

2199:

If you seriously think that Kim's position is "fringe", I am both desperately disappointed and rather surprised. Kim is absolutely correct: we don't do binding polls (called "votes")

3303:

edition of Knowledge, it would need to be a read-only version frozen in time based on stable revisionins of articles, and careful review by some exceptional censors. (The ability to

10259:

Agreed, no brainer, yet has become the most common activity on Knowledge. I don't think it was adequately covered in the Community section. At least, the evidence says otherwise. —

10223: 7800:

And yet, despite these frantic efforts, Knowledge has not transcended its stigma, and the quality of content has not increased. However, a lot of former Wikipedians have departed.

6602: 6368: 5924: 2351:

Look, I think of anyone I'd know about how Arbitrator elections are conducted. :-) You're wrong, FWIW, but this is not the place for this discussion. Thanks for your input, however.

958:

The purpose of the introduction is to give a layman the general idea of what the article is about. For the rest of it, jargon and technical language are acceptable (within reason).

660:

Good, sounds like there is no probblem then, just move recipes there and link to them. I support this addition as long as it is made cear that recipes should be moved, not deleted.

9291: 6013:. While informative articles on video games are appropriate( in some opinions, I realize this is also debated), strategies for getting through specific sections or beating certain 3396:

article and you'll see what I'm talking about. I don't mind having links to rescue relief wikis, lost persons message boards, but am I the only one who thinks this is excessive? --

10511: 10460: 7642: 6789:

is a proposal to explicitly make "notability" a requirement for Knowledge articles, and to explicitly include "lack of notability" as a reason for deleting articles. Please visit

4439:

What this means is: let's keep it descriptive, rather than prescriptive. Knowledge has evolved fairly successfully because of its userbase, who alone decide what Knowledge is. --

1100: 7272: 3670:

Noone has to engage in any discussions, but policing those who violate policies is still necessary. Such policing usually involves interacting with the violator to some extent.

3175:

Are minors ignored here in the wikipedia? They shouldn't be. I don't know of any wikipedia policies that discriminate by age. Anyways, what does that have to do with censorship?

1113: 1069: 10487: 10387: 9678: 7668:

companies is fine, as long as they are written in an objective style. It is not acceptable to cut-and-paste directly from the company's website (unless the copyright issues are

6934:"All forward looking articles must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." 6925: 6684:

When it comes to "cutting the Gordian knot of importance/notability", guilty as charged. :) I have no objection to keeping vanity articles out, and such. Regarding articles on

1538: 781: 699:. — How's that? I'm thinking of it for the sort of disruptive idiot who is actually insane and considers it our responsibility to deal with that; we've had many real examples - 112: 10056: 8970:

trivia; speculations on future events; archiving multiple promotional images; and chat-room like commentary on Talk pages (as I mentioned above). A note that Knowledge is not "

7268: 3266:

rules, certain language is not allowed to stay. Moreover, there may be censorship of content according to the desires of the community and editors of the page. The statement

1145: 9158: 8960: 8838: 8334: 8324: 8279: 8261: 301: 10369: 9137: 8271:

should do is describe what (in this case) the type of slang is, why it's used, and who uses it, which isn't what the entry was, but not to compile a list of examples - which

8246: 7777:

Thanks for the great suggestions. I'll definitely include the 'inclusion guidelines' next time as well. I'll work on the wording a bit and come up with a template proposal.

4486: 939: 10076: 6350: 3288:

to do any censorship, Knowledge would be opening up a can of worms, possibly opening itself up to action, if the measures taken to censorship weren't drastic enough so that

1209:

Since this page is an important reference for new users, which I am of, I suggest clarifying the topic by breaking up the section heading "Knowledge is not a soapbox" into:

925: 718: 147: 10203:

I'm concerned about that final third of a sentence in Section 1.5.2, "and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles." I have two concerns about it:

2721:

Kim meant exactly what policy distinguishes a vote is a binding poll, whereas we only have non-binding, "straw" polls. It's really quite simple. And BTW, Kim is a "he". :-)

398:

Nod. I really agree with this comment you made. A non-policy guide might be a useful way to avoid tipping in these areas. You found exactly the right words. Thank you :-)

9619:

I have noticed that occasionally future projects are acceptable to make pages on, so long as they fulfil certain criteria. So what are the precise critera? For example,

9415: 9389: 9376:- is there a place for "example articles of what wikipedia is not" somewhere? I don't support this proposal, but I wondered if anyone had heard of such a concept. Thanks 9192: 8996:

My concern for listing this in WWIN is that it will add legitimacy to the 'delete, fancruft' crowd. Fancruft generally needs merging and intensive editing, not deletion.

8936: 8626: 8617: 7975: 7075:

often misunderstood and could use some clarification, it's important to keep the snappy old version so it can be easily quoted in the places where it does indeed apply. --

6442: 3529:

Absolutely not. Any information relevant to the article's topic and notable should be included. If it's not relevant and notable, people already know not to include it.

1193: 321: 10100: 9732: 8851: 6344: 5923:

It was somewhat more softly worded. Today, as so many days, a debate in which the crystal ball argument has been used is going overwhelmingly in favour of retention (see

5390: 4370: 348:

portion of articles in question. Editors commenting on edits involving these matters ought to avoid making statement that imply that there is consensus or policy on them.

10354: 9051: 7311: 6713:

I think the bar is, if anything too low on many topics. In any case, whereever we set the bar, i think some level of notability is essential to an encyclopedia article.

5743:

I oppose the merge, on the grounds that some how-to content can sometimes be very useful even necessary for a complete discussion of a subject or procedure, beyond what

4931: 4142:

I find your endeavor to be misguided. If an organization wants to fork/bowdlerize/mirror/etc Knowledge, that's fine. The GFDL allows that. However, we're here to create

10636: 10383:" Certainly makes a stronger point when you put it that way - I would agree with almost anything if not agreeing meant that my brain would be vaporized by a tautology. 10252: 9776: 9585: 9563: 7339: 6193: 4009: 3479:

Sorry to interrupt, but a wiki-pet-peeve of mine is people using bullets * when they should use colons : to indent on talk pages. Sorry... had to get that off my chest

10406: 9682: 7731: 7321: 3179: 1156: 8887: 8631:

Realize that you will have to come to an agreement with me and people who have similar views in order to reach consensus on "notability". It simply isn't possible. —

7781: 7407: 6482:. Despite OR and despite crystal ball it's getting keeps: I'd just like a formal rule to point to. Do you agree with adding the above? It could be useful in general. 4457: 2620: 9949:

which reference books can be written in prose, and is increasingly doing so. Please don't try to cramp it again now. You will only be wasting your time in any case.

9930:

and I have discussed this a number of times.. I'll come back and propose some more language after my flight, and perhaps after talking to her some more about it. --

9751: 8141: 6834: 4601: 4351: 3716: 3075: 3037: 2993: 2809: 2751: 2479: 1179: 10618: 10601: 9094:

I support anything that makes wikipedia's content simultaneously more academically selective and more accessible for non-experts. This proposal seems to do that.

8017: 8006: 7457: 7395: 6727: 6700: 6655: 6259:

My own comment: true enough, and a valid category of "true yet not encyclopedic," but I'm not aware of it's being a common problem. I don't think it needs to be in

5104: 5095: 3674: 3640: 3604: 2438: 2360: 10571: 10549: 10534: 10420: 9700: 8933: 8830: 6688:

fire hydrants and astronomical events six centuries hence (and other such trivia), the biggest factor excluding those is likely to be a lack of editors willing to

4997: 4329: 3701:; it's relevant here. Expression the above sentiment is very, very unlikely to have a positive influence on anyone's behavior. It is also not very concordant with 3688: 913:

ally defined structure for its information. However, Knowledge does have a specific structure. It is that of a comprehensive encyclopedia about notable topics.

313: 10414: 10169: 9943: 9572:

I agree, and I write and edit accordingly. However, I think there's a difference between having the terms "dictionary" and "lexicon" go to a page that begins "A

9517: 9504: 9495: 9487:

It may be tidy, but it isn't policy, or even a Knowledge namespace page. Linking to it implicitly implies otherwise, and I think that's wrong. Can I remove it?

9482: 9265: 9253: 9223: 9209: 9174: 9060: 8873: 8823: 8597: 7992: 7752: 7632: 7436: 7374: 6736: 5307: 5195: 5085: 4961: 4632: 4608: 4552: 4447: 3997: 2730: 2693: 2667: 2568: 2217: 1906: 812: 9759: 8171:

is, it might change your mind. They are highly informative, even if you don't personally like this particular kind of information (i.e., you find it vulgar). —

7770: 7071:

I strongly second this. It seems to have been renamed after startlingly short discussion for such a well-known and often-quoted section of policy. Although it

6752: 6475: 4514: 3542:

Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

2967: 1673: 1011:

requirement than he suggests. Maybe if we imagine our readers have the reading ability and background knowledge of a broadsheet newspaper we won't go far wrong,

433:

There has been nothing but consensus to delete since April 2004. Anthere, find some evidence that there is no consensus, or revert your actions in this matter.

289: 9353: 8679:

articles is a subjective process, because language itself is subjective. Yet, this does not equate to the claim that deciding whether a subject is notable is a

8357: 8230: 8199: 8179: 8154: 8075: 8048: 7943: 7933: 7908: 7898: 7358: 5323: 5295: 3911:

However with the personalities removed, and the agreesive tone altered, some of the content of this edit should perhaps be retained, or at least could well be.

3890: 3870: 2544: 1863: 1351: 1003: 10082: 9919: 9369: 8581: 7582:

of what's normal, usual, and common -- but somehow the Knowledge includes a lot of stuff that's not notable according to that definition. In many cases, it's

7079: 6896: 6673: 6409: 5348: 4738: 4718: 4561:

For articles on people, I can cite a number of guidelines or policies against arbitrary memorials, without actually using the term "notability". These include

3954: 3917: 3853: 3832: 3662: 2854: 2288: 2250: 2120: 1758: 305: 10160: 10052:

Personally, I'd kind of like to see that section axed all together and replaced with "Knowledge is to be an extensive general encyclopedia but nothing else."

9473: 9460: 9024: 8814: 8800: 8714: 8669: 8657: 8635: 8608: 8588: 8529: 8516: 8494: 7519:

The debate isn't really over which word is used, but over divergent visions of what Knowledge should be. An attempt was made to recast notability in terms of

7190: 5736: 5537: 5514: 5486: 4952: 4901: 4595: 4538: 3810:

It looks like may be vandalism, since it takes a personal issue between another user and himself and puts it up as official policy. He also the article on

3629: 3203: 3184:

I didn't claim I was discriminated against, or that censorship was discrimination. I did say that Knowledge should not censor itself for me or other minors.

1882:

The text was added by old hand Rednblu, who was trying to clarify things, but unfortunately made it more confusing instead. (sorry dude! ^^; ). On wikipedia,

1779: 1409: 10192: 8959:

content. I've used the refrain "Knowledge is not a fan site" repeatedly, and think it's appropriate to state explicitly. Last year, another editor floated a

8584:, "Articles are to be deleted if there is no assertion of notability, but it's pretty easy to simply *assert* notability, so this isn't much of a barrier." — 7820: 6486: 6465: 6378:

This is a rather unfortunate way of putting it. "Instructive" means "serving to instruct or enlighten; conveying information" — something that I thought we

6330: 5788: 5756: 5360: 4496: 4269: 4260: 4083: 4070: 2182: 2067: 2049: 1000: 619:

It sounds like we need a WikiRecipe site for recipes, then we can move any recipes from Knowledge to there, and add links, rather than deleting the recipes.

285: 10297: 9722: 9349:

But note that that that's a seperate project at sep11.wikipedia.org, not part of the English-language Knowledge, and thus outside the scope of this page. --

9080: 9042: 9014: 9000: 8444: 7178: 7126: 7116: 7094: 7029: 6980: 6967: 6957: 5624: 4293: 4207: 4188: 3614: 3578: 3468: 3449: 2684:

Votes for Deletion is misnamed (they're neither votes nor is their deletion being discussed), indeed; consider this one step on the way to getting it fixed.

1275: 10008: 9953: 9852: 9839: 9823: 9672: 7561: 7308: 7290: 7217: 6506: 6495: 6422: 6393: 5990: 5582: 4907: 3788: 3770: 3659: 3425:

I am personally very sensitive about the danger of linkspam, particularly linkspam to blogs, but you wouldn't get consensus that Knowledge articles should

3353: 3292:

could say the statement was a lie -- by offending any culture that finds something distasteful, which happens to not be censored, and by attempting to say

1600: 1175:. Not here, not here. Summaries should tell someone, as briefly as possible and with minimal spoilers, what they'll get out of that book/movie/game/llama. 989: 664: 647: 623: 297: 9981: 9934: 6765: 4873:

WP:NOT is official policy, and several parts of it are clear and absolute rules. However, it partially relies (like most of our policies) on common sense.

4137: 10198: 10146: 9872: 9425: 9380: 7283:

for the general case.) It doesn't make sense to have individual versions for specific articles if there's always consensus to delete general versions. —

6818: 6814: 3653: 3503: 3483: 887: 832: 613: 611: 9888: 9188:

pages, is, in my research, enough of a problem across Knowledge that, regardless of its overlap with other standards, it needs to be explicitly stated.

8111:) was recently deleted by a second near-consecutive AFD vote that was arguably not even a consensus but rather a slight majority of delete's to keep's. 5967: 5861: 4479: 10614:

as is for example the United States of America, and other classic examples (which need I remind one is itself a rather messy and undemocratic affair).

10130:

five pillars, while old, is essentially an essay, not a policy page. It's not approprate to cite it authoritatively in a policy page's first paragraph.

9804: 9123: 9068: 8309: 8305: 8296: 8164: 8104: 8030:

If I'm being particularly responsible, I check the "contributions" because frequently they will have added their link to every page they can think of.

7682: 7419: 7335:

It's also about source material, which we also have plenty of stuff on - are there many songs with extensive lyrics on them that you're worried about?

6585: 4410: 4307: 3122:

I've merged this. Since "WP is not a blog" has hardly seen any edits, please copyedit, clarify and/or remove the section if redundant, as appropriate.

1650:

It is stated in policy that "Knowledge is not a democracy." Well, I am formally challenging that statement. When I looked up the word "consensus" on

265: 10343:. It is also quite rampant on some talk pages. However, really, this is just a minor annoyance. But I don't think it's truly clear at the moment. 8094: 7865: 7590:

professional (American) football team, etc. because every U.S. president is important, every professional (American) football team, etc. is important.

4426: 3567: 3356:

so we can describe the overall circumstances of Knowledge and other Wikis? I mean, don't other Wikis have censorship? and are they not supposed to be

3232:

censored for your protection? And, if so, is this because you actually run into anything on Knowledge, that you weren't expecting, that bothered you?

1037: 1015: 10397: 8072: 8014: 7989: 7884: 6810: 6804: 6732:

Nonsense - notability just means 'what I like' - verifiability will deal with all the strawman fire hydrant articles we've never had a problem with.

6204:

This was recently added to "not an indiscriminate collection of information." I'm moving it here because I don't think it's been discussed here yet.

5304: 5273: 5192: 5101: 5082: 5029: 4979: 4797:

says when you "When you wonder what should or should not be in an article named "whatever", ask yourself what a reader would expect under "whatever"

3405: 1164: 688: 573:

There is no such consensus. Sorry, but really, there is not. I would personally not object to removal of minor recipes no one has never heard about.

309: 10214:

structured list that assists with the organization of articles, or only, as the section title would indicate, to structured lists of internal links.

9343: 9010:

set of articles as to what level of detail should or shouldn't be included; having this in WWIN would provide guidance in reaching that consensus. —

7839: 3760:

have self-administrating characteristics covered by the neutral definition of bureaucracy. (P.S. quotes are from unabridged.merriam-webster.com) --

1141:

needlessly complex wording to explain basic concepts, in an apparent attempt to make themselves seem more intelligent. This should not be allowed.

10507:

policy to use elections to decide almost everything - it is apparently also policy to state that such is not the case. Truth should start at home.

7348:

that much source material unless it is being used for comment. Encyclopedias, including this one, are tertiary sources. Source material belongs on

1547:

WP:IAR perhaps needs to be expanded or commented on - it's like, two paragraphs, and too often misunderstood and abused as a mantra. As I noted on

293: 277: 10093: 9650: 8304:

article must be entirely prose, and I think it's not always necessary or appropriate--that's what the AFD vote is for. And regarding the vote on

5927:. It just isn't on to have a policy favours a hard line that fails to meet with approval over and over and over again. I'm restoring the section: 9119: 7985: 7979: 7296: 6327: 6251: 6250:

mumbo-jumbo. I remember an article called "Communication Strategies" that contained a lot of elaborate truisms hidden behind business jargon. --

5771:-- a description of the procedure for the test is certainly a reasonable part of an article on the subject, but it can also readily be viewed as 3984:

Forgive me if I overlooked something, but shouldn't "not a travel guide" be considered? I have been looking at Cambodia entries and the one for

2238:

Absolutely not. There isn't anything anywhere that says polls are banned on Knowledge. If there were, somebody would have pointed to it. You may

2107:

Note that this is not a question of naming: votes and polls have very different objectives, and thus very different methods and applications. We

1511: 94: 8455: 8147:

Personally, I find "list of" articles to be frequently not useful. There are exceptions, but I don't see that a list of slang is one of them.

7050: 6910: 6866: 6799: 4042: 1727:

I don't think it is a simple statement, I think it is confusing- especially to those who are more familiar with the term democracy. The article

9894: 9261:

not really asking for anything, but WP:NOT exemplifies other policies (including NPOV), for example "Knowledge is not a propaganda machine". —

8569: 7149:. Out of these, all but one are either near-solid deletes, or near-solid redirect/merges to a general page for a series (e.g. the speculative 6513: 6454: 5985: 5839:, should only be included if planning or preparation for the event is already in progress; or speculation is well documented, such as with the 4149: 4058:

It's not a question of difficulty determining what's offensive. The issue is that Knowledge's decided that we don't care if it's offensive to

3876: 3815:

cleaned up to remove the interpersonal issues referenced and if he realizes that Knowledge is not his personal encyclopedia either. Thoughts?

3584: 1272: 1240: 608: 273: 262:

Discussions sometimes also happen in IRC and on our mailing lists, but keep in mind that official policy must be agreed to on Knowledge itself.

86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 9905:

Another way of stating this precept is that Knowledge is not (only) a general encyclopedia; it can also be a set of specialized encyclopedias.

6924:, and it continues to be heavily rejected whenever the topic is of any substance and significant information is available. Current nomination 5804: 2078:

Knowledge uses the term "vote". It is incorrect to say otherwise. As a matter of fact, the official name of our deletion mechanism is still

759:, I can't see a grammatical or spelling error without my red-pencil hand twitching. Knowledge provides tremendous opportunity in this field." 8819:

It might be a bit better, but it's still pov-mongering. What's significant to the USGS is not necessarily significant to me, and vice versa.

8433: 8412: 8405: 7926: 4052: 2082:

for deletion, and this page should reflect that. Otherwise, I like the paragraph without the striked portion and without the last sentence.

2039: 1937:

is always a recipe for pain. When we say vote, we should mean what it commonly means; if we want to say "majority vote", say "majority vote".

1816: 1628: 10241: 9447: 6949:

I'm okay with a rename, but your suggestion is too long and excessively formal. Shorten it and put in laymen's terms. Then, we'll talk. :)

6830:

Does anyone know if there have been any discussions about the use of such pages? Do others feel a visual index is a useful thing to have?

6474:

Yes, a seperate article is not the right way to do it, which was my thought in posting the above comment. Of course it could be included on

4418:

It's all getting a bit silly, really. Perhaps this should be printed in mirror writing on the forehead of every single Knowledge editor. --

3364: 8099: 7257: 7014: 6246:

After browsing through "What Knowledge is not" I couldn't find any points that would have objected to this article, so I added "Truisms".

5276: 5032: 2925: 2659:

votes and yet called such. Maybe eventually this will be a dead issue if "votes for deletion" is renamed, but that hasn't happened yet. --

1583: 269: 10293:

Actually, I'm not sure that's any better... But point is, does this need it's own section (1.x), or will a subsection (1.x.y) work for it?

10032: 3101: 8253:

dispute that neologisms and cruft found their way into this article, but that's not an argument for wholesale deletion of the article. —

7953: 7913:

Having looked into the matter some further, it seems that it was an acciddent. In March 2005, the text of the paragraph was rewritten in

7242: 7206: 7065: 6235: 5316:

Well, I have no problem with your wording above—"It is appropriate... no advertising"— and would rather have it in the article than not.

4614:

understand what they mean by it and see no point (or possibility) in making them stop. Rest assured that if I found somebody calling the

4088:

How do you know what forks/mirrors want? I think we should let them decide on their own. You seem to be tagging images that only contain

1373: 1084: 10483:

Funny I had just read that the technical details of a proposal were not grounds for invalidation - but others would know better surely.

10185:

here) have a strong point of view about a certain belief system that is sometimes associated with a similar number of columnar objects.

8843:

Your last sentence is a very interesting analysis of the purpose on an encyclopedia. I would only change one word - "don't care" -: -->

7959:

Preferably the linked websites would also be ad-free or minimize use of ads. I have come across articles with 50+ external links (e.g.

6608:

I agree that "Knowledge is not an arbiter of taste," and the specific examples you give in the first paragraph are true and well-chosen.

5826:

several hundred articles about future events in Knowledge, but the existing section would make you thing there would only be a handful.

1315: 8604:

Claiming (and sourcing) that someone won a spelling bee is asserting notability under the speedy deletion guideline that you quoted. —

8562: 8484: 7327:

Of course, but this isn't just about copyrights. The main point is about the encyclopedic value of articles. This issue was handled in

6549:. We do not exclude topics based on the belief that they may be considered controversial, offensive, politically incorrect, low-brow, 4846: 4840: 4823: 4816: 4810: 4781: 4768: 4748: 4664: 4577:

guideline, and consensus should come to a rough agreement over its definition. As an example, for bands, the statements "band X passes

3822: 2242:

it to mean that, but, well, yeah. The fact is, of course, that anybody can try to revise anythning at anytime. So a poll cannot really

973: 8702:

agrees on what that measure should be. Eventually you'll find that every discussion on notability will deteriorate to this point, and

6131: 4761:

When you wonder what should or should not be in an article named "whatever", ask yourself what a reader would expect under "whatever"

4657:

When you wonder what should or should not be in an article named "whatever", ask yourself what a reader would expect under "whatever"

3974: 9373: 9359: 7044:

I think this either needs to be clarified or removed, because clearly there are "directories" on Knowledge that are widely accepted.

5646: 4431: 1505: 1482:

Unlike traditional publications, there is no process by which we accept or reject articles prior to publication. If you go ahead, I

7554:

Listing something, including something as an item, is "making note of it" or "noting it," hence "notable" is a natural word to use.

7133: 6270: 6254: 6211: 8041:

and will go look for other ways to promote their site once they get the idea that Knowledge isn't going to be as easy as it looks.

6627:

be arbiters of whether a topic is of some interest to "some segment of humanity." If that's not "importance," I don't know what is.

6292: 4030:

despite the fact that no content is being removed, that entails censorship. I oppose the template and especially its inclusion in

3979: 1392: 281: 9677:

One option that I've proposed (again, somewhere in the archive) is that an article about a future event be created in the form of

8521:

Notability is inherently POV and thus should not be part of Knowledge policy. As you must be aware, this issue has been discussed

7687: 7669: 3389: 828:

is down now, but it started with something like "I have recently been using Knowledge as a form of therapy ..." It didn't work. -

10493:

Any edit to a page that's already policy, as this one is, has to have affirmative consent backing that change before it's made.

9249:

Well what you're really asking for is that we hava a policy on NPOV then. Thankfully, we already do! No need for more rulecruft!

7815: 7162: 5728:

It is very inappropriate for one policy page to prohibit something which another (and very long-standing) policy page encourages.

3721: 3709:. I tend to think we err too much on the side of patience and "babysitting," but better to err in that direction than the other. 2836:

c : the period of time during which votes may be cast at an election d : the total number of votes recorded <a heavy poll: -->

1444: 1247: 750:

My life has been spent filling my head with unbelievable quantities of trivia and rubbish. Here's a chance to get some of it out.

317: 10234: 9787: 6809:

I would like to get input from some more Wikipedians on this topic which may have wider implications. There is a discussion in

3563:

If this is included, please use the more standard word "gossip", instead of "tittle-tattle", which I believe is regional slang.

2907: 1289: 9781: 9029:

I agree. Most of this is already covered under other policies in this page. I'm not sure the instruction creep is worth it. —

8013:

republican-leaning). NPOV is more a guideline or preference when selecting external links, but is a case-by-case judgment. ---

6017:

are not really encyclopedic information. What do other editors think? Specifically, does anyone have reasoned disagreement? --

4681:

is headed "This Knowledge page is presently inactive and kept primarily for historical interest." So, I think the reference to

4301: 729: 10152:

I wouldn't have so much objection to it under "See also". I think it's important, though, to avoid giving the impression that

7922: 7918: 7914: 7876: 6159: 4415:

Remove the term "analogous" and just say "Knowledge is not the real world and real world processes do not necessarily apply."

3106: 2023:

to see whether a consensus has been reached and what it is. For this reason some Wikipedians prefer to call these procedures

681:

I'm not sure exactly how to expand on it, but the phrase sounds good. It might even mean something significant. Any takers? --

130: 10105: 9698: 8573: 8389: 4436:

Knowledge is not is not an indiscriminate list of subjects that already exist on Knowledge, but you think they don't belong.

4109: 1950:

The reason why majority voting is not permitted on wikipedia is because it cannot be used to determine encyclopedic content:

122: 7509:

A related question to people who think the word has a clear meaning, is why do people argue about it so much in talk pages?

7157:); unanimous deletes are in the clear majority. The only one I came across where Crystal Ball was cited in a case that was 6920:

I have already had the tone of this section moderated, but I now think it needs a name change. People continue to use it on

570:

While i recognise your position and respect it Gentgeen, it is not valid to say there is a consensus to remove all of them.

252:

So, now you unilaterally remove a clause from a policy that has been there for 6 months, and survived over 100 edits. From

10587:

democratic to newcomers but really isn't. I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure out which three I refer to.

9237:, but only on the basis that a fan site basically never is NPOV (not on the basis that fan sites have excessive detail.) — 7828: 7722:

I think you've got a good idea there, but it'd probably help if you started talking about companies, not "countries" :-) --

6373: 1548: 1150: 47: 17: 10113: 6903: 6089: 1575: 7112:

predict the future themselves. The fact that it summarizes this policy colorfully is just another point to its credit. --

6885: 6592:, and which is (or was at one point) of demonstrable interest to some segment of humanity, is appropriate for Knowledge. 6125: 4463: 3515: 3254:

The statement does not mean that content allowed to stay on Knowledge is not moderated at all. A great amount of content

2915: 2706:

I'd like to wait until Kim explains what he sees as the difference between the vote and a poll. We can work from there.

1593: 9465:

I can't resist noting that linking to one of Angela's user pages (and defending the link by saying it's ok because it's

9296:

I was waiting to get comments to point out that Knowledge does have a section of guidance in line with this proposal at

8593:

Notability is an excercise in POVmongering. Verifiability will deal with nearly all the articles you are worried about.

5130:

understand what I'm saying? It's a minor detail, but I'd like to work out a better phrasing. Can someone suggest a fix?

2528:

I'm sorry, "fringe" was probably the wrong word. What I was surprised at was his insistence on avoiding any use of the

6790: 4398: 3379: 2847: 675: 9385:

I've never heard of that idea either, but I agree with you that it sounds like it would be detrimental to implement.

8613:

How does a claiming (and even sourcing) that someone did something unnoteworthy count as an assertion of notability?

5654:

While generally I agree that Knowledge articles should not be HowTo's, I do not agree that the instructional parts of

5008:

I reverted a June change to the section that was not discussed here. Minor tweaks may have been lost in the revert.

4200: 3329:

I believe we should provide some level of censorship for minors, such as banning hardcore porn links on an article on

2846:. While straw poll is definitely a more precise word to use, the word vote is not wrong, only imprecise. (copied from 2045:

Almost. The final sentence is unnecessary semantics, and I twiddled one sentence with a strike, hope you don't mind. -

1788: 10035:

so long as the information is verifiable and not a copyright violation? Dpbsmith (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

8503:

required to qualify for inclusion. An article on a local spelling bee winner would not appropriate, as the winner is

7328: 7276: 6518: 4772: 4682: 4678: 4668: 3107: 253: 8955:, I've found that many new users are confused about the level of detail appropriate to encyclopedic content, versus 8869:

you need to know about flooding is touching - I wonder whether the former residents of New Orleans are as trusting?

8784: 7672:). Even if copyright issues are resolved, a company's own materials are usually not written in an objective fashion. 5832:

are sometimes unencyclopedic, especially if they are unverifiable until they have actually occurred. In particular:

9794:

on a deadline; but it was reverted. I'm putting this here for discussion so the dissenting voices can name a date.

8901: 8081: 5933:

are sometimes unencyclopedic, especially if they are unverifiable until they have actually occurred. In particular:

5874: 5840: 4618:

NN, I would certainly point out to him that while he has the right to his opinion, consensus has a different view.

2824:

I don't think that the word vote necessarily means the same thing as a binding poll. Merriam Webster defines it as

1560: 1526: 824:, as anyone who's been receiving multipage rambling emails from him over the past few days will tell you. His page 674: 108: 6382:

meant to be doing... Perhaps "Knowledge is not an instruction manual", or "Knowledge is not a practical guide"? --

6186:

first disable his banana gun by clogging it with the peanut butter you found on submarine in level one." et cetera

6145: 3208:

My apologies(I've been saying that too often lately...). I should have noticed that. I don't know why I didn't.

1800:

Votes for deletion and votes for undeletion may seem to be a countexample; some argue that these should be called

10305:

I think the fact that it's so rampant on Knowledge means it needs its own section, or nobody will ever notice. —

9546:. Knowledge is not the place to list words without definitions, or to list various labels for the same concept. 8466:

spelling bee is a bad idea. This subject is too important to stay an unwritten rule or just meekly addressed. --

7870: 6921: 6558: 6153: 6005:" to the list under "Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information", with a note that such guides 5938: 3554:

has an impact here. Confidential medical details are often, by the nature of the confidentiality, unverifiable.

3420:

article--well, delete it with a reasonable edit comment and be prepared to discuss it on the article's Talk page.

2009: 587: 7418:, point three. Please edit that point if you think it's not clear enough and can make it clearer. And also, see 7307:

My reasoning is, articles that only include the song lyrics and have no additional info are not encyclopedic. --

5666:

are inappropriate. Condoms serve a very specific purpose which requires specific usage. The only problem with

4973:

government - which wikipedia certainly does resemble closely) with the misconception that it means lawlessness.

4317:

encyclopedia also includes that wikipedia tries to take advantage of web-navigation techniques, see for example

1120:

introduced, or anything else. If this causes the article to become too long, that's never a problem. Just use

9708: 9614: 9327: 8557: 8479: 8423: 7787: 7280: 7237: 4926: 4394: 1588:

I'm not certain that it's a meaningful change, since either way I don't agree with making the exceptions. I'd

9640: 6846:

Well sure it's an online encyclopedia. But why? What is it's purpose? Well the best use I've seen of it was

5672:

is that the article "recommends" a procedure instead of merely informing of its existence as a home remedy. ¦

10540:

This constant appeal to populism IMO prevents the quality of the pedia from being competative. If a majority

8508: 6786: 6714: 6577:. We are concerned with compiling the knowledge and experience of all mankind, regardless of social status. 4376: 4161: 4121: 1431:

and their sites are significant in the history of the internet, so they get detailed articles. Websites like

10165:

If you believe you have a better summary of wikipedia policy, could you please write it down or link to it?

8400: 8242:

How does a list of slang terms begin to qualify as an encyclopedia article? Examples are not description.

7610:

buildings by the way. I guess the editors there were tired of the disputes among themselves about what was

6623:

And you say a topic must have "demonstrable interest to some segment of humanity." Well, that means we must

2945: 243:

should only be something most people agree upon, something over which people can be punished if they do it.

9038: 7035: 6881: 6083: 5794: 4967: 715: 9770: 8966:

Under such "not fan site" category would be the rubric of other fannish activities, such as: inclusion of

4233:

each article(the majority's); instead, we describe multiple POVs in accordance with NPOV policy. This is

131:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Knowledge%3AWhat_Wikipedia_is_not&diff=4770834&oldid=4770819

10545:

of authorities trumps a single source - in other words, we should tally by content rather than pieholes.

9115: 8540:

endless. Local heroes, unknowns, bands with 2 fans, random people, useless trivia, pointless subpages...

6839: 6781: 6029:

I think it should be more general than that. No tutorials, video game or otherwise, belong on Knowledge.

3947:

may see it as an endorsement of their positions rather than considering its applicability to themselves.

3702: 1423:

Articles about websites are allowed, but the site itself has to be notable. Most web users have heard of

557:

Others talked on the topic, but I could not clearly see whether they supported removal of recipe or not.

9439:. However, I really don't think a link to a userspace page should be here, regardless of whose it is. 4710:

I agree. References to obselete pages are inappropriate. They provide an undeserved air of legitimacy.

4510:" I raise this only because it is clear that verifiability, not notability, is the practical guideline. 3589:

I propose adding the following section at the end of the "What the Knowledge community is not" section:

3521:

problems they may have had, which if it was widely broadcast could possibly exacerabate their problems.

1106:

Encyclopedia Britannica to see what encyclopedias were like before the dumbing-down process occurred.

10494: 10474: 10393:

Surely this is the purpose of the talk page for each article to be effectively used as a public forum.

10323: 10294: 10249: 10228: 10220: 10053: 9915: 9884: 9835: 9800: 9582: 9550: 9386: 9095: 9048: 8835: 8614: 8331: 8276: 8243: 7619: 6430: 6341: 4019: 1597: 1535: 1469:

don't see any obvious reason for putting in an article about this site other than to try to promote it.

564: 152: 38: 8918:

one of our featured articles instead?" would cut down on the allure of vanity articles substantially.)

8525:

in deletion debates and other places. I don't think it is possible to come to a consensus about it. —

4784:

is not tagged as either a policy page nor a guideline. However, we seem to have a sort of syllogism:

4600:

So why introduce another layer of cunfusion, why not just stick to 'Article does not meet criteria in

2104:

Some poll pages are currently called "Votes for" , this is confusing, and these pages are being moved.

9971:

by Clay Shirky, first published March 9, 2003 on the "Networks, Economics, and Culture" mailing list

9696: 8451:, since it's a redlink, and the Lists guideline page is ostensibly where the link is meant to point. 7061:

effective. Edit the content, but why not go back to "crystal ball?" It's extremely well-established.

6139: 5694: 4318: 1569: 1176: 111:

for a long time without anyone deciding what action to take. Apparently the debate is now resumed at

9430: 9395:

Sounds unsound. Seems unseemly. Knowledge is not an illustration of what Knowledge is not. Violates

9205:

and start deleting details on scientific theories. If it's verifiable, neutral and not OR, it's in.

10340: 10207:

It does not give any guidance regarding what counts as assisting with the organization of articles.

8775: 8394: 8087: 7968: 7824: 7247: 6999: 5702:

The 'no instructions' policy should be ratified as official policy before any merger takes place.

5647: 3883:. I hope I'm proven wrong, as dealing with those is annoying and a serious waste of time at best. 3621:

I don't think this is necessary. We can tolerate the confused as long as they are not disruptive.

3145:

Well, for all you morons know it should be. Sure, you know how many hits you get everyday, but I'm

2275:

Feel free to read it as "binding polls are banned on Knowledge ", then. And for a policy page, see

10135:"What Knowledge is not" by directing the reader to very well written discussion of what Knowledge 9332:

It should be noted that we have a September 11 Wiki dedicated for September 11 memorials... See:

6990:

No objections, so I'm implementing this, but I will omit the redundant clause "about the future".

6448:

wants to describe what they believe the non-existent movies would like if they were actually made.

6117: 4101: 7727: 6618:

By your own showing, Knowledge must be an arbiter of what is "encyclopedic." Whatever that means.

6589: 5686: 4406: 3858:

First, actually try talking with him. If, despite your best efforts, that's unproductive, try a

3794:--A way to censor condemned words shall be to automatically substitute them with random symbols. 3551: 3225: 3196: 3150: 1605: 1121: 9597:

To ease reading and understanding sometimes definitions are added into better clarify a subject.

8809:

lot better than both "notability" and "importance". But I still think that anything with a : -->

7474:, that keeps showing up in the Wiki namespace. Why is this word used and not common words like 7161:, by current consensus, a fairly clear and obvious delete or redirect case was in the debate on 6505:

But where and/or under what title? The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy does not exist anymore than the

3141:

Knowledge is not censored for the protection of minors - but is that really fair for the minors?

1348: 1312: 437:

I digged up last opinions to report on current state of discussion on wikipedia-l on the matter

10177: 10121: 10107: 9747: 9719: 7712:

Does anyone think this topic merits the addition of a new template for handling these entries?

4813:

is a reliable guide to what Wikipedians have determined that readers expect in an encyclopedia.

4443: 4422: 3034: 2964: 2832:

Nothing about the definition implies that it must be binding. Furthermore, M-W defines poll as

2748: 2476: 9958:

I can't even begin to describe how strongly I disagree with that sentiment. Have you studied

8951:

As one of the editors involved in the constant battle to clean up articles about fan-favorite

7137: 1383:

There are a lot of promoting websites like google or Yahoo and aren't taken off? why is that.

10028:

The mere fact of something's existence makes it notable enough for inclusion. --a Wikipedian

9559:

Various terms for the same concept should all be redirected to one page and mentioned there.

8692: 8452: 8399:

The oft-repeated statement that "Knowledge is not a chat room" seems to have been removed on

8125:

However, a comparative guide to a wide range of slang in use is what should be regarded as a

4326: 3598:

limits when you've already been called on it, don't expect us to continue to put up with it.

3072: 2990: 2806: 2727: 2690: 2617: 2565: 2435: 2357: 2285: 2214: 1728: 550: 536: 530: 524: 513: 502: 496: 490: 484: 478: 472: 466: 460: 454: 448: 441: 6103: 3797:

Some minors are utilizing an encyclopedia, but censorship may be needed for some audiences.

1855:

M. Bruning's objections. I'll wait till said user replies here to your proposed rewrite. --

1635:

wasting time determining its actual power structure here. I oppose any change to the page.

9996:

The word "encyclopedia" is a real problem for Knowledge because there are those who really

9691: 9661:

being filmed, or that it is a sure part of a series of movies or the like. We need to have

8650: 8500: 8419: 8313: 8300: 8168: 8038: 7520: 7150: 7145: 7143: 7055: 6581: 6524: 6387: 6042: 6022: 5878: 5844: 5303:

cite public sources. Also detractors and critics can chime in with other points of view.--

5003: 3321:

If they go looking for porn and profanity it's their own problem,not our's or Knowledge's.

1667: 1556: 1522: 1403: 1367: 1328: 1295: 232: 226: 220: 214: 208: 202: 196: 190: 184: 178: 172: 166: 159: 3805: 3658:

Moreover, no one has to engage in any discussion that they think is a waste of resources.

2937: 102: 8: 10615: 10546: 10508: 10484: 10457: 10456:

On second thought - someone decided to maintain the allusion - patently dreadful really.

10394: 10384: 10336: 10312: 10266: 9849: 9820: 9790:

because it comes up from time to time; I didn't seriously think anyone thought Knowledge

9514: 9492: 9444: 9340: 8438: 7895: 7836: 6977: 6954: 6893: 6697: 6670: 6599: 6312: 5917: 5891: 5819: 5708: 5524: 5458: 5404: 5345: 5334: 5225: 5135: 5062: 5046: 5013: 4994: 4715: 4257: 4067: 4039: 3951: 3887: 3867: 3850: 3819: 3626: 3534: 3347: 3213: 3189: 3169: 3003: 2941: 2899: 2864:

as a name either, but we have to describe the way things are, not how we wish them to be.

2774: 2711: 2664: 2639: 2589: 2541: 2533: 2510: 2395: 2325: 2179: 2143: 2087: 2064: 2036: 1994: 1860: 1840: 1813: 1719: 1688: 1640: 1345: 1309: 1160: 1129: 1092: 985: 918: 870: 848: 9771:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005

3841:

These kinds of edits seem to be becoming a pattern with this user; I just had to revert

2651:

OK... but that doesn't address the fact that "votes for deletion" and similar processes

1155:

I'd like some comments on the status of extremely detailed plot summaries like those at

10591: 10189: 10005: 9542:

This may require an additional subsection, perhaps to be worded along the lines of: 4.

9412: 9297: 9171: 8688: 8550: 8472: 8460: 8430: 8045: 7749: 7723: 7558: 7454: 7426: 7393: 7372: 7230: 7147: 6853: 6797: 6725: 6652: 6267: 6208: 6014: 5733: 5534: 5511: 5483: 5387: 5320: 5292: 4942: 4919: 4891: 4861: 4735: 4701: 4689: 4622: 4585: 4528: 4475: 4402: 4246: 4186: 4097: 4093: 4026: 4020: 4006: 4002:

It's already there under Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

3994: 3970:"Knowledge is not a publisher of original thought" covers the implication of his edit. 3915: 3713: 3706: 3500: 3446: 3236: 3126: 2014:

However, the results of this voting is not strictly binding on the administrators; they

1700: 1502: 1465:

be nominated for deletion as advertising and non-notable, and deleted. This is because

1283: 1110: 685: 425: 382: 9300:, whose contents seem to support the proposition that "Knowledge is not a fan site." — 8785:

Science Fiction Book Club Most Significant SF & Fantasy Books of the Last 50 Years

3745:

this in WP, except it's a very "flat" hierarchy of users, admins, board, and Mr. Wales

2796:

We're "ignoring" you because you are incorrect. The CfSD "vote" is a prime example of

2469: 2276: 1163:. Is it worth having if it is too long to fit on the main page for the book or movie? 10143: 9978: 9972: 9964: 9940: 9927: 9743: 9636: 9457: 9250: 9206: 9155: 8884: 8870: 8848: 8820: 8594: 8572:); however the issue Eric raises was actually decided by vote in July of this year: " 8354: 8317: 8254: 8223: 8172: 8134: 7999: 7778: 7767: 7759:

You might want to add a note that "The entry does not appear to meet the recommended

7713: 7629: 7404: 7336: 7318: 7287: 6749: 6733: 6405: 6282: 6111: 5784: 5752: 5726:

up for deletion first, citing the no-instructions semi-policy, and see what happens.

5092: 4976: 4958: 4605: 4549: 4511: 4493: 4454: 4440: 4419: 4367: 4348: 4156: 4116: 3767: 3522: 3393: 3361: 3312: 3031: 2961: 2922: 2745: 2473: 1475: 1258: 829: 809: 778: 711: 700: 644: 116: 8789: 8751:

as an alternative term, as it has both a quantitative and qualitative value (e.g. a

7174:

plainly an effective and memorable solution to a real and uncontroversal problem. --

4386: 1754:

a directly democractic encyclopedia. I think we need a better name for this policy.

10366: 10349: 10166: 9729: 9603: 9501: 9479: 9436: 9405: 9319: 9034: 8956: 8952: 8646: 8196: 8151: 7862: 7804: 7022: 7007: 7000: 6847: 6365: 5719: 4986: 4092:; what about other possibly "offensive" images? Did you know that followers of the 3463: 3400: 3069: 2987: 2803: 2724: 2687: 2614: 2562: 2468:

there is any need to defend it. Most of what I have to say is already expressed at

2432: 2354: 2282: 2211: 2166: 2158: 2117: 1977: 1903: 1792: 1388: 1378: 951: 738: 6827:

that other such indices scattered throughout Knowledge would be extremely useful.

6075: 6010: 4228:

articles do we claim copyright is just or that people should obey copyright law.

1620:, since the vote tallies are not totally ignored, Knowledge could be considered a 10526:

dispersed and too busy to achieve that, so we settle for a 'rough' consensus. --

10379:

I'm sure it's more important to question the humanity of fellow persons - as in "

10182: 10073: 9396: 8707: 8448: 8408:": "When refactoring a talk page, remember that Knowledge is not a chat room." — 7135: 6873: 6693: 6662: 6546: 6491:

Failed plans which are verifiable and of interest to readers should be included.

6383: 6199: 6038: 6018: 5691: 5579: 4767:. For examples of what kinds of articles people consider to be encyclopedic, see 4663:. For examples of what kinds of articles people consider to be encyclopedic, see 4578: 3698: 3679: 3437:

ever...). And even if you did, it wouldn't stop people from putting the links in.

3372: 3307:

an article on the fly is something that has to be lost to achieve such a goal) --

3247: 2246:

binding. That doesn't mean they 'banned' in quite the sense you imply, however. -

1744: 1683:

I also agree that our opinions and positions are reached largely by discussion.

1664: 1606: 1552: 1518: 1399: 1363: 1325: 1302: 1292: 825: 9646: 9643: 9581:

has the focus on the words ("dictionary", "lexicon", etc.) and not the concept.

7139: 3574:

This is obviously refering to some specific article, anyone care to fill us in?

46:

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

10307: 10261: 10157: 10125: 9845: 9816: 9510: 9500:

In my very humble opinion, linking generally implies that there is a link. :-)

9488: 9470: 9440: 9350: 9337: 9072: 8910: 8218: 8091: 8024: 7960: 7940: 7930: 7905: 7891: 7881: 7832: 7831:); only 10 edits at this IP with no relevant search matches for "Roger Ames"-- 7600: 7317:

No need, since we already have guidelines on source material and on copyright.

7175: 7141: 7113: 7076: 6973: 6950: 6889: 6666: 6566: 6355:

I had to read these sentences three times before I understood what they meant:

6308: 6097: 6000: 5913: 5887: 5815: 5811: 5703: 5621: 5520: 5454: 5450: 5400: 5341: 5330: 5221: 5131: 5058: 5042: 5009: 4990: 4728: 4711: 4644: 4615: 4562: 4253: 4079:. Otherwise I will try tagging/categorising images that contains genitalia. -- 4063: 4035: 4031: 3948: 3884: 3880: 3863: 3847: 3816: 3622: 3610:

There must be a more polite wording, but I agree with the general sentiment. --

3530: 3455: 3209: 3185: 3165: 3161: 2999: 2895: 2770: 2707: 2660: 2635: 2585: 2537: 2506: 2391: 2321: 2175: 2162: 2139: 2083: 2060: 2032: 1990: 1856: 1836: 1824:

I'd prefer to go back to a somewhat modified version of the "original" ; i.e.:

1809: 1715: 1684: 1636: 1625: 1441: 1342: 1306: 1190: 1125: 1088: 1058: 981: 976:, which is a guideline (not a policy) for a reason. WP policies don't regulate 914: 866: 696: 8295:

1.5.2 supports structured lists that assist in the organisation of articles.

8114:

I see no problem with comparative slang guides, as they seek to inform by the

7107:

a place for people to attempt to magically divine the future. The reason why

10632: 10588: 10186: 10002: 9931: 9409: 9365: 9301: 9262: 9238: 9234: 9220: 9189: 9168: 9077: 9064: 9021: 9011: 8978: 8811: 8797: 8711: 8696: 8666: 8654: 8632: 8623: 8605: 8585: 8545: 8526: 8513: 8491: 8467: 8427: 8409: 8292: 8061: 8042: 7746: 7555: 7451: 7443: 7423: 7390: 7369: 7264: 7263:

When these have gotten turned into templates, they've always been deleted at

7225: 7203: 7062: 7026: 6930:"Knowledge is not a repository for unverifiable speculation about the future" 6907: 6877: 6863: 6794: 6722: 6718: 6649: 6574: 6550: 6510: 6483: 6451: 6264: 6260: 6205: 5810:

Please do not add proposed changes so quickly. For a major policy page like

5730: 5572: 5531: 5508: 5480: 5443: 5384: 5376: 5317: 5289: 5252: 5243: 5183: 5072: 5054: 4939: 4914: 4888: 4858: 4850: 4806: 4794: 4788: 4732: 4698: 4686: 4619: 4582: 4570: 4566: 4525: 4470: 4389:, it is not the real world and real-world processes do not necessarily apply. 4336: 4183: 4179: 3971: 3912: 3859: 3829: 3710: 3575: 3497: 3443: 3233: 3200: 3176: 3123: 2851: 1887: 1776: 1755: 1697: 1499: 1107: 1066: 844: 805: 794: 774: 742: 682: 422: 413: 379: 329: 9333: 8568:

The subject of a "Notability policy" is discussed earlier on this page (see

8347: 7416:"Knowledge is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" 6613:

I have a problem with saying that Knowledge is not an arbiter of importance.

6557:

cover such topics, we will note controversy where it exists, as required by

637: 10594: 10565: 10528: 10153: 10140: 10097: 9975: 9633: 9454: 8845: 8362: 8351: 8108: 7764: 7571: 7429: 7284: 7187: 7100: 7047: 6831: 6746: 6685: 6561:). Nor does Knowledge exhibit a preference for high art over pop culture, 6479: 6462: 6401: 6287: 6277: 6190: 6168: 6030: 5780: 5768: 5748: 4945: 4894: 4625: 4588: 4531: 4490: 4345: 4153: 4113: 3761: 3671: 3637: 3611: 3601: 3555: 3544: 3308: 3129: 2919: 2157:

OK, I give up. I see no way of reconciling the opposite positions held by

1899: 1703: 1596:

of any sort, but I realize there's little chance of a consensus for that.

1255: 959: 892: 821: 641: 583: 576: 399: 246: 137: 5019:

I added the paragraph below to the article before I noticed this section.

4358:

I don't think this should be added. This is an example of what Knowledge

1461:

Speaking personally, my opinion is that if you write this article it will

10410: 10344: 10117: 9867: 9667: 9030: 8997: 8779: 8642: 8577: 8193: 8148: 7615: 7353: 7254: 7011: 6419: 5982: 5673: 4501:

That section actually doesn't say that they need to be notable, it says "

4266: 4204: 4195: 4134: 4080: 4049: 3694: 3683: 3564: 3460: 3397: 3338: 3330: 3115: 3098: 2878: 2247: 2046: 1417: 1384: 1142: 1062: 1044: 1026: 947: 878: 661: 620: 592: 10381:

We can only wonder if that means many people around here have no brains.

8763:

than Y", whereas one can have difficulty with the claim that "Y is more

6051:

For a few, out of the many, examples of how Knowledge and Wikibooks are

5449:

I like it. Now, what you have at the end is basically a summary of the

4727:

In the absence of further comment, I'm going to remove the reference to

3756:

I think it's worth clarifying the difference in the article, because WP

804:

Because what's good for them is not necessarily good for Knowledge, See

551:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-January/036916.html

537:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-January/036912.html

531:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-January/036962.html

525:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-January/036915.html

514:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-January/036948.html

503:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-January/036968.html

497:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-January/036966.html

491:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-January/036926.html

485:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-January/036925.html

479:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-January/036921.html

473:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-January/036919.html

467:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-January/036918.html

461:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-January/036917.html

455:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-January/036913.html

449:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-January/036911.html

442:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2005-January/036902.html

10238: 9950: 9620: 9560: 8790:

Naval Postgraduate School Chronology of Significant Terrorist Incidents

8381: 7623: 7578:

there focuses on the odd, the unusual and the uncommon -- and we don't

7510: 7447: 7214: 7123: 7091: 6991: 6964: 6940: 6762: 6745:

use it that way. Please stop putting words in other people's mouths.

6509:

exists. I'm not saying don't mention, I'm saying don't give it a page.

6492: 6323: 6304: 5997: 5964: 5858: 5801: 5683: 5576: 5507:

In it goes. I expect putting it in will generate some more discussion.

4290: 4289:

early contributors, but it can change as the balance of users changes.

3727: 3322: 1732: 1621: 1580: 858: 143:

Last discussions to show there is not a wide agreement on the topic :

6721:

to say that wikipedia is not for articles about non-notable subjects.

1087:, so technicalities that we cannot put here will not be in WP at all. 233:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010913.html

227:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010902.html

221:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010899.html

215:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010895.html

209:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010891.html

203:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010889.html

197:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010904.html

191:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010907.html

185:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010903.html

179:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010883.html

173:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010881.html

167:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010885.html

160:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-February/010882.html

9910: 9879: 9830: 9795: 9773: 9288: 8386: 7614:

about a building except for height. Now we'll just have to wait for

7499:

What is important, significant, and of interest and at the same time

7349: 7103:

is something in which you magically divine the future. Knowledge is

7010:

especially in the indiscriminate collection of information sectio --

6562: 6069: 5912:. This section will be removed in four days to simplify this page. 4308:

Knowledge:What Knowledge is not#Knowledge is not a paper encyclopedia

4225: 4215: 4144: 4089: 3985: 3650: 3357: 3334: 1804:

since the results of the voting (or polling) is not strictly binding.

1437: 1172: 1034: 1012: 936: 4819:

is effectively incorporated by reference in an official policy page.

2918:, but I think a mistake was made here and should now be corrected. 10628: 9863: 9422: 9377: 7984:

If interested in helping out, please indicate your interest on the

6436:

Knowledge is not a repository of failed plans and might-have-beens.

5439: 5372: 4581:" and "band X is notable" are, for practical purposes, synonymous. 3842: 3811: 3480: 2932:

for reference, the pre-March version of this paragraph simply read:

2769:

be glad to consider it. Please don't add it unilaterally, though.

1740: 1432: 1398:

I don't understand the question, I'm afraid. Could you clarify? --

9287:

not been a problem across Knowledge, as is the fan site issue. --

7466:

means something other than important or significant or of interest

5267:) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising. 3944: 2611:

They don't, honest. The CfSD debacle is a good example of why not.

1771:

to change the policy name to "Knowledge is not ruled by majority"

1574:

In the 'repository of links' section, the term 'topical list' was

980:

content should be presented - that is up to individual editors. --

10403:

The purpose of the talk pages is editorial, not conversational.

10068: 8971: 8443:

I'm being a bold newbie and changing the structured list link in

7603: 7154: 6932:

The introduction should be made more positive along the lines of

6588:

and self-promotion. Any real-world topic which is encyclopedic,

5925:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Ronald W Reagan Doral High School

4469:

an article. That may sound cold, but that's the way I see it. --

1747: 1251: 1080: 6856: 4212:

Following the law does reflect a bias, but that's okay, because

1451: 741:

foolishly directed me here and I became an instant addict. Like

107:

There wasn't actually a decision to keep, it just languished on

9509:

Linking makes a link. What it implies does depend on context.

8622:

Apparently someone noted it, so it cannot be "unnoteworthy". —

7857:

keep me from writing freely, as suddenly there is a no religion

7301:

Hi, I want to add this to the guideline. Does everyone agree?

6926:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Ottawa municipal election, 2006

6570: 6220: 5723: 5656: 2842:

All of the definitions for poll specifically state that people

1736: 1424: 1022: 756: 505:(Ausir, not oppposed to keeping though would suggest wikibooks) 10062:

I used to be of the view that since Knowledge is demonstrably

9005:

I think like many things, it's a case-by-case basis as far as

7331:

but since that page is obsolete, we need a similar guideline.

6850: 4252:

tagging will manipulate Wikipedians into censoring articles.

4242:

ratings, even though the ratings are not government-required,

3776: 1450:

so does this count i will write this article if you say I can

10210:

It does not clearly specify whether the exception applies to

9539:

dictionary" to "Knowledge is not a dictionary or thesaurus".

9006: 7628:

It's an appaling word, that means 'what I am interested in'.

7186:

product, there is no crystal balling, it's just not notable.

6916:

It's time for "Knowledge is not a crystal ball" to be renamed

6418:

I agree, Knowledge should be instructive, whenever possible.

5435: 5368: 4487:#Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information 3386:

Knowledge is not a repository of links, images or other media

1428: 1079:

dumbing down or drawing out of the text. After all, there is

10038:

That's what an encyclopedia is, yes. --that same Wikipedian.

8107:(an article I originally created by separating content from 6443:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/The Star Wars Sequel Trilogy

6182:

however, much more about his past is revealed..." et cetera

3636:

probation and then try to push the limits during that time.

1291:

Specifically, what kind of talk pages did you have in mind?

9118:, the real problem is that people are using Knowledge as a 8129:, which is indeed approved for inclusion in the Knowledge. 6438:

This could be an ancillary point to "not a crystal ball."

5668: 5662: 4239: 3384:

We need to revise WP:NOT to make it clear to everyone that

2885:

to see whether a consensus has been reached and what it is.

2024: 1801: 8490:

I don't get why the case of your example is a bad idea. —

5800:

more realistic illustration of what it likely to be kept.

4104:? Will you be tagging that image as offensive? What about 1789:

Knowledge:Votes_for_undeletion##Knowledge:Conlangs.2FVotes

1157:

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary

10235:

WP:NOT#Knowledge is not a public forum or a message board

10089:

Knowledge articles are not collections of source material

9686: 9364:

There's a request to keep some articles as an example of

7854: 3496:

I! shall! endeavor! to! do! better! in! the! future!!!!!

1934: 1808:

Can someone else think of a better way to phrase that? --

374:

Articles about secondary, primary, and elementary schools

239:

If some one want to be bold and remove them, fine. But a

10405: 9047:

Hmm. Good point about the instruction creep, Matthew.

7861:

requirement, and I don't remember reading it anywhere!--

7643:

Trend of companies trying to use Knowledge for marketing

6580:

While we do occasionally reject articles due to lack of

5881:. A schedule of future events itself may be appropriate. 5434:

in 2004 it would have been inappropriate to write that "

4306:

I propose to add the following paragraph to the section

2744:

the text to see if I can come up with a better version.

1750:."; Isn't this what happens in the wikipedia? Knowledge 838:"Knowledge is not a general knowledge base" is illogical 777:! One day you'll actually sit out your year's ban ... - 563:

And there is still my proposition made here in october.

1202:

Propose renaming & split of "not a soapbox" heading

7442:

Also, it would be useful to mention that the palce of

5941:. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate. 5866:

I'd keep the first part, but for the second just put:

3828:

I reverted this. It had no place in the main article.

3429:

link to blogs (My position would be: What, never? No,

3268:

Knowledge is not censored for the protection of minors

1651: 10031:

Does this mean that you think Knowledge should be an

9939:

Who says that it is foremost a general encyclopedia?

7267:. (See, for example, the deletion discussions for {{ 6351:

Wording issue (Knowledge is not a paper encyclopedia)

5367:

2004 it would have been inappropriate to state that "

4957:

No, we have plenty of rules about concensus editing.

2655:

like votes to the naive user, or explain why they're

1305:

based edits arn't allowed on talk pages of any kind.

926:

Knowledge is not an academic text - proposed addition

633: 6717:

is an attempt to make this explicit. It would amend

5242:

An addition like the following has been proposed by

9764:I refer you to my response of a few moments ago at 6862:" would do well here for the benefit of new users. 6307:, which states that Windows 95 was released in 95. 4870:Interesting suggestion. I'd go with the following: 4344:page. Perhaps there are better places to add it? 1212:"Knowledge is not a publisher of original thought" 9862:Knowledge is not on a deadline. But remember what 9844:I agree with it, but it's too obvious to include. 9421:Hm, would anyone like to comment on the afd then? 6541:. We are not in the business of determining the 6539:Knowledge is not an arbiter of importance or taste 6534:Knowledge is not an arbiter of importance or taste 6055:being used successfully in combination for games: 4989:, the Board, and ArbCom share absolute authority. 3282:Knowledge is censored for the protection of minors 1362:the change turns out to be OK on other grounds. -- 1288:Sam, could you say what you meant with this edit? 421:these individual articles had encyclopedic value. 8947:Proposed addition: "Knowledge is not a fan site." 8759:number.) One can more easily say that "X is more 7420:Knowledge:Don't include copies of primary sources 6811:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Images of castles 5442:" or that "Wind turbines will provide 20% of the 5375:" or that "Wind turbines will provide 20% of the 5068:I suggest that the above be ammended as follows: 3646: 10421:Propose addendum to Knowledge is not a Democracy 9061:Knowledge is not a publisher of original thought 8371:injunction can I suggest the acronym PPOV , for 7533:Almanac I see "World's Tallest Buildings," but " 6692:such articles, except possibly as violations of 6523:Expanding on some thoughts in the talk page for 6303:the place for stating the self-evident, like on 4265:I do and have already acknowledged all that. -- 4152:. I think you're focussing on the wrong goal. ~⌈ 3726:Then why is there a position called bureaucrat? 2998:I'd accept that, with the poll line preferably. 1250:with four tildes (~). And why not just link to 710:Would you be an example of such an editor? Your 9760:EffK is forced to Abandon a Corrupted Knowledge 9478:It'd be ok anyway, it's a pretty tidy page :-) 9435:I really don't want to get in another row with 7980:Knowledge:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects 4224:. Your comparison is invalid. Nowhere in our 3114:I see no particular problem with doing this. ¦ 1731:states that a "Direct democracy is any form of 10176:Most policy pages aren't protected. Why would 10128:just reverted the edit with the comment that " 10083:Wikisource wants to delete all source and data 9408:... perhaps that's what is being referred to. 8900:I'm really inclined to agree on the basis of ' 7422:, and of course most song lyrics are copyvio. 6545:or merit of a topic to society. We are not a 5843:. Some events may be notable well in advance: 5159:What do you think of the following ammendment: 361:-consensus areas where it is clear that there 10124:in the introductory paragraph of this page. 4573:#A7, and the very existence of the 9/11 wiki. 3066:And now you've implemented it. Good move. :-) 826:http://home.earthlink.net/~amorrow/wacky.html 10610:I Believe there are all every bit as much a 9370:Articles for deletion/Central Galactic Union 8776:USGS Significant Floods in the United States 8499:His example was to illustrate the levels of 8375:. People could sling it at me, quicker than 7099:I don't follow a word of your reasoning. A 5991:Knowledge is not a video game strategy guide 4908:Knowledge is not a democracy...or a monarchy 3781:We should start a new edition of Knowledge: 10199:Structured Lists to help organize articles? 9114:Going back to Lost and, more specifically, 8810:0 significance has a place in Knowledge. — 8379:, and it could avoid the counter charge of 8023:I trust you removed the useless links from 7574:, the ur-Wikipedian) does not work because 4747:"When you wonder what to do": reference to 4643:"When you wonder what to do": reference to 3442:I don't see that link there today, anyway. 3258:ultimately censored, for example under the 1592:to insert a clause in here prohibiting all 560:There is NO consensus to delete. Clearly. 343:a compendium of areas in which it has been 9969:Social Software and the Politics of Groups 9534:Add "Not a thesauus" to "Not a dictionary" 9313:What you call mere Trivia is history data. 9281:Knowledge is not a science enthusiast site 9279:article. It's nothing at all like saying 9203:Knowledge is not a science enthusiast site 8987:For me, the issue is not necessarily even 7389:there only if not proteced by copyright." 5714:Strongly disagree with making this change 4847:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Precedents 4841:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Precedents 4824:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Precedents 4817:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Precedents 4811:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Precedents 4782:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Precedents 4769:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Precedents 4749:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Precedents 4665:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Precedents 974:Knowledge:Guide to writing better articles 8961:similar suggestion, regarding sports fans 8864:Here's the problem. I didn't say that my 7496:important, significant, nor of interest? 6805:Page of images serving as a visual index? 6584:, this is done to exclude such things as 5682:with merge and with the object itself. — 4985:Knowledge is absolutely not an anarchy. 3228:, are you saying you wish that Knowledge 1835:What do you think about that, Jim Henry? 1226:"Knowledge is not a propaganda machine": 10094:Wikisource talk:What Wikisource includes 10033:indiscriminate collection of information 8544:has to happen, the question is what? -- 7386:Knowledge is not a song lyrics database. 4381:I propose something like the following: 4005:Oh, oops. Yep, there it is. Thanks. -- 2536:and I suggested an alternate version? -- 2003:What about this alternative text, then? 1902:, which is considered a nescesary evil. 972:an encyclopaedia. Plus, we already have 933:General and Special Theory of Relativity 9233:I support the addition of this item to 8163:I think if you could see how extensive 7297:Knowledge is not a song lyrics database 6793:and express your view on the proposal. 6757:If you have an objective definition of 3875:Thanks. I've written something on his 1512:Knowledge is not a bureaucracy addition 1474:If you feel the need to test this then 1301:I was trying to claify that disruptive 695:might. In particular, Knowledge is not 14: 9878:Right, I wasn't thinking that at all. 9201:Nonsense - not unless you want to say 8974:-free" might likewise be appropriate. 7807:. I am joining the exodus, farewell. 6761:, please, don't hold it back from us. 6234:A good example is the deleted article 5847:survived a deletion vote in 2005. The 4335:It seems out of place to me. Most of 4218:pages are allowed to be biased and POV 3593:Knowledge is not a babysitting service 3585:Knowledge is not a babysitting service 3246:Napster *cough*). Ideas and comments? 1083:to point people to. Otoh, there is no 509:Favoring systematic move to wikibooks 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 9069:Knowledge is not a propaganda machine 7025:in mind" if you want add a sentence. 7006:i think there should be a mention of 4843:should be tagged as a policy page, or 4393:This is in response to discussion on 3296:, the result is probably a big mess. 2206:binding polls are banned on Knowledge 8768:sources. See, for examples of usage: 8691:is the reason this issue has become 8100:Are slang guides always a bad thing? 7921:edit. Most of the new text was then 6665:. It's not that important, though. 5767:that seem important or relevant see 5259:articles about unreleased products ( 3352:Shouldn't we make an article called 1549:Knowledge talk:Wikiblower protection 1136:I would make this "Knowledge is not 909:knowledge base, it would not have a 25: 18:Knowledge talk:What Knowledge is not 10087:I've added a parenthetical note to 8037:promoting a site, not conducting a 7954:Proposed Wikiproject:External links 7683:Knowledge is not for advertisements 7570:The appeal to the dictionary (i.e. 7470:Please help me out with this word, 6902:Thanks, I added those links to the 6886:Knowledge:Why Knowledge is so great 6363:closely related topic is available. 6132:The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker 6126:The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker 5871:scheduled or expected future events 5837:scheduled or expected future events 5361:Proposed addition to "Crystal ball" 3734:I wondered about this one too. The 2914:discussed here first. I'm all for 843:mainstream Knowledge articles like 539:(Hashar) (probably systematic move) 23: 10339:when they should be adding to the 10237:. Seems like a no-brainer, right? 8649:", and discussed in the proposal " 7165:, where Radiant mentioned it in a 6791:Knowledge talk:Notability proposal 6553:, or apocryphal (although when we 6441:I voted and recently commented on 6176:character is purely coincidental). 6025:) 05:10, September 10, 2005 (UTC) 5057:." What do you think about that? 3748:Of course what they "mean" is the 2848:Knowledge talk:Conlangs/Straw poll 2800:we don't have binding votes, ever. 2031:Is that acceptable to everyone? -- 2017:In closing debates, Administrators 1612:Perhaps a more apt title would be 632:We already have such a site. See 24: 10647: 9360:Example of what Knowledge is not? 8507:notable-- even the winner of the 7277:Knowledge:No disclaimer templates 6450:I really find this unbelievable. 6045:) 07:05, September 11, 2005 (UTC) 5909: 4432:What What Knowledge is not is not 4077:Template:Offensive/StealthVersion 3272:have no technical means available 3108:Knowledge:Knowledge is not a blog 1480:There's no other way to find out. 865:Agreed, the title is misleading. 440:Opposed to systematic removal : * 10404: 8913:are). So in some sense maybe it 6033:05:18, September 10, 2005 (UTC) 5920:03:41, September 13, 2005 (UTC) 5337:03:46, September 13, 2005 (UTC) 4201:m:Should Knowledge Use Profanity 3993:Yikes! Forgot to sign this. -- 3980:Knowledge is not a travel guide? 2940:. Its primary method of finding 2910:and, as near as I can tell, was 1743:can directly participate in the 1341:Quite alright, have a good one. 820:For another example, I give you 640:a recipe over to the cookbook. 481:(Stan, I think he is supportive) 109:Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Old 29: 10443:The Selection of Administrators 9374:Articles for deletion/CGU-verse 9071:" is derived from both NOR and 8385:; being all official , like . 7329:Knowledge:What's in, what's out 7109:Knowledge is not a crystal ball 6972:All right, I can deal with it. 6643:to be "arbiters of importance." 6315:04:29, September 13, 2005 (UTC) 6238:. It went something like this: 5939:2008 U.S. presidential election 5875:2008 U.S. presidential election 5841:2008 U.S. presidential election 5228:03:00, September 10, 2005 (UTC) 5138:01:25, September 10, 2005 (UTC) 5065:23:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC) 5049:23:40, September 9, 2005 (UTC) 4773:Knowledge:What's in, what's out 4755:This section currently begins: 4683:Knowledge:What's in, what's out 4679:Knowledge:What's in, what's out 4669:Knowledge:What's in, what's out 4651:This section currently begins: 3722:Knowledge is not a bureaucracy? 3647:http://en.wikipedia.org/Be_bold 3375:20:34, September 10, 2005 (UTC) 3270:is really a technical one.. we 3250:20:32, September 10, 2005 (UTC) 2010:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1529:) 14:29, August 14, 2005 (UTC) 1324:Okay Sam, sorry, I misread it. 10446:The Demonstration of Consensus 9782:Knowledge is not on a deadline 9167:A pleasure to agree with you. 8829:doesn't need to know? I take 8424:Knowledge:Talk page guidelines 7664:Creating an entry for notable 7281:Knowledge talk:Risk disclaimer 6410:01:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC) 6394:09:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC) 6369:18:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC) 6331:22:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC) 6293:21:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC) 6271:20:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC) 6255:22:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC) 6212:20:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC) 6194:00:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC) 6160:America's Army: Special Forces 6154:America's Army: Special Forces 5968:15:29, 23 September 2005 (UTC) 5894:21:37, September 4, 2005 (UTC) 5757:13:37, 18 September 2005 (UTC) 5737:09:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC) 5349:07:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC) 5324:20:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC) 5308:17:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC) 5296:12:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC) 5277:01:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC) 5196:02:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC) 5105:20:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC) 5096:00:05, 10 September 2005 (UTC) 4302:Proposing additional paragraph 3771:04:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC) 3717:23:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 3689:23:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 3675:23:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 3663:22:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 3654:20:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 3641:20:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 3630:19:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 3615:17:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 3605:16:43, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 3547:03:09, September 5, 2005 (UTC) 3537:03:05, September 5, 2005 (UTC) 3525:01:55, 2005 September 5 (UTC) 3504:16:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC) 3317:01:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC) 2938:not an experiment in democracy 1894:not permitted on wikipedia. A 1563:) 22:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC) 13: 1: 10637:10:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 10619:05:20, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 10602:01:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 10572:16:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 10550:16:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 10535:12:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 10512:06:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 10498:06:07, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 10488:06:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 10478:05:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 10461:05:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 10415:18:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC) 10398:15:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC) 10388:22:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 10370:02:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 10355:04:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 10327:16:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC) 10298:01:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 10253:01:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 10242:01:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 10224:21:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 10161:17:39, 16 November 2005 (UTC) 10147:15:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC) 10101:10:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC) 10057:18:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC) 9777:02:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 9679:Pre-production for Foo (film) 9607:03:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 9426:19:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC) 9416:18:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC) 9390:18:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC) 9381:07:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC) 9344:09:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC) 9323:03:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 9305:04:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC) 9292:00:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC) 9266:15:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 9254:01:27, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 9242:18:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC) 9224:17:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC) 9210:03:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC) 9193:03:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC) 9175:01:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 9159:00:49, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 9138:00:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 9099:20:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 9081:23:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 9052:22:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 9043:22:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 9025:21:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 9020:verifiability" categories. — 9015:20:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 9001:20:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 8982:20:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 8937:11:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC) 8904:', but something still seems 8888:16:16, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 8874:16:08, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 8852:15:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 8839:05:47, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 8824:01:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 8815:00:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 8801:00:43, 23 November 2005 (UTC) 8780:FEMA Significant Flood Events 8715:18:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC) 8687:one-- and repeating the same 8670:12:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC) 8658:05:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC) 8636:20:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 8627:20:25, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 8618:19:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 8609:19:42, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 8598:19:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 8589:06:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 8563:03:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 8530:20:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 8517:19:29, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 8509:Scripps National Spelling Bee 8495:13:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 8485:07:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 8456:14:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC) 8434:23:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC) 8413:17:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC) 8390:20:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC) 8358:22:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 8335:04:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC) 8325:22:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 8280:22:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 8262:22:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 8247:22:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 8231:21:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 8200:21:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 8180:21:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 8155:21:15, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 8142:21:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 8095:08:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 8076:22:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC) 8049:22:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC) 8018:05:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC) 8007:21:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 7944:08:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC) 7934:08:34, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 7909:08:14, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 7899:04:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC) 7866:19:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC) 7633:19:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC) 6844:Question and proposed answer: 6787:Knowledge:Notability proposal 6766:23:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC) 6753:22:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC) 6737:18:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC) 6715:Knowledge:Notability proposal 6090:Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas 5862:22:31, 1 September 2005 (UTC) 5822:03:18, August 31, 2005 (UTC) 5438:is the new storage system in 5371:is the new storage system in 5086:23:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC) 5033:14:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC) 3484:15:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC) 3469:23:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC) 3450:15:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC) 3406:23:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC) 3076:01:21, 1 September 2005 (UTC) 2902:00:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC) 2204:(and helped form it) is that 1710:12:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC) 1506:11:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC) 1254:, which explains the idiom? — 1248:sign your posts on talk pages 1216:no original research / essays 123:Is not a repository of recipe 113:Talk:Images of Saddam Hussein 10440:The Decisions of Arbitration 10437:The Selection of Arbitrators 10193:02:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC) 10170:02:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC) 10096:for the discussion of this. 10009:02:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 9982:01:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 9954:23:08, 30 October 2005 (UTC) 9944:03:14, 29 October 2005 (UTC) 9935:21:48, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 9920:20:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 9895:Clarification of "not paper" 9889:21:45, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 9873:19:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 9853:23:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 9840:19:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 9824:17:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 9805:14:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC) 9752:19:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 9733:19:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 9723:17:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC) 9713:I dont see the problem with 9701:22:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 9673:13:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 9651:08:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC) 9586:17:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC) 9564:17:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC) 9554:17:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC) 9518:20:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC) 9505:02:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC) 9496:21:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC) 9483:02:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC) 9474:02:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC) 9461:21:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 9448:15:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 9354:07:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC) 7993:23:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC) 7885:22:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC) 7840:17:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC) 7782:21:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC) 7771:03:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC) 7753:03:02, 8 November 2005 (UTC) 7732:02:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC) 7717:01:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC) 7562:02:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC) 7514:02:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC) 7458:19:19, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 7437:18:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 7408:17:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 7396:17:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 7375:17:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 7359:17:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 7340:16:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 7322:15:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 7312:12:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 7291:11:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 7258:09:47, 26 October 2005 (UTC) 7243:01:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 7218:23:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC) 7207:13:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC) 7191:06:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC) 7179:04:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 7127:23:02, 30 October 2005 (UTC) 7117:09:33, 30 October 2005 (UTC) 7095:08:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC) 7080:03:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC) 7066:23:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC) 7051:23:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC) 7030:10:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC) 7015:10:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC) 6995:13:07, 22 October 2005 (UTC) 6981:14:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 6968:21:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 6958:20:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 6944:15:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC) 6911:21:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 6897:23:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 6882:Knowledge:Welcome, newcomers 6867:13:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC) 6374:Knowledge is not instructive 6084:Grand Theft Auto:San Andreas 5789:03:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 5710:21:49, 2005 August 29 (UTC) 5699:07:24, 2005 August 27 (UTC) 5676:08:15, 2005 August 24 (UTC) 5246:at the end of this article: 4998:03:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC) 4980:16:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC) 4962:15:54, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 4953:01:22, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 4932:01:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 4902:01:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 4865:01:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 4739:02:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC) 4719:04:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 4705:02:28, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 4693:01:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 4633:22:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 4609:15:47, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 4596:01:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC) 4553:21:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC) 4539:11:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC) 4515:03:12, 29 October 2005 (UTC) 4497:03:03, 29 October 2005 (UTC) 4480:02:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC) 4458:03:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC) 4448:08:45, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 4427:08:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 4411:06:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC) 4371:09:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 4352:04:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 4330:04:00, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 4294:13:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC) 4270:04:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC) 4261:00:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC) 4208:17:28, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 4189:16:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 4138:09:58, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 4084:04:10, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 4071:06:20, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 4053:05:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 4043:05:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC) 4010:23:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 3998:17:53, 18 October 2005 (UTC) 3975:16:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 3955:15:57, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 3918:15:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 3891:15:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 3871:05:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 3854:03:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 3833:03:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 3823:02:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC) 3801:(unsigned comment from anon) 3579:02:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC) 3294:Knowledge is safe for minors 3216:00:54, August 30, 2005 (UTC) 3192:00:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC) 3172:22:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC) 3136:12:48, August 24, 2005 (UTC) 3118:07:58, 2005 August 24 (UTC) 3006:02:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC) 2777:00:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC) 2714:23:28, August 29, 2005 (UTC) 2642:02:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC) 2592:00:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC) 2513:23:30, August 29, 2005 (UTC) 2398:00:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC) 2328:23:28, August 29, 2005 (UTC) 2146:22:28, August 29, 2005 (UTC) 2090:22:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC) 1997:22:23, August 29, 2005 (UTC) 1843:20:53, August 29, 2005 (UTC) 1722:19:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC) 1691:02:13, August 22, 2005 (UTC) 1643:00:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC) 1297:00:39, August 9, 2005 (UTC) 1151:Knowledge is not CliffsNotes 1132:00:30, August 26, 2005 (UTC) 921:23:39, August 25, 2005 (UTC) 7: 10452:The Establishment of Policy 10120:added a sentence about the 9116:Episodes of Lost (Season 2) 8683:task, just because it is a 8574:Deletion of Vanity Articles 7537:Modern Bridges. I also see 6835:11:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 6800:23:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 6728:23:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 6701:22:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 6674:21:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 6656:20:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 6603:18:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC) 6514:13:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 6496:13:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 6487:09:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 6466:22:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 6455:21:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 6423:17:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 6345:01:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC) 6171:10:38:07, 2005-09-10 (UTC) 6057: 5986:17:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 5805:23:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC) 5625:02:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC) 5527:18:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC) 5251:Knowledge's prohibition on 5100:Thanks for your comments.-- 5053:Knowledge's prohibition on 5016:20:01, July 23, 2005 (UTC) 4849:should not be mentioned in 4505:" it later goes on to say " 4464:Knowledge Is Not A Memorial 3943:those users operating from 3568:17:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 3540:This is already covered by 3516:Knowledge not tittle-tattle 3416:link is irrelevant to this 3365:08:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC) 3342:17:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 3240:01:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC) 3204:00:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC) 3180:00:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC) 3154:14:28, 24 August 2005 (UTC) 3102:17:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 3038:04:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC) 2994:02:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC) 2968:22:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC) 2926:03:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC) 2855:23:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 2810:16:28, 30 August 2005 (UTC) 2752:23:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 2731:23:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 2694:00:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC) 2668:23:51, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 2621:00:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC) 2569:23:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 2545:23:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 2480:22:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 2439:00:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC) 2361:23:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 2289:00:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC) 2251:23:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 2218:22:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 2183:22:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 2121:22:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 2068:21:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 2050:21:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 2040:21:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 1907:21:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 1864:21:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 1817:20:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 1787:After the recent debate at 1780:23:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 1759:23:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC) 1674:02:02, 22 August 2005 (UTC) 1629:22:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC) 1601:06:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC) 1584:23:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC) 1539:22:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC) 1445:20:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC) 1410:10:43, 10 August 2005 (UTC) 1393:04:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC) 1330:01:00, August 9, 2005 (UTC) 1194:02:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC) 1167:23:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC) 1146:18:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 1114:00:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC) 1029:19:41, July 13, 2005 (UTC) 962:22:41, July 10, 2005 (UTC) 896:22:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC) 890:22:40, 25 August 2005 (UTC) 833:22:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC) 665:19:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 648:19:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 624:18:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 614:15:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC) 148:Talk:List_of_recipes/Delete 10: 10652: 10430:Notable exceptions include 10077:16:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 9544:Lists of terms or synonyms 8674:Consensus doesn't require 7976:User:Kmf164/External_links 7973: 6530:-- begin proposed text -- 5461:14:43, July 29, 2005 (UTC) 5407:00:37, July 28, 2005 (UTC) 4385:Although Knowledge may be 3558:10:38:07, 2005-09-10 (UTC) 3380:No blogs in pages, please! 3195:Yeah, I was responding to 1374:13:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC) 1352:02:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC) 1316:00:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC) 1047:22:14, July 13, 2005 (UTC) 954:22:22, July 10, 2005 (UTC) 808:for another recent case - 565:Knowledge:Recipes proposal 153:Knowledge:Recipes_proposal 8060:For other articles, like 7986:List of proposed projects 6813:which refers to the page 6519:Another proposed addition 6146:Medal of Honor: Frontline 6140:Medal of Honor: Frontline 6009:appropriate to create on 5583:21:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 5538:18:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 5515:15:11, 29 July 2005 (UTC) 5487:20:23, 28 July 2005 (UTC) 5391:12:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC) 4319:wikipedia:easy navigation 4075:As in a stealth version: 2313:The Arbitrator elections 1276:18:03, 22 July 2005 (UTC) 1262:17:25, 22 July 2005 (UTC) 1180:00:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC) 1101:21:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 1070:05:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC) 1038:19:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC) 1016:19:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC) 1004:12:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 990:02:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC) 940:10:42, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 881:14:38, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) 813:23:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 782:23:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC) 719:05:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC) 595:19:18, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC) 516:Andre Engels (many mails) 416:00:53, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) 140:19:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) 119:21:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) 10449:The Deletion of Articles 9742:a free hosting service. 9683:Planning for Foo (event) 8373:propaganda point of view 8088:User talk:209.97.196.196 8082:A place for free speech. 7969:Knowledge:External links 7379:How about the following: 6595:-- end proposed text -- 6360:My suggestion would be: 5851:may also be appropriate. 5648:Knowledge:No Instruction 4096:prefer not to see their 2165:. As far as I can tell 873:06:17, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) 861:05:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC) 797:July 8, 2005 13:55 (UTC) 676:Knowledge is not therapy 428:02:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC) 412:actions in this matter. 385:15:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) 332:10:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC) 103:Images of Saddam Hussein 9063:" is a restatement of " 8805:I like "significant" a 7871:Reverted to wishy-washy 7492:, and at the same time 4879:Hence, the latter is a 4485:It's still there. See 4168:2005-10-20 T 10:48:18 Z 4128:2005-10-20 T 09:06:58 Z 3697:. I hadn't known about 3552:Knowledge:Verifiability 1478:and create the article 1457:no one has ansered me? 745:having that first beer. 716:FlatulentCorpulentDavid 703:8 July 2005 02:05 (UTC) 689:04:47, 3 May 2005 (UTC) 582:I am in agreement with 357:Three well-established 254:Policies and guidelines 10178:Knowledge:Five pillars 9709:I dont see the problem 9615:Exceptions to the rule 9328:In regards to memorial 8406:Refactoring talk pages 7788:...what it used to be. 7622:to merge to find out. 7620:New York Times Company 5340:I'm now adding it in. 4323: 4313:Knowledge not being a 3784:Proposal application: 3454:Because we decided to 1652:Merriam-Webster online 1219:not a discussion forum 584:SweetLittleFluffyThing 577:SweetLittleFluffyThing 400:SweetLittleFluffyThing 260:From the same source, 247:SweetLittleFluffyThing 138:SweetLittleFluffyThing 10495:The Literate Engineer 10475:The Literate Engineer 10473:you've proposed it. 10324:The Literate Engineer 10295:The Literate Engineer 10250:The Literate Engineer 10221:The Literate Engineer 10054:The Literate Engineer 9583:The Literate Engineer 9551:The Literate Engineer 9404:There is, of course, 9387:The Literate Engineer 9096:The Literate Engineer 9049:The Literate Engineer 8836:The Literate Engineer 8831:Sturgeon's Relevation 8693:argumentum ad nauseam 8615:The Literate Engineer 8332:The Literate Engineer 8277:The Literate Engineer 8275:what the entry was. 8244:The Literate Engineer 7974:Further information: 7809:-- Captain Roger Ames 6922:articles for deletion 6476:Star Wars speculation 6342:The Literate Engineer 5024:grounded and sourced. 4377:is not the real world 4311: 3260:Neutral Point of View 1735:based on a theory of 1729:Democracy (varieties) 1598:The Literate Engineer 1536:The Literate Engineer 1230:propaganda / advocacy 605:a portal for recipes. 599:How about this rule: 588:What Knowledge is not 42:of past discussions. 9685:with redirects from 9065:No Original Research 8710:I wanted to make. — 8651:Knowledge:Importance 8420:Knowledge:Talk pages 8316:getting the boot. — 8314:List of sexual slang 8301:List of sexual slang 8169:List of sexual slang 8086:Hatespeech moved to 8039:breaching experiment 7761:inclusion guidelines 7488:For example what is 7151:Mad Max 4: Fury Road 7036:What is a directory? 6525:Knowledge:Importance 5879:2020 Summer Olympics 5845:2020 Summer Olympics 5795:Crystal ball section 5763:Certainly there are 4968:WP is not an anarchy 4833:It seems to me that 3730:9/25/05 4:23 PM EST 3325:9/29/05 4:26 PM EST 1452:Seinor League Hockey 546:Interesting comment 10072:for doing this!). 9926:write intros, etc. 7803:Have fun with your 6840:What is Knowledge?? 6782:Notability proposal 5849:schedule as a whole 4791:is official policy. 4685:should be removed. 3703:assuming good faith 3433:What, never? Well, 2944:is discussion, not 1656:every single person 1614:Knowledge is not a 1222:no critical reviews 1161:Harry Potter (plot) 849:William Shakespeare 10317:• 2005-12-11 02:14 10271:• 2005-12-11 01:46 10229:Not a public forum 9298:Knowledge:Fancruft 8909:is not (but other 8689:proof by assertion 8576:." In particular, 8320:Stevie is the man! 8257:Stevie is the man! 8226:Stevie is the man! 8175:Stevie is the man! 8137:Stevie is the man! 8002:Stevie is the man! 7927:relevant talk page 7853:These people like 7529:Thus, in the 2005 7344:We shouldn't have 6854:Irregular Webcomic 6527:, how about this? 6507:Al Gore Presidency 6431:Suggested addition 5995:I propose adding " 5910:talk section above 4800:in an encyclopedia 4764:in an encyclopedia 4660:in an encyclopedia 4397:and restructuring 4027:Template:Offensive 4021:Template:Offensive 3789:graphic censorship 3649:covers it well. - 3354:What a wiki is not 3299:To even attempt a 636:. Any editor can 634:Wikibooks:Cookbook 158:A couple of mails 10523:not a bureaucracy 10318: 10272: 10106:reference to the 9965:Knowledge:replies 9871: 9720:Organized Shopper 9671: 9649: 9334:sep11:In Memoriam 9135: 9129: 8866:opinion on floods 8561: 8483: 7843: 7357: 7241: 6884:, and especially 6860:What Knowledge is 6819:Images of castles 6815:Images of castles 6166: 6165: 6118:Super Mario World 6112:Super Mario World 5253:original research 5184:original research 5073:original research 5055:original research 4930: 4751:-- problematical? 4602:WP: US Presidents 4445: 4424: 4362:, not what it is 4169: 4129: 3766: 3687: 3394:Hurricane Katrina 3226:Wack'd About Wiki 3197:Wack'd About Wiki 3151:Wack'd About Wiki 3094:Not a democracy ? 2027:instead of votes. 1980:wrote the above.) 1933:is shorthand for 1886:is shorthand for 1767:Also, where do I 1594:stand-alone lists 1570:Structured lists? 1534:are no rules."? 1099: 341:non-policy guide, 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 10643: 10599: 10568: 10531: 10408: 10352: 10347: 10315: 10306: 10269: 10260: 9870: 9694: 9670: 9639: 9133: 9127: 8953:Lost (TV series) 8647:Knowledge:Trivia 8555: 8477: 8453:SchrödingersRoot 8395:Not a chat room? 8322: 8310:Body parts slang 8306:Body parts slang 8297:Body parts slang 8259: 8228: 8177: 8165:Body parts slang 8139: 8105:Body parts slang 8004: 7875:With respect to 7811: 7805:Council of Nicea 7670:handled properly 7586:U.S. President, 7434: 7356: 7248:helpful warnings 7235: 7023:Knowledge:Trivia 7008:Knowledge:Trivia 7001:Knowledge:Trivia 6848:David Morgan-Mar 6663:Social Registers 6551:pseudoscientific 6390: 6290: 6285: 6280: 6058: 5720:Knowledge:How-to 5706: 5697: 5689: 4950: 4924: 4899: 4829:official policy. 4630: 4593: 4536: 4444: 4423: 4327:Francis Schonken 4251: 4245: 4222:Articles are not 4167: 4127: 3764: 3686: 3466: 3403: 3224:I'm confused... 3134: 2877:referred to as " 2470:m:polls are evil 2277:m:Polls are evil 1978:User:Kim Bruning 1972:Accepted, 2+2=5! 1793:User:Kim Bruning 1708: 1672: 1406: 1370: 1091: 755:As a recovering 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 10651: 10650: 10646: 10645: 10644: 10642: 10641: 10640: 10596: 10566: 10529: 10519:not a democracy 10423: 10350: 10345: 10322:inserting it. 10313: 10267: 10231: 10201: 10111: 10085: 9967:and to look up 9918: 9897: 9887: 9838: 9803: 9784: 9762: 9711: 9692: 9617: 9536: 9433: 9362: 9330: 9132: 9126: 8949: 8643:"Verifiability" 8463: 8449:Knowledge:Lists 8441: 8397: 8365: 8318: 8255: 8224: 8173: 8135: 8127:structured list 8102: 8084: 8000: 7982: 7956: 7873: 7790: 7645: 7543:World's Largest 7468: 7431: 7299: 7250: 7188:Nathan J. Yoder 7058: 7048:Nathan J. Yoder 7038: 7004: 6918: 6874:Knowledge:About 6842: 6807: 6784: 6547:Social Register 6536: 6521: 6433: 6388: 6376: 6353: 6288: 6283: 6278: 6202: 6001:strategy guides 5993: 5797: 5745:No Instructions 5704: 5695: 5687: 5652: 5363: 5263:movies, games, 5257:Forward-looking 5006: 4970: 4947: 4910: 4896: 4753: 4649: 4627: 4590: 4533: 4466: 4434: 4379: 4304: 4249: 4243: 4024: 3982: 3808: 3795: 3792: 3779: 3724: 3595: 3587: 3550:Also note that 3518: 3464: 3401: 3388:! Just look at 3382: 3350: 3143: 3131: 3112: 2553:How about: ... 2429:No worries. :-) 1745:decision-making 1705: 1663: 1610: 1607:Majoritarianism 1572: 1514: 1404: 1381: 1368: 1286: 1204: 1153: 1124:to handle it. 928: 840: 679: 125: 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 10649: 10624: 10623: 10622: 10621: 10616:Benjamin Gatti 10605: 10604: 10579: 10578: 10577: 10576: 10575: 10574: 10555: 10554: 10553: 10552: 10547:Benjamin Gatti 10509:Benjamin Gatti 10491: 10490: 10485:Benjamin Gatti 10458:Benjamin Gatti 10454: 10453: 10450: 10447: 10444: 10441: 10438: 10434: 10433: 10431: 10422: 10419: 10418: 10417: 10395:Crippled Sloth 10391: 10390: 10385:Benjamin Gatti 10373: 10372: 10358: 10357: 10341:Reference desk 10333: 10332: 10331: 10330: 10329: 10291: 10290: 10283: 10282: 10274: 10273: 10256: 10255: 10230: 10227: 10216: 10215: 10208: 10200: 10197: 10196: 10195: 10174: 10173: 10172: 10110: 10104: 10084: 10081: 10080: 10079: 10050: 10049: 10048: 10047: 10046: 10045: 10044: 10043: 10042: 10041: 10040: 10039: 10016: 10015: 10014: 10013: 10012: 10011: 9989: 9988: 9987: 9986: 9985: 9984: 9946: 9914: 9908: 9907: 9896: 9893: 9892: 9891: 9883: 9860: 9859: 9858: 9857: 9856: 9855: 9834: 9799: 9783: 9780: 9761: 9758: 9757: 9756: 9755: 9754: 9736: 9735: 9710: 9707: 9706: 9705: 9704: 9703: 9690: 9616: 9613: 9611: 9599: 9598: 9591: 9590: 9589: 9588: 9567: 9566: 9535: 9532: 9531: 9530: 9529: 9528: 9527: 9526: 9525: 9524: 9523: 9522: 9521: 9520: 9432: 9431:Angela's Page? 9429: 9419: 9418: 9401: 9400: 9361: 9358: 9357: 9356: 9329: 9326: 9315: 9314: 9273: 9272: 9271: 9270: 9269: 9268: 9231: 9230: 9229: 9228: 9227: 9226: 9196: 9195: 9180: 9179: 9178: 9177: 9162: 9161: 9151: 9150: 9149: 9148: 9147: 9146: 9145: 9144: 9143: 9142: 9141: 9140: 9130: 9124: 9092: 9091: 9090: 9089: 9088: 9087: 9086: 9085: 9084: 9083: 9067:." Likewise, " 9055: 9054: 8993: 8992: 8948: 8945: 8944: 8943: 8942: 8941: 8940: 8939: 8924: 8923: 8922: 8921: 8920: 8919: 8893: 8892: 8891: 8890: 8877: 8876: 8862: 8861: 8860: 8859: 8858: 8857: 8856: 8855: 8854: 8794: 8793: 8792: 8787: 8782: 8770: 8769: 8734: 8733: 8732: 8731: 8730: 8729: 8728: 8727: 8726: 8725: 8724: 8723: 8722: 8721: 8720: 8719: 8718: 8717: 8602: 8601: 8600: 8546:Hurricane Eric 8537: 8536: 8535: 8534: 8533: 8532: 8468:Hurricane Eric 8462: 8459: 8440: 8437: 8396: 8393: 8364: 8361: 8344: 8343: 8342: 8341: 8340: 8339: 8338: 8337: 8285: 8284: 8283: 8282: 8265: 8264: 8240: 8239: 8238: 8237: 8236: 8235: 8234: 8233: 8219:George W. Bush 8207: 8206: 8205: 8204: 8203: 8202: 8185: 8184: 8183: 8182: 8158: 8157: 8101: 8098: 8083: 8080: 8079: 8078: 8067: 8066: 8057: 8056: 8025:Hybrid vehicle 8021: 8020: 7961:Hybrid vehicle 7955: 7952: 7951: 7950: 7949: 7948: 7947: 7946: 7911: 7872: 7869: 7859: 7858: 7846: 7821:209.97.196.196 7789: 7786: 7785: 7784: 7774: 7773: 7756: 7755: 7741: 7740: 7735: 7734: 7710: 7709: 7708: 7707: 7706: 7705: 7693: 7692: 7688:Copyright info 7685: 7661: 7660: 7659: 7658: 7657: 7656: 7644: 7641: 7640: 7639: 7638: 7637: 7636: 7635: 7601:New York Times 7594: 7593: 7592: 7591: 7565: 7564: 7551: 7550: 7525: 7524: 7467: 7461: 7440: 7439: 7411: 7410: 7399: 7398: 7381: 7380: 7377: 7364: 7363: 7362: 7361: 7325: 7324: 7298: 7295: 7294: 7293: 7249: 7246: 7226:Hurricane Eric 7221: 7220: 7200: 7199: 7198: 7197: 7196: 7195: 7194: 7193: 7183: 7182: 7181: 7057: 7054: 7037: 7034: 7033: 7032: 7003: 6998: 6988: 6987: 6986: 6985: 6984: 6983: 6917: 6914: 6900: 6899: 6845: 6841: 6838: 6806: 6803: 6783: 6780: 6779: 6778: 6777: 6776: 6775: 6774: 6773: 6772: 6771: 6770: 6769: 6768: 6706: 6705: 6704: 6703: 6698:EngineerScotty 6679: 6678: 6677: 6676: 6645: 6644: 6635: 6634: 6633:acquaintances. 6629: 6628: 6620: 6619: 6615: 6614: 6610: 6609: 6600:EngineerScotty 6575:monster trucks 6567:Britney Spears 6535: 6532: 6520: 6517: 6503: 6502: 6501: 6500: 6499: 6498: 6469: 6468: 6432: 6429: 6428: 6427: 6426: 6425: 6413: 6412: 6375: 6372: 6352: 6349: 6348: 6347: 6336: 6335: 6334: 6333: 6317: 6316: 6228: 6227: 6226: 6225: 6201: 6198: 6197: 6196: 6187: 6183: 6178: 6177: 6164: 6163: 6156: 6150: 6149: 6142: 6136: 6135: 6128: 6122: 6121: 6114: 6108: 6107: 6104:Super Mario 64 6100: 6098:Super Mario 64 6094: 6093: 6086: 6080: 6079: 6072: 6066: 6065: 6062: 6049: 6048: 6047: 6046: 5992: 5989: 5979: 5978: 5977: 5976: 5975: 5974: 5973: 5972: 5971: 5970: 5951: 5950: 5949: 5948: 5947: 5946: 5945: 5944: 5943: 5942: 5934: 5900: 5899: 5898: 5897: 5896: 5895: 5884: 5883: 5882: 5856: 5855: 5854: 5853: 5852: 5796: 5793: 5792: 5791: 5760: 5759: 5747:encourages. -- 5740: 5739: 5651: 5645: 5644: 5643: 5642: 5641: 5640: 5639: 5638: 5637: 5636: 5635: 5634: 5633: 5632: 5631: 5630: 5629: 5628: 5627: 5600: 5599: 5598: 5597: 5596: 5595: 5594: 5593: 5592: 5591: 5590: 5589: 5588: 5587: 5586: 5585: 5553: 5552: 5551: 5550: 5549: 5548: 5547: 5546: 5545: 5544: 5543: 5542: 5541: 5540: 5496: 5495: 5494: 5493: 5492: 5491: 5490: 5489: 5471: 5470: 5469: 5468: 5467: 5466: 5465: 5464: 5463: 5462: 5424: 5423: 5422: 5421: 5420: 5419: 5418:OK, how about: 5411: 5410: 5409: 5408: 5381: 5380: 5362: 5359: 5358: 5357: 5356: 5355: 5354: 5353: 5352: 5351: 5311: 5310: 5299: 5298: 5240: 5239: 5238: 5237: 5236: 5235: 5234: 5233: 5232: 5231: 5230: 5229: 5207: 5206: 5205: 5204: 5203: 5202: 5201: 5200: 5199: 5198: 5189: 5188: 5187: 5169: 5168: 5167: 5166: 5165: 5164: 5163: 5162: 5161: 5160: 5148: 5147: 5146: 5145: 5144: 5143: 5142: 5141: 5140: 5139: 5118: 5117: 5116: 5115: 5114: 5113: 5112: 5111: 5110: 5109: 5108: 5107: 5078: 5077: 5076: 5026: 5025: 5005: 5002: 5001: 5000: 4969: 4966: 4965: 4964: 4955: 4915:Hurricane Eric 4909: 4906: 4905: 4904: 4886: 4885: 4884: 4877: 4874: 4855: 4854: 4844: 4831: 4830: 4820: 4814: 4804: 4792: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4752: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4742: 4741: 4722: 4721: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4672: 4648: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4636: 4635: 4616:Rolling Stones 4574: 4558: 4557: 4556: 4555: 4542: 4541: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4489:, subline 4. 4471:Hurricane Eric 4465: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4433: 4430: 4391: 4390: 4378: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4355: 4354: 4303: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4286: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4023: 4018: 4017: 4016: 4015: 4014: 4013: 4012: 3981: 3978: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3965: 3964: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3900: 3899: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3895: 3894: 3893: 3881:internet troll 3836: 3835: 3807: 3804: 3793: 3786: 3778: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3754: 3746: 3739: 3723: 3720: 3693:I concur with 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3633: 3632: 3618: 3617: 3594: 3591: 3586: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3571: 3570: 3560: 3559: 3548: 3538: 3517: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3507: 3506: 3494: 3493:is well taken. 3491: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3439: 3438: 3422: 3421: 3381: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3349: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3252: 3251: 3222: 3221: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3193: 3173: 3142: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3111: 3105: 3091: 3090: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3084: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3067: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3044: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3035:(spill yours?) 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 2985: 2975: 2974: 2973: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2965:(spill yours?) 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2887: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2865: 2858: 2857: 2840: 2839: 2838: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2801: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2759: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2749:(spill yours?) 2736: 2735: 2734: 2733: 2722: 2716: 2715: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2685: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2612: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2560: 2559: 2558: 2548: 2547: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2477:(spill yours?) 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2430: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2371: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2366: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2352: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2280: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2209: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2113: 2105: 2102: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2070: 2053: 2052: 2029: 2028: 2019:use the votes 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1983: 1982: 1973: 1970: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1966: 1963: 1960: 1957: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1929:On Knowledge, 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1844: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1806: 1805: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1762: 1761: 1724: 1723: 1693: 1692: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1645: 1644: 1609: 1604: 1571: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1542: 1541: 1513: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1489: 1488: 1471: 1470: 1448: 1447: 1413: 1412: 1380: 1377: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1331: 1319: 1318: 1285: 1282: 1281: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1265: 1264: 1238: 1237: 1234: 1233:self-promotion 1231: 1224: 1223: 1220: 1217: 1203: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1183: 1182: 1152: 1149: 1134: 1133: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1007: 1006: 1001:131.211.210.10 995: 994: 993: 992: 968:But Knowledge 956: 955: 935:! So can you! 927: 924: 923: 922: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 839: 836: 818: 817: 816: 815: 799: 798: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 752: 747: 734: 705: 704: 697:chlorpromazine 678: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 653: 652: 651: 650: 627: 626: 597: 596: 555: 554: 544: 543: 540: 534: 528: 518: 517: 507: 506: 500: 494: 488: 482: 476: 470: 464: 458: 452: 444:(Jimmy Wales) 430: 429: 409: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 403: 402: 389: 388: 387: 386: 377: 376: 375: 372: 369: 352: 351: 350: 349: 334: 333: 237: 236: 230: 224: 218: 212: 206: 200: 194: 188: 182: 176: 170: 156: 155: 150: 124: 121: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 10648: 10639: 10638: 10634: 10630: 10620: 10617: 10613: 10609: 10608: 10607: 10606: 10603: 10600: 10593: 10590: 10586: 10581: 10580: 10573: 10570: 10569: 10561: 10560: 10559: 10558: 10557: 10556: 10551: 10548: 10543: 10538: 10537: 10536: 10533: 10532: 10524: 10521:, instead of 10520: 10516: 10515: 10514: 10513: 10510: 10506: 10500: 10499: 10496: 10489: 10486: 10482: 10481: 10480: 10479: 10476: 10472: 10468: 10463: 10462: 10459: 10451: 10448: 10445: 10442: 10439: 10436: 10435: 10432: 10429: 10428: 10427: 10416: 10413: 10412: 10407: 10402: 10401: 10400: 10399: 10396: 10389: 10386: 10382: 10378: 10375: 10374: 10371: 10368: 10363: 10360: 10359: 10356: 10353: 10348: 10342: 10338: 10334: 10328: 10325: 10320: 10319: 10316: 10311: 10310: 10304: 10303: 10302: 10301: 10300: 10299: 10296: 10288: 10287: 10286: 10280: 10279: 10278: 10270: 10265: 10264: 10258: 10257: 10254: 10251: 10246: 10245: 10244: 10243: 10240: 10236: 10226: 10225: 10222: 10213: 10212:any and every 10209: 10206: 10205: 10204: 10194: 10191: 10188: 10184: 10179: 10175: 10171: 10168: 10164: 10163: 10162: 10159: 10155: 10151: 10150: 10149: 10148: 10145: 10142: 10138: 10132: 10131: 10127: 10123: 10119: 10115: 10109: 10103: 10102: 10099: 10095: 10090: 10078: 10075: 10070: 10065: 10061: 10060: 10059: 10058: 10055: 10037: 10036: 10034: 10030: 10029: 10027: 10024: 10023: 10022: 10021: 10020: 10019: 10018: 10017: 10010: 10007: 10004: 9999: 9995: 9994: 9993: 9992: 9991: 9990: 9983: 9980: 9977: 9973: 9970: 9966: 9961: 9957: 9956: 9955: 9952: 9947: 9945: 9942: 9938: 9937: 9936: 9933: 9929: 9924: 9923: 9922: 9921: 9917: 9912: 9906: 9903: 9902: 9901: 9890: 9886: 9881: 9877: 9876: 9875: 9874: 9869: 9865: 9854: 9851: 9847: 9843: 9842: 9841: 9837: 9832: 9827: 9826: 9825: 9822: 9818: 9814: 9809: 9808: 9807: 9806: 9802: 9797: 9793: 9789: 9779: 9778: 9775: 9772: 9768: 9767: 9753: 9749: 9745: 9740: 9739: 9738: 9737: 9734: 9731: 9727: 9726: 9725: 9724: 9721: 9716: 9702: 9699: 9697: 9695: 9688: 9684: 9680: 9676: 9675: 9674: 9669: 9664: 9660: 9655: 9654: 9653: 9652: 9648: 9645: 9642: 9638: 9635: 9629: 9625: 9622: 9612: 9609: 9608: 9605: 9596: 9593: 9592: 9587: 9584: 9579: 9575: 9571: 9570: 9569: 9568: 9565: 9562: 9558: 9557: 9556: 9555: 9552: 9547: 9545: 9540: 9519: 9516: 9512: 9508: 9507: 9506: 9503: 9499: 9498: 9497: 9494: 9490: 9486: 9485: 9484: 9481: 9477: 9476: 9475: 9472: 9468: 9464: 9463: 9462: 9459: 9456: 9452: 9451: 9450: 9449: 9446: 9442: 9438: 9428: 9427: 9424: 9417: 9414: 9411: 9407: 9403: 9402: 9398: 9394: 9393: 9392: 9391: 9388: 9383: 9382: 9379: 9375: 9371: 9367: 9355: 9352: 9348: 9347: 9346: 9345: 9342: 9339: 9335: 9325: 9324: 9321: 9312: 9309: 9308: 9307: 9306: 9303: 9299: 9294: 9293: 9290: 9286: 9282: 9278: 9267: 9264: 9260: 9257: 9256: 9255: 9252: 9248: 9247: 9246: 9245: 9244: 9243: 9240: 9236: 9225: 9222: 9218: 9213: 9212: 9211: 9208: 9204: 9200: 9199: 9198: 9197: 9194: 9191: 9187: 9182: 9181: 9176: 9173: 9170: 9166: 9165: 9164: 9163: 9160: 9157: 9153: 9152: 9139: 9136: 9121: 9117: 9113: 9112: 9111: 9110: 9109: 9108: 9107: 9106: 9105: 9104: 9103: 9102: 9101: 9100: 9097: 9082: 9079: 9076:provider." — 9074: 9070: 9066: 9062: 9057: 9056: 9053: 9050: 9046: 9045: 9044: 9040: 9036: 9032: 9031:Matthew Brown 9028: 9027: 9026: 9023: 9018: 9017: 9016: 9013: 9008: 9004: 9003: 9002: 8999: 8998:Matthew Brown 8995: 8994: 8990: 8986: 8985: 8984: 8983: 8980: 8975: 8973: 8969: 8964: 8962: 8958: 8954: 8938: 8935: 8930: 8929: 8928: 8927: 8926: 8925: 8916: 8912: 8907: 8903: 8899: 8898: 8897: 8896: 8895: 8894: 8889: 8886: 8881: 8880: 8879: 8878: 8875: 8872: 8867: 8863: 8853: 8850: 8847: 8842: 8841: 8840: 8837: 8832: 8827: 8826: 8825: 8822: 8818: 8817: 8816: 8813: 8808: 8804: 8803: 8802: 8799: 8795: 8791: 8788: 8786: 8783: 8781: 8777: 8774: 8773: 8772: 8771: 8766: 8762: 8758: 8754: 8750: 8749:"significant" 8746: 8741: 8736: 8735: 8716: 8713: 8709: 8705: 8700: 8699: 8698: 8694: 8690: 8686: 8682: 8677: 8673: 8672: 8671: 8668: 8663: 8662: 8661: 8660: 8659: 8656: 8652: 8648: 8644: 8639: 8638: 8637: 8634: 8630: 8629: 8628: 8625: 8621: 8620: 8619: 8616: 8612: 8611: 8610: 8607: 8603: 8599: 8596: 8592: 8591: 8590: 8587: 8583: 8579: 8575: 8571: 8567: 8566: 8565: 8564: 8560: 8559: 8553: 8552: 8547: 8543: 8531: 8528: 8524: 8520: 8519: 8518: 8515: 8510: 8506: 8502: 8501:WP:Notability 8498: 8497: 8496: 8493: 8489: 8488: 8487: 8486: 8482: 8481: 8475: 8474: 8469: 8458: 8457: 8454: 8450: 8446: 8445:Knowledge:NOT 8436: 8435: 8432: 8429: 8425: 8421: 8415: 8414: 8411: 8407: 8402: 8392: 8391: 8388: 8384: 8383: 8378: 8374: 8370: 8360: 8359: 8356: 8353: 8349: 8336: 8333: 8328: 8327: 8326: 8323: 8321: 8315: 8312:and to avoid 8311: 8307: 8302: 8298: 8294: 8291: 8290: 8289: 8288: 8287: 8286: 8281: 8278: 8274: 8269: 8268: 8267: 8266: 8263: 8260: 8258: 8251: 8250: 8249: 8248: 8245: 8232: 8229: 8227: 8220: 8215: 8214: 8213: 8212: 8211: 8210: 8209: 8208: 8201: 8198: 8195: 8191: 8190: 8189: 8188: 8187: 8186: 8181: 8178: 8176: 8170: 8166: 8162: 8161: 8160: 8159: 8156: 8153: 8150: 8146: 8145: 8144: 8143: 8140: 8138: 8130: 8128: 8123: 8121: 8117: 8112: 8110: 8106: 8097: 8096: 8093: 8089: 8077: 8074: 8069: 8068: 8063: 8062:New York City 8059: 8058: 8053: 8052: 8051: 8050: 8047: 8044: 8040: 8034: 8031: 8028: 8026: 8019: 8016: 8011: 8010: 8009: 8008: 8005: 8003: 7995: 7994: 7991: 7987: 7981: 7977: 7972: 7970: 7964: 7962: 7945: 7942: 7937: 7936: 7935: 7932: 7928: 7924: 7920: 7916: 7912: 7910: 7907: 7902: 7901: 7900: 7897: 7893: 7889: 7888: 7887: 7886: 7883: 7878: 7868: 7867: 7864: 7856: 7852: 7849: 7848: 7847: 7844: 7841: 7838: 7834: 7830: 7826: 7822: 7819: 7817: 7810: 7806: 7801: 7798: 7794: 7783: 7780: 7776: 7775: 7772: 7769: 7766: 7762: 7758: 7757: 7754: 7751: 7748: 7743: 7742: 7737: 7736: 7733: 7729: 7725: 7721: 7720: 7719: 7718: 7715: 7704: 7703: 7702: 7701: 7700: 7699: 7698: 7697: 7691: 7689: 7686: 7684: 7681: 7680: 7679: 7678: 7674: 7673: 7671: 7667: 7655: 7654: 7653: 7652: 7651: 7650: 7649: 7634: 7631: 7627: 7626: 7625: 7621: 7617: 7613: 7609: 7605: 7602: 7598: 7597: 7596: 7595: 7589: 7585: 7581: 7577: 7573: 7569: 7568: 7567: 7566: 7563: 7560: 7557: 7553: 7552: 7548: 7544: 7540: 7536: 7532: 7527: 7526: 7522: 7518: 7517: 7516: 7515: 7512: 7507: 7505: 7502: 7497: 7495: 7491: 7486: 7485: 7481: 7477: 7473: 7465: 7460: 7459: 7456: 7453: 7449: 7445: 7444:public domain 7438: 7435: 7428: 7425: 7421: 7417: 7413: 7412: 7409: 7406: 7401: 7400: 7397: 7394: 7392: 7387: 7383: 7382: 7378: 7376: 7373: 7371: 7366: 7365: 7360: 7355: 7351: 7347: 7343: 7342: 7341: 7338: 7334: 7333: 7332: 7330: 7323: 7320: 7316: 7315: 7314: 7313: 7310: 7309:84.188.177.89 7305: 7302: 7292: 7289: 7286: 7282: 7278: 7274: 7270: 7266: 7262: 7261: 7260: 7259: 7256: 7245: 7244: 7240: 7239: 7233: 7232: 7227: 7219: 7216: 7211: 7210: 7209: 7208: 7205: 7192: 7189: 7184: 7180: 7177: 7173: 7168: 7164: 7160: 7156: 7152: 7148: 7146: 7144: 7142: 7140: 7138: 7136: 7134: 7130: 7129: 7128: 7125: 7120: 7119: 7118: 7115: 7110: 7106: 7102: 7098: 7097: 7096: 7093: 7088: 7083: 7082: 7081: 7078: 7074: 7070: 7069: 7068: 7067: 7064: 7053: 7052: 7049: 7045: 7042: 7031: 7028: 7024: 7019: 7018: 7017: 7016: 7013: 7009: 7002: 6997: 6996: 6993: 6982: 6979: 6975: 6971: 6970: 6969: 6966: 6961: 6960: 6959: 6956: 6952: 6948: 6947: 6946: 6945: 6942: 6936: 6935: 6931: 6927: 6923: 6913: 6912: 6909: 6905: 6898: 6895: 6891: 6887: 6883: 6879: 6878:Knowledge:FAQ 6875: 6871: 6870: 6869: 6868: 6865: 6861: 6857: 6855: 6851: 6849: 6837: 6836: 6833: 6828: 6825: 6820: 6816: 6812: 6802: 6801: 6798: 6796: 6792: 6788: 6767: 6764: 6760: 6756: 6755: 6754: 6751: 6748: 6744: 6740: 6739: 6738: 6735: 6731: 6730: 6729: 6726: 6724: 6720: 6716: 6712: 6711: 6710: 6709: 6708: 6707: 6702: 6699: 6695: 6691: 6687: 6683: 6682: 6681: 6680: 6675: 6672: 6668: 6664: 6659: 6658: 6657: 6654: 6651: 6647: 6646: 6642: 6637: 6636: 6631: 6630: 6626: 6622: 6621: 6617: 6616: 6612: 6611: 6607: 6606: 6605: 6604: 6601: 6596: 6593: 6591: 6587: 6583: 6578: 6576: 6572: 6568: 6564: 6560: 6556: 6552: 6548: 6544: 6540: 6531: 6528: 6526: 6516: 6515: 6512: 6508: 6497: 6494: 6490: 6489: 6488: 6485: 6481: 6477: 6473: 6472: 6471: 6470: 6467: 6464: 6459: 6458: 6457: 6456: 6453: 6449: 6444: 6439: 6437: 6424: 6421: 6417: 6416: 6415: 6414: 6411: 6407: 6403: 6398: 6397: 6396: 6395: 6392: 6385: 6381: 6371: 6370: 6367: 6364: 6359: 6346: 6343: 6338: 6337: 6332: 6329: 6325: 6321: 6320: 6319: 6318: 6314: 6310: 6306: 6302: 6297: 6296: 6295: 6294: 6291: 6286: 6281: 6273: 6272: 6269: 6266: 6262: 6257: 6256: 6253: 6247: 6244: 6243: 6239: 6237: 6232: 6223: 6222: 6218: 6217: 6216: 6215: 6214: 6213: 6210: 6207: 6195: 6192: 6188: 6184: 6180: 6179: 6174: 6173: 6172: 6170: 6162: 6161: 6157: 6155: 6152: 6151: 6148: 6147: 6143: 6141: 6138: 6137: 6134: 6133: 6129: 6127: 6124: 6123: 6120: 6119: 6115: 6113: 6110: 6109: 6106: 6105: 6101: 6099: 6096: 6095: 6092: 6091: 6087: 6085: 6082: 6081: 6078: 6077: 6073: 6071: 6068: 6067: 6063: 6060: 6059: 6056: 6054: 6044: 6040: 6035: 6034: 6032: 6028: 6027: 6026: 6024: 6020: 6016: 6012: 6008: 6004: 6002: 5999: 5988: 5987: 5984: 5969: 5966: 5961: 5960: 5959: 5958: 5957: 5956: 5955: 5954: 5953: 5952: 5940: 5935: 5932: 5931:Future events 5929: 5928: 5926: 5922: 5921: 5919: 5915: 5911: 5906: 5905: 5904: 5903: 5902: 5901: 5893: 5889: 5885: 5880: 5876: 5872: 5868: 5867: 5865: 5864: 5863: 5860: 5857: 5850: 5846: 5842: 5838: 5834: 5833: 5831: 5830:Future events 5828: 5827: 5824: 5823: 5821: 5817: 5813: 5809: 5808: 5807: 5806: 5803: 5790: 5786: 5782: 5778: 5774: 5770: 5766: 5762: 5761: 5758: 5754: 5750: 5746: 5742: 5741: 5738: 5735: 5732: 5729: 5725: 5721: 5717: 5716:at this time. 5713: 5712: 5711: 5709: 5707: 5700: 5698: 5693: 5690: 5685: 5681: 5677: 5675: 5671: 5670: 5665: 5664: 5659: 5658: 5649: 5626: 5623: 5618: 5617: 5616: 5615: 5614: 5613: 5612: 5611: 5610: 5609: 5608: 5607: 5606: 5605: 5604: 5603: 5602: 5601: 5584: 5581: 5578: 5574: 5573:Freedom Tower 5569: 5568: 5567: 5566: 5565: 5564: 5563: 5562: 5561: 5560: 5559: 5558: 5557: 5556: 5555: 5554: 5539: 5536: 5533: 5529: 5528: 5526: 5522: 5518: 5517: 5516: 5513: 5510: 5506: 5505: 5504: 5503: 5502: 5501: 5500: 5499: 5498: 5497: 5488: 5485: 5482: 5479: 5478: 5477: 5476: 5475: 5474: 5473: 5472: 5460: 5456: 5452: 5448: 5447: 5445: 5444:Freedom Tower 5441: 5437: 5432: 5431: 5430: 5429: 5428: 5427: 5426: 5425: 5417: 5416: 5415: 5414: 5413: 5412: 5406: 5402: 5397: 5396: 5395: 5394: 5393: 5392: 5389: 5386: 5378: 5377:Freedom Tower 5374: 5370: 5365: 5364: 5350: 5347: 5343: 5339: 5338: 5336: 5332: 5327: 5326: 5325: 5322: 5319: 5315: 5314: 5313: 5312: 5309: 5306: 5301: 5300: 5297: 5294: 5291: 5286: 5281: 5280: 5279: 5278: 5275: 5270: 5268: 5264: 5260: 5256: 5254: 5247: 5245: 5227: 5223: 5219: 5218: 5217: 5216: 5215: 5214: 5213: 5212: 5211: 5210: 5209: 5208: 5197: 5194: 5190: 5185: 5181: 5180: 5179: 5178: 5177: 5176: 5175: 5174: 5173: 5172: 5171: 5170: 5158: 5157: 5156: 5155: 5154: 5153: 5152: 5151: 5150: 5149: 5137: 5133: 5128: 5127: 5126: 5125: 5124: 5123: 5122: 5121: 5120: 5119: 5106: 5103: 5099: 5098: 5097: 5094: 5089: 5088: 5087: 5084: 5079: 5074: 5070: 5069: 5067: 5066: 5064: 5060: 5056: 5051: 5050: 5048: 5044: 5039: 5038: 5037: 5036: 5035: 5034: 5031: 5022: 5021: 5020: 5017: 5015: 5011: 4999: 4996: 4992: 4988: 4984: 4983: 4982: 4981: 4978: 4974: 4963: 4960: 4956: 4954: 4951: 4944: 4941: 4936: 4935: 4934: 4933: 4929: 4928: 4922: 4921: 4916: 4903: 4900: 4893: 4890: 4887: 4882: 4878: 4875: 4872: 4871: 4869: 4868: 4867: 4866: 4863: 4860: 4852: 4848: 4845: 4842: 4839: 4838: 4837: 4836: 4828: 4825: 4821: 4818: 4815: 4812: 4808: 4805: 4802: 4801: 4796: 4793: 4790: 4787: 4786: 4785: 4783: 4774: 4770: 4766: 4765: 4760: 4759: 4758: 4757: 4756: 4750: 4740: 4737: 4734: 4730: 4726: 4725: 4724: 4723: 4720: 4717: 4713: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4703: 4700: 4695: 4694: 4691: 4688: 4684: 4680: 4670: 4666: 4662: 4661: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4653: 4652: 4646: 4634: 4631: 4624: 4621: 4617: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4607: 4603: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4594: 4587: 4584: 4580: 4575: 4572: 4568: 4564: 4560: 4559: 4554: 4551: 4546: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4540: 4537: 4530: 4527: 4522: 4521: 4516: 4513: 4509: 4504: 4500: 4499: 4498: 4495: 4492: 4488: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4478: 4477: 4472: 4459: 4456: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4446: 4442: 4437: 4429: 4428: 4425: 4421: 4416: 4413: 4412: 4408: 4404: 4400: 4396: 4388: 4384: 4383: 4382: 4372: 4369: 4365: 4361: 4357: 4356: 4353: 4350: 4347: 4343: 4338: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4328: 4322: 4320: 4316: 4310: 4309: 4295: 4292: 4287: 4271: 4268: 4264: 4263: 4262: 4259: 4255: 4248: 4241: 4236: 4231: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4217: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4206: 4202: 4197: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4187: 4185: 4181: 4176: 4171: 4170: 4165: 4164: 4160: 4159: 4155: 4151: 4147: 4146: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4136: 4131: 4130: 4125: 4124: 4120: 4119: 4115: 4111: 4107: 4103: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4082: 4078: 4074: 4073: 4072: 4069: 4065: 4061: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4051: 4045: 4044: 4041: 4037: 4033: 4028: 4022: 4011: 4008: 4007:Easter Monkey 4004: 4003: 4001: 4000: 3999: 3996: 3995:Easter Monkey 3992: 3991: 3990: 3987: 3977: 3976: 3973: 3956: 3953: 3950: 3946: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3935: 3934: 3933: 3932: 3931: 3930: 3919: 3916: 3914: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3902: 3901: 3892: 3889: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3874: 3873: 3872: 3869: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3852: 3849: 3844: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3834: 3831: 3827: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3821: 3818: 3813: 3803: 3802: 3798: 3790: 3785: 3782: 3772: 3769: 3763: 3759: 3755: 3751: 3747: 3744: 3740: 3737: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3729: 3719: 3718: 3715: 3712: 3708: 3704: 3700: 3696: 3691: 3690: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3676: 3673: 3664: 3661: 3660:205.217.105.2 3657: 3656: 3655: 3652: 3648: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3639: 3631: 3628: 3624: 3620: 3619: 3616: 3613: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3603: 3599: 3590: 3580: 3577: 3573: 3572: 3569: 3566: 3562: 3561: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3546: 3543: 3539: 3536: 3532: 3528: 3527: 3526: 3524: 3505: 3502: 3499: 3495: 3492: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3485: 3482: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3470: 3467: 3462: 3457: 3453: 3452: 3451: 3448: 3445: 3441: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3424: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3404: 3399: 3395: 3391: 3387: 3374: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3343: 3340: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3324: 3319: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3297: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3278: 3273: 3269: 3265: 3264:Verifiability 3261: 3257: 3249: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3238: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3215: 3211: 3207: 3206: 3205: 3202: 3198: 3194: 3191: 3187: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3178: 3174: 3171: 3167: 3163: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3152: 3148: 3135: 3128: 3125: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3117: 3109: 3104: 3103: 3100: 3095: 3077: 3074: 3071: 3068: 3065: 3064: 3063: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3052: 3039: 3036: 3033: 3028: 3027: 3026: 3025: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3019: 3018: 3017: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2992: 2989: 2986: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2977: 2976: 2969: 2966: 2963: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2936:Knowledge is 2935: 2934: 2933: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2924: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2903: 2901: 2897: 2886: 2882: 2880: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2870: 2869: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2856: 2853: 2849: 2845: 2841: 2834: 2833: 2831: 2826: 2825: 2823: 2822: 2811: 2808: 2805: 2802: 2799: 2795: 2794: 2793: 2792: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2787: 2786: 2776: 2772: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2753: 2750: 2747: 2742: 2741: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2732: 2729: 2726: 2723: 2720: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2705: 2704: 2695: 2692: 2689: 2686: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2669: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2641: 2637: 2633: 2628: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2619: 2616: 2613: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2591: 2587: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2570: 2567: 2564: 2561: 2555: 2554: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2546: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2531: 2527: 2526: 2512: 2508: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2481: 2478: 2475: 2471: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2440: 2437: 2434: 2431: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2415: 2414: 2413: 2397: 2393: 2388: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2362: 2359: 2356: 2353: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2342: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2327: 2323: 2318: 2317: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2290: 2287: 2284: 2281: 2278: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2252: 2249: 2245: 2241: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2219: 2216: 2213: 2210: 2207: 2202: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2184: 2181: 2177: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2145: 2141: 2136: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2122: 2119: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2103: 2100: 2099: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2089: 2085: 2081: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2069: 2066: 2062: 2057: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2051: 2048: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2038: 2034: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2015: 2011: 2006: 2005: 2004: 1996: 1992: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1981: 1979: 1974: 1971: 1964: 1961: 1958: 1955: 1954: 1952: 1951: 1949: 1948: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1908: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1888:majority vote 1885: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1865: 1862: 1858: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1848: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1826: 1825: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1815: 1811: 1803: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1794: 1790: 1781: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1760: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1746: 1742: 1739:in which all 1738: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1709: 1702: 1699: 1690: 1686: 1681: 1680: 1675: 1671: 1670: 1666: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1617: 1608: 1603: 1602: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1586: 1585: 1582: 1577: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1540: 1537: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1507: 1504: 1501: 1496: 1491: 1490: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1455: 1453: 1446: 1443: 1439: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1411: 1408: 1401: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1390: 1386: 1376: 1375: 1372: 1365: 1353: 1350: 1349:¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 1347: 1346:¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 1344: 1343:¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1329: 1327: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1317: 1314: 1313:¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 1311: 1310:¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 1308: 1307:¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 1304: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1296: 1294: 1290: 1277: 1274: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1263: 1260: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1242: 1235: 1232: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1221: 1218: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1210: 1207: 1195: 1192: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1181: 1178: 1174: 1171:Transwiki to 1170: 1169: 1168: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1148: 1147: 1144: 1139: 1131: 1127: 1123: 1122:summary style 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1112: 1109: 1103: 1102: 1098: 1096: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1072: 1071: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1057:I agree with 1046: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1036: 1031: 1030: 1028: 1024: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1014: 1009: 1008: 1005: 1002: 997: 996: 991: 987: 983: 979: 975: 971: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 961: 953: 949: 944: 943: 942: 941: 938: 934: 920: 916: 912: 908: 903: 897: 894: 891: 889: 883: 882: 880: 875: 874: 872: 868: 864: 863: 862: 860: 855: 850: 846: 845:United States 835: 834: 831: 827: 823: 814: 811: 807: 803: 802: 801: 800: 796: 791: 790: 783: 780: 776: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 760: 758: 753: 751: 748: 746: 744: 743:Barney Gumble 740: 735: 733: 731: 730:wikipediholic 727: 722: 721: 720: 717: 713: 709: 708: 707: 706: 702: 698: 693: 692: 691: 690: 687: 684: 677: 666: 663: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 649: 646: 643: 639: 635: 631: 630: 629: 628: 625: 622: 618: 617: 616: 615: 612: 610: 606: 604: 601:Knowledge is 594: 589: 585: 581: 580: 579: 578: 574: 571: 568: 566: 561: 558: 552: 549: 548: 547: 541: 538: 535: 532: 529: 526: 523: 522: 521: 515: 512: 511: 510: 504: 501: 498: 495: 492: 489: 486: 483: 480: 477: 474: 471: 468: 465: 462: 459: 456: 453: 450: 447: 446: 445: 443: 438: 435: 434: 427: 424: 419: 418: 417: 415: 401: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 384: 381: 378: 373: 370: 367: 366: 364: 360: 356: 355: 354: 353: 346: 342: 338: 337: 336: 335: 331: 327: 323: 319: 315: 311: 307: 303: 299: 295: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 271: 267: 263: 259: 255: 251: 250: 249: 248: 244: 242: 234: 231: 228: 225: 222: 219: 216: 213: 210: 207: 204: 201: 198: 195: 192: 189: 186: 183: 180: 177: 174: 171: 168: 165: 164: 163: 161: 154: 151: 149: 146: 145: 144: 141: 139: 133: 132: 128: 120: 118: 114: 110: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 10625: 10611: 10584: 10564: 10541: 10527: 10522: 10518: 10517:So now it's 10504: 10501: 10492: 10470: 10466: 10464: 10455: 10424: 10409: 10392: 10380: 10376: 10361: 10308: 10292: 10284: 10275: 10262: 10233:I added the 10232: 10217: 10211: 10202: 10136: 10133: 10129: 10122:Five pillars 10112: 10108:Five pillars 10088: 10086: 10063: 10051: 10025: 9997: 9968: 9959: 9941:Trollderella 9909: 9904: 9898: 9861: 9812: 9791: 9788:this section 9785: 9765: 9763: 9744:Kelly Martin 9714: 9712: 9662: 9658: 9630: 9626: 9618: 9610: 9600: 9594: 9577: 9573: 9548: 9543: 9541: 9537: 9466: 9434: 9420: 9384: 9363: 9331: 9316: 9310: 9295: 9284: 9280: 9276: 9274: 9263:David Remahl 9258: 9251:Trollderella 9239:David Remahl 9232: 9216: 9207:Trollderella 9202: 9185: 9156:Trollderella 9120:crystal ball 9093: 9022:David Remahl 8988: 8976: 8967: 8965: 8950: 8914: 8905: 8885:Trollderella 8871:Trollderella 8865: 8821:Trollderella 8812:David Remahl 8806: 8764: 8760: 8756: 8752: 8748: 8747:I'd propose 8744: 8739: 8712:David Remahl 8703: 8684: 8680: 8675: 8667:David Remahl 8665:non-NPOV. — 8633:David Remahl 8624:David Remahl 8606:David Remahl 8595:Trollderella 8556: 8551:my dropsonde 8549: 8541: 8538: 8527:David Remahl 8522: 8504: 8492:David Remahl 8478: 8473:my dropsonde 8471: 8464: 8447:to point to 8442: 8416: 8398: 8380: 8376: 8372: 8368: 8366: 8345: 8319: 8272: 8256: 8241: 8225: 8174: 8136: 8131: 8126: 8124: 8119: 8115: 8113: 8109:Sexual slang 8103: 8085: 8035: 8032: 8029: 8022: 8001: 7996: 7983: 7967:here and on 7965: 7957: 7874: 7860: 7850: 7845: 7813: 7808: 7802: 7799: 7795: 7791: 7711: 7695: 7694: 7690: 7676: 7675: 7665: 7663: 7662: 7646: 7630:Trollderella 7611: 7607: 7587: 7583: 7579: 7575: 7572:Noah Webster 7546: 7542: 7541:structures, 7538: 7534: 7530: 7508: 7503: 7500: 7498: 7493: 7489: 7487: 7483: 7479: 7475: 7471: 7469: 7463: 7441: 7415: 7405:Trollderella 7385: 7345: 7337:Trollderella 7326: 7319:Trollderella 7306: 7303: 7300: 7251: 7236: 7231:my dropsonde 7229: 7222: 7201: 7171: 7166: 7158: 7108: 7104: 7101:crystal ball 7086: 7072: 7059: 7056:Turn it back 7046: 7043: 7039: 7005: 6989: 6937: 6933: 6929: 6919: 6901: 6859: 6843: 6829: 6824:visual index 6823: 6808: 6785: 6758: 6742: 6734:Trollderella 6689: 6686:North Dakota 6640: 6624: 6598:Comments? -- 6597: 6594: 6579: 6554: 6542: 6537: 6529: 6522: 6504: 6480:George Lucas 6447: 6440: 6435: 6434: 6379: 6377: 6361: 6356: 6354: 6300: 6274: 6258: 6248: 6245: 6241: 6240: 6233: 6229: 6219: 6203: 6167: 6158: 6144: 6130: 6116: 6102: 6088: 6074: 6052: 6050: 6006: 5996: 5994: 5980: 5930: 5870: 5848: 5836: 5829: 5798: 5779:material. -- 5776: 5772: 5769:Babcock test 5765:instructions 5764: 5744: 5727: 5715: 5701: 5679: 5678: 5667: 5661: 5655: 5653: 5382: 5284: 5271: 5266: 5262: 5258: 5249: 5248: 5241: 5093:Jwrosenzweig 5027: 5018: 5007: 5004:Crystal Ball 4975: 4971: 4959:Trollderella 4925: 4920:my dropsonde 4918: 4911: 4880: 4856: 4834: 4832: 4826: 4799: 4798: 4780: 4763: 4762: 4754: 4696: 4676: 4659: 4658: 4650: 4647:-- obsolete? 4606:Trollderella 4550:Trollderella 4512:Trollderella 4506: 4502: 4476:my dropsonde 4474: 4467: 4455:Trollderella 4453:Yes indeed! 4441:Tony Sidaway 4438: 4435: 4420:Tony Sidaway 4417: 4414: 4392: 4380: 4363: 4359: 4341: 4324: 4314: 4312: 4305: 4234: 4229: 4221: 4213: 4174: 4162: 4157: 4150:Bowdlerpedia 4143: 4122: 4117: 4094:Bahá'í Faith 4059: 4046: 4025: 3983: 3969: 3809: 3800: 3799: 3796: 3783: 3780: 3757: 3749: 3742: 3735: 3725: 3692: 3678: 3669: 3634: 3600: 3596: 3588: 3541: 3523:PatGallacher 3519: 3434: 3430: 3426: 3417: 3413: 3385: 3383: 3351: 3333:(the secret 3320: 3304: 3300: 3298: 3293: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3276: 3271: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3253: 3229: 3223: 3146: 3144: 3113: 3093: 3092: 3032:Mindspillage 2962:Mindspillage 2931: 2911: 2904: 2893: 2884: 2883:and comments 2875: 2843: 2797: 2746:Mindspillage 2656: 2652: 2631: 2626: 2529: 2474:Mindspillage 2315: 2314: 2243: 2239: 2205: 2200: 2170: 2134: 2112:vote-count). 2108: 2079: 2030: 2021:and comments 2020: 2016: 2013: 2002: 1975: 1930: 1900:opinion poll 1895: 1891: 1883: 1827: 1807: 1786: 1772: 1768: 1751: 1694: 1668: 1662:democratic. 1659: 1655: 1616:Majoritarian 1615: 1613: 1611: 1589: 1587: 1573: 1515: 1494: 1483: 1479: 1466: 1462: 1456: 1449: 1414: 1382: 1360: 1287: 1241:User:Bob2000 1239: 1225: 1211: 1208: 1205: 1154: 1137: 1135: 1104: 1094: 1076: 1073: 1056: 977: 969: 957: 932: 929: 910: 906: 888:82.10.33.159 886: 853: 841: 830:David Gerard 822:User:Amorrow 819: 810:David Gerard 779:David Gerard 754: 749: 736: 728:is an utter 726:David Gerard 725: 723: 701:David Gerard 680: 602: 600: 598: 575: 572: 569: 562: 559: 556: 545: 542:Michael Snow 519: 508: 499:(astronomer) 439: 436: 432: 431: 410: 363:is no policy 362: 358: 344: 340: 261: 257: 245: 240: 238: 157: 142: 134: 129: 126: 117:Michael Snow 106: 75: 43: 37: 10367:Masssiveego 10365:policy. -- 10167:Kim Bruning 9766:15 December 9730:Kim Bruning 9715:(temporary) 9647:Eventualist 9644:Darwikinian 9641:Wishy Washy 9604:Masssiveego 9549:Thoughts? 9502:Kim Bruning 9480:Kim Bruning 9437:Kim Bruning 9320:Masssiveego 8977:Thoughts? — 8761:significant 8757:significant 8753:significant 8681:non-neutral 8578:Jimbo Wales 8439:bold fixing 8367:Seeing the 8118:and by the 7863:Masssiveego 7677:References: 7616:Time Warner 7580:make a note 7484:of interest 7480:significant 7414:Please see 7167:weak delete 6366:Chick Bowen 6358:preferable. 5869:Individual 5835:Individual 5773:instructive 5305:Carl Hewitt 5274:Carl Hewitt 5193:Carl Hewitt 5102:Carl Hewitt 5083:Carl Hewitt 5030:Carl Hewitt 4987:Jimbo Wales 4196:bowdlerized 3741:I think we 3348:Other Wikis 3331:Deep Throat 2879:straw polls 2167:Kim Bruning 2159:Kim Bruning 2118:Kim Bruning 1904:Kim Bruning 1890:, which is 1236:advertising 867:··gracefool 36:This is an 10074:SteveBaker 9621:Predator 3 9574:dictionary 9283:, because 9217:everything 8934:Violet Fox 8685:subjective 8523:ad nauseum 8461:Notability 8401:October 28 8382:ad hominem 8369:Propaganda 8116:comparison 7818:comment by 7814:preceding 7728:fuddle me! 7724:fuddlemark 7606:lists the 7545:dams, and 7521:importance 7448:wikisource 7446:lyrics is 6639:golly, we 6590:verifiable 6582:importance 6389:Μελ Ετητης 6384:Mel Etitis 6324:Windows 95 6305:Windows 95 6064:Wikibooks 6061:Knowledge 6039:WikidSmaht 6019:WikidSmaht 5998:Video game 5383:Thoughts? 4857:Thoughts? 4809:says that 4697:Thoughts? 4508:off-line). 4407:fuddle me! 4403:fuddlemark 4214:Knowledge 4110:Abu Ghraib 3777:Censorship 3490:Your point 3418:particular 3414:particular 3373:HereToHelp 3358:link farms 3248:HereToHelp 3030:function. 2916:being bold 2657:not really 2240:understand 1733:government 1622:sociocracy 1553:khaosworks 1519:khaosworks 1405:Μελ Ετητης 1400:Mel Etitis 1369:Μελ Ετητης 1364:Mel Etitis 1326:SlimVirgin 1293:SlimVirgin 1284:Talk pages 463:(Giuseppe) 339:We need a 95:Archive 10 10612:Democracy 10337:Help desk 10158:Aquillion 10126:Aquillion 10114:Yesterday 9846:Superm401 9817:Superm401 9693:brenneman 9663:something 9511:Superm401 9489:Superm401 9471:Aquillion 9441:Superm401 9406:WP:BJAODN 9368:over on: 9351:Aquillion 9338:AllyUnion 8902:not paper 8755:issue, a 8706:the only 8542:Something 8348:transwiki 8092:Kosebamse 7941:Kosebamse 7931:Kosebamse 7906:Kosebamse 7892:Superm401 7882:Kosebamse 7833:Superm401 7666:countries 7476:important 7350:wikiquote 7271:}} and {{ 7176:Aquillion 7114:Aquillion 7077:Aquillion 6974:Superm401 6951:Superm401 6890:Superm401 6852:. In his 6667:Superm401 6563:Beethoven 6322:"like on 6309:Superm401 6236:Moon Time 6076:EverQuest 6070:EverQuest 6011:Wikibooks 5963:version? 5914:Superm401 5888:Superm401 5816:Superm401 5705:Ingoolemo 5622:Sandpiper 5521:Superm401 5455:Superm401 5401:Superm401 5342:Superm401 5331:Superm401 5222:Superm401 5132:Superm401 5059:Superm401 5043:Superm401 5010:Superm401 4991:Superm401 4881:guideline 4712:Superm401 4677:However, 4387:analogous 4254:Superm401 4247:Offensive 4226:copyright 4216:namespace 4145:Knowledge 4090:genitalia 4064:Superm401 4036:Superm401 3986:Siem Reap 3949:Jarandhel 3885:Jarandhel 3877:talk page 3864:Superm401 3848:Jarandhel 3817:Jarandhel 3806:DG's Edit 3791:applied. 3623:Superm401 3531:Superm401 3390:this diff 3362:SuperDude 3337:source). 3335:Watergate 3210:Superm401 3186:Superm401 3166:Superm401 3000:Superm401 2942:consensus 2896:Superm401 2771:Superm401 2708:Superm401 2661:Jim Henry 2636:Superm401 2625:The CfSD 2586:Superm401 2538:Jim Henry 2534:Superm401 2507:Superm401 2392:Superm401 2322:Superm401 2176:Jim Henry 2163:Superm401 2140:Superm401 2084:Superm401 2061:Jim Henry 2033:Jim Henry 1991:Superm401 1892:certainly 1857:Jim Henry 1837:Superm401 1810:Jim Henry 1716:Superm401 1714:Exactly. 1685:Superm401 1637:Superm401 1626:Karmafist 1618:Democracy 1191:Sandpiper 1173:Wikibooks 1126:Superm401 1085:academic: 915:Superm401 638:transwiki 469:(Aoineko) 365:include: 211:(Theresa) 87:Archive 6 82:Archive 5 76:Archive 4 70:Archive 3 65:Archive 2 60:Archive 1 10467:proposed 10362:Disagree 10187:Dpbsmith 10183:WP:BEANS 10003:Dpbsmith 9932:Gmaxwell 9864:wikiwiki 9786:I added 9718:deleted. 9595:Disagree 9410:Dpbsmith 9397:WP:BEANS 9311:Disagree 9302:LeFlyman 9221:LeFlyman 9190:Baryonyx 9169:Dpbsmith 9078:LeFlyman 9012:LeFlyman 8979:LeFlyman 8798:LeFlyman 8745:notable. 8708:WP:POINT 8697:LeFlyman 8676:everyone 8655:LeFlyman 8586:LeFlyman 8514:LeFlyman 8410:LeFlyman 8167:was and 8120:grouping 8043:Dpbsmith 7829:contribs 7816:unsigned 7747:Dpbsmith 7618:and the 7556:Dpbsmith 7549:tunnels. 7275:}}, and 7204:Marskell 7063:Marskell 7027:Marskell 6908:Olleicua 6906:section 6904:see also 6864:Olleicua 6694:WP:POINT 6650:Dpbsmith 6511:Marskell 6484:Marskell 6478:or even 6452:Marskell 6328:Klafubra 6265:Dpbsmith 6252:Klafubra 6206:Dpbsmith 6031:→Raul654 5877:and the 5731:Dpbsmith 5680:Disagree 5650:/ merge? 5532:Dpbsmith 5509:Dpbsmith 5481:Dpbsmith 5453:policy. 5440:Longhorn 5385:Dpbsmith 5373:Longhorn 5318:Dpbsmith 5290:Dpbsmith 5244:Dpbsmith 4859:Dpbsmith 4733:Dpbsmith 4699:Dpbsmith 4687:Dpbsmith 4579:WP:MUSIC 4368:Guinness 4060:everyone 3972:Marskell 3843:Otherkin 3830:Marskell 3812:Otherkin 3750:negative 3711:Dpbsmith 3707:Wikilove 3699:WP:BEANS 3680:WP:BEANS 3576:Pellaken 3545:→Raul654 3498:Dpbsmith 3444:Dpbsmith 3392:for the 3301:censored 3286:claiming 3234:Dpbsmith 3201:Intangir 3177:Intangir 3110:/ merge? 3070:James F. 2988:James F. 2852:Intangir 2804:James F. 2725:James F. 2688:James F. 2615:James F. 2563:James F. 2433:James F. 2355:James F. 2283:James F. 2212:James F. 2208:. Happy? 2171:articles 1777:Intangir 1756:Intangir 1741:citizens 1665:Denelson 1561:contribs 1527:contribs 1500:Dpbsmith 1484:strongly 1463:probably 1454:-Brett1 1433:Slashdot 1379:Question 1303:WP:POINT 1108:Dpbsmith 1067:Maurreen 960:→Raul654 911:specific 795:Dan East 775:Alberuni 712:userpage 683:jpgordon 609:Cool Cat 520:Unclear 457:(Tomasz) 451:(Sabine) 423:Dpbsmith 414:Gentgeen 380:Dpbsmith 330:Gentgeen 162:(optim) 10567:Dalbury 10530:Dalbury 10377:comment 10141:Rossami 10098:Uncle G 10069:Nirvana 9976:Rossami 9813:obvious 9634:Zordrac 9578:lexicon 9455:Cryptic 9073:WP:NPOV 8972:spoiler 8968:extreme 8846:Rossami 8765:notable 8740:meaning 8558:archive 8480:archive 8377:soapbox 8352:Rossami 7923:removed 7765:Rossami 7696:Thanks, 7612:notable 7608:Tallest 7604:Almanac 7576:notable 7547:Notable 7535:Notable 7504:notable 7490:notable 7472:notable 7464:Notable 7285:Cryptic 7273:medical 7269:warning 7238:archive 7155:Mad Max 6817:. The 6759:notable 6747:Rossami 6571:museums 6463:Jdavidb 6402:Mysidia 6221:Truisms 6200:Truisms 6169:Uncle G 6053:already 5812:WP:WWIN 5781:Mysidia 5749:Mysidia 5451:WP:NPOV 5285:special 5220:Great. 5081:page.-- 4927:archive 4729:WP:WIWO 4645:WP:WIWO 4563:WP:VAIN 4491:Rossami 4346:Rossami 4098:prophet 4032:WP:WWIN 3762:Sitearm 3736:neutral 3672:Jdavidb 3638:Jdavidb 3602:Jdavidb 3556:Uncle G 3456:be bold 3309:Mysidia 2920:Rossami 2133:How do 2012:page. 1965:Support 1962:Support 1956:Support 1953:2+2=5? 1748:process 1576:changed 1476:be bold 1273:Bob2000 1256:Cryptic 1252:soapbox 1246:Please 1177:Garrett 1081:simple: 1077:without 907:general 893:Pilatus 642:Rossami 593:—Morven 533:(Ilooy) 371:How-tos 368:Recipes 235:(Elian) 217:(JIMBO) 187:(Geoff) 181:(David) 39:archive 10627:back. 10592:adiant 10411:Coyoty 10346:x42bn6 10190:(talk) 10144:(talk) 10118:Zondor 10006:(talk) 9998:do not 9979:(talk) 9868:Splash 9668:Splash 9637:(talk) 9467:Angela 9458:(talk) 9413:(talk) 9366:WP:NOT 9341:(talk) 9285:that's 9235:WP:NOT 9172:(talk) 9128:ATHWIZ 8989:detail 8849:(talk) 8704:that's 8580:wrote 8355:(talk) 8293:WP:NOT 8197:(talk) 8194:Friday 8152:(talk) 8149:Friday 8065:added. 8046:(talk) 7988:. --- 7779:Jasmol 7768:(talk) 7750:(talk) 7714:Jasmol 7559:(talk) 7539:Famous 7427:adiant 7354:Splash 7288:(talk) 7255:Clawed 7012:Zondor 6832:Hilmar 6750:(talk) 6719:WP:NOT 6653:(talk) 6625:indeed 6586:vanity 6420:StuRat 6268:(talk) 6261:WP:WIN 6209:(talk) 6191:Icarus 6015:bosses 5983:StuRat 5734:(talk) 5724:How-to 5674:Reisio 5657:Condom 5577:Pcb21| 5535:(talk) 5512:(talk) 5484:(talk) 5388:(talk) 5321:(talk) 5293:(talk) 4977:DavidP 4943:adiant 4892:adiant 4862:(talk) 4851:WP:NOT 4835:either 4822:Ergo, 4807:WP:NOT 4795:WP:NOT 4789:WP:NOT 4736:(talk) 4702:(talk) 4690:(talk) 4623:adiant 4586:adiant 4571:WP:CSD 4567:WP:BIO 4529:adiant 4494:(talk) 4399:ArbCom 4349:(talk) 4337:WP:NOT 4267:Zondor 4205:Zondor 4180:WP:NOT 4148:, not 4135:Zondor 4106:photos 4081:Zondor 4050:Zondor 3952:(talk) 3888:(talk) 3860:WP:RfC 3851:(talk) 3820:(talk) 3753:tape". 3714:(talk) 3695:Splash 3684:Splash 3612:Icarus 3565:StuRat 3501:(talk) 3447:(talk) 3435:hardly 3431:never. 3339:StuRat 3290:nobody 3237:(talk) 3127:adiant 3116:Reisio 3099:StuRat 3073:(talk) 2991:(talk) 2946:voting 2923:(talk) 2807:(talk) 2728:(talk) 2691:(talk) 2618:(talk) 2566:(talk) 2436:(talk) 2358:(talk) 2286:(talk) 2248:Splash 2215:(talk) 2047:Splash 1959:Oppose 1898:is an 1737:civics 1701:adiant 1660:indeed 1503:(talk) 1425:Google 1418:Brett1 1385:Brett1 1259:(talk) 1143:StuRat 1111:(talk) 1063:Taxman 1059:bainer 1045:Taxman 1027:Taxman 1023:tensor 982:bainer 948:Dan100 879:SimonP 806:WP:ANI 757:editor 662:StuRat 645:(talk) 621:StuRat 553:(Mark) 487:(Olve) 426:(talk) 383:(talk) 223:(Erik) 205:(Mark) 175:(Mark) 169:(Fred) 10598:|< 10597:: --> 10585:looks 10309:BRIAN 10263:BRIAN 10239:Zocky 10154:WP:5P 9951:CalJW 9811:it's 9561:Kappa 9007:cruft 8807:whole 8653:." — 8570:above 8428:mikka 7851:agree 7739:team. 7624:patsw 7588:every 7584:every 7511:patsw 7482:, or 7452:mikka 7433:|< 7432:: --> 7215:CalJW 7163:Dirth 7124:CalJW 7092:CalJW 6992:CalJW 6965:CalJW 6941:CalJW 6763:patsw 6690:write 6573:over 6569:, or 6565:over 6543:worth 6493:Kappa 5965:CalJW 5859:CalJW 5802:CalJW 5777:howto 5684:Xiong 5436:WinFS 5369:WinFS 4949:|< 4948:: --> 4898:|< 4897:: --> 4629:|< 4628:: --> 4592:|< 4591:: --> 4535:|< 4534:: --> 4315:paper 4291:CalJW 4203:. -- 4108:from 4102:photo 3728:Dudtz 3427:never 3323:Dudtz 3277:needs 3133:|< 3132:: --> 2908:March 2844:voted 2080:Votes 2025:polls 1802:polls 1707:|< 1706:: --> 1581:IByte 1438:David 1429:Yahoo 1165:James 952:Talk) 859:CalJW 732:. ... 527:(pcb) 493:(Mav) 229:(dpb) 16:< 10633:Talk 10542:want 10465:You 10351:Talk 10314:0918 10268:0918 10026:Keep 9911:Demi 9880:Demi 9850:Talk 9831:Demi 9821:Talk 9796:Demi 9774:EffK 9748:talk 9515:Talk 9493:Talk 9445:Talk 9372:and 9289:PKtm 9277:Lost 9186:Lost 8915:does 8911:cats 8778:and 8582:this 8422:and 8387:EffK 8363:PPOV 8299:and 8073:Aude 8015:Aude 7990:Aude 7978:and 7919:this 7917:and 7915:this 7896:Talk 7877:this 7837:Talk 7825:talk 7763:." 7531:Time 7279:and 7087:many 6978:Talk 6955:Talk 6894:Talk 6872:See 6671:Talk 6641:have 6559:NPOV 6406:talk 6380:were 6313:Talk 6043:talk 6023:talk 5918:Talk 5892:Talk 5820:Talk 5785:talk 5753:talk 5722:and 5692:talk 5669:Wart 5663:Wart 5660:and 5580:Pete 5530:OK. 5525:Talk 5459:Talk 5405:Talk 5346:Talk 5335:Talk 5265:etc. 5261:e.g. 5226:Talk 5136:Talk 5063:Talk 5047:Talk 5014:Talk 4995:Talk 4771:and 4716:Talk 4667:and 4569:and 4342:this 4258:Talk 4240:MPAA 4112:? ~⌈ 4068:Talk 4040:Talk 3945:MPOV 3868:Talk 3768:Talk 3758:does 3743:have 3705:and 3651:Bevo 3627:Talk 3535:Talk 3461:Tito 3398:Tito 3360:? -- 3313:talk 3305:edit 3262:and 3230:were 3214:Talk 3190:Talk 3170:Talk 3147:sure 3004:Talk 2900:Talk 2775:Talk 2712:Talk 2665:Talk 2653:look 2640:Talk 2590:Talk 2542:Talk 2530:word 2511:Talk 2396:Talk 2326:Talk 2201:ever 2180:Talk 2161:and 2144:Talk 2109:have 2088:Talk 2065:Talk 2037:Talk 1995:Talk 1896:poll 1884:vote 1861:Talk 1841:Talk 1814:Talk 1773:hehe 1769:vote 1720:Talk 1689:Talk 1641:Talk 1590:like 1557:talk 1523:talk 1442:Talk 1427:and 1389:talk 1159:and 1138:JUST 1130:Talk 1075:but 1061:and 1035:jguk 1013:jguk 986:talk 937:jguk 919:Talk 847:and 773:Hi, 739:wife 686:∇∆∇∆ 475:(Sj) 345:well 241:rule 199:(Ec) 193:(Ec) 127:Hi. 115:. -- 10629:FT2 10471:Now 10285:to 10064:not 9974:. 9960:any 9928:Kat 9815:. 9792:was 9687:Foo 9681:or 9576:or 9423:Srl 9378:Srl 9259:I'm 8957:fan 8906:off 8505:not 8431:(t) 8071:--- 7855:Zoe 7599:My 7506:? 7501:not 7494:not 7455:(t) 7391:DES 7370:DES 7352:. - 7346:all 7265:TFD 7159:not 7153:to 7105:not 6795:DES 6743:not 6723:DES 6289:urε 6279:Tεx 6007:are 5775:or 5255:. 4803:. " 4604:'? 4395:VFU 4366:. 4364:not 4235:not 4220:. 4184:DES 4175:Any 4154:Mar 4114:Mar 4100:'s 3913:DES 3862:. 3682:. - 3481:MPS 3199::) 3162:POV 2912:not 2798:why 2627:was 2316:are 2135:you 1935:bar 1931:foo 1495:not 1089:dab 978:how 737:My 603:NOT 359:non 10635:) 10505:is 10137:is 10116:, 9848:| 9819:| 9769:], 9750:) 9659:is 9602:-- 9513:| 9491:| 9443:| 9336:-- 9318:-- 9134:20 9131:20 9041:) 8963:. 8554:- 8548:- 8476:- 8470:- 8426:. 8273:is 8090:. 7894:| 7835:| 7827:• 7730:) 7478:, 7450:. 7234:- 7228:- 7172:is 7073:is 6976:| 6953:| 6892:| 6888:. 6880:, 6876:, 6669:| 6555:do 6408:) 6400:-- 6311:| 6301:is 6189:-- 5916:| 5890:| 5886:-- 5818:| 5787:) 5755:) 5523:| 5457:| 5403:| 5344:| 5333:| 5272:-- 5269:" 5224:| 5191:-- 5186:." 5134:| 5075:." 5061:| 5045:| 5028:-- 5012:| 4993:| 4923:- 4917:- 4827:is 4731:. 4714:| 4565:, 4473:- 4409:) 4360:is 4325:-- 4256:| 4250:}} 4244:{{ 4230:We 4166:⌋ 4163:ci 4158:ka 4126:⌋ 4123:ci 4118:ka 4066:| 4038:| 4034:. 3866:| 3765:| 3625:| 3533:| 3465:xd 3402:xd 3315:) 3256:is 3212:| 3188:| 3168:| 3164:. 3002:| 2898:| 2894:-- 2850:) 2773:| 2710:| 2663:| 2638:| 2632:is 2588:| 2540:| 2509:| 2394:| 2324:| 2244:be 2178:| 2174:-- 2142:| 2086:| 2063:| 2059:-- 2035:| 1993:| 1859:| 1839:| 1812:| 1791:, 1775:? 1752:is 1718:| 1687:| 1669:83 1639:| 1579:-- 1559:• 1525:• 1440:| 1391:) 1128:| 1065:. 988:) 970:is 917:| 854:is 793:-- 607:-- 328:. 326:16 324:, 322:15 320:, 318:14 316:, 314:13 312:, 310:12 308:, 306:11 304:, 302:10 300:, 296:, 292:, 288:, 284:, 280:, 276:, 272:, 268:, 256:, 91:→ 10631:( 10595:_ 10589:R 9916:C 9913:/ 9885:C 9882:/ 9836:C 9833:/ 9801:C 9798:/ 9746:( 9666:- 9399:. 9125:M 9059:" 9039:C 9037:: 9035:T 9033:( 8796:— 8404:" 7842:) 7823:( 7812:( 7726:( 7430:_ 7424:R 7384:" 6404:( 6391:) 6386:( 6284:τ 6041:( 6021:( 6003:. 5783:( 5751:( 5696:* 5688:熊 4946:_ 4940:R 4895:_ 4889:R 4853:. 4775:. 4671:. 4626:_ 4620:R 4589:_ 4583:R 4532:_ 4526:R 4405:( 4321:. 3311:( 3130:_ 3124:R 2948:. 2837:" 1976:( 1704:_ 1698:R 1555:( 1521:( 1467:I 1416:~ 1407:) 1402:( 1387:( 1371:) 1366:( 1097:) 1095:ᛏ 1093:( 984:( 950:( 871:☺ 869:| 724:" 298:9 294:8 290:7 286:6 282:5 278:4 274:3 270:2 266:1 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:What Knowledge is not/Archive 4 - Knowledge

Index