Knowledge talk:WikiCup/Archive/2009/6

1618:

the fact that they were in a category they should not have been. If you seriously believe that, because HSM is getting more views than Hume, it is currently more important, then yes, we fundamentally disagree. It's difficult to find any way of weighting the importance of articles that is not subjective; you believe you have found one in page views, but judging based on page views is an imprecise science at best, barking up the wrong tree at worst. (Also, yes, I realise that Hume does get a good amount of page views, I just looked on my bookshelf for someone significant and he jumped out at me. I'm sure I could find a better example of a hyper-important figure from history who isn't actually read about much, but for whom most readers would be interested in reading, rather than looking for pictures or gossip.) To further Scorpion's point, I couldn't care less about ice hockey, and I didn't realise there was an Olympic Games in 2010. On the flip side, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some people in this coversation who had never heard of David Hume, existentialism, utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill, or any number of things on my bookshelf.

757:. Maybe someone should get double points for an article like Obama's (factor of 2) and reduced points (factor of .2 or something) for time spent on the latter type. Additionally, the current scoring system gives the same amount of credit for a promotion regardless of what portion of the credit a person deserves. Suppose an article is pretty much a GA and someone comes by and successfully nominates it for GA, FA, or FL promotion without making significant changes. It is not representative of the value added to wikipedia to say that this nominator should get the same credit as a person who has largely created an entire article that he promotes. Also, the current system gives DYK noms the same number of points as DYK creations and expansions. Whereas the latter had to improve the article, the former did nothing but nominate it in many cases. For example, it might make sense to divide WikiCup 1302:

of time chronicling details of either of these, I could claim that I have done WP a great service because WP has the only comprehensive source. However, if no one wants to read about my last girlfriend or my favorite pet have I really spent my time wisely. How much does it improve WP to create a resource for something that has no viewership interest? Additionally, I think you underestimate the value of a WP Obama biography which has clickable links to all kinds of relevant WP resources on the subject. Also, you say the change is unbelievably complicated and objective. It is just the opposite. It says if more people view it, it is more important and deserves a higher factor. The other part of the suggestion may be objective, but no one is even arguing about that. However, we could simply do the objective importance part of the suggestion.--

1684:

world. I don't know if I even have a GA that gets 1k page views a day. The spirit of the changes is much like DYK. Now that DYK has a showcase of articles that get the most page views, I have found articles that have both gotten me on that list and gotten me into ITN. I think the articles that I spend time on now are of more importance to the project now that page views are in the back of my mind. I think many editors might start to think about topics in their areas of interest that others would like to read about a little more if we had a page view perspective.--

3217:, not making new rules up as the thing goes along. And unfortunately, many of these proposals take a shape that would serve the interests of the proposer. I voluntarily handicapped my own score in an effort to set a tone of sportsmanship and discourage that sort of thing, and tried to go along in good humor, and Ottava Rima seems to flatter--but even as humor it's wearing thin. If this carries on much longer I will request the judges end the handicap. Let's get back to what this WikiCup is supposed to be about: contributing content. 1436:. As an ice hockey and Olympics fan, I would argue that it is very important, especially with the 2010 games 10 months away. However someone with no interest in sports whatsoever would argue otherwise. I agree that your proposal is complex and likely would not make much of a difference. Given the choice between doing one large, time-consuming GAC worth 75 points that could take several weeks or 4 or 5 quick easy GACs worth 30 points a piece, I think most people would go with the latter. -- 31: 1204: 1195: 1186: 310: 638:

number of reviewers in the Drive, it is only reasonable to expect one or two such persons in the Drive. The review was deficient, but not incompetent. Incompetence is a review that says a bad article is good for stupid reasons or that a good article is bad for stupid reasons. A review that says a good article is good with very limited reasons is not incompetent. GAC is not PR although we all hope for help improving our articles.--

1177: 1168: 997:

that was needed, ignoring the Wikiproject's suggestions for improving the automated lists. The promise that all FAs would be individually considered, and thus did not need to be suggested for evaluation, followed by them not evaluating FAs was also rather bad form. If that's supposed to be the best possible evaluation of article importance, then we should not consider article importance.

713: 2041:) after his work got too good to need my help. So for maybe a year and a half he has been creating stuff I have not been polishing up for even GA. During a contests I might look at what stuff he has done that is worth polishing. I would not otherwise. I will be continuing to nominate other work normally. I just nominated one GA earlier today.-- 1080:. A few projects I belong to found severe problems with the lists provided, but our comments were met with an "it's already been decided", and outright rudeness. In short: They wanted the Wikiprojects to clean up and select a version for them, but did not want to hear any comments about problems in an 3502:

began to weaken. I know Ottava's proposal was made as a joke and that's fine, but this one appears to be a serious proposal intended to be put into effect ASAP, and like Durova I'm getting a bit sick of it. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy playing the game, but lets play it out using the rules as they are

3249:

How many times have we changed the rules in the middle of this WikiCup? When the second round opened I realized I didn't even understand the rules anymore; so much had changed--and even more proposed changes to keep track of to double check whether they were implemented. Now there are 'jokes' about

2568:

It just means that the last round will go on for a week longer- in round three, we have "12 users left – 4 groups of 3, top one progresses." Why not make that "12 users left – 4 groups of 3, top one progresses, as well as the top one of all remaining users." There could even be a couple of wildcards.

2411:

Really?!! I thought it was just GA/Featured content, i.e. long-term nominations which needed reviewing... I've been doing myself out of DYKs and ITNs!!! So I'm in the lead then... I should've been in double figures within hours of the second round actually... please clarify all this as I was informed

1979:

Content creation has been my whole point. I think the scoring system could be altered to encourage more important content creation. However, I will play by any rule book you write. I do enjoy competition and attempt to win when I compete. I also enjoy humanitarian service like I do every day here

1617:

How many people have clicked on my links above? I'm sure plenty will have done. That bumps readership. I certainly clicked your example of an "unvisited" article. Not everyone who visits an article is reading it, by any means. Earlier tonight, I was recategorising- articles got a view based solely on

1366:

I think it is you who is making the error. There will be a few exceptions, but in general more readers does mean more importance to readers. Sure many schoolgirls are googling HSM, but there are also many people who have seen the movie that want more details on it Many popular movies will have high

1075:

I don't think ranking articles by importance is desirable, and have said so. So why should I be required to provide an alternative when pointing out major flaws in a system for ranking article importance. As for the word entitlement: Without prior notification that anything was going to be happening,

3550:

Perhaps that would be wise. However, this year seems to have been full of teething problems and we're simply trying to iron them out. I understand we've been doing more than just moving the goalposts; we've ripped them in two and made triangles out of them. For this, as I have done in the past, I

1552:

I seem to recall a certain user who was always complaining at WT:GAC because he felt his GACs were being quickly and unfairly failed... Can't remember who though... And I'm not "ranting" about bad reviews (and if I was it wasn't my intention), I simply stated that a reviewers wikicup would encourage

1451:

Hey Scorpion. Still looking for a show of faith on the bad reviews above to show you were not Bull$ #!tt!ng. As for this matter, I don't buy your argument that incremental changes don't matter. A WikiCup participant choosing between working on a 75 point article and a 30 point article might choose

1301:

has no text books. That is probably because there is not a lot of demand in the marketplace for books about it. There are topics where WP is the only comprehensive resource. For example, the biography of my favorite pet and my last girlfriend have no information on the internet. If I spend a lot

996:

Frankly, yes: Knowledge 0.7 really lost me with their recent automated evaluation, which led to a lot of stupidity, followed by A. Their entitlement issues with insisting every Wikiproject drop what they were doing and help them out; and B. Their insistence that a simple automated evaluation was all

929:

gets 40–50 page views a day means that all my hard effort on the article (do you want to imagine how hard it is to find English RS' for a never-built Dutch battlecruiser?) should get less points? Barack Obama may be an important article, but keep in mind that page views aren't the only indication of

731:

Many people say the Cup is working. I.e., they say that there are no problems at any of the review processes resulting from the competition and that the contestants are enjoying it. However, no one has said, I think the competition is encouraging people to work on the things that need to be worked

637:

I have recieved your emailed example of a bad review. I view that as a quickpass by a reviewer who cheated the Drive system with a bunch of quickpasses of high quality articles. I have gone through the regular GAC process and there are some reviewers who don't give substantive feedback. Given the

2360:

A slightly tricky question: I received a DYK credit in the interregnum (30/3 dammit!) between round 1 (ended 27/3) and round 2 (started 1/4). May I submit the DYK for credit in this round or nay? I'm happy with answers and opinions from either competitors or judges on this one. Basically, if anyone

1636:

who gets 9k per day. My point is that switching to a system that ranks 90% of the articles in terms of relative importance would be better than a system where editors are not really encouraged to improve the project. Clearly, all pop culture gets over rated by page views. That is a minor problem,

1574:

and only one time did I complain about the competence of the reviewer, as I recall. I am not talking about 2 years or 200 GACs ago, I am talking about last month. I don't believe there were any significant incompetent reviews. And if there were it was just the general 1% or so of really bad reviews

1492:

I didn't want to single anyone out because my personal policy is to never criticize reviewers unless I absolutely have to becaquse far too many good reviewers have been chased away by arrogant jerks who complain that their GAC was unfairly failed or yada yada yada. Unlike you, I take what I can get

952:

which uses Feb because it was a March TFA). I think what is important is not how important we feel our own work is. What matters is the readers. We are not creating an encyclopedia for ourselves. Although I would like to say the ones that I worked hardest on are the most important. I think the

761:

points 1/3 for taking the picture, 1/3 for editing the picture and 1/3 for nominating the picture. Similarly, a DYK might be divided between the page creator, expander and nominator. Maybe a system could be used for GA, FA and FL where the most important editor gets 100% of the designated points,

1683:

Not really, the changes would help put me ahead of my rival Mitch because may pages get more page views than his. I said my FA page views are between 36 and 640. I don't think he has any FAs that get 36 page views a day. However, the stuff I do is not that important compared to the rest of the WP

1399:

I think Hume gets the proper amount of page views for his relative importance. 2.5 K hits a day is a lot. I just think HSM has a surprisingly high amount of hits. I would certainly feel good about a system that encouraged people to take either of these to FAC more than a lot of the articles that

736:

for something like Knowledge:Release Version 0.7. We should probably be encouraging content contributors to increase the quality of our most important articles by giving more points for more important articles. I think the current scoring system should use a factor to adjust the scores. Taking

1957:

Exactly right. I doubt anybody gives a crap about winning or loosing (well very little). The point is to get more users more active in content creation and expansion. If you plan on coming here next year, with the goal of coming in first and getting the top score, you have the wrong intentions.

2915:

I propose that anyone whose user name happens to have the same initials as those of a wikishortcut will be given 5 points per day because of their pure awesomeness. Also, anyone in the same section as Durova be given 5 points per day to counteract her pure awesomeness, but only if the person

3266:

Well yes, I take full credit for the changes made during the round, and I apologize for that. Since last year, we have rebuilt this thing from the bottom up, and we're learning as we go. I hope you decide to stay with us, because this is all about the content, and as you've said before, the

728:. After getting over the fact that the leading DYK and GA content creators seem to have been overlooked in the invitation process, I started thinking about whether the process could be improved. I felt that there should be a better scoring system that rewards adding value to wikipedia. 963:

than my other articles. Of course, page views is not the only indicator, it seems to be one of the few that people who know wikipedia importance (the creators of Knowledge:Release Version 0.7) use. Do you feel you know more about what is important to the project than the creators of

1942:

Yeah, Tony, I think that's a valid point. This is just a bit of fun- no one is out to abuse it, no one is desperate to win- if someone is at a slight advantage for whatever reason, then so be it. It doesn't really matter- it's just a way to help us to focus our content contributions.

1669:

It seems to me that you are just trying to make a lot of complicated changes that would cause a lot of work for iMatthew, Garden and THO so that you will have a better chance at winning next year. Why don't you start your own competition, then you can run it however you want. --

1771:

At the original suggestion (cursed time zones!) I'd give you an instantaneous no. I for one am not willing to punish editors purely for where their interests lie. However you raise a fair point, just not one I feel should be implemented in a competition such as this.

1860:

No, there is no point in continuing a discussion when the judges are giving you immediate "no"s. It's become evident that you really need to make your own competition, and quit trolling this talk page because I inadvertently skipped over your name while inviting users.

285:

As for the group of death, I'd put my money on Pool D. They averaged 597 points each during Round 1. After Pool D, Pool C averaged 532, Pool A averaged 510.4, Pool E averaged 484 (taking Durova's handicap into account), Pool F averaged 474.6, and Pool B averaged 449.8.

885:. How about a simple system using pageviews to determine value added. I don't understand your use of the term rob people of points. There is some sense of entitlement in the choice of words. Do you think we should encourage people to work as hard on articles like 1367:

readership in the years near their public release. The service to the reader is that we have an article. Of course, we could have a dual scoring system where two winners are declared. One wins based on scaled points and another based on all articles being equal.--

1276:

anywhere seems kind of odd. Someone looking for Obama could find something everywhere; someone looking for Design 1047 could find nothing else. IMO, the current scoring system is the best compromise possible and your idea is unbelievably complicated and objective.

2219:

This has probably already been answered but I'm drawing a blank about it anyway. Do you only get points for articles you've nominated in round two that have passed? Or do you also get points for articles that you nominated during round one but passed during round

809:

I had suggested previously that nominator credit be given for TFAs, but forgot to mention that here. I think it is a credit to a nominator whether the article was promoted during the CUP or not. I think an author could take the time to nominate something at

3555:

here, trying to get off with everything with a "sorry" but that is hoestly not the case; I have attempted to the best of my ability to keep major changes to an absolute minimum, but when something is blatantly not working that isn't always an option.

2012:

You know, people resolving to hold off on easy FAs until the next contest begins isn't going to attract new entrants. If anything people will say "what's the point in participating when someone so desperate to win is basically cheating?" --

2473: 3254:

seems to have been completely abandoned. It's left a bad taste in my mouth all along, it's fundamentally not funny, and I just can't grimace at it any longer. I'm on the verge of either unhandicapping myself or quitting, frankly.

3212:

Really, I'm beginning to dislike these constant tweaking proposals. Usually one enters a competition in good faith and accepts the rules as they stand. If there are lessons to be learned or changes to be made one implements them

2860: 2614:

Alright then. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to add a few. Actually, it might even be better to have one large table instead of groups when we have so few and evenly matched contestants? It might make things fairer in the long run.

1084:

that might be improved by the actual experts in the fields. They felt they had the right to order all of Knowledge around, but did not want to listen to suggestions by the people being ordered. If that isn't entitlement, what is?

2442:

it will count for either the current round or in the case of the "no-man's land" for administrative work, the round immediately following. If you're knocked out of the round then unfortunately I wouldn't count them, myself.

1980:

on WP. The two do not conflict. Many of the article that I will submit are articles that I would not take the time to polish without the contest. If the contest can motivate me to polish them then you should be happy.--

1920:

Keep in mind that your attitude can get you banned from the WikiCup. You have no right to make an unfriendly environment, and if you do (as you've been) while you are competing, any judge will easily ban you from the Cup.

1724:) are articles that I would not have started had DYK not started emphasizing page views. This emphasis helped me to think about how I could help the project by creating articles that a lot of people would want to read.-- 2693:

With that kind of attitude you won't. Chin up, start working. I was the top of my pool and second in the entire cup for like two days, now I'm the sixth wildcard. Things can change with a blink of an eye. You can do

1637:

IMO. Aside from a consistent bias toward pop culture, I don't see much wrong with the page view factor. Maybe page views could be used with a pop culture override that reverts to a factor of one for pop culture.--

3250:

a competition to propose the most scoring changes? Thanks but no thanks; I could have done another restoration in the time it's taken to keep track of this stuff. And the traditional norm of playing by the rules

1142:

I write at other times? They're both good articles, but the former is getting perhaps 15 times as many page views, despite being much easier to write, less encyclopedic and of far less lasting significance.

2477: 2026:

All I am saying is that I have known about these articles long before I knew about the contest and have not been motivated to polish them. The contest could motivate me to do so. I stopped working with

468:

Yes, you sir (or madam as the case may be). Did you or did you not submit a 14 article hook in the first round? That's incredible, it's almost obscenely good - DKY King is an understatement if anything!

1216:, it is going to be much less important in the future than it is today. However, if I were analyzing 2009 content contributions I think it would be correct to give it a decent amount of credit. If 1112:

In short, 0.7 selection was about as badly managed as it could be, and the fallout from it is going to make it very hard to bring WikiProjects in for any future work. But we are now way off-topic.

3614: 3531: 3468: 3363: 3307: 2419: 2361:

in the Cup thinks it would be wrong or unfair - no drama, I won't submit it. If folks think it is fine, then 5 points to me! Then I can say I'm beating Candlewicke on DYKs (briefly). Cheers,

2274: 2248: 490: 449: 349: 131: 87: 930:

value; Design 1047 is literally the first comprehensive article about those ships since 1980, I believe. There is no way one would find this information elsewhere without much effort. —

1493:

for reviews without ranting about reviewers. I was simply saying that I got some rushed reviews that were rather unsatisfactory, certainly nothing worth kicking a fuss up about. --

2863:. I didn't do this to win a contest (though that may be a nice bonus =P), I did it because I thought we were a bit light in our coverage of this sort of thing, so, you know. 1828:

This seems like some sort of power play or some crude attempt to pick a fight by telling a guy to shut up while a lot of discussion is going back and forth about his topic.--

2293:

Yes- stuff nominated in round one is alright for round two, as long as it passes in round two. Or, it better be, as I nominated a load of stuff just a couple of days ago...

2904: 1575:

not a function of the drive. However, If you have a list with even two personal terrible reviews I am all ears. Otherwise, I assume you are just making up an argument.--

588: 2412:

that there was some exception or other for DYKs in the first round and had some removed that were too early then... so anything definitely goes for the second round? --

369:

Oh noes the DYK King! Oh double noes Gary King! Why me lord? Couldn't you move Durova and Mitchazenia into pool D as well? Then I might at least win the sympathy vote!

1121: 3498:? It seems like each time there was a proposal it was implemented and the goalposts have been moved so many times already during this contest that the spirit of the 1105: 1070: 1038: 1006: 920: 866:- which I fail to believe that anyone actually looks at ever. Anyway, getting an article to FA is a major achievement. We shouldn't rob them of points too lightly. 3052: 2974: 2956: 2672: 3487:

I don't want to discuss this suggestion, and it's not because I think it's either a good one or a bad one, it's just that there's been too many proposals already.

3166: 3622: 3539: 3476: 3371: 3315: 2872: 2546: 2427: 2349: 2282: 2256: 573: 559: 545: 498: 457: 357: 139: 95: 2750: 483:

Ahem, better clear that up – sir would be correct – yes sir (or madam, perhaps?). Ah yes, I'm currently attempting to construct a suitable and worthy sequel. --

2688: 2145: 1171: 1162: 3545: 3519: 3187: 2804: 2641: 2511: 2262: 221: 3004: 2068: 2021: 1751: 1711: 1678: 1602: 1561: 1547: 1501: 1487: 1444: 1427: 697: 665: 632: 235: 3413: 3116: 3012:

Well, perhaps we can cut it down a bit. We could say that policy shortcuts don't count, because everyone has to follow policy, getting rid of initials like

2202: 2185: 363: 3377: 2288: 2723: 2709: 1664: 1627: 1394: 1247: 1152: 893:

that get thousands of views a day. I am just suggesting that we create a WikiCup system where people who do work important to the project get rewarded.--

2302: 2007: 1937: 1913: 1877: 1329: 1290: 991: 943: 841: 804: 327: 3482: 3456: 3321: 3139: 3097: 2433: 167: 3609: 3526: 3463: 3358: 3302: 2414: 2269: 2243: 1855: 485: 444: 344: 126: 82: 3649: 3628: 3568: 3347: 3073: 2764: 2455: 2323: 1974: 1952: 1883: 463: 280: 145: 119: 3654:

Thanks for the compliment Candlewicke, thanks for the "name dropping" Garden :P That's twice I've been left out of the newsletter - I smell a cabal!

3438: 875: 504: 478: 378: 295: 2854: 2840: 2829: 2786: 2627: 2609: 2595: 2578: 2563: 2162: 1452:

the 75 point article. An articles viewership is not necessarily indicative of the time it would consume to create. My two most time consuming GAs (

257: 3283: 3261: 3244: 2406: 1823: 433: 205:

Interesting set of pools, which is the group of death this time? BTW Its somehow appropriate that everyone starts with 10 DYK points, nice touch.

2815: 2334:

Alright, because I nominated a few articles for GAN during round one and was wondering if I were to still get points for them during round two.--

762:

the second most gets a fraction of that amount such as 70%, the third, fourth and fifth get even less credit. These are thoughts for next year.--

3680: 3663: 3223: 2385: 2235: 2891:, so do not expect this to be a one-off =) On the other hand, I think most people will agree that Wyeth's illustrations to Treasure Island are 2632:

Probably best. I suppose an alternative might be two groups of 6 and two wildcards (to try and foster a little more competition in the groups)

2493: 2370: 1506:

What do you mean unlike me when it is you who is ranting about phantom bad reviews. It certainly sound to me like you are making something up.

953:

ones that are most important to the project are the ones that the readers want to read as exhibited by page views. More readers want to read

789: 1360: 670:

In fact, saying a bad article is bad for reasons that aren't true is an incompetent review as well because it does not help make it good.--

2522:

Maybe we should add one wildcard into the June 1st to July 31st competition. It shouldn't affect the length of the final round too much.

1805: 732:

on. It is very well known that certain articles are more valuable/important to the project than others. We need only look as far as the

3601: 2531: 1784: 3037: 2100: 1101: 530: 564:

It has a link to the points and results from the first round. No submission history, I agree that that should be added somewhere.

101: 3404: 2714:

It's not attitude, it's time. My schedule is packed. However, it turns out it will open up quite a bit in May, so I have a shot.

2176: 2121: 2112: 2663:

as long as I get one of those wildcard slots automatically. I don't think its possible for me to get by in any other manner. :)

1351:. I think I know which one people doing genuine research would be viewing, as opposed to bored schoolgirls playing with Google. 2925: 2355: 1011:

O.K. since you consider yourself somewhat of an expert on importance, what do you suggest as measures of article importance?--

415: 199: 1207: 599: 2916:

receiving the 5 points would have the same initials as a wikishortcut. I suggest this proposal go into effect immediately.

2809:

What I got was regular credit. Never was asking for any more than that; just wondered whether they'd make the bot hiccup.

795:

I'm not a participant, but perhaps a bonus might be awarded if an FA promoted during the WikiCup appears on the main page?

2150:

Well actually I just fixed that, but before it was because you accidentally had two hashes (#) next to your name. Sorry!

1343:

Tony, you're also making the error of assuming that more readers = more importance for readers. Compare the page views of

3206: 1520:) spot checked dozens and dozens of reviews (about 20% of the drive reviews) and they all passed as competent reviews. -- 3199:

Alternately, someone could just start a ProposalCup. Let's see who can get the most successful proposals in a month.

2051: 1990: 1896: 1838: 1734: 1721: 1694: 1647: 1585: 1530: 1470: 1410: 1377: 1312: 1230: 1053: 1021: 974: 903: 824: 772: 680: 648: 615: 3607:

I was going to say something about that. It was nice being in joint lead with such a beautiful view – see above. :) --

1220:

is important to readers in 2009, then a competition for 2009 content contributions should evaluate it as such, IMO.--

2055: 1994: 1900: 1842: 1738: 1698: 1651: 1589: 1534: 1474: 1414: 1381: 1316: 1234: 1057: 1025: 978: 907: 828: 776: 684: 652: 619: 1433: 1566:

About 200 GAC ago, when I was learning the process, I did make complaints about quick fails before I understood

3584: 3033: 2952: 2900: 2868: 2782: 2637: 2527: 2489: 2214: 1517: 1117: 1097: 1002: 871: 705: 555: 526: 2772: 1252:(e/c) And the fact that you can get a decent bio of Obama in any place whereas there is no better account of 2792:

Not really... I think we just count them as individual pictures. We'd have to discuss this again I reckon.

3147: 1717: 886: 742: 3402: 3157: 2174: 2110: 2038: 212: 733: 77: 38: 3029: 2948: 2896: 2864: 2778: 2633: 2523: 2485: 1273: 1113: 1093: 998: 926: 867: 551: 522: 3589:

Sorry, I forgot to put "Paxse" next to the flag of Cambodia in the "Pool leaders" section. My bad.

850:

One problem is that our official lists of really important articles aren't very good. For instance,

3512: 2702: 2467: 2342: 2228: 1217: 1135: 1789:

Agreed to the instantaneous no. No reason to continue discussion. Anybody is welcome to close it.

750: 1261: 226:

Yeah, it's great. That's more points than I got the entire last round from non-mainspace edits.

3397: 3152: 3114: 2169: 2105: 2047: 2019: 1986: 1892: 1834: 1730: 1690: 1676: 1643: 1581: 1559: 1526: 1499: 1466: 1442: 1406: 1373: 1308: 1226: 1049: 1017: 970: 899: 820: 768: 676: 644: 611: 597: 325: 207: 47: 17: 814:

that had previously been promoted and deserve credit. The TFAR procedure is time consuming.--

3430: 3343: 3048: 2970: 2921: 2668: 1212: 955: 3634: 2390:

This question has been answered multiple times on this talk page. It can be submitted. :-\

1089: 960: 724:

I have been encouraged to re-present my thoughts here. I just noticed the existence of the

3494:

s contest and create a subpage to discuss any proposals, which should only be implemented

8: 3506: 2850: 2825: 2760: 2695: 2605: 2574: 2542: 2474:

File:Gasshukoku_suishi_teitoku_kōjōgaki_(Oral_statement_by_the_American_Navy_admiral).png

2438:

Nope, not that I know of. I think that, if a FAC/GAN/DYK/ITN/Whatever nomination passes

2335: 2298: 2221: 2138: 1948: 1623: 1356: 1344: 1148: 1139: 569: 541: 273: 65: 59: 2861:

Knowledge:Featured_picture_candidates/Kronheim's_Illustrations_to_Foxe's_Book_of_Martyrs

2127:

Because you were eliminated in round 1, so you are in the "Eliminated Round 1" section.

521:

Shouldn't there be a link to the round 1 results and submissions somewhere on the page?

3633:

Indeed it is :D I can't imagine it will be a tie for too long though, but then, it's a

3276: 3237: 3090: 2743: 2399: 2316: 2307:

It can be used for any round you are in. I believe I made that rule, or was it Garden?

1967: 1930: 1870: 1798: 1511: 1453: 1253: 800: 249: 191: 177: 159: 2600:

Yeah, or maybe even a couple. There's room in the last round for some more, I reckon.

948:

My seven FAs range from 36 page views a day to 640 a day based on March stats (except

3552: 3135: 3107: 2719: 2684: 2517: 2059: 2042: 2014: 1998: 1981: 1904: 1887: 1846: 1829: 1742: 1725: 1702: 1685: 1671: 1655: 1638: 1593: 1576: 1554: 1538: 1521: 1494: 1478: 1461: 1437: 1418: 1401: 1385: 1368: 1320: 1303: 1238: 1221: 1061: 1044: 1029: 1012: 982: 965: 911: 894: 832: 815: 780: 763: 725: 688: 671: 656: 639: 623: 606: 592: 318: 291: 231: 2834:

For each. Did a Canadian restoration. Durn bilingualism: had to do two of 'em. ;)

1553:

quick half-assed reviews, and I said I had some unsatisfactory reviews recently. --

3671: 3640: 3592: 3559: 3423: 3339: 3064: 3044: 2966: 2917: 2910: 2795: 2664: 2618: 2586: 2554: 2502: 2446: 2381: 2193: 2153: 1814: 1775: 1632:

I understand your argument. Hume at 2.5K hits per day is truly more important than

1297: 424: 110: 1811:

I've resolved it but it's a shame to archive a discussion after only a few hours.

1210:

are all approved at GA. This is a time sensitive GTC. Unlike my most visited FA

3659: 3619: 3536: 3473: 3368: 3312: 3203: 3000: 2888: 2424: 2366: 2279: 2253: 2032: 1567: 516: 495: 474: 454: 374: 354: 136: 92: 73: 69: 1076:

they announced on September 15th, 2008 that automatic selection had occurred on

746: 46:

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

2846: 2821: 2756: 2601: 2570: 2538: 2294: 2129: 2063: 2002: 1944: 1908: 1850: 1746: 1706: 1659: 1619: 1597: 1542: 1482: 1422: 1389: 1352: 1324: 1242: 1144: 1065: 1043:

Also I don't understand your use of the word entitlement. It seem malplaced.--

1033: 986: 915: 882: 851: 836: 811: 784: 692: 660: 627: 565: 537: 264: 741:

to FA should be considered more valuable than say encouraging someone to take

3446: 3391: 3297: 3270: 3231: 3177: 3084: 2820:

Regular points for each picture, or regular points for the whole nomination?

2737: 2393: 2310: 1961: 1924: 1864: 1792: 1571: 1507: 1280: 1158: 933: 796: 405: 243: 185: 153: 3422:

I propose that we should add extra points for new article creations also --

589:

Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates#WikiCup and possible Reviewer Cup

3353: 3293: 3171: 3131: 3102: 3078: 3025: 2992: 2962: 2715: 2680: 2094: 1633: 1198: 1189: 1180: 890: 758: 738: 583: 287: 227: 2987:

Whoops! Absolutely brilliant idea. And I'll have 5 X 2 points per day per

3289: 3256: 3218: 3127: 3058: 3021: 3017: 3013: 2988: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2835: 2810: 2377: 3655: 3384:"I take full credit for the changes made during the round" Oh, so it's 3200: 2996: 2679:

Welcome to the club. I don't foresee me getting past the second round.

2362: 2028: 1348: 859: 470: 370: 3150:

get 1 point each and Featured Graphs get 3.141592653589793238 points?

3146:

Well if we're going to start tweaking the rules, might I suggest that

2583:

Oh, I see. So you're proposing adding a wildcard space into Round 3?

309: 1457: 949: 754: 3228:

Erm, Durova: This entire thread was started by Ottava as a joke. :|

536:

Check the navbox at the bottom of the page- that has history links.

182:

See the main page. (/me waits to be trampled by eager competitors).

3461:

Why not make a list of these proposals and consult it next year? --

605:

Scorpion, your bad reviews have been solicited at the discussion.--

1882:

I'll just wait till next year and then try to promote a lot of

889:

that get 10 or 20 page views a day as they do on articles like

2777:

Did we ever decide how these work? I'm about to start on one.

2887:

Also, be aware that I'm going to try and get hold of a Wyeth

2267:

Nothing like answering a question with another question... --

855: 2947:

are all shortcuts. Have you actually thought this through?

2241:

I think the answer is yes, unless I've been misinformed? --

863: 3490:

Could we please keep the discussion here on topic for

2484:

It was a brand new restoration, and quite labourious.

3028:. This would allow for differences within the pools. 2931:

Hmm. Well, Durova is in the same pool as Durova, and

1570:. In my 250 or so GACs, I have only taken about 5 to 1134:(ec)Page views? So I should get more points for the 720:

It's a pretty fragrant no from the judges, m'fraid.

1172:2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team 1163:2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team 881:Not even Knowledge:Release Version 0.7 relies on 3288:Oh, I hope I'm not too late to claim points for 3267:competition encourages users featuring content. 2845:Ah yes- something about potatoes, wasn't it? :) 1157:You touch upon an interesting issue. My next 421:Haha, well, you still did enough. Well done! 550:...Which don't actually include the history. 1884:articles interesting to me that no one reads 1176: 1167: 1140:the more encyclopedic, complicated articles 240:That was a mistake. Heh, sorry. Fixed now. 76:) and begun a process of categorisation at 2985:thought the user was already a bureaucr... 1432:Importance is objective. Take for example 1078:the talk page for every single Wikiproject 1400:have been mentioned in this discussion.-- 1460:) only get about 250 page views a day.-- 2961:Apparently not well enough!!! : ( Even 1136:kind of pop-culture stuff I write about 14: 2965:works. :( This is really not fair. :( 745:to FA. Whereas the former gets about 398:...I lost out of second to Bedford by 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3296:as well. And I'll have some more for 2935:is a wikishortcut. For that matter, 2376:I have exactly the same question... 1208:Michigan Wolverines men's basketball 1203: 1194: 1185: 64:I've "borrowed" the layout of a new 25: 150:Indeed, Thank you for all of this! 23: 3551:apologise. Gawd, I feel like the 1722:Rod Blagojevich corruption charges 24: 3698: 3356:! I really love this proposal! -- 2190:No worries, my bad (probably) :P 1202: 1193: 1184: 1175: 1166: 964:Knowledge:Release Version 0.7?-- 749:, the latter seems to get about 711: 308: 29: 3388:fault I'm not in round 2. GRR. 2734:Changes made to the main page. 1434:Ice hockey at the Olympic Games 2755:I much prefer the new system. 2356:Credits during the Interregnum 13: 1: 1716:P.S. Both of my ITN credits ( 342:Group of death? Pool D? :( -- 3300:. Thank you Australia! :) -- 2537:I think that's a good idea. 1718:Inauguration of Barack Obama 887:Illinois Centennial Monument 743:Illinois Centennial Monument 107:Nice! Thanks, Candlewicke! 7: 3503:now, with no more changes. 10: 3703: 3681:15:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 3664:15:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC) 3650:15:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC) 3629:15:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC) 3602:15:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC) 3569:12:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC) 3546:04:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC) 3520:03:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC) 3483:21:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 3457:05:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 3439:05:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 3414:17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 3378:00:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC) 3348:21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 3322:20:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC) 3284:15:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 3262:15:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 3245:11:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 3224:05:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 3207:04:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC) 3188:16:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 3167:15:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 3140:22:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 3117:15:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 3098:15:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 3074:15:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 3053:15:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 3038:06:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 3005:07:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2975:05:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2957:05:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2926:05:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2905:05:28, 12 April 2009 (UTC) 2873:02:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2724:18:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC) 2512:15:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2494:02:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 2440:at any time in the contest 2103:I am under a second list? 1138:some of the time than for 1082:automatic selection scheme 709: 546:17:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC) 531:16:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC) 434:21:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC) 416:20:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC) 379:08:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC) 364:02:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC) 328:22:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 296:22:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 281:22:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 258:22:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 236:22:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 222:22:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 200:22:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 168:12:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 146:10:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 120:09:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 102:09:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 78:Category:Knowledge WikiCup 2855:15:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 2841:15:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 2830:15:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 2816:15:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 2805:08:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 2787:22:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC) 2765:13:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 2751:13:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 2710:05:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 2689:04:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 2673:01:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC) 2642:10:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 2628:10:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 2610:10:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 2596:10:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 2579:10:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 2564:10:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 2547:09:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 2532:07:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC) 2456:21:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC) 2434:13:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC) 2407:09:59, 3 April 2009 (UTC) 2386:07:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC) 2371:06:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC) 2350:19:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 2324:19:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 2303:19:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 2289:19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 2263:19:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 2236:19:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 2203:18:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 2186:18:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 2163:18:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 2146:18:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 2122:18:04, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 2069:23:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 2022:22:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 2008:22:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1975:21:39, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1953:21:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1938:21:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1914:21:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1878:19:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1856:18:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1824:18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1806:18:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1785:18:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1752:19:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1712:18:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1679:18:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1665:17:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1628:17:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1603:18:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1562:18:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1548:18:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1502:18:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1488:17:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1445:17:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1428:17:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1395:17:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1361:16:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1330:16:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1291:16:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1274:Design 1047 battlecruiser 1248:16:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1153:15:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1122:17:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1106:17:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1071:17:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1039:16:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 1007:16:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 992:16:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 944:15:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 927:Design 1047 battlecruiser 921:15:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 876:14:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 842:14:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 805:12:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 790:07:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 698:18:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 666:18:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 633:07:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 600:02:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 574:15:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 560:15:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 505:19:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 479:16:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC) 464:20:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC) 2499:I'd say yes, it's okay. 1347:with the page views for 1218:Andrew Johnston (singer) 3524:That's what I meant. -- 747:35,000 page views a day 262:I approve these pools. 3585:Newsletter cockup #234 2215:Question about scoring 753:when it is not on the 706:Future scoring changes 18:Knowledge talk:WikiCup 2859:For the record, it's 2773:Featured Picture Sets 72:(also to be found at 42:of past discussions. 3292:. Double points for 1268:on the internet nor 1213:Campbell's Soup Cans 961:South Side (Chicago) 956:Campbell's Soup Cans 402:point? Saaaaad. :) — 368:<checks pool: --> 3030:Shoemaker's Holiday 2949:Shoemaker's Holiday 2897:Shoemaker's Holiday 2865:Shoemaker's Holiday 2779:Shoemaker's Holiday 2634:Shoemaker's Holiday 2524:Shoemaker's Holiday 2486:Shoemaker's Holiday 1345:High School Musical 1114:Shoemaker's Holiday 1094:Shoemaker's Holiday 999:Shoemaker's Holiday 868:Shoemaker's Holiday 751:10 page views a day 552:Shoemaker's Holiday 523:Shoemaker's Holiday 3215:the following year 3148:Featured Redirects 3112: 2943:, and (bizarrely) 2478:delist/replace nom 2099:Why is it that on 1454:Jesse Jackson, Jr. 323: 124:You're welcome. -- 3679: 3648: 3600: 3567: 3518: 3282: 3243: 3106: 3096: 3072: 2893:well worth having 2803: 2749: 2626: 2594: 2562: 2510: 2454: 2405: 2322: 2201: 2161: 2067: 2006: 1973: 1936: 1912: 1876: 1854: 1822: 1804: 1783: 1750: 1710: 1663: 1601: 1546: 1486: 1426: 1393: 1328: 1272:other account of 1246: 1109: 1092:comment added by 1069: 1037: 990: 919: 840: 788: 726:Knowledge:WikiCup 696: 664: 631: 432: 317: 118: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3694: 3678: 3676: 3669: 3647: 3645: 3638: 3627: 3625: 3617: 3612: 3599: 3597: 3590: 3566: 3564: 3557: 3544: 3542: 3534: 3529: 3517: 3515: 3504: 3481: 3479: 3471: 3466: 3454: 3452: 3449: 3412: 3410: 3400: 3376: 3374: 3366: 3361: 3320: 3318: 3310: 3305: 3281: 3279: 3268: 3259: 3242: 3240: 3229: 3221: 3185: 3183: 3180: 3164: 3160: 3155: 3110: 3095: 3093: 3082: 3071: 3069: 3062: 2838: 2813: 2802: 2800: 2793: 2748: 2746: 2735: 2707: 2700: 2625: 2623: 2616: 2593: 2591: 2584: 2561: 2559: 2552: 2509: 2507: 2500: 2468:This is alright? 2453: 2451: 2444: 2432: 2430: 2422: 2417: 2404: 2402: 2391: 2347: 2340: 2321: 2319: 2308: 2287: 2285: 2277: 2272: 2261: 2259: 2251: 2246: 2233: 2226: 2200: 2198: 2191: 2184: 2182: 2172: 2160: 2158: 2151: 2144: 2141: 2135: 2120: 2118: 2108: 2045: 2017: 1984: 1972: 1970: 1959: 1935: 1933: 1922: 1890: 1875: 1873: 1862: 1832: 1821: 1819: 1812: 1803: 1801: 1790: 1782: 1780: 1773: 1728: 1688: 1674: 1641: 1579: 1557: 1524: 1497: 1464: 1440: 1404: 1371: 1306: 1298:Fountain of Time 1295:My current FAC, 1288: 1286: 1283: 1224: 1206: 1205: 1197: 1196: 1188: 1187: 1179: 1178: 1170: 1169: 1108: 1086: 1047: 1015: 968: 941: 939: 936: 925:So just because 897: 818: 766: 721: 715: 714: 674: 642: 609: 595: 503: 501: 493: 488: 462: 460: 452: 447: 431: 429: 422: 413: 411: 408: 362: 360: 352: 347: 321: 312: 279: 276: 270: 256: 252: 246: 219: 215: 210: 198: 194: 188: 166: 162: 156: 144: 142: 134: 129: 117: 115: 108: 100: 98: 90: 85: 33: 32: 26: 3702: 3701: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3672: 3670: 3641: 3639: 3623: 3615: 3610: 3608: 3593: 3591: 3587: 3560: 3558: 3540: 3532: 3527: 3525: 3513: 3505: 3477: 3469: 3464: 3462: 3450: 3447: 3445: 3443:...next year? — 3409: 3405: 3398: 3396: 3395: 3372: 3364: 3359: 3357: 3316: 3308: 3303: 3301: 3277: 3269: 3257: 3238: 3230: 3219: 3181: 3178: 3176: 3162: 3158: 3153: 3108: 3091: 3083: 3065: 3063: 2913: 2889:Treasure Island 2836: 2811: 2796: 2794: 2775: 2744: 2736: 2703: 2696: 2619: 2617: 2587: 2585: 2555: 2553: 2520: 2503: 2501: 2470: 2447: 2445: 2428: 2420: 2415: 2413: 2400: 2392: 2358: 2343: 2336: 2317: 2309: 2283: 2275: 2270: 2268: 2257: 2249: 2244: 2242: 2229: 2222: 2217: 2194: 2192: 2181: 2177: 2170: 2168: 2167:Thanks garden. 2154: 2152: 2139: 2130: 2128: 2117: 2113: 2106: 2104: 2097: 2015: 1968: 1960: 1931: 1923: 1871: 1863: 1815: 1813: 1799: 1791: 1776: 1774: 1672: 1555: 1495: 1438: 1284: 1281: 1279: 1087: 937: 934: 932: 734:article scoring 722: 719: 717: 712: 708: 593: 586: 519: 499: 491: 486: 484: 458: 450: 445: 443: 425: 423: 409: 406: 404: 358: 350: 345: 343: 319: 274: 265: 263: 250: 244: 241: 217: 213: 208: 192: 186: 183: 180: 160: 154: 151: 140: 132: 127: 125: 111: 109: 96: 88: 83: 81: 62: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3700: 3690: 3689: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3684: 3683: 3635:funny old game 3586: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3578: 3577: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3508:Matthewedwards 3488: 3434: 3427: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3416: 3407: 3389: 3382: 3381: 3380: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3330: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3100: 3076: 3057:Mwahaha! Even 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 2982:Strong Support 2978: 2977: 2912: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2885: 2884: 2883: 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2875: 2774: 2771: 2770: 2769: 2768: 2767: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2676: 2675: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2519: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2482: 2481: 2469: 2466: 2465: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2357: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2216: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2205: 2179: 2115: 2096: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1124: 1110: 1041: 849: 847: 846: 845: 844: 710: 707: 704: 703: 702: 701: 700: 668: 585: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 576: 518: 515: 514: 513: 512: 511: 510: 509: 508: 507: 396: 395: 394: 393: 392: 391: 390: 389: 388: 387: 386: 385: 384: 383: 382: 381: 306: 305: 304: 303: 302: 301: 300: 299: 298: 179: 176: 175: 174: 173: 172: 171: 170: 61: 58: 56: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3699: 3682: 3677: 3675: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3646: 3644: 3636: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3626: 3621: 3618: 3613: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3598: 3596: 3570: 3565: 3563: 3554: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3543: 3538: 3535: 3530: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3516: 3510: 3509: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3489: 3486: 3485: 3484: 3480: 3475: 3472: 3467: 3460: 3459: 3458: 3455: 3453: 3442: 3441: 3440: 3436: 3435: 3432: 3429: 3428: 3425: 3421: 3420: 3415: 3411: 3403: 3401: 3394:works too. XD 3393: 3387: 3383: 3379: 3375: 3370: 3367: 3362: 3355: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3323: 3319: 3314: 3311: 3306: 3299: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3280: 3274: 3273: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3260: 3253: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3241: 3235: 3234: 3227: 3226: 3225: 3222: 3216: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3205: 3202: 3189: 3186: 3184: 3173: 3170: 3169: 3168: 3165: 3161: 3156: 3149: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3115: 3111: 3104: 3101: 3099: 3094: 3088: 3087: 3080: 3077: 3075: 3070: 3068: 3060: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3039: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3015: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2983: 2980: 2979: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2886: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2839: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2818: 2817: 2814: 2808: 2807: 2806: 2801: 2799: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2747: 2741: 2740: 2733: 2732: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2712: 2711: 2708: 2706: 2701: 2699: 2692: 2691: 2690: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2677: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2659: 2658: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2624: 2622: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2607: 2603: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2592: 2590: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2560: 2558: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2529: 2525: 2513: 2508: 2506: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2491: 2487: 2479: 2475: 2472: 2471: 2457: 2452: 2450: 2441: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2431: 2426: 2423: 2418: 2410: 2409: 2408: 2403: 2397: 2396: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2383: 2379: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2351: 2348: 2346: 2341: 2339: 2333: 2325: 2320: 2314: 2313: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2292: 2291: 2290: 2286: 2281: 2278: 2273: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2260: 2255: 2252: 2247: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2234: 2232: 2227: 2225: 2204: 2199: 2197: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2183: 2175: 2173: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2159: 2157: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2142: 2136: 2134: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2119: 2111: 2109: 2102: 2070: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2044: 2040: 2037: 2034: 2030: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2020: 2018: 2011: 2010: 2009: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1983: 1978: 1977: 1976: 1971: 1965: 1964: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1950: 1946: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1934: 1928: 1927: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1910: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1894: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1874: 1868: 1867: 1859: 1858: 1857: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1831: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1820: 1818: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1802: 1796: 1795: 1787: 1786: 1781: 1779: 1753: 1748: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1714: 1713: 1708: 1704: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1687: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1677: 1675: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1640: 1635: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1616: 1604: 1599: 1595: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1578: 1573: 1569: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1560: 1558: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1544: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1523: 1519: 1516: 1513: 1509: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1500: 1498: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1443: 1441: 1435: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1424: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1403: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1370: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1350: 1346: 1331: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1305: 1300: 1299: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1289: 1287: 1275: 1271: 1267: 1265: 1259: 1257: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1244: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1223: 1219: 1215: 1214: 1209: 1200: 1191: 1182: 1173: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1083: 1079: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1046: 1042: 1040: 1035: 1031: 1027: 1023: 1019: 1014: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1004: 1000: 995: 994: 993: 988: 984: 980: 976: 972: 967: 962: 958: 957: 951: 947: 946: 945: 942: 940: 928: 924: 923: 922: 917: 913: 909: 905: 901: 896: 892: 888: 884: 880: 879: 878: 877: 873: 869: 865: 861: 857: 853: 843: 838: 834: 830: 826: 822: 817: 813: 808: 807: 806: 802: 798: 794: 793: 792: 791: 786: 782: 778: 774: 770: 765: 760: 756: 752: 748: 744: 740: 735: 729: 727: 699: 694: 690: 686: 682: 678: 673: 669: 667: 662: 658: 654: 650: 646: 641: 636: 635: 634: 629: 625: 621: 617: 613: 608: 604: 603: 602: 601: 598: 596: 590: 575: 571: 567: 563: 562: 561: 557: 553: 549: 548: 547: 543: 539: 535: 534: 533: 532: 528: 524: 506: 502: 497: 494: 489: 482: 481: 480: 476: 472: 467: 466: 465: 461: 456: 453: 448: 441: 437: 436: 435: 430: 428: 420: 419: 418: 417: 414: 412: 401: 380: 376: 372: 367: 366: 365: 361: 356: 353: 348: 341: 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 326: 322: 315: 311: 307: 297: 293: 289: 284: 283: 282: 277: 271: 269: 261: 260: 259: 254: 253: 247: 239: 238: 237: 233: 229: 225: 224: 223: 220: 216: 211: 204: 203: 202: 201: 196: 195: 189: 169: 164: 163: 157: 149: 148: 147: 143: 138: 135: 130: 123: 122: 121: 116: 114: 106: 105: 104: 103: 99: 94: 91: 86: 79: 75: 71: 67: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3673: 3642: 3594: 3588: 3561: 3507: 3499: 3495: 3491: 3444: 3431: 3424: 3385: 3271: 3251: 3232: 3214: 3198: 3175: 3151: 3123: 3109:Juliancolton 3085: 3066: 3011: 2984: 2981: 2914: 2892: 2797: 2776: 2738: 2704: 2697: 2660: 2620: 2588: 2556: 2521: 2504: 2483: 2448: 2439: 2394: 2359: 2344: 2337: 2311: 2230: 2223: 2218: 2195: 2155: 2132: 2098: 2043:TonyTheTiger 2035: 1982:TonyTheTiger 1962: 1925: 1888:TonyTheTiger 1865: 1830:TonyTheTiger 1816: 1793: 1788: 1777: 1770: 1726:TonyTheTiger 1686:TonyTheTiger 1639:TonyTheTiger 1634:Paris Hilton 1577:TonyTheTiger 1522:TonyTheTiger 1514: 1462:TonyTheTiger 1402:TonyTheTiger 1369:TonyTheTiger 1342: 1304:TonyTheTiger 1296: 1278: 1269: 1263: 1255: 1222:TonyTheTiger 1211: 1199:DeShawn Sims 1190:Manny Harris 1181:John Beilein 1088:— Preceding 1081: 1077: 1045:TonyTheTiger 1013:TonyTheTiger 966:TonyTheTiger 954: 931: 895:TonyTheTiger 891:Barack Obama 848: 816:TonyTheTiger 764:TonyTheTiger 739:Barack Obama 730: 723: 672:TonyTheTiger 640:TonyTheTiger 607:TonyTheTiger 587: 520: 439: 426: 403: 399: 397: 320:Juliancolton 314:Works for me 313: 267: 242: 206: 184: 181: 152: 112: 63: 55: 43: 37: 3340:Ottava Rima 3338:I'm sorry. 3061:exists! :D 3045:Ottava Rima 3043:!!! :( !!! 2967:Ottava Rima 2918:Ottava Rima 2665:Ottava Rima 1264:Connecticut 60:Maintenance 36:This is an 3492:this year' 2551:Perdone? 2060:WP:CHICAGO 1999:WP:CHICAGO 1905:WP:CHICAGO 1847:WP:CHICAGO 1743:WP:CHICAGO 1703:WP:CHICAGO 1656:WP:CHICAGO 1594:WP:CHICAGO 1539:WP:CHICAGO 1479:WP:CHICAGO 1419:WP:CHICAGO 1386:WP:CHICAGO 1349:David Hume 1321:WP:CHICAGO 1239:WP:CHICAGO 1062:WP:CHICAGO 1030:WP:CHICAGO 983:WP:CHICAGO 912:WP:CHICAGO 860:Recreation 833:WP:CHICAGO 781:WP:CHICAGO 689:WP:CHICAGO 657:WP:CHICAGO 624:WP:CHICAGO 178:NEW POOLS! 66:WikiCupbox 3496:next year 3352:I forgot 2847:J Milburn 2822:J Milburn 2757:J Milburn 2602:J Milburn 2571:J Milburn 2539:J Milburn 2518:Wildcards 2295:J Milburn 2101:this page 1945:J Milburn 1620:J Milburn 1458:Jack Kemp 1353:J Milburn 1145:J Milburn 950:Saxbe fix 854:includes 755:main page 566:J Milburn 538:J Milburn 3433:Cherian 3272:iMatthew 3252:as given 3233:iMatthew 3163:Chequers 3086:iMatthew 3081:too! :) 2995:Cheers, 2911:Proposal 2739:iMatthew 2395:iMatthew 2312:iMatthew 2039:contribs 2016:Scorpion 1963:iMatthew 1926:iMatthew 1866:iMatthew 1794:iMatthew 1673:Scorpion 1568:WP:WIAGA 1556:Scorpion 1518:contribs 1508:Drilnoth 1496:Scorpion 1439:Scorpion 1161:will be 1102:contribs 1090:unsigned 797:Dabomb87 716:Resolved 594:Scorpion 245:iMatthew 218:Chequers 187:iMatthew 155:iMatthew 3553:Labours 3132:Useight 3124:Support 2716:Useight 2681:Useight 2661:Support 2064:WP:LOTM 2003:WP:LOTM 1909:WP:LOTM 1851:WP:LOTM 1747:WP:LOTM 1707:WP:LOTM 1660:WP:LOTM 1598:WP:LOTM 1543:WP:LOTM 1483:WP:LOTM 1423:WP:LOTM 1390:WP:LOTM 1325:WP:LOTM 1266:(BB-18) 1258:(BB-36) 1243:WP:LOTM 1066:WP:LOTM 1034:WP:LOTM 987:WP:LOTM 916:WP:LOTM 883:WP:CORE 852:WP:CORE 837:WP:LOTM 812:WP:TFAR 785:WP:LOTM 693:WP:LOTM 661:WP:LOTM 628:WP:LOTM 517:Round 1 288:Useight 228:Useight 39:archive 3674:GARDEN 3643:GARDEN 3595:GARDEN 3562:GARDEN 3392:WP:SEP 3298:WP:CAN 3258:Durova 3220:Durova 3204:(talk) 3105:ftw. – 3067:GARDEN 2837:Durova 2812:Durova 2798:GARDEN 2621:GARDEN 2589:GARDEN 2557:GARDEN 2505:GARDEN 2449:GARDEN 2378:Sasata 2220:two?-- 2196:GARDEN 2156:GARDEN 1817:GARDEN 1778:GARDEN 1572:WP:GAR 1256:Nevada 1201:, and 1159:WP:GTC 862:, and 427:GARDEN 113:GARDEN 3656:Paxse 3624:wicke 3541:wicke 3514:Chat 3478:wicke 3390:Lol, 3373:wicke 3354:WP:CW 3317:wicke 3294:WP:CA 3278:Chat 3239:Chat 3201:jj137 3172:WP:ED 3159:Spiel 3103:WP:JC 3092:Chat 3079:WP:IM 3026:WP:OR 2997:Paxse 2993:WP:Pa 2963:WP:SH 2745:Chat 2694:it.-- 2429:wicke 2401:Chat 2363:Paxse 2318:Chat 2284:wicke 2258:wicke 2131:Gary 2029:Cbl62 1969:Chat 1932:Chat 1872:Chat 1800:Chat 1165:when 856:House 759:WP:FP 591:. -- 500:wicke 471:Paxse 459:wicke 442:?! -- 371:Paxse 359:wicke 266:Gary 214:Spiel 141:wicke 97:wicke 68:from 16:< 3660:talk 3637:... 3500:game 3426:Tinu 3386:YOUR 3344:talk 3290:WP:C 3154:Ϣere 3136:talk 3128:WP:U 3126:per 3059:WP:G 3049:talk 3034:talk 3024:and 3022:WP:C 3018:WP:V 3014:WP:N 3001:talk 2991:and 2989:WP:P 2971:talk 2953:talk 2945:WP:9 2941:WP:U 2937:WP:S 2933:WP:D 2922:talk 2901:talk 2869:talk 2851:talk 2826:talk 2783:talk 2761:talk 2720:talk 2698:Will 2685:talk 2669:talk 2638:talk 2606:talk 2575:talk 2543:talk 2528:talk 2490:talk 2382:talk 2367:talk 2338:Will 2299:talk 2224:Will 2140:talk 2133:King 2095:Huh? 2033:talk 1949:talk 1720:and 1624:talk 1512:talk 1456:and 1357:talk 1262:USS 1254:USS 1149:talk 1118:talk 1098:talk 1003:talk 959:and 872:talk 864:Tool 801:talk 584:Sigh 570:talk 556:talk 542:talk 527:talk 475:talk 440:king 438:DYK 375:talk 292:talk 275:talk 268:King 251:talk 232:talk 209:Ϣere 193:talk 161:talk 80:. -- 3668::O 3616:dle 3611:can 3533:dle 3528:can 3470:dle 3465:can 3448:Ed 3399:PXK 3365:dle 3360:can 3309:dle 3304:can 3179:Ed 3174:? — 2421:dle 2416:can 2276:dle 2271:can 2250:dle 2245:can 2171:PXK 2107:PXK 2056:bio 1995:bio 1901:bio 1886:.-- 1843:bio 1739:bio 1699:bio 1652:bio 1590:bio 1535:bio 1475:bio 1415:bio 1382:bio 1317:bio 1282:Ed 1270:any 1260:or 1235:bio 1058:bio 1026:bio 979:bio 935:Ed 908:bio 829:bio 777:bio 685:bio 653:bio 620:bio 492:dle 487:can 451:dle 446:can 407:Ed 400:one 351:dle 346:can 255:// 248:// 197:// 190:// 165:// 158:// 133:dle 128:can 89:dle 84:can 74:DYK 70:ITN 3662:) 3511:: 3451:17 3437:- 3346:) 3275:: 3236:: 3182:17 3138:) 3130:. 3113:| 3089:: 3051:) 3036:) 3020:, 3016:, 3003:) 2973:) 2955:) 2939:, 2924:) 2903:) 2895:. 2871:) 2853:) 2828:) 2785:) 2763:) 2742:: 2722:) 2687:) 2671:) 2640:) 2608:) 2577:) 2545:) 2530:) 2492:) 2398:: 2384:) 2369:) 2315:: 2301:) 2066:) 2005:) 1966:: 1951:) 1929:: 1911:) 1869:: 1853:) 1797:: 1749:) 1709:) 1662:) 1626:) 1600:) 1545:) 1485:) 1425:) 1392:) 1359:) 1327:) 1285:17 1245:) 1192:, 1183:, 1174:, 1151:) 1120:) 1104:) 1100:• 1068:) 1036:) 1005:) 989:) 938:17 918:) 874:) 858:, 839:) 803:) 787:) 718:– 695:) 663:) 630:) 572:) 558:) 544:) 529:) 477:) 410:17 377:) 324:| 294:) 234:) 3658:( 3620:• 3537:• 3474:• 3408:C 3406:/ 3369:• 3342:( 3313:• 3134:( 3047:( 3032:( 2999:( 2969:( 2951:( 2920:( 2899:( 2867:( 2849:( 2824:( 2781:( 2759:( 2718:( 2705:C 2683:( 2667:( 2636:( 2604:( 2573:( 2541:( 2526:( 2488:( 2480:) 2476:( 2425:• 2380:( 2365:( 2345:C 2297:( 2280:• 2254:• 2231:C 2180:C 2178:/ 2143:) 2137:( 2116:C 2114:/ 2062:/ 2058:/ 2054:/ 2052:c 2050:/ 2048:t 2046:( 2036:· 2031:( 2001:/ 1997:/ 1993:/ 1991:c 1989:/ 1987:t 1985:( 1947:( 1907:/ 1903:/ 1899:/ 1897:c 1895:/ 1893:t 1891:( 1849:/ 1845:/ 1841:/ 1839:c 1837:/ 1835:t 1833:( 1745:/ 1741:/ 1737:/ 1735:c 1733:/ 1731:t 1729:( 1705:/ 1701:/ 1697:/ 1695:c 1693:/ 1691:t 1689:( 1658:/ 1654:/ 1650:/ 1648:c 1646:/ 1644:t 1642:( 1622:( 1596:/ 1592:/ 1588:/ 1586:c 1584:/ 1582:t 1580:( 1541:/ 1537:/ 1533:/ 1531:c 1529:/ 1527:t 1525:( 1515:· 1510:( 1481:/ 1477:/ 1473:/ 1471:c 1469:/ 1467:t 1465:( 1421:/ 1417:/ 1413:/ 1411:c 1409:/ 1407:t 1405:( 1388:/ 1384:/ 1380:/ 1378:c 1376:/ 1374:t 1372:( 1355:( 1323:/ 1319:/ 1315:/ 1313:c 1311:/ 1309:t 1307:( 1277:— 1241:/ 1237:/ 1233:/ 1231:c 1229:/ 1227:t 1225:( 1147:( 1116:( 1096:( 1064:/ 1060:/ 1056:/ 1054:c 1052:/ 1050:t 1048:( 1032:/ 1028:/ 1024:/ 1022:c 1020:/ 1018:t 1016:( 1001:( 985:/ 981:/ 977:/ 975:c 973:/ 971:t 969:( 914:/ 910:/ 906:/ 904:c 902:/ 900:t 898:( 870:( 835:/ 831:/ 827:/ 825:c 823:/ 821:t 819:( 799:( 783:/ 779:/ 775:/ 773:c 771:/ 769:t 767:( 691:/ 687:/ 683:/ 681:c 679:/ 677:t 675:( 659:/ 655:/ 651:/ 649:c 647:/ 645:t 643:( 626:/ 622:/ 618:/ 616:c 614:/ 612:t 610:( 568:( 554:( 540:( 525:( 496:• 473:( 455:• 373:( 355:• 316:– 290:( 278:) 272:( 230:( 137:• 93:• 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:WikiCup/Archive/2009/6 - Knowledge

Index