1501:
pass through the various evaluation structures, (FAC, GAC, FLC, and so on). Here's my concern, there is already a paucity of reviewers working at these evaluation structures. Consequently there are significant backlogs at several of these pages. Having editors flood these pages with more and more content without also providing reviews doesn't help the situation. As the
Wikicup continues to expand (which it appears to be doing rather significantly) I fear that this issue will also expand. My suggestion would be to require all entrants to performs X number of reviews per round, not for points, but simply as a requirement for participation. The number of reviews could be a percentage of the number of submissions, I'm not sure, that could be worked out. Certainly this would be enacted next year not for this year's Cup.
1505:
love to just spend my editing time solely on content, but people do have to do the reviews. My philosophy has always been that if I'm going to use the structure for the articles I've worked on, then I should support the work of others by giving back in the form of reviews. This is a suggestion, I'd welcome feedback, I'm guessing many will react negatively to any form of mandated review requirement but there's no harm in raising the idea and seeing what people think. I'll watch the page and happily interact with anyone who would like to discuss it.
31:
2668:
13 people with 40 or more points. Since the rules will only allow 16 "wildcards" on to round three, that means that you need to have at least more than 40 points to move on regardless of what pool you are in. But considering that there is a whole month left in round two, that number will likely go up. My guess is that by April 28, if you have more than 80-100 points, you'll move on no matter what.--
3130:
3078:
2038:
GA/FA/DYK/whatever into the first round. If you ask me, though, the "Pool of Death" is actually Pool A. Since the top two progress, the pool with the highest-scoring third place would be the one with the greatest difficult to get into the auto-progressing top two. Pool A has a third place of 130, while Pool C's third place is only 110. It'd be harder to progress in A than in C.
879:
major artwork or a chemical element. Your second point ignores the nature of page views- just because people are viewing an article, does not mean that they are using it. It's better to improve an article that will help 10 people with an essay than it is to improve an article that 20 young children click because it is the top Google result for something inane.
776:
everything and we draft in viewers from po articles into the use of an encyclopedia, even people who would never put their hand on encyclopedia britannica. (I know that altruism is not existing and we writte because we like to have readers like to get points or what to become important in wikipedia long for imortality or so on .....)--
1056:. I know many of you will be put off by the subject matter, but really, if you can't understand at least most of it, we article writers have failed, and I for one would be glad to know. Likewise, I would be happy to GA-review your article on Rail transport in Benin, Simpsons episode #435, or whatever you want really, I don't mind.
1540:
very competitive nature of the
Wikicup I would be hesitant to support giving points for reviews. It also starts to steer the Cup away from it's intended goal, which is content improvement through mainspace editing. I would argue that reviewing can significantly help content improvement but it is in a secondary form.
675:
high importance to certain nations (say, the US) have particularly high viewing figures. There's also the very important point that viewing figures are an imprecise science, and, in any case, say little about how useful the page has been (for instance, I suspect the high viewing figures for pages like
1918:
and put each one in a group (Sasata in Pool A, me in Pool B, you in Pool C, etc. etc.), went through all the way down until Pool H (Staxringold), and then started from the top of the remaining scorers in the list (Casliber for Pool A, Resolute for Pool B, etc. etc.) It seems like as fair a way as any
590:
Yes, these are the FAs, GAs, and FLs that have an average of at least 500 hits per day. Caesium and
Antonin Scalia have over 1000 hits per day. I'm a little disappointed that only these six out of 130 articles submitted are of popular topics (unless I missed any), but of course you should work on the
1500:
I am not a participant in the
Wikicup and stumbled upon this competition recently in my travels around WP. I see that the goal of the Cup is to spur editors to improve the content in WP by using a competition. I think this is a great idea. In order to attain points editors must have their content
2667:
Well since the top two in every group moves and the top 16 that were not in the top two in their pool moves on as well I'll break things down for you all as of now. Well (not counting people who currently are leading or in second place in their pool) there are 17 people with 30 or more points. and
1618:
was substantially upgraded. The reviewers were working to make sure the old GAs conformed with the new criteria, if they did then they were kept, if they didn't then editors were given the chance to upgrade the articles and if they still didn't meet the criteria they were delisted. The Sweeps did
1539:
My concern with points for reviews is that it could lead to a reduction in the quality of reviews (as you studiously pointed out). There are backlog drives that give out awards for the number of reviews accomplished in a given time frame so rewarding for reviews is not unprecedented, but given the
1059:
I only ask because there are a raft of similar articles I would like to bring up to GA (sooner rather than later), but I really need some outside pointers so I don't start getting all idiosyncratic and OWNish (WP:ECON is a bit dead). I do have another article awaiting review (for a longer time) but
897:
That makes a pretty large presumption about
Knowledge that doesn't seem to hold true in practice. Today's Featured Article explicitly states they don't judge the importance of an article, nor do any of the featured processes. If it is up to our standards then it's up to our standards, period. Where
679:
are not because a great number of people are doing research about penises). I think these results are interesting, certainly, but I feel that Reywas is wrong to read into them so much. If we were to implement some sort of bonus points for more important/more difficult topics, it certainly would not
260:
The fact that people in this competition take the project seriously? Everyone here is interested in the encyclopedia first- this is meant to be a little fun and motivation. No one interested in abusing
Knowledge in order to win some pixels is welcome in this competition, or, I suspect, is currently
64:
The submissions' pages are now clear, so feel free to start adding anything for which you wish to claim points this round. Hopefully the bot will clear the scorelists at the first update. Remember that anything that has passed since the end of round one may be claimed in round two, providing it has
2631:
will be starting tomorrow. I see a good few people here have already signed up, but this certainly seems to be something that will be of interest to people here. Basically, the idea of the drive is to clear as much of the backlog at GAN as possible, with a slight competitive edge. The drive is not
2020:
At least taking the logic of the NCAA tournament the top overall seed (the top scorer in round 1) should have the easiest 2 seed, 3 seed, etc, etc. So I would think it'd be similar to what Kahn suggested, only in reverse after the top seeds. So start the groups with the top 8 scorers, then flipped
1504:
One issue that I'm sure will be raised is that of time. You are working hard on content and don't have the time to also be required to do reviews. This suggestion would negatively impact the amount of quality content that the Cup could produce. My response is that we are all short on time. I'd
711:
between the two characteristics, easy is not stated as simply a characteristic of being unknown. Second, I think there is an argument to be made for page views as a basis for bonus points in future Cups. If the goal of the Cup is to improve the project, surely improving the image of
Knowledge goes
1571:
Yeah that's an idea, it would just take some horsepower to get it done. I thought since the
Wikicup already has momentum and since participants must use the review apparatus in order to garner points to win the Cup that this would be a good opportunity to "encourage" reviewers as well as content
859:
because they are both notable enough for an article. Page view points aren't about the importance of the topic, in my view, but about how much their improvement helps the project. If 100,000 people view a page in a month, good work there improves Wiki's image in far more people's eyes than if you
674:
As has been discussed before, pop culture articles have the potential to be incredibly popular (while remaining less "important" in the standard encyclopedic sense) and, at the same time, often have a reputation for being easier to write about. Equally, topics currently in the news, and topics of
878:
I simply don't agree with you that every article is as important as any other. It's a nice idea, but it's not actually how things work- the article on some pop star who scraped the top twenty in a small nation just simply isn't as important as an article on a major nation, a major philosopher, a
3342:
There is less activity in much of the content areas - the number of FAC approvals and reviewers is down significantly month to month and month over month, for example. I think some of the predictions about editor shortages are coming true. I wonder if overall editting is down over the same time
1673:
No I was not aware that this was coming, I'm glad to see it. I will certainly try to participate. I would just like to see editors who are using the system to get their content appraised, also contribute to the system so that it maintains a level of cohesion and doesn't become so backlogged.
814:
of the project, because improving the quality of something a lot of people see improves the quality of the project's image with the general viewing population. The rules could be easily written to avoid the problem you suggest below. One-shot main page features like FA and DYK could be fixed by
815:
requiring at least X viewers on 3 days or something, and I'm not sure ITN drawing many viewers for days is contrary to this (a FA quality article on this year's Oscars, for example, might draw viewers thanks to being on ITN but would certainly improve what
Knowledge looks like to an outsider).
775:
We do not built a encyclopedia for the sake of the encyclopedia we do because somebody is reading the stuff we are writting and High School
Musical is the most important topic people are searching for than this article has to be up to the standart. Knowledge lives because we have an article on
2037:
Whichever method they used to create the current pools, the past results don't dictate the current results. Perhaps some people increased in free time, perhaps some decreased. Some could have had material almost ready when the first round ended; some people may have just barely squeaked their
1690:
I certainly intend to be taking part in the GAN elimination drive, and, as a WikiCup judge, I've been trying to do my bit with the backlog anyway. I think the Cup is moving towards starting some kind of "points for reviews" system or something similiar- this is something that definitely needs
275:
Would also note that pretty much anything that scores points is something requiring review, including DYK. If folks are running around just throwing stuff up just to throw it up, its generally caught, same as it would be if there were no WikiCup incentive. Its not as if we win money or prizes
1329:
The big unknown really is whether there are people who are racking up points without updating their contribs page. I have seen Cas rack up several FAs and DYKs without updating his page. I'm guessing here's an outlier, but if a few people do that (or even just surge late with FAs) that
1215:...for ten days, as I am abroad. I will not be signing on at all. I'll be back on the 30 March, just in time for the next newsletter; the Cup seems to be running smoothly enough, but any issues will have to be aimed at another judge for a little while. Good luck everyone, have fun.
860:
spent similar effort on a page seen by 100 that same month. It's the same reason you put up billboards in areas of heavy traffic/population and not out in the middle of the woods. It's the same billboard, same quality, but there is more value when the message reaches more people.
564:. These articles each receive well over 500 page views per day. While these players could have done articles on easy unknown topics, they chose more difficult, important, popular articles that will be a great benefit to many more Knowledge readers. Keep up the nice work!
1310:
I'm sticking to my 125-150ish points = Locked up spot theory from your last update. If Round 1 is any indication there will be a handful of editors with outlier high scores like Sasata and Hunter Kahn along with a huge group of people in the 150-225 range.
2111:
I'm afraid I have no idea how the groups were chosen- iMatthew did that; I was concerned with other things at the time. A transparent pooling would be nice, but I think that may encourage tactical play. Personally, I think random grouping would be best...
680:
be based on viewing figures. However, naturally, this does suggest that these articles have proven valuable- no matter why people visit pages, if they are being visited, a strong article on the subject is a good thing. Well done to the users mentioned.
1556:
Perhaps make it an entirely different entity? A completely different, and hopefully less competitive, contest. Different rules, scoring, etc, separate from the Cup, designed specifically for the purpose of cutting down on backlogs, in a legit manner.
1024:
By their very nature, regardless of being on the main page, ITN items will receive a disproportionate amount of views. As I have said, this is a very imprecise science. Reading into it too far is not a particularly worthwhile activity.
144:
in the preliminaries. I was just curious about the change, since I'm still listed under flag of Tokelau in the big picture with the silver cup on the contest page. If possible, I'd like to keep the flag of Tokelau as my banner. Thanks,
761:. And, again, as has been said, page views are a wholly imprecise science. Someone on their own (especially if they can write a bot to do it for them...) could easily shift the page views number for a single article if they so wished.
916:
I strongly support the sentiment of articles being judged on their quality and not content, but that doesn't suddenly mean that every article is as important as every other. Our nature as academic is grounded in the definition of
3352:
Perhaps there will be a pickup in DYKs when the next round of the WikiCup begins. I suspect the overall trend is sigmoidal. If one discounts the creation of populated places, species and athletes, the trend is closer to linear.
337:
There is not. What I thought we could do is just re-add the round one submissions from the page history once a person is eliminated, leaving a full submissions page. If you have a different idea of how to work it, I'm all ears.
647:
While I respect the above praise for "popular pages", surely it is misguided to suggest that obscure or "unknown" topics are easy? They often are not. I also imagine that importance and popularity do not always come together.
728:
in August 2009 saw a perfect article, by our standards. Page views demonstrate, if nothing else, what pages on Knowledge people view, and surely the project is better by ensuring the maximum number of eyes see our best work.
1382:
I believe promotions in the interim to Round 2 and 3 will be counted in Round 3, not 2... (Unless its an on-the-bubble situation and there needs to be a tiebreaker, in which case I think its at the judges disgression...) —
1951:
There are two problems with that method. 1. Group A would be the hardest. 2. At one point I figured out that my group was the only grou with 4 150 point scorers from the first round so they must have strayed from that
3044:
I think the WikiCup is a great idea, and although I'm still interested in the end result, for several personal reasons I'm withdrawing for the competition this year. I plan on returning next year though. Thanks to all,
2021:
for the next 8 scorers (so #16 in pool with #1, #15 with #2, etc, etc), the 8 after that, etc. That would make my pool, H, the most competitive, although that doesn't seem to be the case (no offense intended).
702:
As an unexpected recipient I'm obviously biased, but I will say two things. First off, I don't think Reywas was saying all unknown topics are easy, the message specifically states "easy unknown" not "unknown
1859:
In truth it is a gripe by me. I think the pooling process should be transparent (either by prior round point zig zag or alphabetical slotting). I just don't understand how I ended up in such a competitive
3337:
shows that in February we had 239 DYK canidates in February, we had 177 DYK canidates in March and 165 DYK canidates in April. So the total number in the queue is going down.--21:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
2628:
2201:
1640:
1109:
1252:
You enroll yourself, but for this wikicup you had to sign up before January 1. Late entrants aren't allowed, but feel free to jump on in when signups are opened for next year's wikicup around November.
1790:
lol Just kidding Tony. You guys definitely have the most exciting group to follow this round. I'm willing to bet most of you guys will be in the at-large bubble and moving on to the third round... —
2908:
Ok then. But with only 2 active judges and one that is semi-active, you two are going to be swamped next year. You may want to find another admin (Julian maybe?) to take IM's place by next year.--
2690:
items is it sufficient to do the updating (article work) that gets an article on to the mainpage (i.e. that someone else nominated)? Or do you have to do the update and the nomination? Thanks,
2591:
I'm saying this in that I may have a couple of potential FA candidates but will probably won't get promoted by the time I get eliminated from the WikiCup competition as I have 0 points currently.
1143:
Stick it on the review page, and I guarantee I will do my best to make sure it gets a review before the end of the round. I realise that's well over a month, but that's the best I can offer :)
1826:
It's interesting, given the added FFA round to start things (because of the greater competitors) this is basically the equivalent of Round 1 from the 09 Cup. Quite active for the first round.
2712:
655:
422:
Thank you for letting us know. Probably not to the letter of the rules, but I think it would be great to get someone else into round 2. Giants27 was next from the bubble, I will contact him.
406:
Unitanode wishes to drop out of the competiton. (See his talk page) He also said that If the rules will allow it, he will give up his spot for someone else who did not make it to round two.--
2879:
has retired. He has'nt edited normally in a few months and today he posted the retired template on his talk page with an edit notice. So who will replace him? What do we need to do now?--
246:
How is this project any different to the kind of points-scoring problems which led to such things as people inserting incorrect material into articles just to get their DYK stats up?
3267:
and comment on a few DYK suggestions? I've noticed a lack of comments and generally weak hooks, with some of the regulars there seeming to be MIA. It's not really a backlog, but....
591:
articles you're most interested in. My honorary bonus points are 50% of the standard value. Neither of my Round 1 submissions were quite there, but my current project should be.
2748:
1845:
Is this really such an important story that it requires an update every few days? The few people whop actually care are fully capable of checking the standings themselves... --
810:. On Knowledge there is no such thing as a "better" topic, it's a simple yes/no of if it's notable enough to have an article. The idea behind page-view-points is increasing the
2780:
2576:
2204:
is about to start in a couple days, and more than 40 reviewers have signed up, so I think we're going to see a lot of GAN reviews being conducted in the next couple days. —
2597:
1195:
As of right now most of the at-large's are in the 30-60 point range. I'd bet that 150 will lock up a spot, no matter the pool, and probably 125 or even 100 could work.
261:
taking part in it. Much like Knowledge itself, this is perhaps something that works better in practice than in theory, and, being who I am, it pains me to say that...
1096:
to see which Wikipedians have frequently edited economics-related articles, and see if you can ask them might be willing to give it a try? Or maybe ask one of the
501:
2589:, and I (for some ungodly reason, as I myself am 0 for 3 on FACs) get an article promoted to FA. Would I get credit for that FA (and hence a shitload of points)?
2720:
2607:
work- on an FA, that kind of barrier would be higher. However, the fact that the article is A-class does not automatically preclude you from claiming FA points.
663:
3250:
3093:
2294:
2281:
2268:
486:
467:
3070:
3191:
2937:@Garden, yeah, I was just about to come here and say that. I'm trying to be here at least occasionally, but reviewing at ACR and FAR is sucking up my time. —
2830:
2794:
2227:
1909:
1887:
431:
3368:
2864:
2844:
2104:
2007:
1979:
1942:
1785:
1320:
1204:
293:
3343:
frame? my watchlists are even much less active.. Andecdotally, it seems like content creation and improvement has slowed dramatically over the last year. —
3145:
2343:
2030:
1835:
1813:
1466:
Wait a second, I'm not considered a threat just because I don't update my scoring page the second something is promoted? I guess I'll have to fix that. --
1084:
Jarry, if you really can't find anybody in the next week or two I'd be willing to try reviewing it, but to be honest, this isn't my area of expertise by a
3175:
Very well done! I myslef am shocked by the amount of content work that I'm capable of. I would have never guessed that I'd even make it past round 1 with
2969:
2121:
1489:
1034:
379:
347:
2740:
2726:
2428:
2159:
1551:
1534:
1480:
My current strategy is to track down something I can use to blackmail the judges. So unless that's your strategy as well, you're no threat to me at all!
1450:
1406:
1368:
Round 1 ended Feb 26, Round 2 started March 1 and end April 28, but (correct me if I'm wrong) promotions in the interim can still be counted to Round 2.
1343:
930:
907:
888:
869:
842:
770:
689:
669:
391:
270:
218:
181:
168:
93:
2956:
2656:
2456:
738:
111:
3233:
2707:
2558:
2536:
2522:
2500:
2363:
No worries Fox :) I tried to do it myself before but ended up screwing up the whole of pool B's chart. So I thought, why not let the judges do this?"--
2145:
2047:
1666:
1422:
1135:
650:
620:
233:
2616:
2478:
2074:
1377:
1363:
1266:
1162:
FYI, in the group of death fourth place is now 90 points. Any estimate on how many points the at-large qualifiers will need to make the next round?--
921:; even an encyclopedia specialising in a non-academic subject (if such a thing could actually be called an encyclopedia) is academic in its approach.
851:
No. As I said, there is no such actual scale of "importance" or "betterness" for the project as a whole (even if Wikiprojects rank articles as such).
585:
125:
3015:
2997:
2984:
2916:
2903:
2393:
2371:
2358:
2329:
2316:
1700:
1079:
824:
3317:
3297:
1685:
1583:
1566:
985:
785:
638:
3347:
2641:
2061:
570:
2419:
I think so, assuming you didn't mistakenly get those points to get past round 1. Stuff in the inter-period is supposed to count towards Round 2.
1189:
2803:
that I would prefer were not promoted in time to surpass you. They would be more useful next round when the competition gets more meaningful.--
2676:
2699:
1634:
1609:
1097:
713:
331:
2887:
3282:
2627:
It's been mentioned in a couple of places above, and I will be mentioning it in the newsletter which will be going out this evening, but the
1853:
1752:
1526:
reviews. (Next year of course) That would result in the elimination of the backlog(s). (Though they need to be proper reviews, no BSing...)--
1474:
1304:
2931:
442:
Why is'nt the bot updateing my points. It still says that I'm at 0 when I have 3 DYK's and I added them to my submissions page on March 1.--
1334:
throw all predictions off. That said, I suspect that Staxringgold is right - 125-150 points will probably be enough to advance to round 3.
1092:
is a bust (I know you said the WikiProject is mostly dead, but there does seem to be discussion at that talk page), or perhaps look at the
78:
1277:
All members of the group of death quartet are up to 110 points. This would be first or second place in the majority of the other pools.--
991:
I think ITN and DYK articles may appear to be popular for having been on the main page. Averages should exclude days on the main page.--
1516:
3302:
It's circular; the suggestions sit there without action or verification, so people get discouraged from or put off writing more DYKs.
3242:
eliminated him considering that he is indef blocked and is a sock. If anyone opposes (especially the judges) feel free to revert me.--
1152:
1064:
254:
153:
1224:
416:
203:
3160:
into the lead! Very cool GA work! The GA backlog drive has been so successful, and has caused some nice blasts of Wikicup scoring!
3056:
3034:
3121:
2705:
Update your own or any nomination seems to make sense. The content work is in the update (or new article as sometimes happens). --
806:
just a normal encyclopedia. Brittanica has no entry (or a very small one) on Hannah Montana, for example, but we strive to cover
2194:
2254:
1246:
511:
452:
224:
Sorry, yeah, that's my fault. Fixed that now. It is, however, nice to see a large number of early points. Good work everyone.
3169:
2622:
2413:
1089:
1018:
576:
That's interesting- so these are the promoted articles that are receiving the most page views of all WikiCup submissions?
1237:
How do you join the WikiCup, are you selected or do you just enroll yourself? and also, what date do you join or enroll?
3219:
3030:
2813:
2763:
2681:
1962:
1905:
1870:
1735:
1679:
1628:
1577:
1545:
1510:
1287:
1172:
1088:
shot. I'd suggest in the meantime you see if you can seek out a review with a bit more knowledge of that field. If the
1001:
362:
314:
289:
2924:
I can always leave my name up for what its worth, my schedule's finally lifted from having constraints and am free :)
2216:
1996:
1931:
1802:
1774:
1655:
1439:
1395:
1157:
1124:
520:, I'd like to award five contestants with a total of 210 honorary bonus points for Round 1. I thank and congratulate
970:
3334:
3330:
3326:
3258:
2817:
2767:
2581:
Just a hypothetical situation I'm going to throw out here. Suppose I start working on an article that is already a
1966:
1874:
1739:
1291:
1176:
1005:
366:
318:
3062:
It's a shame to see you leave. You were a shoe in for round three Julian. See you next year and see ya around :)--
1725:
Now the group of death has a quintet of 110 point scorers that would be first or 2nd in 3 of the other 7 groups.--
2662:
299:
2321:
Well can my submissions page be renamed and my name that appears in pool B? (Sorry for not makeing that clear)--
1643:
coming up in April? I'm actually planning to do some GAN reviews myself, but am waiting until it starts up... —
1614:
Nope, the Sweeps was a project that reviewed all the GA's promoted prior to the date (August 27, 2007) when the
1359:
1093:
717:
529:
59:
3288:
There is a lack of DYK nominations! The DYK will be updated every 8 hours not every 6 hours because of this.--
2870:
1720:
1272:
2260:
Oh and can one of the judges please rename my page as well as fix any links that lead to my old username?--
2179:
2176:
1495:
725:
561:
2221:
2001:
1936:
1807:
1779:
1660:
1444:
1400:
1129:
952:
2731:
Yeah; as long as you've done the work you're welcome to claim. Don't abuse it, and you should be fine.
1053:
38:
2835:
My only goal, besides moving on, in these early rounds is trying to have the most FLs in every round.
2632:
officially related to the WikiCup, but review work will be looked upon in the need for a tie-breaker.
1210:
743:
Not necessarily- we are an encyclopedia, so our focus should be on covering the issues of the highest
1108:
are two different beasts, but they are similar enough that one of them might look at it. And also, a
499:
484:
450:
414:
1040:
1112:
is about to start in April, so many one of the reviewers there will be willing to give it a go? —
2786:
Hey Tony, I haven't had a chance to check the standings, who is currently winning that group? --
2173:
3207:
3054:
3024:
2809:
2792:
2759:
2273:
I still need my stuff renamed. I moved my submissions page to my current name but that's all.--
2150:
In pools this big it's unlikely, but you could theoretically win your pool with 10 points, eg.
1958:
1899:
1866:
1851:
1731:
1472:
1283:
1242:
1168:
997:
557:
358:
310:
283:
241:
135:
47:
17:
2461:
I think I might have got them. Would it be possible to remove them from the last last round? —
3165:
3101:
2860:
2840:
2424:
2211:
2155:
2100:
2026:
1991:
1926:
1831:
1797:
1769:
1650:
1434:
1390:
1316:
1200:
1119:
903:
865:
820:
734:
463:
251:
199:
189:
89:
2130:
I don't understand how the pools are different from just saying "the top 32 will progress".
2652:
2239:
1070:
Just seeing the link to the article brought back bad memories of Managerial Economics 387.
492:
477:
443:
407:
2647:
Well, the backlog drive has just begun. So be prepared for reviews, gentlemen and ladies!
605:? It has been viewed 26,158 times in the 17 days of its existence (1,538.71 views a day).
8:
3363:
3344:
3312:
3277:
3114:
3039:
3009:
2736:
2695:
2637:
2612:
2551:
2532:
2515:
2496:
2471:
2406:
2339:
2140:
2117:
1696:
1485:
1418:
1373:
1339:
1220:
1148:
1030:
981:
926:
884:
838:
766:
757:
685:
615:
602:
581:
427:
343:
266:
229:
214:
164:
121:
74:
724:
on the latter that improves the stature of Knowledge. Imagine if the 130,000 viewers of
209:
No, look at the dates of the articles - looks like his submission page wasn't cleared.
3243:
3226:
3184:
3138:
3086:
3063:
2990:
2962:
2944:
2909:
2880:
2669:
2594:
2444:
2364:
2322:
2287:
2274:
2261:
2247:
2243:
2187:
1527:
1353:
898:
does it say Knowledge exists as a piece of academia and not as a piece of pop culture?
751:
eyes- students and academics. That should be our long term goal, rather than improving
388:
159:
Sorry, not sure how that happened. I've changed your flag to Tokelau on the main list.
106:
2095:*cries because he's all the way down in Pool H, maximum distance from the kewl geiz.*
3047:
3018:
2821:
2804:
2787:
2771:
2754:
2043:
1970:
1953:
1893:
1878:
1861:
1846:
1743:
1726:
1562:
1467:
1295:
1278:
1238:
1180:
1163:
1075:
1009:
992:
525:
517:
401:
370:
353:
322:
305:
277:
140:
Currently, I have the Czech Republic's flag (see Pool D), whereas I was assigned the
3017:. Is this something I can do myself or something I would need someone else to do.--
1984:
Yeah, I guess you're right, I only counted the first two groups of eight I guess. —
3161:
2856:
2836:
2420:
2246:
so that way it does'nt look like a newbie is trying to edit his submissions page.--
2206:
2151:
2096:
2068:
2057:
2022:
1986:
1921:
1827:
1792:
1764:
1645:
1589:
1429:
1385:
1312:
1196:
1114:
899:
861:
816:
730:
533:
521:
459:
247:
195:
174:
146:
85:
2396:
to my submissions list. Would I be able to claim that back to my current points? —
1892:
You're leading by like 135 points in that group...whats to grip about yet? :-P --
1348:
Oops. forgot. When was the official start date of round 2 and the end of round 1?
3293:
3215:
3197:
2717:
2648:
2585:
and perhaps already A-Class. I help get that article whatever is needed to reach
2167:
1615:
1260:
1232:
966:
856:
781:
660:
632:
141:
1915:
1691:
discussion next year. You are by no means the first people to raise this issue.
304:
Is there an archive of Round 1 submission pages not shown on the template yet?--
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
3355:
3304:
3269:
3239:
3151:
3108:
2825:
2775:
2732:
2691:
2633:
2608:
2544:
2528:
2508:
2492:
2464:
2399:
2387:
2335:
2233:
2132:
2113:
1974:
1914:
Tony, I think the way the group was chosen was that they started at the top of
1882:
1747:
1692:
1481:
1414:
1369:
1335:
1299:
1216:
1184:
1144:
1061:
1026:
1013:
977:
922:
880:
852:
834:
762:
681:
607:
577:
553:
423:
374:
339:
326:
262:
225:
210:
160:
117:
70:
1413:
I meant the interval between Feb 26 and March 1. Apologies for being unclear.
2975:
2950:
2939:
2894:
2876:
2800:
2687:
2450:
2439:
2349:
2300:
1620:
1593:
1349:
1105:
958:
592:
565:
458:
You've put an extra colon in front of the # symbols. That might be doing it.
385:
100:
833:
What are you saying, then? More page views makes an article more important?
3203:
2753:
Will the group of death be the only group to advance 6? I am betting so.--
2586:
2582:
2039:
1675:
1624:
1573:
1558:
1541:
1506:
1101:
1071:
802:
I still disagree with your suggestion here, J Milburn. We are very clearly
708:
549:
541:
2893:
We'll discuss. Ed's not really here much either, but we'll talk about it.
3106:
Hi, I'd like to withdraw from the competition if still possible. Thanks!
2053:
437:
352:
I think the submission pages should be moved to /1, /2, etc. archives.--
3289:
3211:
1255:
962:
777:
627:
2437:
Yes you can, assuming you did not receive those points for round 1 —
384:
Or just create a link to a dif from before the page was refactored.
2505:
It was promoted on the 27th, the day after the end of round one. —
545:
537:
3264:
2392:
Hi there. On 27 February, the day after the first deadline, I
1619:
nothing to reduce the current backlog of articles waiting at
676:
2961:
Well there's one person to fill it up. So problem solved?--
476:
Fixed. Thanks for letting me know what I was doing wrong.--
3014:
Need to have my WikiCup stuff moved to use my new username
2052:
I prefer to think of group A as the "Pool of Cool Dudes".
976:
At least a few of them were me. Very interesting topic :)
752:
3210:
have a influence on his participation in the wikicup?--
2749:
Will the group of death be the only group to advance 6?
2348:
Oh, right, done. Sorry for not reporting back here :P
2577:
Semi-hypothetical situation about GA/A-Class articles
2491:
the end of round one, then it counts for this round.
1623:. Let me know if I haven't explained it properly.
716:, eg, but with far far fewer people reading it than
516:
Although there are no official bonus points for the
3183:. The GA backlog drive is doing very well indeed.--
2855:6? Probably. B looks to be getting 5 and A with 4.
2066:Absolutely. Pool A is without a doubt the coolest.
1098:
peer review volunteers who reads economics articles
2989:OK then. I'll leave it in your capable hands. :)--
2527:Then feel free to claim points for it this round.
2483:Not really. However, if the article was promoted (
2186:has a reviewer but he has yet to post anything.--
957:ITN for Copernicium is my personal favorite with
712:towards that goal. I'm glad I got my points for
747:importance, which will then hopefully draw the
714:List of Houston Astros first-round draft picks
2299:Not sure exactly what you're wanting done...
194:Holy God, Chamal has burst out of the gate!!
707:easy". Unknown and easy is the center of a
625:I think he's only counting GA+ articles. --
1052:Would someone mind doing the GA review on
2629:April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive
1916:the list of scorers from the first round
65:been worked on and nominated this year (
3263:Could anybody who has time pop over to
1060:in a way that one's less urgent. Ta, -
14:
1641:good article backlog elimination drive
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
2182:on the review page yet? One of them,
3225:He should be eliminated as a sock.--
3179:points, much less over 500 in round
25:
1049:page was still watched mid-round.)
23:
1758:Make sure you keep us posted with
1522:"Or parhaps points could be given
1045:(Sorry, I didn't know whether the
98:F*ck, I was working on it now! :(
24:
3382:
2487:added to your submissions' list)
3128:
3076:
1427:Ah. Then yes, you're correct. —
29:
2799:Well done. I have a bunch of
1639:Are you aware of the upcoming
718:List of World Series champions
530:List of World Series champions
512:Popular Page Improvement Award
491:Hmmmm.... Still not working.--
248:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
13:
1:
2623:GAN backlog elimination drive
2334:Feel free to do it yourself.
2202:GAN backlog elimination drive
1239:Moptopstyle1 ("I Feel Fine.")
1110:GAN backlog elimination drive
3137:Done. See you next year :)--
726:2009 flu pandemic by country
601:Did you overlook my article
562:Inauguration of Barack Obama
7:
3085:See you next year Julian.--
855:is exactly as important as
10:
3387:
3369:17:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
3348:12:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
3318:18:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
3298:17:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
3283:17:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
3251:19:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
3234:19:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
3220:19:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
3192:00:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
3170:00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
3146:23:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
3122:23:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
3094:10:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
3071:00:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
3057:00:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
3035:22:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
2998:20:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
2985:14:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
2970:23:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
2957:23:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
2932:22:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
2917:22:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
2904:10:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
2888:21:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
2741:10:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
2682:Clarification on ITN items
2642:10:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
2617:10:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
2603:Provided you've done some
2598:07:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
2559:21:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
2537:18:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
2523:18:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
2501:18:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
2479:14:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
2457:19:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
2429:15:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
2414:10:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
2359:12:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
2344:11:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
2330:10:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
2317:11:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
2295:10:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
2282:03:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
2269:20:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
2255:01:29, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
2238:Just to let you all know,
2228:02:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
2195:00:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
2160:04:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
2146:04:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
2122:22:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
2105:20:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
2075:19:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
2062:23:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
2048:22:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
2031:04:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
2008:04:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
1980:03:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
1943:03:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
1910:03:17, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
1888:03:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
1854:01:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
1836:16:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
1814:14:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
1786:14:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
1753:14:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
1701:22:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
1686:17:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
1667:16:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
1635:15:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
1610:11:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
1584:15:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
1567:22:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1552:21:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1535:21:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1517:21:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1490:04:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
1475:01:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
1451:01:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
1423:23:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1407:22:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1378:21:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1364:20:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1344:17:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1321:16:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1305:13:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1267:04:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1247:02:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
1225:18:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
1205:16:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
1190:15:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
1153:00:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
1136:23:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
1080:22:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
1065:20:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
1054:price elasticity of demand
961:views within eight days.--
931:19:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
908:19:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
889:18:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
870:18:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
843:18:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
825:18:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
2865:00:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
2845:00:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
2831:00:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
2795:00:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
2781:07:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
2727:23:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
2700:03:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
2677:04:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
2657:01:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
2372:04:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
1158:The Group of Death update
1100:to look at it? Obviously
1035:14:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
1019:14:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
986:11:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
971:10:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
786:10:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
771:10:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
739:05:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
690:01:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
670:01:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
639:06:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
621:05:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
586:23:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
571:23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
502:02:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
487:03:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
468:02:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
453:01:57, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
432:14:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
417:03:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
392:19:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
380:19:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
348:13:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
332:12:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
294:14:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
271:10:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
255:10:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
234:10:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
219:07:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
204:06:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
182:04:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
169:11:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
154:04:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
126:22:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
112:22:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
94:22:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
79:22:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
69:necessarily this round).
3259:Sort of a backlog at DYK
1760:every breaking detail!!!
2663:Update regarding points
2172:Is it too early to put
300:Submission page archive
2200:Don't forget that the
558:User talk:TonyTheTiger
60:Submission pages clear
18:Knowledge talk:WikiCup
2871:Retirement of a Judge
2286:Still waiting......--
1721:Group of Death Update
1681:citius altius fortius
1630:citius altius fortius
1588:Is that not what the
1579:citius altius fortius
1547:citius altius fortius
1512:citius altius fortius
1273:Group of Death latest
42:of past discussions.
2240:User:Coldplay Expert
1496:A wikicup suggestion
1094:WP:GAN history page
1090:WP:ECON's talk page
758:High School Musical
603:Andrea_Fay_Friedman
2244:User:White Shadows
84:Woot, DYK credit.
2974:We'll discuss ;)
2829:
2779:
2592:
2557:
2521:
2477:
2412:
2315:
2312:(formerly garden)
2242:has been renamed
1978:
1886:
1751:
1608:
1605:(formerly garden)
1303:
1188:
1017:
526:2009 World Series
378:
330:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
3378:
3367:
3360:
3316:
3309:
3281:
3274:
3248:
3231:
3202:Does the tag on
3189:
3143:
3136:
3132:
3131:
3119:
3111:
3091:
3084:
3080:
3079:
3068:
3050:
3021:
2995:
2982:
2967:
2955:
2953:
2947:
2942:
2927:
2914:
2901:
2885:
2875:It appears that
2807:
2790:
2757:
2725:
2723:
2715:
2710:
2674:
2590:
2556:
2554:
2549:
2542:
2520:
2518:
2513:
2506:
2476:
2474:
2469:
2462:
2455:
2453:
2447:
2442:
2411:
2409:
2404:
2397:
2369:
2356:
2327:
2313:
2309:
2307:
2292:
2279:
2266:
2252:
2224:
2219:
2214:
2209:
2192:
2144:
2137:
2071:
2004:
1999:
1994:
1989:
1956:
1939:
1934:
1929:
1924:
1896:
1864:
1849:
1810:
1805:
1800:
1795:
1782:
1777:
1772:
1767:
1729:
1682:
1663:
1658:
1653:
1648:
1631:
1606:
1602:
1600:
1580:
1548:
1532:
1513:
1470:
1447:
1442:
1437:
1432:
1403:
1398:
1393:
1388:
1281:
1263:
1258:
1166:
1132:
1127:
1122:
1117:
1041:Review requested
995:
668:
666:
658:
653:
635:
630:
619:
612:
595:
568:
534:User:Airplaneman
522:User:Staxringold
497:
482:
448:
412:
356:
308:
280:
177:
149:
108:
103:
33:
32:
26:
3386:
3385:
3381:
3380:
3379:
3377:
3376:
3375:
3356:
3354:
3305:
3303:
3270:
3268:
3261:
3244:
3227:
3200:
3185:
3168:
3154:
3139:
3129:
3127:
3115:
3109:
3104:
3087:
3077:
3075:
3064:
3048:
3042:
3019:
3012:
2991:
2976:
2963:
2952:majestic titan)
2951:
2945:
2940:
2938:
2925:
2910:
2895:
2881:
2873:
2863:
2843:
2788:
2751:
2721:
2713:
2708:
2706:
2684:
2670:
2665:
2625:
2579:
2552:
2545:
2543:
2516:
2509:
2507:
2472:
2465:
2463:
2452:majestic titan)
2451:
2445:
2440:
2438:
2427:
2407:
2400:
2398:
2390:
2365:
2350:
2323:
2311:
2301:
2288:
2275:
2262:
2248:
2236:
2222:
2217:
2212:
2207:
2188:
2170:
2158:
2133:
2131:
2103:
2069:
2029:
2002:
1997:
1992:
1987:
1937:
1932:
1927:
1922:
1919:to choose... —
1894:
1847:
1834:
1808:
1803:
1798:
1793:
1780:
1775:
1770:
1765:
1723:
1684:
1680:
1661:
1656:
1651:
1646:
1633:
1629:
1604:
1594:
1582:
1578:
1572:contributors.
1550:
1546:
1528:
1515:
1511:
1498:
1468:
1445:
1440:
1435:
1430:
1401:
1396:
1391:
1386:
1319:
1275:
1261:
1256:
1235:
1213:
1211:I'm not here...
1203:
1160:
1130:
1125:
1120:
1115:
1043:
955:
906:
868:
857:Albert Einstein
823:
737:
664:
656:
651:
649:
633:
628:
608:
606:
593:
566:
514:
495:Coldplay Expért
493:
480:Coldplay Expért
478:
466:
446:Coldplay Expért
444:
440:
410:Coldplay Expért
408:
404:
302:
278:
244:
202:
192:
175:
147:
142:flag of Tokelau
138:
105:
101:
92:
62:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
3384:
3374:
3373:
3372:
3371:
3345:Charles Edward
3323:
3322:
3321:
3320:
3260:
3257:
3256:
3255:
3254:
3253:
3206:page and the
3199:
3196:
3195:
3194:
3164:
3153:
3150:
3149:
3148:
3103:
3100:
3099:
3098:
3097:
3096:
3041:
3038:
3011:
3008:
3007:
3006:
3005:
3004:
3003:
3002:
3001:
3000:
2922:
2921:
2920:
2919:
2872:
2869:
2868:
2867:
2859:
2852:
2851:
2850:
2849:
2848:
2847:
2839:
2750:
2747:
2746:
2745:
2744:
2743:
2683:
2680:
2664:
2661:
2660:
2659:
2624:
2621:
2620:
2619:
2578:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2569:
2568:
2567:
2566:
2565:
2564:
2563:
2562:
2561:
2432:
2431:
2423:
2389:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2383:
2382:
2381:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2346:
2271:
2235:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2169:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2154:
2148:
2125:
2124:
2108:
2107:
2099:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2089:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2082:
2081:
2080:
2079:
2078:
2077:
2034:
2033:
2025:
2013:
2012:
2011:
2010:
1946:
1945:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1830:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1816:
1722:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1678:
1670:
1669:
1627:
1576:
1544:
1509:
1497:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1410:
1409:
1324:
1323:
1315:
1274:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1234:
1231:
1229:
1212:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1199:
1159:
1156:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1042:
1039:
1038:
1037:
989:
988:
954:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
911:
910:
902:
892:
891:
873:
872:
864:
853:Hannah Montana
846:
845:
828:
827:
819:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
733:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
554:Antonin Scalia
513:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
471:
470:
462:
439:
436:
435:
434:
403:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
301:
298:
297:
296:
273:
243:
242:Points scoring
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
198:
191:
188:
187:
186:
185:
184:
137:
136:Flag confusion
134:
133:
132:
131:
130:
129:
128:
88:
61:
58:
56:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3383:
3370:
3365:
3361:
3359:
3351:
3350:
3349:
3346:
3341:
3340:
3339:
3336:
3332:
3328:
3319:
3314:
3310:
3308:
3301:
3300:
3299:
3295:
3291:
3287:
3286:
3285:
3284:
3279:
3275:
3273:
3266:
3252:
3249:
3247:
3246:White Shadows
3241:
3237:
3236:
3235:
3232:
3230:
3229:White Shadows
3224:
3223:
3222:
3221:
3217:
3213:
3209:
3205:
3193:
3190:
3188:
3187:White Shadows
3182:
3178:
3174:
3173:
3172:
3171:
3167:
3163:
3159:
3147:
3144:
3142:
3141:White Shadows
3135:
3126:
3125:
3124:
3123:
3120:
3118:
3113:
3112:
3095:
3092:
3090:
3089:White Shadows
3083:
3074:
3073:
3072:
3069:
3067:
3066:White Shadows
3061:
3060:
3059:
3058:
3055:
3052:
3051:
3037:
3036:
3032:
3029:
3026:
3022:
3016:
2999:
2996:
2994:
2993:White Shadows
2988:
2987:
2986:
2983:
2981:
2980:
2973:
2972:
2971:
2968:
2966:
2965:White Shadows
2960:
2959:
2958:
2954:
2948:
2943:
2936:
2935:
2934:
2933:
2930:
2918:
2915:
2913:
2912:White Shadows
2907:
2906:
2905:
2902:
2900:
2899:
2892:
2891:
2890:
2889:
2886:
2884:
2883:White Shadows
2878:
2877:User:IMatthew
2866:
2862:
2858:
2854:
2853:
2846:
2842:
2838:
2834:
2833:
2832:
2827:
2823:
2819:
2815:
2811:
2806:
2802:
2798:
2797:
2796:
2793:
2791:
2785:
2784:
2783:
2782:
2777:
2773:
2769:
2765:
2761:
2756:
2742:
2738:
2734:
2730:
2729:
2728:
2724:
2719:
2716:
2711:
2704:
2703:
2702:
2701:
2697:
2693:
2689:
2679:
2678:
2675:
2673:
2672:White Shadows
2658:
2654:
2650:
2646:
2645:
2644:
2643:
2639:
2635:
2630:
2618:
2614:
2610:
2606:
2602:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2596:
2588:
2584:
2560:
2555:
2550:
2548:
2540:
2539:
2538:
2534:
2530:
2526:
2525:
2524:
2519:
2514:
2512:
2504:
2503:
2502:
2498:
2494:
2490:
2486:
2482:
2481:
2480:
2475:
2470:
2468:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2454:
2448:
2443:
2436:
2435:
2434:
2433:
2430:
2426:
2422:
2418:
2417:
2416:
2415:
2410:
2405:
2403:
2395:
2373:
2370:
2368:
2367:White Shadows
2362:
2361:
2360:
2357:
2355:
2354:
2347:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2333:
2332:
2331:
2328:
2326:
2325:White Shadows
2320:
2319:
2318:
2314:
2308:
2306:
2305:
2298:
2297:
2296:
2293:
2291:
2290:White Shadows
2285:
2284:
2283:
2280:
2278:
2277:White Shadows
2272:
2270:
2267:
2265:
2264:White Shadows
2259:
2258:
2257:
2256:
2253:
2251:
2250:Whité Shadows
2245:
2241:
2229:
2226:
2225:
2220:
2215:
2210:
2203:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2193:
2191:
2190:White Shadows
2185:
2181:
2178:
2175:
2161:
2157:
2153:
2149:
2147:
2142:
2138:
2136:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2126:
2123:
2119:
2115:
2110:
2109:
2106:
2102:
2098:
2094:
2093:
2076:
2073:
2072:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2059:
2055:
2051:
2050:
2049:
2045:
2041:
2036:
2035:
2032:
2028:
2024:
2019:
2018:
2017:
2016:
2015:
2014:
2009:
2006:
2005:
2000:
1995:
1990:
1983:
1982:
1981:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1964:
1960:
1955:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1944:
1941:
1940:
1935:
1930:
1925:
1917:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1907:
1904:
1901:
1897:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1884:
1880:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1863:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1852:
1850:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1815:
1812:
1811:
1806:
1801:
1796:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1784:
1783:
1778:
1773:
1768:
1761:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1733:
1728:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1683:
1677:
1672:
1671:
1668:
1665:
1664:
1659:
1654:
1649:
1642:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1632:
1626:
1622:
1617:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1607:
1601:
1599:
1598:
1591:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1581:
1575:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1549:
1543:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1533:
1531:
1530:White Shadows
1525:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1514:
1508:
1502:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1473:
1471:
1452:
1449:
1448:
1443:
1438:
1433:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1411:
1408:
1405:
1404:
1399:
1394:
1389:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1361:
1358:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1285:
1280:
1268:
1265:
1264:
1259:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1230:
1227:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1165:
1155:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1137:
1134:
1133:
1128:
1123:
1118:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1063:
1057:
1055:
1050:
1048:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
994:
987:
983:
979:
975:
974:
973:
972:
968:
964:
960:
932:
928:
924:
920:
915:
914:
913:
912:
909:
905:
901:
896:
895:
894:
893:
890:
886:
882:
877:
876:
875:
874:
871:
867:
863:
858:
854:
850:
849:
848:
847:
844:
840:
836:
832:
831:
830:
829:
826:
822:
818:
813:
809:
805:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
787:
783:
779:
774:
773:
772:
768:
764:
760:
759:
754:
750:
746:
742:
741:
740:
736:
732:
727:
723:
719:
715:
710:
706:
705:and therefore
701:
700:
691:
687:
683:
678:
673:
672:
671:
667:
662:
659:
654:
646:
640:
637:
636:
631:
624:
623:
622:
617:
613:
611:
604:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
589:
588:
587:
583:
579:
575:
574:
573:
572:
569:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
519:
503:
500:
498:
496:
490:
489:
488:
485:
483:
481:
475:
474:
473:
472:
469:
465:
461:
457:
456:
455:
454:
451:
449:
447:
433:
429:
425:
421:
420:
419:
418:
415:
413:
411:
393:
390:
387:
383:
382:
381:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
355:
351:
350:
349:
345:
341:
336:
335:
334:
333:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
307:
295:
291:
288:
285:
281:
274:
272:
268:
264:
259:
258:
257:
256:
253:
249:
235:
231:
227:
223:
222:
220:
216:
212:
208:
207:
206:
205:
201:
197:
190:Early Round 2
183:
180:
178:
172:
171:
170:
166:
162:
158:
157:
156:
155:
152:
150:
143:
127:
123:
119:
115:
114:
113:
109:
107:
104:
97:
96:
95:
91:
87:
83:
82:
81:
80:
76:
72:
68:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
3357:
3324:
3306:
3271:
3262:
3245:
3228:
3204:User:JB50000
3201:
3186:
3180:
3176:
3157:
3155:
3140:
3133:
3116:
3107:
3105:
3088:
3081:
3065:
3049:Juliancolton
3046:
3043:
3027:
3020:AnmaFinotera
3013:
2992:
2978:
2977:
2964:
2928:
2923:
2911:
2897:
2896:
2882:
2874:
2805:TonyTheTiger
2755:TonyTheTiger
2752:
2685:
2671:
2666:
2626:
2604:
2583:Good Article
2580:
2546:
2541:Thank you. —
2510:
2488:
2484:
2466:
2401:
2391:
2366:
2352:
2351:
2324:
2310:
2303:
2302:
2289:
2276:
2263:
2249:
2237:
2205:
2189:
2183:
2171:
2134:
2067:
1985:
1954:TonyTheTiger
1920:
1902:
1895:AnmaFinotera
1862:TonyTheTiger
1844:
1791:
1763:
1759:
1727:TonyTheTiger
1724:
1644:
1603:
1596:
1595:
1529:
1523:
1503:
1499:
1465:
1428:
1384:
1356:
1331:
1279:TonyTheTiger
1276:
1254:
1236:
1228:
1214:
1164:TonyTheTiger
1161:
1142:
1113:
1085:
1058:
1051:
1046:
1044:
993:TonyTheTiger
990:
956:
919:encyclopedia
918:
811:
807:
803:
756:
748:
745:encyclopedic
744:
721:
709:Venn diagram
704:
626:
609:
550:User:Wehwalt
542:User:Nergaal
515:
494:
479:
445:
441:
409:
405:
354:TonyTheTiger
306:TonyTheTiger
303:
286:
279:AnmaFinotera
276:here :-P --
245:
193:
179:
151:
139:
99:
66:
63:
55:
43:
37:
3327:February 26
3162:Staxringold
3102:Withdrawing
3040:Withdrawing
3010:User Rename
2857:Staxringold
2837:Staxringold
2421:Staxringold
2152:Staxringold
2097:Staxringold
2070:Jujutacular
2023:Staxringold
1828:Staxringold
1616:GA Criteria
1313:Staxringold
1197:Staxringold
900:Staxringold
862:Staxringold
817:Staxringold
731:Staxringold
460:Staxringold
196:Staxringold
176:Airplaneman
148:Airplaneman
86:Staxringold
36:This is an
3325:Comparing
3208:discussion
2822:WP:CHICAGO
2772:WP:CHICAGO
2649:GamerPro64
2394:added a GA
1971:WP:CHICAGO
1879:WP:CHICAGO
1860:bracket.--
1744:WP:CHICAGO
1592:just did?
1296:WP:CHICAGO
1181:WP:CHICAGO
1010:WP:CHICAGO
808:everything
518:WP:Wikicup
371:WP:CHICAGO
323:WP:CHICAGO
3364:reasoning
3358:Abductive
3313:reasoning
3307:Abductive
3278:reasoning
3272:Abductive
3156:Arsenikk
2733:J Milburn
2692:ThaddeusB
2634:J Milburn
2609:J Milburn
2547:Cargoking
2529:J Milburn
2511:Cargoking
2493:J Milburn
2467:Cargoking
2402:Cargoking
2336:J Milburn
2141:reasoning
2135:Abductive
2114:J Milburn
1952:method.--
1693:J Milburn
1482:Guettarda
1415:Guettarda
1370:Guettarda
1336:Guettarda
1217:J Milburn
1145:J Milburn
1062:Jarry1250
1027:J Milburn
978:J Milburn
923:J Milburn
881:J Milburn
835:J Milburn
763:J Milburn
722:that work
682:J Milburn
616:reasoning
610:Abductive
578:J Milburn
424:J Milburn
402:Unitanode
340:J Milburn
263:J Milburn
226:J Milburn
211:Guettarda
161:J Milburn
118:J Milburn
71:J Milburn
3335:April 26
3331:March 27
3158:explodes
3031:contribs
2789:Scorpion
2595:MuZemike
1906:contribs
1848:Scorpion
1469:Scorpion
1360:contribs
1350:Casliber
594:Reywas92
567:Reywas92
290:contribs
173:Thanks!
116:NINJA'D
102:iMatthew
3198:JB50000
2826:WP:FOUR
2801:WP:GACs
2776:WP:FOUR
2168:Reviews
2040:Useight
1975:WP:FOUR
1883:WP:FOUR
1748:WP:FOUR
1676:H1nkles
1625:H1nkles
1574:H1nkles
1559:Useight
1542:H1nkles
1507:H1nkles
1300:WP:FOUR
1233:Joining
1185:WP:FOUR
1072:Useight
1047:Reviews
1014:WP:FOUR
546:Caesium
538:Mac Pro
375:WP:FOUR
327:WP:FOUR
39:archive
3265:T:TDYK
3240:boldly
3152:Pool H
2688:WP:ITN
2388:Points
2234:Rename
2184:U-2336
2054:Sasata
1621:WP:GAC
1590:sweeps
1106:WP:GAN
959:110269
720:it is
556:, and
3290:Stone
3238:I've
3212:Stone
3110:ceran
2979:f o x
2946:(talk
2926:Mitch
2898:f o x
2722:wicke
2553:talk
2517:talk
2489:after
2473:talk
2446:(talk
2408:talk
2353:f o x
2304:f o x
2180:GAN's
2177:three
1597:f o x
1332:could
1102:WP:PR
963:Stone
812:image
778:Stone
677:penis
665:wicke
16:<
3333:and
3294:talk
3216:talk
3166:talk
3134:Done
3117:thor
3082:Done
3025:talk
2861:talk
2841:talk
2737:talk
2696:talk
2686:For
2653:talk
2638:talk
2613:talk
2605:real
2533:talk
2497:talk
2425:talk
2340:talk
2156:talk
2118:talk
2101:talk
2058:talk
2044:talk
2027:talk
1900:talk
1832:talk
1697:talk
1563:talk
1486:talk
1419:talk
1374:talk
1354:talk
1340:talk
1317:talk
1257:Pres
1243:talk
1221:talk
1201:talk
1149:talk
1104:and
1086:long
1076:talk
1031:talk
982:talk
967:talk
927:talk
904:talk
885:talk
866:talk
839:talk
821:talk
782:talk
767:talk
755:and
749:real
735:talk
686:talk
629:Pres
582:talk
560:for
552:for
544:for
536:for
528:and
524:for
464:talk
428:talk
389:lute
386:Reso
344:talk
284:talk
267:talk
252:talk
230:talk
215:talk
200:talk
165:talk
122:talk
90:talk
75:talk
3177:any
2818:BIO
2768:BIO
2714:dle
2709:can
2485:not
2213:ter
2208:Hun
1993:ter
1988:Hun
1967:BIO
1928:ter
1923:Hun
1875:BIO
1799:ter
1794:Hun
1771:ter
1766:Hun
1740:BIO
1652:ter
1647:Hun
1524:for
1436:ter
1431:Hun
1392:ter
1387:Hun
1292:BIO
1177:BIO
1121:ter
1116:Hun
1006:BIO
953:ITN
804:not
753:sex
657:dle
652:can
438:Odd
367:BIO
319:BIO
110:at
67:not
3329:,
3296:)
3218:)
3053:|
3033:)
2949:•
2941:Ed
2929:32
2828:)
2778:)
2739:)
2698:)
2655:)
2640:)
2615:)
2587:FA
2535:)
2499:)
2449:•
2441:Ed
2342:)
2223:hn
2218:Ka
2174:my
2120:)
2060:)
2046:)
2003:hn
1998:Ka
1977:)
1938:hn
1933:Ka
1908:)
1885:)
1809:hn
1804:Ka
1781:hn
1776:Ka
1762:—
1750:)
1699:)
1662:hn
1657:Ka
1565:)
1488:)
1446:hn
1441:Ka
1421:)
1402:hn
1397:Ka
1376:)
1362:)
1342:)
1302:)
1253:--
1245:)
1223:)
1187:)
1151:)
1131:hn
1126:Ka
1078:)
1033:)
1016:)
984:)
969:)
929:)
887:)
841:)
784:)
769:)
688:)
648:--
584:)
548:,
540:,
532:,
430:)
377:)
346:)
329:)
292:)
269:)
250:-
232:)
221:~
217:)
167:)
124:)
77:)
3366:)
3362:(
3315:)
3311:(
3292:(
3280:)
3276:(
3214:(
3181:2
3045:–
3028:·
3023:(
2824:/
2820:/
2816:/
2814:C
2812:/
2810:T
2808:(
2774:/
2770:/
2766:/
2764:C
2762:/
2760:T
2758:(
2735:(
2718:•
2694:(
2651:(
2636:(
2611:(
2593:–
2531:(
2495:(
2338:(
2143:)
2139:(
2116:(
2056:(
2042:(
1973:/
1969:/
1965:/
1963:C
1961:/
1959:T
1957:(
1903:·
1898:(
1881:/
1877:/
1873:/
1871:C
1869:/
1867:T
1865:(
1746:/
1742:/
1738:/
1736:C
1734:/
1732:T
1730:(
1695:(
1561:(
1484:(
1417:(
1372:(
1357:·
1352:(
1338:(
1298:/
1294:/
1290:/
1288:C
1286:/
1284:T
1282:(
1262:N
1241:(
1219:(
1183:/
1179:/
1175:/
1173:C
1171:/
1169:T
1167:(
1147:(
1074:(
1029:(
1012:/
1008:/
1004:/
1002:C
1000:/
998:T
996:(
980:(
965:(
925:(
883:(
837:(
780:(
765:(
684:(
661:•
634:N
618:)
614:(
580:(
426:(
373:/
369:/
365:/
363:C
361:/
359:T
357:(
342:(
325:/
321:/
317:/
315:C
313:/
311:T
309:(
287:·
282:(
265:(
228:(
213:(
163:(
120:(
73:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.