> But I do not believe that experts should have any special powers in
> the editing of articles.
>
> Rather, I think they should be encouraged to act in a pure review
> capacity, assessing the existing work of Wikipedians, and making
> recommendations for improvement. This might also be partially
Any proposals to allow input from the person on the deletion of the
article will inevitable tend to reject the medium-important articles
which show something unfavorable but documented and relevant and keep
those that show only favorable things. What this amounts to is saying,
that if someone is re
> Those that involve themselves in BLP matters should perhaps frequent
> AFD more often. Provided that is still how we delete articles that aren't
> speedyable.
>
> -Chad
I've left a suggestion at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Biographies.27_
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Alex wrote:
> Chad wrote:
>>
>> While working with OTRS, I actually sent several articles through AfD. And I
>> typically didn't announce that it was an OTRS thing, so as to let the
>> community
>> judge the article on its own merits. This would actually be a dece
Chad wrote:
>
> While working with OTRS, I actually sent several articles through AfD. And I
> typically didn't announce that it was an OTRS thing, so as to let the
> community
> judge the article on its own merits. This would actually be a decent policy to
> follow: encourage OTRS respondents to
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:30 PM, Nathan wrote:
> [snip]
>
> (4) How many requests do we actually get from article subjects to delete the
> article about them? I would think most would be happier with an article that
> speaks well of them and/or is simply factually correct. If we were to adopt
> thi
2009/3/4 Jim Redmond :
> I'm working on that now. I've half a mind to increase the point size on the
> phrase "Wikipedia has no editorial board" and put it in blink tags; if
> people could actually grok that, then much of the rest of that text could
> become unnecessary.
I just put tags around
I'd like to put forth for consideration the issue and problem of
whitewashing, where the subject of an article wants there to be an article,
but wants negative information removed from it despite the negative
information being true and verifyable and notable.
I've been working one of these since i
There are a couple of reasons I can think of why shifting to
delete-on-request for marginally notable BLPs would be problematic.
(1) As Tomasz notes, the idea of marginal notability is one that doesn't
play well to non-Wikipedians and isn't well defined in any case.
(2) We'd still have to have a
2009/3/4 Sue Gardner :
> Erik had proposed that articles which meet these three criteria be deleted
> upon request: 1) they are not balanced and complete, 2) the subject is only
> marginally notable, and 3) the subject wants the article deleted. This would
> shift the bar towards a more deletioni
2009/3/4 Nathan
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
> > As far as granting significant weight to the wishes of a subject? Subject
> > request has consistently been rejected as a basis for deleting an
> article,
> > and many comments in the deletion discussions I've read have even
>
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/4 KillerChihuahua :
>
>
>> I cannot stress enough how strongly I agree with this assessment. If
>> NPOV, V, and RS were followed - as they should be by normally
>> intelligent adults wishing to write good articles - BLP isn't even
>> needed at all. I support BLP exis
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 15:52, David Gerard wrote:
> > The final page for people who have a crappy article about themselves
> > still needs severe tightening and organisation, though with a mind to
> > not causing trouble for OTRS volunteers, who after all are the ones
> > getting the crapflood. C
2009/3/4 KillerChihuahua :
> I cannot stress enough how strongly I agree with this assessment. If
> NPOV, V, and RS were followed - as they should be by normally
> intelligent adults wishing to write good articles - BLP isn't even
> needed at all. I support BLP existing, although I've seen it misu
> 2009/3/4 Dominic
>
>> Sue Gardner wrote:
>> > I am just clarifying - "default to delete unless consensus to keep"
>> would
>> be
>> > a change from current state, right?
>>
>> In terms of policy, "default to delete" is the current state for BLPs.
>> To be more exact, the important bit is: "If th
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nathan wrote:
>
>
> According to Dominic's quote, it says default to delete if the article is
> *not* a marginally notable BLP. Not a very elegant way of changing the
> policy, but perhaps it was intended to slip past wide notice. While deleting
> marginally notabl
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
> I'm confused. Doesn't the current (English) policy say "if there's no
> consensus ... the page is kept." So, default to _keep_, rather than
> default
> to delete...?
>
> It's only the English policy, so I realize it's not necessarily
> represe
David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Fred Bauder :
>
>
>> How about something a little more helpful?
>>
>
>
> Uh, I think pointing out obvious problems counts, particularly when
> the solution offered is to do the same things that are already
> problematic twice as hard.
>
> The hard part is to l
2009/3/4 Dominic
> Sue Gardner wrote:
> > I am just clarifying - "default to delete unless consensus to keep" would
> be
> > a change from current state, right?
>
> In terms of policy, "default to delete" is the current state for BLPs.
> To be more exact, the important bit is: "If there is no rou
2009/3/4 David Gerard :
> The final page for people who have a crappy article about themselves
> still needs severe tightening and organisation, though with a mind to
> not causing trouble for OTRS volunteers, who after all are the ones
> getting the crapflood. Could an OTRS BLP queue handler plea
2009/3/3 Birgitte SB :
> I there is simpler way to solicit these reports this without all the false
> positives that might come from a "report a problem" link. I imagine that
> all these people who have issues must click on the "Help" link in the sidebar
> while looking contact information. W
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 2:18 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Part of my questioning the survey is because
> its design explicitly excludes the opinions of
> people like my friend, who edits under an IP afaik.
If they didn't include *all* visitors to the site then it really is a
biased sample. Collect fr
For what it's worth, what Nathan says basically sums up my concerns as
well. I think for a (relatively informal, community-opinion) survey
it's less important to have an absolutely rigorous methodology (not
what I was asking for) than it is to ask the question: is this good
enough for our purposes?
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:27 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/3/4 quiddity :
>
>> http://www.onelook.com/?w=encomium "a formal expression of praise"
>> http://www.onelook.com/?w=hagiography "a biography that idealizes or
>> idolizes the person (especially a person who is a saint)"
>> http://www.onel
The official results of the survey haven't even been announced yet,
and already it is being accused of bias. Have any of you actually
looked at the survey? It does include demographic questions and it's a
ranked preference poll. If someone were trying to skew the results in
a particular way, this s
Gregory Kohs wrote:
>> *Phil Nash* pn007a2145 at blueyonder.co.uk said:
>>
>> ++
>> Except of course, that such a survey would arguably not have
>> "preconceived desires". So much for empiricism!
>> ++
>>
>> I offered to give some pro bono guidance on overcoming (to a degree)
>> self-select
2009/3/4 Sue Gardner :
> 2009/3/3 Michael Snow
>
>> But someone making a request is a sign that the article really needs a
>> hard look, and quite possibly should be removed for not meeting our
>> standards. So the reversed presumption of "default to delete, unless
>> consensus to keep" is a good
*Phil Nash* pn007a2145 at blueyonder.co.uk said:
++
Except of course, that such a survey would arguably not have "preconceived
desires". So much for empiricism!
++
I offered to give some pro bono guidance on overcoming (to a degree)
self-selection bias, even among an anonymity-heightened
As a non-statistician (and, from this list, you'd think there are lots of
professional statisticians participating...), can one of the experts explain
the practical implications of the bias of this survey? It seems fairly
informal, intended perhaps to be food for thought but not a definitive
answer
I agree with Yaroslav that we should have a specific role for experts,
or rather for the greater number of experts who may be interested in
contributing, but who will not be attracted to participate in the
classical back-and-forth wiki model.
But I do not believe that experts should have any speci
Gregory Kohs wrote:
>> *phoebe ayers* phoebe.wiki at gmail.com writes:
>>
>> ++
>> I'm not sure there's any way to get a non-self-selected survey about
>> anything on the projects due to anonymity concerns.
>> ++
>>
>> I'm a 17-year veteran of implementing professional quantitative
>> surve
This entire field has been formalized but in my experience the key
things to worry about are experimenter and subject bias.
Experimenter bias in a survey context means that the survey writer
(Erik) has expectations about the likely community answers. This has
been clearly demonstrated, as he alrea
*phoebe ayers* phoebe.wiki at gmail.com writes:
++
I'm not sure there's any way to get a non-self-selected survey about anything
on the projects due to anonymity concerns.
++
I'm a 17-year veteran of implementing professional quantitative survey
research. Self-selection bias is a very co
2009/3/4 quiddity :
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=encomium "a formal expression of praise"
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=hagiography "a biography that idealizes or
> idolizes the person (especially a person who is a saint)"
> http://www.onelook.com/?w=saccharine "overly sweet"
*cough* you mean, of c
http://www.onelook.com/?w=encomium "a formal expression of praise"
http://www.onelook.com/?w=hagiography "a biography that idealizes or
idolizes the person (especially a person who is a saint)"
http://www.onelook.com/?w=saccharine "overly sweet"
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Gerard Meijssen
wr
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:08 AM, Mike Godwin wrote:
> Phoebe writes:
>
> This is a very small, self-selected sample; there would be
>> no harm or cost associated with turning it on for a much larger
>> percentage (or all) of logged-in users on the top-ten languages, not
>> just English or German a
> One of your points there was:
>> 6. The current experience (or at least my current experience) is not
>> really encouraging. The real top researchers just plainly have no time
>> to edit articles, nor are they really interested. Those who come are
>> mostly interested in editing article about th
2009/3/4 Mike Godwin :
> Phoebe writes:
>
> This is a very small, self-selected sample; there would be
>> no harm or cost associated with turning it on for a much larger
>> percentage (or all) of logged-in users on the top-ten languages, not
>> just English or German alone, which both have peculiar
It is unfortunately not unheard of for policy proposals to be
rejected, and then added to policy pages nonetheless.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Nathan wrote:
> Sue,
>
> As far as "default to delete" goes... There was a high profile proposal
> about it awhile back, written by Doc_glasgow (now
Phoebe writes:
This is a very small, self-selected sample; there would be
> no harm or cost associated with turning it on for a much larger
> percentage (or all) of logged-in users on the top-ten languages, not
> just English or German alone, which both have peculiarities associated
> with being t
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Thomas Dalton
> wrote:
> > I'm not a statistician, someone else can work out how large a majority
> > is needed from a sample size of 570 to be confident (at the 95% level,
> > say?) that a majority of the pop
Sue,
As far as "default to delete" goes... There was a high profile proposal
about it awhile back, written by Doc_glasgow (now en:User:Scott_MacDonald),
which got significant support but appeared to fall short of a consensus.
Nonetheless the deletion of articles on marginally notable living peopl
2009/3/4 David Gerard :
> 2009/3/4 Andrew Gray :
>
>> I did a headcount the other week of all the OTRS simple vandalism and
>> "uncomplicated" BLP tickets I handled - ie, all the ones not needing
>> digging and arguing with people and so on. 80-90% of them would have
>> been avoided by flagged revi
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> I'm not a statistician, someone else can work out how large a majority
> is needed from a sample size of 570 to be confident (at the 95% level,
> say?) that a majority of the population as a whole agrees.
If the 570 people are a RANDOM sampl
(Last email, since I received this I was I was typing what was meant
to be the last one. Then I'll really stop.)
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> What if the FSF could be convinced to come up with a GFDL 1.4 which makes it
> legal?
They can't. The GFDL requires future versions to be in the same spirit.
>> I
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Anthony :
> >> How are you going to define "ethical"? It's an entirely subjective
> >> concept, a vote is pretty much the only way we can handle it.
> >
> >
> > I define ethical as that which promotes "the good life". I don't think
>
2009/3/4 Andrew Gray :
> I did a headcount the other week of all the OTRS simple vandalism and
> "uncomplicated" BLP tickets I handled - ie, all the ones not needing
> digging and arguing with people and so on. 80-90% of them would have
> been avoided by flagged revisions.
Please say this REALLY
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> This is more than just an "argument" if it's being used to purport to give
> copyright licenses away. In fact, it's not much of an "argument" at all -
> arguments aren't won by voting, unless you're defining the "argument" as
> which position more people agree with.
I've made
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:22 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Anthony :
> > What constitutes a significant majority? What if the survey results had
> > said that a significant majority was happy with their work being released
> > into the public domain. Would you then find it reasonable to rel
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Anthony :
> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> > I imagine
> >> most Wikimedians are sufficiently mature to accept it if the majority
> >> disagree with them.
> >>
> >
> > Accept what, that the majority disagre
2009/3/4 phoebe ayers :
> I know there's time pressure on this... but on the other hand, we've
> waited years :) It would be worthwhile to get better stats before
> making sweeping generalizations about the community's desires.
That we've waited years is irrelevant. We make a decision soon, or the
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> Order of difficulty is not the same as order of happiness. I would be
> happier with "no credit" than "credit to Wikipedia".
You have declared previously on this list that you do not contribute
and in fact have tried to repudiate all your past contributions. As
such, it's e
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Marco Chiesa wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
>> > And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider
>> > unacceptable
>> > first. But then, 67% of people would have done so
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Andrew Whitworth wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote:
> >
> >> Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people
> >> actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get thei
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> What constitutes a significant majority? What if the survey results had
> said that a significant majority was happy with their work being released
> into the public domain. Would you then find it reasonable to release
> *everyone's* work into the public domain?
No, because
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people
>> actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get their way?
>>
>
> We should. If someone isn't willing to make a fuss if they don't get their
> way, t
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people
>> actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get their way?
>
> We should. If someone isn't willing to make a fuss if the
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> Do we really want to only listen to the opinions of those people
> actually willing to make a fuss if they don't get their way?
>
We should. If someone isn't willing to make a fuss if they don't get their
way, they don't really care in the f
Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> Just to remind that I am a university professor and that I posted my
> thoughts a while ago on meta
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Yaroslav_Blanter/Temp17
>
> So far, nobody showed any interest.
>
One of your points there was:
> 6. The current experience (o
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Anthony :
> > You're assuming that those who ranked "no credit is needed" first will be
> > happy with attribution by URL, and you're assuming that those who ranked
> > "credit can be given to the community" will by happy with attribu
2009/3/4 Marco Chiesa :
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>>
>> And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider
>> unacceptable
>> first. But then, 67% of people would have done so even if everyone chose
>> their answers randomly.
>
>
> Now, how many of the 20% wh
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Marco Chiesa wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
> > And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider
> > unacceptable
> > first. But then, 67% of people would have done so even if everyone chose
> > their answers randomly.
>
>
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> You're assuming that those who ranked "no credit is needed" first will be
> happy with attribution by URL, and you're assuming that those who ranked
> "credit can be given to the community" will by happy with attribution by
> URL. But these people will also probably be happy w
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> And yes, 80% of people ranked one of 4 options which I consider
> unacceptable
> first. But then, 67% of people would have done so even if everyone chose
> their answers randomly.
Now, how many of the 20% who wants their name cited would have
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
>> The numbers given by Erik at the start of this thread are sufficient
>> to draw the conclusion that a significant majority of the community
>> will be happy with attribution by URL.
>>
>
>
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2009/3/4 Anthony :
> > 1) Have the numbers been released? All I saw was a selective summary.
> > 2) What do you think they're conclusive of?
>
> The numbers given by Erik at the start of this thread are sufficient
> to draw the conclusion th
2009/3/4 Anthony :
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> And that explicitly included offline reuse? If so, it looks like we're
>> ready to present a final proposal for the community to vote on. Even
>> with such a small sample size, those numbers are pretty conclusive.
>>
>
>> If we were doing such a thing:
>>
>> 1. we wouldn't be paying anyone
>> 2. we'd be shouting it from the rooftops.
>>
>> Nice idea, actually. Anyone feel they could put together a serious
>> programme to recruit academics to such a cause?
>
> (changed subject as this is an interesting discussion
2009/3/2 David Gerard :
> As far as I can make out, the present situation on en:wp is: a
> proposal was put which got 59% support. That's not a sufficiently
> convincing support level. So Jimbo is currently putting together a
> better proposal, with the aim of at least 2/3 support and hoping for
>
On Mar 4, 2009, at 7:17 AM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> Ha. Tie this into Thomas's suggestion...
>
> ...print up a sheaf of business cards, with "Got a problem? info @
> wikimedia.org" in nice clear bold lettering, the puzzle-globe at one
> edge; the other side just WIKIPEDIA writ large. Distribute the
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> And that explicitly included offline reuse? If so, it looks like we're
> ready to present a final proposal for the community to vote on. Even
> with such a small sample size, those numbers are pretty conclusive.
>
1) Have the numbers been re
2009/3/4 Geoffrey Plourde :
> They wrote the damned thing, so they are most likely to understand it.
So? Their line of reasoning will still be very much based on the
questions asked and the outcomes they have considered.
--
geni
___
foundation-l mail
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller :
> We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
> attribution models. CC counsel has commented specifically that
> attribution-by-URL is a permissible attribution model that is
> consistent with the language and intent of CC-BY*.
From: geni
What is their
2009/3/4 Andrew Gray :
> 2009/3/2 David Gerard :
>> (My usual answer: "Email info at wikimedia dot org, that's wikimedia
>> with an M. It'll get funneled to the right place. All other ways of
>> contacting us end up there anyway." This seems to work a bit.)
> Ha. Tie this into Thomas's suggestion
2009/3/2 David Gerard :
> (My usual answer: "Email info at wikimedia dot org, that's wikimedia
> with an M. It'll get funneled to the right place. All other ways of
> contacting us end up there anyway." This seems to work a bit.)
Ha. Tie this into Thomas's suggestion...
...print up a sheaf of bu
Sue Gardner wrote:
> 2009/3/3 Michael Snow
>
>
>> But someone making a request is a sign that the article really needs a
>> hard look, and quite possibly should be removed for not meeting our
>> standards. So the reversed presumption of "default to delete, unless
>> consensus to keep" is a good
2009/3/4 Erik Moeller :
> 2009/3/3 Thomas Dalton :
>> Excellent. Getting some idea of community opinion is very important.
>> However, has anyone carried out my suggestion of consulting with the
>> CC lawyers?
>
> We've been in repeated conversations with CC about the possible
> attribution models.
Hoi,
What is:
* encomium
* hagiographical
* saccharine sentiment
PS You lost me.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/3/3 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
> Michael Snow wrote:
> > Jimmy Wales wrote:
> >
> >> Let me repeat that in a different way, for emphasis: I think that a
> >> great number of our biographies, a
Hi!
> I realise, and beg of people not to actually believe I buy into
> this, but
> when someone makes an accusation that someone is claiming to be a WMF
> employee and claims that there is a conspiracy, I tend to bring it
> up. I beg
> of people to not take me for an idiot.
Thats what more
If I'm not mistaken it should be possible to detect the presence of a
text which describe a person, and then include a link to a contact form
about BLP.
John
Nathan skrev:
> Personally, I'd like to see a prominent "Report a problem with this article"
> link or box only on BLPs for starters. We do
In Norway it seems that neglecting to do something will not lead to any
real danger of legal actions, its phrased "uforstand", but gross
neglectence, or "grov uforstand" could be punishable by law. An example
given is that if an admin is notified on email about specific child porn
in an article (th
In Norway its covered in "Lov om behandling av personopplysninger
(personopplysningsloven)" §7; Forholdet til ytringsfriheten (Relation to
freedom of speech) [http://www.lovdata.no/all/tl-2414-031-001.html#7]
It is an exception for "kunstneriske, litterære eller journalistiske,
herunder opinio
At no.wp there was a link in the sidebar with email address to OTRS to
ease reporting of such problems. It generated to many emails to the
liking of some of the people on the OTRS list. After a poll with 3
against the link - they wanted an alternate solution, two for the link,
one unclear and one w
David Gerard wrote:
> If bad writing were curable by guidelines and policies, English
> Wikipedia would be brilliant prose from end to end.
This should be printed on coffee mugs and sold in the web shop.
--
Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
___
Sue Gardner wrote:
> I am just clarifying - "default to delete unless consensus to keep" would be
> a change from current state, right?
In terms of policy, "default to delete" is the current state for BLPs.
To be more exact, the important bit is: "If there is no rough consensus
and the page is n
2009/3/3 Michael Snow
> But someone making a request is a sign that the article really needs a
> hard look, and quite possibly should be removed for not meeting our
> standards. So the reversed presumption of "default to delete, unless
> consensus to keep" is a good idea for living subjects. I wo
Fred Bauder wrote:
>> This would exclude a great deal of pornographic actresses and actors.
>> Which I don't think is a bad thing, in fact. I'm far from a prude,
>> but someone who is solely notable for appearing in a few pornographic
>> films seems to contradict what our policy is regarding other
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>> Sue Gardner wrote:
>>
>>> * Wikimedians have developed lots of tools for preventing/fixing vandalism
>>> and errors of fact. Where less progress has been made, I think, is on the
>>> question of disproportionate criticism. It seems to me that the solution may
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> I'm making a point of replying to this before I read any of the other
>> responses to avoid being tainted by them.
>>
> Since I think you make several insightful observations
> well worth focusing on, I hope you will in return not
>
89 matches
Mail list logo
