598:-- NCH Software is proud of our numerous helpful products and are always working to improve our software based on the valuable feedback provided by our users. We provide online help through our Support Team, forum, and helpful online resources. Many of NCH Software's products, such as VideoPad and Zulu, have been chosen as highest reviewed software in their category. We have been listening to our customer's comments and we no longer include additional programs with our install files. We are also working to make our products easier to remove from your computer. NCH Software will continue to work with our customers to improve the productivity and useability of our products.
619:-- I came here because I saw yet another report elsewhere that these scumware merchants had stomped all over someone's PC and its file associations. I was bitten some years ago, and vowed never to have any more dealings with these people. I am surprised that NCH Software is still in business. The company may be "proud of numerous helpful products" – the software may be great but I will never know – but surely it cannot be proud of its murky business practices. I simply will not buy the line that "we no longer include additional programs with our install files". Once bitten twice shy.
584:-- Absolutely agree. This is in the "scamware" groups of software. The tools may do some of what you want them to, but the small print of the Ts and Cs are beyond what anyone would expect. And removing the software is a headache as installing one tool means the whole system gets polluted with offers and links to the other tools. All those links that pop up on the Right Click context menu take some mean hacking of the registry to remove. I'm an IT Support Engineer by trade and am for ever cleaning this kind of stuff off of unsuspecting client's computers.
735:
there was another reason, like prose that covered a certain point of view regarding a range of products, that would have been different. e.g. Knowledge has extensive lists of seasons and episodes for TV series because those TV series are extensively discussed to death. But in this case, this list isn't even as good as the link in the infobox. If the company go out of business, the list becomes a [list of indiscriminate item with no value beyond the value of words alone (zero). An encyclopedia works the other way around: It adds words because they
243:
124:
1204:(I'll also add that the criticism section is ridiculous, too. Not only is such a section usually frowned upon except when particularly notable in multiple reliable sources, but the content appeared to be written by frustrated users -- I went ahead and just removed the "criticisms" with no sources at all and the one with a single ref to an apparent issue reporting site . The existence of this section is also a problem, as again being
393:
138:
103:
72:
148:
221:
304:
117:
283:
21:
1018:'s suggestion, on the condition that there is something left. He's rationale was that it is the way to deal with this case of violation. I am just trying to have a compromise, but he hasn't budged yet. Also, common sense tells me this article is only an article by name; in reality, it is just an attempt to promote NCH. You can study a detailed response above.
314:
942:
clears all doubts." Again, I see no objective basis for this claim upon review of WP:SNOW. Now the nom states, "As I see, this table isn't a list of links to
Knowledge articles and not effort to index Knowledge's own contents.", implying that these are the only purposes for lists on Knowledge, which is incorrect. IMO, the removal remains unexplained.
1338:
Since it's a relatively old company for the industry, seemingly prolific, and seems to have a marginal reputation as a whole, it might be notable -- but I haven't found sources indicating such is the case and those cited certainly don't (even those that are reliable are about individual software products, not NCH itself). But that ship has sailed. --—
262:
989:: so now you've withdrawn your Afd nomination you're going to delete the article bit by bit? Until there is nothing left? Do you really think that makes for a better encyclopedia? It's already been established that NCH Software is a notable article, you're denying anyone interested to get the full information on this topic. Please respond to my
1262:
Now you can choose to merely delete that section, and leave at that. However, I would appreciate it if instead you could see if you could find some reliable sources so the material could be reinstated. I feel the way you have left it could give a false impression of NCH software being something you
549:
I have installed the video converter once, and now i notice a context menu in explorer that reads "Extract with
Express Zip", from this company, which i had never installed. I'm also surprised to read that the article used to have a warning about the software bad behaviour, that has been apparently
1337:
As a more general comment, if removing the unencyclopedic, unsourced or poorly sourced, undue parts of an article leaves something that isn't worth keeping, then whether the article should be kept should be called into question. I didn't see the AfD, but would have probably entered a weak delete.
722:
Knowledge encompasses many lists of links to articles within
Knowledge that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject. In that sense, Knowledge functions as an index or directory of its own content. However, Knowledge is not a directory of everything in the universe that
1083:
I am uncomfortable with being cited as a reason for doing things when I am not aware that I have animated such reasoning. Such as here the idea, this "bit by bit" deletion, I don't know why you have said that. As far as I know the only thing I've said was at the AfD where I mentioned the words
734:
As I see, this table isn't a list of links to
Knowledge articles and not effort to index Knowledge's own contents. On the contrary, it is a product comparison table used to promote the products. (There are a couple of blue links but they are either circular redirects or incorrect links.) Now, if
941:
First, this AfD nom thought that you and I had animated this removal in the AfD as shown by the edit comment that removed the material, although I see no objective basis for this claim upon review of the AfD. Next, the removal was cited to WP:SNOW (above), saying, "I thought mentioning WP:SNOW
1334:(with extremely rare exception, as of course anybody can go into a forum and write whatever they want). The Makeuseof.com blog post isn't great since it's still self-published but I wouldn't have a big problem using it as a source for the aspects of the company's software you're talking about.
1258:
Now the criticisms section has no sources cited, and therefore can't be defended from deletion using that argument. However, a cursory search on Google reveals considerable controversy over their software, along the lines of the criticisms section. But whether any sources fulfill reliability
821:
view would be that anyone interested in NCH would go to the the article now, and the information (s)he could get from it would be now considerably less than before the edit. So the article would be better with that information, since anyone interested in NCH would also be interested in their
1088:, and I see no objective basis that WP:SNOW is a reason to remove the section on products. What I take from this is that you think that bad arguments will strengthen your negotiating position. I, on the other hand, think that making bad arguments means that you are making bad arguments.
1084:"ordinary editing" in reference to a statement in WP:BEFORE. AfD is not cleanup. I am not aware that I have or have not "budged", nor am I aware that editors should or should not "budge". One of your arguments was that WP:SNOW is a reason to delete the section on products. I reviewed
1107:: while it is true that WP is not a democracy, it is built on consensus, which is a similar process except that strength of arguments are also taken into consideration. Now, if you assumed that the three viewpoints of us had similar strength, then you would be going against consensus.
857:
Also, I don't see why you are discussing the absence of the word "delete" in WP:NOTCATALOG; that policy forbids such a list; so unless you really have an alternative to deletion for the forbidden content – erasure or removal? – I dare say deletion is the logical
550:
removed. I think that the warning should be restored, and probably report the user that removed it, as it seems clear that the company was behind that change. Just search for "Extract with
Express Zip" and you can find something like this:
854:
A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what
Knowledge is not, particularly the rule that Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of
1112:
I think in cases where there isn't an agreement on interpretation of policy, the best thing to do would be to instead look at common sense arguments. Now I've made a number of them, and I would like you to comment on them please.
633:-- this page is tagged for deletion. It serves the purpose of bring the companies business practices into the public forum, which is a good thing but, should we delete the product list complete with which OS they run on?
1141:
to resolve this matter but I am engaged elsewhere. So, I am abandoning this topic indefinitely. But I'd like to say that despite our disagreement, it was an honor to work with a level-headed editor such as you,
1208:. A better article would take these sources from the list and produce prose worthy of an encyclopedia rather than a brief description of the company, long list of products, and long criticism section.) --—
411:
41:
1182:. I'll add to her argument (for which I'm frankly shocked anybody who's familiar with precedent on extensive lists of non-notable examples could disagree in this case) the basic matter of what is
514:
1000:
think you should reverse all this. Now on a democratic vote, you lose two votes to one. Because our interpretations of policy disagree with yours. Do you have anyone who agrees with you? --
817:
Now it's possible that the table might promote their products, but even that seem dubious due to the criticisms beneath. But it also provides a lot of information about the subject. A
1186:(i.e. that things within an article should be presented in proportion to their presence in reliable secondary sources). The bulk of the list is completely unsourced, and that it
1404:
1360:
51:
450:
437:
1435:
370:
211:
201:
1046:
and therefore the vote of you and
Unscintillating alone is far from enough to violate them. But I do not intend to play unfair. I intend to go through
567:
Shouldn't we be discussing the fact that this company in fact produces malicious software that purposefully makes itself incredibly hard to uninstall?
570:-- i agree it should be at the top of the page not near the bottom, they also charge a lot for limit support that may not resolve any issues you have
1450:
890:
360:
1455:
1440:
1430:
956:
Yes, well, when you so grossly throw my explanation out of the window, you end up with an unexplained action. As I said, this table violates both
790:"Knowledge encompasses many lists of links to articles within Knowledge that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject."
1445:
1251:
case if you so wish. But if you read my comments carefully I was actually arguing against her reasons for deletion rather than her deleting
800:
is mainly used to decide what is notable, and the notability of NCH software, and hence their products, has already been established in the
694:". But this doesn't seem to apply in this case, nor any of the other clauses. Lists of products are allowed outside of these clauses, e.g.
571:
424:
336:
1309:
There are many more, probably hundreds. But whether there are any reliable sources I'm not sure, but the makeuseof.com article may be. --
605:
585:
444:
123:
878:
1. It is not about the article subject; it is a compilation of loosely-related perceived problems about NCH software, not NCH itself. (
686:
Hi Lisa. I'm trying to understand why you removed the table. No technical problems, but it just makes the article worse in my opinion.
964:
because there is virtually no context but promotion for it. Being a list of links is only one of exceptions to this cardinal policy.
551:
796:
say "lists that do not comprise of links should be deleted" which I think is your interpretation. Also I feel the whole section
327:
288:
177:
164:
108:
822:
products. The company is still in business, but even if it went out of business people could continue using their products. --
1397:
505:
1269:
116:
1412:
418:
405:
83:
431:
1190:
the page means it's evidently undue. A good first step would be to strip away everything but those with sources. --—
1093:
947:
624:
27:
575:
71:
1393:
The following
Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
1408:
1151:
1074:
977:
924:
764:
676:
609:
589:
1291:
1280:
1035:
663:
reasons against deleting the section. Oh, and sorry for the first revert by the way. I thought mentioning
477:
1303:
990:
818:
457:
89:
1089:
1015:
997:
957:
943:
785:
687:
656:
649:
638:
620:
601:
554:
242:
20:
1354:
1340:
1244:
1232:
1222:(Final update before waiting for responses: The other two entries in the criticism section sourced
1210:
1192:
897:
695:
558:
1274:
1164:. By debating things in a friendly way I think we can both improve our understanding of policy. --
667:
clears all doubts. For some reason it didn't. But, if there are other objections, I am listening.
335:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1368:
1359:
OK I'll leave it at that, at least for the moment, I'm dealing with other issues. The AfD was at
1314:
1248:
1179:
1169:
1161:
1147:
1118:
1104:
1070:
1005:
986:
973:
920:
875:
Thanks for informing me about the
Criticism section below it; it must be deleted as well because:
827:
781:
760:
703:
672:
552:
http://douglaswhitaker.com/2013/04/on-the-perils-of-express-scribe-software-to-aid-transcription/
173:
716:. I must admit, your comment baffles me. Please correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to value
252:
1039:
692:
Sales catalogues. An article should not include product pricing or availability information...
1297:
1043:
463:
319:
153:
720:
of the words in that section (not all of them) and not the purpose of the words. To quote:
1227:
1205:
961:
879:
837:
797:
725:
What comes afterwards, is non-comprehensive list of examples to improve our understanding.
634:
494:
1270:
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/t/520711/cant-get-rid-of-the-dreaded-nch-software/
1085:
664:
470:
392:
1424:
1389:
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
1364:
1325:
1310:
1183:
1165:
1143:
1138:
1114:
1001:
823:
801:
713:
699:
1331:
1285:
1047:
886:
841:
849:
845:
137:
102:
309:
220:
143:
169:
30:. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
659:. I'd like to inform you that I closed the AfD. I hope there is no more
1292:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.privacy.spyware/iwi7WPvC5sc
1281:
http://superuser.com/questions/99492/is-software-from-nch-software-safe
332:
303:
282:
233:
1304:
http://www.spywareinfoforum.com/topic/75505-nch-swift-sound-software/
1416:
1372:
1363:
in case you're interested. If you decide to reopen I may comment. --
1347:
1318:
1239:
1217:
1199:
1173:
1155:
1122:
1097:
1078:
1009:
981:
951:
928:
831:
768:
707:
680:
642:
628:
613:
593:
579:
562:
1230:
with virus reports for evaluation. Removed the whole section.) --—
1275:
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/whats-problem-nch-software-remove/
65:
15:
412:
Knowledge:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
1277:
What’s The Problem With NCH Software & How To Remove It?
241:
219:
1300:
WavePad (NCH Software) <== spyware/malware/virus/trojan
1294:
WavePad (NCH Software) <== spyware/malware/virus/trojan
1298:
http://forums.techarena.in/antivirus-software/1311268.htm
1044:
Policies are representative of the community consensus
844:
and is the antecedent for every policy in Knowledge.
1288:
Topic: Help removing NCH software (Read 2969 times)
331:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
848:is just a guideline. (Not even a policy.) In fact,
1286:https://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=141671.0
168:, which aims to improve Knowledge's coverage of
1403:Participate in the deletion discussion at the
176:. If you would like to participate, visit the
1266:Examples of sources critical of NCH software:
784:: I think you may be misinterpreting policy.
8:
1361:Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/NCH_Software
1040:voting alone hold no value against consensus
885:2. They often lack sources or come with an
451:Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
438:Category:Company articles needing attention
69:
836:Actually, I am afraid you are wrong about
400:Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
378:
277:
97:
891:Knowledge:Potentially unreliable sources
1259:requirements is something I don't know.
279:
99:
853:
721:
1137:Hello, guys. I was about to start an
900:, a criticism section is unfavorable.
476:Help expand stub articles located at
7:
425:Category:Unassessed company articles
325:This article is within the scope of
88:It is of interest to the following
1014:Actually, bit by bit deletion was
228:Need help improving this article?
14:
1436:Low-importance Australia articles
1330:forum posts are just about never
1178:I'll go ahead and pick it up for
502:Tag company talk pages with the
391:
312:
302:
281:
260:
146:
136:
122:
115:
101:
70:
50:by nom, 30 September 2014, see
19:
1451:Low-importance company articles
365:This article has been rated as
345:Knowledge:WikiProject Companies
206:This article has been rated as
186:Knowledge:WikiProject Australia
26:This article was nominated for
1456:WikiProject Companies articles
1441:WikiProject Australia articles
1431:Start-Class Australia articles
1263:should allow on your computer.
643:21:14, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
491:Tag company articles with the
348:Template:WikiProject Companies
256:can be contacted via email to
189:Template:WikiProject Australia
1:
1417:20:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
1160:OK thanks for the discussion
563:01:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
339:and see a list of open tasks.
268:for non-editorial assistance.
234:National Library of Australia
1446:Start-Class company articles
1373:18:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
1348:18:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
1319:17:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
1240:13:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
1218:13:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
1200:13:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
1174:10:28, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
1156:01:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
1123:13:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
1098:04:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
1079:03:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
1010:22:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
982:21:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
952:21:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
929:21:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
832:11:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
769:22:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
708:17:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
681:04:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
382:WikiProject Companies To-do:
648:Removing section violating
629:16:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
253:Wikimedia Australia chapter
1472:
1036:Knowledge is not democracy
580:12:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
371:project's importance scale
212:project's importance scale
748:I hope I am clear enough.
614:14:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
377:
364:
297:
261:
249:
227:
205:
131:
96:
1398:Wavepad Audio Editor.jpg
1306:NCH Swift Sound software
594:12:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
174:Australia-related topics
40:, 10 February 2021, see
889:like forums. (also see
162:is within the scope of
842:five founding policies
723:exists or has existed.
478:Category:Company stubs
246:
224:
78:This article is rated
515:requests for comments
506:WikiProject Companies
328:WikiProject Companies
245:
223:
165:WikiProject Australia
852:explicitly mentions
1245:User:Rhododendrites
840:. It is one of the
696:List of iPod models
1409:Community Tech bot
1249:User:Codename Lisa
1048:dispute resolution
655:Hi, everyone. Hi,
247:
225:
192:Australia articles
84:content assessment
1146:. Best regards,
887:unreliable source
792:However, it does
604:comment added by
542:
541:
538:
537:
534:
533:
530:
529:
526:
525:
276:
275:
272:
271:
64:
63:
60:
59:
1463:
1358:
1345:
1343:
1332:reliable sources
1329:
1237:
1235:
1215:
1213:
1197:
1195:
788:does indeed say
616:
509:
498:
464:Portal:Companies
406:Article requests
395:
388:
387:
379:
353:
352:
351:company articles
349:
346:
343:
322:
320:Companies portal
317:
316:
315:
306:
299:
298:
293:
285:
278:
267:
266:wikimedia.org.au
265:
264:
263:
194:
193:
190:
187:
184:
156:
154:Australia portal
151:
150:
149:
140:
133:
132:
127:
126:
125:
120:
119:
118:
113:
105:
98:
81:
75:
74:
66:
32:
31:
23:
16:
1471:
1470:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1421:
1420:
1405:nomination page
1391:
1352:
1341:
1339:
1323:
1233:
1231:
1211:
1209:
1193:
1191:
1090:Unscintillating
1016:Unscintillating
998:Unscintillating
944:Unscintillating
657:Unscintillating
653:
599:
547:
522:
519:
503:
492:
350:
347:
344:
341:
340:
318:
313:
311:
291:
259:
257:
230:Ask a Librarian
191:
188:
185:
182:
181:
152:
147:
145:
121:
114:
111:
82:on Knowledge's
79:
12:
11:
5:
1469:
1467:
1459:
1458:
1453:
1448:
1443:
1438:
1433:
1423:
1422:
1401:
1400:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1355:Rhododendrites
1342:Rhododendrites
1335:
1307:
1301:
1295:
1289:
1283:
1278:
1272:
1267:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1234:Rhododendrites
1220:
1212:Rhododendrites
1202:
1194:Rhododendrites
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1109:
1108:
1101:
1100:
1068:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
994:
991:WP:COMMONSENSE
968:
967:
966:
965:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
918:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
894:
883:
876:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
819:WP:COMMONSENSE
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
774:
773:
772:
771:
758:
752:
751:
750:
749:
743:
742:
741:
740:
729:
728:
727:
726:
671:
652:
646:
572:81.136.240.238
546:
543:
540:
539:
536:
535:
532:
531:
528:
527:
524:
523:
521:
520:
518:
517:
511:
510:project banner
500:
488:
480:
466:
453:
440:
427:
414:
399:
397:
396:
384:
383:
375:
374:
367:Low-importance
363:
357:
356:
354:
337:the discussion
324:
323:
307:
295:
294:
292:Low‑importance
286:
274:
273:
270:
269:
248:
238:
237:
226:
216:
215:
208:Low-importance
204:
198:
197:
195:
158:
157:
141:
129:
128:
112:Low‑importance
106:
94:
93:
87:
76:
62:
61:
58:
57:
56:
55:
45:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1468:
1457:
1454:
1452:
1449:
1447:
1444:
1442:
1439:
1437:
1434:
1432:
1429:
1428:
1426:
1419:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1399:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1388:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1356:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1344:
1336:
1333:
1327:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1305:
1302:
1299:
1296:
1293:
1290:
1287:
1284:
1282:
1279:
1276:
1273:
1271:
1268:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1254:
1250:
1247:: OK take up
1246:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1236:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1219:
1214:
1207:
1203:
1201:
1196:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1180:Codename Lisa
1177:
1176:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1162:Codename Lisa
1159:
1158:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1148:Codename Lisa
1145:
1140:
1136:
1135:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1111:
1110:
1106:
1105:Codename Lisa
1103:
1102:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1071:Codename Lisa
1069:
1067:Best regards,
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1017:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
992:
988:
987:Codename Lisa
985:
984:
983:
979:
975:
974:Codename Lisa
972:
971:
970:
969:
963:
959:
958:WP:NOTCATALOG
955:
954:
953:
949:
945:
940:
939:
930:
926:
922:
921:Codename Lisa
919:
917:Best regards,
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
899:
895:
892:
888:
884:
881:
877:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
856:
851:
847:
843:
839:
835:
834:
833:
829:
825:
820:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
803:
799:
795:
791:
787:
786:WP:NOTCATALOG
783:
782:Codename Lisa
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
770:
766:
762:
761:Codename Lisa
759:
757:Best regards,
756:
755:
754:
753:
747:
746:
745:
744:
738:
733:
732:
731:
730:
724:
719:
715:
711:
710:
709:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
688:WP:NOTCATALOG
685:
684:
683:
682:
678:
674:
673:Codename Lisa
670:Best regards,
668:
666:
662:
658:
651:
650:WP:NOTCATALOG
647:
645:
644:
640:
636:
631:
630:
626:
622:
617:
615:
611:
607:
606:209.181.78.56
603:
596:
595:
591:
587:
586:86.10.167.123
582:
581:
577:
573:
568:
565:
564:
560:
556:
553:
544:
516:
512:
507:
501:
496:
490:
489:
487:
485:
481:
479:
475:
473:
472:
467:
465:
462:
460:
459:
454:
452:
449:
447:
446:
441:
439:
436:
434:
433:
428:
426:
423:
421:
420:
415:
413:
410:
408:
407:
402:
401:
398:
394:
390:
389:
386:
385:
381:
380:
376:
372:
368:
362:
359:
358:
355:
338:
334:
330:
329:
321:
310:
308:
305:
301:
300:
296:
290:
287:
284:
280:
255:
254:
244:
240:
239:
235:
231:
222:
218:
217:
213:
209:
203:
200:
199:
196:
179:
175:
171:
167:
166:
161:
155:
144:
142:
139:
135:
134:
130:
110:
107:
104:
100:
95:
91:
85:
77:
73:
68:
67:
53:
49:
46:
43:
39:
36:
35:
34:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1402:
1392:
1252:
1223:
1187:
996:Well me and
898:WP:Criticism
893:for a list.)
858:consequence.
855:information.
793:
789:
736:
717:
691:
669:
660:
654:
632:
618:
600:— Preceding
597:
583:
569:
566:
548:
497:|Companies}}
483:
482:
469:
468:
456:
455:
443:
442:
430:
429:
417:
416:
404:
403:
366:
326:
250:
229:
207:
178:project page
163:
160:NCH Software
159:
90:WikiProjects
47:
37:
1228:synthesized
1224:forum posts
882:violation.)
690:just says "
80:Start-class
1425:Categories
993:arguments.
846:Notability
635:Jimmeyjazz
545:(Untitled)
52:discussion
42:discussion
1188:dominates
737:represent
661:technical
555:Norfindel
342:Companies
333:companies
289:Companies
183:Australia
170:Australia
109:Australia
48:Withdrawn
1365:Mrjulesd
1326:Mrjulesd
1311:Mrjulesd
1206:WP:UNDUE
1166:Mrjulesd
1144:Mrjulesd
1115:Mrjulesd
1050:process.
1002:Mrjulesd
962:WP:IINFO
880:WP:IINFO
838:WP:ISNOT
824:Mrjulesd
798:WP:ISNOT
739:a value.
714:Mrjulesd
700:Mrjulesd
602:unsigned
499:template
458:Maintain
432:Copyedit
28:deletion
1086:WP:SNOW
665:WP:SNOW
513:Answer
445:Infobox
369:on the
232:at the
210:on the
1253:per se
1184:WP:DUE
802:WP:AfD
495:portal
419:Assess
86:scale.
1139:R.F.C
484:Other
471:Stubs
1413:talk
1369:talk
1315:talk
1170:talk
1152:talk
1119:talk
1094:talk
1075:talk
1038:and
1006:talk
978:talk
960:and
948:talk
925:talk
896:Per
850:WP:N
828:talk
765:talk
718:some
712:Hi,
704:talk
677:talk
639:talk
625:talk
610:talk
590:talk
576:talk
559:talk
258:help
251:The
172:and
38:Keep
1407:. —
1346:\\
1238:\\
1216:\\
1198:\\
794:not
361:Low
202:Low
1427::
1415:)
1371:)
1317:)
1226:,
1172:)
1154:)
1121:)
1113:--
1096:)
1077:)
1042:.
1008:)
980:)
950:)
927:)
830:)
767:)
706:)
698:--
679:)
641:)
627:)
621:MK
612:)
592:)
578:)
561:)
508:}}
504:{{
493:{{
1411:(
1367:(
1357::
1353:@
1328::
1324:@
1313:(
1255:.
1168:(
1150:(
1117:(
1092:(
1073:(
1004:(
976:(
946:(
923:(
826:(
804:.
763:(
702:(
675:(
637:(
623:(
608:(
588:(
574:(
557:(
486::
474::
461::
448::
435::
422::
409::
373:.
236:.
214:.
180:.
92::
54:.
44:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
