737:
comes to mind (especially with the Snakes On A Plane popularity that came from it). I know in time these pages are going to come back in one form or another, even though you deleted them now. I would wager that a few of these articles meet the criteria if someone put the effort into finding the links necessary for resources. I also have noticed that it seems you went straight for a delete instead of making any sort of concerted effort to make the pages better or find links (if you have; you have not really documented it very well). Lastly, congratulations; you have managed to piss off tens of thousands of fans of some of these comics. The rational ones will just rebuild the pages and do whatever it takes to get them to fit the criteria necessary to keep them from deletion; the irrational ones are going to look to the person who went on a webcomic deletin' crusade and vandalize the shit out of anything his name is on. Good luck with the inevitable cleanup... --
179:
then you can disregard my argument, but here goes. The two that I care for, Overcompensating and White Ninja Comics, get a rank of 9,539 (939 links from 340 blogs) and 3,480 (1,076 links from 656 blogs), respectively. Of the seven you kept, Cuentos De La
Frontera (in which I had to use the main page, Modern Tales, to get a rank) had a rank of 35,009 (685 links from 109 blogs), Help Desk a rank of 62,395 (135 links from 64 blogs), Jerk City a rank of 71,024 (136 links from 57 blogs), Sosiaalisesti rajoittuneet had no rank (only 42 links though), The Noob a rank of 26,246 (225 links from 143 blogs), The Whiteboard had no rank (only 287 links), and Wondermark had a rank of 6,916 (825 links from 434 blogs). Of those, only one of them ranked remotely close to the two that I do not think you should have deleted.
893:. This means, if someone creates an article for your webcomic, and it's good (not FA good, but B+ good), and they haven't created some ridiculous disambiguation page where 99% of traffic will be directed away from your article - then it should be kept. If it's interfering with people who want information on a different subject of the same name - if it's poorly written - if it's not NPOV - if it's any of the other reasons for deletion apart from notability - get rid of it. Knowledge may be the Hitchhiker's Guide, but at least the Guide was well-written.
574:
page, I feel like I'm being personally insulted. It's like
Knowledge is telling me "Well, we had some stuff here you might have been interested in, otherwise you wouldn't be searching for it, but we're going to deny you the right to obtain this information because we're pricks. We could have just given you what you asked us, it's not like we'd lose anything considering it is still stored here, but we're not." For several times now, I've had to use Google cache to read an article that interested me, yet someone else decided it wasn't important.
859:, a station only notable for its exceptional smallness. (Wondabyne, incidentally, serves a community of about twelve homes.) Now, take White Ninja Comics - one of the more notable articles on your crusade. There are over five thousand registered forum members, and I would guess at least double that in readership. I would say that's a conservative estimate. (I'm not one of them, incidentally. I don't get it most of the time.) So, ten thousand readers. And, apparently, syndication (there are hints of this in the
1300:
was saddening if not surprising, and only cheapened what arguments they had. You know my position - notability is somewhat ethereal, hardline enforcement of inclusion criteria on an art form that's fifteen years old and by definition avoids coverage in the traditional media is counterproductive - and, frankly, I've been a bit nervous about webcomic policy discussions after I was accused of being on a campaign of harassment, since I know that I'll be watched for mistakes. --
628:? It's not about disseminating information. It's about denying people the right to obtain knowledge on a subject someone else tried to enrich Knowledge with but was merciless taken away by an army of people who assume "anything I haven't heard of == non-notable == doesn't have a place on a online encyclopedia". Isn't this what Knowledge is all about? A 💕 that anyone can edit with the sum of all the knowledge in the world? How can we ever reach that goal if some people
624:. Would that article be included in any general encyclopedia other than a Wiki? No. Is it irrelevant, devoid of information and useless to any human being? Not a chance. Have you ever wondered that what makes something encyclopedic is its inclusion in a encyclopedia? Or are most wikipedians so brainwashed by all the pages that start with WP: that can't even see obvious
1355:
Hey Brad, I am writing you to let you know that the
Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project.
1299:
Hey there. Just for the record, I planned an answer - an elaborate, firebrand one of the "look ye now upon what you have wrought" variety. Then Vtech happened and I was forced to get some perspective. Now on a more rational basis, I don't know if I have much to add. The aggression of the commentators
1179:
Yeah I have to second some sort of guide. Heck my name is MrMacMan all i can seem to be doing is rating edits if they are vandalism or not... and when i try to show it clear vandalism (to try and program it) it doesn't seem to accept this 'change'. Maybe i'm just using it wrong but either way a guide
1108:
Anyway, I don't know why you took exception with Chris Kelly (Radio) having an entry in
Knowledge, since he's worked at WKSC-FM in Chicago (market number 3)for 3+ years now, in addition to his work in Madison, WI and Milwaukee, WI. He's not a FT jock, but he's consistently scheduled on the weekends,
940:
I guess that's the overall gist of it, although the more general stuff - like marking pages for deletion significantly in advance of actually deleting them - extends far beyond WP:WEB. However, I appreciate the difficulty of the situation. What's the definable scope of
Knowledge? Maybe someone should
873:
actually, the deletionists should read this as well. I was going to say "These articles are marked as up for deletion, and the reasons why are stated - much of the time it's because they're not properly cited, or they need cleanup, so do something about it! You can stop it from happening!" - which is
581:
replacement. Knowledge is essentially quantity over quality. Sure, the most important articles *must* be of excellent quality, but what's so wrong with letting so called "non-notable" articles alone? Don't get me wrong, vanity articles and articles about your High School should be killed on sight or
388:
by nominating his own webcomic for deletion with a total of ten sockpuppets making massive factual errors and arguing with one another. The article was deleted and apparently nobody bothered to run a checkuser on anon "delete" voters. This probably means something. After the story broke, the article
178:
These articles were deleted based on notability. So I will attempt to show that what you kept is actually, for the most part, less notable than the two comics I don't think you should have deleted. I'm going to use
Technorati as a metric. If you disagree with Technorati (i.e. counting back-links)
1004:
number of votes which gives the appearance of a small group of people ganging up against webcomic articles because of some power trip. Hey, I think that the articles should have had a concerted effort to improve them rather than delete them, but I guess that did not happen here. I am just trying to
954:
The list was just from skimming through the webcomics category and finding the pages that didn't seem to meet the content guidelines. Had I done it with band, it would have been the same. It's just that many people were noting months ago that there were a lot of non-notable comic articles, which is
714:
boards that many web comics, regardless of size/readership/media coverage/notability/whatever you want to call it, had articles. So I took it upon myself to spend a couple weeks going through the category and nominating those that seemed to fail the guideline for deletion. Note that I didn't delete
652:
Oh come off it. This "editor" has a disgusting to-do list. He is pathetic. He deserves whatever he gets as a result. I mean, really, it's one thing to delete non-notable articles as you come across them, and it's another thing to actively search for non-notable articles of a certain variety just to
1112:
Coming from a radio background, someone who has worked on-air consistently in the 3rd largest market in the United States of
America is notable. Let's not be elitist about who we "allow" into Knowledge; actors with only a few film, TV or stage credits are in without anyone contesting them. There
679:
Instead of answering each individual question and accusation, let me try and address the fundamental problem we have here by stepping back to some common ground and working up from there. I think we'd all agree that
Knowledge is trying to be an encyclopedia. While it might not have the limitations
665:
Hi. I'm curious about what prompted the nominations for deletion of various webcomics articles. I think a lot of those items that got deleted were valid articles. I'm interested to hear your side, and I'm not going to attack you. If you want I can give you my email address so we can correspond off
573:
Have you ever wondered that maybe the fact that makes
Knowledge so great is that you can search it for anything you can imagine and there's a good chance that you'll get an article? Every time I search for a subject in Google, follow a link to Knowledge and see a "There's no article here, go away"
736:
It might just be me, but the fact that some of these comics that you have essentially led the charge to axe having tens of thousands of readers might make them encyclopedia worthy. I read over the notability criteria for them and a few of your deletes can definitely be disputed; Overcompensating
1034:
Gar, the difficulty I found was that even after an article was found non-notable and deleted, fans of said comics would come back and recreate the article. That list is (A) a record of what I've been working on as to hold me more accountable and (B) a quick way to notice if someone's recreating
377:
article was placed in DRV, where the decision to delete was found to have been made on a "I AM the law!" basis, and the article survived a procedural second AfD. During the time it was down, its loss was used as proof of the awards' insignificance on-wiki, and as evidence that we have it in for
632:
on removing knowledge? But you are correct, this isn't the best place to discuss this. This person is just one man among an army of people who think they're fighting a war against what makes
Knowledge suck, but ironically, they're only slowly taking away what makes it shine among all the other
369:
of the events here seems to be increasing as the webcomic community as a whole catches on to the fact that, to my rough estimate, between a third and a fourth of our entire significant webcomic coverage has been eradicated within the last year. (You I don't blame - much - you seem committed to
406:
of webcomic articles while having admitted that he knows nothing about webcomics. (This means that claims of anti-webcomic activists created one. The irony is delicious.) When the dust of that settled, he invoked the right to vanish. I think I quoted your statement that Keenspot membership is
1169:
Thank you. I'd appreciate that. I'd like something a bit snazzier for doing in vandals than my own manual methods. Everything is written for PC damn it. I've run it and it all looks very smart, but some bits I can figure out. Please let me know when you have written something I can read!
1035:
articles they likely shouldn't be. I recognize that some people are interpreting it as a "hit list", but if that were the case, why would there be a "keep" section? They're just articles I thought at first glance should be discussed for possible deletion, not "OMG MUST DELETE!!!!11eleven". --
184:
I'm not sure why you think they're unpopular, but seriously, just because you don't think it's a popular comic does not make it so. Perhaps number of back links have no bearing on notability, I'm not a wiki-expert. However, back-links seem pretty good for Google (PageRank is based on # of
1023:
Another thing that is probably getting you some flak is that the Cleaning Category:Webcomics section on your "To Do" page looks more like a collection of hunting trophies as opposed to articles you actually intend to work on. Perhaps if you removed this it would help to cut down on the
436:. If you are no longer working on the article, please either remove yourself from the list, or notify me so I can do so, so other editors will know they can work on the article instead. If you don't reply within a week, I will assume you are no longer working on the article. Cheers,
396:
was AfD'd, prompting its author to send over a horde of enraged fans to the discussion, where they acted much like howler monkeys. (The article was kept after these were carefully discounted.) This prompted several other nominations and the sudden spike in deletion attempts drew the
881:
Secondly, and this is directly aimed at inclusionists - if you are an author of a webcomic, or a close friend of an author, or if you know them at all, then you can't posit an unbiased opinion on that article. Knowledge is built on a solid foundation of a Neutral Point Of View.
589:
Deleting them won't even save space, all history is kept on the databases, including the history of deleted articles. So what's the fucking point? Is one supposed to get a sysop account for the sole purpose of reading articles that were deemed "non-notable" by "experts"?
1507:
I can't remember if it was being used at the time, so if it was, my mistake on that. As for unfree, the image is unfree, as it contains the Knowledge logo, which is a registered trademark of the WMF (and unfree). Hope this clears it up. Either way, I restored for now.
36:
917:
Question is, where in there is the magic number that we want to settle on? 1000 readers or more? 10,000? And if we settle on an exact number, how do we accurately measure a website's unique visitor base? I'm not saying that readership shouldn't be included in
828:
Hi, Brad. This isn't specifically directed at you - but let's face it, much of the anger towards the recent streak of webcomics (and general) deletionism has eventually found its way back to your user page. So, this is me, saying something to you, and all the
764:
and started suggesting the deletion of people who were very important to the movement as a whole but obscure. Just because I am ignorant of the subject does not mean I should want to remove something I know nothing about. That is why people did not take well.
401:
of prominent people in the field as the mess fed and was fed by the three previous points. To the best of my understanding, one Knowledge reader concluded from the Ugly Hill AfD that we're in a state of mob rule, registered and set off to destroy the
687:
That being said, we need to establish some kind of guidelines as to what constitutes sufficient notability for inclusion. Yeah, this is going to be hairy, but it's necessary. Knowledge has it's inclusionists and deletionists, but I think both camps
467:
has suggested creating a set of userboxes for people who speak Kansai-ben. I remembered that you made the template for people in Osaka. If you can help out by providing feedback on what might be good text for the boxes, please do so.
913:
have a fourth clause for inclusion: readership. We could agree that if every web user read some web content then chances are it's notable. If some website is read only by it's author, then that readership alone isn't sufficient for
154:
Yep yep. Just as Fang said, I'm more than willing to have a civil discussion about it. Unfortunately, a fair number of these fans have been fairly... undiplomatic. I've also had 0 contact me by email or IM to talk with me directly.
698:
is the guideline that we have for web-content notability and it's been taking a lot of flak in these last few months. Be that as it may, what else do we have to go on? If there's a problem with the guideline, let's discuss it
1154:
Hrm. Y'know what? I don't think I ever wrote any. :( I've put the project on hold for a while as I'm settling into my new life here in a new city, but I'll come back to it in time and polish it up (with documentation too!).
843:
Knowledge is many things, but a true encyclopedia - and I mean encyclopedia like Britannica, as in, a modest amount of information on most major subjects in the world - a true encyclopedia it is not. It is, if anything, the
101:
article for the very brief discussion (and grand total of three people voting) as to why it should be deleted. All this means is it is gone for now as the fans will surely recreate it at some point, regardless of the rules.
606:
Instead of trolling someone's userpage, how about you actually go do something useful? If you really want to disseminate information, go and find one of the many free webhosts available, and set up a page. Knowledge is an
29:
242:
I recognize that those outside of the Knowledge community aren't well versed in the policies here, so if you need a hand doing either I'm more than willing to help. Just let me know which direction you want to take this
860:
354:
Hey, you're back, my oft-opponent! Kind of good to see you. Since you edit in the field a lot, let me bring you up to speed on the recent webcomics WikiDrama that, as it happens, started a short while after you left.
878:. That's not enough time to ensure that anyone will do anything about making the article better. So, please, if you mark an article for deletion - give it some time. Put it 'on notice', as Stephen Colbert would say.
889:
And last, but not least, if your readership is less than a thousand, then sorry, you're nothing special. The number of visitors to your article will be so small that there's no point fighting over it.
809:. It's really that simple. As for predictions of vandalism, rest assured there are hundreds of editors who fight vandalism every day, and those vandals will be reverted and blocked, if necessary. --
855:
You must surely be aware of the enourmous double standard here. There is an article for almost every suburb in Sydney's Northern Beaches - and for every station on the CityRail system, including
680:
standard paper distributions have regarding size, there are certain subjects that would be clearly inappropriate. I doubt anyone would protest if an article on my 5th eyelash was deleted.
676:
Thanks for the civility Glasper; it's much appreciated. However, I think I have to address everyone who's bound to come asking though, if the above is any indication of people's concerns.
137:
I've yet to see any evidence of "tens of thousands" or "thousands" of fans. Please provide evidence. And again, Ihmhi, if you have a problem with a deletion, you are free to take it to
265:
I'm personally unsure as to why we need the bureaucracy... but okay. Within a few minutes I found one reason to keep White Ninja Comics. Here's my argument for White Ninja Comics:
1437:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any
1433:
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "
190:
Your steadfast support of what I (and some others, evidently) consider a bad decision is unfortunate, especially when you gave such short notice to update. I would reconsider.
407:
sufficient notability on two occasions. My apologies if that was too intrusive or something, but I was still slightly giddy over the fact that you had actually written that.
718:
Anywho, I ramble. Hopefully that addresses the questions and concerns. No doubt there'll be more, but I figured I'd try to be accountable for an action that I initiated. --
715:
any myself there. Each was nominated and discussed. There were bound to be some grey spots, but I think we (the AFD participants) did our best to be as fair as we could.
1001:
998:
392:
Fourth, we had an unprecedented flurry of deletion nominations, arguments, windmill-tilting and other such fun. Honestly, I don't know how you administrators take it.
98:
97:
It appears he deleted it because it did not fit the necessary criteria to remain as an article, despite its tens of thousands (possibly more) of fans. See the
1426:
if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (see
1422:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
173:(This is the IP) First, a quick apology. My words came off rather harsh because I was, well, angry. Now that I am more level-headed, here is my argument.
93:
Why did you delete it? That comic is certainly relevant since J. Rowland is so responsible for the whole "snakes on a plane" internet phenomenon. -Tom Gray
774:
The people you speak of (who presumably have articles) should have supporting sources to prove their existence and notability. Webcomics are no exception.
1014:
Addendum: (below the comic) would explain a lot of the flak as well, as you got Jeffrey Rowland (and his tens of thousands of fans) pissed off at you. --
1434:
856:
886:. If you've created a webcomic, don't create a Knowledge article for it. Just don't. If you know someone who has created a webcomic, don't. Et cetera.
874:
still valid. You can stop it from happening. But I had a closer look at the dates and discovered that between nomination and deletion there is a mere
666:
the Knowledge pages. I think it might already be on my userpage, come to think of it. As you can see, I am a longtime Knowledge contributor. Best,
1116:
276:
198:
1109:
and is their fill-in jock of choice who has worked every shift except afternoons at WKSC-FM. He's even got his own web page on WKSC's website.
1532:
1442:
433:
429:
621:
1379:. As for the MCotW, I'm focusing on things non-wiki related at the moment, but when I return, I'll be sure to take a look at it. :) --
560:
1274:
Looks like things got a little heated for a couple days. The majority of it is over on my talk page. Your thoughts on the matter? --
280:
202:
128:
582:
WP will become a dump, but deleting articles that could be relevant to many people just because it's "non-notable to me" and "it's
1478:
1243:
1205:
221:
Hey there. The question that we need to address here is whether or not the comics in question satisfy any of the requirements of
978:
To clarify, I didn't delete these pages. I only initiated the discussion. I'm not sure why I'm the one getting all this flak. --
746:
To clarify, I didn't delete these pages. I only initiated the discussion. I'm not sure why I'm the one getting all this flak. --
234:
1321:
80:
76:
72:
68:
195:
Also, sorry about the lack of username. I've never bothered to get registered. --I have no idea how to write signatures.
1128:
1091:
I swiped the formatting on your "to do" page for the table on my userpage. I hope this is ok, if not please let me know.
778:
is our current guideline of notability. If you disagree with that guideline, take it to the talk page and hash it out. --
1414:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge under a
1373:
1344:
1427:
611:, not your personal collection of information. Your opinion does not give you the right to insult other editors. --
515:
299:
The problem with TradeBit is that it isn't non-trivial publishing. I double-checked my intuition by asking over on
112:
Let's see how thousands of fans do against one overzealous editor. -Angry Overcompensating/White Ninja Comics fan
483:
Hrm. Not sure how much help I'd be as my knowledge of Kansai-ben is so limited as to be considered obscene. :P --
398:
1289:"Looks like I really need that aspirin right about now." I'll let you know when other ones start to turn up. --
852:
of it - but the knowledge, the intellectual information that a fair number of people might want to know about.
326:
319:
1025:
994:
641:
597:
593:
556:
504:
766:
654:
1494:
1455:
1410:
1384:
1340:
1279:
1220:
1160:
1076:
1040:
983:
960:
927:
751:
723:
508:
488:
464:
443:
308:
284:
256:
206:
160:
124:
60:
17:
1318:
1144:
Hi. I have downloaded WikiGuard but cannot find instructions for it anywhere. Am I just being thick?
552:
370:
hunting out the tiny ones.) This can be expected to continue while we keep clinging to *RANT OMITTED*.
233:
isn't a good gauge of notability, then you can try and reach consensus to change the guideline on it's
120:
1476:
1241:
1203:
667:
548:
116:
42:
Leave a message and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. If the matter is pressing, contact me via
1446:
845:
1120:
303:'s talk page, but it seems that method of publishing doesn't satisfy clause 3 of the guideline. --
1188:
692:
of what we're trying to do here: build something of quality. We just disagree as to how to do it.
472:
460:
1332:
922:, just that there are some serious hurdles to overcome if it's going to be part of the list. --
905:
PS: Feel free to substitute the word "webcomics" with anything else. This applies universally.
1317:
I would like to notify you that I have problems with downloading WikiGuard. Please HELP!!! --
1124:
1092:
1062:
1490:
1395:
1380:
1357:
1336:
1275:
1216:
1156:
1072:
1036:
979:
956:
923:
802:
747:
719:
484:
437:
382:
304:
252:
156:
87:
1473:
1238:
1200:
761:
700:
867:? This is less notable than a railway station that doesn't even have a connecting road?
385:
1423:
1171:
1145:
810:
779:
625:
612:
533:
524:
340:
330:
146:
1518:
1498:
1489:
Thanks for the info. I'll follow up with ^demon and see why it was deleted. Cheers. --
1483:
1449:
1398:
1388:
1360:
1304:
1293:
1283:
1268:
1248:
1224:
1210:
1190:
1174:
1164:
1148:
1132:
1095:
1080:
1065:
1044:
1028:
1018:
1009:
987:
964:
945:
931:
900:
813:
782:
769:
755:
741:
727:
670:
657:
615:
600:
536:
527:
517:
492:
477:
449:
414:
343:
333:
312:
288:
260:
210:
164:
149:
106:
1264:
At the moment, things are quiet and have returned to something approaching normal. --
1181:
1051:
919:
910:
806:
775:
711:
707:
695:
689:
681:
469:
410:
At the moment, things are quiet and have returned to something approaching normal. --
403:
300:
270:
248:
244:
230:
226:
222:
138:
366:
35:
1512:
1462:
1415:
1369:
The "magic dot" is a template that I've included into all my pages. Take a look at
1058:
1057:
I took it upon myself to create this article, using your pics. See what you think.
1105:
I apologize for the late response, but I'm still new to the Knowledge talk thing.
848:- a universally accessible resource of all the information on Earth. Clearly, not
834:
363:
185:
backlinks), and I believe it to be a decent (if not perfect) metric of popularity.
1419:
1237:
Ohhh, well. Guess I'll just have to use Old School Style until I get a new Mac.
942:
897:
830:
703:
and maybe we can find a better way of quantifying what's notable and what isn't.
594:
Thanks for denying information to people and help making Knowledge a worse place
424:
Hi. I've noticed that you appear to have been working on converting the article
251:) and I'll make sure that the people in the right place hear your arguments. --
1301:
1290:
1265:
1015:
1006:
909:
Hey there Gorman. So if I get what you're saying here, you're suggesting that
738:
634:
578:
428:
into a spoken version for over two months now, according to your entry on the
411:
266:
103:
583:
544:
Fang, you Brad's sockpuppet or what? Why not let him clean up his own mess?
393:
1199:
Could you please rewrite/port WikiGuard to Mac OS 10.3? Thanks in advance.
997:
with a lot more red then green. Furthermore, a few of the AFD pages have a
863:- although, because the article was deleted, I'll never know). This isn't
760:
Consider for a moment that I know nothing of a given subject, for example
586:
stuff and should be killed with fire" is just making Knowledge suck more.
359:
51:
637:
425:
1071:
I like! Thanks for adding the information I was unable to find. :) --
378:
webcomics in off-wiki bursts of flak (of which there has been many).
1215:
Sorry, but WikiGuard relies on CoreData, an API specific to 10.4. --
28:
47:
43:
993:
You are probably getting flak because you have what appears like
374:
1113:
shouldn't be a double-standard for people who work in radio.
141:. To the IP: threats are pointless. If you have something to
682:
Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information
34:
225:. If you believe they do, you can petition the deletion at
1365:
P.S. How do i get a magic dot like yours on my userpage?
891:
This doesn't mean delete it on the grounds of notability
1466:
507:
subpage. Its being targeted by many IPs at the moment.
329:? I ran across this while deleting image backlogs. --
503:Hello Brad! You might want to keep an eye on your
1441:will be deleted after seven days, as described on
99:Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Overcompensating
1533:WikiProject Food and Drink Newsletter June 2007
1528:June 2007 Wikiproject Food and Drink Newsletter
1356:Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--
1005:explain why you are getting all of the shit. --
1404:Orphaned non-free image (Image:WikiGuard.png)
955:why I went wandering through the category. --
8:
710:spree, it came up in the discussions on the
389:was restored, then re-AfD'd and re-deleted.
801:If you have a problem with the deletion of
267:http://www.tradebit.com/filedetail.php/2468
325:What do you think about the notability of
1461:Hi, I thougt you might like to know that
339:Sounds good. I'll follow your lead. :) --
145:, I'm sure Brad will be happy to talk. --
620:Yes, because every article in Knowledge
805:, gather your evidence and take it to
577:Knowledge isn't, and never will be, a
229:. If you believe they don't, but that
7:
1326:Member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit
373:Second and the least important, the
386:committed an interesting experiment
1418:. However, the image is currently
24:
1394:Thanks so much for your reply!--
690:are working in the best interest
27:
871:Secondly, to the inclusionists:
1465:deleted Image:WikiGuard.png,
269:(eBook, which satisfies #3 of
1:
1428:our policy for non-free media
54:(all as bradbeattie). Cheers.
1443:criteria for speedy deletion
995:a hit list against webcomics
824:Deletionism vs. Inclusionism
434:Wikiproject Spoken Knowledge
841:First, to the deletionists:
499:A Targeted Subpage of Yours
69:January & February 2007
1548:
1294:05:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
1284:00:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
1180:would be most helpful. :D
1096:22:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
1081:15:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
1066:08:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
1045:18:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
1029:18:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
1019:04:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
1010:04:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
988:05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
965:14:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
946:10:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
932:14:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
901:11:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
814:15:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
783:15:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
770:06:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
756:05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
742:05:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
728:00:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
671:20:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
658:20:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
616:20:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
601:19:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
537:21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
528:20:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
518:17:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
493:00:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
478:19:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
450:19:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
313:15:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
289:02:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
261:00:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
211:21:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
165:14:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
150:14:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
107:05:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
1269:16:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
1175:22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
1165:14:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
1149:13:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
1133:12:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
884:This is not your ad space
415:16:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
344:15:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
334:21:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
1519:00:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
1499:23:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
1484:15:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
1450:00:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
1399:22:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1389:22:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1361:17:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1345:15:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
1249:20:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
1225:15:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
1211:01:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
706:As for what spurned the
327:Reprographics (webcomic)
320:Reprographics (webcomic)
1469:"unused and nonfree".
1374:User:BradBeattie/Status
1322:21:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
1305:19:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
1191:23:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
523:I'm watching it too. --
505:User:BradBeattie/To Do
39:
1408:Thanks for uploading
1119:comment was added by
465:User:Julian Grybowski
279:comment was added by
201:comment was added by
38:
18:User talk:BradBeattie
455:Kansai-ben userboxes
59:Talk page archives:
1456:Image:WikiGuard.png
1424:You may add it back
1411:Image:WikiGuard.png
708:deletion nomination
653:delete them all. --
430:In Progress section
846:Hitchhiker's Guide
622:is so encyclopedic
532:I protected it. --
511:¤~Persian Poet Gal
40:
1497:
1416:claim of fair use
1387:
1343:
1282:
1223:
1163:
1136:
1079:
1043:
986:
963:
941:ask Jimbo Wales.
930:
754:
726:
565:
551:comment added by
491:
463:on my talk page,
448:
311:
292:
259:
214:
163:
133:
119:comment added by
1539:
1515:
1511:
1493:
1435:my contributions
1383:
1378:
1372:
1351:Mathematics CotW
1339:
1278:
1219:
1186:
1159:
1114:
1087:Formatting swipe
1075:
1039:
982:
959:
926:
803:Overcompensating
750:
722:
564:
545:
487:
475:
446:
442:
440:
383:Kristofer Straub
307:
274:
255:
196:
159:
132:
113:
88:Overcompensating
31:
1547:
1546:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1530:
1513:
1509:
1481:
1459:
1406:
1376:
1370:
1353:
1315:
1261:
1246:
1208:
1182:
1142:
1115:—The preceding
1103:
1089:
1055:
1026:GarTheDestroyer
975:
826:
807:deletion review
762:The Third Reich
668:glasperlenspiel
642:213.146.215.217
598:213.146.215.217
571:
546:
501:
473:
457:
444:
438:
422:
352:
323:
275:—The preceding
197:—The preceding
139:deletion review
114:
91:
84:
83:
56:
55:
32:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1545:
1543:
1529:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1502:
1501:
1479:
1458:
1453:
1447:BetacommandBot
1405:
1402:
1392:
1391:
1352:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1314:
1311:
1309:
1297:
1296:
1260:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1244:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1206:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1177:
1141:
1138:
1102:
1099:
1088:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1054:
1049:
1048:
1047:
974:
971:
970:
969:
967:
951:
950:
949:
948:
935:
934:
915:
833:, and all the
825:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
767:75.160.193.166
731:
730:
716:
704:
693:
685:
677:
663:
662:
661:
660:
655:71.235.102.239
647:
646:
645:
644:
626:circular logic
570:
569:Non-notability
567:
542:
541:
540:
539:
500:
497:
496:
495:
456:
453:
421:
420:Spoken article
418:
404:walled gardens
351:
348:
347:
346:
322:
317:
316:
315:
296:
295:
294:
293:
239:
238:
218:
217:
216:
215:
193:
191:
188:
186:
182:
180:
176:
174:
168:
167:
152:
110:
109:
90:
85:
58:
57:
41:
33:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1544:
1535:
1534:
1527:
1520:
1517:
1516:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1482:
1477:
1475:
1470:
1468:
1464:
1457:
1454:
1452:
1451:
1448:
1445:. Thank you.
1444:
1440:
1436:
1431:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1413:
1412:
1403:
1401:
1400:
1397:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1375:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1363:
1362:
1359:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1323:
1320:
1312:
1310:
1307:
1306:
1303:
1295:
1292:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1267:
1258:
1250:
1247:
1242:
1240:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1209:
1204:
1202:
1198:
1197:
1192:
1189:
1187:
1185:
1178:
1176:
1173:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1162:
1158:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1147:
1139:
1137:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1110:
1106:
1100:
1098:
1097:
1094:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1064:
1060:
1053:
1052:Tanzan Shrine
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1027:
1021:
1020:
1017:
1012:
1011:
1008:
1003:
1000:
996:
991:
990:
989:
985:
981:
972:
968:
966:
962:
958:
953:
952:
947:
944:
939:
938:
937:
936:
933:
929:
925:
921:
916:
912:
908:
907:
906:
903:
902:
899:
894:
892:
887:
885:
879:
877:
872:
868:
866:
862:
858:
853:
851:
847:
842:
838:
836:
835:inclusionists
832:
823:
815:
812:
808:
804:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
784:
781:
777:
773:
772:
771:
768:
763:
759:
758:
757:
753:
749:
745:
744:
743:
740:
735:
734:
733:
732:
729:
725:
721:
717:
713:
709:
705:
702:
697:
694:
691:
686:
683:
678:
675:
674:
673:
672:
669:
659:
656:
651:
650:
649:
648:
643:
639:
638:Encyclopedias
636:
631:
627:
623:
619:
618:
617:
614:
610:
605:
604:
603:
602:
599:
595:
591:
587:
585:
580:
575:
568:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
538:
535:
531:
530:
529:
526:
522:
521:
520:
519:
516:
514:
513:
512:
506:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
481:
480:
479:
476:
471:
466:
462:
454:
452:
451:
447:
441:
435:
431:
427:
419:
417:
416:
413:
408:
405:
400:
395:
390:
387:
384:
379:
376:
371:
368:
365:
361:
356:
349:
345:
342:
338:
337:
336:
335:
332:
328:
321:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
298:
297:
290:
286:
282:
278:
272:
268:
264:
263:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
241:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
219:
212:
208:
204:
200:
194:
192:
189:
187:
183:
181:
177:
175:
172:
171:
170:
169:
166:
162:
158:
153:
151:
148:
144:
140:
136:
135:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
108:
105:
100:
96:
95:
94:
89:
86:
82:
78:
77:November 2006
74:
73:December 2006
70:
66:
62:
53:
49:
45:
37:
30:
19:
1531:
1491:Brad Beattie
1471:
1460:
1438:
1432:
1409:
1407:
1393:
1381:Brad Beattie
1364:
1354:
1337:Brad Beattie
1325:
1319:ISOLA'd ELBA
1316:
1308:
1298:
1276:Brad Beattie
1273:
1263:
1262:
1217:Brad Beattie
1183:
1157:Brad Beattie
1143:
1111:
1107:
1104:
1093:Epameinondas
1090:
1073:Brad Beattie
1056:
1037:Brad Beattie
1022:
1013:
992:
980:Brad Beattie
977:
976:
957:Brad Beattie
924:Brad Beattie
904:
895:
890:
888:
883:
880:
875:
870:
869:
864:
854:
849:
840:
839:
831:deletionists
827:
748:Brad Beattie
720:Brad Beattie
664:
635:conventional
629:
609:encyclopedia
608:
592:
588:
576:
572:
553:128.59.42.93
543:
510:
509:
502:
485:Brad Beattie
458:
439:Panser Born
423:
409:
391:
380:
372:
357:
353:
324:
305:Brad Beattie
253:Brad Beattie
157:Brad Beattie
142:
111:
92:
81:October 2006
64:
1396:Cronholm144
1358:Cronholm144
1331:Hrm... Try
914:notability.
547:—Preceding
281:137.22.1.27
203:137.22.1.27
121:137.22.1.27
115:—Preceding
65:Spring 2007
1474:Ignatzmice
1239:Ignatzmice
1201:Ignatzmice
579:Britannica
461:this topic
26:Inactive.
1333:this link
1259:Kerflufle
1172:Gillyweed
1146:Gillyweed
1140:Wikiguard
876:five days
857:Wondabyne
811:Fang Aili
780:Fang Aili
613:Fang Aili
584:interwebs
534:Fang Aili
525:Fang Aili
399:attention
394:Ugly Hill
367:awareness
341:Fang Aili
331:Fang Aili
235:talk page
147:Fang Aili
1480:contribs
1467:claiming
1439:articles
1420:orphaned
1245:contribs
1207:contribs
1184:MrMacMan
1129:contribs
1117:unsigned
999:woefully
861:AFD page
633:regular
561:contribs
549:unsigned
470:Dekimasu
277:unsigned
199:unsigned
129:contribs
117:unsigned
52:freenode
1313:HELP!!!
1121:Campsfm
1101:CampsFM
1024:flak.--
865:notable
701:civilly
426:Kitsune
381:Third,
358:First,
143:discuss
61:Current
1495:(talk)
1463:^demon
1385:(talk)
1341:(talk)
1280:(talk)
1221:(talk)
1161:(talk)
1077:(talk)
1041:(talk)
984:(talk)
961:(talk)
943:Gorman
928:(talk)
920:WP:WEB
911:WP:WEB
898:Gorman
776:WP:WEB
752:(talk)
724:(talk)
712:WP:AFD
696:WP:WEB
630:insist
489:(talk)
445:(talk)
350:Update
309:(talk)
301:WP:WEB
271:WP:WEB
257:(talk)
249:WP:WEB
245:WP:DRV
231:WP:WEB
227:WP:DRV
223:WP:WEB
161:(talk)
1514:demon
1302:Kizor
1291:Kizor
1266:Kizor
1059:Grant
1016:Ihmhi
1007:Ihmhi
1002:small
739:Ihmhi
412:Kizor
104:Ihmhi
48:Skype
44:GTalk
16:<
1335:. --
1125:talk
1063:Talk
973:Flak
557:talk
375:WCCA
364:site
285:talk
207:talk
125:talk
1430:).
850:all
640:. -
596:. -
459:In
432:of
360:off
247:or
50:or
1377:}}
1371:{{
1324:,
1155:--
1131:)
1127:•
1061:|
837:.
563:)
559:•
474:よ!
287:)
273:.
209:)
155:--
131:)
127:•
102:--
79:,
75:,
71:,
67:,
63:,
46:,
1510:^
1472:—
1135:.
1123:(
896:–
684:.
555:(
362:-
291:.
283:(
243:(
237:.
213:.
205:(
123:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
