1163:
to come from another planet to enlighten us, because they just erase, they erase also the talk they erase articles i wrote in relativity many years ago. as i said since you are more normal i can show you my credentials, you probably if you are a physicst have read part of my work... i just think some criticism is needed. thats all. but i guess i will have to comply at least the talk page should be not erased so someone interested in seeing further can read there, what really pissed me off is that they keep erasing the talk page on top of all what i put there, basically the prove of contradiction is by mr. hawking who keeps changing opinions. i have addressed to him personally a letter on this which is pending to publish in physical review, we are still waiting for his prove that he has not contradicted itself, otherwise it will appear in the june issue without his response. Again this is not original research, just pointing out his contradictions. I believe at least you should stop them from constnatly erasing my talk, for them it seems to be personal cause i doubted of theri credentials. In any case, i will comply by sunday and leave to my students to keep a critical view on this shalom ls
431:
the quality of the article, so all you're doing is making a decision that instead of giving editors of that article the chance to source it, you hide the content and don't even raise issue with the lack of sources at any time to make anyone aware of the problem. Ever heard of the comment "sweeping it under the rug"? Lack of sources is a problem, and what you're doing is sweeping the problem under the rug. And on the off chance one person checks the history, or, "under the rug", they may not even be able to "fix" what you swept under there, and the people that could would be completely and totally unable to find the content. You can't bank on the fact that I found the content you hid, because that's only an excuse for why you do it now, but the fact that you seem to defend your actions shows that in the future, you'll continue to discourage the problem from being fixed. This is not improving the Wiki - you think citation needed tags are just for show? If it is a good idea to just wipe unsourced content before it gets the chance to be fixed, then the tags wouldn't exist. There has never even been citation tags ON the article, so no one was even made aware that a problem existed
1017:
simply move on from there, though you are free to reply to any of the posts i made about edit-warring. It looks like no-one will be following those up, except perhaps for Until 1==2, who has expressed the view that blocking of some user is preferable to further page protection. Oh, and also GTB expressed a similar view, but no-one will probably read there, so, I say, let's move on, and please do not try to "jog" the page into action when the page-protection expires, that is not going to work. Actually, I am dreading what happened last time, i think, when following protection, some editors who had not been around for a while came along and stirred things up un-productively. I will not edit contentiously to that page, you know that, and I hope you see your way clear to avoiding that trap, and can contribute insightfully on the discussion page, also /Versions and /Workshop need watching, or something, maybe. Anyway, all good, then.
1216:
said in 75 that 2 particles are born and one evaporates and in 2004 that there is only 1 particle, so in ç riticism i just want to put that at least. And that was erased. I believe the people who erase basically are fundaemntalist physicists and we know some of them dont we? who just believe and see noting else. I cant see how a self-contradiction pointed out properly can be erased. Respect to the fact that many are agreeing in erasing, all physicsts many working at cern i just would say like einstein put it, when it was published '300 phydicsts vs. einstein' in geremany 'if i were wrong 1 would be enough' that is the point: none argues the contradiction of ahwking, they just censor and erase and eerase the talk, which is well over the top.
1678:
836:
492:. That is how regular editors are aware of it. Knowledge (XXG) users are smart and literate, we don't feel the need to shove everything in their faces. I encourage people to tag unsourced content as requiring a source; if a fair amount of time goes by and no one sources it, it should be removed. I don't have a fine definition for "fair amount of time," but I think that three years is more than fair ; ) -
1070:, which many like, though i tired of it quickly, and also the 3C's version, which was a legitimate, transitional, version. So that page looks cool, at the moment, i think, and ought to remain linked, though not at the expense of WP:WIARM. If one of them had to go, and maybe having just one "official" link is a good idea, then it would be /Versions, dont you think.
474:
be gone just like that. You made no effort to make the editors aware of just how important sources are, so those who do understand and those who aren't are both left unaware of the problem. The consenus said merge. If wiping away unsourced content was always good, then are you encouraging people to just go through articles wiping them dry of most content? -
1570:
and fold the next. (And where exactly is the boundary between a personal website, blog, or discussion forum and an internet-only magazine such as _Slate_?) And of course, I'd also say that greater leniency should be given to criticism/opinion pieces than to statements of fact (for which, obviously, the reputability of the source is much more important).
451:
sources are a non-negotiable requirement for articles, why would anyone bother to source anything? Removing content inappropriate for
Knowledge (XXG) is an essential task; unsourced content is inappropriate for Knowledge (XXG). That article has been completely unsourced for over three years; how long do you think we should leave up unsourced content?
1122:
1257:
thanks, at least you inform me, my complain right now is dual: tey erase non OR, and they erase the TALK PAGE DEPISTE being told by another adminstraotr that THEY CANT DO that, and they also asked for protection of the talk page, and they have been rejected and still keep erasing it. which amounts to
400:
Being bold goes only far enough that you can make such a decision when there's not a consensus against you. Wiping the content from the article and making it so only viewing the history would allow only someone happening upon it by luck to add citations. That argument is tired. I've seen people argue
1602:
I am currently in the process of cleaning up the article, removing a lot of the existing material and adding sourcing from other projects I'm currently working on. Please feel free to review the work in light of the current AfD. I'll be happy to answer any questions or discuss any outstanding issues
1215:
that is why i find totally incorrect to be erased, i have been quotng all authorities and still called OR the point i want to put and was erased and blocked is a self-contradiction between 2 statements done by the same hawking. And that cannot be original research ok? that is why i complain. hawking
1162:
it is not original research, i have publsiehd many books on different subjets and can show you my credentials,so you realize it is not or. Im worried abot cern.thats all. i think we shouldnt make black holes on earth and a sound critique added. I have been a bit harsh with price and iblis who claims
1083:
Now, I resisted visiting your talk page before, but all positions come to be overturned in time, hope you do not mind me going on at length. It seems i often have trouble getting my points across, as we all do, and I can be snippy, and even off-the-wall from time to time. Pull me up , if that is the
1055:
for all useful discussion, on or off-wiki, I do that, you do that, FG and GTB do that etc. But it is only a starting point, we need focussed discussion, not meta-theorizing about "consensus" and such. Make an edit, if it is reverted, DO NOT repeat it, or come up with a sly change, you wont "get away
1016:
Fine, we understand each other, and I have no personal beef, other than having one post removed, and one other which should be removed, which is now a small thing, since there are half-a-dozen sections below that by now. I suggest you look at "No bicycles at the IAR page", that is the latest, and we
642:
I saw that you were present at the AfD for Flash Flash
Revolution. Well, when you were there, the site had 76k users, which now has grown to 1.4 million which does satisfy the guidelines for notability. (I'm on FFR too as irionman. I don't, however, recognize you. But I will over time) Anyways, what
611:
I assume that when they are made aware of a quality guideline through removal of material by experienced editors that they do their best to educate themselves about the quality guideline so they can make better edits in the future. Knowledge (XXG) is not free space for people to upload anything they
473:
May I ask how many regular editors are aware of this? With the exception of assuming bad faith in that the editors are not concerned with sources, you are assuming that over ignorance of the guideline. It helps no article to just wipe the content away - do that with EarthBound, and the content would
312:
I think the talk pages demonstrate the attempts at change. It's been happening like this for about a year now where dozens of people will try to improve the page, some in significant ways, some in insignificant ways, and get reverted. Sometimes this is after discussion happens, sometimes before. But
290:
When you get reverted on a policy page not everyone involved notices your attempt at change, the talk page makes a permanent record of such attempts and if such changes are re-proposed in the future such records will aid that attempt. Any edit that gets reverted and is not accompanied by a talk page
111:
to compile a list of diffs of the dozens of editors who have tried to improve the page, only to be reverted sometimes minutes later? Consensus means that the current version of the page is free of significant contention. I don't see how that could possibly be said about the current wording of IAR. -
110:
If the current policy had consensus we wouldn't have to resort to protection to prevent good-faith attempts to improve the page. This has happened, time and again, anytime anyone sees a way to improve it. To claim that every edit must be free of objections before being made is absurd. Do you need me
1091:
If you enjoy rabitting on, well sometimes, though not often so do i, so feel free to drop over to talk:newbyG if there is some relevant question I should clarify. In fact, if a comment is left on any talk page, I prefer if possible to make my reply by EDITING the article! (not always possible) and
1047:
Yeah, but no, i have never seen a "straw poll" that did any good. I reckon the best thing for this page would be some fresh eyes, although, I may regret saying that. (The AN/I thread does not appear to have got us much, though I concur up to a point with those who expressed approval of the "image",
430:
When does "Be bold" say that you can ignore consensus? In no universe is hiding the unsourced content going to do anything to cause people to source it, and I'm shocked that you think this is the right thing to do - make it difficult for the content TO be sourced. You have absolutely no interest in
286:
Well, considering that it has been that way for well over a year, and that anytime anyone boldly changes it, it goes back, and that there has never been a consensus to change it then I would say that it holds a strong consensus. It has longevity, stability, and has been more enduring than any other
1569:
Hmmm... OK. Although one could argue that a discussion forum that's been around for several years and is likely to be around for several more, and for which full archives are kept, can be reasonably considered to be as "notable" as, say, some local weekly "indie" rag, which might start up one year
1095:
Let me know if i talk too much, or if you want to hear more, there are a coulple of things I could still say. If you visit talk:NBG, check out my CIVILITY disclaimers, there are at least 3 of them. Now, I must let you get back to what you were doing, and, fingers crossed for the future of IAR when
1059:
I notice when I put up FeelFreeTOBe's contribution, that you improved it with a simple formatfix I had neglected. That is optimal editing. David's revert then was unfortunate for me, but I think his represent's the majority, current, or "consensus" view - no-one seems to want a series of dot-point
1030:
Cool. Yeah, if I learned anything from this time around it's that trying lots of different versions is perceived as edit-warring even if it's not a revert war. Actually, we joke about RfC, but I wonder if there's some way we can set up a straw poll of some kind to elicit outside opinions about the
566:
If that's what "people did", then people would wipe content away the very moment it appeared on the article without a source. No one added citation needed tags, and to insist that people would know that sources are required for articles is foolish, and you are most aware of that. The consensus did
535:
Debating this with me will do little good; if you wish to see current practices change I recommend you take it up at the
Village Pump. A link can be found at the "community portal" on the left navigation bar. In response to your claim about "sweeping it under the rug" - removing unsourced material
982:
as evidence of my case. But, I do not wish to entangle another user in it, so, drop it. I will. At talk/Iar, you are being accused, by me, at this stage, of being disruptive, and of edit-warring which caused one or more page protections. That is a matter for centralized discussion, at talk:Iar. I
450:
It usually isn't preferable, but when content stays up for years without getting sourced, it's fairly obvious that no one is interested in improving it. Furthermore, deleting unsourced content is necessary for creating a culture that is willing to source material - if it weren't for the fact that
340:
are making changes to the IARpolicypage, but you are the one, on your own, who introduces any old thing you can think up, which gets shot down time and again. No dozen people do anything like that, you are much mistaken. You have been doing it on-and-off for ten months at IAR, you ought to stop.
317:
question whether the current version holds consensus or not? And we can't use the argument "it's resisted attempts to change it for years" - that's circular logic." I agree that stability is a good indicator of consensus for most pages, but when a page is constantly being edited and reverted it
1096:
the protection lapses. My personal wish, at the moment, is for a name-change, unlikely, and a mini-essay to materialize from some user or other, though that has been promised for some time. I like the 12words, but am coming to the conclusion that expansion may be the best way to go.
1485:
Sorry for not responding, didn't realize that was a question. Up to you guys where you want it to redirect to; I'm not terribly interested in the article itself. It certainly can't stand on its own, but which notable article you want to merge the content into is up to you. -
567:
not say redirect. It said merge. Merge the content, tag it. Have you ever considered that editors of Mario (series) are not the same editors that edit the
Starman (Nintendo) article? They never had a chance to fix the unsourced content that was supposed to be merged there. -
252:
The burden of finding consensus is on those who wish to make a change, not those who wish to keep a version with long standing. Nobody steamrolled you, you just did not find consensus. Bold edits only work if they are not objected to, otherwise you will need agreement first.
1549:
Negative criticism is acceptable, assuming that it is notable (e.g. published in a magazine, journal, newspaper, etc. and not someone's personal website or discussion forum.) The link in question is a discussion forum, and external links to discussion forum commentary are
643:
I am trying to get at, I need some help requesting that the admins unblock the ability to create the page for it. I believe that with the new bands that have been added to it and the widgets that have been created, FFR is extremely notable. Please leave me a message on my
313:
they always get reverted. Usually the reverts happen because the edits don't bear consensus. This may be true, but I look at this and I'm compelled to ask "If we're going to use consensus as a reason to revert any good-faith attempt to improve the page, then isn't it an
287:
version. If I see a consensus to change it on the talk page I will accept such a change even if I disagree. I rarely even get a chance to explain my objection to edits because nobody ever asked on the talk page, they just got reverted in the night without me noticing.
581:
Respectfully speaking, I'm kind of tired of debating this with you. Your energy would be much better off finding reliable, third-party sources that assert the individual notability of the topic than fighting to maintain a low standard of quality for the project. -
362:
Merge =/= redirect. Consensus =/= redirect. I don't see how you can claim that the consensus is redirect, when it is merge, and you make literally no effort to perform the merge besides the removal of the content from the article and replacing it with a redirect.-
1632:
in a while. The article has been substantially changed (improved, I'd say). Have you looked at it recently? As the originator of the FAR, your comments about whether the changes in the current version have address your concerns would be appreciated. --
1077:
I like my talkpage to be minimal, that is, if you exclude the HUGE drama section where I am documenting the /Mantanmoreland arbcom case as a kind of public notice-board. And may I say, the drama is much more than i care for, but, I went into it, so...
1073:
There are plenty of ways forward. I do not usually go to User:talkpages, and i am rather busy with an Arbcom case at the moment. When I do go to
Usertalk pages, I often jump into a conversation between other users, including, hopefully, the page's
666:
are objective, not subjective. Do me a favor and try searching for stories on notable websites and newspapers/magazines about FFR. We then should source a new article and get it posted via DRV. This is the best route to recognition. -
386:) The old article, which looked like someone said "Hey, I'm going to go to Knowledge (XXG) and type in everything I know about this power-up, is inconsistent with our content guidelines. As such, a redirect is wholly appropriate. -
62:
How does moving from a page that doesn't hold consensus to a page that doesn't hold consensus defy consensus? I am curious. These are not black and white questions, and a version that doesn't hold consensus (yet) may not be
1001:
suggested, I'm in the middle of taking 24 hours off from that page, so I'll get around to checking it later tonight. I hope we can put this nasty business behind us. I really don't want to go to RfC over any of this. -
546:
I also conjecture that perhaps there are better things for you to do if you're interested in helping the encyclopedia as a whole than fighting to preserve an unsourced article on a powerup in a video game. We have
1139:
and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
596:
Maintain? Can you explain why citation needed tags exist and are used on most articles? The only standard I establish is that people be made aware of it. You can't assume they understand quality guidelines. -
415:
If you believe you can edit the article to the point where it satisfies
Knowledge (XXG) standards, go for it. There's a reason the policy is called "be bold" and not "wait for someone else to do something." -
401:
it many, many times, and no matter how many times they use it, the fact still remains that we have citation tags, and that deleting the unverified content at no point encourages users to verify the content. -
1197:) Consensus means that if numerous other individuals are telling you to stop making a particular type of edit and no one else is supporting it, you should probably stop doing it. Happy editing! : ) -
506:
How can we assume that they read that? At no point do we know that they were aware of this, so they and no one else has any chance at all. "Sweeping under the rug" argument still exists. -
1258:
deny the rejection, specially count iblis so if you are so kind to indicate me also where i can report vandalizing of talk page which has been already forbidden i wotn bother you anymore
1716:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any
809:. I'm glad to know I sorted most of the bits you had problems with, even though I didn't know exactly what I was going for. I'll be sure to apply the points from the review when moving
249:
says creating a discussion if you are reverted is helpful. It does not say, nor does any other essay guideline or policy say, that if someone reverts you they must start a discussion.
1128:
271:
It's a fair point, and probably stems from the fact that I haven't read BRD thoroughly in a few months. I still don't think the current version of IAR holds consensus. Cheers. -
1712:
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 "
736:
A good start, but you'll have to do better than that. Can you find very respected blogs with high readership that mention FFR? Magazines? Newspapers? Ideally we're looking for
1099:
I think WP:WIARM is fine exactly as it is, no merge candidate. See ya, please, no hard feelings, we are past it and need say no more, but speak freely and move forward. Best,
983:
apologise, I have there too, for anything you construed as a personal attack and which caused you genuine harm. I do not doubt your good faith, do not doubt mine, Goodbye.
1408:
1308:
It was nominated through an attack account, and the subsequent account has been blocked as such. My assumption that it was a sock was correct. Thats all the matters.
1705:
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 (XXG) (see
1701:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed.
1404:
85:
I reject the premise that the policy's current version lacks consensus, I dispute the assertion that it's okay to deliberately edit it in a manner that you
1193:- in other words, information contained in Knowledge (XXG) must be published in (not derived from) reliable third-party sources (and this doesn't include
1280:
The proper thing to do if you feel an administrator misused their powers is to take it up with them at their talk page. If this fails, you can post on
318:
deserves more attention to the question of whether the current version holds consensus, and a more probing answer than "It's always held consensus." -
36:
I have started a discussion on the question of if there was ever consensus for it to be more than an essay on the talk page. Your opinion is welcome.
1721:
1656:
Just letting you know I've been working on this article for the past few weeks and hope to get it back to FA status. Just wondering what you think?
909:
1132:
873:
1583:
1534:
1515:
Why did you delete the link to my (negative) review of his work? Is it now a
Knowledge (XXG) rule that only positive reviews can be linked?
507:
475:
437:
402:
364:
93:(which you cited on the policy's talk page) that involves following the initial "R" with another "R" to the "B" version without any "D." —
754:
Since your an admin on FFR, you need to pull for some advertisement. No other sites advertise FFR and hardly anything at all mentions it.
1752:
1265:
1223:
1170:
1284:
Note that I think that it's highly unlikely you'll find people (myself included) sympathetic to your position, and you might want to
1051:
Yes, an edit war might have nothing to do with 3RR, or repeated reverts, read
Dmcdevit's essay, if you have the time. And AGF is the
1048:
and some other edits.) The place for those edits is at /Workshop, at this time, they are being wholeheartedly rejected at IAR itself.
973:
168:
imply that there is a lack of support for the current version (even among those who believe that another version would be better). —
598:
568:
1063:
So, my (FFTB's) version was a legitimate attempt, which failed, but, who knows, it may get resurrected via /Workshop, or /Versions.
861:
950:
Both of you should take a break from the page. You're probably just both steamed up. (See also a longer answer on my talk page).
844:
1031:
page. But that's a discussion for there, not here. I'm just happy that (afaik) everyone's AGFing about one another again. : ) -
378:
The primary issue is that none of the content in the old article meets
Knowledge (XXG)'s inclusion guidelines (see especially
1613:
291:
discussion will have very little long term effect, whereas talk page discussions do hold a strong sway in future discussion.
1693:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a
1706:
835:
783:
616:
If you think there's a problem with community standards, you will accomplish nothing by complaining to me about it. -
154:
The fact that some editors believe that the page could be improved (and others disagree with suggested changes) does
1343:
1333:
1313:
297:
256:
37:
1745:
ABC reported that a source said the Secret Service was sent to Biden's home. All else is inference, they write!
1464:
1442:
52:
I don't want an edit war, but you're deliberately performing edits that you know defy consensus. Please stop. —
1551:
1587:
1538:
1238:
Thank you for your comments but I am not the Knowledge (XXG) complaints department. You might want to consider
876:. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page.
791:
759:
727:
705:
652:
644:
511:
479:
441:
406:
368:
614:
this is not the proper venue to debate whether Knowledge (XXG) is properly educating new editors about policy.
1756:
1689:
715:
1713:
1389:
1748:
1579:
1530:
1261:
1219:
1166:
848:
602:
572:
1269:
1227:
1174:
1104:
1022:
988:
937:
346:
1212:
ok i ve been told that 100 times im not stupid, but since i cant put or. i have never put my 'expert work
918:
I wonder if You, Evula, Keeper, and I are going to have to have a deathmatch.</dark, serious tone: -->
536:
from a page that's not being maintained does not sweep the problem under the rug; it solves the problem.
1732:
1411:. Consensus seemed to be that this material is not notable enough to support its own article. Cheers. -
1339:
1329:
1309:
958:
928:
488:
When you edit a page, there's a link below the edit box that explains that encyclopedic content must be
1136:
30:
1677:
1639:
1460:
1438:
229:
786:
and help me build this article. After it's built, I have an admin who will help from that point on.
548:
125:
899:
787:
755:
723:
701:
682:
648:
1698:
1611:
1559:
1491:
1434:
1416:
1374:
1364:
1317:
1293:
1247:
1202:
1036:
1007:
745:
672:
621:
587:
556:
497:
464:
421:
391:
323:
276:
206:
133:
116:
72:
17:
1185:
Whether you're an expert or not doesn't matter: Knowledge (XXG) operates on principles such as
689:
1100:
1018:
997:
Thanks, Newbyguesses. I apologize as well for any behavior you've perceived as disruptive. As
984:
847:. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Knowledge (XXG) takes
693:
457:
You way wish to ask if your personal opinions about the project are consistent with its goals.
342:
1702:
697:
1650:
1370:
but I can't seem to find the original AfD. Was it under a different article name? Thanks,
998:
954:
924:
881:
64:
1629:
1285:
1281:
1239:
1194:
1190:
719:
537:
456:
379:
246:
239:
90:
46:
1661:
1634:
866:
818:
225:
169:
94:
53:
1694:
737:
685:
164:," and I agree. A failure to reach consensus on how to go about improving the page does
1354:
1145:
806:
1186:
663:
489:
383:
1727:
1605:
1555:
1487:
1412:
1289:
1243:
1198:
1032:
1003:
895:
741:
668:
617:
583:
552:
493:
460:
417:
387:
319:
272:
202:
129:
112:
68:
1760:
1735:
1665:
1644:
1618:
1591:
1563:
1542:
1495:
1468:
1446:
1420:
1397:
1347:
1297:
1273:
1251:
1231:
1206:
1178:
1107:
1040:
1025:
1011:
991:
978:
Just to be clear, if I were to go to Rfc over this, I would certainly present this
962:
932:
902:
885:
822:
795:
763:
749:
731:
709:
676:
656:
625:
606:
591:
576:
560:
515:
501:
483:
468:
445:
425:
410:
395:
372:
349:
327:
306:
280:
265:
233:
210:
172:
137:
120:
97:
76:
56:
40:
128:
demonstrates the mentality I feel the IAR cops are carrying around these days. -
1525:
877:
158:
mean that the current version lacks consensus. You recently acknowledged that "
1338:
Misunderstood. I've added to my closing rationale. I'm grumpy after I wake up.
1657:
814:
810:
1430:
294:
It is in everyones best interest to document attempts at change. Peace.
898:
made me spit coffee (why is it always coffee?) all over. Good work! :)
912:. Note comments by Evula, Keeper and Me. *Do* read, it's worth it. :-D
1328:
to MfD. Whats the rationale that an attack MfD shouldn't be closed?
1060:
versions, they are after a mini-essay, and some are working on that.
851:
very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the
1092:
leaving a detailed edit-summary (when my speech center is on duty).
1066:
Now, I edited /Versions recently down to 15 entries, including the
1324:
My rationale still stands. I think its in bad faith to nominate a
1121:
89:
lacks consensus, and I'm utterly baffled by any interpretation of
435:
Now, give me one good reason why deleting unsourced content : -->
224:
Cheers! That was a nice edit IMO. Love that Zen story. Good one.
662:
I, too, believe that FFR is notable. However, Knowledge (XXG)'s
872:
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the
859:
of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a
831:
Image copyright problem with Image:Ignoreallrules-notebook.jpg
1676:
1120:
834:
1154:
Thanks for taking the time to chat to me. Lets be friends.
910:
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#More_RFBs_than_RFAs??
908:
Darn, you're the 4th person to be always right today. See:
193:
Conversely, the fact that few people object to the general
953:
If that doesn't work, we can always try a plan B. :-) --
979:
160:
384:
the fact that sources for information must be cited.
161:
IAR isn't broken, but has potential for improvement
1720:will be deleted after seven days, as described on
1671:Orphaned non-free image (Image:Office us cast.jpg)
1129:Oh wiki your so fine your so fine you blow my mind
1148:}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
8:
1242:if you seek to resolve a content dispute. -
197:of the page does not imply that the current
549:plenty of other work that needs to be done
1360:Hi Chardish. You tagged this article as
1084:case, or without doubt someone else will.
1429:I think this article should redirect to
245:Just wanted to point out that the essay
7:
1527:, if you prefer to reply directly)
1135:) has smiled at you! Smiles promote
1286:take a day off to calm your nerves.
1697:. However, the image is currently
740:from which to build an article. -
718:. This makes criteria number 3 at
336:Chardish, you keep on saying that
24:
845:Image:Ignoreallrules-notebook.jpg
1603:that you may have. Many thanks,
380:the rule about original research
1628:Hi - You haven't commented at
874:media copyright questions page
681:Okay. Get ready for the list.
542:a place for unsourced material
436:sourcing unsourced content. -
1:
1707:our policy for non-free media
1573:Thanks for replying, anyway,
1195:works you published yourself.
886:19:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
823:23:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
796:05:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
750:07:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
732:03:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
710:02:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
677:02:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
657:02:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
626:02:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
607:02:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
592:01:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
577:01:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
561:23:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
516:21:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
502:07:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
484:07:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1722:criteria for speedy deletion
1336:) 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
1144:Smile at others by adding {{
968:Plan (rf)C, or plan (D)ropit
469:23:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
446:23:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
426:21:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
411:18:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
396:17:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
373:09:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
328:16:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
307:16:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
281:16:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
266:15:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
234:02:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
211:15:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
173:08:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
138:07:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
121:06:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
98:04:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
77:02:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
57:02:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
41:18:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
1761:05:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
1303:
917:<dark, serious tone: -->
782:Now you can help me. Go to
1777:
1619:18:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
1592:17:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
1564:02:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
1543:01:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
1403:Deletion discussions were
1348:00:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
1318:23:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
1298:06:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
1282:the incidents noticeboard.
1274:06:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
1252:05:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
1232:05:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
1207:01:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
1179:01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
805:Thanks for your review of
764:17:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
1730:of receiving this notice?
1630:WP:FAR#Monty Hall problem
1496:15:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
1469:11:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
1447:21:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
1421:20:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
1398:20:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
1108:01:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
1041:23:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
1026:23:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
1012:23:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
992:22:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
963:00:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
933:00:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
903:08:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
350:22:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
1736:16:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
1690:Image:Office us cast.jpg
1666:09:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
1645:01:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
843:Thank you for uploading
683:Google hits = Notability
1741:That is misinformation!
839:Image Copyright problem
664:criteria for notability
1682:
1624:Monty Hall problem FAR
1125:
938:THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!
867:image description page
840:
716:Detailed Alexa Results
1687:Thanks for uploading
1680:
1598:AfD on Quest (gaming)
1124:
980:Protest being ignored
838:
694:Review at Neat O Rama
1240:Requests for comment
315:absolutely essential
67:. Think about it. -
1703:You may add it back
974:Iar discussion page
612:want. Furthermore,
544:, plain and simple.
538:Knowledge (XXG) is
201:holds consensus. -
1683:
1435:Active Enterprises
1337:
1126:
841:
698:Alexa page ranking
696:, and the big one
455:than three years?
18:User talk:Chardish
1763:
1751:comment added by
1731:
1695:claim of fair use
1643:
1594:
1582:comment added by
1545:
1533:comment added by
1323:
1304:IAR's MfD closure
1288:Happy editing. -
1276:
1264:comment added by
1234:
1222:comment added by
1181:
1169:comment added by
1158:hawkign radiation
1150:
1116:Hi there Chardish
941:
714:Forgot this one.
305:
264:
65:the wrong version
1768:
1746:
1725:
1714:my contributions
1685:
1651:Metal Gear Solid
1637:
1577:
1528:
1518:Please explain,
1393:
1386:
1379:
1373:
1369:
1363:
1340:SynergeticMaggot
1330:SynergeticMaggot
1310:SynergeticMaggot
1259:
1217:
1164:
1142:
999:User:Kim Bruning
935:
738:reliable sources
338:dozens of people
302:
295:
261:
254:
163:
1776:
1775:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1743:
1726:Do you want to
1674:
1673:
1654:
1626:
1616:
1600:
1584:207.180.145.253
1535:207.180.145.253
1510:
1461:Megata Sanshiro
1439:Megata Sanshiro
1396:
1391:
1380:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1361:
1358:
1306:
1160:
1152:
1118:
970:
948:
893:
833:
813:towards GA. --
803:
780:
640:
360:
304:
298:
263:
257:
243:
159:
50:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1774:
1772:
1742:
1739:
1672:
1669:
1653:
1648:
1625:
1622:
1614:
1599:
1596:
1567:
1566:
1552:to be avoided.
1509:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1424:
1423:
1388:
1357:
1355:The Cheetahmen
1352:
1351:
1350:
1305:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1255:
1254:
1210:
1209:
1159:
1156:
1141:
1119:
1117:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1075:
1071:
1064:
1061:
1057:
1053:starting point
1049:
1045:
1044:
1043:
969:
966:
947:
944:
943:
942:
920:
919:
914:
913:
900:Dreaded Walrus
892:
889:
832:
829:
827:
807:Sarah Kerrigan
802:
799:
779:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
768:
767:
766:
647:page. Thanks.
639:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
545:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
508:24.179.176.142
476:24.179.176.142
438:24.179.176.142
403:24.179.176.142
365:24.179.176.142
359:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
331:
330:
296:
284:
283:
255:
242:
237:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
182:
181:
180:
179:
178:
177:
176:
175:
145:
144:
143:
142:
141:
140:
123:
103:
102:
101:
100:
80:
79:
49:
44:
33:
28:
26:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1773:
1764:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1753:207.118.74.82
1750:
1740:
1738:
1737:
1734:
1729:
1724:. Thank you.
1723:
1719:
1715:
1710:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1691:
1684:
1679:
1670:
1668:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1652:
1649:
1647:
1646:
1641:
1636:
1631:
1623:
1621:
1620:
1617:
1612:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1597:
1595:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1574:
1571:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1553:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1532:
1526:
1522:
1519:
1516:
1513:
1507:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1395:
1394:
1387:
1385:
1384:
1378:
1366:
1356:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1214:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1187:verifiability
1184:
1183:
1182:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1157:
1155:
1151:
1149:
1147:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1123:
1115:
1109:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1076:
1072:
1069:
1065:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1024:
1020:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1000:
996:
995:
994:
993:
990:
986:
981:
976:
975:
967:
965:
964:
960:
956:
951:
945:
940:
939:
934:
930:
926:
922:
921:
916:
915:
911:
907:
906:
905:
904:
901:
897:
890:
888:
887:
883:
879:
875:
870:
868:
864:
863:
862:copyright tag
858:
854:
850:
846:
837:
830:
828:
825:
824:
820:
816:
812:
808:
800:
798:
797:
793:
789:
785:
777:
765:
761:
757:
753:
752:
751:
747:
743:
739:
735:
734:
733:
729:
725:
721:
717:
713:
712:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
684:
680:
679:
678:
674:
670:
665:
661:
660:
659:
658:
654:
650:
646:
637:
627:
623:
619:
615:
610:
609:
608:
604:
600:
595:
594:
593:
589:
585:
580:
579:
578:
574:
570:
565:
564:
563:
562:
558:
554:
550:
543:
541:
517:
513:
509:
505:
504:
503:
499:
495:
491:
487:
486:
485:
481:
477:
472:
471:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
449:
448:
447:
443:
439:
434:
429:
428:
427:
423:
419:
414:
413:
412:
408:
404:
399:
398:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
376:
375:
374:
370:
366:
357:
351:
348:
344:
339:
335:
334:
333:
332:
329:
325:
321:
316:
311:
310:
309:
308:
303:
301:
292:
288:
282:
278:
274:
270:
269:
268:
267:
262:
260:
250:
248:
241:
238:
236:
235:
231:
227:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
191:
190:
189:
188:
187:
186:
185:
184:
183:
174:
171:
167:
162:
157:
153:
152:
151:
150:
149:
148:
147:
146:
139:
135:
131:
127:
124:
122:
118:
114:
109:
108:
107:
106:
105:
104:
99:
96:
92:
88:
84:
83:
82:
81:
78:
74:
70:
66:
61:
60:
59:
58:
55:
48:
45:
43:
42:
39:
32:
29:
27:
19:
1744:
1717:
1711:
1688:
1686:
1675:
1655:
1627:
1606:
1604:
1601:
1575:
1572:
1568:
1523:
1520:
1517:
1514:
1511:
1508:William Baer
1433:rather than
1390:
1382:
1381:
1376:
1359:
1325:
1307:
1266:76.89.246.73
1256:
1224:76.89.246.73
1213:
1211:
1171:76.89.246.73
1161:
1153:
1143:
1127:
1101:Newbyguesses
1067:
1052:
1019:Newbyguesses
985:Newbyguesses
977:
971:
952:
949:
936:
894:
891:Endorsements
871:
860:
856:
852:
842:
826:
804:
781:
641:
613:
539:
534:
452:
432:
361:
343:Newbyguesses
337:
314:
299:
293:
289:
285:
258:
251:
244:
223:
198:
194:
165:
155:
86:
51:
35:
25:
1747:—Preceding
1578:—Preceding
1529:—Preceding
1260:—Preceding
1218:—Preceding
1165:—Preceding
1146:subst:Smile
1056:with" that.
955:Kim Bruning
925:Kim Bruning
599:96.2.27.142
569:96.2.27.142
1635:Rick Block
946:Stay cool!
811:Jim Raynor
778:Here We Go
686:Meta Filer
490:verifiable
358:Consensus?
226:Tparameter
170:David Levy
126:This image
95:David Levy
54:David Levy
1431:Action 52
1365:db-repost
1191:consensus
1074:operator.
849:copyright
801:GA review
700:. Enjoy.
1749:unsigned
1718:articles
1699:orphaned
1607:Gazimoff
1580:unsigned
1556:Chardish
1531:unsigned
1488:Chardish
1413:Chardish
1383:spinster
1290:Chardish
1262:unsigned
1244:Chardish
1220:unsigned
1199:Chardish
1167:unsigned
1137:WikiLove
1033:Chardish
1004:Chardish
855:and the
742:Chardish
669:Chardish
618:Chardish
584:Chardish
553:Chardish
494:Chardish
461:Chardish
418:Chardish
388:Chardish
320:Chardish
300:(1 == 2)
273:Chardish
259:(1 == 2)
203:Chardish
130:Chardish
113:Chardish
69:Chardish
1728:opt out
865:to the
853:license
788:Undeath
784:my page
756:Undeath
724:Undeath
702:Undeath
690:Mac.com
649:Undeath
199:wording
1326:policy
878:STBotI
857:source
720:WP:WEB
247:WP:BRD
240:WP:BRD
195:spirit
91:WP:BRD
47:WP:IAR
38:1Â != 2
31:WT:UCS
1377:disco
815:Sabre
433:ever.
16:<
1757:talk
1662:talk
1640:talk
1615:Read
1588:talk
1576:S.
1560:talk
1539:talk
1512:Hi,
1492:talk
1465:talk
1459:No?
1443:talk
1417:talk
1409:here
1407:and
1405:here
1392:talk
1344:talk
1334:talk
1314:talk
1294:talk
1270:talk
1248:talk
1228:talk
1203:talk
1189:and
1175:talk
1133:talk
1105:Talk
1068:koan
1037:talk
1023:Talk
1008:talk
989:Talk
959:talk
929:talk
896:This
882:talk
819:talk
792:talk
760:talk
746:talk
728:talk
706:talk
673:talk
653:talk
645:talk
622:talk
603:talk
588:talk
573:talk
557:talk
551:. -
512:talk
498:talk
480:talk
465:talk
453:More
442:talk
422:talk
407:talk
392:talk
382:and
369:talk
347:Talk
324:talk
277:talk
230:talk
207:talk
134:talk
117:talk
87:know
73:talk
1709:).
1658:Buc
1521:S.
1372:...
972:At
638:FFR
540:not
166:not
156:not
1759:)
1664:)
1590:)
1562:)
1554:-
1541:)
1494:)
1467:)
1445:)
1437:.
1419:)
1368:}}
1362:{{
1346:)
1316:)
1296:)
1272:)
1250:)
1230:)
1205:)
1177:)
1103:-
1039:)
1021:-
1010:)
987:-
961:)
931:)
923:--
884:)
869:.
821:)
794:)
762:)
748:)
730:)
722:.
708:)
692:,
688:,
675:)
655:)
624:)
605:)
590:)
575:)
559:)
514:)
500:)
482:)
467:)
459:-
444:)
424:)
409:)
394:)
371:)
345:-
326:)
279:)
232:)
209:)
136:)
119:)
75:)
1755:(
1733:β
1681:âš
1660:(
1642:)
1638:(
1586:(
1558:(
1537:(
1524:(
1490:(
1463:(
1441:(
1415:(
1342:(
1332:(
1312:(
1292:(
1268:(
1246:(
1226:(
1201:(
1173:(
1131:(
1035:(
1006:(
957:(
927:(
880:(
817:(
790:(
758:(
744:(
726:(
704:(
671:(
651:(
620:(
601:(
586:(
571:(
555:(
510:(
496:(
478:(
463:(
440:(
420:(
405:(
390:(
367:(
322:(
275:(
228:(
205:(
132:(
115:(
71:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
