452:
written or controlled by them in any way. I myself am an avid player of the game and am in no way affiliated with DSE. The only person who works for DSE that has commented on this article is
Aurelius. The biggest issue here seems to be one of notability. If you should do a search on "MMORTS" you will find very little out there in the way of information or notable sources. The reason being is that the MMORTS genre is very new and the only games which currently occupy it are independently developed games that are not very well known. Aurelius made the valid point that in order to get a review from any major "notable" source such as GameSpot, PC Gamer, etc one must pay exorbitant fees for advertising. This is something that is not easily accomplished by an independent developer in this market. The simple fact that Beyond Protocol EXISTS should be notable (In this persons opinion) due to the unique nature of it's position within the video game universe. Again, I believe despite the lack of reviews from the big guys there is ample evidence that Beyond Protocol is worthy of mention in Knowledge (XXG).
657:. This is not something created by the developers of the game or players but something that is done by GameSpot itself. I believe everyone here would agree that GameSpot is a reliable source for video games. As such I believe that the landing page alone should be considered a notable source. It may not be a traditional review or article per se but it is an unbiased statement of fact from a reliable 3rd party source. My point is that even though GameSpot does not have anyone reviewing the game, they still acknowledge the games existence and importance by establishing a section of their website devoted to the game.
807:"Content is not necessarily reviewed by Beckett prior to posting and does not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of Beckett. Beckett makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the Content or as to the accuracy and reliability of the Content or any material or information that a Member transmits to other Members. If at any time Beckett chooses, in its sole discretion, to monitor the Services, Beckett assumes no responsibility for the Content, no obligation to modify or remove any inappropriate Content, and no responsibility for the conduct of the Member submitting any such Content."
1133:, MMORTs that has had wiki articles up for extended periods of time yet they are well below wiki standards. Again this article has barely been up for a month yet it already gets put up for deletion by Wyatt WHILE new users are diligently trying to improve it. Wyatt only continually deletes references and cites the vague WP guidelines with little input on how it can be improved. This article needs clean up and should not have been put up for deletion so prematurely, especially with the new users trying to contribute to this article. Under
574:, yes, again, AureliusBP is the only person directly involved in DSE who has commented on this article. Even so, he did not edit the page itself in any way. Most of the rest of us are just players (the remainder are just wikipedia users). If anyone wants to make the point that those who have played the game can not be impartial editors/writers of an article, then that disqualifies anyone with first hand knowledge of anything for any article.
991:: I agree the only issues here are notability and verifiability. The incgamers interview is just that, and not third-party information, it is more akin to a press release. The brighthub article is a brief review of the beta test. The Softpedia article seems more like a valid third-party reference to establish notability--is there a precedence for accepting Softpedia as a source?
1125:- What I'm seeing here is one user unprecendently going after one article out of spite. If you look at the other games of this similar MMORTS genre (which were made evident to wyatt already), the user has not been critical of them. Their wiki articles have existed much longer than this one, yet this one is already nominated for deletion after only a few weeks. Take a look at
653:
out that a "review" is not necessarily the only thing that these websites can do to verify the legitimacy of a game. For example, GameSpot has a landing page for most games regardless of whether there is a review. This page displays detailed information on a game regarding the release date, screenshots, news, patches, etc. Beyond
Protocol has one such page on GameSpot
1267:
work it needs). As for the other articles being dealt with in due time… have you considered how long they have been up and haven’t been touched? Please take a look. I don’t see how this nomination for deletion can be justified in all honesty, especially when it is still quite active with new users asking how to make it better. Shouldn’t “seasoned” users be helping
883:
line or two describing the game but no real information about the game itself. Recreating the page under a different title is extremely troublesome and appears to be an attempt to sneak in through a side door after being refused admittance through the front dooor. I would suggest that an article be created and then placed under the proper, now-protected name
249:
anything about Beyond
Protocol, you will know that our "credits" list is quite limited and I can state that I am the only person who could even begin to have a conflict of interest. You will find that I only post in the discussion as it is a direct relationship of our trademarked, intellectual property of which I give permission to use on Knowledge (XXG).
1143:
mediator, you should be working towards a consensus that the two sides can agree to and not making a judgment that will make your mediation bias in nature. As you have already made a decision, I do not see how you can say you can still mediate as you should have a neutral perspective with an opinion and not a position statement. --
1227:- external links are just about satisfactory (other articles have been kept on less...) but I propose rewriting the article from scratch. (The first two sections are "Solving the technology issue" and "Strategy and Offline Issues"? Gggaaaaah. How about we start with a nice basic "History", "Gameplay", "Critical reception"?)
1399:
though. In my defense I've stated exactly my opinion from what I was able to gather from all the post here. But I do understand and will retract that part of the statement but the rest does address the article from my perspective. This article does not have an abundant amount of solid resources but
1280:
at the least as I don’t see how this can be justified for deletion with the time span it has been up, the effort and willingness of new users, and what seems like a bullying of the article. I am willing to give contributions myself to make these MMORTS articles better but it seems like a very hostile
882:
was speedy deleted four times and salted, what has changed? Are there new third-party sources of sufficient quality to confirm notability? I don't see them. I don't believe that the GameSpy page alone is sufficient in quality or quantity of information, basically providing a few screen shots and a
248:
As for COI issues, I can state that I am the ONLY person associated with Beyond
Protocol on this topic. I watch all sites for any content pertaining to our intellectual assets. I can attest that there are a number of subscribing players that have put the wikipedia entry together. If you understand
1048:
Game software is not my area of expertise but I would tend to go with
Softpedia being reliable for the reasons MuZemike gives. The article is brief but it is beyond a trivial mention and discusses some of the structure of the game, although still the beta version, along with some of the changes. I
310:
you paying for advertisements. (I swear I read the opposite before, and I do apologize for my mistake.) I also regret the insinuation that there were other employees of DSE working on the page. I probably got that impression from the passionate replies on the Talk page, but that can be chalked up to
198:
This is the executive producer. GameSpy was one of the edits that did not require advertising purchases. It is valid. Along with GrrlGamer.com and many others. The real issue here is defining a notable editor. Notable is defined as recognized to be a disinterested 3rd party. Well, then if that
1266:
Beyond
Protocol article has actual references and has several active users that are working on it. When compared to no references whatsoever and the complete lack of effort and activity of Saga and Mankind wikipedias, this Beyond Protocol article at least deserves a passing grade (however much more
1052:
So in the end I still think the
Knowledge (XXG) article is premature and that sufficient reliable third-party resources just aren't available on the final product. A Softpedia article on the final release would have more weight as would other reliable independent resources. The pay-for-play model
652:
a reliable source would be based upon "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.". The way this seems to be taken, at least for video games, is in the format of a review from a reliable source such as GameSpot, IGN, GameSpy, etc. I would like to point
1142:
went live in
November and was a beta version before then. Due to this, it has been deleted several times during beta but now users are trying hard to mold this article into shape since it went live with as much coverage as this infantile genre receives. As for Raziel, if you are requesting to be a
891:. The current article could be copied to the user space to preserve it until that time. I am sympathetic to the people involved but the subject of an article must be notable and well-documented. Too much of the current article is unreferenced simply because quality references are not available.
1137:
guidelines of not biting the newcomers, Wyatt should be helping to contribute to this article and is acting unfairly but putting it up for deletion. Due to this, I cannot see how one can assume good faith with Wyatt and it seems that others agree. Give the article a chance, I would also like to
451:
This article was NOT written by anyone with a conflict of interest. The article was written by the PLAYERS of the game. Aurelius has made comments in the discussion page to support the article but nothing more. This is entirely a player driven project that has the support of DSE but is not being
976:
is concerned. I think it barely skimps past the notability requirements – multiple reliable, independent sources, and a couple of them provide some decent coverage of the game. Needs some major cleanup, however, to maintain a neutral encyclopedic tone. The behavioral conduct should be left as a
489:
quoting: "the MMORTS genre is very new and the only games which currently occupy it are independently developed games that are not very well known." That's a strong deletion argument you know. No one should object that after sufficient time has passed (days, weeks, years... who knows?) that it
1275:
Also, WP guidelines in my opinion are vague and open to interpretation is it not? What meets the standards of others does not apply for someone else. That is why there is discussion in the first place. I believe all other avenues should have been completely exhausted before even considering
610:. A lack of references does not always equal a lack of sources. The size of the player or fan base does not determine notability; uniqueness is a better measure. A suspicion that the content of an article is biased calls only for someone to rewrite it, not to delete the whole article. —
1034:
My reasoning is that if
Softpedia is universally considered a reliable source (it seems like they have editing departments, editorial oversight, etc., but that's only from a quick spot check), I would think it would be OK. I wasn't aware of the model of writing they use at Bright Hub.
1053:
of some of the potential sources does mean that they are not independent/third-party. I'm going to leave my opinion as "delete" and if further sources become available or are brought to light in this discussion that might change my opinion then I can be notified on my talk page.
854:
a review; it's a preview written last year. The fact that it has since generated no new content on that site I would actually call an assertion of non-notability. This also isn't the first time apparent users of the site came to support a
Knowledge (XXG) article on the game.
1049:
guess it would be like discussing a book that had been sent out for review in galley, discussing the chapter structure and basic plot along with some of the changes the author had made since the last draft. I am still concerned that it discussed a beta version.
385:. I reread the user's talk page comments, and I'm not convinced that they clearly say that these articles were published because of advertising money- nor am I convinced that this would render the sources no longer usable for demonstrating notability. There
562:'s comment about the GameSpy article being suspect based on one editor's remark calls any article into question. I admit that this game may not be as notable as, say an EA published game (yet), however, in terms of its genre, it is a milestone. In contest to
1250:--- Hello, I'm an avid MMORTS player (mainly played Ballerium, Saga, and Beyond Protocol), really wanted to contribute to these articles as my first try at editing but I feel the need as a newcomer to give my input instead due to the current situation.
1180:
assume good faith. Wyatt routinely makes good edits to VG articles and I assure you he has no grudge against genres of games. Online games tend to fall under heavy scrutiny because there's so many of them of no particular note.
1102:, "Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits", some notable ones have few or none". It's really not a great method for determining whether to keep or delete.
311:
their caring about the game. (Something I understand, believe me.) As for the definition of a reliable source, that is quasi-vague because it's always up to the Knowledge (XXG) community, which is why I always refer users to
718:. I haven't been able to find any reviews or coverage of this game from any reliable sources outside of the GameSpy review, which is not enough to build an article around. It should be deleted until it gets more coverage. -
1211:. While seasoned editors should take caution in not being mean to newcomers, the same editors can also become stifled when that abbreviation is used, especially when there are tens of thousands of other wikis out there.
761:
804:
article. The IGN reference is only a landing page which doesn't count as independent coverage. Beckett.com has no indication of their editorial policies, they do however explicitely disclaim any editorial oversight:
145:
that the game only gets reviews when they pay for advertisements. While it appears he intended this as an indictment on the game industry, it also serves to question the integrity of any reviews, reliable source or
401:
notable, but I'm not feeling that I can make a clear call for deletion, either. Other wise editors better-schooled in the ways of such games may disagree with me, and could even persuade me to change my mind.
850:. The sources have been pretty exhaustively explored above and on the talk page, and I agree that the only remotely good one appears to be from GameSpy. However, I should note that the GameSpy article is
1350:. Keep voters ought to really focus on this article's merits rather than attacking the nominator or trying to point out that other articles are in a worse shape. As for gaming the system, recreating a
913:
rationale, came out after all four deletions and salting. In this case, if the sources like the ones I mentioned were used when this article was recreated, I would not consider said recreation
199:
is the case, we have plenty of those. If you require our company to purchase ads from Gamespot, PC Gamer, etc for notable edits, then you have completely no idea how the game industry works.
356:
no reliable, independent sources that discuss this in any non-trivial way? No encyclopedia article. Dead simple (don't care who wrote the article or who didn't write the article; it's not
695:
The game has a review at GameSpy, and is mentioned on several other notable gaming websites as well (IGN, GameSpot, ect). I think the article should be improved, rather than deleted. -
202:
If you can correctly identify a RELIABLE SOURCE without hiding behind the general definition of the wikipedia guidelines, we can see what we can do. In other words, be specific.
929:
was set up to address stuff like this. Someone should have put up a request there to unsalt and allow recreation of the article, citing the presence of new sources. However, I'll
1391:
I should not attack the nominator. Im merely pointing out a guideline from the same pool of guidelines that everyone is referencing correct? Its enlightening on the points of
120:
964:; I'm not sure if the site itself is reliable, but the credentials of the person doing the review gives it a good sense of reliability. We also have something from Softpedia
87:
82:
91:
74:
179:
1009:
141:
Even that is suspect because an editor identifying himself as Executive Producer of Dark Sky Entertainment (the game's developer/publisher) stated on
1374:. I kindly suggest addressing this issue rather than pointing at other poor articles or continuing with the ad hominem against the nominator.
631:
here on Knowledge (XXG). Without them, there should be no article, no matter how wildly popular or innovative or significant the subject is.
393:, but the correct response to that would be a neutral rewrite, and for the people who work for Dark Sky to stop editing the article. There
1207:
are not vague; these are two common and important ways to gauge whether or not an topic or subject can stand as its own article. Finally,
1005:
397:
one of those editors who has behaved badly and been blocked, but that's outside the scope of this discussion. I don't think this game is
319:
qualified to be used as references. I say "generally" because you'll always find sources which are notably for their sheer unreliability (
679:
474:
1307:
1169:
683:
600:
478:
288:
241:
1252:
I think I can see why some new users are questioning the integrity of the nominator when comparing the same genre wikipedia articles (
17:
596:
412:
284:
265:
237:
218:
1422:
1413:
1383:
1334:
1290:
1236:
1215:
1190:
1152:
1111:
1099:
1085:
1062:
1039:
1029:
1000:
981:
965:
937:
900:
868:
834:
784:
768:
748:
729:
706:
666:
640:
618:
583:
546:
519:
461:
443:
417:
373:
346:
269:
222:
191:
168:
56:
1303:
434:
specifically calls for multiple reliable sources, and we don't have that here. Of course, that's just reiterating my $ 0.02.
1165:
724:
701:
541:
1325:
1196:
1195:
I agree with Marasmusine. The onus is on you to assume good faith, even if you don't agree with the nominator. Also note
1443:
299:
142:
78:
36:
654:
623:
You're right, a lack of references doesn't mean there aren't any out there. But since Knowledge (XXG) is based on
70:
62:
1442:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
719:
696:
536:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1134:
1404:
as one solid verifiable source is enough for this article to at least exist and urge continuous improvement.
675:
662:
515:
470:
457:
369:
1392:
1343:
253:
206:
813:). Other sources cited, including Ten Ton Hammer, are not considered as valid sources under the scope of
1232:
1186:
864:
671:
658:
592:
579:
466:
453:
408:
321:
1355:
1107:
1058:
1025:
996:
896:
884:
879:
856:
636:
528:
510:
notable; in fact, using it in that way runs counter to what the encyclopedia is supposed to be about.
439:
342:
280:
276:
261:
257:
233:
229:
214:
210:
164:
1396:
1347:
954:
503:
1405:
1295:
1282:
1157:
1144:
933:
that the creator did not know how to do that; after all, it was never deleted via AFD previously.
757:
1419:
1409:
1331:
1299:
1286:
1212:
1091:
1036:
978:
934:
781:
765:
744:
511:
365:
1017:
1013:
958:
817:. I'm also extremely shocked by the pattern of abusive behaviour and the multiple violations of
1161:
1148:
498:
we might have a topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. But if there are no reliable sources
430:
doesn't, though, because it's only an interview and it's not used as a source in the article.
187:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1351:
1315:
961:
814:
801:
777:
315:. The general consensus I've seen is that if there's an article on the source, then they are
1379:
1228:
1182:
860:
830:
588:
575:
567:
403:
333:
1359:
1321:
1208:
953:– We got the Gamespy article as mentioned above. There is also an interview from IncGamers
930:
926:
922:
918:
822:
818:
571:
532:
390:
152:
1103:
1081:
1054:
1021:
992:
892:
632:
615:
563:
559:
435:
338:
160:
1371:
969:
914:
843:
793:
627:, we need those references in order to have the article. Having reliable sources is an
427:
1367:
1204:
1200:
973:
847:
797:
649:
624:
431:
382:
361:
357:
312:
132:
128:
810:
740:
558:
at least one reliable source, so the point that there are NO articles needs to stop.
381:. The articles at GameSpy and Ten Ton Hammer seem to me to just squeak in under the
1261:
1139:
1098:
shows 663,000, but it's still not notable and has been deleted multiple times. Per
183:
50:
1270:
1264:). If you look closely, not only is there a huge time gap difference between them,
108:
1375:
909:
With all due respect, the sources, at least the ones I came up with in my below
826:
506:
might be a good one for you to read. Knowledge (XXG) is not here to help things
1077:
611:
135:: non-notable video game with a single article/review in a reliable source (
1253:
1126:
1269:
instead of constantly deleting with little input (seems like Wyattriot is
762:
Knowledge (XXG):Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04/Beyond Protocol (video game)
325:
comes to mind). If you're looking for specifics, I'd throw out names like
327:
1281:
environment right now from a community that should be more welcoming. --
1130:
760:
has been requested by the users heavily involved with this article. See
423:
303:
136:
1400:
the one solid Gamespy article and minor references. I'd still urge
1354:
under a slightly different name to avoid the permanent protection on
1257:
159:
one of the editors appear to be connected to the game in some way.
1095:
968:. There are other entries out there, but I wouldn't consider them
1436:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1358:
would be a fair case of pot calling kettle black if we weren't
1008:
hasn't given Softpedia a positive or negative mention on their
1199:. Other articles will be taken care of in due time. Also, the
298:
I have redacted some of my comments. I read your comments on
1314:
I'll repeat exactly what I had said above (and I note the
887:
by an administrator who is aware of the deletion history
531:
threatened Wyatt Riot with legal action really smacks of
1324:, even if you don't agree with the nominator. Also note
115:
104:
100:
96:
825:
across several talk pages by some of the keep voters.
302:
again and noticed that you specifically mentioned the
1012:, but it's a pretty trivial mention in any case. The
957:
talking about the game. There is also a review from
859:
was speedy deleted four times and salted last year.
1328:. Other articles will be taken care of in due time.
1094:" shows 1,600,000 hits and its common abbreviation
527:I don't know about you, but I think that the fact
1330:Please refrain from taking pot-shots at the nom.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1446:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1276:nominating for deletion. In conclusion, I vote
180:list of video game related deletion discussions
842:as lacking sufficient non-trivial coverage in
8:
1016:link is also questionable considering their
889:when there are reliable references available
1316:similarity in the two previous keep !votes
917:. Furthermore, all the deletions were per
426:article definitely qualifies for me. The
364:by our standards no matter who wrote it.)
739:Noteability is adequately demonstrated.
178:: This debate has been included in the
925:. In either case, this is exactly why
1418:Thank you. That is very appreciated.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
815:Wikiproject VideoGames's source list
1362:. Last but not least, the policies
1273:when you take a look at the logs).
1100:Knowledge (XXG):Search engine test
24:
300:Talk:Beyond Protocol (video game)
143:Talk:Beyond Protocol (video game)
778:conflict of interest noticeboard
494:become well-known and notable,
1:
1372:independent reliable sources
977:separate issue to work out.
391:conflict of interest problem
71:Beyond Protocol (video game)
63:Beyond Protocol (video game)
1463:
1423:00:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
1414:00:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
1384:23:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
1335:22:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
1291:21:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
1237:13:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
1216:17:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
1191:13:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
1153:04:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
1112:19:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
1086:04:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
1063:16:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
1040:15:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
1030:02:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
1001:02:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
982:00:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
938:15:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
901:16:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
869:08:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
835:07:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
785:07:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
769:06:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
749:23:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
730:03:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
707:19:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
667:16:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
641:03:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
619:23:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
584:23:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
547:17:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
520:23:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
462:22:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
444:03:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
418:22:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
374:21:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
347:03:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
270:21:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
223:21:04, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
192:23:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
169:19:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
57:07:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
792:. Not enough independent
1439:Please do not modify it.
1209:don't abbreviate as Wiki
625:verifiability, not truth
337:or something like that.
32:Please do not modify it.
1366:binding, in particular
1006:WikiProject Video games
776:– also reported to the
1320:The onus is on you to
1076:yields 81,000 hits. --
1074:"beyond protocol" game
1308:few or no other edits
1170:few or no other edits
684:few or no other edits
601:few or no other edits
479:few or no other edits
322:The National Enquirer
306:review was published
289:few or no other edits
242:few or no other edits
1310:outside this topic.
1201:verifiability policy
1172:outside this topic.
1072:A Google search for
714:Changing my vote to
686:outside this topic.
603:outside this topic.
481:outside this topic.
291:outside this topic.
244:outside this topic.
1360:assuming good faith
1342:This boils down to
1205:notability guideine
1326:other stuff exists
1197:other stuff exists
915:disruptive editing
758:Informal mediation
629:inclusion criteria
570:'s concerns about
44:The result was
1322:assume good faith
1311:
1271:gaming the system
1173:
931:assume good faith
687:
648:According to the
604:
502:then no article.
482:
292:
273:
256:comment added by
245:
226:
209:comment added by
194:
1454:
1441:
1293:
1155:
844:reliable sources
811:Terms of Service
794:reliable sources
727:
722:
704:
699:
669:
586:
568:User:FisherQueen
544:
539:
464:
416:
274:
272:
250:
227:
225:
203:
174:
157:at least several
155:issues here, as
118:
112:
94:
53:
34:
1462:
1461:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1444:deletion review
1437:
1356:Beyond Protocol
1262:Beyond Protocol
1140:Beyond Protocol
1138:point out that
970:reliable enough
927:deletion review
885:Beyond Protocol
880:Beyond Protocol
857:Beyond Protocol
846:to demonstrate
725:
720:
702:
697:
564:User:Wyatt Riot
560:User:Wyatt Riot
542:
537:
529:user:AureliusBP
406:
251:
204:
148:There are also
114:
85:
69:
66:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1460:
1458:
1449:
1448:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1337:
1240:
1239:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1066:
1065:
1050:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1018:business model
985:
984:
943:
942:
941:
940:
904:
903:
872:
871:
837:
787:
771:
751:
733:
732:
711:
710:
646:
645:
644:
643:
605:
549:
522:
449:
448:
447:
446:
428:Ten Ton Hammer
383:notability bar
376:
351:
350:
349:
196:
195:
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1459:
1447:
1445:
1440:
1434:
1433:
1424:
1421:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1398:
1394:
1393:WP:OTHERSTUFF
1390:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1368:verifiability
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1344:WP:OTHERSTUFF
1341:
1338:
1336:
1333:
1329:
1327:
1323:
1317:
1313:
1312:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1279:
1274:
1272:
1265:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1249:
1245:
1242:
1241:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1223:
1217:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1179:
1176:Well, please
1175:
1174:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1141:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1068:
1067:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1051:
1047:
1041:
1038:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1004:
1003:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
987:
986:
983:
980:
975:
974:verifiability
971:
967:
963:
960:
956:
952:
948:
945:
944:
939:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
916:
912:
908:
907:
906:
905:
902:
898:
894:
890:
886:
881:
877:
874:
873:
870:
866:
862:
858:
853:
849:
845:
841:
838:
836:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
808:
803:
799:
796:to support a
795:
791:
788:
786:
783:
779:
775:
772:
770:
767:
763:
759:
755:
752:
750:
746:
742:
738:
735:
734:
731:
728:
723:
717:
713:
712:
709:
708:
705:
700:
694:
690:
689:
688:
685:
681:
677:
673:
672:CoreyDavis787
668:
664:
660:
659:CoreyDavis787
656:
651:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
621:
620:
617:
613:
609:
606:
602:
598:
594:
590:
585:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
550:
548:
545:
540:
534:
530:
526:
523:
521:
517:
513:
512:Bali ultimate
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
488:
485:
484:
483:
480:
476:
472:
468:
467:CoreyDavis787
463:
459:
455:
454:CoreyDavis787
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
420:
419:
414:
410:
405:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
377:
375:
371:
367:
366:Bali ultimate
363:
359:
355:
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
335:
330:
329:
324:
323:
318:
314:
309:
305:
301:
297:
296:
295:
294:
293:
290:
286:
282:
278:
271:
267:
263:
259:
255:
246:
243:
239:
235:
231:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
200:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
172:
171:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
151:
147:
144:
138:
134:
130:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1438:
1435:
1401:
1388:
1363:
1339:
1319:
1277:
1268:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1224:
1177:
1122:
1118:
1073:
1069:
1010:sources list
988:
950:
946:
910:
888:
875:
851:
839:
809:(from their
806:
789:
773:
753:
736:
715:
692:
691:
647:
628:
607:
555:
551:
524:
507:
499:
495:
491:
486:
450:
398:
394:
386:
378:
353:
332:
326:
320:
316:
307:
247:
201:
197:
175:
156:
149:
140:
126:
49:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1352:salted page
1306:) has made
1229:Marasmusine
1183:Marasmusine
1168:) has made
1135:WP:Newcomer
1092:Fly For Fun
861:Someguy1221
682:) has made
599:) has made
589:ZyXHavocXyz
576:ZyXHavocXyz
477:) has made
404:FisherQueen
287:) has made
252:—Preceding
240:) has made
205:—Preceding
1397:WP:ILIKEIT
1348:WP:ILIKEIT
1104:Wyatt Riot
1055:Drawn Some
1022:Wyatt Riot
1014:Bright Hub
993:Drawn Some
972:as far as
959:Bright Hub
893:Drawn Some
848:notability
798:verifiable
633:Wyatt Riot
504:WP:CRYSTAL
436:Wyatt Riot
389:a serious
362:verifiable
339:Wyatt Riot
277:AureliusBP
258:AureliusBP
230:AureliusBP
211:AureliusBP
161:Wyatt Riot
1225:Weak keep
923:WP:CSD#A3
919:WP:CSD#A7
693:Weak Keep
379:Weak keep
317:generally
1420:MuZemike
1406:Kheldara
1370:through
1332:MuZemike
1304:contribs
1296:Kheldara
1283:Kheldara
1213:MuZemike
1166:contribs
1123:clean up
1037:MuZemike
979:MuZemike
935:MuZemike
782:MuZemike
766:MuZemike
741:Jtrainor
726:teatime
703:teatime
680:contribs
597:contribs
554:. There
543:teatime
475:contribs
413:contribs
328:PC Gamer
285:contribs
266:contribs
254:unsigned
238:contribs
219:contribs
207:unsigned
121:View log
1389:Apology
1340:Comment
1258:Mankind
1248:improve
1158:Btejada
1145:Btejada
1131:Mankind
989:Comment
951:cleanup
802:neutral
721:Raziel
698:Raziel
538:Raziel
525:Comment
487:Comment
424:GameSpy
358:notable
308:without
304:GameSpy
184:MrKIA11
150:serious
137:GameSpy
88:protect
83:history
52:MBisanz
1376:MLauba
876:Delete
840:Delete
827:MLauba
823:WP:NPA
819:WP:AGF
790:Delete
716:Delete
572:WP:COI
533:WP:COI
508:become
354:Delete
127:Fails
116:delete
92:delete
1096:Flyff
1078:Zippy
612:db48x
334:Wired
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
1410:talk
1402:keep
1395:and
1380:talk
1346:and
1300:talk
1287:talk
1278:keep
1254:Saga
1246:but
1244:Keep
1233:talk
1203:and
1187:talk
1162:talk
1149:talk
1127:Saga
1121:but
1119:Keep
1108:talk
1082:talk
1070:Note
1059:talk
1026:talk
997:talk
966:here
962:here
955:here
949:but
947:Keep
911:keep
897:talk
865:talk
831:talk
821:and
800:and
774:Note
754:Note
745:talk
737:Keep
676:talk
663:talk
655:here
650:WP:V
637:talk
616:Talk
608:Keep
593:talk
580:talk
566:and
552:Keep
535:. --
516:talk
496:then
471:talk
458:talk
440:talk
432:WP:N
422:The
409:talk
399:very
370:talk
343:talk
313:WP:V
281:talk
262:talk
234:talk
215:talk
188:talk
176:Note
165:talk
146:not.
133:WP:V
131:and
129:WP:N
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
1364:are
1318:):
1129:or
921:or
878:If
852:not
500:yet
492:has
360:or
331:or
153:COI
139:).
1412:)
1382:)
1302:•
1294:—
1289:)
1260:,
1235:)
1189:)
1178:do
1164:•
1156:—
1151:)
1110:)
1084:)
1061:)
1028:)
1020:.
999:)
899:)
867:)
833:)
780:.
764:.
756:–
747:)
678:•
670:—
665:)
639:)
614:|
595:•
587:—
582:)
556:IS
518:)
473:•
465:—
460:)
442:)
411:·
395:is
387:is
372:)
345:)
283:•
275:—
268:)
264:•
236:•
228:—
221:)
217:•
190:)
182:.
167:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
1408:(
1378:(
1298:(
1285:(
1256:,
1231:(
1185:(
1160:(
1147:(
1106:(
1090:"
1080:(
1057:(
1024:(
995:(
895:(
863:(
829:(
743:(
674:(
661:(
635:(
591:(
578:(
514:(
469:(
456:(
438:(
415:)
407:(
402:-
368:(
341:(
279:(
260:(
232:(
213:(
186:(
163:(
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.