Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of the Great Boners of all time

2946:. A very honorable ideal. Several people who seem to share this belief of "consistent high quality articles, and high quality NOW" have made suggestions of how to keep the article high quality so that it does not degenerate into a "my blunder is bigger then yours" shouting contest. Their suggestions have been taken to heart, and it seems that a reasonable common ground has been found. I feel that the article is much better off after taking their concerns to heart. Now I believe that the initial negative backlash to the article was mainly due to petty anger on the part of a few and to a general lack of awareness of the intricacies of the NPOV policy. Let the record state that the deletionist faction was falsely accused. Ignorance was the real enemy all along. - 3077:. I voted to delete way back on the first incarnation of this dicussion, but what with the forks, redirects, re-votes, de-votes, appeals, etc, I figure I'll hedge my bets. Did I mention I vote to delete? (Someone might want to take a look at the links between the main VFD page, the links from the acutal article, and the links from the various VFD date log pages... a little careful investigation will show that everything no longer points to the same place. Not surprising considering that adding a sub-page to VFD is so far beyond the bounds of reasonable policy. I see votes cumulating on different pages... sounds like grounds for another revote! </sarcasm: --> 2837:. I voted to delete way back on the first incarnation of this dicussion, but what with the forks, redirects, re-votes, de-votes, appeals, etc, I figure I'll hedge my bets. Did I mention I vote to delete? (Someone might want to take a look at the links between the main VFD page, the links from the acutal article, and the links from the various VFD date log pages... a little careful investigation will show that everything no longer points to the same place. Not surprising considering that adding a sub-page to VFD is so far beyond the bounds of reasonable policy. I see votes cumulating on different pages... sounds like grounds for another revote! </sarcasm: --> 1933:. I voted to delete way back on the first incarnation of this dicussion, but what with the forks, redirects, re-votes, de-votes, appeals, etc, I figure I'll hedge my bets. Did I mention I vote to delete? (Someone might want to take a look at the links between the main VFD page, the links from the acutal article, and the links from the various VFD date log pages... a little careful investigation will show that everything no longer points to the same place. Not surprising considering that adding a sub-page to VFD is so far beyond the bounds of reasonable policy. I see votes cumulating on different pages... sounds like grounds for another revote! </sarcasm: --> 1100:. I voted to delete way back on the first incarnation of this dicussion, but what with the forks, redirects, re-votes, de-votes, appeals, etc, I figure I'll hedge my bets. Did I mention I vote to delete? (Someone might want to take a look at the links between the main VFD page, the links from the acutal article, and the links from the various VFD date log pages... a little careful investigation will show that everything no longer points to the same place. Not surprising considering that adding a sub-page to VFD is so far beyond the bounds of reasonable policy. I see votes cumulating on different pages... sounds like grounds for another revote! </sarcasm: --> 803:. I voted to delete way back on the first incarnation of this dicussion, but what with the forks, redirects, re-votes, de-votes, appeals, etc, I figure I'll hedge my bets. Did I mention I vote to delete? (Someone might want to take a look at the links between the main VFD page, the links from the acutal article, and the links from the various VFD date log pages... a little careful investigation will show that everything no longer points to the same place. Not surprising considering that adding a sub-page to VFD is so far beyond the bounds of reasonable policy. I see votes cumulating on different pages... sounds like grounds for another revote! </sarcasm: --> 1163:.) Notice how the movie list has criteria for inclusion to make sure that only reasonably famous claims are listed. A similar method can be done here. The list of blunders is grounded in fact decause the negative outcomes are a matter of record; it is the quality of the decisions that led to those failures that people disagree on. We can list famous blunders and present both sides of the table so that people can get a multifaceted view of the event. (Which will counter the one-sided views presented in most lists of this type.) I think this article can evolve to become the best on this topic and one that Knowledge will truly be proud of. - 1141:. If we have a list of (what some consider to be) greatest movies we should have a list of (what some consider to be) greatest boners. It's just a matter of a more precise name. Honestly, how many people would be clamoring for deletion if it was called "Great Blunders of all time"? The title may shock some people at first but potential offensiveness is not grounds for deletion--Knowledge is not required to be nonoffensive. It's sad and disappointing that most people can't get past their initial perceptions of the name and look at the actual content of the article. - 1171:

its overwhelming semantic entailment to mean penile erecetion rather than blunder) makes me suspect your motives. I edited the newly-titled article a bit. I want to see if you change it back to the more POV/"boner" version or not before I consider changing my vote. I also won't change my vote until the re-named article has "blunder" in the title rather than "failure." Blunders and failures are not the same thing, and this article is about blunders.

2436:. I would not propose a revote if I didn't think it was justified. Several users, including Moncrief, have suggested that the new, revised article will fare quite differently on the Vfd voting if the voting was started fresh. Now that I proposed this "new policy" I'll bet that someone is going to accuse me of trying to change policy for my own devices. Nonsense: I am just trying to define a policy that has not yet been defined. I am attempting to use 1828:

your lesson--but for future reference, if you rewrite an article up for VFD, a good approach is to send a note to each person who voted via their talk page, politely letting them know you've rewritten the article, and inviting them to reconsider their vote. I've found this to be a very effective method. (You need to contact each voter directly, because most people don't monitor the VFD pages where they've already cast their votes. --

758:. This used to exist under the title "List of Flops" (or something similar), which was broken up into seperate lists for politics/military/whatever. This is just redundant. Merge what can be merged into the flops articles, and redirect/delete. I've read Pioneer-12's arguments that this is different from flops, and I just don't agree. It's cutting way too fine a line to start distinguishing between 2468:

about "the following votes" should all be revoted on, etc. It is really distateful. For the record, at this point I do NOT believe the revised article will fare any differently on Vfd. It's still inherently POV. You need to step back from the constant rationales why people need to change their votes and all the other attempts you're constantly pulling on here as you're close to crossing a line.

2052:

Let them make the claim. (They make the same sorts of claims all over wikipedia, so why not here?) If would have to pass a consensus of wiki editors to make it on to the article page. If it does, it will clearly be stated that this is a famous opinion, but a minority one. However, I think that not being listed in an non-political collection of blunders will disqualify it from the article page.

3064:. The citations to pop-history books written for their entertainment value do not (to me) qualify as adequate scholarly citations. Further, I note that even the pop-history books stuck to a single topic and tried to find somewhat consistent criteria for inclusion. This article has no such cohesive theme. No change of vote. This article is just vandal-bait. 1708: 2066:

ultimately, the page content will be unaffected. Ideally, the page should simply contain verifiable famous blunders (as it is now), but there is a childish minority that will try to abuse any wiki page or policy to promote their ideology. So we simply let respected authorities in the field determine fame/notability for us. Ingenious!

1657:

Knowledge's founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation". This article is simply reproducing published research. We're not going out and conducting interviews or doing experiments to get information for the article. We are merely combining information from existing sources.

2513:

situation, it seems reasonable to say "we need to take a fresh look at this". Oh, heck... I'm sure that there has to be some memory of previous instances where total rewrites have happened. Thus, precedents for this situation (and what happened) will be found eventually by some wise and experienced Wikipedian. -

2174:

But, with any democracy, the majority rules. While I agree with your explanation, and that would certainly make the article much more viable and less vulnerable to POV than it is now, the problem is that if you recreate a page such as this *most* of the people who have voted here will merrily re-vote

2036:

You have a very good point there, but it's still very dangerous. Not as to the genuine contributors who will add things after researching, nono, but the other people who will come on and add obscure things, or things that didn't fail, or add Bush Jr.'s war in Iraq just because they hate Bush (leading

1734:

A disaster is a bad event; a blunder is a bad decision. They are two distinct, if sometimes overlapping, categories. A military disaster could be due to bad weather, a brilliant move on the part of the enemy, general lack of ability, or simply the presense of an overwhelming enemy force. For example,

1694:

the list as it is currently rewritten has a good potential to become an interesting resource. Its certainly a topic worthy of discussion, and it has been the subject of several books. The article title is stupid, it should probably be "List of historical blunders", but regardless of title the idea is

732:

subject to two provisos. The article should be edited in such a way as to make the association between each listed incident and the cited authority crystal-clear. One good way is the traditional research citation form: "(David Saul, 1998)" inline with the incident, with the full reference below. This

61:

This discussion thread has become very long and extremely difficult to sort out. In an effort to assist the admin who must eventually make this decision, I propose the use of a recap table. These tables are discouraged in all but the most extreme cases. I believe this thread has become sufficiently

3059:

This page has been through a title change, content change and complete rewrite for style. Clearly a lot of hard work has gone into this article in the time it's been listed here. Nevertheless, I still consider the concept for this article fundamentally flawed. The selection of "greatest blunders"

2257:

Why should I have apologize to you? This isn't about your opinions of me. This is about your opinions of the page. Apologizing or even asking for an apology makes it personal. It does not matter if you think I'm a genius or an idiot. What matters is what you think of the page as it is now. (Which is

2235:

That's illogical. Then you are basing your opinion on an old version of the page and not the current version. We don't vote for a page based on what it was; we vote based on what it is and what it can be. Frankly, I am surprised that more people didn't see the inherent value in this subject from the

2020:

The opinions listed are not those of the authors of the article, but rather those of historians and culture in general. Thus it is noted that the Maginot Line is "widely considered" to be a blunder, but it is also noted that many historians think differently. The opinions of the wiki-authors are not

2016:

to be a blunder. The list itself makes no verdict on the "blunderness" of the action. That is why the Maginot Line is listed even though many people feel that it was the overall strategy, not the Line itself, that was the blunder. The listing for Maginot Line indicates this, and many people who read

1311:

Further comment - I've done the relevant renaming and removal of source-free data points... thing is the list is now empty. I have found a couple of potential book sources but is a nightmare searching on the web for relevant terms... I urge those hoping to make an interesting little list out of this

839:

The following block of votes all refer to the old version of the article and the article has been renamed and completely rewritten to address these concerns. (See commentary section below.) It is asked that they be revoted in light of the new article. (If someone wants to leave their vote how it is,

2604:

Yes, I call for a revote. You seem to know the proper procedure for doing that. Since you have more experience at this then I, could you please put the header in place or whatever needs to be done? If I do it, some people will perceive it as "founder of the article bias". You have a more verifiably

2536:

nonono, the problem is you culled their old votes BEFORE suggesting a re-vote. Now if you'd said "OK everyone, I've hurely rewritten it, could you please strike out your votes and re-vote" then that would be fine. It's considered quite rude to remove someone else's comments, and in the sense of you

2099:

To be quite honest, Pioneer 12, if you had originally started the article that exists now, with that sort of title and without trying to be cute/funny with the "boner" thing, then I do believe you would be able to keep your article. But you didn't go that route, so I guess you're right that you'll

1661:

Also, "Moreover, it is essential that any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data come from a secondary source that is available to readers." That's what we are doing! The evaluation and analysis of the so-called blunders come from secondary sources

1638:

The criteria for inclusion have been updated to reflect what you have suggested. An item will have to appear in a list of blunders by a respected authority in order to qualify for inclusion on the list. This should: (1) make determination of fame/notability ultraprecise and unequivically objective,

1508:

The movie list is even more potentially damnable, as every person has their own opinion of the movie greats, and every person thinks one or two of the supposed "greats" sucked. And we undoubtedly have some users/visitors who would (perhaps subtly) reword bits so as to make their favourites "better"

1502:

Well, that may be true, but a deletion attempt for it will similarly get you five pages of argument... BUT, I should add, if this gets the cut then the greatest movies ever article MUST ALSO go so as to be fair, along with any similar ones. We cannot mercilessly kill some POV "all-time-great" lists

1170:

Assuming you believe the above, why didn't you originally (a) name your article something that reflects that you are presenting opinion and not fact?; and (b) why did you use the word "boner"? I actually see the value in the re-named article, but your insistence on using the word "boner" (despite

2051:

I share your concerns. The war in Iraq is a good example. The war was clearly successful from a military point of view as it toppled Saddam with a very low casualty count for a war of that magnitude. I'm sure some people will try to claim "Nono, it was a blunder about weapons of mass destruction!"

1827:

Incidentally, I think that Pioneer12 has inadvertently clouded the issue through his, erm, non-traditional approach to revoting. Needless to say that should NOT be considered when deciding whether to keep or delete the article. Pioneer12, I know you didn't mean any harm, and you've clearly learned

1583:

Another de facto criterion is that Wikipedians prefer lists for which there is some more-or-less objective criterion for inclusion—so that different editors have a better chance of agreeing on which items belong—and lists where the criterion is clean enough that one can at least fantasize that the

1346:

What "fundamental problems"? Every issue that has been raised has been solved. Name? Changed. Sources? Added. Criteria for inclusion in the list? Clearly stated. NPOV? Complaint with Knowledge policy. I don't see how anyone could object to this article now. This baby is a future "Featured article"

1229:

It's easy to attach numbers to how good a movie is, and the "best movies of all time" article reflects that. It's harder to attach numbers to how bad a movie is, and the "worst movies of all time" article is notably lower-quality. Once you move into the realm of general human affairs, how do you

2985:

Delete this article if you must. It look as if there is sufficent minority support to block a delete by consensus, but that is for an administror to decide. History will record this as a dark time for the rebellion, but the forces of wisdom, logic, and understanding will one day return and strike

2981:

to get their hands on it. Perhaps I was unwise to believe that understanding could be gained through discourse and discussion in such a short period of time. This whole discussion has just been one misunderstanding after another. One day, the community will understand the wisdom and power of this

2889:

Ugh... I... I really don't know. I've gone and made a whole heap of voters really ****ed off, and... and it's all his fault really, there's really no other way to put it, it is all his fault. I used that "policy" with the best of intentions, but he created it with intentions that are not quite so

2467:

These were not my exact words, but I do believe that an article that wasn't trying to be locker-room funny with "boner" might have slipped past ever going to VfD in the first place. Pioneer, I have never seen a user attempt to manipulate a voting page the way you have (adding sweeping statements

2065:

blunders that have made it on to respectable blunder lists. (As Dpbsmith suggested.) That would certainly keep the politically motivated crap off of the page.... and also stop most of the silly arguments before they are started. Any truly notable blunder will be in one of those lists anyway. So,

1656:

says "The phrase "original research" in this context refers to untested theories; data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts or ideas that, in the words of

3038:

Not Iasson's style at all. Pioneer-12 is intentionally ironic and kids around a lot. I think he's trying to ease the sting of rejection. The reason I think this is that it is (cough) what I tend to do this myself. Unfortunately he doesn't realize that what seems like obvious irony is frequently

2512:

Oh, heck. People will probably dispute the credibility of the revote anyway. Yadda yadda. Well, for what it's worth, there's the "how to do a revote" proposal for all to consider. I'm sure this isn't the first article which was put up for Vfd and completely rewritten during the process. In this

88:

Just to reiterate, this table is to be taken with particular caution, as many of the votes refer to a version of the article that has since a) been renamed and b) been re-written and c) tripled in size and d) totally changed character. Indeed these things happened because of those votes. Hence,

2279:

At this point, it seems as if some are looking for excuses to justify deleting this page. A page should not be deleted unless a clear, logical, objective, consistent, policy-compliant reason is given for deleting it. I ask you to look at page now and base your opinion on the page as it stands

1598:

list-of-flops or more authoritative books books. For example, restrict it to being a list of military blunders and have the article give an identifying description of each blunder followed by brief identifications of the books that call it a blunder, with appropriate short quotations. E.g.

520:

That is an interesting idea, but the scope of the article is different. Not all disasters are due to blunders, and not all blunders are military disasters. By the way, if this article is deemed deletable, then that article will be have to be deleted too. - Incidentally, this article has

2865:

This re-vote was erroneously called based on a policy invented on-the-fly by the main contributor and has caused a further dispute. Votes on the new page will not necessarily count. It is probably best to continue voting here, as some have called for deletion of the other voting page.

2406:

Really? Nothing like "If the title of the page has changed and the content extensively rewritten to deal with objections and concerns, then it is possible to call for a revote. The revote must be seconded by one person who has changed their position on the article from

3030:

Indeed, Iasson would be calling into question the validity of the voting method, proposing several new polls with different rules (not just a revote), trying to define the validity of who could vote, etc. He would also have taken many more edits to make each point.

965:. Certainly much improved. This article belongs somewhere, though not necessarily in Knowledge. I am very concerned as to how it can be made NPOV. At the very least, we need to require citations for all entries and come up with a rule, as we did for example at 3039:

misunderstood online. And also that we get a lot of people like Iasson, who make what seem like ironic jokes while being (I think) 100% dead serious. We have the ] irony alert tag that should be used when it is important to avoid misunderstanding. <----

1735:

the French forces at the Battle of Agincourt couldn't maneuver properly due to the muddy conditions, and they lacked a weapon with the range of the English longbow. There were two major reasons for the defeat, yet neither of these reasons were blunders. -

2854: 1765: 1331:

The name has been changed and the article slightly expanded but the fundamental problems with this "list of" article still have not been addressed. Frankly, I don't think they can be addressed and still keep this an encyclopedia article.

3120:

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.

2037:

to a five-page "did the war REALLY fail?!?" thread on the Discussion page) and so on. I can see you've thought out this idea, and it's a good idea too, but we must be very, very careful of opening POV loopholes. I hope you understand...

2571:

I'm not sure what you are implying by saying I "culled" their old votes. I didn't remove anyone's votes or comments. I just put a heading above them saying "I think you should revote". Check the edit history. Maybe because I *MOVED*

1019:

inherently POV. When Time Magazine did an Internet poll for "worst idea of the 20th century," thousands of anti-Israel people organized a campaign for the Balfour Doctrine. We could expect similar political battles with this topic.

454:. The article has since been completely rewritten. The title is no longer provocative. The content has been changed to be neutral, significant, informative, and encyclopedic. The article is compliant with NPOV policies as stated in 2024:

We list famous blunders on Knowledge for the same reason we list famous "urban legends" and famous unproven theories on Knowledge--not because they are objective truth, but because they are well known, and thus worthy of note.

1584:

list could someday be "complete" and guess at the total number of items a complete list would eventually include. Lists that would never include more than 5 entries are silly, and so are lists that would include more than 1000.

647:

Many words have different meanings and this one was in common use in the USA 30-40 years ago. It is a great category. If we have to, let's move it to a new name: Blunders. I would readily change the name to keep the topic.

741:("so-and-so's bipolar affliction is well-documented in biographies, interviews, and liner notes). The second is that the article be watched and any unsourced entries be gently but firmly removed until sources are provided. 2119:

It sounds as if you feel that the article has been revised to deal with your concerns. So does that mean you are changing your vote? Or would you simply nominate the article for Vfd again, claiming "previously deleted"? -

1922:

list and as long as the items in it are factually correct I see no harm in gathering trivia like this. Indeed I see good. This vote applies to a version (10 minutes before this time stamp) which from my POV is not POV. --

662:

Your objections are quite valid as the article stands, but this is too important a topic to let die. See the Santayana quote on the article talk page: "Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

2385:(I've moved this part of my above post here) Removing people's old votes and saying they should re-vote may cause some people to take unintentional offense as if you're exerting some sort of "power" over them. 1810:. Inevitably POV. Listing a budget vote in the senate and a campaign appearance (both coincidentally by two members of one U.S. political party) together with military slaughters demonstrates the problem. - 734: 2976:

I wonder if Knowledge is truly ready to handle a page of this nature. It's like placing a nuclear bomb in central park. Even though there are adults around supervising, there are also plenty of kids just

1580:

editors. The de facto behavior seems to be that we do keep "good" lists where the list has enough research and work in it to seems reliable, not totally subjective, and interesting. IMHO this one doesn't.

2444:

when the current policies are inadequate. But go ahead and accuse me of trying to warp policy if you want to. I've already been accused of deleting votes, so another false accusation isn't going to hurt

2824: 1246:. "Greatness" of movies is relatively easy to quantify compared to, er, bonerness of decisions. The list is just too wide in scope to be meaningful. Even without the unfortunate original name. 683: 1491:, this article is inherently POV and is, in my opinion, not encyclopedic. I have to confess that I think the list of movies considered the greatest ever should be deleted on similar grounds. 2010:

I think the misperceptions people are having is that "listing something on this list means that Wikipeida is saying 'X is a blunder' ". NO! Listing something on this list implies that it is

1138: 459: 2075:

OK, if the page is changed to include only blunders discussed in significant lists of historical blunders (a number of lists are already mentioned on the page), will you vote to keep it? -

1288:

Saying "people think X", if people actually do, documentedly, think X, is not POV or unsourced. Calling them actual "failures" is still a POV title, though. I've been bold and moved to

1888:. Not only is the list as-is pretty much inherently POV, all future edits will be as well. It looks like an endless running sore of reverts and adjudication - for a bit of trivia. -- 1219:

have called the greatest mistake, assuming a good number of these things exist. On the other point, "boner" is a terrible choice of word and would obviously have to go in the rename.

2206:

I'm not sure if that's directed to me. What I would need before I could even begin to think about changing my vote is some kind of acknowledgment/remorse about the "boner" fiasco.

2392:

I have not been removing people's votes from this page. I have merely been stating that they need to be revoted. Isn't there a simple Knowledge policy about calling for a revote? -

70:

omments and to interpret them appropriately. No attempt is made in the table to identify sockpuppets or to match the times of the votes to the then-current version of the article.

2491:

I truly believe that the question of "Is this article worth keeping" can be setted much quicker and more peacefully with a revote. But if no one wants a revote, that's fine too. -

1547:

We have several lists of flops, see Category:Flops and the two items currently in this article were already tried once and deleted as too subjective and POV. More comments below.

1211:(Forgetting about the use of the word "boner" for the minute). There seems to be a whole stack of "inherently POV" votes. Are people's memories really so short. We have solved 712:, in my hand right now.) They aren't encyclopaedias; and their selection criteria are for amusement, rather than for informational, value and are highly biased and arbitrary. 1503:

but allow some others to remain. So *if* this is deleted then you should start a deletion poll for that (as soon as possible) and cite this discussion as a source/reason/etc.

537:. Totally POV topic. "Boner" is an uncommon word for "blunder" or "mistake" even if we found a way somehow to make it non-POV. Really should be a speedy delete in my mind. 478:....fine. But it is an opinion based on a careful reading of Knowledge policy. I believe that it is an opinion conforming to both the letter and the spirit of the policy. - 3108:. Overly broad, inherently subjective, unmanageable. Some aspects of this could be made into a separate list, such as "List of the great military blunders of all time". 2666: 1572:

to be a form of original research, and they tend to be based directly on the opinions of the editors who are involved; on the other hand (good) the better lists are

701:

one else sees the value in this. Of course there are others who have done this research. Rest assured it will be resurrected in an acceptable form in the future. --

672:

That doesn't solve the problem of the title being inherently POV, and the content being original research. Who decides which blunders were the greatest of all time?

3084:

You may care to explain why you vote delete. To many of us, it seems to serve no purpose whatsoever except retaliate against the rather "enthustiastic" Pioneer-12.

2931:

Please let the record state that Pioneer-12 has characterized his article as being "viciously attacked by deletionists" in comments soliciting votes for this page.

2687:

Um, you shouldn't flood this page with "reasons" because that might make people even more annoyed than they already are! Please just call a re-vote, as suggested.

62:

confusing to justify it. The purpose of the recap table is to allow users whose votes are unclear an opportunity to be more specific. The use of the recap table

3012:

I'm beginning to wonder if Pioneer-12 isn't really Iasson, trying to create new deletion policy, insisting that it's his way or the highway, all very familiar.

1044:

Add '2004 the creation of this list' - only kidding, (but I might not be - it's as legitimate a POV as any of the other entries) it shows how subjective it is -

2465:"Several users, including Moncrief, have suggested that the new, revised article will fare quite differently on the Vfd voting if the voting was started fresh." 1148:

I think it's the inhereent and unavoidable POVness of the topic rather than the trying-to-be-funny title that are the cause of the page of Delete votes here.

3045:

Note: that last sentence of mine is a lame ironic joke because, in fact, the ironyalert image is extremely annoying and in reality should not be used at all.

2878:

this POV rubbish (Michael Dukakis in a big helmet and Varro? Please!) and censure the guy who thinks it's a good idea to make Wikipedians jump through hoops.

2942:

Indeed. The was my old opinion. Now I see that the deletionist attitude is based on a desire to have an encyclopedia with the highest quality of information

2897:

He never used the {{notpolicy}} tag. Look at the history; it was me who added the tag. You probably read the page in the 5 hours interval before I did it. --

2537:

an editor altering deletion votes it does look quite like you are trying to pervert the flow of the voting just to retain your contributions to the article.

2342:

Would it help you to know that you have changed my mind? Your statements convinced me that a strincter policy of inclusion could make the article better. -

77:

comments below. I've taken my best guess at the current opinions of the discussion participants. If I've listed anyone's vote incorrectly, please move it.

2912: 1639:(2) make the list confirmably "completable", (3) stop silly arguments on what qualifies to be on the list before they begin, and (4) make everybody happy. 1201: 1957:. When I first looked at it a few days ago, I didn't think it was saveable; but with the current title and the new content, it's looking quite good. 2544:, it's as simple as that! This is an e-democracy! I am sure at least some people will vote differently, and new ones may decide to vote to keep it. 1274: 733:

will make it easier to monitor the article and prevent insertion of unsourced items, which is a real concern. For example, it was agreed to keep

471:"The content has been changed to be neutral, significant, informative, and encyclopedic" is merely your opinion. That's not an objective fact. 2540:

But I do believe that you should call a revote. The article is barely recognisable from its original form, and I DO think it warrants a revote!

1179: 2007:

and not for Joe Schmoe, even though Joe Schomoe might have invented a mousetrap in his garage? Because Edison is famous and Joe Schmoe isn't.

629:

change it myself. Consider this vote a delete vote for the current "revote" and any and all subsequent "revotes." This is getting ridiculous.

1419: 2820: 54: 3112: 1971: 44: 885:

04:27, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) Comment: Nobody is under an obligation to re-vote every time you change the page. My vote remains the same.

1461: 1058:- definitely provocative title, definitely POV and definitely potential POV-pusher magnet. There may be some sense in writing about 2308:

and say "I helped turn a poor page into a great one." This page now has incredible potential for greatness and I thank you all. -

1159:

to do so. The article just must be careful to indicate that these are subjective opinions and also opinions of significance. (See

31:

Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.

3042: 1603:

XYZ calls it 'the stupidest French blunder of WWII' but PQR claims that it was really a big success because so-and-so-and-so..."

1322:

The list is no longer empty; I've added a couple of sourced entries. Hopefully their presence will inspire people to add more. -

1289: 1277:. But the content has not changed, and thus I attached the latter to this VfD. I still think this material is POV and unsourced. 17: 3094:

Um, didn't he just explain it? What are all those words after "Delete"? Who are the "many of us" that you're speaking for?

2636:

Um, actually I have no idea how to do it, but even so I'll read up and do it. As you said, it'll look less biased if I do it.

2088:(Oh, and the deletes are winning the battle, but the keeps will win the war. "What does not kill me only makes me stronger.") 1653: 1062:

or something like that but I do not think that Knowledge needs streed cred vocabulary for that - the term "failure" or maybe

1675:(3) Yes, it's currently a stub, but we're supposed to expand stubs, not delete them. This article has tremendous potential. 827:

might be a good list to start from the content not covered elsewhere, but as it stands, the category is simply too broad. --

1874:. Pioneer12's obsessive behavior has certainly clouded the issue, but I find the article duplicative, NPOV, and sloppy. -- 1270: 50: 1820:. In its current form, the article is a well-sourced neutral POV summary of critical opinions on an interesting topic. -- 2698:

If you don't then I will be forced to flood this page with reasons that will annoy everyone, including myself. :-) - P12

1742:

You convinced me that the overlap is just partial, and the list seems to keep getting better every time I look at it.

1659:

Every Knowledge article does this. If we couldn't do this then you'd have to delete every single article on Knowledge.

966: 437:

The content of this list is inherently subjective and the title needlessly flippant if not deliberately provocative.

73:

In addition to your vote and explanation below, please record your name in the table. For this to work, please keep

1996: 1721: 502: 1066:

is enough. As long as we can agree on what constitutes a failure (beyond "did not work as expected or planned") -

2905: 2891: 2867: 2860: 2805: 2711: 2688: 2637: 2545: 2386: 2336: 2176: 2041: 1536: 1510: 1468: 831: 816: 394: 346: 548:

different meaning at least in American slang. I was quite relieved when I saw what was actually in the article.

2433: 824: 2715: 2790: 1621:

Thank you for explaining your concerns. However, none of them is a valid reason for deletion of this article.

1215:

this problem several times before. The movies solution is a case in point. The list should consist of things

820: 737:

on condition that every item be sourced; nevertheless, people continually add names without sources, or with

2964: 1948: 41: 488:

the page has been updated again and renamed again. This should (I think) fix any remaining objections. -

1898: 1458: 1259: 1250: 1081: 156: 2778: 2982:

article; one day it may even be a featured article candidate, but that day may be a long time coming.

3061: 1391: 1059: 828: 510: 391: 336: 1840:. The article has a reasonably NPOV title and a reasonable NPOV content. Reasonably useful as well. 2670: 1968: 1855: 1409: 1035: 677: 634: 611: 600: 441: 211: 2772: 1811: 361: 161: 3049: 1607: 1558: 1551: 1467:

Possibly, but isn't the compilation and management of this list still entirely dependent on POV?

745: 1864:

new version. Or give it a try, at least - it might not work out. Vote updated in table as such.

575:: I think the title is hilarious, unfortunately I can't think of any way to call this a keep. - 2768: 1204:

or something less clumsy. Only the title and wording of the article are POV; the idea is good.

1155:

Knowledge regularly lists opinions and states that they are opinions. In fact, it is Knowledge

3068: 2960: 1944: 1703: 1340: 1282: 900: 458:. Similar articles exist and have been proven encyclopedic after Vfd discussion--for example: 81: 38: 2823:

in current form (ie this title and with references and further reading &c). Precedent at

1516:

Erm, the fundamental point about the movie article (and Knowledge in general) is citability.

2890:

clear to me... when I read it he hadn't even used the nonpolicy tag... again, I am sorry...

2732:

So do let us know if the revote happens on a different page. I want to be sure my vote for

1909: 1879: 1423: 1381: 1256: 1247: 1077: 1049: 974: 955: 556: 386: 321: 316: 306: 131: 27:

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below.

2662:

One example of an article that was initially considered nonsense but was revised and kept:

1178:

I actually prefer a title that is a combination of what Nickptar and Pcb21 have suggested:

3088: 3016: 2990: 2947: 2879: 2789:

someone who's read the story that started it all. The full version of that story is here:

2757: 2678: 2606: 2514: 2492: 2393: 2377: 2370: 2343: 2309: 2172:"I may not agree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it!" 2121: 2076: 2029: 1736: 1680: 1520: 1478: 1348: 1323: 1316: 1223: 1183: 1164: 1142: 866: 841: 526: 506: 489: 479: 463: 371: 221: 106: 93: 2302:

I really think all of the objections and discussion have helped make this a better page.

3032: 2722: 2258:

a collective work; I am but one contributor.) Is the current content acceptable or not?

1958: 1851: 1841: 1791: 1568:

With regard to lists, all of them are controversial because on the one hand (bad) they

1405: 1305: 1126: 1115: 1031: 920: 702: 673: 664: 649: 630: 607: 596: 561:

Note: I have seen the rewrite and still think this is way too broad and nonencyclopedic

438: 366: 326: 301: 276: 256: 236: 206: 196: 186: 151: 121: 111: 2017:

the entry will go away thinking that Maginot Line itself was not a blunder after all.

2003:

in Knowledge related to human activity is based on fame. Why do we have a listing for

3095: 3046: 3024: 2935: 2828: 2804:

The problem is *still* that most people think of "boner" with a dirty connotation...

2737: 2469: 2400: 2207: 2144: 2101: 2004: 1924: 1865: 1604: 1555: 1548: 1398: 1293: 1235: 1205: 1172: 1149: 1067: 1021: 986: 855: 793: 742: 656: 538: 472: 311: 296: 291: 241: 226: 191: 176: 166: 116: 3065: 3005: 2437: 1904:

Does not appear useful, a magnet for POV content (see the political section). Weak

1889: 1696: 1359:

the new article, could be a good start to a referenced, encyclopedic blunder list.

1337: 1278: 930: 896: 886: 882: 713: 691: 409: 381: 331: 281: 266: 261: 201: 136: 78: 2793:, from 1951 (when phrases like "Merkle's Boner" were still in frequent use). - P12 655:

How do you suggest we get around the fact that any list such as this will be POV?

2855:

Knowledge:Votes for deletion/List of incidents famously considered great blunders

1988:

I think I know where people are going wrong in their assessment of this article.

1587:

IMHO this list has no clear criteria for inclusion and is essentially open-ended.

2916: 2898: 1875: 1829: 1821: 1769: 1761: 1750: 1725: 1377: 970: 951: 553: 419: 414: 376: 351: 246: 146: 1590:

IMHO the best chance of making this article encyclopedic would be to make it a

3109: 3085: 3013: 2441: 2374: 1801: 1517: 1475: 1313: 1220: 587: 576: 399: 356: 251: 171: 90: 3078: 2838: 1934: 1787: 1360: 1101: 1091: 940: 910: 815:. The content of this list overlaps greatly with other lists, particularly 804: 286: 271: 141: 126: 2143:

I am NOT changing my vote. I will change my vote when I change my vote.

2100:

have to try again after this effort is deleted. Live and learn, right?

1492: 1008: 997: 341: 181: 1707: 3041: 1370: 1063: 708:

People write books on "greatest" blunders. (I have ISBN 720522527716,

2415:. This prevents frivulous revotes." That just seems like common sense. 1390:. Such lists are generally wrong. This one is too stupid in addition. 2304:

I think everyone who initially objected should be proud to now vote

2061:

Hmmm, perhaps the page restrictions should be tightened to include

1202:

List of incidents that have been considered the worst blunders ever

452:

the majority of these votes refer to the old version of the article

1749:, and I pity the poor soul who will do the closing of this VfD. -- 1125:

rewritten and retitled version if it is realistically expandable.

735:

List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder

1474:

Only to the same extent that every article is dependent on POV.

1160: 455: 66:

replace the obligation of the deciding admin to review all the c

865:

No. That would be against the GFDL. The history must stand. -

595:. POV, not possible to complete list, very unfortunate title. 2825:

List of movies that have been considered among the worst ever

2874:

Well, they'll count if the presiding admin decides they do.

1275:

List of failures that have been considered the greatest ever

710:

I wish I'd never said that: Everlasting gaffes of the famous

3023:

I seriously doubt it. This isn't Iasson's style at all. --

2859:

Your current votes WILL NOT COUNT there, you must re-vote.

1397:

After considering the changes, my vote stands unchanged. --

996:. It's deliberately trying to be an innuendo. And failing. 881:, inherently POV, much like the "worst US president" list. 89:

please ignore the table and just keep the darn article :).

2335:

Yes you are right. I myself *may* rethink my vote. Maybe.

1180:

List of incidents that have been considered great blunders

1139:

List of movies that have been considered the greatest ever

460:

List of movies that have been considered the greatest ever

1312:

article yet to join and find some well-sourced blunders!

2040:

And, as it stands, currently the "Delete"s are winning.

2932: 2577: 1374: 1007:. Looks a whole lot better, and the innuendo is gone. 729: 514: 1420:

List of battles widely considered to be clear failures

766:(Are we also going to start distinguishing those from 2821:

List of incidents famously considered great blunders

1995:. We have other lists of famous things. For example 55:

List of incidents famously considered great blunders

1554:12:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Changing vote, see above. 1369:I'd like to ensure this doesn't end up back in the 2373:has been removing people's votes from this page. 697:I can see this one is going down. I can't believe 525:stricter criteria for inclusion then that one. - 2667:Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Karafuto Prefecture 2576:vote people seem to think that I deleted votes? 1404:As does mine. This is still not encyclopedic. — 3060:is too sweeping and too subjective to every be 2744:Most assuredly someone here will be careful to 2542:If you feel one is needed, then please call one 1255:I've looked at the rewrite and my vote stands. 969:, as to what constitutes adequate citation. -- 686:. ☺ You didn't ask who decides what actually 2934:I consider that a gross mischaracterization. 1732:A disaster is not the same thing as a blunder. 1347:candidate. I think it's time for a revote. - 8: 2911:And now, the bogus policy is itself on VfD: 1943:. Excellent article in its current form. -- 2913:Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Revotes on Vfd 2852:Please continue discussion at the new page, 1290:List of incidents considered great failures 544:No kidding...especailly since that's got a 985:, inherently POV and original research. -- 2972:The Deletion Wars - What would a Jedi do? 1850:too difficult to verify, uninformative. — 1652:(2) The list is not "original research". 2763:Wow, what a spectacular mess this is. 1509:and the ones they hate less important. 1030:. Irredemably POV, not encyclopedic. — 1720:. Redundant with the already existing 405: 232: 217: 102: 7: 1271:List of the Great Boners of all time 1090:, funny as hell. Great Boners, lol. 51:List of the Great Boners of all time 2696:Yeah, everyone just revote already. 2175:claiming this deletion as "proof". 1991:Inclusion on the list is based on 1677:if it is given a chance to expand. 24: 850:All right, if you want a revote, 37:(no consensus, rewritten, etc.). 3040: 3004:this please it seems reasonable 1706: 967:Republican/Democrat In Name Only 2955:If this revote stands, *still* 1535:, I now formally cast my vote. 796:who forgot to sign his/her vote 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1654:Knowledge:No original research 1234:sort of objective criteria? -- 1: 1182:. A bit long, but precise. - 739:assertions that sources exist 33:The result of the debate was 3123:Please do not edit this page 2791:The Joker's Comedy of Errors 1984:Why this article is not POV. 1594:of the opinions of at least 919:, POV, unmaintainable list. 29:This page is no longer live. 2783:) 19:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2769:Greatest boners of all time 2712:Greatest Boners of all time 2170:Ah, the joys of democracy. 1999:. In fact the inclusion of 817:List of commercial failures 559:04:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) ( 99: 3142: 3019:04:34, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) 2938:04:18, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) 2850:A revote has been called. 2740:18:35, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC) 2578:the edit of the moved vote 1997:List of famous experiments 1858:) 16:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1794:) 00:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1722:List of military disasters 1464:04:10, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC) 1412:) 02:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1175:21:32, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) 1152:20:13, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) 1038:) 09:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 680:04:25, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) 659:04:23, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) 614:02:16, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC) 603:04:18, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) 503:List of military disasters 475:23:45, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC) 406:Abstain or Ambiguous vote 3098:01:30, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC) 3091:00:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3081:12:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3035:10:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3027:05:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2993:04:43, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2908:00:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2901:00:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2894:23:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2870:23:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2691:11:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2681:11:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2472:19:42, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC) 2403:07:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2396:07:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2389:06:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2380:06:18, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC) 2339:06:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2210:01:25, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC) 2147:23:18, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC) 2104:16:51, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC) 2032:09:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1824:09:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1814:08:35, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) 1753:21:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1739:15:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1728:14:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1711:09:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1513:11:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1495:11:43, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC) 1471:06:01, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1343:05:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1319:22:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1308:21:41, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) 1285:21:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1253:21:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1226:20:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1167:21:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1145:20:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1084:10:32, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) 977:01:22, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC) 958:06:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) 889:06:25, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC) 844:06:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 834:19:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC) 825:List of military failures 705:08:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 652:04:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 637:15:29, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC) 541:04:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) 517:07:06, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 482:00:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) 444:04:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 84:20:26, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3071:23:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3052:10:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3008:00:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2967:18:23, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2950:10:40, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2919:00:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2882:23:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2863:21:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2841:12:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2831:23:54, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2808:21:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2760:19:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2728:18:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2716:All time Greatest boners 2640:21:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2609:12:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2548:11:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2517:10:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2495:08:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2434:Knowledge:Revotes on Vfd 2346:07:55, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2312:05:52, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2179:00:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2124:23:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2079:14:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) 2044:11:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1961:04:28, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1951:18:18, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1937:12:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1927:11:57, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC) 1912:17:03, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1901:11:45, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1892:12:22, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC) 1882:00:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1868:00:30, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1844:12:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1832:09:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1804:02:02, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1772:22:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1683:15:13, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1610:12:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1561:17:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1539:11:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1523:12:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1481:10:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1401:23:59, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1394:20:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1384:14:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1363:11:27, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1351:23:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1326:01:13, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1296:22:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1262:02:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1238:22:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1208:20:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1186:22:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1129:01:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1118:08:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1104:12:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1094:19:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1070:10:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1052:09:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1024:08:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1011:03:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC) 1000:06:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 989:06:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 943:05:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 933:05:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 923:05:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 913:04:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 903:04:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 869:06:26, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 858:06:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 852:DELETE THE GODDAMN THING 823:. I might suggest that 807:12:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC) 786:, and plain old fashion 748:17:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 716:15:06, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC) 694:04:53, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC) 667:08:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 579:04:10, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) 529:07:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 492:16:45, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) 466:23:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) 96:21:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) 3113:06:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC) 1972:01:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC) 1786:in its current form. -- 821:List of political flops 45:22:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC) 2827:and greatest ever. -- 2669:- Look at the article 939:. Not encyclopedic -- 2432:How does this sound? 2906:Master Thief Garrett 2892:Master Thief Garrett 2868:Master Thief Garrett 2861:Master Thief Garrett 2806:Master Thief Garrett 2689:Master Thief Garrett 2638:Master Thief Garrett 2546:Master Thief Garrett 2387:Master Thief Garrett 2337:Master Thief Garrett 2177:Master Thief Garrett 2042:Master Thief Garrett 1537:Master Thief Garrett 1511:Master Thief Garrett 1469:Master Thief Garrett 1304:Totally opinionated 347:Master Thief Garrett 2736:is counted again. 2013:famously considered 1636:! Good suggestion ! 1634:(1) First of all, 1273:has been moved to 1076:, inherently POV. 1001: 929:, inherently POV. 895:. Inherently POV. 157:user:192.23.43. 65 2846:REVOTE (DISPUTED) 2369:Please note that 1756:Thinking better, 1695:very valid imo. 1269:. I noticed that 992: 427: 426: 3133: 3044: 2605:neutral view. - 1710: 1701: 1662:which are cited. 1456: 1453: 1450: 1447: 1444: 1441: 1438: 1435: 1432: 1429: 1426: 1422:or somesuch. -- 1114:inherently POV. 840:that's fine.) - 606:No vote change. 100: 3141: 3140: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3132: 3131: 3130: 3129: 2974: 2848: 2727: 2660: 2371:User:Pioneer-12 2366: 1981: 1862:Keep and expand 1697: 1454: 1451: 1448: 1445: 1442: 1439: 1436: 1433: 1430: 1427: 1424: 1392:Pavel Vozenilek 1060:famous failures 829:DropDeadGorgias 684:Oolon Colluphid 623:will not change 435: 392:DropDeadGorgias 337:Pavel Vozenilek 59: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3139: 3137: 3128: 3127: 3116: 3115: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3099: 3072: 3057: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3010: 3009: 2996: 2973: 2970: 2969: 2968: 2952: 2951: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2904:...exactly... 2884: 2883: 2847: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2832: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2810: 2809: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2794: 2767:and rename as 2761: 2756:continuity. - 2752:, in order to 2730: 2729: 2719: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2699: 2675: 2674: 2659: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2621: 2620: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2591: 2590: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2538: 2525: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2365: 2362: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2268: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2259: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2070: 2069: 2068: 2067: 2056: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2046: 2045: 2038: 1980: 1977: 1976: 1975: 1974: 1962: 1952: 1938: 1928: 1913: 1902: 1893: 1883: 1869: 1859: 1845: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1815: 1805: 1795: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1724:and others. -- 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1645: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1588: 1585: 1581: 1563: 1562: 1540: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1505: 1504: 1497: 1496: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1413: 1402: 1395: 1385: 1364: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1329: 1328: 1327: 1309: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1264: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1209: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1095: 1085: 1071: 1053: 1039: 1025: 1014: 1013: 1012: 990: 980: 979: 978: 944: 934: 924: 914: 904: 890: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 860: 859: 837: 836: 835: 809: 808: 798: 749: 723: 722: 721: 720: 719: 718: 717: 695: 670: 669: 668: 642: 641: 640: 639: 638: 619:no vote change 580: 570: 542: 532: 531: 530: 498: 497: 496: 495: 494: 493: 469: 468: 467: 434: 431: 429: 425: 424: 423: 422: 417: 412: 404: 403: 402: 397: 389: 384: 379: 374: 369: 364: 359: 354: 349: 344: 339: 334: 329: 324: 319: 314: 309: 304: 299: 294: 289: 284: 279: 274: 269: 264: 259: 254: 249: 244: 239: 231: 230: 229: 224: 216: 215: 214: 209: 204: 199: 194: 189: 184: 179: 174: 169: 164: 159: 154: 149: 144: 139: 134: 129: 124: 119: 114: 109: 98: 97: 58: 48: 42:(spill yours?) 32: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3138: 3126: 3124: 3118: 3117: 3114: 3111: 3107: 3104: 3097: 3093: 3092: 3090: 3087: 3083: 3082: 3080: 3076: 3073: 3070: 3067: 3063: 3058: 3051: 3048: 3043: 3037: 3036: 3034: 3029: 3028: 3026: 3022: 3021: 3020: 3018: 3015: 3007: 3003: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2994: 2992: 2987: 2983: 2980: 2971: 2966: 2962: 2958: 2954: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2940: 2939: 2937: 2933: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2909: 2907: 2903: 2902: 2900: 2896: 2895: 2893: 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2869: 2864: 2862: 2856: 2853: 2845: 2840: 2836: 2833: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2819: 2816: 2815: 2807: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2792: 2788: 2785: 2784: 2782: 2781: 2776: 2775: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2748:your vote to 2747: 2743: 2742: 2741: 2739: 2735: 2726: 2725: 2724: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2706: 2705: 2697: 2693: 2692: 2690: 2686: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2680: 2672: 2668: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2657: 2639: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2608: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2593: 2592: 2579: 2575: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2560: 2559: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2534: 2533: 2532: 2531: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2516: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2505: 2504: 2494: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2483: 2471: 2466: 2463: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2459: 2458: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2443: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2430: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2414: 2410: 2405: 2404: 2402: 2398: 2397: 2395: 2391: 2390: 2388: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2379: 2376: 2372: 2363: 2345: 2341: 2340: 2338: 2334: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2269: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2209: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2178: 2173: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2146: 2142: 2141: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2123: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2103: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2078: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2071: 2064: 2060: 2059: 2058: 2057: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2035: 2034: 2033: 2031: 2026: 2022: 2018: 2015: 2014: 2008: 2006: 2005:Thomas Edison 2002: 1998: 1994: 1989: 1986: 1985: 1978: 1973: 1970: 1966: 1963: 1960: 1956: 1953: 1950: 1946: 1942: 1939: 1936: 1932: 1929: 1926: 1921: 1917: 1914: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1900: 1899:192.23.43. 65 1897: 1894: 1891: 1887: 1884: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1870: 1867: 1863: 1860: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1846: 1843: 1839: 1836: 1831: 1826: 1825: 1823: 1819: 1816: 1813: 1809: 1806: 1803: 1799: 1796: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1782: 1781: 1771: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1755: 1754: 1752: 1748: 1747: 1741: 1740: 1738: 1733: 1730: 1729: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1718: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1709: 1705: 1702: 1700: 1693: 1682: 1678: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1660: 1655: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1637: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1609: 1606: 1602: 1601:Maginot line: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1586: 1582: 1579: 1578:knowledgeable 1575: 1571: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1560: 1557: 1553: 1550: 1546: 1545: 1541: 1538: 1534: 1531: 1530: 1522: 1519: 1515: 1514: 1512: 1507: 1506: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1487: 1480: 1477: 1473: 1472: 1470: 1466: 1465: 1463: 1460: 1457: 1421: 1417: 1414: 1411: 1407: 1403: 1400: 1396: 1393: 1389: 1386: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1373:article (see 1372: 1368: 1365: 1362: 1358: 1355: 1350: 1345: 1344: 1342: 1339: 1335: 1330: 1325: 1321: 1320: 1318: 1315: 1310: 1307: 1303: 1300: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1286: 1284: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1268: 1265: 1263: 1261: 1258: 1252: 1249: 1245: 1242: 1237: 1233: 1230:come up with 1228: 1227: 1225: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1207: 1203: 1199: 1196: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1176: 1174: 1169: 1168: 1166: 1162: 1158: 1154: 1153: 1151: 1147: 1146: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1135:Keep. Rename. 1133: 1128: 1124: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1108: 1103: 1099: 1096: 1093: 1089: 1086: 1083: 1079: 1075: 1072: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1054: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1040: 1037: 1033: 1029: 1026: 1023: 1018: 1015: 1010: 1006: 1003: 1002: 999: 995: 991: 988: 984: 981: 976: 972: 968: 964: 961: 960: 959: 957: 953: 949: 945: 942: 938: 935: 932: 928: 925: 922: 918: 915: 912: 908: 905: 902: 898: 894: 891: 888: 884: 880: 877: 876: 868: 864: 863: 862: 861: 857: 853: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 843: 833: 830: 826: 822: 818: 814: 811: 810: 806: 802: 799: 797: 795: 789: 785: 781: 777: 773: 769: 765: 761: 757: 753: 750: 747: 744: 740: 736: 731: 730:[present form 727: 724: 715: 711: 707: 706: 704: 700: 696: 693: 689: 685: 682: 681: 679: 675: 671: 666: 661: 660: 658: 654: 653: 651: 646: 643: 636: 632: 628: 624: 620: 616: 615: 613: 609: 605: 604: 602: 598: 594: 591: 589: 585: 581: 578: 574: 571: 568: 567: 562: 558: 555: 551: 547: 543: 540: 536: 533: 528: 524: 519: 518: 516: 512: 508: 504: 500: 499: 491: 487: 484: 483: 481: 477: 476: 474: 470: 465: 461: 457: 453: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 443: 440: 432: 430: 421: 418: 416: 413: 411: 408: 407: 401: 398: 396: 393: 390: 388: 385: 383: 380: 378: 375: 373: 370: 368: 365: 363: 360: 358: 355: 353: 350: 348: 345: 343: 340: 338: 335: 333: 330: 328: 325: 323: 320: 318: 315: 313: 310: 308: 305: 303: 300: 298: 295: 293: 290: 288: 285: 283: 280: 278: 275: 273: 270: 268: 265: 263: 260: 258: 255: 253: 250: 248: 245: 243: 240: 238: 235: 234: 228: 225: 223: 220: 219: 213: 210: 208: 205: 203: 200: 198: 195: 193: 190: 188: 185: 183: 180: 178: 175: 173: 170: 168: 165: 163: 160: 158: 155: 153: 150: 148: 145: 143: 140: 138: 135: 133: 130: 128: 125: 123: 120: 118: 115: 113: 110: 108: 105: 104: 101: 95: 92: 87: 86: 85: 83: 80: 76: 71: 69: 65: 56: 52: 49: 47: 46: 43: 40: 36: 30: 19: 3122: 3119: 3105: 3074: 3011: 3001: 2995: 2988: 2984: 2978: 2975: 2961:Tony Sidaway 2956: 2943: 2930: 2875: 2858: 2851: 2849: 2834: 2817: 2786: 2779: 2773: 2764: 2753: 2749: 2745: 2733: 2731: 2721: 2720: 2707: 2695: 2676: 2661: 2573: 2541: 2464: 2438:common sense 2412: 2408: 2368: 2367: 2305: 2301: 2171: 2062: 2027: 2023: 2019: 2012: 2011: 2009: 2000: 1992: 1990: 1987: 1983: 1982: 1964: 1954: 1945:Tony Sidaway 1940: 1930: 1919: 1915: 1905: 1895: 1885: 1871: 1861: 1847: 1837: 1817: 1807: 1797: 1783: 1757: 1745: 1744:Changing to 1743: 1731: 1716: 1715: 1698: 1691: 1690: 1676: 1658: 1635: 1600: 1595: 1591: 1577: 1576:opinions of 1573: 1569: 1543: 1542: 1532: 1488: 1415: 1387: 1366: 1356: 1333: 1301: 1266: 1254: 1243: 1231: 1217:other people 1216: 1212: 1197: 1156: 1134: 1122: 1111: 1110: 1097: 1087: 1073: 1055: 1045: 1041: 1027: 1016: 1004: 993: 982: 962: 947: 946: 936: 926: 916: 906: 892: 878: 851: 838: 812: 800: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 771: 767: 763: 759: 755: 751: 738: 725: 709: 698: 687: 644: 626: 622: 618: 617:Once again, 592: 583: 582: 572: 565: 564: 560: 549: 545: 534: 522: 485: 451: 436: 428: 74: 72: 67: 63: 60: 39:Mindspillage 34: 28: 26: 1920:interesting 1918:This is an 1910:Mike Rosoft 1762:User:Meelar 1592:compilation 1257:FreplySpang 1248:FreplySpang 1078:Evil Monkey 1050:Doc Glasgow 792:comment by 690:a blunder. 501:Merge with 387:Mike Rosoft 322:FreplySpang 317:Evil Monkey 307:Doc_glasgow 132:Merovingian 3062:verifiable 2991:Pioneer-12 2948:Pioneer-12 2880:Grace Note 2758:Pioneer-12 2679:Pioneer-12 2658:Precidents 2607:Pioneer-12 2515:Pioneer-12 2493:Pioneer-12 2442:good faith 2394:Pioneer-12 2344:Pioneer-12 2310:Pioneer-12 2122:Pioneer-12 2077:Pioneer-12 2030:Pioneer-12 1979:COMMENTARY 1766:other page 1737:Pioneer-12 1681:Pioneer-12 1349:Pioneer-12 1324:Pioneer-12 1184:Pioneer-12 1165:Pioneer-12 1143:Pioneer-12 867:Pioneer-12 842:Pioneer-12 627:explicitly 621:. My vote 588:Ron Jeremy 527:Pioneer-12 490:Pioneer-12 480:Pioneer-12 464:Pioneer-12 450:Note that 372:Grace Note 222:Stevertigo 107:Pioneer-12 3033:Thryduulf 2944:right now 2723:Sam Spade 1959:Antandrus 1852:Wahoofive 1842:Sjakkalle 1574:consensus 1406:Trilobite 1306:Saopaulo1 1127:Thryduulf 1116:Thryduulf 1032:Trilobite 921:Megan1967 764:blunders. 703:Blainster 665:Blainster 650:Blainster 625:unless I 439:Mackensen 367:Wahoofive 327:Saopaulo1 302:Trilobite 277:Megan1967 257:Android79 237:Mackensen 207:Antandrus 197:Sam_Spade 187:Yonghokim 152:Sjakkalle 122:Thryduulf 112:Blainster 68:Bold text 3096:Moncrief 3047:Dpbsmith 3025:Carnildo 2936:Moncrief 2829:Lochaber 2738:Moncrief 2470:Moncrief 2401:Carnildo 2364:REVOTING 2208:Moncrief 2145:Moncrief 2102:Moncrief 2021:stated. 2001:anything 1969:AYArktos 1925:SGBailey 1866:Nickptar 1605:Dpbsmith 1556:Dpbsmith 1549:Dpbsmith 1399:Carnildo 1294:Nickptar 1236:Carnildo 1206:Nickptar 1173:Moncrief 1150:Moncrief 1137:Compare 1068:Skysmith 1022:Mwalcoff 987:Carnildo 856:Carnildo 794:Lifefeed 788:mistakes 776:failures 743:Dpbsmith 657:Moncrief 584:Redirect 539:Moncrief 473:Moncrief 312:Skysmith 297:Mwalcoff 292:Carnildo 242:Moncrief 227:Lifefeed 212:AYArktos 192:SGBailey 177:Nickptar 167:Lochaber 117:Dpbsmith 64:does not 3066:Rossami 3006:Yuckfoo 2787:Finally 2774:RaD Man 2236:get-go. 1890:Dcfleck 1812:Willmcw 1764:on the 1760:as per 1699:ALKIVAR 1544:Delete. 1371:Blunder 1367:Comment 1338:Rossami 1279:Zzyzx11 1267:Comment 1213:exactly 1064:blunder 963:Neutral 931:Firebug 897:Zzyzx11 887:Rhobite 883:Rhobite 714:Uncle G 692:Uncle G 674:android 631:android 608:android 597:android 486:Update: 410:Uncle G 382:Dcfleck 362:Willmcw 332:Rossami 282:Firebug 267:Zzyzx11 262:Rhobite 233:Delete 202:Yuckfoo 162:Radman1 137:Alkivar 79:Rossami 3106:Delete 3086:Pcb21| 3075:Delete 3069:(talk) 3050:(talk) 2986:back. 2917:cesarb 2899:cesarb 2876:Delete 2835:Delete 2750:Delete 2734:Delete 2714:" or " 2708:Rename 2409:Delete 2399:No. -- 1931:Delete 1906:delete 1886:Delete 1876:Calton 1872:Delete 1848:Delete 1830:Jacobw 1822:Jacobw 1808:Delete 1798:Delete 1770:cesarb 1758:delete 1751:cesarb 1726:cesarb 1717:Delete 1608:(talk) 1559:(talk) 1552:(talk) 1533:Delete 1518:Pcb21| 1489:Delete 1476:Pcb21| 1388:Delete 1378:Etimbo 1341:(talk) 1334:Delete 1314:Pcb21| 1302:Delete 1260:(talk) 1251:(talk) 1244:Delete 1221:Pcb21| 1157:policy 1112:Delete 1098:Delete 1088:BJAODN 1074:Delete 1056:Delete 1046:delete 1042:Expand 1028:Delete 1017:Delete 994:Delete 983:Delete 971:Jmabel 952:Jmabel 948:Delete 937:Delete 927:Delete 917:Delete 907:Delete 893:Delete 879:Delete 832:(talk) 813:Delete 801:Delete 772:chokes 752:Delete 746:(talk) 593:Delete 573:Delete 566:Delete 557:(talk) 554:Meelar 550:Delete 535:Delete 442:(talk) 420:Jmabel 415:Etimbo 395:(talk) 377:Calton 352:cesarb 247:Meelar 218:Merge 147:Jacobw 91:Pcb21| 82:(talk) 3110:Quale 2979:dying 2445:much. 1802:Stoph 1596:three 1082:Hello 950:. -- 784:flubs 780:muffs 768:bombs 760:flops 756:Merge 577:Stoph 433:Votes 400:Quale 357:Stoph 252:Stoph 172:Pcb21 103:Keep 53:(now 16:< 3089:Pete 3079:Feco 3014:Rick 3002:keep 2965:Talk 2959:. -- 2957:keep 2915:. -- 2839:Feco 2818:Keep 2780:talk 2771:. — 2765:Keep 2754:Keep 2746:Keep 2710:to " 2694:OK. 2413:Keep 2375:Rick 2306:keep 2280:now. 2063:only 1993:fame 1965:keep 1955:Keep 1949:Talk 1941:Keep 1935:Feco 1916:keep 1908:. - 1896:keep 1880:Talk 1856:Talk 1838:Keep 1818:Keep 1800:. - 1792:talk 1788:SPUI 1784:Keep 1768:. -- 1746:keep 1692:Keep 1570:tend 1521:Pete 1479:Pete 1416:Move 1410:Talk 1382:Talk 1376:) -- 1361:Grue 1357:Keep 1317:Pete 1283:Talk 1224:Pete 1198:Move 1161:NPOV 1123:Keep 1102:Feco 1092:Grue 1036:Talk 1005:Keep 975:Talk 956:Talk 941:Egil 911:Feco 901:Talk 854:. -- 805:Feco 790:?) 762:and 726:Keep 678:talk 645:Keep 635:talk 612:talk 601:talk 546:very 523:much 462:. - 456:NPOV 287:Egil 272:Feco 142:SPUI 127:Grue 94:Pete 35:keep 2718:". 2671:now 2574:one 2440:in 2411:to 1493:Rje 1462:(c) 1459:(t) 1418:to 1336:. 1232:any 1200:to 1009:Mo0 998:Mo0 754:or 728:in 586:to 563:. 515:add 342:Rje 182:Mo0 75:all 2989:- 2857:. 2677:- 2028:- 1967:-- 1878:| 1679:- 1380:| 1292:. 1281:| 1048:-- 973:| 954:| 909:. 899:| 819:, 782:, 778:, 774:, 770:, 699:no 688:is 663:-- 648:-- 569:.) 552:. 507:SV 505:. 3125:. 3017:K 3000:' 2963:| 2777:( 2673:! 2378:K 1947:| 1854:( 1790:( 1704:™ 1599:" 1455:n 1452:a 1449:i 1446:g 1443:n 1440:i 1437:v 1434:o 1431:r 1428:e 1425:M 1408:( 1080:∴ 1034:( 676:↔ 633:↔ 610:↔ 599:↔ 590:. 513:| 511:t 509:| 57:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/List of the Great Boners of all time - Knowledge

Index