433:. Hemingway, Dickens, David Mamet & etc deserve the same treatment that Monahan got (treatment from me that is). I realize Wikipedians fear that every columnist out there will have his/her work listed one by one, though Monahan was more of an artist, who occasionally wrote a cover story, a book review, etc. If he were a columnist with 50 or so articles per newspaper, then that could be summed up in a paragraph or something for each glob. Showing respect for talent is the best thing you can do and having a complete finite account of a journalist's ouevre does no harm. Are we really only interested in having a full account of the
1041:: "I remember Bill from 10 years ago as charming, libertarian-leaning, with a razor-sharp wit that he used in print to anger as many people as possible. Monahan's most notorious New York Press piece, "Dr. Rosenthal, I Presume" (6/21/95), was a devil's-advocate response to a New York Times op-ed by A.M. Rosenthal that had recommended the United States spend $ 100 million to eradicate female genital mutilation in Africa." and journalist
469:
articles, so people remember him. The other good thing about this list I've pulled together, it gives literary context to all his writings, especially the Claude stories that make satirical reference to his career. New York journalists will each tell you their favorite piece of his. I see a problem here, being if the crowd don't know about it then it ain't notable, which is a dangerous way to document history.-
1225:. An ego trip seems to be the only validation of this article's continued existence. Someone above suggested leaving it to future editors to prune, consolidate, etc. and that's good advice. The subject matter here is the reason the author obtains an article. While not exactly civil, some sarcastic suggestions above hit the mark exactly.--Buckboard 12:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1094:
added a bit of canvassing to various other bits of incivility: it did not affect my view. As to the above anonymous contribution, please try to assume a bit of good faith. This is the kind of posting that throws some fuel on what are already flames - I hope the closing administrator will discount those posting that do not seem motivated by the merits of the case.
1045:"A decade ago, Oliver Stone’s one and only novel was kindly reviewed by William Monahan, who went on to write the very funny novel “Light House” (Riverhead). Since then, Monahan has written screenplays for Ridley Scott’s “The Kingdom of Heaven” and Martin Scorsese’s “The Departed,” and this weekend he’s nominated for an Oscar for the latter."-
1134:
canvas thing but also because of the tone he has taken in this debate and others, the attack on people who support these deletions on his userpage, his blatant attempt to sabotage a legit debate on the merits of a Bruno Maddox list by moving the list's page, and his bad-faith nomination of another list for deletion.
1349:. One reason that these lists, like the Monahan list, is so useful is because the information is so hard to access anywhere else. Knowledge (XXG) is providing a unique service to the world in making this information so easily accessible (in my case, each of these bibliographies is only available in a single book).
1235:
Third, these are trivial articles and transient publications with only slightly more life and peer review than a web posting. Fourth, the stuff, such as it is, should be a single sentence in the author's article. Fifth, the title is unsearchable. Sixth, the information is indescriminate. Is that
1247:
I would love to actually have a sensible discussion about this list once I've completed it. I come from a background where people share writers with each other, and where people cut out, or point links to each other of what they think is really innovative writing. We're celebrating featured lists
1133:
Regardless of the impact his post had, his intent was to get your support to keep one of his pet projects safe from deletion. Also, not sure if sympathy would be considered a legit reason to keep an article. And as for repercussions, I would suggest stripping him of his
Barnstar, not only for the
826:
If both articles were combined in full, the size wold be about 53 KB. However, many of the writings listed seem non-notable,and could be left out, reducing the size to around 45-48KB, which wouldn't fall under the 'Probably should be divided range (over 60KB). Also, merging wouldn't effect the
354:
Nominator doesn't cite a single policy and we can't delete articles just because. Yes there are some very minor things in it, but if they are sourced that is not a problem. Having a separate bibliography makes the main article less cluttered. I would suggest that it was renamed "Writings of
William
1015:
on the basis on the content; "list" also contains a long section on the criticism of one particular book, apparently removed from the main article as well as the actual list of works--in other words, its two sections of the article pulled out without any reason. There may be some addition previous
468:
I won't play that game. I'll say this. William
Monahan is notable; that's established. His writings are notable; see the countless mentions of them by New York writers/citizens who lived through those years, especially talking about him after he won his Academy Award. They stirred up shit, his
306:
Much of this information is already in the main article; this is an unwarranted fork placing undue weight on the works. Charles
Dickens doesn't have a similar article. Arthur Conan Doyle doesn't have a similar article. Neither does Michener, Hemingway, Alger, Burgess, Christie, Wharton, Huxley,
888:
Yes, but WhiteKongMan noted in a response to a previous comment about that catagory that a majority of those bibliographies involve novels, not a handful of short stories. And the list in question contains mainly articles in newspapers and magazines. Would you like me to make an article on WRKO
1192:
Regarding the above comment, although I do not agree people should be instructing others whether to vote delete or keep, I do believe this article should not be deleted. A merge would make sense, however as the main article is above 32kB I think it's better to keep them separate. This discussion
1123:
more closely, and consider it's suggestions for remedial action in a sensible fashion - as noted above, his post had no impact. You may also want to consider whether a single post to one person is a canvass. What "repercussions" are you suggesting - how ominous that "repercussions" sounds! This
1093:
I forgot to sign in before making the above comment, which is me. I found this page from Wiki's front page, and found the other list via this one - the fact that my comment went on the other one first was simply a question of how I was navigating Wiki at the time. Yes, Mr. Carter seems to have
733:
You are not citing any useful policy. Slimming down a list that isn't even complete yet? Popular culture (TV eps, Sports matches) is not a standard to be used for notability. Please stop fueling this idiotic AfD. How dumbed-down do we want our culture? What has happened to human beings who
1329:, who by the way was a journalist as well and who does not have a bibliography, would perpetuate the view that there is a canon of great writers. This idea has been rejected by literary critics, the experts in the field (wikipedia requires that its editors rely on experts, remember?).
670:
What an arrogant little shit. A guy (me) comes to
Knowledge (XXG), contributes more in writing than WhiteKongMan could ever do in a decade, and you have the gall to tell me I have FAILED? If anyone wants to hear the complete story about Monahan's career as a writer then they'll
1265:
A sensible, dispassionate discussion would have been nice, but after a week of insults, spamming nonsense and bad faith noms on this and similar AfDs, perhaps you'll forgive us for a healthy dose of skepticism regarding your professed desire for one at this late date.
1340:
as an example, many of his novels were published in periodicals piece by piece. They were "ephemeral," but of course, they aren't important. Also, let me give examples of other "obscure" writers with lists of works that I have created that might be open to this attack
994:
the only editor on this article (not counting anon IPs, there are 27 other editors this calendar year). I'd suggest looking for encyclopedias where you could work without your contributions being subject to outside review or editing, but I suspect they don't exist.
1150:
by Carter. I'm not sure how many users responded to that post on this page and voted keep, but this should remove any doubt that Carter was canvassing. He clearly was intent on finding people sympathetic to his cause, and if this isn't canvassing what is?
437:? Having this list of Monahan's writings is what allowed me to write most of the main article to begin with. I'm already getting a hold of more of his stuff, though I'm looking for a better repository for this information. Life goes on. Mine, not here.-
163:- We do not need a listing of every single byline of every single magazine that a particular writer has to his credit. This would establish a very problematic precedent for the listing of every single column that an editorialist or op-ed writer ever got.
590:
Just cited policy, will that change your mind now? Also, many authors in that category have written multiple books, whereas
Monahan 's list is mostly a collection of articles from magazines or newspapers. Would you want me to make a Bibliography for
989:
your own self. Whatever your work on various articles, you do not get to decide in isolation how much detail authors are to be accorded, and your contributions are not uniquely exempted from consensus and peer review ... the more so in that you are
1124:
one's just a guy frustrated with the way others have behaved here thankful that someone's judging on the merits. Now that I've posted and seen a bunch of folks in glass houses running up ready to throw stones, I've got more sympathy for the guy.
223:
back into the main article. Many readers may be interested in exploring the subject's short stories and published articles. Listing his published works in the main article does no harm and could be a useful guide for further reading and research.
1286:
this debate is seven days old, and it appears that most valid points have already been brought up, and that the same opinions are being repeated continually. As such, I believe that this debate should be closed soon, regardless of the outcome.
846:
1358:
In my opinion, many of these editors are establishing a dangerous precedent. They are essentially arguing: "I don't think this person is important or will be important in the future, so we shouldn't bother to list all of his works."
497:
It's not a matter of "playing a game." Were I the closing admin, and all I was handed by the Keep proponents was that the subject was a hell of a swell fellow who's notable, I'd reason that the argument was equally as valid for
1376:
1300:
850:
1070:
goes to notability of a subject for an article, not what is included. I fail to find a reason here to delete, other than "I don't like it", or, perhaps, some just don't like Mr. Carter, who is being somewhat uncivil
478:
This debate isn't about
Monahan's notability, but rather whether this list is appropriate as its own article. A majority of these could and should be added to his main article, and this list deleted as a result.
1035:: "Anyway, Monahan's piece was great, as was most of his stuff he wrote for the Press back then. It's a minor drag that it all seems pretty much lost now, but things have turned out pretty well for him." Author
916:
Ever think that the list was difficult to make because the writings on the list are not notable? And since when did the difficulty in writing an article have any relevance concerning whether to keep or delete
1057:
This is a bit fleshier than most lists, but the article itself is long enough so splitting out the material makes sense and I thought we were heading toward fleshier lists these days. Keep based on policy,
1315:
I am deeply disturbed by some of the arguments being made here. Many of the editors seem to be making arguments based on their personal opinion of or knowledge of (or lack thereof) of the subject.
355:
Monahan", though. It doesn't matter if no other author has a similar article, all we need to worry about is to make sure that this article conforms to policy, and from what I can see, it does.
86:
81:
889:
personality and Boston Herald
Columnist Howie Carr's writings? He to has written one novel and numerous other works, but that would immedaitly be deleted, as this article should have been.
537:
90:
907:
Good points if you live in
Lalaland and Neverland all at the same time, and haven't figured out yet that Monahan wasn't a columnist and this is an incredibly difficult list to compile.-
73:
1325:
One part of the argument seems to be that only "great" writers should have their entire bibliographies listed, but to assemble a bibliography only of so-called "great" writers such as
1332:
Another part of the argument has focused on the idea that these writings are irrelevant and ephemeral, therefore they should not all be listed. To this I would answer, first, that
113:
128:
04:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC). To add to my reason for nominating this I would like to point out . I didn't realiz people couldn't infer that this is why I nominated it.
560:
is a
Featured Article, and it is entirely apropriate to list his works seperately. There are dozens of examples of writers haveing seperate articles for their work (see
536:
I don't think the guys at Featured lists are aware of what's going on here at AfD. Certainly they are doing some interesting stuff, and featuring some great lists (see
325:
640:
and I'm telling you his most significant works are NOT already detailed in that article. Anyways, I'm sure the drivel will continue to pour into here, full of
387:
apply in this case? There are 3 types of articles that fall under that policy and I don't see how you'd fit this article into any one of those three types. A
147:
Read the policy you cite, cuz it says "Notability guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles."-
877:- a whole category of such list articles. Some of these list articles are split out for size reasons, some should probably be merged to the author articles.
507:
1352:
One proposal was to list only Monahan's "notable" writings, but who is supposed to decide that? The editor of the page? That doesn't sound like NPOV to me.
1062:
is not applicable, since this is not a directory, such as a compilation of zip codes for reference purposes, or a list of loosely associated material. If
1143:
976:? All of you should be reading instead of voting to eradicate a very difficult list to come by that anyone with a modicum of sense would keep.-
1342:
1402:
1391:
1363:
1355:
Another proposal was to merge the list into the article. The list is much too long to merge into the article, much like the lists I created.
1307:
1291:
1274:
1260:
1240:
1209:
1183:
1155:
1138:
1128:
1114:
1098:
1088:
1075:
1049:
1022:
1003:
980:
961:
945:
921:
911:
902:
893:
881:
857:
831:
821:
807:
796:
776:
763:
742:
726:
708:
679:
665:
652:
625:
603:
583:
548:
518:
492:
483:
473:
461:
441:
413:
395:
378:
374:. Also, despite the fact that he won an Oscar for his screenplay for the Departed, he is not a better writer than Hemingway, Dickens, etc.
359:
346:
334:
315:
298:
271:
240:
228:
211:
202:
191:
167:
151:
139:
52:
1322:
Monahan is notable because he is a writer, thus a list of his writings are relevant to the major reason he has been included in wikipedia.
853:
involving Bruno Maddox's writing is also on going, despite BillDeanCarter's efforts to derail the debate by improperly moving the page.
790:
per concerns about no clear policy being cited. This is useful information, and relevant. Merging will make the parent article too long
973:
370:, and this article is simply a list of writings, some of which link to Non-Wiki sources. Selected writings should be included in the
120:
Article is a review of what Monahan has written. This page should be deleted and any important information should be included in the
17:
1346:
77:
870:
578:
541:
69:
61:
1110:, and he should face repercussions for this, as well as the tone he has taking regarding this and other pet projects of his
544:
to those featured lists. I'm sure they would be glad to see this list show up there for promotion one day when completed.-
453:
That's an eloquent paragraph, but do you have any policy or guideline grounds you'd like to submit as a rationale to Keep?
499:
252:
has a nicely referenced bibliography of which I can say that it would be a waste if we were to throw that down the alley.
957:. Let the editors there decide what to do with the material, such as pruning and consolidating to get the balance right.
866:
748:
735:
1417:
874:
561:
503:
36:
849:
involing a list of Aaron Sorkin's writings was just settled, with the decision made to delete and merge. And another
1379:
less than two days ago. Precedent should count for something. If precedent is ignored, then just merge into the main
803:
Since you say I didn't cite any policy, I would like to ask you to point out a policy about the length of articles.
675:
this list, and let it reaches its end. WhiteKongMan you should leave Knowledge (XXG) and let writers do their job.-
510:, but there wasn't any explicit policy grounds to keep those either. Are you comfy with resting on that argument?
293:
812:
1416:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1231:: First, establishing a web directory is not allowed. Second, the author is barely sufficiently known to be
865:
an example of long lists that are separate articles and sections in the author biography, respectively, are:
48:, default to keep. Merging the content back, while also supported by many here, is an editorial decision.
1336:. Second, you do not know what will become relevant or interesting to people in the future. Teturning to
1072:
738:
and what a god damn joy! It's outrageous that this buffoonery wants to eliminate that kind of intrigue.-
828:
804:
662:
600:
199:
136:
129:
125:
1085:
719:- I just don't see how notable this list is on its own: many of the entries seem rather trivial. --
1202:
1176:
1399:
1257:
1103:
1046:
977:
908:
760:
739:
695:
676:
658:
649:
648:, whaz yer fave episode? Knowledge (XXG) cannot be MySpace. This is too important of a web site.-
545:
489:
470:
438:
268:
148:
1147:
1120:
1107:
703:
596:
410:
237:
769:
1333:
972:. I decided to fork this material because I got a hold of more and more stuff. Have you seen
1066:
applied, we'd have to say a list of Shakespeare's writings failed the test as well. Likewise,
392:
356:
331:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1198:
1067:
388:
342:. Mention the most notable works in the main article, but no need to merge this entire list.
133:
1304:
1288:
1237:
1152:
1135:
1111:
918:
890:
873:(yes, that is a redirect to a section - I wish more people used those). Also of interest is
854:
622:
480:
375:
208:
188:
1387:
25 titles on the list, that is not too long to merge (as the above user tried to suggest).
1253:
1194:
1063:
1059:
986:
425:
and countless ancillary articles, one up for FA status at the featured article list called
384:
367:
1380:
1337:
1326:
969:
958:
954:
938:
899:
878:
723:
716:
614:
572:
557:
430:
406:
371:
180:
121:
1388:
1267:
1256:. Lists of writings are in a class of their own because they're almost never trivial.-
996:
511:
454:
434:
426:
308:
287:
257:
49:
1193:
seems to be very heated on both sides, and I would urge the closing admin to consider
488:
Oh my. Sorry. I forgot about Knowledge (XXG)'s high standards and barrier to entry.-
1360:
1125:
1095:
942:
556:
The nominator has failed to cite any policy on why it should be deleted. The article
307:
Wolfe or any other prolific author I've taken ten minutes out of my life to review.
164:
773:
343:
225:
632:
What does that mean Masaruemoto? Are you more knowledgeable on this subject than
132:
14:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC) Many of the articles listed in the list also seem to fail
107:
816:
791:
592:
184:
720:
565:
1303:, which involved a similar article, just closed with deletion as the result
1037:
422:
281:
768:
Disrupting Knowledge (XXG) simply to prove a point is never advisable. See
657:
Well if his most significant works aren't in his main article, its because
1377:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of the writings of Bruno Maddox
985:
Rather than telling us what we should be reading, perhaps you should read
1018:
1081:
937:
per basic common sense that what is of value here should be merged to
508:
Sports teams for which William Monahan has been a season ticket holder
279:
the most notable writings, if not all of them, into the main article.
236::: there is no point in divorcing a bibliography from its origin. --
827:
readability of the main article, as it would just be adding a list.
1252:
and it would be great if more bibliographies started showing up at
1016:
editing dispute involved, because i can't see the sense of this.
1410:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
538:
Knowledge (XXG):Wikipedia_Signpost/2007-04-30/Featured_list
409:, deleting insignificant reviews, magazine articles, etc.
429:. I sadly wish I had found another outlet to write about
815:
should clear things up for you. Hope you find it useful!
207:"Curriculum vitae"—basically the same thing as a resume.
1080:
Regarding the validity of the above comment, please see
103:
99:
95:
693:
per Tompw, no legitimate reason given for deletion. --
175:. Fer cryin' out loud, it's a bleeding CV. Note the
1383:article. Let's be realistic about this - there are
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1420:). No further edits should be made to this page.
734:actually read an author's works? I just found
715:Delete and merge a slimmed down version with
8:
661:have FAILED to include them in the article.
617:. All of his most significant works all
324:: This debate has been included in the
542:List of the writings of William Monahan
250:List of the writings of William Monahan
70:List of the writings of William Monahan
62:List of the writings of William Monahan
1146:to see another potential violation of
391:is not the same thing as a directory.
1343:List of works by Mary Martha Sherwood
421:How sad. There is an article called
198:Hi, I'm on your side but what is CV?
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
500:Toilet seats used by William Monahan
1027:JOURNALISTS WHO SPAKE OF MONAHAN:
974:Bibliography of Hunter S. Thompson
368:Knowledge (XXG) is not a Directory
24:
1375:per precedent set by deletion at
1347:List of works by Joseph Priestley
875:Category:Bibliographies by author
562:Category:Bibliographies by author
504:Women William Monahan have kissed
871:Bibliography of J. R. R. Tolkien
1175:As per 38.112.153.190 above. -
326:list of Lists-related deletions
615:William Monahan#Man of letters
599:, whose list would be similar
1:
751:up for deletion. Go vote to
867:Bibliography of Isaac Asimov
813:Knowledge (XXG):Article size
749:List of works by Neil Gaiman
736:List of works by Neil Gaiman
372:William Monahan main article
1437:
1398:The list is not complete.-
621:detailed in that article.
462:13:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
442:09:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
414:22:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
396:13:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
379:16:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
360:15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
347:04:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
335:15:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
316:13:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
299:07:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
272:07:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
241:07:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
229:05:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
192:04:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
168:04:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
747:I'm sadistic. I put the
1413:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1403:04:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
1392:01:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
1364:02:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
1308:14:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1292:14:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1275:16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1261:14:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1241:14:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1210:06:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1184:04:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1156:17:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1139:17:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1129:14:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1115:14:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1099:13:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1089:05:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1076:00:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1050:00:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1023:00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
1004:00:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
981:23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
962:19:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
946:19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
922:14:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
912:23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
903:19:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
894:17:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
882:17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
858:15:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
832:15:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
822:14:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
808:14:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
797:11:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
777:04:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
764:11:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
743:10:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
727:10:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
709:05:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
680:23:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
666:15:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
653:04:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
626:03:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
604:14:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
584:12:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
549:08:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
519:13:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
493:08:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
484:06:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
474:04:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
212:16:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
203:15:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
152:00:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
140:15:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
53:09:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
1334:wikipedia is not paper
613:Unnecessary fork from
183:and nuke this page. --
46:no consensus to delete
1106:has cleary violated
1301:Bruno Maddox Debate
843:Just as a Reference
1297:Another Quick Note
1043:William Georgiades
968:I'm THE editor at
941:. Pointless fork.
644:s and I watch the
597:Sports Illustrated
1236:enough reasons?
707:
582:
569:
329:
179:in prose form on
1428:
1415:
1271:
1207:
1181:
1000:
819:
794:
701:
698:
576:
567:
534:Food for thought
515:
458:
320:
312:
266:
256:
111:
93:
34:
1436:
1435:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1418:deletion review
1411:
1381:William Monahan
1338:Charles Dickens
1327:Charles Dickens
1269:
1248:in this week's
1203:
1177:
998:
970:William Monahan
955:William Monahan
939:William Monahan
817:
792:
717:William Monahan
696:
558:William Monahan
540:). Compare my
513:
456:
431:William Monahan
407:William Monahan
310:
258:
254:
181:William Monahan
122:William Monahan
84:
68:
65:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1434:
1432:
1423:
1422:
1406:
1405:
1400:BillDeanCarter
1395:
1394:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1356:
1353:
1350:
1330:
1323:
1317:
1316:
1310:
1294:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1258:BillDeanCarter
1244:
1243:
1226:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1187:
1186:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1073:38.112.153.190
1052:
1047:BillDeanCarter
1029:Business Week'
1025:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
978:BillDeanCarter
965:
964:
948:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
909:BillDeanCarter
885:
884:
860:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
800:
799:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
761:BillDeanCarter
740:BillDeanCarter
730:
729:
712:
711:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
677:BillDeanCarter
650:BillDeanCarter
629:
628:
607:
606:
587:
586:
551:
546:BillDeanCarter
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
490:BillDeanCarter
471:BillDeanCarter
465:
464:
445:
444:
439:BillDeanCarter
435:2003 NBA Draft
427:2003 NBA Draft
416:
400:
399:
398:
362:
349:
337:
318:
301:
274:
243:
238:Simon Cursitor
231:
217:
216:
215:
214:
195:
194:
170:
157:
156:
155:
154:
149:BillDeanCarter
118:
117:
64:
59:
57:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1433:
1421:
1419:
1414:
1408:
1407:
1404:
1401:
1397:
1396:
1393:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1374:
1371:
1370:
1365:
1362:
1357:
1354:
1351:
1348:
1344:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1328:
1324:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1311:
1309:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1295:
1293:
1290:
1285:
1282:
1281:
1276:
1273:
1272:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1246:
1245:
1242:
1239:
1234:
1230:
1227:
1224:
1220:
1217:
1216:
1211:
1208:
1206:
1200:
1196:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1185:
1182:
1180:
1174:
1171:
1157:
1154:
1149:
1145:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1137:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1127:
1122:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1097:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1074:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1056:
1053:
1051:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1039:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1024:
1021:
1020:
1014:
1011:
1010:
1005:
1002:
1001:
993:
988:
984:
983:
982:
979:
975:
971:
967:
966:
963:
960:
956:
952:
949:
947:
944:
940:
936:
933:
932:
923:
920:
915:
914:
913:
910:
906:
905:
904:
901:
898:Good points.
897:
896:
895:
892:
887:
886:
883:
880:
876:
872:
868:
864:
861:
859:
856:
852:
848:
844:
841:
840:
833:
830:
825:
824:
823:
820:
814:
811:
810:
809:
806:
802:
801:
798:
795:
789:
786:
785:
778:
775:
771:
767:
766:
765:
762:
758:
754:
750:
746:
745:
744:
741:
737:
732:
731:
728:
725:
722:
718:
714:
713:
710:
705:
700:
699:
692:
689:
688:
681:
678:
674:
669:
668:
667:
664:
660:
656:
655:
654:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
630:
627:
624:
620:
616:
612:
609:
608:
605:
602:
598:
594:
589:
588:
585:
580:
574:
570:
563:
559:
555:
552:
550:
547:
543:
539:
535:
532:
531:
520:
517:
516:
509:
505:
501:
496:
495:
494:
491:
487:
486:
485:
482:
477:
476:
475:
472:
467:
466:
463:
460:
459:
452:
449:
448:
447:
446:
443:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
417:
415:
412:
411:Peterkingiron
408:
404:
401:
397:
394:
390:
386:
382:
381:
380:
377:
373:
369:
366:
363:
361:
358:
353:
350:
348:
345:
341:
338:
336:
333:
327:
323:
319:
317:
314:
313:
305:
304:Delete/Merge:
302:
300:
296:
295:
290:
289:
284:
283:
278:
275:
273:
270:
269:
267:
265:
261:
251:
247:
244:
242:
239:
235:
232:
230:
227:
222:
219:
218:
213:
210:
206:
205:
204:
201:
197:
196:
193:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
171:
169:
166:
162:
159:
158:
153:
150:
146:
145:
144:
143:
142:
141:
138:
135:
131:
127:
123:
115:
109:
105:
101:
97:
92:
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
66:
63:
60:
58:
55:
54:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1412:
1409:
1384:
1372:
1312:
1296:
1283:
1268:
1249:
1232:
1228:
1222:
1218:
1204:
1178:
1172:
1119:Please read
1054:
1042:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1017:
1012:
997:
991:
950:
934:
862:
842:
829:WhiteKongMan
805:WhiteKongMan
787:
756:
752:
694:
690:
672:
663:WhiteKongMan
645:
641:
638:that article
637:
633:
618:
610:
601:WhiteKongMan
553:
533:
512:
455:
450:
418:
402:
393:Pax:Vobiscum
364:
357:Pax:Vobiscum
351:
339:
332:Pax:Vobiscum
321:
309:
303:
292:
285:
280:
276:
263:
259:
253:
249:
245:
233:
220:
200:WhiteKongMan
176:
172:
160:
137:WhiteKongMan
130:WhiteKongMan
126:WhiteKongMan
119:
56:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1313:Strong Keep
1305:Black Harry
1289:Black Harry
1238:Utgard Loki
1153:Black Harry
1136:Black Harry
1112:Black Harry
1086:66.65.54.63
919:Black Harry
891:Black Harry
855:Black Harry
788:Strong Keep
636:? I wrote
623:Masaruemoto
593:Rick Reilly
481:Black Harry
376:Black Harry
209:Newyorkbrad
1270:RGTraynor
1233:mentioned.
1064:WP:Not#Dir
1060:WP:NOT#Dir
1013:Merge back
999:RGTraynor
959:Carcharoth
900:Carcharoth
879:Carcharoth
845:a similar
514:RGTraynor
457:RGTraynor
385:WP:NOT#DIR
311:RGTraynor
248:per Cleo.
177:highlights
1389:Crazysuit
1148:WP:Canvas
1144:Read Here
1121:WP:Canvas
1108:WP:Canvas
1038:Dawn Eden
755:it or to
423:NBA Draft
383:How does
50:Sandstein
1361:Awadewit
1250:Signpost
1126:A Musing
1096:A Musing
1033:Jon Fine
943:Eusebeus
770:WP:POINT
646:Simpsons
451:Comment:
405:back to
165:Otto4711
124:article
114:View log
1284:Comment
1219:Delete'
1199:WP:SNOW
1068:WP:NOTE
863:Comment
774:Cleo123
697:Phoenix
619:already
344:Croxley
226:Cleo123
134:WP:NOTE
87:protect
82:history
1373:Delete
1254:WP:FLC
1229:Delete
1205:Shudda
1195:WP:IAR
1179:Shudda
1104:Carter
987:WP:OWN
935:Delete
851:debate
847:debate
818:Lurker
793:Lurker
757:Delete
724:(Talk)
642:Delete
611:Delete
579:review
365:Delete
340:Delete
234:Delete
185:Calton
173:Delete
161:Delete
91:delete
1223:merge
1071:here.
951:Merge
721:ALoan
403:Merge
277:Merge
264:THING
246:Merge
221:Merge
108:views
100:watch
96:links
16:<
1385:only
1345:and
1299:the
1201:. -
1197:and
1173:Keep
1082:this
1055:Keep
869:and
759:it.-
753:Keep
704:talk
691:Keep
673:Keep
573:talk
554:Keep
506:and
419:Keep
389:list
352:Keep
322:Note
282:Sr13
255:—♦♦
189:Talk
104:logs
78:talk
74:edit
1221:or
1019:DGG
992:not
953:to
659:YOU
595:of
566:Tom
564:).
330:--
328:.
297:)
112:– (
1084:.
1031:s
917:it
575:)
568:pw
502:,
262:ʘʘ
187:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
80:|
76:|
772:.
706:)
702:(
634:I
581:)
577:(
571:(
294:C
291:|
288:T
286:(
260:S
116:)
110:)
72:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.