1625:
and shall evolve to very high standards. Can you stop all the lists that are on the
Knowledge ? Sometimes it is better to leave things flower naturally. Too much of staitjacketing is not the idea of Knowledge. Releasing it from the bureaucratic clutch of a few self righteous editors is that has made Knowledge the new cyberian Gutenberg press . As a child I always had the desire to own the Encyclpedia Brittanica and edit it my way. The Knowledge has empowered so many of us as content uploaders and designers. Come lets have faith in the inherent goodness of Wiki users/contributors. Treating them as potential vandals will drastically reduce the popularity of an enterprise like the Knowledge. It is a Commonwealth and cultural wealth of humanity and not the preserve of a select few who would like to regiment and control it in the name of preserving its sanctity. When the rulebook becomes sacrosanct the trouble starts with any system. Somewhere it is said that " law sharpens the mind by narrowing it". Let the people power flow unrestrained and let the information revolution play out itself in full utterance.".
2008:
Everest, why man had to go to the moon, why oh why the need to build the Great Wall of China, Why was the Taj Mahal built, Why
Shakespeare had to write his immortal plays, why the computer had to be built. all inventions, new structures, philosophies have been opposed, ridiculed with very rational well meaning people with honourable intentions. Yes Goodness is the rival of Greatness. Goodness is standardization. Greatness is setting new standards. Like life, standards too should be allowed to evolve. And evolve they shall, with or without opposition. As Hugo said " No force can stop an idea whose time has come'. Knowledge too as an idea would have been ridiculed a decade back. The idea of a mobile telephone was scoffed at in the late sixties. Ofcourse Knowledge needs standards but it needs to be protected from the well intentioned do-gooders. Oscar Wilde has put it so beautifully: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Freedom to do your thing is the right of people until and unless it seriously infringes on the right of others.
935:
biases of young men in general (i.e., they think they know everything already), there's also the bias that comes from growing up on a steady diet of
American news. Whether the news is CNN, Fox, CBS, AP, UPI it doesn't matter... it tends to ignore certain parts of the world. Outside of the USA and its neighbors, our news is from Britain and the rest of Europe; Iraq, Israel and the Middle East, Japan, China, Australia and the Phillipines, and that's about it. The average Knowledge knows little about Africa (jungles, AIDS) or South America (drugs), or, for that matter, India (Taj Mahal). Forget about New Zealand ("isn't that near Australia?") or Indonesia or Pakistan. India has 500 million people, Indonesia has 235 million, Pakistan 150 million and I would wager that you probably can't think of three notable people. It's not your fault if you can't, because you were brought up that way. When they say this is the encylopedia that anyone can edit, they mean anyone.
2057:
inconsistencies upon inconsistencies; I did not respond to you yesterday by the fact that I had mentioned that I would no longer write on that particular page. You may ask youself that if you cannot "care less" and if your ambition in life is to become rich, what business you may have to be on these pages, not least by the evident fact that no one becomes rich on spending time on the pages of
Knowledge: in terms of gaining material wealth, this place is the most wasteful place to be. To be brief, I strongly object to the possibility that individuals such as you can undertake such actions as deleting entries on Knowledge. For those who may not know: there is out there such a thing called
2061:; if you are not a women, ask your mother or sister(s), and they can tell you all about it and the various forms it takes. I am sorry Sidatio, I would not be who I am if I did not call a spade a spade; I regret to say it, but by what you wrote to me yesterday, I lost my trust in you and your motivations. I hereby apologise if I offended you, since it is not, and it has not been, my aim to offend any soul, and least of all you; I am just defending women who seem to be target of injustice the world over, and now, as is becoming overwhelmingly apparent, in this corner of the world called Knowledge. Lastly, this is my first and last message here.
1989:-- the category and subcategories would do as well and be much easier to maintain. Frankly, I think this list expresses the POV that there are so few notable Indian women in WP that they should be collected together and highlighted. There do seem to be insufficient articles, and it should be remedied by writing the articles. I'm sure it was not the intent of those making the list to suggest that there were so few notable Indian women that a list was appropriate to make sure they were noticed.
1893:. Moon, it is impressive that at your age you still have so much faith in people. But surely you must realize that anonymity and free access bring out the worst in humans. Were it not for the policy guidelines you dismiss as "legalese" and the constant effort of thousands of editors, vandals would have torn Knowledge to shreds long ago. Creating lists like these, as others have rightly pointed out, is hugely impractical. Enormous and potentially unlimited lists like these are systematically
617:
many redlinked names (names without
Knowledge pages) you already have--information on Knowledge is supposed to be sourced and easily verifiable. If Knowledge users have to research the names on your list themselves, it isn't quickly verifiable that they are women of note at all. As a frequent vandal patroller, I can also tell you that people will add their own names or names of friends to your list. It will require quite a lot of upkeep. A category would not. --
734:. However I still feel that an impassioned 'owner' coupled with conscientious vigilants like you will ensure that not only will this list survive but also thrive. I am already becoming conscious and protective of my list and this discussion has enhanced my determination to preserve and improve it to Wikistandards. Thank you for giving motivation to a new and enthusiastic wikipedian which to my mind is the essence of the Wikipedian philosophy.
846:
million women in India, what will we do if they list every single one, oh my!" I don't know another woman from India besides Indira Gandhi, and maybe Mother
Theresa, though she wasn't born there. One of the great things about Knowledge is that it's created by editors from all over the world, and you get things that won't make the regular media. Save the list, ladies.
713:
to impossible to properly maintain according to
Wikistandards. I like the compromise of creating the category "Notable Indian Women". It keeps a tidy list of notable Indian females, and its maintainability dramatically improves because the process becomes more automated. A category page is less likely to be targeted by vandals, whereas a list like this invites
1897:. Sidatio's and Moonriddengirl's arguments for creating a category are perfectly valid, indeed no other solution would be practical here. As Sidatio has said, create articles about notable people instead of just lumping their names in one mass. Such a list might as well be titled "Look how many admirable women we have in India". --
1988:
Much as I like lists, this one is not a good idea. The organization does not add anything, there is no information given for each, there is no particular reason for grouping them together, we do not have similar lists such as French Women--the only one I see is List of
Iranian Women, also up for AfD.
1624:
It is not vanity, it is my genuine belief to have a list of notable Indian women like so many other lists. When so many other lists are in existence why this sustained insistence to do away with this list. I only see it becoming better with time. As i have been saying that it still a work in progress
712:
Mutual respect aside, you have to understand - this list is inherently unmaintainable. The discussion here isn't meant to be a slight against the Indian people, or an accusation of "unworthy" work. At its core, it's an impressive list. The issue at hand here is that it will most certainly become next
664:
I see your point. But Hope should win over paranoia. I find that like elsewhere
Knowledge too has overwhelmingly more positive contributors than the vandals . Censorship is fine but the best form of discipline is from within and not which is enforced. I have tremendous faith in human beings essential
749:
No, wait, I don't think I adequately conveyed my message. I am the LAST person who would have time to do vandal patrol. By all reasonable measurements, I shouldn't even be on
Knowledge - I've got websites to build, contracts to fund, a whole host of extended familial duties, and I'm assuming that I
717:
from people who may not agree with their work (among others). Because of the current size of the list (not to mention its potential to expand exponentially), it would be a full-time job for several editors just to patrol to it. In my opinion, it would be a disservice to these notable individuals to
616:
explains some of the differences. If you go to each page linked and add ], the pages will be collected alphabetically onto a category page which can be easily referenced by anyone who wants to see the articles Knowledge has on Indian women. These kinds of lists are difficult to maintain. Look how
2007:
Some Comments: Instead of concentrating on delistings , it would be better if we focus on things that are working rather than assume the non workability of a project in in its infancy. All off beat enterprises are not understood, opposed when they are conceived. What was the use of conquering the
1947:
Emotional ownership of an article by the initiator is one way to ensure its viability and maintainability. The great number of lists that are on the Knowledge are a proof of this. Lists are both utilitarian and beautiful formats. So let them remain especially when they are works in progress. I am
1665:
Your repeated quoting of chapter and verse is proof enough of your closed mind and your self appointed role as gatekeepers to the Wikipedian castle. Not that is bad all the time. It only hurts and is dysfunctional when it scares away genuine and passionate talent from making an entry into a world
822:
is listed in three places. Multi-listing is not a problem with categories, but can be with large lists; a great many of your names qualified for more than one category. Again, I’m only pointing this out because a large part of your defense of this page is that you will be vigilant. The challenges
504:
intended. I did not realize the pun until I was reading back over the discussion over 20 minutes later, at which point I included the note because I realized what I had inadvertently done and thought that the proper thing to do. Since somebody had already responded to the AfD, I did not think it
1829:
Redundancy defeats the purpose of efficiency. The categorization itself is a compromise, and already done. The consensus at present is to delete this article. The list itself, however, lives on as a category and a host of appropriate subcategories. The difference between the two (at the risk of
934:
More dragons than windmills here, my friend. I generally don't memorize the Wikiprinciples, but consider WP:BIAS, which basically recognizes that the average Wikipedian is young American adult male, generally in his early 20s, and that one has to compensate to some extent. Notwithstanding the
845:
or with most of the subcontinent, the names on the list aren't household words to us; if they'r famous in their own nation, then a link to that is worthwhile. Many of the comments here seem to be based on the name of the article, not on the concept. Enough of the crap about "Oh, there are 500
595:
Dear fellow Wikipedians , Have a heart and broader outlook too ( pun intended ) I am new to Knowledge and am greatly impressed by lists that constitute it. And I guess there might many more people like me. I say the policy should be flexible enough to accomodate the changing aspirations of the
984:
Thanks Mandsford for seeing my point.* Hope will win over paranoia. I find that like elsewhere Knowledge too has overwhelmingly more positive contributors than the vandals . I have tremendous faith in human beings essential goodness.Knowledge has just begun , it will ultimately evolve into a
2056:
I do not believe that someone who cannot "care less" should have the right to begin a crusade to remove entries related to women on Knowledge. To Sidatio: What you wrote to me, part of which I have quoted above, signifies the attidue of a mercenary! Your entire response to me consists of
2012:
PSÂ : The viability of list should be left to the "market forces". Knowledge admin may consider an automated delisting of archaic articles that are not visited , improved, edited for a certain period of time. This de-listing would be automatic ,genuine and largely unbiased.
964:
for it. And you may just as well turn the argument around - that people from under-represented countries have something to compensate for. And please refrain from presuming that you're dealing with a bunch of pimple-faced, ignorant Yanks. Your comments are quite insulting.
546:
It is an important list that shall showcase the incredible range of the achievements of Indian women and shall inspire young omen to be leaders and achievers in their field. The Knowledge is not only an encyclopedia it is a vast showcase of human diversity as well.
1573:
This is getting out of hand. This has nothing to do with "faith" or "peace", or anything else on an emotional level. This has to do with practicality and the guidelines of Knowledge. Let's set aside the emotional aspect of the argument and view it from a logical
754:
as well. Also, if you yourself spent all of your time patrolling for vandalism on this list, what about those women who were redlinked? How many of those articles would go unwritten because some persistent snot-nose decided he wanted to surreptitiously redirect
2050:"Finally - my "personal ambition" in life is to become independently wealthy and retire young. I don't believe it's possible for me to care any less about the existence of this or any other article (or, for that matter, Knowledge itself) than I do right now."
1607:
want to help them, I strongly suggest seeking out the notable ones who don't have articles here, and create them. This list can be maintained automatically, freeing your attentions to apply them where they're needed more. Don't let vanity keep you from that!
1579:
A list of this nature is fatally inefficient. Categorization of the many, many notable Indian women frees more time for editing, would be far easier to patrol, and would be maintained autonomously through the use of templates on the individual pages in the
770:
Your zeal and dedication are admirable, but you would be doing these women a greater service by creating quality articles for those who have yet to have the honor, and using a category list to defend and maintain those articles. It truly seems to be the
1866:
Coexistence of Beauty and Utility is possible. The beauty of true debates and discussions is that we earn each others respect. Speaking for myself, I have been enriched by this discussion and will hope the same from my friends opposed to the idea of
989:
I have modelled my list on an existing list of iranian women which was also proposed to be deleted but after a spirited defence has been allowed to continue. I think my list deserves to survive and thrive as well. Vive La Knowledge !
1961:
Sorry Moon, but on Knowledge, you are not the owner of articles you initiated. You have to be prepared to accept that others users will tamper with them. If you are not prepared to deal with it, you shouldn't publish you work here.
897:. It's a list, but more efficient. This makes vandal patrol and copyediting much easier, plus it allows more time to add on notable Indian women - and that's really what it's all about, right? Showcasing notable Indian women?
578:
Moon, I understand what you are saying but the list in and of itself is not going to do what you would like it to do. The individual articles will contribute to it, if and only if they are read. And they will be found by
1808:
I am sorry for that faux pas. But I concede to your attempt to lessen the human effort and become more automated. But we need to strike a balance. Why dont we both have both listing and categorization. Again using
1666:
that they don't fully comprehend in terms of "laws" but are genuine candidates who ought to be encouraged and let in to the bastion for a better future. Please don't scare and shoo me away with all that legalese
1913:
I voted delete above, but after hearing boths sides would agree with Targeman and others. It is not practical or policy to be an article in any way. A category seems to be a perfectly reasonable compromise.
823:
will only increase. Categories will allow your target readers to easily find articles on Indian women and appreciate their contributions while at the same time eliminating an impossible list. As I read it,
431:
for deliberate disrupting the AfD. This cannot be properly discussed while somebody is ranting and raving in this form of filibuster, while simultaneously distorting the formatting of the entire AfD page.
800:
I strongly believe this is a better solution than a list, which I do not feel will be easily maintained and do not think fits within the guidelines of Knowledge based on my understanding of them as per my
1797:
difference there. I still think both lists should be categorized, rest assured. Please refrain in the future from announcing anything on my behalf. I am perfectly capable of handling that on my own.
806:
Moon, you say that you’ll be very careful, but I don't think this task will be as easy as you might feel. As I went through your list for categorization, I found an entrant who seems to be a man (
796:: This conversation is getting a bit sprawling. I have gone through the list in question and categorized every woman born in India or an Indian territory or to Indian parent(s) that I could find.
1974:
Oooh, I find all those comments to Moonwiki (highly poetic and dramatic, you shouldn't publish, etc) to be "quite insulting". Happily, however, I am above such behavior. Just ask me.
873:
228:
1698:
With all due respect, this isn't a blog. It's an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias have guidelines. They're not exactly rules, but at some point they need to be addressed - like in AfDs.
649:
as well, if there's consensus. I should think an AfD would need to be launched, with the category as a proposed alternative. Moon, do you think this would satisfy your goals? --
1936:
are concerned. I believe the guidelines are clear enough that most of the other categories should not be challenged, but discussion will reach consensus one way or another. --
517:: Also, I suspect the barnstar was for the three hours I spent creating categories for each of the women on that list, not for the nomination. Timing would suggest as much. --
1855:
I'm done with this discussion until and unless the above are addressed. I will, however, continue to monitor this page to make sure nothing is improperly attributed to me.
827:
that Knowledge articles are not "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." --
1847:
115:
2083:
not nominate this article, he is not the only advocate for deletion. Plenty of seasoned editors have chimed in with sound policy reasons for deleting this "article". --
686:
I am proud to be one of the former but have a deep respect for people like you who are doing an equally important work. We need to have Mutual Respect for each other.
689:
My strong belief is that certain Wiki Lists are maintained by conscientious and passionate people who have a sense of "emotional ownership" to certain subjects.
841:
I think that the authors have made it clear that this is a work in progress, and that they'll be improving it. Just as we Westerners have no acquaintance with
613:
2038:]), has set out to removed all entries related to women, not only Iranian women, but also, as I have just discovered, Indian women. In response to my message,
1724:
It is made of a range of mature and reasonably rational but more flexible people who believe in working together to keep the Knowledge growing and glowing .
763:, and you had to patrol the list? And that's just for starters - this list has definite potential to grow into the thousands if left unchecked. At some point,
695:
So please let the Lists remain. As a compromise I have removed all the Red entries and henceforth shall include only those persons who already are Wikified.
960:
As an adult, cosmopolitan and multilingual editor, I don't see how the fact that you know a country would give you the right to turn Knowledge into a
1850:
was. Address those properly, and we may have grounds to keep this article. Irrelevant allegory won't get the job done in that department, I'm afraid.
1603:
that can't be met by categorization. I can see that you want to help Indian women. That's noble, but you're not helping them with this list! If you
88:
83:
880:
pointed out, it has already presented challenges to that effect, and will only get worse as time goes on. Why? The list will have to be maintained
683:
I think broadly speaking Wikipedians come in two categories : those who are content providers and those who are editors and give shape to formats.
1650:. It also fails to recognize the fact that the list doesn't truly get deleted - it just becomes better managed. Let's try looking at all of that.
92:
718:
have them so readily exposed to that kind of vandalism threat. I'm sure that's not the intention of the list, but it's an unfortunate byproduct.
630:
That's an excellent compromise. I'm on board to help out with that tonight after work. On a related note, should we consider doing the same with
1599:, we realize your fervent desire to keep the page you created. However, you have yet to raise an argument to keep the page that is not based on
473:
by the phrase which followed it- 'no pun intended'. Such statements should be discouraged and are regretted. Please refrain from doing this.
75:
526:
The barnstar was for exceptional diplomacy during this debate, coming up with a creative compromise, and taking the time to implement it.
814:
listed as a director, when her individual page calls her a model and a writer. You’ve also got several disambiguation pages linked, like
1004:
Actually, I'll be calling that list into question tomorrow on the same grounds. I haven't done so tonight because of other obligations.
750:
sleep. (I don't know for sure anymore.) There are people who are more dedicated to fighting vandalism, I'm sure, but they also patrol
2101:. Potentially endless collection of names, unmaintainable, low usefulness. This AfD should be cleaned up, the shouts are irrelevant.
280:
As with most worthwhile lists, this collection of loosely related articles can be better presented and maintained with a category. --
893:
Now, if everything is categorized, things become easier. Why? We still have a list of Indian women, but now it's maintained more
17:
665:
goodness.Knowledge has just begun , it will ultimately evolve into a Universal Mind that will immensely benefit Humanity. Amen
673:
600:
559:
583:
target audience even if the list isn't there. And again, this list need not exist in order for the articles to be found.
1846:, as a list about notable women from a country with 1/6 of the world's population is inherently unmaintainable - like the
346:
469:, though you received a barnstar for this Afd (the first time I saw this on WP), the pun you 'didn't' intend was infact
482:
1813:
as a metaphor we can appreciate the beauty of its constituent structures as well view its pristine beauty as a whole.
1933:
1929:
2117:
2105:
2087:
2074:
2019:
2000:
1978:
1966:
1955:
1940:
1918:
1901:
1877:
1859:
1823:
1801:
1786:
1763:
1733:
1707:
1693:
1679:
1654:
1632:
1612:
1303:
1008:
996:
969:
939:
918:
850:
831:
779:
741:
722:
704:
653:
638:
621:
587:
571:
530:
521:
509:
490:
453:
436:
415:
403:
391:
361:
315:
301:
284:
265:
253:
239:
214:
199:
180:
164:
147:
130:
57:
2132:
36:
2131:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
609:
79:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
859:
Such a fantastic attitude there, champ. No, really, that's the way to enter a conversation. But seriously...
567:
Thank you for your contribution to this debate, but you haven't addressed any of the issues stated above. —
1779:
807:
474:
71:
63:
1583:
The arguments for keeping this list fail to address various criteria, and are almost completely based on
2033:
1830:
repeating myself into oblivion) is that the category is automatically maintained, while the list is not.
1775:
646:
631:
446:
173:
312:
192:
2102:
2032:
having just arrived and even not read the regulations (this as evidenced by his own admission on the
568:
334:
161:
250:
2071:
1937:
877:
828:
650:
618:
584:
518:
506:
466:
298:
144:
127:
52:
2070:: Sidatio did not nominate this article for deletion, I did. I care very much about Knowledge. --
596:
clientele. SO PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THISÂ ! Give it a chance. Vive La Knowledge.Vive La Diversity.
1718:
Knowledge is not a Castle . It is not the preserve of a select few. It is not a closed system.
810:, whom I removed) and a mythological character, which I did not, since she is female. You have
1647:
1600:
1584:
961:
433:
342:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1667:
2062:
876:. Granted, we're talking about one nation, but it's a nation of nearly a billion people. As
797:
872:
it. Perhaps you didn't check out the link above for a previous project of a similar scope:
505:
proper to revise my nom. I do apologize if my unintentional pun hurt anybody's feelings. --
819:
236:
1703:
I've made my point here. If you care to debate the article on its merits, I'm available.
772:
445:
Wow, you can do that?! It's off topic, I know, but I need to consider doing that to the
1975:
1948:
sure we all want a free and VIBRANT WIKIPEDIA and not a regimented LIST-less WIKIPEDIA.
936:
907:
847:
412:
389:
49:
2084:
2016:
1996:
1963:
1952:
1928:: It should be noted that categories are meeting some opposition, at least as far as
1915:
1898:
1894:
1886:
1874:
1839:
1836:
1820:
1783:
1760:
1730:
1690:
1686:
1676:
1643:
1639:
1629:
1596:
1300:
993:
966:
824:
764:
738:
714:
701:
670:
597:
556:
550:
I once again request that this article should not be DELETED. Please let it develop.
428:
358:
328:
324:
281:
262:
211:
196:
172:: Seriously, could you imagine maintaining this list? It'd be like documenting every
123:
818:. You’ve got a lot of people double-listed, particularly in the political sections.
2080:
2029:
1890:
1856:
1843:
1798:
1704:
1651:
1609:
1005:
915:
776:
775:, and the option I advocate, with the utmost of respect to you and your abilities.
756:
719:
692:
This passion and emotional ownership helps in maintaining the quality of the List.
635:
527:
450:
400:
338:
177:
126:. While some lists may be useful, "Indian women" is an impossibly broad category.
109:
911:
811:
139:: Apologies for my own horrible pun. It was truly unintentional, I promise you.
2114:
1782:
also survives intact from a well meaning attempt to delist and categorize it.
232:
1810:
842:
815:
760:
384:
1774:
Sidatio has been bold enough to concede in a similar attempt to delist the
1991:
1793:
I beg your pardon? I never conceded - I clarified my position. There's a
1842:
here have not been addressed. Also, there are serious concerns about
906:
It's great that you want to rush in like a knight in shining armor,
608:
I think what you're trying to accomplish is probably best done by a
249:
Impossible to maintain this kind of a list, and pointless, to boot.
1297:
Thanks though for raising my level of commitment to Wikistandards.
155:
I don't know what you mean, there's only about 560 million of them
2125:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1885:
Sorry to interrupt your highly poetic and dramatic exchange,
1721:
It is not a hippy democracy. It is not a regimented society.
985:
Universal Mind that will immensely benefit Humanity. Amen
1727:
Please Leave the Lists alone.Vive La Wikipedian Spirit.
1590:
A reasonable compromise to deletion has been proffered.
105:
101:
97:
1289:
Making and keeping Lists is a universal human trait.
1754:
I ain't a lawyer. I am just a passionate Wikipedian.
1757:Long live the Lists. Long live the FREE WIKIPEDIA.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
669:Anyway let us now sleep. Happy dreams! Goodnight.
2135:). No further edits should be made to this page.
373:missed the pun at first reading - I like it! :-)
227:Knowledge used to have that list. It was called
210:Modified my vote to delete or category below.
231:but it was deleted after a very long debate. â—Ź
195:, and we all just have to add our own name?
8:
399:As a directory list and non maintainable.--
124:not for lists =of loosely associated topics
1293:Keep the Peace. Keep the List. Have Faith!
868:The issue isn't notability - the issue is
1619:Understand the Wikipedian essence. Please
1638:Oooooookay - that still doesn't address
645:Thanks. I would think it could work for
2113:way too lose of an inclusion criteria
1871:On this conciliatory note I sign off.
1646:, nor does it vary from the theme of
698:Salutations from an Indian feminist.
7:
910:. Just try not to look like a surly
1835:The facts are this: Concerns about
278:This discussion has lost all humor.
261:per Moonriddenbroad. hehehe  :-) --
24:
1685:Please familiarize yourself with
176:loss. Fantastic pun, by the way.
500:: I assure you that the pun was
2063:--BF 11:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
767:, you DO have to sleep and eat!
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1661:Dont make Knowledge a fortress
449:AfD - how does that get done?
411:as a non-maintainable list. --
1:
1747:encyclopedia it is not a free
1017:Give Peace and Lists a Chance
752:every other page on Knowledge
1911:Change to category or delete
329:collection of internal links
614:Categories, lists and boxes
2152:
2118:20:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
2106:23:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
2088:12:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
2075:12:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
2020:07:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
2001:01:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
1979:23:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1967:16:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1956:16:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1941:15:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1919:15:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1902:12:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1878:06:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1860:06:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1824:06:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1802:06:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1787:05:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1764:04:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1734:04:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1708:04:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1694:04:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1680:04:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1655:04:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1633:03:53, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1613:03:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1304:02:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
1009:02:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
997:01:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
970:15:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
940:15:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
919:01:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
851:01:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
832:20:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
825:Knowledge policy specifies
780:16:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
742:16:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
723:15:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
705:14:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
674:17:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
654:14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
639:12:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
622:12:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
601:10:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
588:10:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
572:08:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
560:06:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
531:19:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
522:18:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
510:17:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
491:17:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
465:As its non- maintainable.
454:16:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
437:04:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
416:14:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
404:01:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
392:20:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
362:19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
316:17:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
302:17:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
285:16:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
266:17:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
254:16:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
240:00:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
215:15:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
200:16:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
181:16:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
165:16:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
148:16:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
131:15:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
58:06:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
2128:Please do not modify it.
357:per nom and all above.--
32:Please do not modify it.
543:Ladies and Gentlemen !
349:) 19:37, August 2, 2007
1778:which also means that
874:List of people by name
808:Suniti Kumar Chatterji
538:
229:List of people by name
2034:List of Iranian women
1776:List of Iranian women
1714:What Knowledge is not
1687:what Knowledge is not
647:List of Iranian women
632:List of Iranian women
447:List of Iranian women
2028:It seems to me that
1780:List of Indian women
72:List of Indian women
64:List of Indian women
798:This is the result.
553:With kind regards,
539:PLEASE DON'T DELETE
515:additional comment
202:
1848:List of Europeans
1739:What Knowledge is
732:Point appreciated
351:
337:comment added by
186:
2143:
2130:
715:sneaky vandalism
679:Give Us a Chance
488:
480:
387:
350:
331:
323:. Violation of
193:List of everyone
113:
95:
55:
34:
2151:
2150:
2146:
2145:
2144:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2133:deletion review
2126:
2103:Pavel Vozenilek
1771:
1743:Knowledge is a
1741:
1716:
1663:
1621:
1019:
790:
773:simplest answer
681:
569:gorgan_almighty
541:
483:
475:
385:
332:
162:gorgan_almighty
86:
70:
67:
53:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2149:
2147:
2138:
2137:
2121:
2120:
2108:
2095:
2094:
2093:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2072:Moonriddengirl
2054:
2053:
2052:
2044:
2043:
2010:
2009:
2004:
2003:
1982:
1981:
1969:
1950:
1949:
1944:
1943:
1938:Moonriddengirl
1922:
1921:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1869:
1868:
1863:
1862:
1852:
1851:
1832:
1831:
1815:
1814:
1805:
1804:
1770:
1767:
1740:
1737:
1715:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1700:
1699:
1696:
1662:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1627:
1626:
1620:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1592:
1591:
1588:
1581:
1576:
1575:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1295:
1294:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1018:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1011:
987:
986:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
924:
923:
922:
921:
914:doing it. :-)
901:
900:
899:
898:
888:
887:
886:
885:
878:Moonriddengirl
863:
862:
861:
860:
854:
853:
835:
834:
829:Moonriddengirl
803:
802:
789:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
768:
736:
735:
728:
727:
726:
725:
680:
677:
667:
666:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
651:Moonriddengirl
642:
641:
625:
624:
619:Moonriddengirl
593:
592:
591:
590:
585:Postcard Cathy
575:
574:
540:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
519:Moonriddengirl
512:
507:Moonriddengirl
494:
493:
467:Moonriddengirl
459:
458:
457:
456:
440:
439:
418:
406:
394:
377:
376:
375:
374:
365:
364:
352:
318:
305:
304:
299:Moonriddengirl
289:
288:
287:
269:
268:
256:
244:
243:
242:
222:
221:
220:
219:
218:
217:
184:
183:
170:Obvious delete
167:
151:
150:
145:Moonriddengirl
128:Moonriddengirl
120:
119:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2148:
2136:
2134:
2129:
2123:
2122:
2119:
2116:
2112:
2109:
2107:
2104:
2100:
2097:
2096:
2089:
2086:
2082:
2079:Not only did
2078:
2077:
2076:
2073:
2069:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2060:
2055:
2051:
2048:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2041:
2037:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2021:
2018:
2014:
2006:
2005:
2002:
1998:
1994:
1993:
1987:
1984:
1983:
1980:
1977:
1973:
1970:
1968:
1965:
1960:
1959:
1958:
1957:
1954:
1946:
1945:
1942:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1927:
1924:
1923:
1920:
1917:
1912:
1909:
1908:
1903:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1876:
1872:
1865:
1864:
1861:
1858:
1854:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1841:
1838:
1834:
1833:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1822:
1818:
1812:
1807:
1806:
1803:
1800:
1796:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1789:
1788:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1768:
1766:
1765:
1762:
1758:
1755:
1752:
1750:
1746:
1738:
1736:
1735:
1732:
1728:
1725:
1722:
1719:
1713:
1709:
1706:
1702:
1701:
1697:
1695:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1678:
1674:
1671:
1669:
1660:
1656:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1631:
1623:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1611:
1606:
1602:
1598:
1594:
1593:
1589:
1586:
1582:
1578:
1577:
1572:
1571:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1302:
1298:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1010:
1007:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
995:
991:
983:
982:
971:
968:
963:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
941:
938:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
920:
917:
913:
909:
905:
904:
903:
902:
896:
895:automatically
892:
891:
890:
889:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
866:
865:
864:
858:
857:
856:
855:
852:
849:
844:
840:
837:
836:
833:
830:
826:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
804:
799:
795:
792:
791:
787:
781:
778:
774:
769:
766:
762:
758:
753:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
740:
733:
730:
729:
724:
721:
716:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
703:
699:
696:
693:
690:
687:
684:
678:
676:
675:
672:
663:
662:
655:
652:
648:
644:
643:
640:
637:
633:
629:
628:
627:
626:
623:
620:
615:
611:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
599:
589:
586:
582:
577:
576:
573:
570:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
558:
554:
551:
548:
544:
532:
529:
525:
524:
523:
520:
516:
513:
511:
508:
503:
499:
496:
495:
492:
489:
486:
481:
478:
472:
468:
464:
461:
460:
455:
452:
448:
444:
443:
442:
441:
438:
435:
430:
429:User:moonwiki
426:
422:
421:Speedy relist
419:
417:
414:
410:
409:Strong Delete
407:
405:
402:
398:
395:
393:
390:
388:
382:
379:
378:
372:
369:
368:
367:
366:
363:
360:
356:
353:
348:
344:
340:
336:
330:
326:
322:
319:
317:
314:
310:
307:
306:
303:
300:
296:
293:
290:
286:
283:
279:
276:
273:
272:
271:
270:
267:
264:
260:
257:
255:
252:
248:
245:
241:
238:
234:
230:
226:
225:
224:
223:
216:
213:
209:
208:
207:
206:
205:
204:
203:
201:
198:
194:
190:
182:
179:
175:
171:
168:
166:
163:
159:
156:
153:
152:
149:
146:
142:
138:
135:
134:
133:
132:
129:
125:
122:Knowledge is
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2127:
2124:
2110:
2098:
2067:
2058:
2049:
2042:wrote to me:
2039:
2030:User:Sidatio
2026:Strong Keep.
2025:
2015:
2011:
1990:
1985:
1971:
1951:
1925:
1910:
1873:
1870:
1819:
1816:
1794:
1773:
1772:
1759:
1756:
1753:
1749:ENCYCLOPEDIA
1748:
1744:
1742:
1729:
1726:
1723:
1720:
1717:
1675:
1672:
1664:
1628:
1604:
1299:
1296:
1288:
992:
988:
894:
881:
869:
838:
793:
759:to point to
757:Gayatri Devi
751:
737:
731:
700:
697:
694:
691:
688:
685:
682:
668:
594:
580:
555:
552:
549:
545:
542:
514:
501:
497:
484:
476:
470:
462:
434:CaveatLector
424:
420:
408:
396:
380:
370:
354:
333:— Preceding
320:
308:
294:
291:
277:
274:
258:
246:
191:How about a
188:
185:
169:
157:
154:
140:
136:
121:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1644:WP:NOT#LINK
1574:standpoint:
912:Don Quixote
870:maintaining
812:Saira Mohan
313:Harlowraman
311:as per nom
1648:WP:ILIKEIT
1640:WP:NOT#DIR
1601:WP:ILIKEIT
1585:WP:ILIKEIT
962:WP:SOAPBOX
788:Categories
325:loose list
160:per nom. —
1976:Mandsford
1844:listcruft
1817:Regards.
1811:Taj Mahal
1769:Good News
1580:category.
937:Mandsford
933:----: -->
908:Mandsford
848:Mandsford
843:Bollywood
816:Chennamma
761:zoophilia
634:as well?
413:cholmes75
383:per nom.
251:6thAvenue
2085:Evb-wiki
2059:misogyny
1964:Targeman
1916:Pharmboy
1899:Targeman
1840:policies
1691:Evb-wiki
1673:Regards
1595:By now,
967:Targeman
882:manually
820:Mayawati
610:category
479:nowledge
471:intended
359:Targeman
347:contribs
335:unsigned
282:Evb-wiki
275:Comment:
263:Evb-wiki
212:Pharmboy
197:Pharmboy
174:Phillies
141:blushing
116:View log
2081:Sidatio
2068:Comment
2040:Sidatio
1972:Comment
1934:artists
1926:Comment
1895:deleted
1891:Sidatio
1857:Sidatio
1837:certain
1799:Sidatio
1705:Sidatio
1668:Sidatio
1652:Sidatio
1610:Sidatio
1006:Sidatio
916:Sidatio
794:Comment
777:Sidatio
720:Sidatio
636:Sidatio
528:Sidatio
498:comment
487:egemony
451:Sidatio
401:JForget
371:Comment
339:Useight
292:comment
247:Delete.
178:Sidatio
137:Comment
89:protect
84:history
2111:Delete
2099:Delete
2036:- see
1986:Delete
1930:actors
1867:lists.
1605:really
463:Delete
397:Delete
381:Delete
355:Delete
327:, and
321:Delete
309:Delete
259:Delete
189:delete
158:Delete
93:delete
46:delete
2115:Corpx
233:DanMS
110:views
102:watch
98:links
54:desat
16:<
2017:moon
1997:talk
1953:moon
1932:and
1889:and
1887:moon
1875:moon
1821:moon
1795:HUGE
1784:moon
1761:moon
1745:FREE
1731:moon
1689:. --
1677:moon
1642:and
1630:moon
1597:moon
1301:moon
994:moon
839:Keep
801:nom.
765:moon
739:moon
702:moon
671:moon
598:moon
581:your
557:moon
427:the
425:warn
423:and
386:Mkdw
343:talk
295:grin
237:Talk
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
50:Core
48:. --
1992:DGG
502:not
114:– (
1999:)
1962:--
1751:.
1670:.
965:--
612:.
345:•
297:--
235:•
143:--
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
1995:(
1587:.
884:.
485:H
477:K
341:(
187:*
118:)
112:)
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.