1074:
reference point in a conversation on at least two different college football message boards today. The Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS is also an excellent portal page to Wiki, when linked on the various sites, for users that might find other sites of interest relating to the college football program which they support. In other words, it drives traffic to the entire wikipedia organization. I would ask that the page not be deleted, but rather improved. I was just reminded that the page has been used as a source of reference, just recently, during
Rivalries Weekend on ESPN. I also volunteer to adopt the page and bring it current and up to standards.
255:, which states in pertinent part, "Notability of lists . . . is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. . . . Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Knowledge (XXG) articles."
268:." Further demonstrating the notability of the topic is the fact that each of the college football rivalries included within the list are separately notable, and are linked to stand-alone Knowledge (XXG) articles. In the case of this list, the creator chose to limit the list only to those college football rivalry games that have been played 100 or more times; this is consistent with WP:LISTN: "editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Knowledge (XXG) articles." In keeping with the guidelines of
344:
article should be treated as vandalism since the accounts were indef-blocked for being vandalism-only accounts. Also, it is not true that the article has had substantial content added by others. The original version of the article contains the vast majority of the content that is currently in the article now. Other editors have only edited to add their own commentary and to "update" (but not fully) particular entries in the table. So I would say that the article content is contributed primarily by a vandalism-only account.
750:
which IAR was intended. IAR should be reserved for those occasions when policy or a guideline renders an illogical result or one that is clearly detrimental to the encyclopedic purpose of
Knowledge (XXG). When such an occasion arises, the proponent of IAR in a particular set of circumstances bears the burden of demonstrating how Knowledge (XXG) would be harmed by the failure to adhere to the policy or guideline. That having been said, IAR is not needed here; the subject of this list
317:
fails on two points. First, the article creator was neither banned nor blocked at the time the article was created ("created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block"). Second, significantly more than half of the total content of the article was added by editors other than the article creator ("and which have no substantial edits by others"). In short, G5 does not apply by its own terms.
1357:
The purpose of G5 is to allow a series of articles created by a banned user to be deleted. This relieves editors of the burden of going through all of the articles to determine which should be kept and which should be deleted. It is particularly useful if the user was banned for copyvio or creating
316:
I did not specifically address the speedy deletion criteria because I didn't believe it necessary. The G5 criterion states in pertinent part that "ages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others" may be speedily deleted. This
224:
The article is Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS. The rationale is that the page was created by a blocked/banned user (User:Latish redone), as well as failing the general notability guideline, in that the topic of most-played rivalries has failed to receive non-routine coverage in reliable
1166:
IP User 71.90.216.196, "bogus" was a poor choice of words. "Ill-conceived" would be both more accurate and more diplomatic. Your reliance on G5 and your "vandalism" argument for the deletion of this article are based on your clear misunderstanding of both of those
Knowledge (XXG) policies. Please
749:
Phightins, IAR is not an all-purpose cure-all for every policy or guideline with which you disagree or whose proper execution renders a result that you don't like. Recently, I've seen IAR cited as a justification for ignoring the notability guidelines in AfD discussions; this is not the purpose for
448:
Yes, the number of games played and series record would be nice to have for all rivalries. Filtering by number of games would be fine if this was the only list of rivalries; however, since the other list exists, this subset seems arbitrary to have another article. It's not like there is much more
1612:
No, this article is not a vandalistic contribution. I know no other way of putting this to you. Did you even bother to read the article prior to nominating it? It is clearly not vandalism, it has over a dozen references, it has footnotes, it's readable, and it was made in good faith. By definition,
779:
You and everyone else should feel free to ignore the G5 and "vandalism" arguments advanced by IP user 71.90.216.96. While I assume his support of the "delete" position is taken in good faith, he clearly does not understand the requirements of the G5 speedy deletion criterion or the
Knowledge (XXG)
433:
This was a select list based on all-time rivalry meetings; sublists are permitted, but should not completely duplicate existing content. That having been said, if we were to "merge" these lists, it would make more sense to upgrade the parent list to the same content and formatting as the sublist.
1073:
page is an important page for college football enthusiasts around the country and the only page offered, of its kind, on the
Internet that I am aware of. I see it regularly referenced on college football talk message boards all over the websphere and, as a matter of fact, I see it being used as a
343:
I was not aware that the G5 criterion is to be interpreted in that way. Latish redone is blocked/banned due to vandalism by his/her sockpuppet account
Rhinoselated, right? Then the issue isn't that Latish redone was banned/blocked "at the time the article was created", rather, the creation of the
908:
It is vandalistic by WP standards, since it was created by User:Latish redone, the bulk of its content (including many updates) is (or was) contributed by User:Latish redone, and User:Latish redone was blocked for vandalism by his/her sockpuppet account User:Rhinoselated. Therefore it should be
1779:
You are the nominator. It is a fair assumption that the nomination is a delete vote, but in this case it is the only one. And since !votes aren't counted, but consensus is determined by the argument for the !vote (which in your case is entirely invalid), there are still no delete votes.
1382:
Then that just proves my point. How do we know that this article isn't a copyvio or hoax or otherwise illegitimate article? We can delete the article, and if editor(s) believe that there should be an article on most played rivalries then a new one can be created.
650:
per
Paulmcdonald. There's no reason to delete something just because it's written by someone who's now blocked. I also agree with Paul's other comment that recreating for the sake of not retaining contributions by a blocked user is ludicrous.
161:
1148:
Actually, I clearly recall the style of the the banned user who originally created the list in question. This bogus deletion nomination is just the sort of procedural trolling / pot-stirring shenanigans that he enjoyed. Just sayin'...
990:
This indicates that none of
Rhinoselated's edits are valid, and that Latish redone's edits are tainted due to being linked to Rhinoselated. So this is not a case in which someone made legitimate edits and then turned into a vandal.
1338:
A snow keep closure is inappropriate here since - if you disregard my suggestion - there exists (an) editor(s) who has/have suggested that merging the article is appropriate. Therefore the discussion should be allowed to continue.
1492:
Let me rephrase my comment...I understand that's what G5 is for, I should have said, "In this case we shouldn't" rather than "you can't". Clearly this is not subject to G5, so I see little purpose in continuing this discussion.
1698:
The G5 criteria applies to "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others." I think you'll find that this article has plenty of edits by others.
1464:
Well, we can. That's what G5 is for. In this case, the article was brought to AFD where editors determined that it is not a hoax and not a copyvio. G5 stops applying once oversight from another editor has
1189:. He always enjoyed yanking the chains of editors who take his trollish arguments seriously, just like he's doing now. This result of this nomination is clear, so I'd advise everyone to stop playing along.
87:
82:
91:
1113:
per the arguments already explained above. This is an excellently sourced and formatted list, and while the discussed merge sounds ok, there's absolutely no reason whatsoever to delete altogether. --
155:
74:
368:
265:
114:
121:
1665:
Also, while Latish was not blocked, Rhinoselated was indeed blocked when Latish created the article. So this article is indeed a contribution from a blocked user while blocked.
1831:
1451:
607:
I believe it meets the notability standard. I've made edits to this page over time and the information is always supported by the cited sources. I would not be opposed to a
1256:
Then what is the intended purpose of G5? afaik, it is meant to remove the contributions of blocked/banned users so that the encyclopedia is not tainted by invalid edits.
260:
In this particular case, the primary subject, college sports rivalries are notable, as demonstrated by the presence of the stand-alone
Knowledge (XXG) article regarding "
78:
582:
It would make the article be indicative of legitimate contributions rather than vandal contributions. Therefore it should be a higher quality article if done that way.
272:, this list also serves recognized valid purposes as both an information source and gateway navigational tool which are not being served by any other article or list.
818:
there was policy that we had to delete everything from vandals, then it would be prudent to ignore that rule to keep what's clearly an article on a notable subject.
388:
1270:
Right, but this is not an invalid edit. This is a list that is sourced, notable, and clearly not made to harm the encyclopedia. At this point, I would move for a
1070:
70:
62:
1005:
OK, but are you calling this article vandalism (reminder: vandalism is considered any edit made in bad faith to harm the encyclopedia)? I hardly think so.
412:
176:
1303:
Agreed, a snow close is in order here and might help to prevent further drama. To the IP: you have made your point. The consensus is clearly against you.
1131:
Then you or some other interested editor(s) can recreate the article after deletion so that it does not include contribution from a blocked/banned user.
1092:
Then you or some other interested editor(s) can recreate the article after deletion so that it does not include contribution from a blocked/banned user.
629:
Then you or some other interested editor(s) can recreate the article after deletion so that it does not include contribution from a blocked/banned user.
554:
Then you or some other interested editor(s) can recreate the article after deletion so that it does not include contribution from a blocked/banned user.
490:
Then you or some other interested editor(s) can recreate the article after deletion so that it does not include contribution from a blocked/banned user.
143:
1181:
Dirtlawyer, I'm almost certain that the IP user you're arguing with is a sock of the same banned user who created this list in the first place, namely
1722:
1326:
538:
1843:
1819:
1789:
1774:
1752:
1729:
1693:
1674:
1655:
1641:
1607:
1587:
1554:
1517:
1480:
1425:
1392:
1377:
1348:
1333:
1298:
1265:
1247:
1212:
1198:
1176:
1158:
1140:
1122:
1101:
1083:
1043:
1029:
1000:
979:
946:
932:
918:
903:
874:
842:
789:
730:
693:
675:
638:
620:
591:
577:
563:
545:
499:
481:
458:
443:
424:
400:
380:
353:
326:
303:
281:
241:
219:
56:
137:
1203:
I am not User:Latish redone or User:Rhinoselated or any of his/her sockpuppets. If I am, why would I request the deletion of my own article?
937:
I am not User:Latish redone or User:Rhinoselated or any of his/her sockpuppets. If I am, why would I request the deletion of my own article?
1598:
they were blocked? A vandalism-only account does nothing but vandalize, right? And this article is one of those vandalistic contributions.
133:
1634:
1580:
1510:
1418:
1291:
1022:
972:
909:
deleted. (It could be recreated if the topic of most played rivalries were deemed notable but I also assert that that is not the case.)
896:
835:
723:
668:
1811:
1766:
1685:
1666:
1647:
1599:
1384:
1340:
1257:
1204:
1132:
1093:
1035:
992:
938:
910:
866:
685:
630:
583:
555:
491:
345:
295:
233:
203:
17:
183:
1563:
The nom rationale implied that since the user has since been blocked, we should somehow remove all of his/her prior contributions.
1401:
be copyright violations. I can tell you that all of the rivalries exist, so it's not a hoax. This is growing rather ludicrous...
294:
deletion, which was rejected. You have failed to address that reason for deletion in your rationale for keeping the article.
1762:
1594:
The reason Latish and
Rhinoselated are blocked is because they are "vandalism-only" accounts. So what is the relevance of
923:
Don't sell yourself short; creating this list was one of the few positive contributions you made to Knowledge (XXG), imo.
149:
1714:
1318:
611:
as mentioned above, if someone was willing to do that work, but the information on this page is accurate and useful. --
530:
1861:
40:
1646:
So you are suggesting that it is improper for Rhinoselated and/or Latish redone to have been blocked indefinitely?
1034:
Yes, and WP policies support my position by allowing the deletion of contributions from blocked and banned users.
684:
Your argument is faulty - WP does as a matter of fact delete (by policy) contributions by blocked/banned users.
1358:
hoaxes. Once the community has determined that an article, as written, is worthy of being included, it should
1700:
1625:
1571:
1501:
1409:
1304:
1282:
1013:
963:
887:
826:
714:
659:
516:
472:
maybe it was created by a banned/blocked user. Don't care. The list looks good and meets our standards.--
1807:
1770:
1689:
1670:
1651:
1603:
1388:
1344:
1261:
1208:
1136:
1097:
1039:
996:
942:
914:
870:
689:
634:
587:
573:
559:
495:
477:
349:
299:
237:
197:
1614:
1857:
1172:
785:
439:
322:
277:
36:
1680:
Upon further research that appears not to be the case, but the point stands - what is the relevance of
269:
1539:
What are we even discussing G5 for? Latish redone wasn't even blocked when this article was created.
1547:
1473:
1370:
1240:
1079:
215:
169:
1785:
1748:
1618:
1564:
1494:
1487:
1402:
1275:
1182:
1006:
956:
880:
819:
707:
652:
616:
1815:
252:
1804:
1186:
569:
473:
454:
420:
396:
376:
193:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1856:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1839:
1458:
1194:
1168:
1154:
1118:
928:
781:
435:
318:
273:
984:
Rhinoselated was blocked for being a "vandalism-only account", according to the block log.
699:
512:
1540:
1466:
1363:
1233:
261:
53:
1830:
Time to close this out, as the nominator has been blocked as a sock of Latish redone per
703:
865:
Or we could just delete the vandalistic content and replace it with legitimate content.
1163:
I resent my nomination being referred to as "bogus". What a clear violation of WP:AGF.
1075:
208:
1781:
1744:
612:
450:
416:
392:
372:
108:
1835:
1454:
1190:
1150:
1114:
924:
511:
I think that the CSD tag mentioned is not applicable anyway and even if it is,
290:
The page was created by a blocked/banned user. That itself is a criterion for
955:
Doing some regrettable things later doesn't invalidate your prior work...
1834:. I would say that I told y'all so, but that would be rude. :-) --
1232:
Deleting this page would not be using G5 for its intended purpose.
987:
Latish redone was blocked for being a sockpuppet of Rhinoselated.
1850:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
780:
meaning of "vandalism." The closing administrator will.
411:
Any reason why this information should not be merged into
1743:
per no delete votes and nomination not based in policy.
266:
Category:College football rivalries in the United States
1832:
Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet_investigations/Latish_redone
1452:
Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet investigations/Latish redone
988:
985:
449:
prose to add about this group to justify another list.—
104:
100:
96:
1397:
You can't systematically delete articles because they
369:
list of American football-related deletion discussions
168:
758:, contrary to the AfD nomination, as explained above.
251:. The applicable notability guideline for lists is
232:
Support my own nomination for the reasons provided.
182:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1864:). No further edits should be made to this page.
415:, which is a navigation list for all rivalries?—
8:
1803:Reliably sourced article with few issues. -
1071:Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS
879:Are you calling this article "vandalistic"?
387:Note: This debate has been included in the
367:Note: This debate has been included in the
71:Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS
63:Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS
1613:it is not vandalism. Would you please read
756:G5 speedy deletion criterion does not apply
413:List of NCAA college football rivalry games
389:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
386:
366:
568:That would be foolish and disruptive.--
1684:a vandalism-only account was blocked?
814:I understand that...I was saying that
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
264:," as well as a separate category, "
24:
1763:Knowledge (XXG):IPs are human too
1:
1844:14:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1820:19:16, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
1790:06:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1775:05:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1753:05:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1730:13:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1694:05:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1675:04:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1656:05:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1642:04:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1608:04:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1588:04:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1555:04:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1518:04:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1481:04:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1426:04:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1393:04:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1378:04:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1349:04:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1334:04:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1299:04:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1266:04:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1248:04:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1213:03:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1199:01:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1177:00:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1159:19:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
1141:22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
1123:19:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
1102:22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
1084:18:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
1044:04:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1030:04:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
1001:03:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
980:03:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
947:03:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
933:01:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
919:01:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
904:23:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
875:23:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
843:23:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
790:23:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
731:23:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
694:22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
676:15:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
639:22:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
621:14:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
592:23:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
578:13:37, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
564:06:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
546:23:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
500:06:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
482:23:04, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
459:01:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
444:23:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
425:23:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
401:22:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
381:22:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
354:06:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
327:22:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
304:21:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
282:18:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
242:19:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
220:18:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
57:00:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
515:can brought into play here.
1450:Fellas, I'm telling you...
1881:
1167:re-read them and learn.
1853:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
702:as sanctioned in the
1183:User:Latish redone
48:The result was
1761:My !vote counts.
1728:
1491:
1332:
1187:User:Rhinoselated
544:
403:
383:
218:
1872:
1855:
1725:
1719:
1712:
1709:
1704:
1639:
1632:
1623:
1585:
1578:
1569:
1515:
1508:
1499:
1485:
1423:
1416:
1407:
1329:
1323:
1316:
1313:
1308:
1296:
1289:
1280:
1027:
1020:
1011:
977:
970:
961:
901:
894:
885:
840:
833:
824:
728:
721:
712:
700:ignore the rules
673:
666:
657:
541:
535:
528:
525:
520:
211:
207:
187:
186:
172:
124:
112:
94:
34:
1880:
1879:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1862:deletion review
1851:
1828:
1723:
1715:
1705:
1702:
1635:
1626:
1619:
1581:
1572:
1565:
1511:
1502:
1495:
1419:
1410:
1403:
1327:
1319:
1309:
1306:
1292:
1283:
1276:
1023:
1014:
1007:
973:
964:
957:
897:
888:
881:
836:
827:
820:
724:
715:
708:
669:
660:
653:
539:
531:
521:
518:
262:college rivalry
209:
129:
120:
85:
69:
66:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1878:
1876:
1867:
1866:
1827:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1756:
1755:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1558:
1557:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1462:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1251:
1250:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1143:
1126:
1125:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1087:
1086:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
679:
678:
644:
643:
642:
641:
624:
623:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
549:
548:
505:
504:
503:
502:
485:
484:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
428:
427:
405:
404:
384:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
309:
308:
307:
306:
285:
284:
257:
256:
245:
244:
190:
189:
126:
65:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1877:
1865:
1863:
1859:
1854:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1825:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1806:
1802:
1799:
1798:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1741:Snowball Keep
1739:
1738:
1731:
1726:
1720:
1718:
1711:
1710:
1708:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1663:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1640:
1638:
1633:
1631:
1630:
1624:
1622:
1616:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1586:
1584:
1579:
1577:
1576:
1570:
1568:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1556:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1538:
1535:
1534:
1519:
1516:
1514:
1509:
1507:
1506:
1500:
1498:
1489:
1488:edit conflict
1484:
1483:
1482:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1463:
1460:
1456:
1453:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1427:
1424:
1422:
1417:
1415:
1414:
1408:
1406:
1400:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1361:
1356:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1330:
1324:
1322:
1315:
1314:
1312:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1297:
1295:
1290:
1288:
1287:
1281:
1279:
1273:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1249:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1231:
1228:
1227:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1165:
1164:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1147:
1144:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1109:
1108:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1072:
1068:
1065:
1064:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1028:
1026:
1021:
1019:
1018:
1012:
1010:
1004:
1003:
1002:
998:
994:
989:
986:
983:
982:
981:
978:
976:
971:
969:
968:
962:
960:
954:
948:
944:
940:
936:
935:
934:
930:
926:
922:
921:
920:
916:
912:
907:
906:
905:
902:
900:
895:
893:
892:
886:
884:
878:
877:
876:
872:
868:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
844:
841:
839:
834:
832:
831:
825:
823:
817:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
791:
787:
783:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
757:
753:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
732:
729:
727:
722:
720:
719:
713:
711:
705:
701:
697:
696:
695:
691:
687:
683:
682:
681:
680:
677:
674:
672:
667:
665:
664:
658:
656:
649:
646:
645:
640:
636:
632:
628:
627:
626:
625:
622:
618:
614:
610:
606:
603:
602:
593:
589:
585:
581:
580:
579:
575:
571:
570:Paul McDonald
567:
566:
565:
561:
557:
553:
552:
551:
550:
547:
542:
536:
534:
527:
526:
524:
514:
510:
507:
506:
501:
497:
493:
489:
488:
487:
486:
483:
479:
475:
474:Paul McDonald
471:
468:
467:
460:
456:
452:
447:
446:
445:
441:
437:
432:
431:
430:
429:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
407:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
385:
382:
378:
374:
370:
365:
364:
355:
351:
347:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
328:
324:
320:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
305:
301:
297:
293:
289:
288:
287:
286:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
259:
258:
254:
250:
247:
246:
243:
239:
235:
231:
228:
227:
226:
222:
221:
217:
213:
205:
202:
199:
195:
192:On behalf of
185:
181:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
135:
132:
131:Find sources:
127:
123:
119:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1852:
1849:
1829:
1805:Presidentman
1800:
1767:71.90.216.96
1740:
1716:
1706:
1701:
1686:71.90.216.96
1681:
1667:71.90.216.96
1664:
1648:71.90.216.96
1636:
1628:
1627:
1620:
1600:71.90.216.96
1595:
1582:
1574:
1573:
1566:
1549:
1548:
1542:
1541:
1536:
1512:
1504:
1503:
1496:
1475:
1474:
1468:
1467:
1420:
1412:
1411:
1404:
1398:
1385:71.90.216.96
1372:
1371:
1365:
1364:
1362:be deleted.
1359:
1341:71.90.216.96
1320:
1310:
1305:
1293:
1285:
1284:
1277:
1271:
1258:71.90.216.96
1242:
1241:
1235:
1234:
1229:
1205:71.90.216.96
1145:
1133:71.90.216.96
1110:
1094:71.90.216.96
1066:
1036:71.90.216.96
1024:
1016:
1015:
1008:
993:71.90.216.96
974:
966:
965:
958:
939:71.90.216.96
911:71.90.216.96
898:
890:
889:
882:
867:71.90.216.96
837:
829:
828:
821:
815:
755:
751:
725:
717:
716:
709:
704:five pillars
698:Then we can
686:71.90.216.96
670:
662:
661:
654:
647:
631:71.90.216.96
608:
604:
584:71.90.216.96
556:71.90.216.96
532:
522:
517:
508:
492:71.90.216.96
469:
408:
346:71.90.216.96
296:71.90.216.96
291:
248:
234:71.90.216.96
229:
223:
200:
194:71.90.216.96
191:
179:
173:
165:
158:
152:
146:
140:
130:
117:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1169:Dirtlawyer1
782:Dirtlawyer1
436:Dirtlawyer1
319:Dirtlawyer1
274:Dirtlawyer1
270:WP:LISTPURP
156:free images
1615:the policy
1465:occurred.
754:, and the
752:is notable
54:Courcelles
1858:talk page
1707:Strikeout
1703:Automatic
1629:Phightins
1575:Phightins
1505:Phightins
1413:Phightins
1311:Strikeout
1307:Automatic
1286:Phightins
1274:closure.
1272:snow keep
1076:Scrooster
1017:Phightins
967:Phightins
891:Phightins
830:Phightins
718:Phightins
663:Phightins
523:Strikeout
519:Automatic
393:• Gene93k
373:• Gene93k
225:sources.
37:talk page
1860:or in a
1816:Talkback
1812:contribs
1782:Gtwfan52
1745:Gtwfan52
613:Kgwo1972
253:WP:LISTN
204:contribs
115:View log
39:or in a
1826:Blocked
1537:Comment
1146:Comment
451:Bagumba
417:Bagumba
409:Comment
162:WP refs
150:scholar
88:protect
83:history
1836:Zeng8r
1455:Zeng8r
1191:Zeng8r
1151:Zeng8r
1115:Zeng8r
925:Zeng8r
513:WP:IAR
292:speedy
230:Delete
134:Google
92:delete
1550:Vesey
1476:Vesey
1399:might
1373:Vesey
1360:never
1243:Vesey
609:merge
212:KNOWZ
206:) —
177:JSTOR
138:books
122:Stats
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
1840:talk
1808:talk
1801:Keep
1786:talk
1771:talk
1749:talk
1690:talk
1682:when
1671:talk
1652:talk
1617:?!?
1604:talk
1596:when
1543:Ryan
1469:Ryan
1459:talk
1389:talk
1366:Ryan
1345:talk
1262:talk
1236:Ryan
1230:Keep
1209:talk
1195:talk
1173:talk
1155:talk
1137:talk
1119:talk
1111:Keep
1098:talk
1080:talk
1069:The
1067:Keep
1040:talk
997:talk
943:talk
929:talk
915:talk
871:talk
786:talk
690:talk
648:Keep
635:talk
617:talk
605:Keep
588:talk
574:talk
560:talk
509:Keep
496:talk
478:talk
470:Keep
455:talk
440:talk
421:talk
397:talk
377:talk
350:talk
323:talk
300:talk
278:talk
249:Keep
238:talk
216:TALK
210:HELL
198:talk
170:FENS
144:news
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
50:keep
184:TWL
113:– (
1842:)
1818:)
1810:·
1788:)
1773:)
1765:.
1751:)
1721:•
1692:)
1673:)
1654:)
1621:Go
1606:)
1567:Go
1497:Go
1405:Go
1391:)
1347:)
1325:•
1278:Go
1264:)
1211:)
1197:)
1185:/
1175:)
1157:)
1149:--
1139:)
1121:)
1100:)
1082:)
1042:)
1009:Go
999:)
959:Go
945:)
931:)
917:)
883:Go
873:)
822:Go
816:if
788:)
710:Go
706:.
692:)
655:Go
637:)
619:)
590:)
576:)
562:)
537:•
498:)
480:)
457:)
442:)
423:)
399:)
391:.
379:)
371:.
352:)
325:)
302:)
280:)
240:)
164:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
52:.
1838:(
1814:(
1784:(
1769:(
1747:(
1727:)
1724:C
1717:T
1713:(
1688:(
1669:(
1650:(
1637:!
1602:(
1583:!
1513:!
1490:)
1486:(
1461:)
1457:(
1421:!
1387:(
1343:(
1331:)
1328:C
1321:T
1317:(
1294:!
1260:(
1207:(
1193:(
1171:(
1153:(
1135:(
1117:(
1096:(
1078:(
1038:(
1025:!
995:(
975:!
941:(
927:(
913:(
899:!
869:(
838:!
784:(
726:!
688:(
671:!
633:(
615:(
586:(
572:(
558:(
543:)
540:C
533:T
529:(
494:(
476:(
453:(
438:(
419:(
395:(
375:(
348:(
321:(
298:(
276:(
236:(
214:▎
201:·
196:(
188:)
180:·
174:·
166:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
141:·
136:(
128:(
125:)
118:·
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.