447:
good source to show what a book what by Frank
Wallace says. There's no disputing that. But, since Wallace's books are self-published they're probably not good as secondary sources, which means you couldn't use Wallace's opinion in a different article about something else. The article is not too bad as it is. The way to improve it would be to bring in more books by Wallace and others who write about Neo-Tech. The way to not improve it, is to do what you were doing, which is bringing in posts from anonymous people on forums and even a web page you made yourself as sources. That would be using self-published sources as secondary sources, which means using self-published sources in a article other than an article about the source itself. You made a web page called Pax-NeoTex which is making jokes about Neo-Tech. You can't use that as a source in the article, meaning it's not a reliable secondary source. You could only use that as a source if you're using it as a source about Pax-NeoTex if there were a Pax-NeoTex article. You're not a published expert on Neo-Tech, but a self-published jokester (that is, your web page is a joke page).
82:
unrelated to him. Anything that does not meet these conditions, which are essential to
Knowledge as an encyclopedia, will be deleted. The keep result of the prior deletion discussions were contingent on the cleanup of this article to conform to Knowledge policies, and were based on the notability the subject insofar as it is what some commenters described as a "mail-order scam" and as "cultist crackpots"; yet the article currently mentions nothing whatsoever of these activities or views. —
1120:
It is a good article, and the vote is totally uncalled for. "Bi" who put this up for deletion spends his time writing his own web page called "Neo-Tex" which is a feeble attempt to ridicule the philosophy. He doesn't like Neo-Tech and wants to get rid of the article and wants to remove as much words about Neo-Tech from
Knowledge as possible. Look at what he did to the Neo-Tech article. He tried to cut it down to almost nothing, deleting sourced information: He cut it down from this
524:, the article as it is is not interesting and will strike almost anyone who stumble upon it as an ad. For the sake of your own cause, please consider making it look like there has been some other consideration than the books. Basically, Islam is defined by the Coran. But if you got out there and did the article only by citing it, it would look unapropriate. I know, it's not a cult, but you get my drift. Or else, consider changing it to articles about the books.--
897:, no one at Talk:NPOV told you to place this on AfD again. I specifically advised you on how to deal with individual statements that cannot be verified from reliable published sources. I advised you to follow the standard dispute resolution procedures, and to not edit war. I also suggested that you just walk away from this if you had a personal stake in it.
986:
Right, but besides self-published sources being used as a source for what an author says about himself they can also be used as a source for how the author describes his philosophy. They can't be used as a source for asserting whether the philosophy is good or not, of course, but a book can always be
446:
Anyone that told you an article is unencyclopedia because it has only self-published sources is wrong, under the condition that self-published sources are only used a sources for what the author of those sources are saying in an article about the authors of those sources. A book by Frank
Wallace is a
1126:
That is totally unjustified. Knowledge is about being informative as possible, not least informative as possible. Bi has initiated this action for all the wrong reasons. Please consider changing your vote, because it's going to be moved back to its own article eventually anyway. Probably no one will
1119:
makes no sense. And a merge with
Objectivism would be original research because no secondary sources say it is a form of objectivism. The Neo-Tech article is a pretty good article. It's pretty well sourced and defintely written NPOV. There are PLENTY of sources. The books themselves are the sources.
284:
you want to delete an article...; but to get angry at the bad editing of an article on which you wanted to participate (that should prove you deem the article worthy of existance) to the point you propose (3 times!) to delete it... Well, it's good to see people take the project at heart! By the way,
188:
Here is the deal. One guy named Frank
Wallace developed the philosophy. He published his own books. Since then other authors people have been writing about the philosophy, and Wallace has published their books and articles for them with his own publishing company. I don't know if the latter would be
155:
There was just a AfD earlier this month. This article is based on primary sources. It is perfectly legitimate to cite authors of books as a sources about what tbeir own own books say. Just because there are no secondary sources available, it doesn't mean the article should be deleted. And, Neo-Tech
850:
The article doesn't need much "cleaning up." It's pretty well sourced and informative. I was trying to make it even better but then you go and delete the sourced information. Either help improve the article or get out of the way, please. Don't give us this "passing the buck" stuff. I wouldn't call
1114:
It doesn't make sense to merge. I understand why those who voted to merge would do so though, because they probably were not aware that of the following: Wallace is not the only developer of Neo-Tech. There are other writers who contribute their ideas to make what is called Neo-Tech. Only citing
679:
Oh ok. I thought you meant our own opinions. I wasn't trying to be sarcastic or anything. Yes that would be good if they existed. All the books are published by
Wallace's company and I don't know if they've released numbers on how many books have been sold. If so, you really couldnt use it as a
81:
The text from the current Neo-Tech article cannot simply be copied into the Frank R. Wallace article. It must be added only as a neutral description of Neo-Tech that is proportionate to a well-balanced, well-sourced article on this person and his ideas and activities, with reference to sources
951:
23:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC) Why it says "and other published sources of dubious reliability" I don't know. Obviously the sources are not of dubious reliability. How could a book be of dubious reliability when used as a source for itself? It's just straighforward quoting and paraphrasing.
819:, and you see this in the comments above. Yes, yes, the article can be great article, if only somebody who's not me goes the extra mile to clean up the article and pull out good-quality secondary sources from his magic hat! Yes sir, it'll be a "headache", but it's not
726:
for this AfD was that there aren't any peer-reviewed sources from either the pro-Neo-Tech side or the anti-Neo-Tech side, so if you'd like to keep this article, please at least suggest something more useful than "find some secondary sources". Jeez, I'm tired of this.
1139:
I think it would be more acceptable to have a full-extent description of the guy's system of thought on his own article than on a separate one. Plus it would put the length of the neo tech citations in perspective with something else, instead of being evaluated
77:
articles were originally created and their text remains substantially written by a now-banned user whose express and only purpose on
Knowledge was a co-ordinated, sustained campaign to push a particular point-of-view across political and philosophical articles.
1127:
change their vote, but at least this is here for the record so anyone can see exactly what this was all about. It is totally improper attempt to delete a fine article, with those voting not having enough background information to make an informed decision.
927:
So what are you getting at? You say the article shouldn't be in
Knowledge, yet you won't support its deletion. And then you "advised" me to do a whole lot of things I've already tried to do. Can anyone suggest something more constructive? *birds chirping*
805:
OK, I just had to get this out of my system. Friends, Wikipedians, countrymen, do you know why the Neo-Tech article is still not of encyclopedic quality? Why people keep voting to not to delete the article, but to clean up the article, but it's still a
363:
Thanks. Your reason is that it is weighted on one side only, right? One thing I wanted to ask around for a moment is, when something is evident ("cats have four legs", say), at what point can you just say it without it being OR? Any idea where I can
1115:
Wallace, you would not get a full picture of the philosophy. The philosophy stands alone because it's a combination of ideas from different people. Wallace's son, Mark
Hamilton, has probably written about half of it. I oppose a merge. A merge with
823:
headache! And guess what, everyone ends up waiting for that someone who's not himself to do all the dirty work. Read the comments above, read the comments in the VfD, read the comments in the prior AfD, and judge for yourself whether I'm
669:
don't bite me. Or get sarcastic, for what it's worth. I never mentionned our opinions. I just said "stuff not from the books or from the authors". As in newspaper articles, sales review, that kind of stuff. I'm amazed at my own patience
189:
considered secondary sources since they're technically not self-published, but it's all that's available. There are no books that go into describing Neo-Tech that are not published by Wallace's publishing company, that I'm aware of.
591:
To improve the article? That's what I've been trying to do, but Bi here deletes the cited material. He's doesn't want the article to exist, but since he can't get rid of it, he tries to delete almost everything out of the article.
138:
No AfD notice on the article and from the looks of it, the article is locked from editing due to an edit war. This is a content dispute, not an AfD issue... besides, we don't need peer-reviewed sources for every article to be
247:
this is, like any fast-learning experience, getting pretty painful. I find it hard to believe that poeple would get THAT heated on an encyclopedia article. Did you notice that the other wiki's article on NT are exact
462:
specifically disagrees with your argument: "Neologisms that are in wide use -- but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources -- are not yet ready for use and coverage in Knowledge." Plain and simple.
564:, ISBN: 1419618555 (page 117), but as far as I know there are no criticisms. So the fact that it is cited, if not criticized, indicates some importance. Even without those citations, it's obviously noteable.
68:
that are not related to Frank R. Wallace or his publishing company. Knowledge articles are not the place for an uncritical description of this person or his ideas channeled directly from his books. Both the
573:
There's a line between being imporant enough to attract controversy and being notable. But I think I'm loosing my time here. How about we flag the article as "neutrality disputed", and wait until someone
488:
have peer-reviewed secondary sources discussing it, including a senior thesis. And you're splitting non-existent hairs: obviously when one discusses a word, one will discuss the meaning of the word.
423:
that an article with only self-published sources is unencyclopedic and should go. And now you're saying that it shouldn't go. OK, how about this: if you really want to keep the article, please
628:
Oh I see. Are you new to Knowledge? It sounds like you're advocating what is called "original research" which means to put things in an article that can't be cited from reliable sources. See
947:
say: "Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves."
816:
218:-- The article should stay but be made more interesting. It is a collection of citations from two or three books, and that doesn't qualify as a good article on a philosophy.--
1180:
Yup, no worries. I wouldn't want to loose the subject altogether, but if we keep it that way we might as well merge it for added consistency. Oh and I support merging with
520:, you must admit it is possible that there is no available documented criticism on these guys. If there's none, it just means they're not important enough to attract some.
434:
would improve the article, instead of giving vague requests to other people to "find some secondary sources" and make the article "more interesting", yadda yadda yadda.
1171:
By the way, SidiLemine, does your new "Merge" vote mean you are cancelling your earlier "Keep" vote? I've struck it out for you for now, but it'll be good to confirm.
473:
is a neologism and therefore that article should be deleted? That's absurd. This article is not about a word, but about a philosophy represented by a word.
172:
people interested in retaining this article should probably try and find some secondary sources. Basing an article strictly on primary sources is not
1160:
No one has a veto over the decision. AfDs normally run for five days. An admin determines when to close the discussion and what the result is. -
812:
1210:
1192:
1175:
1166:
1152:
1131:
1106:
1094:
1078:
1057:
1045:
991:
978:
956:
932:
919:
879:
867:
855:
838:
785:
776:
764:
755:
743:
731:
713:
697:
684:
674:
623:
614:
605:
596:
586:
568:
548:
528:
508:
492:
477:
451:
438:
410:
377:
368:
358:
339:
323:
310:
301:
275:
266:
You mean on the foreign language Wikipedias? Yes, it looks like they were translated from this one. The French version looks just like it:
261:
252:
238:
222:
205:
193:
180:
164:
147:
93:
811:
I'll tell you why. Because everybody keeps waiting for someone who's not himself to clean up the article. You see this in the first
690:
632:. We can't put our own opinions, arguments, or criticisms in Knowledge articles. That's a big no no. 19:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
17:
901:, it is indeed true that an article that can be supported only by self-published sources does not meet the requirements of
829:
Stop this. Please. This has gone on long enough. Keep, don't keep, I don't really care now. But stop all this buck-passing.
970:
Joe Blow claims that Spirow Agnew was abducted by little green monsters flying a space ship that looked like a BMW Isetta.
680:
secondary source. You could just say something like "they claim that 500,000 books on the philosophy have been sold."
966:
Joe blow claims that he was abducted by little green monsters flying a space ship that looked like a 1949 Studebaker.
940:
906:
1225:
36:
619:
Not just to improve it, but to balance the canon citations with stuff not from the books or from the authors. --
257:
Find an article on a school and nominate it for deletion... you'll see just how heated people can get here...--
1224:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1021:
126:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1206:. I'd lean toward delete on this one, but if there's a related article and a precedent then just merge it.
944:
910:
902:
99:
70:
335:, I didn't know that. Do you know what were the reasons? That could prove instructive for this time.--
1009:
291:"Neo-Tech is a philosophy similar to Objectivism. Its goal is to clear mysticism from the human mind"
114:
420:
968:
They may not be used as sources for other things, i.e., we can't use a self-published source for
578:
maybe?)edits a book against it? Then we'll have opposing secondary sources. No, more seriously:
230:
Hi SidiLemine, if you oppose the motion to delete, would you consider indicating this by saying
316:
1161:
1089:
973:
964:. Self-published sources may be used as a source for what an author said about himself, i.e.,
914:
537:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1145:
1128:
1116:
988:
953:
948:
876:
852:
740:
681:
611:
593:
579:
565:
521:
505:
474:
448:
328:
307:
272:
190:
161:
87:
74:
47:
1181:
1067:
1088:
A merge will not make all problems go away, but should make things more manageable. --
769:
258:
177:
144:
57:
270:
541:
501:
459:
173:
157:
107:
536:
If they're not important enough, then shouldn't the article be zapped, according to
346:
VfD by Tony Sidaway: reason: "Original research, neologism. Obscure crackpot ideas."
1063:
1038:
1017:
629:
122:
63:
331:, I obviously didn't mean that. Please keep me out of your contest of bad faith.
315:
And why would I even propose an AfD to delete my own link if I'm self-promoting?
1207:
1103:
1071:
482:
470:
407:
244:
235:
140:
83:
689:
There are some, not about Neo-Tech the philosophy, but Neo-Tech the company --
1189:
1149:
1042:
863:
You're ignoring consensus, which is that your article does need cleaning up.
782:
761:
671:
620:
583:
525:
365:
336:
298:
249:
219:
1041:, as has been one on the German Knowledge. Anyone agreee with the idea? --
306:
Yes, Bi appears to be using Knowledge to self-promote his joke web page.
875:
What consensus? And what do you mean my article? It's not my article.
419:
OK, you know what? I started this AfD because people were telling me on
1172:
1075:
1054:
1013:
929:
864:
835:
773:
752:
728:
710:
694:
602:
575:
545:
517:
489:
435:
374:
355:
332:
320:
294:
202:
118:
285:
It's just the french article that's a copy of this one. I quite like
61:
description of this person and his ideas, and it must also reference
751:
But that's a good enough reason to keep passing the buck, I guess.
1186:
Wallace, Frank R. Liberating Objectivism: The Liberation Manifest
781:
Alright folks, I'm out of here. See you tomorrow on . Peace :) --
1218:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1184:, as "Neo-Tech is the Business/Application mode of objectivism"
909:, and should not be in Knowledge. I suggest that you read the
1037:
There has been a proposition that we merge the article with
319:: the first 2 AfDs were by other people, for other reasons.
106:
No peer-reviewed sources on either side of the issue. Also,
556:
Books about Neo-Tech are cited in other books, such as in
354:
You can see traces of them on the talk page, by the way.
1148:
to approve, or is there a time limit to these things?--
1124:
1121:
851:
deleting large amounts of information "cleaning up." .
373:
See the top of the page for my rationale for this AfD.
201:
Tried, didn't work. Care to suggest something better?
1053:
As mentioned on the talk page, I'll support a merge.
286:
267:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
705:Oh, and if the nominator can vote too, then I say
601:You're still not answering SidiLemine's question.
500:This article is not about the meaning of a word.
1228:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1062:To clarify, I'm fine with a merge with either
739:That's not a good enough reason for deletion.
560:(Gracewing Publishing 2003, page 287) and in
540:? And again, I refer to the quote above from
8:
562:Fresh Wisdom: Breakthrough to enlightenment
469:That's not applicable at all. Do you think
1005:I hate motherhood statements. That's all.
406:Two AfD notices in a month is excessive.
987:used a source for what's in that book.
293:. Plus a link to Pax Neo Tex (prank by
280:I'd understand that people get heated
1074:(in order of decreasing preference).
582:, you didn't answer my proposition.--
7:
760:What does "passing the buck" mean?--
24:
911:policy on self-published sources
691:Integrated Management Associates
349:AfD: reason: Neo-Tech is a scam.
160:(neologism) doesn't even apply.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
834:Thank you for your attention.
693:. Are we confused enough yet?
1:
1211:21:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
1193:10:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
1176:07:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
1167:14:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
1153:14:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
1132:03:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
1107:17:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
1095:13:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
1079:17:32, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
1058:13:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
1046:12:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
992:02:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
979:00:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
933:03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
880:03:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
868:03:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
94:08:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
957:23:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
920:22:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
856:23:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
839:21:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
803:Yet another darn comment...
786:20:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
777:19:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
765:19:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
756:19:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
744:19:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
732:19:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
714:18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
698:19:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
685:19:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
675:19:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
624:19:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
615:18:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
606:18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
597:18:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
587:18:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
569:18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
549:18:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
529:18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
509:18:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
504:does not apply whatseover.
493:18:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
478:18:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
452:18:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
439:18:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
411:17:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
378:19:21, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
369:19:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
359:19:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
340:18:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
324:18:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
311:18:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
302:18:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
276:17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
262:17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
253:17:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
239:17:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
223:17:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
206:20:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
194:19:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
181:17:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
165:17:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
148:16:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
1245:
907:Knowledge:Reliable sources
558:Church Disputes Mediation
51:. Note that this article
1221:Please do not modify it.
430:draft out a plan of how
156:is definitely noteable.
32:Please do not modify it.
903:Knowledge:Verifiability
815:, you see this in the
1144:. Should we wait for
100:Neo-Tech (philosophy)
71:Neo-Tech (philosophy)
66:, third-party sources
55:be rewritten to be a
516:Here they go again.
1102:per Donald Albury.
941:WP:Reliable sources
287:the portuguese one
1026:
1012:comment added by
661:Well, actually I
131:
117:comment added by
1236:
1223:
1117:Frank R. Wallace
1025:
1006:
945:WP:Verifiability
269:And the German:
130:
111:
102:(3rd nomination)
75:Frank R. Wallace
48:Frank R. Wallace
34:
1244:
1243:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1226:deletion review
1219:
1182:Neo-Objectivism
1068:Neo-Objectivism
1007:
722:Once more, the
112:
104:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1242:
1240:
1231:
1230:
1214:
1213:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1169:
1134:
1097:
1083:
1082:
1081:
1048:
1030:
1028:
1027:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
935:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
842:
841:
831:
830:
826:
825:
808:
807:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
790:
789:
788:
717:
702:
701:
700:
687:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
571:
414:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
394:
393:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
352:
351:
350:
347:
264:
227:
226:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
196:
150:
103:
97:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1241:
1229:
1227:
1222:
1216:
1215:
1212:
1209:
1205:
1202:
1194:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1174:
1170:
1168:
1165:
1164:
1163:Donald Albury
1159:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1138:
1135:
1133:
1130:
1125:
1122:
1118:
1113:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1105:
1101:
1098:
1096:
1093:
1092:
1091:Donald Albury
1087:
1084:
1080:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1049:
1047:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1004:
1001:
993:
990:
985:
982:
981:
980:
977:
976:
975:Donald Albury
971:
967:
963:
960:
959:
958:
955:
950:
946:
942:
939:
936:
934:
931:
926:
923:
922:
921:
918:
917:
916:Donald Albury
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
893:What a mess!
892:
889:
881:
878:
874:
871:
870:
869:
866:
862:
859:
858:
857:
854:
849:
846:
845:
844:
843:
840:
837:
833:
832:
828:
827:
822:
818:
814:
810:
809:
804:
801:
800:
787:
784:
780:
779:
778:
775:
771:
768:
767:
766:
763:
759:
758:
757:
754:
750:
747:
746:
745:
742:
738:
735:
734:
733:
730:
725:
721:
718:
716:
715:
712:
708:
703:
699:
696:
692:
688:
686:
683:
678:
677:
676:
673:
668:
664:
660:
631:
627:
626:
625:
622:
618:
617:
616:
613:
609:
608:
607:
604:
600:
599:
598:
595:
590:
589:
588:
585:
581:
577:
572:
570:
567:
563:
559:
555:
552:
551:
550:
547:
543:
539:
535:
532:
531:
530:
527:
523:
519:
515:
512:
511:
510:
507:
503:
499:
496:
495:
494:
491:
487:
484:
481:
480:
479:
476:
472:
468:
465:
464:
461:
458:
455:
454:
453:
450:
445:
442:
441:
440:
437:
433:
429:
426:
422:
418:
415:
413:
412:
409:
405:
401:
400:
379:
376:
372:
371:
370:
367:
362:
361:
360:
357:
353:
348:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
338:
334:
330:
327:
326:
325:
322:
318:
314:
313:
312:
309:
305:
304:
303:
300:
296:
292:
289:. Full text:
288:
283:
279:
278:
277:
274:
271:
268:
265:
263:
260:
256:
255:
254:
251:
246:
242:
241:
240:
237:
233:
229:
228:
225:
224:
221:
217:
213:
207:
204:
200:
197:
195:
192:
187:
184:
183:
182:
179:
175:
174:best practice
171:
168:
167:
166:
163:
159:
154:
151:
149:
146:
142:
137:
134:
133:
132:
128:
124:
120:
116:
109:
101:
98:
96:
95:
91:
90:
85:
79:
76:
72:
67:
65:
60:
59:
54:
50:
49:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1220:
1217:
1203:
1185:
1162:
1157:
1141:
1136:
1111:
1099:
1090:
1085:
1064:Wallace Ward
1050:
1039:Wallace_Ward
1034:
1029:
1008:— Preceding
1002:
983:
974:
969:
965:
961:
937:
924:
915:
898:
894:
890:
872:
860:
847:
820:
817:previous AfD
802:
748:
736:
724:whole reason
723:
719:
706:
704:
670:sometimes.--
666:
662:
561:
557:
553:
533:
513:
497:
485:
466:
456:
443:
431:
427:
424:
416:
403:
402:
290:
281:
231:
215:
214:
198:
185:
169:
152:
136:Speedy Close
135:
113:— Preceding
105:
88:
80:
62:
56:
52:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1146:JoeMystical
1129:JoeMystical
1072:Objectivism
989:JoeMystical
954:JoeMystical
949:JoeMystical
899:JoeMystical
877:JoeMystical
853:JoeMystical
741:JoeMystical
682:JoeMystical
612:JoeMystical
610:Which was?
594:JoeMystical
580:JoeMystical
566:JoeMystical
522:JoeMystical
506:JoeMystical
483:Scientology
475:JoeMystical
471:Scientology
449:JoeMystical
329:JoeMystical
308:JoeMystical
273:JoeMystical
248:replicas?--
191:JoeMystical
162:JoeMystical
153:Strong Keep
1190:SidiLemine
1150:SidiLemine
1043:SidiLemine
783:SidiLemine
762:SidiLemine
672:SidiLemine
621:SidiLemine
584:SidiLemine
538:WP:Notable
526:SidiLemine
366:SidiLemine
337:SidiLemine
299:SidiLemine
250:SidiLemine
234:. Thanks,
220:SidiLemine
317:User:$ yD
259:Isotope23
178:Isotope23
145:Isotope23
46:Merge to
1123:to this
1022:contribs
1010:unsigned
141:verified
127:contribs
115:unsigned
64:reliable
1158:Comment
1137:Comment
1112:Comment
1003:Comment
984:Comment
962:Comment
938:Comment
925:Comment
891:Comment
873:Comment
861:Comment
848:Comment
749:Comment
737:Comment
720:Comment
554:Comment
534:Comment
514:Comment
498:Comment
467:Comment
457:Comment
444:Comment
421:WT:NPOV
417:Comment
364:look?--
243:Cheers
199:Comment
186:Comment
170:Comment
58:neutral
1208:Durova
1142:per se
1104:Addhoc
824:right.
707:delete
667:Please
542:WP:NEO
502:WP:NEO
460:WP:NEO
428:please
425:please
408:Addhoc
245:Addhoc
236:Addhoc
158:WP:NEO
108:WP:NEO
84:Centrx
1204:Merge
1100:Merge
1086:Merge
1070:, or
1051:Merge
1035:Merge
913:. --
806:mess?
772:...?
665:new.
630:WP:OR
282:after
16:<
1018:talk
943:and
905:and
486:does
404:Keep
232:Keep
216:Keep
123:talk
89:talk
73:and
53:must
1188:.--
972:--
813:VfD
770:Umm
432:you
297:)--
176:.--
143:.--
1173:Bi
1076:Bi
1066:,
1055:Bi
1024:)
1020:•
1014:Bi
930:Bi
895:Bi
865:Bi
836:Bi
821:my
774:Bi
753:Bi
729:Bi
711:Bi
709:.
695:Bi
663:am
603:Bi
576:Bi
546:Bi
544:.
518:Bi
490:Bi
436:Bi
375:Bi
356:Bi
333:Bi
321:Bi
295:Bi
203:Bi
129:)
125:•
119:Bi
92:•
1016:(
574:(
121:(
110:.
86:→
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.