Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Press Play on Tape

2454:

long program that focus on technology and on its impact on our every day lives. In this episode Press Play On Tape, plays the part of a house band, and performs 4 songs during the show as well as being interviewed. The 8 Bit Philosophy documentary, tells about the remix scene that has formed around the music from the Commodore 64 and Amiga. As a prominent member of this scene Press Play On Tape is mentioned. This documentary has been aired on German television. The show on DR could count as a week number 12 criterion, and the other two I still think counts as number one criterion. Both of them are made by reliable non C64 scene parties that want to tell the "normal" people about, what is going on here. The same can be said for the CNN reference or the references to Danish newspapers (Computerworld is the businessmans source of IT news in Denmark, and Berlingske Tidende is one of the largest newspapers in Denmark). Then there is references to various game magazines that quite obviously is for a different audience and is geeks talking to geeks. So there the focus is on nostalgia. All of this adds in my book to a clear fulfillment of criterion 1. None of these articles are merely press releases, but often based on two questions: "Why do do it?" and "Why do you think that you can get 720,000 views and 2300 comments on a YouTube video?" And may I add to that, that Eels: "Novocaine for the Soul" is on 300,000 views on youtube. Not that I am comparing Eels and Press Play on Tape, and I know YouTube hits don't count in here. I simply want to make it clear that this band isn't just known by that weird computer freak back at your school. If that should influence your view on this article. --

3355:. It's OK that mark an article for deletion without spending much time on investigating if it is the right thing to do. How can it be that a single person (or a few people) that have little or no knowledge about a topic wants to decide over it on wikipedia, setting their own preference (let it be typography, content wise, or any other) higher than a collection of people that actually enjoys that topic and even offers their time and knowledge? Is it that every page becomes a nail when you have the Twinkle delete hammer? If, tons of pages must be deleted this way because the deletor is ignorant about what he or she (as if) is doing. I could understand if you earned xp, got a +1 on your plate mail, but you don't in this world. So, what's the motive here? And it cannot be that you crave sleep and go to sleep each day even more happy after deleting a page or two. If, you should try some of the more exciting stuff out there; the rush is much more notable. I lack essense in all the 3182:

you do with a Commodore 64?". The academic article mentions the band, but also notes that the video mentioned "premiered in a pub" and "gained attention in Commodore 64 forums", so I'm not sure how that helps to show heightened notability either. For me, therefore, this isn't significant coverage focused on the band. Computer game magazines and so on is a subjective case of notability, which is why we're here at AFD. You must remember that I originally voted weak keep, and then delete, so I'm not as rigorously against this band's notability as other editors - In fact, I even stated that I've heard their music before in one comment, and thought they are quite good. This still, however, does not change my opinion that I feel that the press mentions, no matter how widely obtained, are a little trivial and brief, often as a sub-text in articles on Commodore 64 and game music. The wider popularity seems to be lacking, for me, hence why I still see this as a failure of

2177:"The first rule of Knowledge (XXG) is you do not talk about Knowledge (XXG)"? C'mon, this comment is simply preposterous. Your only interest is to see this article deleted, and you're lending no hand in trying to improve it or prove that this is in fact a notable band. I claim you've taken a personal interest in the deletion of this article, and will see it done by any means possible. Had you spent the same amount of energy in trying to find reliable sources for this article as you are trying to wreck it, you'd find it. I don't know how I'd go about reporting you to a "hight authority" on this, and I don't intend to find out either because frankly this is quote tiresome, but you, sir are clearly out of line here. 1602:

is not a reliable source. While this may be true for the mainstream, it is *the* source for information around C64 remixing; you're asking for news coverage while you're ignoring me as an expert of the field. All this leaves a bad taste in my mouth (and not only in mine), because it indicates that niche information has no place on the Knowledge (XXG), just because several editors think it lacks major coverage in the mainstream media. Relying only on this apperas a fatal error, because it will "mainstream" the Knowledge (XXG) as well, creating a mainstream dependance. I am 100% certain that this here is

2886:. We didn't invent it, we don't own it, we don't have any control over it. All we can do is try to work within its rules (which we didn't invent and which are policed by lots of people other than ourselves). If the subject of this article fits within wikipedia's scope, that's fine. If not, then not. I think one way, you think the other. OK, let's see. But in any case there are a squillion other websites out there with other rules for inclusion so what does wikipedia matter? I think it's just an issue of pride that your band has a wikipedia article of its own. Well, big deal. 749:

verifiability, maybe editors do not spend the amount of time on wp that you do hence updates are not that often, maybe verifiability isn't even on the 'net as it is the case with this band. To be honest, to me it looks like you just want the page deleted because you know some rule that supports that. It's not like the world ends with that page being on wp for a period of time without verifiability. You comment about not having the time for undeleting the correct page surely supports your biased adolescence on this matter. There, i said it.

1695:, and I'm trying to explain that our niche scene can not offer many mainstream references for verification, only indie references. In this case, the source is the band itself or people close to it, and I'm offering my expertise, c64Audio.com, Remix64.com and remix.kwed.org to back up the notability of the information. The Verifiability and Notability is all there, if you'd want to see it. Yet you don't; you're not moving your POV an inch. You're not trying to help. You're not even showing a 2020:

apparently sunk into a personal disagreement after that (otherwise, speedy deletion would have been the topic of debate, not capitalization). Agree with previous opinion, this is not what Knowledge (XXG) is about. As the owner of a longstanding Commodore 64 blog and a podcast with thousands of downloads (C64 Walkabout) and someone who is only tangentially into the "remix scene" I want to throw my 2 cents in that this band is well-known in the Commodore 64 enthusiast community.

3163:, references to interviews on national TV and radio, national and international newspapers (with interviews spanning several pages, I might add) and magazines from several countries, international media, as well as analysis in academic studies is not enough to claim notability? Because if you had indeed bothered to look at the article, you'd have noticed that very few of the trivial references you're refering to are left, or make up a marginal part of the reference list. 640:. For example, something to show that they have "had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country" or have "received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour" or have "released two or more albums on a major label" etc etc. There are 11 very explicit music-related criteria plus the usual general one of having had plenty of independent coverage from reliable sources. 2249:

specific reason not to use talk pages)". IMHO (and I might be wrong) asking supporters to help dig out reliable sources is fine, but many of the destructive comments which encourage editors to take a particular POV isn't a proper way to conduct what should be an open, neutral debate focussed on whether wikipedia's guidelines are met. The negative language used throughout this debate helps make my point.

62: 3133:-based music and culture. I appreciate that, as band members and fans, you are keen for the article to remain, but the "Knowledge (XXG) guys" do have arguments which have been made, and when this debate is reviewed, both sides of the argument will be considered by an independent administrator. To sum up this somewhat long-winded reply, the case for deletion stems from a lack of notability under 3121:

interest and quality of writing. Brief mentions in documentaries, and mentions on specialist websites do not constitute notability in my mind, and the same can be said for others; Others, of course, have disagreed on that point. The issue with some sources given is that they are not independent from the musician, or particularly reputable; An example of this is the website ran by

2995:. All rule quarrel, spa-debating and canvassing accusations aside, has anyone bothered to look at the article in the past couple of days? Even if some editors seem to think we've only been stirring trouble, we've actually worked quite hard on improving the credibility of the article. Right now this debate is about the debate itself, and very little about the article. 2647:. Anyone whom is the subject of an article would be deemed WP:COI, but fans are not - Your account is new, however, and appears to have been created to make a point on this AFD. To complete the U2 analogy, contributions by Bono or other members of U2, and parties such as their record company with a vested interest, would be in conflict of interest. 3556: 3553: 1517:: First off, with this sentence, "Apart from that all I'd also like to question SchuminWeb's motive for the deletion, from what I've heard there was a minor quarrel between him and the band about the capitalization of the band name, which then resulted in the deletion." you start your time on Knowledge (XXG) by not 1266:

facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments; as a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source"), but that's ultimately for the closing admin to decide. Meanwhile if you have references that you think meet wikipedia's criteria please add them to the article!

867:, on a second review, I can't take the views of a Knowledge (XXG) administrator as proof of verifiability. Whether you know something or not, if you can't verify it, it doesn't belong. Besides that, the "I'm an administrator, so you'll have to trust me on this one" attitude of some posts here is alarming. 1436:(ref'd on page) and some of the largest venue in Denmark (articles about such concerts usually are deleted on the 'net after a period of time, but go check the pictures on the band's website---which I'm sure should not be included on the page just to claim notability and/or verifiability). So again, it's 1765:

specifically excludes "works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings...", and that pretty much covers what's in the references you've provided so far. A few trivial mentions on a single website comes nowhere near

1601:

information from this encyclopedia that might be of interest to tens of thousands of people. You're disregarding any hints or evidence of notability, even if it's from CNN. I'm not receiving answers on the good points I make, only on those you think you can disarm. You can also state that remix64.com

1276:

Be easy on me, the workings of the wikipedia appear vast and a little confusing for a noob like me, so sorry if I'm missing the obvious. So what I'd have to do is put references to remix.kwed.org / c64audio.com / remix64.com into the footnotes that back up the information given in the article, right?

684:

If it was a claim in the article, then I would agree. But I am (IMO) a trusted Knowledge (XXG) contributor unassociated with the band, adding a fact that I personally know. I am a reliable source for this fact. I think that should be enough for you to assume good faith, and take my word for it in the

3380:

clearly states that this can only be done by editors that know what is notable and what is not. Since every experienced Knowledge (XXG) editor above states that we (the people with a keep attitude) don't know what is notable, I think it is a funny rule to suddenly throw into the discussion. Then you

3223:

though, I would like the same argumentation on the references to "normal" newspapers and national TV. I think of Press Play On Tape as a niche band, that is very well known in their niche (Hence the many references to news mainly focussed on this niche), but the band has also appeared outside of the

2453:

The link to the show on TV2 (Danish national television), is 7 minutes of length and is an interview and a performance of one song. The story is more or less to explore the fascination that makes these guys play Commodore 64 music. The show on "Harddisken" on DR (Danish national radio) is a one hour

1945:

And that's where I claim personal opinions come into play. Being featured on national TV, getting mentioned (if not featured exclusively) in several publications, in several different countries, should and could be significant coverage. We can't demand the same kind of broad mainstream coverage when

1495:

I also think it's undignified for a member of what you are claiming as such a notable and relevant band to be posting in a "but my band is important!" kind of way. I've actually heard "Bionic Commando" from your second album, and it wasn't a bad track, but I still don't think the coverage outside of

1180:

at remix.kwed.org, then hover the song titles to see how many times they were downloaded, "Out Run" for example counts about 59000 downloads, meaning 59000 people who are potentially interested in reading about them on the Knowledge (XXG). Another popular reference that comes to mind was in the game

1156:

gives guidance about this. Despite lots of requests, none of this band's supporters have provided a single reference since this AfD debate started. If you claim that this band meets criterion #7 - "one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style" - for example, please provide references

706:

sources so other users can check for themselves. For example, the guidelines say "we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves", which isn't precisely the case here but shows clearly how the

3181:

Many of the sources that I have seen are representing the Commodore 64 community. For example, the CNN article is in fact a single paragraph where Theo (and I don't think arguing his own band's case so heavily has helped perceptions, by the way) talks about his band in an article entitled "What can

2863:

are not in reference to your article contributions, but to the case that you are making in this debate, in that your desire to see the article survive this AFD is a conflict of interest, as it of course in the best interests of a band member to not see the article deleted. Therefore, when you argue

2858:

Firstly, your tone is not particularly gracious in this comment, asking me to specify if "I want to be a serious contributor" and referring to comments as a "faint hunch". Also, adding "SPA" after your comments looks like you're somewhat mocking the "single-purpose account" guidelines. Nonetheless,

2720:

on your AfD. So, once again it's utterly fantastic to see how you guys can doctor up temporal interpretations of wp guidelines and rules to suit your case, when you know that you're dealing with noobs and you should extend your help instead to get the page into a shape where it actually could stay.

1648:

someday. It very clearly explains why some articles are acceptable and some are not, even if they have lots of enthusiastic support. By the way, none of the participants in this debate will delete the article - an independent administrator will review the arguments and decide what to do (currently,

1529:, the band does not pass #5 because the c64Audio label is not a major label or one of the more important indie labels. As for #7, there is no reliable source to back up this assertion. CNN only has a trivial mention and remix64.com is not a reliable source, so this article should still be deleted. 1072:

I agree that headlining a university gig might be a weak claim to notability, and I don't mean to nitpick, but I can't really agree with your reasoning on this. With that kind of logic a bands notability is decided whether they're on WP or not, not if they headline a university gig. In other words,

1053:

One final comment from me would be that performing as the headline act at a Copenhagen University event has been given as an assertion of notability. I'm not sure that headline a University event is a result to claim notability, if I'm honest - In the city I'm from, for example, headline acts often

748:

Maybe you should consider your own adminship. Deleting a page just because you assume that verifiablity isn't possible within a certain timeframe for a page or topic is only counter-productive and disrespectful for those who has contributed building the page. Maybe it does take some time to dig out

3527:

It's not an isolated thing but part of an entire (albeit small) subculture worth learning about. See the categories. And, somewhat double-meta: The main argument for the use of notability criteria and for the notion that deletions of articles are improvements seems to be the maintenance nightmare.

2889:

You are totally mistaken when you claim that we're making up the rules, and I am certain that you know it. Once again: wikipedia's rules were written over a long period of time by many people, and the outcome of this debate will be decided by a third party who is knowledgeable about those rules. I

2210:

Canvassing?! This forum, for your info, is run be me and a couple of other non PPOT people. There have been some quick-tempered comments, yes, but you can track back that I'm calling people to help the case by providing better references and information; I even PMed some of the participants not to

3257:

where millions of refs are used in hope of proving notability. They must think more refs = more likely to be kept. Machine translated Danish references also do not give me hope. How about listing here say seven or so of the best sources. If that isn't enough then the band is probably non-notable.

2349:

Actually, they can't. This debate will be closed by an independent administrator - once he's finished laughing and has told all his friends about it! Seriously though, there are various ways of complaining about the actions of us non-believers if you want to. You could start by reading about AFD

3204:

I do understand your point of view, but I also feel you're focusing on what you think is trivial, while ignoring the substantial - like a four-page-interview in a general PC magazine, or interviews in "normal" newspapers and national TV. Yes, there are references closely linked to the band, like

1897:

I agree that from the start this article was not sufficiently verifiable, but in its edited state, as it stands now, I would say it's verified. I think a previous speaker tried to trivialize the CNN mention, but how many indie bands, no matter how briefly, are mentioned in a CNN article? You can

1265:

references to c64audio.com and remix64.com. I'm also not certain if these sources meet wikipedia's criteria as reliable sources ("published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "in general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing

3120:

One fundemental flaw with this argument is that the quality of an article's writing does not guarantee its notability. I have seen excellent articles deleted in the past, just as awful, unformatted ones have been retained, as AFD is a case of notability and encyclopedic relevance above personal

3082:

Agree but that is the easy way out, when you cannot come up with good arguments anymore, and you are proven wrong, it is much better to kill the messenger. I would probably regain my respect for these Knowledge (XXG) guys if they could only come up, with one sane argument why the article in its

2248:

In the midst of all the verbiage on this page I hadn't noticed your earlier note that you ran the forum and website. I've struck my comment about this. However the point about canvassing stands. For example "Contacting users off-wiki... to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a

1552:

because of his expertise. As I said C64audio.com represents many notable c64 artists, known to millions. As someone who's been at the center of the scene we're talking about for 10 years, you should at least assume I know what I'm talking about, I'm not making this all up. And I claim that this

1379:

page to see if I was doing wrong; but the noob page in fact says that noobs should be bold and should be welcomed, that it's an important principle of the wikipedia. So as a noob, I'm asking you kindly to help me keep this page online, as for now I feel you're doing anything to make me fail: by

2963:

is being shown here. Either way, the AFD has runs its course, and I think that the arguments have been fully presented. Myself and other administrators whom have contributed to this AFD cannot close it, and a neutral party will judge the arguments on their merits or lack thereof. I personally

2019:

Improved article /end state band legitimacy for Knowledge (XXG) article is acceptable. The debate over the capitalization was lost when put up against the hard evidence of what actually appears in all caps on a Commodore 64 screen - the recognizable message PRESS PLAY ON TAPE, and the debate

1782:

I could reply by quoting the harmless dictionary entries for words like "adolescent", "Kafka" and "Twinkle", which you found so offending that you posted a warning. But there's no point. You are not really discussing. You're defending your position, no matter what; justifying everything with

1423:

There are many bands in the game tune genre so it's not that PPOT is the only one out there. But that is not up to the article to prove that even though they are referenced on the page, you have to find that our for yourself. Since PPOT on several occasions has been playing with both

2815:

So, it is ok in some cases to contribute yourself, if you're subject. Please make a mental note to remember about this fact. Also note that it is ok to ref own material as long as there is plenty of third-party refs, so there can hardly be any issue. Nor does any of the indication of

1481:: "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Why not divert some of your energy into adding references? 1310:

At least the label's homepage / online shop (c64Audio.com) should validate as a reliable source, shouldn't it? PPOT has also been mentioned in various print media, I've asked the community to browse theirs and provide references. Hopefully this will help resolve the matter.

3224:

niche as the references to "normal" news sites states. So without the references to the computer magazines, remix64.com and c64audio.com it would be impossible to write the article. This doesn't claim notability but the references to national TV and normal newspapers do. --

2594:

I'd also like to further comment that "well-known in the Commodore 64 enthusiast community" is not a particularly good assertion of notability, as it's not a major community that's gained huge coverage as a whole, and doesn't assert the notability of a band within it. Most

1946:

dealing with a niched, underground phenomenon - which, might I add, would be in line with one of Wikipedias five pillas; "Knowledge (XXG) does not have firm rules." Thus, the demand for mainstream coverage should be bendable when it comes to covering non-mainstream topics.

1348:

An online shop certainly doesn't count as an independent source. I also think that the search results you've linked to on remix64.com don't count in the slightest as serious coverage - many are just mentions of gigs and lot of the results aren't even about the band at all.

3408:

Another thing: if your band was notable, perhaps you and your crew wouldn't need to come here and incessantly argue that it was. If your band was notable, somebody else (several people) would already have come along and noted so, and this debate would not be occuring.

734:, then you should resign your adminship. This is basic stuff, and it's hard to trust, as a community member and fellow admin, that you will do the right thing with the sysop tools if you refuse to follow basic policies about verifiability and original research. 3205:

their web site, but surely this can't be forbidden when mixed with credible, third-party references? Even when removing those closely linked to the band, there are still dozens of third-party references left. I'm guessing we'll never agree on this, though. :)

1151:

Sorry, but that's not how wikipedia works. If anyone claims that a band, company, person, whatever is sufficiently notable to deserve their own encyclopedia article they must be able to prove it by giving references that other users can check for themselves.

2434:

I have to rely on google translations, but it seems to me that #6 is about just a single track and a quick chat. In any case, criterion 12 is more appropriate and I'm not sure if these references apply. Can you clarify the nature and depth of the coverage?

1787:(look that up in the dictionary). As I said I'm not merely a supporter of the band, I am considered a resprected representative of that whole style of music. Which you happily ignore. What makes you so sure your interpretation of the guidelines is right? 2771:. Those are existing guidelines, and thus are not being "doctored up". There's no conspiracy theory here, and the new accounts that are here as a vote will probably be discarded by the closing administrator. I hope that explains the system a bit better. 1547:

Probably I was mistaken about SchuminWeb. My apologies. Still: while c64Audio.com is a small label, it's the most important label regarding this specific style. The man behind it was after all important / relevant enough to be made a key witness in the

2812:

If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Knowledge (XXG)'s five

2517:). Only one Knowledge (XXG) user active away from this article has commented in favour of the topic's notability with a reason; The various other keep votes are from canvassing (detailed above) and members of the band. Just to bring it all together. 1606:

what the set of rules you're relying on was made for. You're doing the wrong thing and you know it. If this deletion gets through, I actually regret the donations I've made to the project, because it's not what I thought it is: independent and free.

1766:

meeting these criteria. If you're saying that the only way that an independent reader of the article can be satisfied that this is a notable band is to take the word of some of the band's supporters then I'm afraid you're not going to get very far.

1073:

if you don't have a WP article you're not note worthy, and you can't get a WP article if you're not note worthy. That said, headlining a univesity gig is far from this bands biggest claim of notability, and I think the revised version shows this.

1134:. I've personally seen them play in Birmingham and twice in London. They also meet §5; their works are published at which is the most important indie label regarding music related to the C64. C64Audio represents notable C64 music legends like 711:

we can clearly see the requirement for editorial oversight and, ideally, having a structure in place where facts can be independently verified. We can take your opinion about this band, in good faith, merely as a statement about your opinion.

358:

has 722.000 hits. They have published several CDs and been active for many years. I have also several times seen them advertised as a main attraction at relatively big local events here in Copenhagen, like Main Event at Copenhagen University.

1157:

so other users can check it for themselves (in the case of that particular criterion you may also have to show that their style is notable, and since they appear to be the only proponents of it, that might be a little circular...).

1824:

As a respected representative of the style you're no doubt aware of respected independent publications where it, and this band, have been discussed. You know, reviews, awards, that sort of thing. How about sharing them with us?

2211:

hurt the case by inapropriate measures. So far there has been no mass-posting, no campaigning, votestacking or secrecy. We're looking for help to save the article, that's all. Andy, would you stop being so destructive, please?

440: 3385:

and myself have already mentioned what we think is notable. So why didn't you join in one of those "threads"? "It is not about votes but about reaching consensus" I think I read somewhere on one of the many WP rules pages.

1117:

Hello and apologies if I violate any rules, it's not my intention; I'm not an editor but I use the Knowledge (XXG) very often, so I'd like to add my "user" point of view. I am not associated with the band. I'm the head of

511:

So you are using a tool, which you alreay know is faulty, to support your argumentation? That's a bit bold. As a computer scientist I need to tell you that it could be either part of the site that is faulty, or even both.

2617:

Agreed on all of this, but name one music group or artist that has a Knowledge (XXG) article that is not written by a fan of the artist. So members of U2s fan club cannot write on the U2 article because that would be

2553:. There are no other band members participating in this discussion because they don't care but I've informed them about what's going on. If you want to call my reaction, as a band member, against deletion of the page 272: 1553:

style, as well as PPOT, is relevant, and important. Maybe not to you, maybe not to the mainstream, but to many, many people. Where is the threshold of interest for the Knowledge (XXG)? 100 people? 1000? A million?

2787:

And so what, since you cannot come up with any reasons why my arguments are wrong, I can only believe that I am right, and that the article in the current state lives up to the criteria to be on Knowledge (XXG).

460: 386:

Which claim do you want backed up? The Main Event attendance is the only one which is not easily verifyable with a google search, so that one you will have to take my word as a Knowledge (XXG) administrator on.

496:

Try working your way through to the last page of hits - there are far fewer than 500 hits, not 19,000. This is a well known google problem - it announces zillions of hits when there's actually only a handful.

2954:

I don't endorse the claims that you are "whinging", as it is your right to contribute to an AFD debate, as can be said for others too. However, I would be interested to know as to how a new interpretation of

3125:, whom has contributed to this debate following the earlier reported canvassing for votes. Very brief mentions on documentaries and news networks are also not particularly sufficient (and are, as termed in 1175:

Thanks for the reply. But why don't the numerous references at remix64.com and the CD releases at c64Audio.com which I provided count for that? Everyone can check this for themselves? Also run a search for

582:'s side. Marking a page for speedy deletion just because it lacks whatever-you-think-it-lacks would make it perfectly legal to delete a lot of the Knowledge (XXG) content. Which is the opposite point of 2697:

It is perfectly acceptable to publicize ongoing discussions among interested editors, provided that it is done to broaden participation in the discussion, rather than influence the outcome in a desired

636:. If you want to show that the article should be kept all you have to do is provide reliable sources to prove notability. What's the problem? Just put in a couple of references that meet criteria at 2763:'s account was only created on August 12th, 2010, for example - That's different to informing existing editors. Furthermore, you're a member of this band, which does make your contributions heavily 819: 2721:

So, for the fourth time: Assume some good faith, stop fighting for this as were your life depending on it, and stop popping out mutual exclusive interpretations of rules to suit your mood to be

2824:

you should (if want to be a serious contributer) specify what you think is making my entries conflict with this neutrality. I have been encouraged to do several edits by supporters of this

2832:

accusations about something you only have faint hunch about and haven't really investigated. Calling a kettle black does indeed demand a black kettle at the scene of the so-called crime.

1130:, namely that not every little musician claims his own page - this is definitely not the case here. In fact I was shocked to see the page removed. PRESS PLAY ON TAPE meets at least §7 of 2700:

First: The initial encouragement was to get people to give their concent about writing PRESS PLAY ON TAPE in caps. As you can see there was hardly any reaction to that, poor me. Second:

1931:

Here's the problem: Notability requires significant coverage, like a whole article about the topic. A mere mention does not help to establish notability, no matter who it comes from.

985:

as it stands. I can't find any evidence of notability, I'm more than willing to change my !vote if sources are provided. As others have pointed out, it's pretty alarming that an admin,

3347:

party are working on assumptions that something may be X and therefore points fingers while screaming X manicly - while they demand extreme precision in what is handed in from others?

1898:

quote paragraphs all you want, but in the end, in this case, it all seems to come down to petty personal opinions. I thought Knowledge (XXG) was beyond that. I think this is a keeper.

566:

I haven't talked about what Google is or is not, please stick to the issue. Usually when one refer to something it should be specific, that would be your main point. When you refer to

1126:. If I were to pick one for notability, PRESS PLAY ON TAPE would be the first to come to mind; they are quite the "Stars" there. I kindly ask you people to reconsider the purpose of 69: 545:

No, google is simply a route to sources, not a source in itself. But what the hell, let's not use google at all. Please supply reliable sources to support the notability claim, per

782:

Comments such as this are not acceptable in wikipedia. Please confine yourself to the matter at issue and do not attack other editors. I have placed a warning on your talk page.

570:

you should specify what exactly your point is; right now you could just refer to the main root of Knowledge (XXG) leaving no indication of what your point is. So, if your think

2708:. The reaction is towards your deletion of the page, not the capitalisation issue. Your bad luck was that it happened while a whole community was looking. There are two takes: 48:. there are a lot of keep votes from new or inexperienced accounts that have failed to refute policy based delete votes that argue that what coverage exists is not substantial 227: 3550: 326: 266: 435:

BTW, when I run that google search but try to filter out wikipedia and non-reliable sources, I get less than 500 hits, none of which seem to me to help show notability per

3253:. Far from the trivial mentions being deleted, the majority of the sources seem to be "trivial", self-references, unreliable, unverifiable or other. Seems to be a case of 3219:

I also get you point, and thanks for taking the time to actually write down some of the reasons why you think the references are not notable. I share the same opinion as

2864:

vehemently for the article, it is important that the closing administrator knows your relationship to the article's content. I hope that this helps to clear things up.

2159:

Some of the forum comments are constructive and focussed on providing proper sources for the article but overall the intention is clearly to subvert this debate.

2509:

specialist sites, whereby they aren't a valid source for a wider notability (I'll refrain from using the term 'cruft'). It is also, per a previous post, ran by

1371:? Why do the download stats of remix.kwed.org mean nothing to you regarding significance of the band? Above, someone unsigned remarked that there are "exactly 1122:(known as LMan there) for 10 years now, we are a webzine and a community around C64 remixing with hundreds of musicians and bands (who host their music at 2561:. My basic point here is, since your're so obsessed with everything should be in accord with reality, stop making accusations that obviously aren't true. 2157:, although the difference in server clocks makes it hard to be certain. At any rate it's clearly run by one of the major spa contributors to this debate. 232: 3278:

another page covering something that facilitates another unproven accusation. You demand hard evidence for notability and all you can give is that it

3359:

sayers' outbursts, I see nothing but predispositions and uninvestigated accusations. Even while trying to assume some good faith, wherever it is.

2882:

I know this may sound like a few of us just banging on about silly rules we made up a few minutes ago, but when you get back to basics this is an

200: 195: 1979:

I would like to know what kind of (indirect) notability it gives when CNN calls an indie band on the phone several times to do an interview?

1783:

paragraphs and quotes, but completely lacking common sense. What you label as "perfectly clear" is after all only your interpretation of the

204: 3049:

I second that, no comments about how the page is improving, only critique on how the interpreted rules (some wrongfully) have been broken.

78: 3137:, and the case for keeping under Criterion 1 of that (or so it would seem). The disagreement stems from whether these sources are indeed 347: 3015: 412:

Sorry, but I don't think that wikipedia administrators count as reliable sources. As for other sources indicating that the criteria for

187: 3109: 3075: 3038: 2847: 2752: 2587: 2557:, go ahead, I'm fine with that. It would be suitable to point out where I've done anything that might conflict, otherwise drop calling 2481: 2423: 2338: 2297: 2237: 2203: 2005: 1972: 1924: 1869: 1813: 1725: 1633: 1595:

All right, go ahead and delete it then. You guys have your mind set, you think you're doing right, think you're improving wikipedia by

1579: 1466: 1406: 1337: 1303: 1254: 1215: 1099: 971: 775: 625: 538: 489: 108: 17: 2393:

appearance on both Danish and German TV, as cited in reference 5, 6, and 9, which is clearly notable according to criterion 1 under

2126: 2071: 1011:

was being a bit disingenuous in claiming to be "unassociated" with the band - strictly speaking this may be correct, but there is

3071: 2748: 2583: 2334: 2001: 1549: 1462: 1250: 967: 771: 621: 602: 534: 485: 287: 3481:

This struck a chord with you, so you bring up some irrelevant policies. If you think they're relevant, feel free to make use of

3034: 2199: 1968: 1920: 1095: 254: 3482: 94: 3105: 2477: 2419: 632:

Please don't impute lack of good faith. The nomination makes it very clear that whatever-it-lacks is listed explicitly at

1843:

Good idea. Do reviews written by independent people, but published at Remix64.com count, or are they not notable enough?

3490: 3414: 3312: 3263: 2293: 2233: 1865: 1809: 1721: 1629: 1575: 1402: 1375:

references to c64audio.com and remix64.com", now that there are, you're telling me they're not valid. I was reading the

1333: 1299: 1211: 3596: 36: 994: 1033:

Still no reliable sources. As of right now, the last revision to the article is where I nominated it for deletion.

1012: 248: 2541:. Basically, it cannot be canvassing since we are 5 or 6 people trying to fight the anti-agf AfD here. If you call 708: 67:

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is

2599:

projects, indeed, are founded on the basis of notability within enthusiast circles without mainstream relevance.

1225: 3581: 3541: 3519: 3494: 3460: 3418: 3395: 3368: 3338: 3316: 3298: 3267: 3233: 3214: 3195: 3172: 3150: 3092: 3058: 3006: 2977: 2944: 2906: 2873: 2841: 2797: 2780: 2734: 2684: 2656: 2631: 2608: 2570: 2526: 2463: 2444: 2406: 2375: 2321: 2280: 2258: 2220: 2186: 2168: 2135: 2102: 2080: 2046: 2029: 1988: 1955: 1940: 1907: 1852: 1834: 1796: 1775: 1708: 1666: 1616: 1562: 1538: 1505: 1490: 1449: 1389: 1358: 1320: 1286: 1237: 1198: 1166: 1082: 1063: 1042: 1028: 998: 954: 940: 926: 901: 876: 853: 834: 791: 758: 743: 721: 693: 679: 649: 606: 561: 521: 506: 472: 452: 428: 395: 381: 367: 338: 316: 140: 52: 3595:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

2911:

I want you to be very precise in your future comments as I am. I am not writing that you make up new rules but

892:. The one reliable source mentioned seems to spend more time talking about Commodore 64 than the band though. 244: 35:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a

3321:

I am most certain open to that possibility but think I'm doing fine. Please read the part above starting with

3019: 3486: 3410: 3308: 3259: 1380:

labeling anything I do or say as not notable or reliable. I'm asking myself where is the famous good faith?

191: 3011: 2960: 2671:, it appears that you were involved in stealth canvassing with the intention of votestacking by recruiting 590: 124: 98: 3515: 3281: 990: 294: 3191: 3146: 3139:

non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable

2973: 2869: 2776: 2652: 2604: 2522: 2054: 1501: 1059: 922: 872: 849: 334: 83: 2120: 2065: 1521:, and are incorrect since I was the person who corrected the band's name according to Knowledge (XXG)'s 354:, and many other places. Many of their Youtube videos have a considerable number of views, for example 2931:, are simply not precise enough and thrown accusations about this and that. And stop using terms like 2271:, not by the words posted on our forum thread by others. I am not aware of any notice-sending either. 3364: 3360: 3334: 3330: 3294: 3290: 3067: 3063: 3054: 3050: 2940: 2936: 2902: 2837: 2833: 2828:

to quote this and that which I haven't in order to remain neutral. So, fifth time, stop making these

2744: 2740: 2730: 2726: 2680: 2640: 2579: 2575: 2566: 2562: 2546: 2440: 2371: 2330: 2326: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2254: 2164: 2154: 2098: 2025: 1997: 1993: 1984: 1980: 1936: 1830: 1771: 1662: 1486: 1458: 1454: 1445: 1441: 1354: 1246: 1242: 1233: 1229: 1162: 1038: 1024: 963: 959: 950: 946: 936: 910: 787: 767: 763: 754: 750: 739: 717: 675: 645: 617: 613: 598: 594: 557: 530: 526: 517: 513: 502: 481: 477: 468: 464: 448: 424: 377: 312: 3533: 2768: 2692: 2668: 2312:, seems OK to claim that the two editors are endeed focused on deleting page just because they can. 2148: 1376: 3537: 3456: 3210: 3168: 3030: 3001: 2622:, or do he have to be the founding member of the fan club? Or just in the board of the fan club? -- 2195: 2182: 1964: 1951: 1916: 1903: 1091: 1078: 280: 3387: 3307:

and at least be open to the idea that you may not be the most neutral participant in this debate.

3225: 3097: 3084: 2789: 2760: 2623: 2469: 2455: 2411: 2398: 2153:

From the comment at the bottom of the third page I have an idea that the forum is actually run by

1478: 2705: 2285: 2272: 2225: 2212: 1857: 1844: 1801: 1788: 1761:

makes that clear. What is essential is substantial, non-trivial coverage in independent sources.

1713: 1700: 1621: 1608: 1567: 1554: 1432:

that should clearly indicate notability-also within the genre. The band has as well performed at

1394: 1381: 1325: 1312: 1291: 1278: 1203: 1190: 1182: 183: 175: 130: 61: 3436: 3343:

Another question or note on how to point fingers, and why? How can it be that almost all in the

3183: 3134: 3126: 2351: 260: 3122: 2534: 2510: 3511: 3391: 3229: 3129:, 'trivial'), and as has been noted previously, many of the mentions are brief as examples of 3101: 3088: 2793: 2627: 2473: 2459: 2415: 2402: 2042: 1534: 1433: 1019:, not long after it was created... Anyway, on with the show: still no reliable sources, then? 897: 830: 351: 29:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.

3444: 3377: 3275: 3254: 2672: 2394: 2144: 1762: 1526: 1368: 1153: 1131: 1127: 889: 637: 633: 546: 436: 413: 304: 3559: 2820:

examples apply for any of my edits - any that mightdo so is clearly amistake. When you call

2289: 2276: 2229: 2216: 2115: 2060: 1861: 1848: 1805: 1792: 1717: 1704: 1625: 1612: 1571: 1558: 1398: 1385: 1329: 1316: 1295: 1282: 1207: 1194: 913:, whom created the article and has been arguing the band's case in this thread, is probably 3448: 3440: 3326: 3304: 2956: 2860: 2821: 2807: 2764: 2644: 2619: 2554: 2514: 2363: 2090: 1678: 1522: 1518: 1437: 1189:. Frankly I don't see why there is so much resistance against leaving this article online. 989:, would seem to want to ignore rules and guidelines on reliable sources and verifiability. 914: 583: 575: 2920: 2916: 2898: 2676: 2436: 2367: 2250: 2160: 2094: 2021: 1932: 1826: 1767: 1658: 1482: 1350: 1158: 1034: 1020: 932: 783: 735: 713: 671: 641: 579: 553: 498: 444: 420: 373: 308: 3083:

current state isn't notable. (And CNN isn't notable doesn't count as a sane argument). --

2891: 2759:

That would be fine if the accounts were not new, and solely created to vote on this AFD.

2359: 2358:

and then if you think we're behaving inappropriately you could consider various forms of

2355: 731: 699: 574:

is relevant, point of what part of it. Beside that point, I find it very hard to see any

571: 567: 550: 2968:

being the only established Wikipedian to have made an argument for the article's place.

2716:

and you cannot expect a lot from the people in my backyard that you have woken up to go

1367:

It's not just an online shop, it's the label's homepage - why doesn't it validate #5 of

1186: 3452: 3382: 3220: 3206: 3187: 3164: 3142: 3026: 2997: 2969: 2928: 2865: 2772: 2648: 2600: 2518: 2191: 2178: 1960: 1947: 1912: 1899: 1497: 1087: 1074: 1055: 918: 868: 845: 690: 392: 364: 330: 2497:. Remix64, frequently quoted here as a viable source, is only a source notable in the 1758: 1692: 1645: 727: 667: 1139: 549:. At the moment there's a single newspaper article and three other sources that fail 1177: 303:

Article deleted under speedy deletion criterion A7 and contested. Asserted to fail

3130: 2924: 2498: 2038: 1530: 893: 826: 158: 146: 114: 49: 3532:

people willing to spend some effort improving the article and its surroundings. --

221: 93:

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to

1440:

and a little effort before you go Kafka on your favorite Twinkle delete button.

1429: 1425: 1135: 1681:

and a little effort before you go Kafka on your favorite Twinkle delete button"

1649:

probably deletion). And, as a last attempt to make the point, the article will

1228:

but as part of a cut-scene, look for a roll of tape thrown from Kane to Lynch.

355: 2965: 2112:

because I can't find any reliable third-party sources to impart notability.

1008: 986: 686: 388: 360: 3351:

re-think your own phrase just a couple of times, thinking that maybe it's

2643:

is a subject of the article, which makes his contributions to this AFD in

416:

have been met, I can't see them. Can you supply a few please? Until then,

3186:. That's all I can really argue, but I hope you understand my viewpoint. 2267:

Judge me and eventually other contributors to this debate by our actions

2502: 3285:. Have you read the article? Do you know what masking is, or why the 844:. Seem to have just about enough coverage to be covered by the site. 3555:, some of these results are for this band, such as the first result 666:

Agreed - I cannot take your word, or anyone else's word, for it per

459:

Andy, if you do a correct search you'll see that your search lacks

2596: 2506: 3549:

The Google News search link at the top of the AFD shows results.

670:. If one can't verify it, it doesn't belong, plain and simple. 3589:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

2037:, and the name of the article should be "PRESS PLAY ON TAPE". -- 2723:

amused about how much they lack a clue on how this system works

56: 2093:, however, it indicates that a redirect may be appropriate. 1142:

and many others. Also check our news coverage over the years

2915:, huge difference, also in point. The three or four of you, 945:

Actually, it was a former co-worker who initiated the page.

372:

Would you like to back that up with some reliable sources?

87:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, 2513:, whom has argued heavily on this page (thus also probably 1749:

complain persistently and in a peevish or irritating way :

325:. I have, per this AFD, also nominated the band's album at 1224:

There is actually also a mention of PRESS PLAY ON TAPE in

1119: 931:

Seconded. Very much sounds like a conflict of interest.

77:

among Knowledge (XXG) contributors. Knowledge (XXG) has

2362:

or maybe even asking for administrator intervention via

1123: 820:

list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions

1016: 217: 213: 209: 3258:

Extensive meatpuppetry and rambling is great concern.

327:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Run/Stop_Restore

279: 3528:

The recent flood of edits indicates to me that there

2964:

anticipate either deletion or a relisting, based on

1699:faith. Rather you're calling me a whinger. Thanks. 1477:You're being rude again. Stop it please. Also, see 293: 2304:Condescending remarks towards the entire group of 3325:. If you find an entry of mine that is violating 2675:. Generally not a good thing to be engaged in. 917:(see the band's membership list on the article). 726:If you truly believe it is acceptable to violate 578:in this speedy deletion case, from both your and 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3599:). No further edits should be made to this page. 3381:want a list of references that is notable, both 3141:, which I personally do not think is the case. 2894:so please, for goodness sake, just do it and 709:Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability#Reliable_sources 3329:please point it out. And I really mean that. 2935:, you have been critisized for that already. 1655:stop whingeing and add some proper references 107:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected 8: 3159:So, if I'm understanding this correctly, in 1757:"Mainstream" references aren't essential - 1261:First of all, the article contains exactly 698:I beg to differ - this is basic stuff from 814: 707:guidelines are to be interpreted. Then at 81:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and 2501:remix community. I would compare this to 1675:You rebuke TheoEngell for being rude for 818:: This debate has been included in the 101:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. 350:pertaining to them. They played at the 2143:- there's an off-wikipedia discussion 1017:one of the first edits to the article 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 2537:and I cannot make it up for calling 1736:The Oxford American Dictionary says: 1268:Why is this difficult to understand? 702:. Firstly, the emphasis is on using 3349:"Perhaps you should be open to..." 1751:stop whingeing and get on with it! 24: 3552:Going through Google Translator, 3483:Knowledge (XXG):Wikiquette alerts 3435:That comment is simply juvenile. 1644:You know, you really should read 907:Comment for closing administrator 2551:canvassing the other way arround 1743:whinge |(h)winj| Brit., informal 1683:yet you're calling my arguments 1550:Timbaland plagiarism controversy 60: 2308:from the Remix64 community at 1496:said circles is large enough. 1: 97:on the part of others and to 463:. I get around 19,000 hits. 3582:03:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 3542:20:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC) 3520:19:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC) 3495:18:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC) 3461:18:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC) 3419:18:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC) 3396:09:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC) 3369:16:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC) 3339:08:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC) 3317:01:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC) 3299:01:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC) 3268:22:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 3234:09:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC) 3215:22:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 3196:22:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 3173:21:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 3151:20:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 3093:10:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 3059:07:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 3007:07:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 2978:20:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 2945:07:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 2913:new interpretations of them 2907:23:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 2874:20:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 2842:07:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 2798:10:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC) 2781:21:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 2735:07:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 2704:discussion is about AfD of 2685:01:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 2657:21:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC) 2632:19:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 2609:19:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 2571:20:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 2527:19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 2464:19:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 2445:12:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 2407:10:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 2376:13:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 2322:13:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 2281:12:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 2259:11:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 2221:11:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 2187:10:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 2169:10:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 2136:09:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 2103:02:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 2081:09:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 2047:23:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 2030:15:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1989:22:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 1956:20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 1941:18:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 1908:10:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1853:10:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1835:09:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1797:09:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1776:08:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1709:07:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1667:07:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1617:07:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1563:07:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC) 1539:17:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1506:20:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1491:09:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1450:08:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1390:13:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1359:12:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1321:11:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1287:10:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1238:09:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1199:08:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1167:07:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1083:06:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC) 1064:00:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 1043:00:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 955:09:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 941:00:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC) 53:04:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC) 3616: 1226:Kane_&_Lynch:_Dead_Men 1029:22:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 999:20:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 927:20:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 902:12:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 877:20:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 854:01:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 835:00:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 792:16:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 759:16:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 744:13:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 722:09:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 694:09:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 685:context of an afd debate. 680:23:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 650:14:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 607:12:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 562:11:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 522:09:52, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 507:08:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 473:08:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 453:22:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 429:22:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 396:21:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 382:20:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 368:20:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 339:20:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC) 317:20:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC) 1653:be deleted if you simply 3592:Please do not modify it. 3303:Perhaps you should read 2806:Stop for a moment here. 2147:which looks rather like 348:over 6000 hits on google 32:Please do not modify it. 2892:how to make a complaint 2890:have already explained 2055:reason to keep the page 1377:Knowledge (XXG):NEWBIES 1007:Yes, I'm bothered that 139:; accounts blocked for 109:single-purpose accounts 79:policies and guidelines 3280:seems to be a case of 888:Fails all criteria of 346:, notable. There are 3110:few or no other edits 3076:few or no other edits 3039:few or no other edits 2848:few or no other edits 2846:— ] (] • ]) has made 2753:few or no other edits 2588:few or no other edits 2482:few or no other edits 2424:few or no other edits 2339:few or no other edits 2298:few or no other edits 2238:few or no other edits 2204:few or no other edits 2006:few or no other edits 1973:few or no other edits 1925:few or no other edits 1870:few or no other edits 1814:few or no other edits 1726:few or no other edits 1634:few or no other edits 1580:few or no other edits 1467:few or no other edits 1407:few or no other edits 1338:few or no other edits 1304:few or no other edits 1255:few or no other edits 1216:few or no other edits 1100:few or no other edits 972:few or no other edits 776:few or no other edits 626:few or no other edits 539:few or no other edits 490:few or no other edits 3510:No notable coverage. 3112:outside this topic. 3078:outside this topic. 3041:outside this topic. 2957:conflict of interest 2850:outside this topic. 2810:states clearly that 2755:outside this topic. 2645:conflict of interest 2590:outside this topic. 2547:User Talk:SchuminWeb 2545:then the comment on 2484:outside this topic. 2426:outside this topic. 2341:outside this topic. 2310:User_talk:SchuminWeb 2300:outside this topic. 2240:outside this topic. 2206:outside this topic. 2008:outside this topic. 1975:outside this topic. 1927:outside this topic. 1872:outside this topic. 1816:outside this topic. 1728:outside this topic. 1636:outside this topic. 1582:outside this topic. 1469:outside this topic. 1409:outside this topic. 1340:outside this topic. 1306:outside this topic. 1257:outside this topic. 1218:outside this topic. 1102:outside this topic. 974:outside this topic. 778:outside this topic. 628:outside this topic. 541:outside this topic. 492:outside this topic. 3323:"Stop for a moment" 2549:clearyly indicates 1746:verb ( whingeing ) 1519:assuming good faith 1183:Hitman: Blood Money 91:by counting votes. 70:not a majority vote 3487:Christopher Connor 3451:, and all that... 3411:Christopher Connor 3309:Christopher Connor 3260:Christopher Connor 2859:the references to 2706:Press Play on Tape 2360:Dispute Resolution 1178:PRESS PLAY ON TAPE 356:this Youtube video 184:Press Play on Tape 176:Press Play on Tape 44:The result was 3113: 3079: 3042: 3014:comment added by 2851: 2756: 2691:Nah, not really. 2591: 2485: 2427: 2342: 2301: 2241: 2207: 2009: 1976: 1928: 1873: 1817: 1729: 1637: 1583: 1470: 1434:Roskilde Festival 1410: 1341: 1307: 1258: 1219: 1103: 1054:lack an article. 991:Dylanfromthenorth 975: 837: 823: 779: 629: 610: 593:comment added by 542: 493: 352:Roskilde Festival 172: 171: 168: 95:assume good faith 3607: 3594: 3578: 3575: 3572: 3569: 3566: 3563: 3095: 3061: 3024: 3023: 2845: 2738: 2573: 2467: 2409: 2324: 2283: 2223: 2189: 2134: 2131: 2130: 2123: 2118: 2079: 2076: 2075: 2068: 2063: 1991: 1958: 1910: 1855: 1799: 1711: 1677:"So again, it's 1619: 1565: 1452: 1392: 1323: 1289: 1240: 1201: 1144: 1143: 1085: 957: 824: 761: 611: 609: 587: 524: 475: 298: 297: 283: 235: 225: 207: 166: 154: 138: 122: 103: 73:, but instead a 64: 57: 34: 3615: 3614: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3597:deletion review 3590: 3576: 3573: 3570: 3567: 3564: 3561: 3009: 2921:User:SchuminWeb 2917:User:Andyjsmith 2896:stop whingeing! 2667:Basically, per 2641:User:TheoEngell 2155:user:TheoEngell 2128: 2127: 2121: 2116: 2113: 2073: 2072: 2066: 2061: 2058: 1523:Manual of Style 911:User:TheoEngell 588: 240: 231: 198: 182: 179: 156: 144: 128: 112: 99:sign your posts 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3613: 3611: 3602: 3601: 3585: 3584: 3544: 3522: 3505: 3504: 3503: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3497: 3470: 3469: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3422: 3421: 3401: 3400: 3399: 3398: 3383:User:MarcLager 3374: 3373: 3372: 3371: 3341: 3271: 3270: 3247: 3246: 3245: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3238: 3237: 3236: 3221:User:MarcLager 3217: 3199: 3198: 3176: 3175: 3154: 3153: 3115: 3114: 3080: 3044: 3043: 2989: 2988: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2949: 2948: 2929:User:Esteffect 2887: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2853: 2852: 2803: 2802: 2801: 2800: 2688: 2687: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2635: 2634: 2612: 2611: 2530: 2529: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2448: 2447: 2429: 2428: 2387: 2386: 2385: 2384: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2344: 2343: 2302: 2262: 2261: 2243: 2242: 2208: 2172: 2171: 2138: 2107: 2106: 2105: 2089:That violates 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2053:Do you have a 2032: 2014: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 1977: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1874: 1838: 1837: 1819: 1818: 1755: 1754: 1753: 1747: 1744: 1738: 1737: 1731: 1730: 1670: 1669: 1639: 1638: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1542: 1541: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1493: 1472: 1471: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1362: 1361: 1343: 1342: 1308: 1271: 1270: 1221: 1220: 1170: 1169: 1146: 1145: 1124:remix.kwed.org 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1067: 1066: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1002: 1001: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 904: 882: 881: 880: 879: 858: 857: 838: 811: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 799: 798: 797: 796: 795: 794: 724: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 653: 652: 432: 431: 403: 402: 401: 400: 399: 398: 341: 301: 300: 237: 233:AfD statistics 178: 173: 170: 169: 65: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3612: 3600: 3598: 3593: 3587: 3586: 3583: 3580: 3579: 3557: 3554: 3551: 3548: 3545: 3543: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3526: 3523: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3506: 3496: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3450: 3446: 3442: 3438: 3434: 3433: 3432: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3407: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3397: 3393: 3389: 3384: 3379: 3376: 3375: 3370: 3366: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3342: 3340: 3336: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3301: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3288: 3284: 3283: 3277: 3273: 3272: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3256: 3252: 3249: 3248: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3222: 3218: 3216: 3212: 3208: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3162: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3119: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3099: 3094: 3090: 3086: 3081: 3077: 3073: 3069: 3065: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3047: 3046: 3045: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3028: 3021: 3017: 3016:90.231.163.80 3013: 3008: 3005: 3003: 2999: 2994: 2991: 2990: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2962: 2958: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2897: 2893: 2888: 2885: 2884:encyclopaedia 2881: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2862: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2849: 2843: 2839: 2835: 2831: 2830:so-easy-to-do 2827: 2823: 2819: 2814: 2809: 2805: 2804: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2758: 2757: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2742: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2724: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2699: 2694: 2690: 2689: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2665: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2639: 2638: 2637: 2636: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2616: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2610: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2593: 2592: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2577: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2532: 2531: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2508: 2504: 2500: 2496: 2493: 2492: 2483: 2479: 2475: 2471: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2413: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2389: 2388: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2350:etiquette at 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2340: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2266: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2260: 2256: 2252: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2222: 2218: 2214: 2209: 2205: 2201: 2197: 2193: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2170: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2156: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2139: 2137: 2132: 2124: 2119: 2111: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2087: 2082: 2077: 2069: 2064: 2056: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2033: 2031: 2027: 2023: 2018: 2015: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1990: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1930: 1929: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1896: 1893: 1892: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1854: 1850: 1846: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1836: 1832: 1828: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1773: 1769: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1752: 1748: 1745: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1739: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1732: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1680: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1647: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1635: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1605: 1600: 1599: 1594: 1591: 1590: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1564: 1560: 1556: 1551: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1540: 1536: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1513: 1512: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1494: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1468: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1439: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1422: 1421: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1396: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1339: 1335: 1331: 1327: 1322: 1318: 1314: 1309: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1293: 1288: 1284: 1280: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1269: 1264: 1260: 1259: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1227: 1223: 1222: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1205: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1187:(Screen shot) 1184: 1179: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1168: 1164: 1160: 1155: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1141: 1140:Martin_Galway 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1116: 1113: 1112: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1089: 1084: 1080: 1076: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1026: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1000: 996: 992: 988: 984: 981: 973: 969: 965: 961: 956: 952: 948: 944: 943: 942: 938: 934: 930: 929: 928: 924: 920: 916: 912: 908: 905: 903: 899: 895: 891: 887: 884: 883: 878: 874: 870: 866: 862: 861: 860: 859: 856: 855: 851: 847: 843: 839: 836: 832: 828: 821: 817: 813: 812: 793: 789: 785: 781: 780: 777: 773: 769: 765: 760: 756: 752: 747: 746: 745: 741: 737: 733: 729: 725: 723: 719: 715: 710: 705: 701: 697: 696: 695: 692: 688: 683: 682: 681: 677: 673: 669: 665: 651: 647: 643: 639: 635: 631: 630: 627: 623: 619: 615: 608: 604: 600: 596: 592: 586:(top page). 585: 581: 577: 573: 569: 565: 564: 563: 559: 555: 552: 548: 544: 543: 540: 536: 532: 528: 523: 519: 515: 510: 509: 508: 504: 500: 495: 494: 491: 487: 483: 479: 474: 470: 466: 462: 458: 457: 456: 455: 454: 450: 446: 442: 438: 434: 433: 430: 426: 422: 419: 415: 411: 410: 409: 408: 407: 406: 405: 404: 397: 394: 390: 385: 384: 383: 379: 375: 371: 370: 369: 366: 362: 357: 353: 349: 345: 342: 340: 336: 332: 328: 324: 321: 320: 319: 318: 314: 310: 306: 296: 292: 289: 286: 282: 278: 274: 271: 268: 265: 262: 259: 256: 253: 250: 246: 243: 242:Find sources: 238: 234: 229: 223: 219: 215: 211: 206: 202: 197: 193: 189: 185: 181: 180: 177: 174: 164: 160: 152: 148: 142: 136: 132: 126: 120: 116: 110: 106: 102: 100: 96: 90: 86: 85: 80: 76: 72: 71: 66: 63: 59: 58: 55: 54: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 3591: 3588: 3560: 3546: 3529: 3524: 3512:Slatersteven 3507: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3322: 3286: 3279: 3250: 3161:your opinion 3160: 3138: 3131:Commodore 64 2996: 2992: 2932: 2925:User:Aspects 2912: 2895: 2883: 2829: 2825: 2817: 2811: 2761:User:Falbaek 2722: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2701: 2696: 2558: 2550: 2542: 2538: 2499:Commodore 64 2494: 2390: 2305: 2268: 2152: 2140: 2129:inspectorate 2109: 2074:inspectorate 2034: 2016: 1894: 1784: 1750: 1696: 1688: 1684: 1676: 1654: 1650: 1603: 1597: 1596: 1592: 1514: 1372: 1267: 1262: 1114: 982: 906: 885: 864: 863:Changing to 841: 840: 815: 703: 417: 343: 322: 302: 290: 284: 276: 269: 263: 257: 251: 241: 162: 150: 141:sockpuppetry 134: 123:; suspected 118: 104: 92: 88: 82: 74: 68: 45: 43: 31: 28: 3108:) has made 3074:) has made 3037:) has made 3010:—Preceding 2751:) has made 2673:meatpuppets 2586:) has made 2480:) has made 2422:) has made 2337:) has made 2296:) has made 2236:) has made 2202:) has made 2004:) has made 1971:) has made 1923:) has made 1868:) has made 1812:) has made 1724:) has made 1632:) has made 1578:) has made 1465:) has made 1430:Ben Daglish 1426:Rob Hubbard 1405:) has made 1336:) has made 1302:) has made 1253:) has made 1214:) has made 1136:Rob_Hubbard 1120:remix64.com 1098:) has made 970:) has made 774:) has made 624:) has made 589:—Preceding 537:) has made 488:) has made 267:free images 3361:TheoEngell 3331:TheoEngell 3291:TheoEngell 3064:TheoEngell 3051:TheoEngell 2961:canvassing 2937:TheoEngell 2834:TheoEngell 2769:WP:ILIKEIT 2741:TheoEngell 2727:TheoEngell 2698:direction. 2693:WP:CANVASS 2677:SchuminWeb 2669:WP:CANVASS 2576:TheoEngell 2563:TheoEngell 2543:canvassing 2539:canvassing 2327:TheoEngell 2314:TheoEngell 2149:canvassing 2095:SchuminWeb 2022:Michitakem 1994:TheoEngell 1981:TheoEngell 1933:SchuminWeb 1785:guidelines 1525:. As for 1455:TheoEngell 1442:TheoEngell 1243:TheoEngell 1230:TheoEngell 1035:SchuminWeb 1015:which was 960:TheoEngell 947:TheoEngell 933:SchuminWeb 764:TheoEngell 751:TheoEngell 736:SchuminWeb 672:SchuminWeb 614:TheoEngell 595:TheoEngell 580:SchuminWeb 527:TheoEngell 514:TheoEngell 478:TheoEngell 465:TheoEngell 374:SchuminWeb 309:SchuminWeb 75:discussion 3534:Daniel5Ko 3453:MarcLager 3207:MarcLager 3188:Esteffect 3165:MarcLager 3143:Esteffect 3123:User:Lman 3027:MarcLager 2998:MarcLager 2970:Esteffect 2966:User:Thue 2933:whingeing 2866:Esteffect 2773:Esteffect 2649:Esteffect 2601:Esteffect 2535:User:LMan 2519:Esteffect 2511:User:LMan 2192:MarcLager 2179:MarcLager 1961:MarcLager 1948:MarcLager 1913:MarcLager 1900:MarcLager 1685:whingeing 1498:Esteffect 1479:WP:BURDEN 1088:MarcLager 1075:MarcLager 1056:Esteffect 1013:this file 1009:User:Thue 987:User:Thue 919:Esteffect 869:Esteffect 846:Esteffect 842:Weak Keep 827:• Gene93k 704:published 461:something 331:Esteffect 131:canvassed 125:canvassed 84:consensus 3437:WP:CIVIL 3184:WP:MUSIC 3135:WP:MUSIC 3127:WP:MUSIC 3106:contribs 3072:contribs 3035:contribs 3012:unsigned 2813:pillars. 2749:contribs 2584:contribs 2478:contribs 2420:contribs 2352:WP:AFDEQ 2335:contribs 2294:contribs 2234:contribs 2200:contribs 2117:Treasury 2062:Treasury 2002:contribs 1969:contribs 1921:contribs 1866:contribs 1810:contribs 1722:contribs 1630:contribs 1598:removing 1576:contribs 1463:contribs 1403:contribs 1334:contribs 1300:contribs 1251:contribs 1212:contribs 1096:contribs 968:contribs 772:contribs 622:contribs 603:contribs 591:unsigned 535:contribs 486:contribs 228:View log 163:username 157:{{subst: 151:username 145:{{subst: 135:username 129:{{subst: 119:username 113:{{subst: 3445:WP:BITE 3388:Falbaek 3378:WP:MASK 3282:wp:mask 3276:WP:MASK 3255:WP:MASK 3226:Falbaek 3098:Falbaek 3085:Falbaek 2993:Comment 2790:Falbaek 2624:Falbaek 2533:First, 2503:dubstep 2495:Comment 2470:Falbaek 2456:Falbaek 2412:Falbaek 2399:Falbaek 2395:WP:BAND 2306:keepers 2141:Comment 2039:ElfQrin 1763:WP:BAND 1593:Comment 1531:Aspects 1527:WP:BAND 1515:Comment 1369:WP:BAND 1154:WP:BAND 1132:WP:BAND 1128:WP:BAND 894:Aspects 890:WP:BAND 638:WP:BAND 634:WP:BAND 547:WP:BAND 437:WP:BAND 414:WP:BAND 323:Comment 305:WP:BAND 273:WP refs 261:scholar 201:protect 196:history 127:users: 50:Spartaz 3508:Delete 3449:WP:NPA 3441:WP:AGF 3345:delete 3327:WP:COI 3305:WP:COI 3251:Delete 2861:WP:COI 2822:WP:COI 2808:WP:COI 2765:WP:COI 2718:"Yay!" 2710:Remove 2620:WP:COI 2555:WP:COI 2515:WP:COI 2466:19:27 2364:WP:ANI 2286:Lkasjd 2226:Lkasjd 2110:Delete 2091:WP:NCM 1858:Lkasjd 1802:Lkasjd 1714:Lkasjd 1697:little 1679:WP:AGF 1622:Lkasjd 1568:Lkasjd 1438:WP:AGF 1395:Lkasjd 1326:Lkasjd 1292:Lkasjd 1204:Lkasjd 1185:, see 983:Delete 915:WP:COI 886:Delete 865:Delete 584:WP:AGF 576:WP:AGF 439:- see 418:delete 245:Google 205:delete 46:delete 3577:Focus 3287:seems 2737:SPA! 2695:says 2597:Wikia 2507:8-bit 2356:WP:EQ 1691:read 732:WP:OR 700:WP:RS 572:WP:RS 568:WP:RS 551:WP:RS 288:JSTOR 249:books 222:views 214:watch 210:links 105:Note: 16:< 3547:Keep 3538:talk 3525:Keep 3516:talk 3491:talk 3457:talk 3415:talk 3392:talk 3365:talk 3335:talk 3313:talk 3295:talk 3274:Oh, 3264:talk 3230:talk 3211:talk 3192:talk 3169:talk 3147:talk 3102:talk 3089:talk 3068:talk 3055:talk 3031:talk 3020:talk 3002:talk 2974:talk 2959:and 2941:talk 2927:and 2903:talk 2899:andy 2870:talk 2844:SPA 2838:talk 2826:case 2794:talk 2777:talk 2767:and 2745:talk 2731:talk 2714:Keep 2702:This 2681:Talk 2653:talk 2628:talk 2605:talk 2580:talk 2567:talk 2523:talk 2474:talk 2460:talk 2441:talk 2437:andy 2416:talk 2403:talk 2397:. -- 2391:Keep 2372:talk 2368:andy 2354:and 2331:talk 2318:talk 2290:talk 2277:talk 2273:LMan 2269:here 2255:talk 2251:andy 2230:talk 2217:talk 2213:LMan 2196:talk 2183:talk 2165:talk 2161:andy 2145:here 2099:Talk 2043:talk 2035:Keep 2026:talk 2017:Keep 1998:talk 1985:talk 1965:talk 1952:talk 1937:Talk 1917:talk 1904:talk 1895:Keep 1862:talk 1849:talk 1845:LMan 1831:talk 1827:andy 1806:talk 1793:talk 1789:LMan 1772:talk 1768:andy 1759:WP:N 1718:talk 1705:talk 1701:LMan 1693:WP:N 1689:have 1687:. I 1663:talk 1659:andy 1646:WP:N 1626:talk 1613:talk 1609:LMan 1572:talk 1559:talk 1555:LMan 1535:talk 1502:talk 1487:talk 1483:andy 1459:talk 1446:talk 1428:and 1399:talk 1386:talk 1382:LMan 1373:zero 1355:talk 1351:andy 1330:talk 1317:talk 1313:LMan 1296:talk 1283:talk 1279:LMan 1263:zero 1247:talk 1234:talk 1208:talk 1195:talk 1191:LMan 1163:talk 1159:andy 1115:Keep 1092:talk 1079:talk 1060:talk 1039:Talk 1025:talk 1021:andy 995:talk 964:talk 951:talk 937:Talk 923:talk 898:talk 873:talk 850:talk 831:talk 816:Note 788:talk 784:andy 768:talk 755:talk 740:Talk 730:and 728:WP:V 718:talk 714:andy 691:talk 687:Thue 676:Talk 668:WP:V 646:talk 642:andy 618:talk 599:talk 558:talk 554:andy 531:talk 518:talk 503:talk 499:andy 482:talk 469:talk 449:talk 445:andy 441:here 425:talk 421:andy 393:talk 389:Thue 378:Talk 365:talk 361:Thue 344:Keep 335:talk 313:Talk 281:FENS 255:news 218:logs 192:talk 188:edit 3558:. 3530:are 3357:nay 3353:you 2947:SPA 2818:coi 2712:or 2559:COI 2505:or 2122:Tag 2067:Tag 1651:not 1604:not 1138:or 825:-- 295:TWL 230:• 226:– ( 159:csp 155:or 147:csm 115:spa 89:not 3540:) 3518:) 3493:) 3485:. 3459:) 3447:, 3443:, 3439:, 3417:) 3394:) 3386:-- 3367:) 3337:) 3315:) 3297:) 3289:? 3266:) 3232:) 3213:) 3194:) 3171:) 3149:) 3104:• 3096:— 3091:) 3070:• 3062:— 3057:) 3033:• 3025:— 3022:) 2976:) 2943:) 2923:, 2919:, 2905:) 2872:) 2840:) 2796:) 2788:-- 2779:) 2747:• 2739:— 2733:) 2725:. 2683:) 2655:) 2630:) 2607:) 2582:• 2574:— 2569:) 2525:) 2476:• 2468:— 2462:) 2443:) 2418:• 2410:— 2405:) 2374:) 2366:. 2333:• 2325:— 2320:) 2292:• 2284:— 2279:) 2257:) 2232:• 2224:— 2219:) 2198:• 2190:— 2185:) 2167:) 2151:. 2133:─╢ 2114:╟─ 2101:) 2078:─╢ 2059:╟─ 2057:? 2045:) 2028:) 2000:• 1992:— 1987:) 1967:• 1959:— 1954:) 1939:) 1919:• 1911:— 1906:) 1864:• 1856:— 1851:) 1833:) 1808:• 1800:— 1795:) 1774:) 1720:• 1712:— 1707:) 1665:) 1657:! 1628:• 1620:— 1615:) 1574:• 1566:— 1561:) 1537:) 1504:) 1489:) 1461:• 1453:— 1448:) 1401:• 1393:— 1388:) 1357:) 1332:• 1324:— 1319:) 1298:• 1290:— 1285:) 1249:• 1241:— 1236:) 1210:• 1202:— 1197:) 1165:) 1094:• 1086:— 1081:) 1062:) 1041:) 1027:) 997:) 966:• 958:— 953:) 939:) 925:) 909:. 900:) 875:) 852:) 833:) 822:. 790:) 770:• 762:— 757:) 742:) 720:) 689:| 678:) 648:) 620:• 612:— 605:) 601:• 560:) 533:• 525:— 520:) 505:) 484:• 476:— 471:) 451:) 443:. 427:) 391:| 380:) 363:| 337:) 329:. 315:) 307:. 275:) 220:| 216:| 212:| 208:| 203:| 199:| 194:| 190:| 165:}} 153:}} 143:: 137:}} 121:}} 111:: 3574:m 3571:a 3568:e 3565:r 3562:D 3536:( 3514:( 3489:( 3455:( 3413:( 3390:( 3363:( 3333:( 3311:( 3293:( 3262:( 3228:( 3209:( 3190:( 3167:( 3145:( 3100:( 3087:( 3066:( 3053:( 3029:( 3018:( 3004:) 3000:( 2972:( 2939:( 2901:( 2868:( 2836:( 2792:( 2775:( 2743:( 2729:( 2679:( 2651:( 2626:( 2603:( 2578:( 2565:( 2521:( 2472:( 2458:( 2439:( 2414:( 2401:( 2370:( 2329:( 2316:( 2288:( 2275:( 2253:( 2228:( 2215:( 2194:( 2181:( 2163:( 2125:► 2097:( 2070:► 2041:( 2024:( 1996:( 1983:( 1963:( 1950:( 1935:( 1915:( 1902:( 1860:( 1847:( 1829:( 1804:( 1791:( 1770:( 1716:( 1703:( 1661:( 1624:( 1611:( 1570:( 1557:( 1533:( 1500:( 1485:( 1457:( 1444:( 1397:( 1384:( 1353:( 1328:( 1315:( 1294:( 1281:( 1245:( 1232:( 1206:( 1193:( 1161:( 1090:( 1077:( 1058:( 1037:( 1023:( 993:( 962:( 949:( 935:( 921:( 896:( 871:( 848:( 829:( 786:( 766:( 753:( 738:( 716:( 674:( 644:( 616:( 597:( 556:( 529:( 516:( 501:( 480:( 467:( 447:( 423:( 376:( 333:( 311:( 299:) 291:· 285:· 277:· 270:· 264:· 258:· 252:· 247:( 239:( 236:) 224:) 186:( 167:. 161:| 149:| 133:| 117:|

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Press Play on Tape - Knowledge (XXG)

Index