Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Risk (clone)

2284:

chance to live long enough such that it can be fed by the collective mind the same way that all WP content is served. Deleting this article too early is a mistake and does not serve the Knowledge (XXG) readers specifically those readers who are looking for a WP:NPOV neutral point of view for non Hasbro Risk clones. The article should remain and we can tag it with a 'more sources needed' banner that will invite all readers to help with the edits (and that's the true spirit of Knowledge (XXG) as it was first founded). I for one am not a fan of this new wave of anal editors who are more excied about being policeman and tagging and attacking stub articles, than they are about letting things live and grow into excellent content. Shame on all of you; you kill the spirit of Knowledge (XXG) and worsen the experience for those trying to contribute. Knowledge (XXG) is about serving the Knowledge (XXG) reader and not about serving the anal retentive needs of it's editors and admins. --

2942:

you can admit that sometimes articles take time and require the input of more than one author. There isn't a single human being that can write an article like this in it's entirety; It's a large subject spanning 30+ years. I've done my best to start it and lay out some of the major issues for clone makers; but apparently all you guys can do is complain and some of you are biased. What exactly are any of you good for here other than complaining? Why don't you actually help make the article better? Isn't that what Knowledge (XXG) is about? Or is this just a place where editors and admins sit around all day and enter

1276:

kept; your objections appear (to me) to ignore the gist of our policies and therefore come out as irrelevant. The concept of "authority" plays no role in our policies; that of "reliable source" does. I've probably heard the term "conclusive argument" long before you first heard the term "Risk clone", but that does not mean I can just start an article in which I write up my understanding of that term as I've encountered it. Instead, if I want to contribute an article about that concept, I need to find reliable sources that have written in some depth about it, and summarize in encyclopedic terms what

2923:. Sadly. We used to have an article that was a List Of Risk Clones, and I thought that was a handy resource, even though only a few of them could assert notability. This page, is not useful for anyone. It's just a defensive justification for the existence of Risk clones, with the only references being links to pages about copyright law!! The article contains no useful content on Risk clones, and anyone who could do the research to put together a well researched, referenced article about the topic would be better off starting from scratch anyway. There's nothing salvageable here. 1261:

Risk player) were to happen along and take issue with the way it's defined in the article then, they might, in the spirit of Knowledge (XXG), edit the article for better wording. But if that doesn't happen then we can assume that those who already know what the term means are agreeing with the article by NOT making an edit. How do you document what a collective is already doing and has been doing for sometime? This is one of those situations where it's perfectly fine for Knowledge (XXG) to simply report the facts with neutral pov - which is exactly what the article does. --

3074:

inclined to accept the 'give me time' argument. However, you are talking about a phenomenon that has existed for a couple of decades at the very most, and appears to revolve to a certain extent around the internet, so if you cannot find a single reliable source through a quick Google search, I am inclined to believe that they do not exist. I cannot understand why we need the efforts of those who play the game, or those who understand the case law, to be able to write the article. Indeed, if we

4089:

and I gave it the college try. I must admit that as a result of this experience I've more than doubled any pre-existing knowledge I had about Knowledge (XXG) and the standard rules and guidelines. This debate has helped me ponder issues I hadn't fully considered. For the record, there was and is not any willful deceit and/or conflict of interest on my part - anybody may contribute to an article as long as they remain neutral (and that is a good and healthy). I wish you all well. --

2978:. These things are not negotiable, and have been pointed out by several editors, and yet you continue to stick to arguments that have little to do with wikipedia policy or practice. You must understand that people are not at AfD simply to complain and criticise, but because removing articles that do not meet the minimum standards for inclusion is an important way to maintain the encyclopedic value of Knowledge (XXG). As I see it, you have three choices: 2894:. Since it seems all but inevitable that this article is going to be deleted, I'd suggest preparing for that eventuality and figuring out what you'd like to do with the content you created before it is deleted. Continuing to post long rants and arguing with everyone who votes to delete the article, however, will almost certainly prove to be an enormous waste of time. 2323:

and there were tons of unwritten articles and the editors knew the value of just letting stubs and fledglings exist and wait for volunteers to get involved and make it better. The current state of Knowledge (XXG) specifically this debate does not feel the way Knowledge (XXG) used to be; it's not a personal attack for me to say this out loud; it's my personal pov.--

3046:? What none of you are willing to admit is that this article can be a fully compliant encyclopediac contribution to Knowledge (XXG). But it will take time and it will require more than just my efforts alone. It will require the efforts of those familiar with the history of Risk clones since the 80s'. It will require the efforts of those who play 2947:

article. So why should I or anybody spend any more energy when some authority higher up in the Knowledge (XXG) food chain can just decide to delete it? Why should anybody help with an article that has a DELETE guillotine hanging over it's head? What exactly is their motivation to spend time and energy on something that's going to get deleted? --

1441: 733:

commercial product released under Risk license. Meanwhile none of the legal legitimate clones get zero mention anywhere. But this isn't just about mentioning Risk clones; it's also about all of the useful Risk related info that got removed from the Risk page in the edit war. Hopefully some of that content can find a place to live on the

534:

term itself is being used and has been used for years. It is time that for a wikipedia article that documents the meaning of the popular usage of the term. Read the opening line of the article and see that it properly describes the phrase and that sentence is useful to readers who simply want a nice reference point for the term. --

3531:, source 2 does not mention 'Risk clone' anywhere in its text, source 3 contains no content, source 4 does not mention 'clone' once, and does not mention 'risk' in the context of the board game at all, source 5 does not mention 'clone' once, and is in any case a Google group posting of almost no reliability according to 3723:

Knowledge (XXG) is a mentality of "It didn't happen unless it was recorded in a book, newspaper or magazine, etc.", then that it IS NOT an appropriate mentality for a MODERN online digital collectively edited encyclopedia. Reasonable, repeatable, observable truth is ALWAYS it's own reference source. --

3932:

How do we document reasonable, repeatable, observable truth in cases where there isn't a hard source? I can accept an answer of "we are not allowed to publish truth unless we have a hard source"; I just want somebody to say that out loud in the record of this debate. If somebody wrote a line in an

3162:

I have re-arranged the sections. After re-reading some of the objections above, I now realize that leading with the copyright section is a mistake. It gives the reader the wrong impression as to the main purpose of the article - which is simply to document the 30+ year history of Risk clones. Yes,

2850:

The story is true but there is no conflict of interest; as a result of that incident I learned much about copyright law(s) and what is and is not copyright infringement. I'd like to help other would be Risk clone makers avoid the same mistakes I made and thus I am attempting to make a contribution.

2221:

regarding a topic are frequently banned from editing that topic on the grounds that they are not able to write objectively. Just like we wouldn't want a card-carrying neo-Nazi to write our article on Hitler, neither do we want someone who has apparently been threatened with legal action by Hasbro to

4088:

Gentlemen (and ladies?), seeing as my 7 day deadline is drawing close, I'd like to say a genuine thanks to everyone who participated in this debate. I'd always wanted to create an article for Knowledge (XXG). This was the first subject where I really thought I had a chance to satisfy all the rules

3005:

and, if you still believe your article is acceptable for inclusion, go out and find at least two significant references to 'Risk clone' in a high-quality independent source such as a major newspaper, a published book or an academic paper. If you can do this, I will change my !vote to Keep, and asist

2475:

Please do not alter the structure of this page, which you did with your previous edits. Threads are shown by indentation, not by sub-headings. If you would like to tidy the page you could indent your comments properly, but please be careful that by doing so you don't de-link them from other editors'

2114:

article. And I'm going on record to say that the only Knowledge (XXG) editors who get to decide what is 'notable' are actual Risk clone players and Risk clone makers. If you qualify then good; I am definitely qualified. Those that don't play Risk or Risk clones or have never made a Risk clone are

1736:

Lambiam, quite frankly, I'm trying to forget the experience. There are others who gave up on Knowledge (XXG) at that time - they were attempting to make a contribution to that page and kept getting deleted, reverted, undone, etc. If you really care then search through the history for edits made by

1313:

so much so that nobody has thought to tag the article reference with the CN tag - and why is that? rhetorical: because the collective mind/lingo IS the reliable eye witness source and that is plain and acceptable to everyone reading the article. There is no original research here. To some degree,

1275:

How do you document what a collective is already doing and has been doing for sometime? Not by doing original research on the topic and then writing it up as an article on Knowledge (XXG). All I'm trying to do is apply established Knowledge (XXG) policy to the issue of whether your article should be

802:

The only line of this article which is verifiable is "It is not possible to copyright or patent an idea." The rest represents unsourced original research which is quite interesting to gamers but not appropriate for an encyclopedia whose purpose is to record and disseminate information, not discover

3712:

Ollie, Risk IS a notable idea and the act of creating Risk clones has been happening for 30+ years. Now we may not have an actual hard source that states this truth in paper/ink (because so far nobody has cared enough to write a book or article); nevertheless it is true. Assume for a moment that

3604:

to show the notability of the article subject. That is why it does not conform to policy. You can accept this or not, but it is pretty much the most fundamental of Knowledge (XXG)'s policies, so no amount of argument or sophistry is going to change that. If, as is suggested by your posts below, you

2965:

Riitoken, I can completely understand your frustration. I have no doubt you are editing in good faith, and with a genuine interest in your subject. However, what the extensive debate on this page demonstrates clearly is that you are taking criticism personally and failing to listen to feedback from

2803:

article - a concensus that the unofficial Risk clones did NOT deserve ANY notable mention anywhere, not the main article nor it's own separate unofficial list article. THAT IS/WAS NOT NEUTRAL dude. Ok so fine. The Knowledge (XXG) policy asks any article to not be only dependent on some link farm

2283:

Masem, I am confident that reliable sources will be found over time. Knowledge (XXG) is a publically edited work. It will take more than one editor (myself) to find reliable sources. All of you know that WP articles grow and expand and evolve over time. This article needs public attention and a

1260:

has the authority to define something that's already in use by the collective population of online Risk players? (rhetorical:nobody). The article defines the term as is being already used in the lingo. It does not redefine the term. It just states what's already a fact. However, if anybody (any

962:

You totally ignore the issue that the article does not conform to the policies of Knowledge (XXG). If you want these policies changed, fine, go ahead, make the case for changing them — not here, but at the Village Pump or on the talk pages for these policies. But as long as they are as they are, we

732:

article used to have a large selection devoted to clones and variants. And then there was a huge edit war and all of clone type info got evicted from the article. There was, for a time, an unofficial list of risk games article but that got removed as well. Hasbro now gets a free shrine for every

3041:

This is why thousands of people fell in love with Knowledge (XXG). This is why it has been successful. Only certain types of personalities are rubbed the wrong way for seeing an article that is not yet fully compliant. I am not one of those. I get excited when I see an article in an unfinished

2993:

Continue to make your case using long posts, insulting other editors, and insinuating that people are under the employ of Hasbro, but without rooting your argument in wikipedia policies. If so, the article will almost certainly be deleted at the end of this process, and you will permanently damage

2941:

Yes we used to have such a list and yes it was very handy for those wanting to find an unbiased list of notable clones. But it was shot down by those demanding that there be an article and not just a list. So that is what I'm trying to start. But I find it very annoying that not a single one of

2582:

You're simply not listening. Usenet cannot be used to support any assertion in an article (other than, of course, a statement such as "x is found on usenet"). You state that the usenet reference proves that Bornert first described Poor Boy Risk on usenet and is to that extent a reliable source. In

2322:

Andy, it's not a personal attack to tell Andrew that he's flat out wrong. Getting your feelings hurt because you were wrong doesn't mean you were personally attacked; it means you were wrong. Also, I do genuinely miss the old days of Knowledge (XXG) when everything was new and growing like crazy

1708:

given enough time and enough input by those motivated to watch over the article. The problem has been that everytime this collective participation begins to happen some !bleeping wiki admin removes the bleeping section or page (and that kills the willingness of voluntary participation). Leave it

1033:

The "Modding" and Cloning of games is becoming more and more popular. This is a legitimate area for information and discussion. I would disagree with Ollie who wants to hold the "Number of Chess variants" up as the threshold. Chess has existed for thousands of years, and there are untold number of

479:

The article is NOT doing original research on the term. It is merely documenting what has already transpired in the modern lingo of the internet. Sometimes wikipedia IS the authoritative place to learn what a popular term means - certainly in this instance. Now if any of you disagree with how the

459:

article is to document the already existing phrase being used by the internet community. The term is not new and has existed for some time. There is no way to know when it was first used but I know that I personally heard the term back at the beginning of the IBM pc era in the 80's. The article

3717:

in 2040? (the truth is Risk clones began with the PC revolution - I am an eyewitness - Now I've not published this fact in a book or magazine but it's still true.) Furthermore, if we have no hard sources publishing the observable facts of Risk clones today (and yet they exist), then what exactly

3110:

Riitoken, that's a fair comment, so I'll explain. I honestly do not know where to find good source material for an article like this. If I did, I would overcome my lazyness, and rescue it by putting in a couple good, useful, well referenced paragraphs. I honestly believe that that's all it would

1695:

game. I for one, used to be a supporter of having the clone list maintained there - but I have since changed my mind. We also tried a separate article called "Unofficial List of Risk games" (or something very close to that) and it was also evicted by various editors for being just a shrine list

533:

to define the term. This is one of these rarer instances where the standard wikipedia OR guidelines are net helpful to the wikipedia community. I chose not to include the google hits as references because the links seems a bit transient and some of the pages were product ads. Nevertheless, the

314:

article is a shrine to the Hasbro commercialized versions Risk. There are some of you that are failing to understand that Hasbro does not have the soul exclusive monolpoly to commericialize expressions of Risk. Yes they (Parker Brothers) were the first to express the idea of Risk. But doing so

3933:

article that said "All cars ever made are yellow" - I don't need anything other than repeatable observability to KNOW that is wrong - I don't need a hard source telling me the truth of this; I can figure it out on my own (and presumably any normal reader would as well). The subject of Risk is

2946:

for any incomplete articles? And yes I am taking this personally. And yes I'm offended. It's my first attempt at a writing a minimally standard peer reviewed Knowledge (XXG) article and all I see is complaints. I am attempting to do the research but I've got a DELETE banner at the top of the

2881:

Your lack of familiarity with WP policies is showing, and this is probably contributing to the frustration that you appear to be experiencing. You say that your purpose in creating the article was to help other would-be Risk clone makers figure out the intricate copyright issues associated with

2776:

You are making precisely that suggestion. For example "Do you work for Hasbro Lambiam?", "Do you work for Hasbro or represent the interests of Hasbro YES or NO?", "…the Hasbro copyright protected content", "…the Hasbro non-neutral pov", "…a non Hasbro article separate from the Hasbro commercial

2808:

article that can and should exist whether or not notable list is present. So if you see angst on my part, it is due to suggestions that 1) Risk clones do not deserve notable mention anywhere or 2) Risk clones should return to some notable list in the main article. Those suggestions OFFEND me.

185:

Contested prod. Strange article which aims to provide a complicated theoretical rationale for an utterly trivial idea, namely that you can use the word "clone" to describe a copy of a game. Probably created with the aim of promoting Xisk, one of the game sites referred to in the external links

3722:

of risk clones if he's the first to publish on the subject? There are things that are true and observably true even if there isn't a hard source. Hard sources do not cause truth - they simply catalog it. Knowledge (XXG) does not cause truth; but it does catalog it. Now if the reality of

3073:

claim to notability. I am afraid that yours does not and, yes, I will admit that I do not believe this article can ever be fully compliant. If it was an obscure historical character, and you told me that the only reliable sources were out-of-print books in private collections, then I might be

2265:

where the term is strongly-defined in sources, including the elements that set up the GTA clone game, and the fact that GTA really isn't the first game to have those features, and notable games that are called clones. While we wouldn't expect as much depth to other articles at the start, the

1448: 1387:

does NOT become more or less reliable just because some individual or group publishes something on the subject. Nor would it mean that they were the first to use the term. The term Risk clone is there and has been there for over 3 decades. I know this the same way I know that the term

1236:

If that is the case, you should be able to cite reliable sources that discuss the concept of "Risk clone" is some depth (and not just mention it in passing). The content of the article can then be based on what is said in these sources. Without such sources, the content of the article is

3383:

with the polls and questionnaires. It's pointless and insulting. As has been explained ad nauseum to you is this discussion is about whether the article meets Knowledge (XXG) standards. You're arguments should be focused on those standards, not on challenging editor's qualifications.

1501:

in that anybody involved in the world of online Risk knows what that means without ever having a reference as a reliable source - the collective is a reliable source. Once the initiate begins looking for various places to play Risk online, they are guaranteed to bump into the phrase

3217:

article? Furthermore, if you want clarity here then how 'bout some Quid Pro Quo - answer the Hasbro poll question above if you think "conflict of interest" should be an issue in this debate. NOTE: there is zero reason for you to be offended. If you are then please explain why?

3480:

Jamie, yes I have reviewed those policies (and a friend has as well) and I do not find any glaring violations. I'm not willing to say the article is 100% at this point but it's getting there. Have you read the article lately or are you going on what was there several days ago?

1741:

for the 2 places where other "unofficial" clones are mentioned. We tried again when the unofficial risk game article was started and were shot down again. Most of them now have a "screw you" Knowledge (XXG) attitude. So I am trying yet a third time to make the case that the

602:

Compare the number of hits for "Asteroids clone", "Space invaders clone", and so on. We don't need to have (and should not have) articles for all of these, because this is really just one concept (cloning) being applied to many different games. We only need one article for

3114:

But apparently I'm not alone. No one, including yourself, knows how to turn this into a useful, well referenced article, otherwise they would have said right here, mentioned some sources that we could all go to the library and check out, or simply have fixed up the

3212:

Andy, judging any article for WP:NPOV is based entirely on the actual wording, phrasing used irregardless of who wrote the words. Do you care to prove that nobody from Hasbro or nobody favoring Hasbro's interests, has ever edited or not edited anything in the

2882:

doing so. In other words, you were trying to create a guide on how to navigate the copyright issues associated with creating a legal Risk clone (and this is largely what the article turned out to be). However, are you aware of the policy which states that

898:"In addition, there are many unofficial Risk clones, both for download and online play. Due to the history of the game's creation, there are no IP protections on the game, other than a US trademark on the word RISK when written in the distinctive red font ." 1709:

the bleep alone and give it time; I'm not the only editor with expert knowledge; there are others out there, but they have to first believe that all of their writing and contribution isn't going to get bleeping deleted (harsh abusive language omitted). --

3635:

Riitoken, Under construction or not, articles are expected to assert notability at every stage of their existence. If you're so certain that you'll be able to do that in the near future, why not stand aside gracefully right now, and come back when you're

2394:

The article can meet these goals while upholding the high standards of Knowledge (XXG). The article will only become better as real clone makers/players volunteer to edit the content - because they are the real 'Policeman' who can decide the WP:NPOV for

2137:

can edit; what counts in case of a content dispute is the quality of arguments (in the context of the principles and policies of Knowledge (XXG)), irrespective of the credentials or qualifications of the discussants making these arguments (unless you're

1150:), and we should avoid making pronouncements about when a Risk clone does or does not infringe on the Risk copyright unless we can give a citation to a reliable source for them. However, this issue is not immediately relevant for this AfD discussion. -- 232:. There's the germ of an idea in here - that certain games introduce a basic gameplay that is then the basis for numerous others. However, even if such an article could ever be written encyclopedically, nothing in this would be salvegable. So, delete.-- 3658:

to every man woman and child on the face of the earth - but only that it be notable to the audience it serves - and in this case the article is notable to any high school or colledge kid seeking to understand some important things about writing a

1356:

has a Knowledge (XXG) specific meaning as well - it is anything you just wrote down yourself without following a source. Since you admit that your article is uncited (as you claim it cannot be cited), then it is by definition original research. -

359:

article contributes to the clarification of what is and is not a violation of copyright using real world examples. The article has real world value for any reader seeking to understand the difference between an IDEA and an EXPRESSION of an idea.

3068:

Well, I pretty much give up, in that case. However, let me finish by saying that there is a difference between an unfinished article, and an unencyclopedic article. Many articles on Knowledge (XXG) are unfinished, but they must make at least one

296:

Just as there ended up being more PC clones than actual IBM pc's, there are more Risk clones than actual Hasbro licensed variants. And there are more players playing Risk clones (on a daily basis) than there are playing the actual game of Risk.

2985:

Accept that this article is not appropriate for Knowledge (XXG) with a good grace, and apply your enthusiasm to writing or improving other articles. Personally, I mostly stick to articles that I don't care very much about, as that way I have no

2678:

YES - Hasbro pays me big money to keep the brave rebels of the Risk clone resistance movement down. The money arrives each month in a black helicopter and is given to me by a large man in a white suit who strokes a black cat and has a monocle.

1000:

I rewrote the copyright section. The time travel thing is entirely based on the legal concept of the subtractive test which is a valid legal concept - I added 2 references for this. I am trying to find the ref. for the time travel example.

2037:

Lambiam, no personal attack was leveled. Andrew is simply mis-informed if he thinks the copyright section is 'silly' and/or irrelevant. Where Risk and Risk clones are concerned, it is VERY relevant. I am simply challenging the notion that

3568:

2) Is taken from the U.S. copyright office. Why would it mention the word 'clone'? It's not supposed to and nobody suggested that it should other than you. The purpose of the reference is to support the fact that "you cannot copyright an

3667:

or important to you? Not me. But this article will have value to those wondering what they can and cannot do by way of writing their own clone. Right now they have no where to go for this info - which is why I am trying to contribute.

1595:

bears the burden to defends it's copyright (not Knowledge (XXG) or it's editors). We should also recognize that Hasbro is the definitive authority on exactly what has been officially licensed and that list is very well documented on the

1506:

often and after having seen the term used the same way for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th and Nth time, they don't need a reference - the collective online mind was the reference. Try hunting for online Risk sites without encountering the phrase

284:

article, specifically the history of the term PC clone where every ma an pop were cloning the original artifact. There is a reason they were called clones - they were NOT identical - if they were they'd've been called 'PC COPIES'.

315:

does not prevent others from also expressing Risk. If you delete this article for commercial/copyright reasons, then you are being hypocritical and you are persuing a policy that does not agree with United States Copyright laws.

2754:... But if any of you do then you should be honest about it so that others can measure your comments in that light. And btw Andy, you opened this deletion debate by accusing me of wanting to violate the WP:SPAM policy and that 1852:

article is that this list does not belong in an encyclopedia, period. That is the meaning of "unencyclopedic". If an article cannot exist without such an unencyclopedic list, the article does not belong on Knowledge (XXG). See

2831:

than anyone else at this discussion. Why don't you calm down and let the deletion discussion run its natural course? Continuing to insult people after having been warned could eventually lead to your account being blocked.

560:, yet you continue to ignore these policies. Until you can come forward with an argument for keeping the article that is rooted in policy, and not in your own opinion, there seems little point in debating the matter further.-- 3970:

The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Knowledge (XXG) has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is

3564:

1) Is evidence that sometimes there are academic reasons to write a risk clone. The word clone doesn't have to be used for you and I to know that it is evidence for the general idea of the article as well as the sentence it

2609:

nothing more nothing less. It's not the only reference out there but the only one I've found so far. I'm still working on references and as other interested editors work on the article I'm sure they will collect more.

288:

In the land of copyright you are allowed to 'clone' the source idea. But you may not 'copy' already published copyrighted expressions of said idea. Risk clones are expressions of the generic platonic non-copyrightable

3941:

are repeatedly observable without a hard source. They exist; Nobody (and I mean nobody) needs a hard source to know the truth of this. It is observably true. But if you're saying we cannot write on the subject of

154: 2556:. This is a true sentence as evidenced by the usenet ref. in the google archive. The reference isn't supposed to verify everything Bornert said - but only that he said it and that makes it a reliable source. -- 3578:

5) doesn't contain the word clone; it's purpose is to illustrate an instance of a risk like game that does not infringe copyrightable elements of the original. the instance illustrates what "non-infringement"

768: 655:

I'll go on record now and say that when the number of published Risk variants matches the number of Chess variants, I'll support an article on Risk variants. I imagine this will take quite some time, though. -

4048:

So what you're saying is that rules are always safe from misapplication and misinterpretation right? I am definitely in favor of following rules that are interpreted and applied correctly with neutral bias.

4106:

As everyone above but Riitoken readily agrees, there are no reliable sources attesting to the notability of the subject. It may warrant mention in the Risk article, and little beyond that. (I also commend

1383:. It is unacceptable to reject google as an unreliable source for collective behavior (facts) seeing as the relevance of page sorting is decided by quantity of collective reference. The truth of the term 2072:

You appear to have a quite curious idea of the extent of the authority of Hasbro. I can assure you with total confidence that Hasbro has no authority whatsoever to decide what content is acceptable in our

337:

article "There have also been many unlicensed variants, some of them distributed freely over the Internet and others available commercially." This is clearly referring to what are known as Risk (clones).

947:

assuming there is a wikipedia writer/editor willing to start those articles and there is something legitimate to say within those articles and assuming the article can be written from the neutral pov. --

270:

article but was removed for various reasons (some stupid, some legitimate). Hopefully much of that very useful lost information will find it's way back into the Risk (clone) article where it belongs.

2863:

commercial interest nor do I seek to harm them. I am neutral and it is not abusive to offer the opportunity for others to go on record voluntarily. There is no reason for ANYBODY to be offended. --

1789:

with a complete lack of citations from reliable sources and no means to distinguish the notable from the totally non-notable. As I wrote before, I don't think there would be an objection to listing

905:

And I ask any of you to refer me to the Knowledge (XXG) rules that, allow Hasbro to enshrine every commercially licensed instance of a Risk based work, but disallow a similar shrine to legitimate

3694:

article's failure to meet that requirement will be the reason that it is deleted. Please be careful, your persistent misstating of policies can appear to be a sign of disruptive editing. See

763:

is deleted from this article, not even enough remains for a stub. When was this huge edit "clone war" you speak of? I couldn't find anything indicating an edit war in the article history of

4063:

What interpretation? Articles MUST HAVE reliable sources that verify notability and accuracy. Articles CANNOT be based on personal knowledge or experience. It's pretty straightforward.

3356:

s the 'trap' you were setting here? I was hoping for something with wit. Or, failing that, a reply that had some basic awareness of the purpose of this entire conversation. The whole

2199:

We don't decide what is notable in the field of risk clones. We rely on third party sources to do it for us - that it why we keep asking for them. That is how Knowledge (XXG) works. -

1352:. It has nothing to do with authority - a source being 'reliable' just means that it was independently published by some organization with a reputation for doing decent fact checking. 2804:

list inside that aticle. I get that (and to some degree the old list was just a list and nothing more). So I am attempting here to satisfy that policy by actually writing a worthy

2583:

fact that's 180 degrees away from being correct: since usenet is not a reliable source then the usenet reference cannot be taken as a proof of anything. This is clearly explained at

115: 3883:

Stop trying to engage Riitoken in this debate. It's clear he's not willing to listen to anything he doesn't want to hear. This afd is already a slam dunk for the reviewing admin.

1634:"This section is for OFFICIAL implementations only. Do NOT add any unofficial "Risk" clones no matter how popular they might be. If in doubt, bring it up on the talk page first." 2407:

makers. We need to allow the article to live so we can tap that collective editorship; doing so will allow this article to make an excellent contribution to Knowledge (XXG). --

1874:

page. There are many readers not involved in this current debate who will immediately remove/revert any such list in the name of purity and loyalty. The concensus was that the

3324:

I had certainly heard the term before. It's common to refer to generic versions of well-known games as "{Game} Clone", just as acetaminophen is often called "Generic Tylenol".

2169:

is not something I would do and neither should you unless you are an expert in that area. Each of us have areas where we bring expert knowledge. I happen to be an expert on

2081:

of the Knowledge (XXG) community. The list of unofficial Risk variants was removed from the article simply because it was unencyclopedic material, as I've explained above. --

1252:

Lambiam, you're being obtuse. How does anybody define a term that is already in the collective language and has been for years? As I've already said I first heard the term

1971:

bizarre content fork, with most of the article being a silly legal defence of why the "clones" are supposedly not illegal. Simply put, this isn't encyclopedia material.

1894:

should get a shrine of appropriate magnitude, otherwise you and any other editor in this debate are by default being hypocritical and you bear the burden to explain why a

148: 3903:

I know, I know. I should have given up ages ago. I just keep hoping that what I've been saying is going to get through. But yes, it's not worth the effort anymore :( --

3464:

policies. The article's adherence to those and other Knowledge (XXG) policies are what is relevant here, not some nebulous idea about the "spirit of Knowledge (XXG)."

1497:. I said that it was a case where sourcing wasn't needed because anyone involved in the PC revolution already knew what it meant. The same thing applies to the phrase 2827:

Actually, if the story you told above is true (the one where you have received cease and desist letters from Hasbro's attorneys), then I'd say you have much more of a

1309:

to be a reliable source for something the collective is ALREADY DOING. In other words ... everyone who was alive during the PC revolution already understood the term

3521:- I see no evidence of 'significant' coverage of this term. I see it being used occasionally by individuals in specific gaming circles, but that is a different thing. 2261:

The term "Risk clone" does not appear in reliable sources, even allowing for game-related ones. For what we're looking for for "gametype clone" articles, please see

1122:

article. The time travel test is a legitimate method for expressing/implementing the subtraction test for infringement (which is a legal concept with references). --

3575:

4) source 4 is a legal opinion that references copyright law and isn't expected to state the word 'clone'. It supports the fact that "you cannot copyright an idea."

2110:. It may be that any given clone isn't notable enough for it's own solo WP article but that does not mean it can't be discussed in a historical section in the main 3290:

the term and document the reference please (if you can't document your source then please explain your justification for knowing a term without a reference point).

822: 300:

Legally, Risk is no different than Chess and Checkers. Anybody can legally make a Risk clone as long as they do not re-use any of the Hasbro published materials.

2115:

less qualified to settle the 'notability' issue - doing so would be the same as if I were to comment on what was notable in the world of Gay/Lesbian fashion. --

3833:

indicate either a clear unwillingness to follow Knowledge (XXG)'s rules, or a willful lack of understanding them. You're also ... let's say, not entirely civil

382:

which is fine. But we need an article that clearly defines what a Risk (clone) is, specifically that they are legal and do not need the consent of Hasbro. --

1295:"Such computers used to be referred to as PC clones, or IBM clones since they almost exactly duplicated all the significant features of the PC architecture" 2007:

attorney's and having been served cease and desist letters, I'd say I know WTF I'm talking about. Explaining why Risk clones are not infringements is not

215:. Reads like a brief defending the legality under copyright law of a game copy. Loved the "time travel" argument but it doesn't belong on Knowledge (XXG). 2050:

definitely is not and they know it and I know they know it. I am also challenging the notion they they get to decide whether or not "unofficial" notable

1034:

variants. For people who are interested in clones, I can see no reason why Knowledge (XXG) can't be a source of information about those mods and clones.

741:

article is the best place to document the world of Risk clones. It does not belong on the Official Hasbro Risk page and Hasbro does not want it there. --

3600:

that suggest 'Risk Clone' is a notable idea. It may contain reliable sources for all kinds of other things, but that is beside the point since there is

1392:

has been used for over 3 decades. The terms are accurate by simple repeatable observation - which is about as scientific as it gets. I didn't need a

3145:

I have added a section for legal cases surrounding Risk specifically. The plan is to collect some case law and some actual examples for reference. --

1604:- and for this reason I say it is best to not sully their shrine with the notable clones for which they have no commercial interest. However, legal 3198:. His comments about being offended that the article is alleged to be spam are therefore disingenuous to say the least, if not downright deceptive. 1636:. So two things to say here: 1) somebody wanting to assert authority over that list stamped the markup comment. 2) that same editor used the term 3042:

state; it makes me want to help (if I can make a decent contribution). Is the original idea of Knowledge (XXG) dead? Is it now just a bunch of

1348:

Let me try to clear up a point of confusion: 'reliable' in terms of Knowledge (XXG) policy has a specific (jargon) definition, which you can read

963:

should not make an exception for these clones, however crucially important it may be for the world to be able to partake of this information. --

3360:

is that no one here except you believes that such sources exist, and unless someone provides them then the article cannot continue to exist.

1473: 1314:

all of Knowledge (XXG) is neutral fact based reporting on what the collective mind already knows to be true. If You cry foul over the term

883:"There have also been many unlicensed variants, some of them distributed freely over the Internet and others available commercially. See the 1854: 3713:

no such hard reference source exists until the year 2040? Will the readers of that book at that time believe that Risk clones were first

1886:

is going to be given a free commercial shrine to every profit motivated Risk based product they've ever made, then, at a minimum, the non

1579:

section. After re-reading some of the arguments here, I now admit and agree that Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to pronounce any given

1687:

Lambiam, you're not listening. We aready tried a section for "unofficial clones" and it was strongly opposed by those who feel that the

717:, whose mistaken pseudo-disambiguation name (this is not about something called "Risk" that is a clone) is an unlikely search title. -- 3298:

If you claim the article is a lie or mis-representing reality then please cite a source that disagrees with the article documentation.

3050:

and it will require those who are aware of the copyright case law on the subject. When the article is finished, future generations of

1063: 2011:... however, not understanding why (apparently in your case) is silly. Commenting on your own ignorance in a debate is even worse. -- 17: 1462: 1422:

guideline are noted, but the fact remains that if you want this article to be kept, you will need to edit it to be in compliance. -

277:

article states, the purpose of a Risk (clone) is NOT to be the same as Risk and in fact in all cases, the exact opposite is sought.

2750:

Andy, the poll is purely voluntary. Chill man. I have no idea who any of you are and I am not suggesting that any of you work for

1222:

is most definitely notable and worthy of an article with a neutral point of view that discusses the entire collection of clones. --

1055: 1041: 460:

has merit because it documents the populist term already in use. Here are 6 hits from a google search for the term "risk clone":

88: 83: 2025: 1214:

article. I agree that any one individual clone might not be noteworthy enough to merit it's own Knowledge (XXG) article. But

169: 92: 1723:

I asked above: 'When was this huge edit "clone war" you speak of?', but did not see a reply. Can you give a date on which the

3430:

Jamie, the questions are VERY relevant to those who demand that we cannot have a Knowledge (XXG) article for the term/phrase

1861:

Risk clones. Almost all clones on the list that was removed are not notable (in the sense as defined by Knowledge (XXG)). --

1770: 1561: 1017: 480:

article describes the already existing term then please EDIT THE ARTICLE with your changes, but do not delete the article. --

136: 263:

which has been in use by Risk players for many years now. The term is very relevant today and deserves it's own article.

75: 3461: 1437: 760: 1810:

article. You'll also notice that not all of the clones in the edit section you referenced did not get mentioned on the

4134: 3737:

Most of this has been well addressed below, but I will answer the question put to me: Yes, if a given concept is first

3338:

I believe you. Now prove it with a sanctioned Knowledge (XXG) blessed hard source (newspaper, book, magazine, etc.) --

2532: 36: 3695: 2554:

Poor Boy Risk is an analog paper Risk clone first described by Ray E. Bornert over a usenet board game group in 2004

1583:

as legal unless we have an official cite stating such. However, Knowledge (XXG) is also NOT the place to declare a

3078:

need people with specilised knowledge, then that strongly implies that whatever they added to the article would be

4034:

close this and delete your article. People are just debating with you in the hopes of making you understand why.

3605:

do not understand what Knowledge (XXG) means by notability then all I can do is, for the third time, point you at

2638:

I'd like to request that all present volunteer a YES or NO answer line, with signature inside the ////// markers.

2536: 1737:'Riitoken' and others. I personally do not care to help edit that page ever again other than to add the links to 464: 130: 2777:

interests" and so on. You're obsessed about Hasbro and are prepared to insult anyone who disagrees with you. So…

774:? That was a regular discussion, not an edit war. In any case, this article is not the solution. I'm confident a 220: 3527:- I see no reliable sources covering the term. Source 1 is a Masters thesis of limited reliability according to 4133:

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

3434:

just because we don't have any hard sources that define the term. The questions are a rebut to that mindset. --

3182:. The author of this article, Riitoken, appears to be the designer of a risk clone covered in the article. See 2552:

The usenet reference verifies and cites the accuracy of the sentence that is superscripted by the reference -

35:

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

4108: 3994:

NOTE I am not opposed to WP policies. But I am opposed to the interpretation of those polices in this case.

126: 2054:

are mentioned on Knowledge (XXG). Remember the list of "unofficial" Risk clones have been evicted from the

944: 3606: 3457: 3033:

Not really. I absolutely refuse to believe that a Knowledge (XXG) article cannot be allowed to exist in an

2967: 2540: 2535:, and it is also not a source that is independent of the subject, so this reference contributes neither to 1870:

We are just not going to agree here. I've seen what happens when "unofficial" clones get mentioned on the

1758: 1549: 1411: 1037: 1005: 557: 500: 400: 3891: 3472: 3422: 3392: 2437: 2262: 1059: 1045: 2896: 2883: 2834: 2584: 2306:

You have already been asked not to make personal attacks. I have now placed a warning on your Talk page.

2078: 856: 4119: 4098: 4072: 4058: 4043: 4011: 3985: 3955: 3920: 3894: 3875: 3854: 3819: 3801: 3754: 3732: 3707: 3677: 3649: 3626: 3591: 3557: 3490: 3475: 3443: 3425: 3409: 3395: 3369: 3347: 3333: 3316: 3267: 3250: 3227: 3207: 3172: 3154: 3130: 3099: 3063: 3028: 2956: 2932: 2903: 2872: 2841: 2818: 2790: 2767: 2741: 2723: 2698: 2673: 2619: 2596: 2565: 2547: 2526: 2503: 2485: 2470: 2440: 2416: 2332: 2315: 2293: 2278: 2241: 2208: 2194: 2152: 2133:? Whether you like it or not, that is not how Knowledge (XXG) works. Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia 2124: 2085: 2067: 2032: 2020: 1990: 1947: 1865: 1843: 1797: 1774: 1731: 1718: 1682: 1657: 1621: 1565: 1480: 1431: 1405: 1366: 1343: 1284: 1270: 1241: 1231: 1196: 1183: 1154: 1131: 1104: 1049: 1021: 986: 967: 956: 863: 837: 812: 808: 790: 750: 721: 696: 665: 650: 616: 596: 577: 543: 520: 489: 449: 428: 391: 369: 350: 327: 249: 224: 206: 176: 57: 53: 4031: 3965: 3187: 1786: 1608:

have been around for 30 years or more and they deserve their own article - the commercial interests of

1289:

You're doing a sincere job of trying to defend the policy. However, consider this opening line in the

940: 79: 804: 3203: 2786: 2737: 2592: 2481: 2311: 216: 202: 2494:

Andy, I was attempting to section the page only to make editing easier - that was my only motive. --

4068: 4039: 3981: 3850: 3797: 3645: 3365: 3329: 3183: 3126: 2928: 2399:. Forgive me for saying so but the only editors qualified to contribute to the WP:NPOV are actual 906: 162: 48:. Despite a long and spirited defense of this article's creator, the consensus here is to delete. 3691: 3214: 2347: 2162: 2111: 2095: 1899: 1898:

licensed products get mentioned and the "unlicensed" products do not. One central purpose of the

1815: 1811: 1807: 1743: 1738: 1701: 1415: 1211: 1171: 1119: 1088: 1080: 918: 884: 734: 714: 684: 638: 456: 356: 304: 274: 71: 63: 4094: 4054: 4007: 3951: 3815: 3728: 3673: 3587: 3486: 3439: 3405: 3343: 3312: 3295:

If you say NO then - Have you now learned how the term is used and what is means when it is used?

3263: 3246: 3223: 3168: 3150: 3059: 2952: 2868: 2814: 2763: 2719: 2669: 2615: 2561: 2522: 2499: 2466: 2412: 2328: 2289: 2190: 2120: 2063: 2016: 1943: 1839: 1766: 1714: 1653: 1617: 1557: 1401: 1339: 1266: 1227: 1179: 1141: 1127: 1100: 1095:

article where every single Risk based product listed there has commercial profit based motive. --

1013: 982: 952: 746: 692: 646: 592: 539: 485: 387: 365: 346: 323: 3789: 3054:

players and makers will be able to get a solid education from Knowledge (XXG) on the subject. --

1436:

In addition to MrOllie's remarks (with which I fully agree), it is actually easy enough to find

847: 3191: 3885: 3750: 3703: 3466: 3416: 3386: 2544: 2431: 2204: 2149: 2082: 2029: 1862: 1794: 1728: 1679: 1477: 1470: 1459: 1427: 1362: 1281: 1238: 1193: 1151: 964: 833: 787: 718: 661: 612: 445: 142: 29:

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

4030:

Dude, you realize that you've lost this, right? Any second now an admin might come along and

2990:

and it is less heartbreaking when they get changed or deleted. But that is up to you, really.

1878:

page be reserved for only the commercially licensed products and the commercial interests of

1705: 1520: 1511:- impossible. Knowledge (XXG) serves the public interest by providing an article explaining 1084: 1076: 625:

to the disambiguation. Consider the other pages like Chess and Checkers that have their own

473: 408: 195: 4002:

exist by independent repeatable observability. The article is not a violation of policy. --

3596:

My point, which once again you seem to have missed or ignored, is that the article contains

3118:

That's why I believe that the article as it stands has no real value, and should be deleted

2139: 1146: 604: 552:. Google hits are not adequate references, as you yourself point out. You say you have read 375: 49: 3508: 3496: 3449: 2998: 2987: 2828: 2218: 4112: 3199: 3195: 2895: 2833: 2782: 2733: 2588: 2477: 2307: 2274: 855: 198: 3687: 3532: 3528: 3453: 3079: 3002: 2975: 2426: 1419: 1353: 1349: 1167: 1115: 587:

As of 2011-Jan-14 google is showing 25,700 page hits for the exact phrase "risk clone" --

553: 549: 496: 404: 191: 187: 3871: 3793: 2680: 2223: 1972: 476: 303:

I'd suggest also adding Risk (variants) to the disambiguation list and redirect to the

3683: 1207: 4090: 4050: 4003: 3947: 3904: 3811: 3724: 3669: 3610: 3583: 3541: 3482: 3435: 3401: 3339: 3308: 3259: 3242: 3219: 3164: 3146: 3083: 3055: 3012: 2948: 2864: 2810: 2759: 2715: 2665: 2611: 2587:. Knowledge (XXG) rules on reliable sources are very clear and you should read them. 2557: 2518: 2495: 2462: 2408: 2324: 2285: 2186: 2116: 2059: 2012: 2003:

the idea of Risk, the U.S. copyright office disagrees. Having actually spoken with

1939: 1835: 1762: 1710: 1649: 1613: 1553: 1397: 1335: 1262: 1223: 1175: 1137: 1123: 1096: 1009: 978: 948: 742: 688: 642: 588: 561: 535: 504: 481: 412: 383: 361: 342: 319: 233: 2173:

and copyright issues regarding such which is why I started the article. Risk has a

3946:

until there is some hard source saying they exist then that is just plain silly. --

3746: 3699: 3237:

added a Lingo Jargon section that documents the current/recent usage of the phrase

3037:

state whilst the public collective mind hammers on the article to make it better.

2200: 1423: 1358: 829: 657: 608: 441: 3301:

If you can't then please explain how you know this without citing a sacred source.

2732:

You are being deliberately offensive to me and the other editors. Stop right now!

109: 2362:

b) to offer clarity about the rules of copyright infringement (regardless of the

928:

I again remind all of you that the list of unofficial clones used to live on the

687:

and that is as it should be. The two article combined serve the reader fully. --

467: 2856: 2800: 2144: 2074: 2055: 1875: 1871: 1849: 1803: 1724: 1697: 1688: 1675: 1601: 1092: 929: 910: 872: 851: 783: 764: 729: 706: 680: 630: 334: 311: 267: 3400:

Jamie, APL answered the Risk clone consciousness question ... why can't you? --

2781:… stop it. And read wikipedia's guidelines on notability and reliable sources. 2266:

existence of this type of information relating to Risk clones are necessary. --

465:

http://boardgames.about.com/od/riskonline/Risk_Online_and_Computer_Versions.htm

2886:? The policy suggests that you might want to take this content and add it to 2267: 710: 461: 3867: 2166: 2158: 2130: 1630: 1545:

I have removed the Time travel test until I can find a solid academic ref.

1083:

article. There is nothing being promoted or sold ... there is in fact less

411:

why you personally think it is important is, unfortunately, no substitute.--

3186:

where he states that he is Ray E. Bornert, who also appears in articles at

2851:

The poll is voluntary; I wanted it on the record that I am WP:NPOV toward

1746:

editors/enthusiasts should have their own article to write the WP:NPOV for

713:

redirecting to that new section; delete the resulting double-redirect page

3163:

1938:

products is equally "unencyclopediac". Do you work for Hasbro Lambiam? --

1704:

article can be encyclopediac in it's own right and it can and will have a

318:

The term Risk (clone) is very legitimate and deserves it's own article. --

4064: 4035: 3977: 3846: 3641: 3361: 3325: 3122: 2924: 2531:

I hate to break this to you, but this usenet posting does not count as a

1486: 1290: 3810:

wow! ... so speaking ones mind fully within a debate page is illegal? --

2429:; a Google search is not a valid reliable source indicating notability. 2887: 2182: 1882:. I used to oppose this concensus but I now support it. However, if 470: 2390:

f) to invite other Risk clone makers to become editors of the article.

2860: 2852: 2751: 2653: 2649: 2454: 2384: 2380: 2363: 2039: 2004: 1996: 1935: 1927: 1923: 1911: 1907: 1895: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1751: 1692: 1609: 1597: 1592: 293:

of Risk. They are NOT copies of 1959 expressed published materials.

281: 2042:

is the authority who gets to decide what is or is not an infringing

399:

What you need to do to rescue this article is to concisely show the

2373:

with a WP:NPOV neutral pov (which is what Risk clone players want).

2605:

Andy the reference is just an item to show source of the sentence

2891: 2222:

write about Risk, for what I certainly hope are obvious reasons.

2185:'s and this Risk cult following is worthy of it's own article. -- 1793:

Risk clones, such as have their own Knowledge (XXG) articles. --

767:

or its talk page and talk page archive. Are you referring to the

629:

WP article. These Risk variants previously tried to live on the

4127:

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

1910:

products. What is your justification for granting attention to

2799:

Let me tell you what was NOT neutral within the history of the

1174:

article. There are no unreliable sources and/or references. --

621:

Ollie your point is noted and I've suggested above that we add

266:

Some of the information in the article previously lived in the

3503:

policy is rather misleading, what actually matters is does it

1785:, I think it was rightly removed, as it was an unencyclopedic 2165:. However, deciding who/what is 'notable' in the history of 2129:

Should only actual communists be allowed to edit the article

2058:

article at least twice now because they were "unofficial". --

1322:

to be consistent in you position. I grant you that the term

3788:

Riitoken for disruption of a discussion by trying to make a

3640:

to create the article? Knowledge (XXG) will still be here.

3283:

before reading the article or participating in this debate?

2966:

experienced editors. Knowledge (XXG) has policies about the

1591:

just because the clone is not an official Hasbro licensee.

909:. Furthermore, given that these two excerpts remain in the 1670:

Risk games", but I can't see an objection to listing other

1414:. That another article has bad sourcing does not mean that 2376:

d) to list some of the notable clones and their histories.

1848:

You don't understand. The reason it did not belong in the

1802:

I agree that the "unofficial list" does not belong in the

1456:

Seven Principles that Drive Corporate Value in any Economy

917:

is the reader supposed to learn more about the history of

871:

I refer all of you to the following two excerpts from the

495:

Riitoken, have you read the links I provided you above to

474:

http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/flash+risk+clone+freeware/

1418:

should have bad sourcing as well. Your objections to the

310:

The commercialization argument does not hold water, the

2217:

Riitoken, if anything the opposite is true: people with

1727:

article contained a section for "unofficial clones"? --

525:

Korruski, yes I have. I would gladly document the term

3845:

that imply that you're more trouble than you're worth?

3836: 3834: 3831: 3829: 3827: 1782: 932:

page but were evicted in the giant edit war last year.

105: 101: 97: 3535:. (Citation numbering correct as of time of this post) 2181:; it's the same type of cult following found amongst 2161:

and anybody should be allowed to make valid edits for

1926:

centric Risk game article where attention is drawn to

1918:? What is your justification for wanting all notable 161: 1930:

commercial products? If drawing attention to viable

1818:

editors as to what is notable enough to mention as a

3495:

I have read it just now, and it still does not meet

3258:

added an academic reference from the main article --

782:

material on Risk clones can be added to and kept in

683:(the original) and the second hit is a reference to 477:

http://touchreviews.net/pocket-world-war-risk-clone/

3937:as evidenced by the existing artcle. The truth of 3286:If you say YES then please explain where you first 2177:of enthusiasts who play and make what are known as 2077:article. There is only one authority for that: the 1995:Andrew, the copyright info is there because, while 1934:is "unencyclopediac" then drawing any attention to 1857:. What is acceptable is a reasonably sized list of 1629:I refer all of you to this markup comment from the 850:of various sections of the main article, including 175: 2157:Anybody should be allowed to make valid edits for 1305:with a reliable source ... because nobody has the 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 4137:). No further edits should be made to this page. 637:... nevertheless they deserve mention. And the 403:of the term, through its use and explanation in 2884:Knowledge (XXG) is not a manual or how-to guide 3976:No one is disputing that your article is true. 3414:Because it's irrelevant to an AFD discussion. 468:http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=48539 3039:THIS IS THE ORIGINAL SPIRIT BEHIND WIKIPEDIA. 2517:I found the usenet ref. for Poor Boy Risk. -- 1902:article is to draw attention to the world of 679:and see that the first hit is a reference to 633:page but were rejected because they were not 8: 3718:would the 2040 author have to say about the 2707:(no one needs to answer any silly poll here) 2090:Thank you for saying this out loud. As the 1834:. I qualify in all 3 categories. Do you? -- 1674:but unlicensed Risk clones in a new section 440:. Pure original research, has no sources. - 3654:There is no requirement that an article be 3572:3) source 3 is an error and will be removed 1256:back in the 80's. Furthermore ... tell me 759:. If all the material that is not based on 705:any encyclopedic material to a new section 529:as soon as we can find the entity with the 341:IDEAS are cloned. MATERIALS are copied. -- 3682:There is a requirement that an article be 1822:and those editors will be avid players of 1666:Risk clones under the heading "Officially 1318:then you need to do the same for the term 823:list of Games-related deletion discussions 817: 462:http://www.baumanfamily.com/john/risk.html 3279:Is there anybody here that knew the term 2457:showed 14,700 hits for the search phrase 1467:Computers: The Life Story of a Technology 3513:significant coverage in reliable sources 2098:article is not about any one individual 1914:products but not allowing attention for 1575:I have changed the legal wording in the 852:Risk (game)#Official licensed Risk games 821:: This debate has been included in the 333:NOTE: the following line appears in the 3663:. Is every article on Knowledge (XXG) 2459:"risk clone" -wars -high-risk -antigen 259:article is to define and document term 3741:in 2040, that would be when it became 1999:would have everyone believe that they 1631:Risk_game#Official_licensed_Risk_games 709:, and move this page to the new title 3120:without prejudice against recreation. 1691:article be devoted to the "official" 728:Lambiam, might I remind you that the 255:Gentleman, the entire purpose of the 18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion 7: 3499:. Looking for ways that the article 2859:article. I seek neither to promote 471:http://demonews.com/thread104-1.html 2994:your reputation on Knowledge (XXG). 2970:of a subject, and the fact that it 1781:If you mean the section removed in 1144:is not straightforward (see, e.g., 3082:and, therefore, not permissable.-- 1696:(similar to the shrine inside the 1640:and recognized the fact that some 1489:argument. I never said there was 921:with the expected Knowledge (XXG) 24: 3507:to policy. For example, take the 2448:Removed the google hits line here 2359:that has been used for 30+ years. 3866:, with no more words than that. 771:List of unofficial Risk versions 3006:you with improving the article. 2652:or represent the interests of 1754:copyright protected content. 1326:is more notable than the term 887:article for more information." 641:page is the place to do it. -- 1: 2379:e) to intentionally be a non 2102:, it is about the collective 1662:Of course one should not add 1218:, the entire congregation of 1188:The issue is that there is a 4120:14:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC) 4099:18:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 4073:15:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 4059:15:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 4044:15:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 4012:15:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 3986:15:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 3956:15:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 3921:14:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 3895:14:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 3876:01:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 3855:03:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 3820:02:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 3802:22:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3755:17:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 3733:14:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 3708:04:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 3678:02:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 3650:23:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3627:09:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 3592:02:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC) 3558:22:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3491:21:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3476:21:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3444:20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3426:20:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3410:20:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3396:20:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3370:23:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3348:20:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3334:20:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3317:19:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3268:19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3251:19:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3228:14:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3208:14:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3173:14:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3155:14:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3131:20:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3100:15:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3064:14:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 3029:10:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 2957:05:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 2933:05:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 2904:14:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 2873:00:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 2842:23:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2819:00:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 2791:00:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 2768:00:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 2742:23:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2724:21:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2699:16:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 2674:21:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2620:20:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2597:19:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2566:19:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2548:18:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2527:17:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2504:17:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2486:17:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2471:16:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2441:15:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2417:15:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2333:16:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2316:15:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2294:15:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2279:05:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2242:16:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC) 2209:18:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2195:17:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2153:17:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2125:16:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2086:16:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2068:14:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2033:07:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 2021:03:52, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 1991:03:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 1948:18:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 1866:17:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 1844:16:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 1814:page. It will be up to the 1806:article. It belongs in the 1798:07:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 1775:01:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 1732:00:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 1719:22:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 1683:20:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 1658:19:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 1622:18:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 1566:17:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 1481:20:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 1432:20:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 1406:18:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 1367:16:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 1344:16:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 1330:but that does not mean that 1285:10:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 1271:08:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 1242:00:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 1232:21:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 1197:00:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 1184:20:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 1155:00:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC) 1132:20:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 1105:20:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 1050:19:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 1022:18:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 987:20:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 968:19:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 957:15:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 864:15:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 838:14:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 813:11:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 791:13:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 751:23:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 722:19:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 697:18:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 666:18:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 651:18:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 617:18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 597:18:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 578:03:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC) 544:18:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 521:17:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 490:17:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 450:15:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 429:16:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 392:15:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 370:15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 351:15:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 328:14:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 250:14:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 225:12:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 207:11:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC) 58:01:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC) 2758:me; but I said nothing. -- 2106:of those who play and make 1855:What Knowledge (XXG) is not 4154: 3111:take to swing this debate. 2383:article separate from the 1600:shrine for commercialized 455:The entire purpose of the 4022:I like rules except when 3609:and ask you to read it.-- 1440:for the term "PC clone": 755:Well, the alternative is 4130:Please do not modify it. 2355:a) to document the term 1676:Risk (game)#Other clones 1519:sites with the expected 1301:statement nor can it be 1192:of reliable sources. -- 935:And to Ollie, yes there 769:deletion discussion for 32:Please do not modify it. 2094:section indicates, the 1922:to be mentioned on the 977:see Objections below -- 4026:have to follow them!"? 2607:"x" is found on usenet 2263:Grand Theft Auto clone 1493:sourcing for the term 945:Space Invaders (clone) 374:The wikipedia article 4020:Haha! So basically, " 3686:to the publishers of 2387:commercial interests. 2219:conflicts of interest 1906:and NOT the world of 1515:and some of the more 1064:few or no other edits 923:Neutral Point of View 677:what is a risk clone? 3519:Significant coverage 3011:I hope this helps.-- 2829:conflict of interest 1091:article than in the 1066:outside this topic. 3839:(Note edit summary) 3598:no reliable sources 3462:WP:Reliable sources 3071:reliably verifiable 2346:The purpose of the 2026:No personal attacks 1577:List of Risk clones 1452:(December 23, 1985) 1396:to tell me this. -- 1334:is not notable. -- 1136:The application of 675:Google this phrase 635:officially licensed 280:I refer you to the 3918: 3624: 3555: 3448:Please review our 3097: 3026: 1750:separate from the 1485:Please re-read my 1445:(December 4, 1983) 1142:software copyright 707:Risk (game)#Clones 575: 548:I never mentioned 518: 426: 247: 44:The result was 3905: 3840: 3696:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 3611: 3542: 3188:Ray E. Bornert II 3084: 3080:original research 3013: 2974:be dealt with by 2427:original research 2366:non-neutral pov). 1830:and/or makers of 1778: 1761:comment added by 1569: 1552:comment added by 1476:), and so on. -- 1474:978-0-8018-8774-1 1354:Original research 1237:unverifiable. -- 1067: 1040:comment added by 1025: 1008:comment added by 941:Asteroids (clone) 840: 826: 605:clones in general 562: 505: 413: 234: 4145: 4132: 4116: 4104:Snowball Delete: 3917: 3914: 3911: 3908: 3889: 3838: 3826:Your posts above 3688:reliable sources 3623: 3620: 3617: 3614: 3554: 3551: 3548: 3545: 3525:Reliable sources 3511:. This asks for 3470: 3420: 3390: 3096: 3093: 3090: 3087: 3025: 3022: 3019: 3016: 2976:reliable sources 2901: 2900: 2839: 2838: 2696: 2693: 2690: 2687: 2648:Do you work for 2453:On 2011-Jan-16, 2435: 2271: 2239: 2236: 2233: 2230: 2140:User:Jimbo Wales 1988: 1985: 1982: 1979: 1777: 1755: 1568: 1546: 1438:reliable sources 1371:Point me to the 1280:have to say. -- 1147:Sega v. Accolade 1053: 1052: 1024: 1002: 861: 860: 827: 772: 761:reliable sources 574: 571: 568: 565: 517: 514: 511: 508: 425: 422: 419: 416: 405:reliable sources 376:Lux_(video_game) 246: 243: 240: 237: 180: 179: 165: 113: 95: 34: 4153: 4152: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4135:deletion review 4128: 4114: 3915: 3912: 3909: 3906: 3887: 3621: 3618: 3615: 3612: 3552: 3549: 3546: 3543: 3468: 3418: 3388: 3094: 3091: 3088: 3085: 3023: 3020: 3017: 3014: 2997:Carefully read 2898: 2836: 2694: 2691: 2688: 2685: 2533:reliable source 2433: 2269: 2237: 2234: 2231: 2228: 1986: 1983: 1980: 1977: 1756: 1700:article). The 1547: 1450:Atlanta Journal 1394:reliable source 1035: 1003: 913:article, where 858: 770: 572: 569: 566: 563: 515: 512: 509: 506: 423: 420: 417: 414: 409:at great length 244: 241: 238: 235: 217:Jonathanwallace 186:section. Fails 122: 86: 70: 67: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4151: 4149: 4140: 4139: 4123: 4122: 4111:to Riitoken). 4109:WP:KEEPCONCISE 4101: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4028: 4015: 4014: 3991: 3990: 3989: 3988: 3974: 3959: 3958: 3926: 3925: 3924: 3923: 3898: 3897: 3878: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3823: 3822: 3805: 3804: 3778: 3777: 3776: 3775: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3763: 3762: 3761: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3757: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3580: 3576: 3573: 3570: 3566: 3560: 3538: 3537: 3536: 3522: 3378: 3377: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3373: 3372: 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3296: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3276: 3275: 3270: 3253: 3232: 3231: 3230: 3176: 3175: 3157: 3138: 3136: 3135: 3134: 3133: 3116: 3112: 3108: 3107: 3106: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3009: 3008: 3007: 2995: 2991: 2980: 2979: 2960: 2959: 2936: 2935: 2917: 2916: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2876: 2875: 2845: 2844: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2794: 2793: 2771: 2770: 2745: 2744: 2727: 2726: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2701: 2681:Andrew Lenahan 2676: 2662: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2600: 2599: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2511: 2510: 2509: 2508: 2507: 2506: 2489: 2488: 2450: 2449: 2443: 2392: 2391: 2388: 2377: 2374: 2369:c) to discuss 2367: 2360: 2352: 2351: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2336: 2335: 2319: 2318: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2224:Andrew Lenahan 2215: 2214: 2213: 2212: 2211: 2175:Cult following 2104:Cult following 1973:Andrew Lenahan 1966: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1624: 1570: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1434: 1297:. This is an 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1210:issues in the 1201: 1200: 1199: 1170:issues in the 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1118:issues in the 1108: 1107: 1079:issues in the 1069: 1068: 1027: 1026: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 939:be a page for 903: 902: 901: 900: 892: 891: 890: 889: 877: 876: 866: 841: 815: 796: 795: 794: 793: 725: 724: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 623:Risk (variant) 585: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 453: 452: 434: 433: 432: 431: 339: 338: 253: 252: 227: 183: 182: 119: 66: 61: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4150: 4138: 4136: 4131: 4125: 4124: 4121: 4118: 4117: 4110: 4105: 4102: 4100: 4096: 4092: 4087: 4084: 4083: 4074: 4070: 4066: 4062: 4061: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4041: 4037: 4033: 4029: 4027: 4025: 4019: 4018: 4017: 4016: 4013: 4009: 4005: 4001: 3998:is notable. 3997: 3993: 3992: 3987: 3983: 3979: 3975: 3972: 3967: 3963: 3962: 3961: 3960: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3940: 3936: 3931: 3928: 3927: 3922: 3919: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3899: 3896: 3893: 3892: 3890: 3882: 3879: 3877: 3873: 3869: 3865: 3862: 3861: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3844: 3837: 3835: 3832: 3830: 3828: 3825: 3824: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3806: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3780: 3779: 3756: 3752: 3748: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3730: 3726: 3721: 3716: 3711: 3710: 3709: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3693: 3689: 3685: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3675: 3671: 3666: 3662: 3657: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3647: 3643: 3639: 3634: 3628: 3625: 3608: 3607:WP:NOTABILITY 3603: 3599: 3595: 3594: 3593: 3589: 3585: 3581: 3577: 3574: 3571: 3567: 3565:superscripts. 3563: 3562: 3561: 3559: 3556: 3539: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3523: 3520: 3517: 3516: 3514: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3493: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3474: 3473: 3471: 3463: 3459: 3458:WP:Notability 3455: 3451: 3447: 3446: 3445: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3424: 3423: 3421: 3413: 3412: 3411: 3407: 3403: 3399: 3398: 3397: 3394: 3393: 3391: 3382: 3379: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3350: 3349: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3300: 3299: 3297: 3294: 3289: 3285: 3284: 3282: 3278: 3277: 3274: 3271: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3254: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3240: 3236: 3233: 3229: 3225: 3221: 3216: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3205: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3181: 3178: 3177: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3161: 3158: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3144: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3121: 3117: 3113: 3109: 3101: 3098: 3081: 3077: 3072: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3044:policy police 3040: 3036: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3027: 3010: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2989: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2981: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2958: 2954: 2950: 2945: 2940: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2922: 2919: 2918: 2905: 2902: 2893: 2889: 2885: 2880: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2874: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2858: 2854: 2849: 2848: 2847: 2846: 2843: 2840: 2830: 2826: 2825: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2807: 2802: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2795: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2779:pay attention 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2746: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2713: 2712: 2706: 2705:///////////// 2703: 2702: 2700: 2697: 2682: 2677: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2661:///////////// 2660: 2658: 2657: 2655: 2651: 2646: 2645: 2643: 2642: 2640: 2639: 2637: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2608: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2575: 2574: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2555: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2546: 2542: 2538: 2537:verifiability 2534: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2524: 2520: 2516: 2513: 2512: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2487: 2483: 2479: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2468: 2464: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2451: 2447: 2444: 2442: 2439: 2438: 2436: 2428: 2424: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2389: 2386: 2382: 2378: 2375: 2372: 2368: 2365: 2361: 2358: 2354: 2353: 2349: 2345: 2342: 2341: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2321: 2320: 2317: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2264: 2260: 2257: 2243: 2240: 2225: 2220: 2216: 2210: 2206: 2202: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2176: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2160: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2151: 2147: 2146: 2141: 2136: 2132: 2128: 2127: 2126: 2122: 2118: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2093: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2053: 2049: 2048:Poor Boy Risk 2045: 2041: 2036: 2035: 2034: 2031: 2028:, please. -- 2027: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1989: 1974: 1970: 1967: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1864: 1860: 1856: 1851: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1841: 1837: 1833: 1829: 1825: 1821: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1780: 1779: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1740: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1730: 1726: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1707: 1703: 1699: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1681: 1677: 1673: 1669: 1665: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1635: 1632: 1628: 1627:Keep no-merge 1625: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1612:be damned. -- 1611: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1594: 1590: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1571: 1567: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1544: 1541: 1540: 1522: 1518: 1514: 1510: 1505: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1479: 1475: 1472: 1468: 1464: 1463:0-7879-6604-5 1461: 1457: 1453: 1451: 1446: 1444: 1439: 1435: 1433: 1429: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1412:WP:OTHERSTUFF 1409: 1408: 1407: 1403: 1399: 1395: 1391: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1355: 1351: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1317: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1283: 1279: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1259: 1255: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1243: 1240: 1235: 1234: 1233: 1229: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1206:There are no 1205: 1202: 1198: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1181: 1177: 1173: 1169: 1166:There are no 1165: 1162: 1161: 1156: 1153: 1149: 1148: 1143: 1139: 1138:copyright law 1135: 1134: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1114:There are no 1113: 1110: 1109: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1075:There are no 1074: 1071: 1070: 1065: 1061: 1057: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1032: 1029: 1028: 1023: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 999: 996: 995: 988: 984: 980: 976: 973: 972: 971: 970: 969: 966: 961: 960: 959: 958: 954: 950: 946: 942: 938: 933: 931: 926: 924: 920: 916: 912: 908: 907:Risk (clones) 899: 896: 895: 894: 893: 888: 886: 881: 880: 879: 878: 874: 870: 867: 865: 862: 853: 849: 845: 842: 839: 835: 831: 824: 820: 816: 814: 810: 806: 801: 798: 797: 792: 789: 785: 781: 777: 773: 766: 762: 758: 754: 753: 752: 748: 744: 740: 736: 731: 727: 726: 723: 720: 716: 712: 708: 704: 701: 700: 699: 698: 694: 690: 686: 682: 678: 667: 663: 659: 654: 653: 652: 648: 644: 640: 636: 632: 628: 624: 620: 619: 618: 614: 610: 606: 601: 600: 599: 598: 594: 590: 579: 576: 559: 558:WP:NOTABILITY 555: 551: 547: 546: 545: 541: 537: 532: 528: 524: 523: 522: 519: 502: 501:WP:Notability 498: 494: 493: 492: 491: 487: 483: 478: 475: 472: 469: 466: 463: 458: 451: 447: 443: 439: 436: 435: 430: 427: 410: 407:. Explaining 406: 402: 398: 397: 396: 395: 394: 393: 389: 385: 381: 377: 372: 371: 367: 363: 358: 353: 352: 348: 344: 336: 332: 331: 330: 329: 325: 321: 316: 313: 308: 306: 301: 298: 294: 292: 286: 283: 278: 276: 271: 269: 264: 262: 258: 251: 248: 231: 228: 226: 222: 218: 214: 211: 210: 209: 208: 204: 200: 197: 194:and possibly 193: 189: 178: 174: 171: 168: 164: 160: 156: 153: 150: 147: 144: 141: 138: 135: 132: 128: 125: 124:Find sources: 120: 117: 111: 107: 103: 99: 94: 90: 85: 81: 77: 73: 69: 68: 65: 62: 60: 59: 55: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 4129: 4126: 4113: 4103: 4085: 4023: 4021: 3999: 3995: 3969: 3943: 3938: 3934: 3929: 3884: 3880: 3863: 3842: 3785: 3781: 3742: 3738: 3719: 3714: 3692:Risk (clone) 3664: 3660: 3655: 3637: 3601: 3597: 3524: 3518: 3512: 3504: 3500: 3465: 3431: 3415: 3385: 3380: 3357: 3353: 3306: 3287: 3280: 3272: 3255: 3238: 3234: 3215:Risk (clone) 3179: 3159: 3142: 3137: 3119: 3075: 3070: 3051: 3047: 3043: 3038: 3034: 2971: 2943: 2920: 2805: 2778: 2755: 2704: 2684: 2659: 2647: 2644: 2641: 2635: 2633: 2632: 2606: 2585:WP:ABOUTSELF 2553: 2514: 2458: 2445: 2430: 2422: 2404: 2403:players and 2400: 2396: 2393: 2370: 2356: 2348:Risk (clone) 2343: 2258: 2227: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2163:Risk (clone) 2143: 2134: 2112:Risk (clone) 2107: 2103: 2099: 2096:Risk (clone) 2091: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2008: 2000: 1976: 1968: 1931: 1919: 1915: 1903: 1900:Risk (clone) 1891: 1858: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1816:Risk (clone) 1812:Risk (clone) 1808:Risk (clone) 1790: 1757:— Preceding 1747: 1744:Risk (clone) 1739:Risk (clone) 1702:Risk (clone) 1671: 1667: 1663: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1626: 1605: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1576: 1572: 1548:— Preceding 1542: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1503: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1466: 1455: 1449: 1443:Boston Globe 1442: 1416:Risk (clone) 1393: 1389: 1384: 1380: 1377:fact checked 1376: 1375:source that 1372: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1319: 1315: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1277: 1257: 1253: 1219: 1216:COLLECTIVELY 1215: 1212:Risk (clone) 1203: 1189: 1172:Risk (clone) 1163: 1145: 1120:Risk (clone) 1111: 1089:Risk (clone) 1081:Risk (clone) 1072: 1030: 1004:— Preceding 997: 974: 936: 934: 927: 922: 914: 904: 897: 885:Risk (clone) 882: 868: 848:Content fork 843: 818: 799: 779: 775: 756: 738: 735:Risk (clone) 715:Risk (clone) 702: 685:Risk (clone) 676: 674: 639:Risk (clone) 634: 626: 622: 586: 530: 526: 457:Risk (clone) 454: 437: 380:Risk (clone) 379: 373: 357:Risk (clone) 354: 340: 317: 309: 305:Risk (clone) 302: 299: 295: 290: 287: 279: 275:Risk (clone) 272: 265: 261:Risk (clone) 260: 257:Risk (clone) 256: 254: 229: 212: 184: 172: 166: 158: 151: 145: 139: 133: 123: 72:Risk (clone) 64:Risk (clone) 45: 43: 31: 28: 4115:Ravenswing 4000:Risk clones 3966:WP:NOTTRUTH 3944:Risk clones 3939:Risk clones 3352:Seriously? 3048:Risk clones 2892:How-To Wiki 2857:Risk (game) 2801:Risk (game) 2656:YES or NO? 2397:Risk clones 2371:Risk clones 2350:article is: 2179:Risk clones 2171:Risk clones 2145:ex cathedra 2108:Risk clones 2075:Risk (game) 2056:Risk (game) 2052:Risk clones 1932:Risk clones 1920:Risk clones 1916:Risk clones 1904:Risk clones 1892:Risk clones 1876:Risk (game) 1872:Risk (game) 1850:Risk (game) 1832:Risk clones 1828:Risk clones 1804:Risk (game) 1748:Risk clones 1698:Risk (game) 1689:Risk (game) 1642:Risk clones 1606:Risk clones 1602:Risk (game) 1513:Risk clones 1220:Risk clones 1093:Risk (game) 1062:) has made 1036:—Preceding 930:Risk (game) 919:Risk clones 911:Risk (game) 873:Risk (game) 805:Wickedjacob 784:Risk (game) 765:Risk (game) 737:page. The 730:Risk (game) 681:Risk (game) 631:Risk (game) 335:Risk (game) 312:Risk (game) 268:Risk (game) 149:free images 50:Ron Ritzman 3881:Suggestion 3661:Risk clone 3432:Risk clone 3281:Risk clone 3273:QUESTIONS: 3239:Risk clone 3052:Risk clone 3035:unfinished 2968:notability 2806:Risk clone 2714:ENDPOLL -- 2541:notability 2405:Risk clone 2401:Risk clone 2357:Risk clone 2100:Risk clone 2044:Risk clone 1820:Risk clone 1664:unlicensed 1638:Risk clone 1585:Risk clone 1581:Risk clone 1509:Risk clone 1504:Risk clone 1499:Risk clone 1385:Risk clone 1332:Risk clone 1328:Risk clone 1316:Risk clone 1254:Risk clone 1056:71.59.2.79 1042:71.59.2.79 780:verifiable 778:amount of 776:reasonable 739:Risk clone 711:Risk clone 527:Risk clone 401:notability 4086:Thank You 3794:SixthAtom 3192:WinHoldEm 2476:replies. 2167:communism 2159:Communism 2142:speaking 2131:Communism 2079:consensus 1890:licensed 1783:this edit 1379:the term 1307:authority 1204:Objection 1164:Objection 1112:Objection 1073:Objection 869:Objection 830:• Gene93k 531:authority 307:article. 4091:Riitoken 4051:Riitoken 4032:snowball 4004:Riitoken 3948:Riitoken 3930:Question 3888:itsJamie 3843:wouldn't 3812:Riitoken 3790:WP:POINT 3725:Riitoken 3670:Riitoken 3584:Riitoken 3501:violates 3483:Riitoken 3469:itsJamie 3436:Riitoken 3419:itsJamie 3402:Riitoken 3389:itsJamie 3340:Riitoken 3309:Riitoken 3260:Riitoken 3243:Riitoken 3220:Riitoken 3165:Riitoken 3147:Riitoken 3115:article. 3056:Riitoken 2949:Riitoken 2865:Riitoken 2855:and the 2811:Riitoken 2760:Riitoken 2756:offended 2716:Riitoken 2666:Riitoken 2612:Riitoken 2558:Riitoken 2519:Riitoken 2496:Riitoken 2463:Riitoken 2434:itsJamie 2409:Riitoken 2325:Riitoken 2286:Riitoken 2187:Riitoken 2117:Riitoken 2060:Riitoken 2013:Riitoken 1940:Riitoken 1836:Riitoken 1787:linkfarm 1771:contribs 1763:Riitoken 1759:unsigned 1711:Riitoken 1668:licensed 1650:Riitoken 1614:Riitoken 1562:contribs 1554:Riitoken 1550:unsigned 1487:PC_clone 1398:Riitoken 1390:PC clone 1381:PC clone 1373:reliable 1336:Riitoken 1324:PC clone 1320:PC clone 1311:PC clone 1293:article 1291:PC_clone 1263:Riitoken 1224:Riitoken 1176:Riitoken 1124:Riitoken 1097:Riitoken 1038:unsigned 1018:contribs 1010:Riitoken 1006:unsigned 979:Riitoken 975:Disagree 949:Riitoken 743:Riitoken 689:Riitoken 643:Riitoken 627:variants 589:Riitoken 536:Riitoken 482:Riitoken 384:Riitoken 362:Riitoken 343:Riitoken 320:Riitoken 116:View log 3935:notable 3841:. Why 3747:MrOllie 3743:notable 3720:History 3715:notable 3700:MrOllie 3684:notable 3665:notable 3656:notable 3602:nothing 3505:conform 3288:learned 2944:*Delete 2890:or the 2888:Wikihow 2545:Lambiam 2539:nor to 2344:Purpose 2201:MrOllie 2183:Trekkie 2150:Lambiam 2092:Purpose 2083:Lambiam 2030:Lambiam 1863:Lambiam 1859:notable 1795:Lambiam 1791:notable 1729:Lambiam 1706:WP:NPOV 1680:Lambiam 1672:notable 1646:NOTABLE 1589:illegal 1521:WP:NPOV 1517:notable 1495:PC_cone 1478:Lambiam 1469:(2007; 1458:(2003; 1424:MrOllie 1359:MrOllie 1299:UNCITED 1282:Lambiam 1239:Lambiam 1194:Lambiam 1152:Lambiam 1087:in the 1085:WP:SPAM 1077:WP:SPAM 965:Lambiam 915:EXACTLY 788:Lambiam 719:Lambiam 658:MrOllie 609:MrOllie 442:MrOllie 273:As the 196:WP:SPAM 155:WP refs 143:scholar 89:protect 84:history 3864:Delete 3782:Delete 3690:. the 3569:idea." 3509:WP:GNG 3497:WP:GNG 3450:WP:AFD 3381:Enough 3256:Update 3235:Update 3160:Update 3143:Update 2999:WP:GNG 2921:Delete 2897:Snotty 2861:Hasbro 2853:Hasbro 2835:Snotty 2752:Hasbro 2654:Hasbro 2650:Hasbro 2515:Update 2455:google 2446:Update 2423:Delete 2385:Hasbro 2381:Hasbro 2364:Hasbro 2259:Delete 2148:). -- 2135:anyone 2040:Hasbro 2005:Hasbro 1997:Hasbro 1969:Delete 1936:Hasbro 1928:Hasbro 1924:Hasbro 1912:Hasbro 1908:Hasbro 1896:Hasbro 1888:Hasbro 1884:Hasbro 1880:Hasbro 1752:Hasbro 1693:Hasbro 1610:Hasbro 1598:Hasbro 1593:Hasbro 1587:to be 1573:Update 1543:Update 998:Update 937:SHOULD 857:Snotty 844:Delete 800:Delete 757:Delete 438:Delete 282:IBM_PC 230:Delete 213:Delete 127:Google 93:delete 46:delete 3971:true. 3964:From 3786:block 3739:noted 3638:ready 3533:WP:RS 3529:WP:RS 3454:WP:OR 3358:point 3354:That' 3003:WP:RS 2664:NO -- 2543:. -- 2009:silly 1678:. -- 1420:WP:RS 1303:cited 1168:WP:RS 1116:WP:OR 875:page: 786:. -- 703:Merge 554:WP:RS 550:WP:OR 497:WP:RS 378:is a 192:WP:OR 188:WP:RS 170:JSTOR 131:books 110:views 102:watch 98:links 16:< 4095:talk 4069:talk 4055:talk 4040:talk 4008:talk 3996:Risk 3982:talk 3952:talk 3886:OhNo 3872:talk 3868:2005 3851:talk 3816:talk 3798:talk 3784:and 3751:talk 3745:. - 3729:talk 3704:talk 3698:. - 3674:talk 3646:talk 3588:talk 3487:talk 3467:OhNo 3460:and 3440:talk 3417:OhNo 3406:talk 3387:OhNo 3366:talk 3344:talk 3330:talk 3313:talk 3264:talk 3247:talk 3224:talk 3204:talk 3200:andy 3196:Xisk 3194:and 3184:here 3180:Note 3169:talk 3151:talk 3127:talk 3060:talk 3001:and 2972:must 2953:talk 2929:talk 2899:Wong 2869:talk 2837:Wong 2815:talk 2787:talk 2783:andy 2764:talk 2738:talk 2734:andy 2720:talk 2670:talk 2636:POLL 2616:talk 2593:talk 2589:andy 2562:talk 2523:talk 2500:talk 2482:talk 2478:andy 2467:talk 2432:OhNo 2413:talk 2329:talk 2312:talk 2308:andy 2290:talk 2270:ASEM 2205:talk 2191:talk 2121:talk 2064:talk 2017:talk 1944:talk 1840:talk 1826:and 1824:Risk 1767:talk 1725:Risk 1715:talk 1654:talk 1648:. -- 1644:are 1618:talk 1558:talk 1471:ISBN 1460:ISBN 1428:talk 1410:See 1402:talk 1363:talk 1350:here 1340:talk 1278:they 1267:talk 1228:talk 1208:WP:N 1190:lack 1180:talk 1128:talk 1101:talk 1060:talk 1046:talk 1031:Keep 1014:talk 983:talk 953:talk 943:and 859:Wong 834:talk 819:Note 809:talk 803:it. 747:talk 693:talk 662:talk 647:talk 613:talk 607:. - 593:talk 556:and 540:talk 499:and 486:talk 446:talk 388:talk 366:talk 355:The 347:talk 324:talk 291:IDEA 221:talk 203:talk 199:andy 163:FENS 137:news 106:logs 80:talk 76:edit 54:talk 4065:APL 4036:APL 3978:APL 3968:: " 3916:ski 3910:orr 3847:APL 3642:APL 3622:ski 3616:orr 3579:is. 3553:ski 3547:orr 3362:APL 3326:APL 3123:APL 3095:ski 3089:orr 3024:ski 3018:orr 2988:POV 2925:APL 2692:bli 2425:As 2235:bli 2046:; 2001:own 1984:bli 1491:bad 1465:), 1258:WHO 1140:to 854:. 828:-- 573:ski 567:orr 516:ski 510:orr 503:?-- 424:ski 418:orr 245:ski 239:orr 177:TWL 114:– ( 4097:) 4071:) 4057:) 4049:-- 4042:) 4010:) 3984:) 3973:". 3954:) 3874:) 3853:) 3818:) 3800:) 3792:. 3753:) 3731:) 3706:) 3676:) 3668:-- 3648:) 3590:) 3582:-- 3540:-- 3515:: 3489:) 3481:-- 3456:, 3452:, 3442:) 3408:) 3368:) 3346:) 3332:) 3315:) 3307:-- 3266:) 3249:) 3241:-- 3226:) 3218:-- 3206:) 3190:, 3171:) 3153:) 3129:) 3076:do 3062:) 2955:) 2931:) 2871:) 2817:) 2809:-- 2789:) 2766:) 2740:) 2722:) 2695:nd 2689:ar 2686:St 2683:- 2672:) 2618:) 2610:-- 2595:) 2564:) 2525:) 2502:) 2484:) 2469:) 2461:-- 2415:) 2331:) 2314:) 2292:) 2277:) 2238:nd 2232:ar 2229:St 2226:- 2207:) 2193:) 2123:) 2066:) 2019:) 1987:nd 1981:ar 1978:St 1975:- 1946:) 1842:) 1773:) 1769:• 1717:) 1656:) 1620:) 1564:) 1560:• 1454:, 1447:, 1430:) 1404:) 1365:) 1342:) 1269:) 1230:) 1182:) 1130:) 1103:) 1054:— 1048:) 1020:) 1016:• 985:) 955:) 925:? 846:- 836:) 825:. 811:) 749:) 695:) 664:) 649:) 615:) 595:) 542:) 488:) 448:) 390:) 368:) 360:-- 349:) 326:) 223:) 205:) 190:, 157:) 108:| 104:| 100:| 96:| 91:| 87:| 82:| 78:| 56:) 4093:( 4067:( 4053:( 4038:( 4024:I 4006:( 3980:( 3950:( 3913:u 3907:K 3870:( 3849:( 3814:( 3796:( 3749:( 3727:( 3702:( 3672:( 3644:( 3619:u 3613:K 3586:( 3550:u 3544:K 3485:( 3438:( 3404:( 3364:( 3342:( 3328:( 3311:( 3262:( 3245:( 3222:( 3202:( 3167:( 3149:( 3125:( 3092:u 3086:K 3058:( 3021:u 3015:K 2951:( 2927:( 2867:( 2813:( 2785:( 2762:( 2736:( 2718:( 2668:( 2634:* 2614:( 2591:( 2560:( 2521:( 2498:( 2480:( 2465:( 2411:( 2327:( 2310:( 2288:( 2275:t 2273:( 2268:M 2203:( 2189:( 2119:( 2062:( 2015:( 1942:( 1838:( 1765:( 1713:( 1652:( 1616:( 1556:( 1523:. 1426:( 1400:( 1361:( 1338:( 1265:( 1226:( 1178:( 1126:( 1099:( 1058:( 1044:( 1012:( 981:( 951:( 832:( 807:( 745:( 691:( 660:( 645:( 611:( 591:( 570:u 564:K 538:( 513:u 507:K 484:( 444:( 421:u 415:K 386:( 364:( 345:( 322:( 242:u 236:K 219:( 201:( 181:) 173:· 167:· 159:· 152:· 146:· 140:· 134:· 129:( 121:( 118:) 112:) 74:( 52:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Risk (clone) - Knowledge (XXG)

Index