Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2007 October 16

2070:

there were a policy, the goal here is to build the best encyclopedia possible, which often will involve ignoring all rules. Unless you can find a policy explicitly stating a useful category must be deleted, or a policy that all votes making arguments you disagree with can be ignored, "policy trumps" arguments are irrelevant, as the only policy here appears to be community consensus. Even if there were a policy, only directives from jimbo and a few select other policies can trump consensus - except for foundation issues, policies are based on established consensus, and if consensus appears to no longer agree with the policy, the policy must be disregarded as no longer applicable. Oh, and speaking of directives from jimbo... "Anything that builds a spirit of friendliness and co-operation and helps people get to know each other as human beings seems to me a good thing." - while "human beings" may not be what many people in this debate consider themselves as, that quote still applies - even if it were not for the benefits of having this category (already well-stated in all the ignored deletion votes), the lord himself hath spoketh towards the benefits of community, and the validity of related arguments.

990:

what a synthesis is. There is nothing wrong with using multiple sources in an article. In fact a good article needs citations from a variety of sources. A synthesis always produces a novel conclusion built from the sources. for example If one source says the population of the world is 5billion and another source says the population of the world is 6billion. Then an editor combines the sources and says the population of the world is the average of the two ie 5.5billion then this is a synthesis because none of the sources says the population of the world is 5.5billion. But if you say that according to source A the population of the world is 5billion and according to source B the population is 6billion. you are not synthesizing because you are merely quoting what they say. Then it is up to the community or the readers to decide which source is reliable.

270:. According to my understanding, the article is not a synthesis because all 5 major citations discuss the same evidence with regard to origin of religion. A synthesis is a collection of items that results in a new conclusion that was not made by any of the individual sources. However all the sources have come to a very similar conclusions. If anyone bothers to read them, they will find similar discussions in all the major sources. It is for this reason that the only reason someone can say that it is a synthesis, is either they have not read the sources or they do not understand the material. If I am incorrect please identify some information from the article that is synthesized from the sources. 4186:, who expresses the same sentiment that I did when closing the AfD. Although a long list of external links were added over the course of the AfD, no effort was made to actually improve the article. If you want to recreate a quality form of the article, please do so, but there was nothing of redeeming value in the prose within the article, which continued to be written as an essay full of vague platitudes. As even when the article was in the spotlight no one was making an effort to make it worthwhile to keep (simply adding news references does not improve the quality of an essay), I am skeptical that anyone would even bother with rewriting the article were it restored. — 572:. The authors of the books cited make no mention of any specific religion in their works. If anyone bothers to investigate the sources, you will find no mention of islam or christianity. The focus on their study is mainly archaeological and anthropological. Archeology because beyond 3000 years ago, there is no writing. Hence archaeologists are the only scientists who can give any information about history older than 3000 years ago. The development of religion article makes no mention of anything archaeological. I therefore question the validity of the accusation that origin of religion is an inappropriate POV fork of 3659:. My German is more than a little rusty (and not focused on legalese to begin with), but basically I think these are saying that government documents meant for public consumption (new laws, announcements, et cetera) are not subject to copyright. This is also an odd case as these are presumably documents seized by the U.S. during the war... essentially the U.S. government 'took ownership' of them and the Germans don't seem to be objecting (there was that whole thing where they surrendered), so are they still German government property or are they U.S. government documents now? Copyright law gives me a headache.-- 2857:. It's pretty clear that the deletion debate never appeared on the AfD page and was never added to the Australian deletion sorting project to bring it to the attention of people with more knowledge of the subject matter. Had this done so, it would most likely have been referenced (by actually bringing the article to the attention of people in that state) and easily kept. This isn't a student radio station - it's one of the more significant community radio stations in the entire country. The absolute insistence on its deletion by people who have made absolutely no effort to actually work that out is bewildering. 2035:

category", with the suggestion we use a bloody userbox instead. Contrast this to the various well-reasoned "keep" arguments. It's not up to the closer to decide whether he/she personally agrees with the arguments, merely to make the decision that properly reflects any apparant consensus. This was clearly a keep - both by number of votes, existance of arguments, and the quite extensive precedent history - and can only be a delete by "I'll just ignore everything I don't agree with" type reasoning. One can not create consensus by ignoring everyone who disagrees with you, then claiming everyone agrees.

3828:

TV/movie industries, media artist, VC funds, graduate students. While they have no problem understanding what's going on, how come it is incomprehensible? We agree to improve and use plain text to educate the much extensive public however that also demands time and solid data e.g. feedback from multiple screenings, production news and the related, similar projects that are on-going. For example, the Real-D cinema has the same streamhead with immersive/interactive cinema and you Knowledge (XXG) already has an entry for its commercial implementation "

700:. Just think for a moment of the amount of trash we keep around in edit histories. There is no reason whatsoever to delete material on grounds of being trash, or a content fork. We only delete articles that had no business of existing in the first place, not on grounds of being trash. Plus, there was no need to delete the talkpage either, there was some useful discussion on how to proceed with this case. Even if deletion of the article was justified (I agree it was mostly trash), can we have the talk history back, please? 1119:. In truth he agrees that it is a valid topic. A further question regarding the development of religion is why is the article discussing modern religions whereas the sources cited make no reference to any specific reason. Knowledge (XXG) is about objective knowledge rather than forceful opinions. I have provided external sources for other editors to verify. Unfortunately not a single editor has provided any source from outside wikipedia to counter these assertions. This is some of the worst form of 2117:

on the other hand, can be joined by anyone, regardless of how much they expect to be able to contribute, thus attracting far more people. A category for the wikiproject isn't helpful - you could just add your name to the project member list (many of whom were found through the category!) - and doesn't do anything at all. There, while I know some people here will disagree, is also a communit benefit - being able to find like-minded users can do nothing but help the encyclopedia.

1334:

and scholars. The book teaches about Catholicism from a Biblical perspective using the King James 1611 Bible. The author claims to have used 80 sources, 190 Biblical passages, and the efforts of three theologians, each with a Master's Degree in Divinity. The book's ISBN numbr is 978-0-6151-5801-3 . Category: Religion & Spirituality Author: Emissary Copyright Year: © 2004 Language: English Country: United States". There is no advetisement.

1750:. Many arguments to keep for a sense of community were given less weight as depreciated. Please note that it does not says "The consensus is..." it says "The result of the debate is..." and admins are expected to use weights of arguments when making these decisions. Finally, please note that 3 of those who expressed an opinion of keep, including the bringer of this DRV, did so for the stated purpose of social networking, which is clearly 1291:

to buy the book. I didn't even mention how I bought it. I had put a brief summary, a few facts the aurthor mentioned in a news paper article and her website, and the cataglory. I had just added the publisher's name, the ISBN number, how long the book is, and a few other encyclopedic facts when it was deleted. I was still trying to figure out how to propery add the Sailsbury Post Newspaper as a source. That's where I first heard about it. --

1683:- this constant tug-of-war over "identity" user categories is getting silly. Dragging individual (or even small groups of) categories through deletion discussions, DRV, back to deletion discussions, back to DRV is not in the best interests of the community. If one does not already exist (I am not aware of any) there needs to be a broader discussion on the topic of whether or not "identity" based user categories belong on Knowledge (XXG). 1900:: Two votes for deletion, one by the nominator, the other simply "per nom" with no argument at all. Five for keep (and would have been more if people had known it was up for deletion!), all with good explanations. All past precedents point to keep, including the previous deletion review. How is community consensus anything other than keep? Overturn as improperly closed, with consensus not reflected in the decision. 3039:. But it doesn't surprise me one bit that yet another perfectly notable article is up for deletion. SYN is hosted at RMIT, they have a very nice studio located at the RMIT University city campus and are no doubt the largest of the RMIT Student Union Media Colletives. They are a full-time licensed community radio station in Melbourne. I'm not sure what an organisation has to do to *be* notable these days. 955:

originated. Those entries are not two seperate "fields of study," because they aren't fields of study at all, but simply entry headings. Again, several editors have explained why the salvageable entry contents from the origins entry should go into an improved development entry, and again you have refused to listen. I will now refuse to continue this circular conversation with you.

3308:, images without source information go, period. This is necessary for protection from legal liability along with other concerns. Of course, no objection to a reupload if someone finds that this image is unquestionably in the public domain and can demonstrate that, but that's why a source is required—without that, it can't be checked out. 3514:". The image was definitely not in that record, it is an image of a page in the record. Husnock did not claim that he made the image, nor that NARA made it. So we have no reason to believe that this is in the public domain. It might be, it might not be, but without sourcing, we can't claim that it is. 3527:

as a blatant copyvio. To my knowledge, German government documents are not public domain. US government documents are, but only because of a statutory provision which is specific to US government documents. Even if this image is a US government copy of an original German government document, there

3265:

as a blatant copyvio. This was a photograph of a 1960's war medal. The source was not specified, only that it was found on the Internet. Even if the medal itself is in the public domain, somebody photographed it, and their photograph is protected by copyright. I should add that I was not the only

2977:

What was deleted was done so properly. What now exists ought to be sent to afd to see what say we there. As for a deletion at afd with little to no participation other than the nomiator, all I can say is there were hundreds of people commenting on that page and not a one stopped by for a saving word

2092:

Why do you think we should just have one or the other? They mean different things. That does not imply that one has value and one does not - it means they are useful for different purposes. An example: The "Furry Wikipedian" category can be used to find potential members for WP:FURRY. Conversely, I'd

2034:

The closer also has to make a decision that reflects the community. If you wish to base it on the arguments, there were intelligent arguments to keep it, and none to delete it. Even the original nominator didn't make a valid argument to delete it, just "This is another notice of self-identification

1771:

be used for). They are popular because they give us a sense of belonging and identity separate from a hundred thousand other Knowledge (XXG) editors. Does that in itself improve the encyclopedia? No. But being a part of the "furry Wikipedians" (in this case - replace with LGBT Wikipedians, etc.) does

2769:

should not apply. I can't imagine that we would do all that badly to undelete and relist at AfD in order that a fuller discussion might be had—if indeed no sources toward notability are adduced and verifiability issues are not resolved, the page could be safely salted—but I suppose Rebecca ought to

1512:

I do not believe the closing reflects the consensus of those contributing to the discussion. "Many arguments to keep for a sense of community are given less weight as depreciated" boils down to "because a lot of people said the same thing, that's worth less than a few people saying several different

1290:

My reason for undelete: The artlce took no sides, and didn't promote the book in any way, even though I thought it was interesting and funny. All of the other books I like already have a page, so I thought this would be a good subject for my first article. The page had no links or information on how

1031:

So the article had citations from a variety of sources each was quoted in isolation from the others. Why people are saying its a synthesis because the sources are from fields not normally associated with religion like archaeology and genetics. Religion is normally associated with the social sciences

779:

One of the reasons I am persisting with this argument is that, with the exception of PelleSmith, no editor has attempted to give any details. Each time I request for evidence of what is wrong all I get is one liners "Its OR, a synthesis, a POVFORK". Knowledge (XXG) has guidelines on what constitutes

686:

I severely doubt the usefulness of preserving the history. It's such a mess of original research and misused sources, I'm very skeptical of its value as a draft. Pulling the small handful of useful and reliably sourced facts from the article is like mining diamonds in a dung heap. It would be better

425:

arise... It is not a requirement that you personally edited the other article to create a POV fork. Someone can create a POV fork of an article without touching the other article, simply by creating a new article on the same subject laced with their POV. As consensus was that you have done here. --

4172:

There's no prejudice to re-creation. If you want a user copy of the page to clean-up and repost, just leave me a message. Do make a serious effort to clean it up if you're going to do this; don't just do an end-run around this review. Not that I'm implying anything, I just though I would mention

3576:

SS records are kept in College Park on microfilm by the U.S. National Archives. When a researcher goes there, they pay 50 cents a copy for the photocopy of the microfilm. The copies of the record then becomes the property of the researcher. There are no rules about what they can do with them and

2764:

Although Rebecca appears to have been incorrect about the AfD's not being properly listed, I don't know that one can say that she's really "dropped the ball" here; I'm not sure that an AfD discussion of which only two editors partake can be said to have produced a consensus, such that the AfD ought

2714:

then proceeded to undelete it with the comment "Invalidly deleted. The AfD had no votes at all. It pretty evidently never appeared on the AfD page." A simple "What links Here" check of the AFD shows that this is not true, the page was listed quite properly on June 25. So, instead of wheel warring

2116:

I figured GreenReaper gave a good answer, however I will answer too if you wish. Joining a wikiproject, whether this is true or not, is seen as indicating you plan on giving continual, active support, rather than just the occasional thing or two. A category of people knowledgable about a subject,

2024:

So how would you determine consensus? Count votes? The closer needs to be able to make decisions based on strength of argument, otherwise they would be handcuffed into accepting any BS reason people could come up with. An intelligent, well-thought out argument should trump "I like it" any day of

1927:

You missed the part that said wikipedia is built on community consensus? While not a vote, consensus (based on what the most people, with actual arguments, had to say, as well as the end result of the previous processes) clearly was for keeping the article. The only version of consensus where the

989:

Yes Dbachmann made an attempt to add some information and I was glad he did, however some of the information he added was not factual. I explained that on the talk page, unfortunately the history of the talk page has not been retrieved but I mentioned the problems. There is a misunderstanding about

964:

They are not misrepresentations and nobody has explained why. The topic development of religion deals with religion as a social construction and deals with the modern or world religions. The origin of religion deals with its origins of human religious behavior. The suggestion of merging the article

544:

I think allegations of OR are due to lack of understanding of the material. So far having read at least five books on the subject there is considerable consistency on the topic. Instead of trying to improve the article, editors have opted to delete relevant information. If anyone takes time to read

179:

22:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC) This article is well sourced and a number of notable scholars have researched this area. The reason stated for deletion is that it is an inappropriate content fork. However the consensus in discussion is that both articles, development of religion and origin of religion

3839:

4. This article is an intro on the most recent methodology and production of interactive and immersive film. We are still working on the improvement to make it much easier to the more general public. So, please restore it and allow us longer time to make an entry useful for people who need to know

3827:

2. "General Comprehension" if a very questionable term as for Knowledge (XXG) as envisioned. Simply answer my question: to what educational level is the Knowledge (XXG) for? As we know a lot of people in my circle visit this post to see the progress. They are researchers, professors, people in the

2069:

If you wish to quote deletion arguments not to make, "this is unencyclopedic", as claimed by the nominator, is not a valid argument, nor is "per nom", nor is an example of violating wp:point. And, last I checked, there was no policy against using categories to benefit collaboration. And, even if

1990:

I generally don't get involved in these user category debates, but I have to wonder, do the people who have been nominating all these categories for deletion see a point in having user categories at all? I'm having trouble seeing just which user categories they ultimately want to keep. Presumably,

1333:

It shouldn't matter where it was published. It also doesn't matter at this point about the AFD process, this is about it being speedy deleted. The page was a neutral and verifiable encyclopedia article. It said "'A Faraway Ancient Country' is a book about a woman's journey into the land of mystics

979:

and now deleted version). You kept on reverting his edits to include problematic conjectures, immaterial information, and so on. I don't think anyone wants to touch this information anymore until this DRV is finished and there is some promise of not having productive edits constantly reverted by

924:

and other established articles. This is why I have doubts that many of the people passing judgment on the article have either not reviewed the information or just do not have the technical understanding of some of the subject matter. This is because these are well established hypothesis within the

774:

The sources cited above all use the term "origin of religion". None use the term Development of religion. How then can origin of religion be a content fork of development of religion, when the sources cited use the term "origin of religion". Development of religion clearly deals with religion as a

605:

One most of the editors calling for deletion just issued one-liners. How can we ascertain that they even read the articles. I would play greater attention to those who gave more comments, especially about the sources because this proves that the read and understood the topic. Many editors just say

315:

POV forks usually arise when two or more contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page, and instead of resolving that disagreement, someone creates another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) to be developed according to their personal views rather

4215:

Exactly Benji. That's why I said it should have been tagged with verify and cleanup, not deleted or even put up for AfD. However, since the AfD was placed, the AfD should have been closed as No Consensus based on the arguments presented. I know we don't "vote" on here but I never have been one to

1517:

a lot of arguments given for deletion in the nomination other than (previously hotly-contested) precedent of "identification categories don't support collaboration, and that's the only good reason to have a user category." This was given even though a WikiProject was founded by going through this

1286:

The article was Speedy Deleted for Blantant Advertising, here is the Knowledge (XXG) definition: "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject

1078:

indeed. this is just about Muntuwandi being argumentative now. He could fairly ask to have his material restored to hist user-namespace, but apparently this isn't necessary and he kept a private copy. The effort he invests in this debate would be much more fuitfully applied to debating the actual

944:

So you are actually admitting that the article has merit but editors are put off by myself. The stuff is really basic and anyone can understand it if they take the effort. The problem is no one is interested. I have requested some basic questions like whether development of religion and origin of

877:

Well this is more of a content dispute than a procedural dispute. I still finding it hard that well researched sholarly material from peer reviewed journals is not being given a chance on wikipedia. I have asked for a technical review, unfortunately nobody is willing to review the material from a

2126:

I thought I was answering the question as best I could, considering it had an assumption in it that I disagreed with! :-) You suggested that we must be supporting the identity category because we felt it was better than a category of Wikipedians who were members of a WikiProject. I believe it is

2014:

Aside from issues relating to this specific category, allowing this deletion sets a very, very dangerous precedent. "As the admin, I can chose to ignore all arguments I personally disagree with" is equivalent to doing away with any semblance of building or following community consensus - simply

1879:

silly user categories. Nobody denies that, and few people care about their deletion. But that then leads people to say "if one user category is bad, they're all bad", but as there's no actual problem they end up justifying that with silly arguments like "could be divisive". What ever happened to

1654:

would almost certainly be divisive and inflammatory, such that any prospective collaborative benefit (which would not, necessarily, be all that great; one's disliking Jews does not mean, of course, mean that he/she is well-versed in encyclopedic topics about anti-semitism or specially capable of

3835:

3. Don't take offense that it is true that you editors are not almighty to understand everything. You are only experts in your field. When it is not comprehensive to YOU, think twice before categorize it to be "Generally Incomprehensible" to others. Otherwise, Knowledge (XXG), not YOU, would be

954:

Lets be clear, no one thinks your synthesis of misrepresentations and factual odds and ends has any merit. Many different editors have explained why. Some people believe that the archaeological evidence of prehistoric religion has merit, and that it has merit in terms of how religion may have

439:

But how do you explain that the information contained in the origin of religion article was and is not found in the development of religion article. The development of religion makes no reference to any archaeological findings whatsoever. How then can it be a POV fork if the material covered is

2264:

I think, as do many of the people above , that identity categories do help, and that it is a minority group only who think otherwise--it is useful in a general as well as a specific way to see the different people interested in things; I have frequently used such categories for orientation in

4314:

Disagree. Bad faith assumption that an editor wouldn't be able to rework an essay, even though I don't think it was one, into an article, the links were formatted into refs and additional content was also added including edits to the text so it was already in process of being "de-essayified".

1561:

I don't really see consensus to delete in the debate, either numerically or by weight of argument. In addition, I could see this having reasonable encyclopedic usefulness: when faced with editing issues on a "furry" article, one could use this to find a user with some knowledge of the genre.

1109:

article if that is the appropriate article for the content. Unfortunately no editor has answered the question, If development of religion and origin of religion are the same topic, then why did the authors of the studies cited use the term "origin of religion" and not the term "Development of

792:

and I would like to know how people have used these guidelines to come up with their conclusions. A simple one-liner is unsatisfactory. It could be that people have little understanding of the content, and hence decide to go the safe route and opt for deletion. I would appreciate the unbiased

4232:

Well I certainly agree, I've seen the AfD process continually abused and speaking for myself feel it's extremely stressful to rush job improving an article to satisfy an audience that seems determined to eliminate information; all rather counter-intuitive to finding information on wikipedia.

934:

Your diff is entirely out of context. My critique was about your selective and sometimes simply erroneous use of sources in the main entry. Now your argument is that you are the only person who understands any of this material? Give us all a break. Pretty much every editor, no matter how

2097:

interested in editing furry articles, rather than just expressing identity. I think people often make the mistake of trying to convert one to the other because they imagine that either they mean the same thing, or that only one kind is useful, when they both have distinct purposes and uses.

4197:

With all due respect I thought I had more time to do work on improving the article and indeed had started the process as soon as I was aware of the AfD. My goal was to save it from deletion and proving it was a notable subject with sources available was the first step. My understanding per

256:

an opinion -- it's the opinion of someone who is quite capable of understanding what he reads. I'm not interested in re-writing the article just to satisfy your curiosity about what I think of the topic. That would be energy that is better spent elsewhere, like much of this discussion.

1032:

like sociology, psychology and religious studies. Hence most people are hostile to this new and different approach. However this is the latest information available. king's book is 2007, Wade's is 2006, Rossano is 2006 and Wentzel van Huyssteen 2006. This really is at the cutting edge.

3683:. The debate above is irrelevant. The source has not been established; without it, there's no way to establish the legitimacy of the document or its copyright status. If someone can upload a new one with a clear source and make clear that it's genuinely in the public domain, fine. 4414:. Article could have been improved therefore should have never been nommed for AfD, a quick google search would have easily verified that. AfD discussion spelled out that plenty of refs had been found to assert notability of subject and work had already begun to address concerns. 193:. The article did have numerous sources, but many were distinctly unreliable references. Additionally, many of the reliable sources were used out of context, as they did not even comment on the subject at hand. In general, the article contained cherry-picked sources presenting an 585: 2910:

I don't see an explanation why this has been closed early with essentially no participation. The reason why we run debates 5 days at a minimum is to give the community a chance to locate sources or establish with some degree of certainty that no sources exist. ~

1858:

Well, on the other hand, I happen to know a couple of people in those categories that are worthy of Featured Article status themselves if they had an article on WP, some very noteworthy activists.. the point was, if you delete one, you gotta delete them all. --

3950:, not only blatant spam, but also a G12 candidate (the previous article contained an all-rights-reserved copyright notice, for those unable to view it). Material not intended to be released under the GFDL is inappropriate, regardless of any other consideration. 2715:

with Rebecca, I'm bringing this here (as, IMHO, Rebecca should have done if she considered the AFD closure improper instead of wheel warring herself). Is the existing AFD valid or not? Does the AFD stand, or should it be overturned? In case it is not clear, I

2925:. I've added a handful of grants they've received with refs. To be fair this might be a bit of a cultural misunderstanding as student radio in the US is remarkably different than what this article refers. They also do TV and a publication as well as website. 2889:

And it's pretty clear that you did not even bother to read my DRV comments above, where I say that a simple "What Links Here" check of the AFD page shows that what seems obvious to you is actually flat out incorrect. The AFD was properly listed on the

4142:

A messy article is not a reason to delete. It is notable, and over the course of the AfD, sources and references were added and the article cleaned up, which obviously can't be seen now as it's been deleted and Google's cache has the old version. See

2765:

perhaps in the first place to have been relisted to generate more input from the community, and consistent with that analysis, one might reasonably conclude that the article was not deleted consistent with a proper deletion discussion and thus that

4456:

as, in fact, will be shown whenever and however we can get the article back on track from deletion. The fact that we had added a dozen references to the article should be plenty indication that the article subject is encyclopedic despite perceived

750:. There was no attempt to merge any of the information. The issue is far from being resolved. The deletion was premature because there was still a lot of information on the talk page that was deleted. I suggest undeletion and going to mediation. 549:

rushed to delete the article. Admins are busy editing a lot of articles so often they don't get a good understanding of the subject. For example jreferee is questioning whether some other articles that I edit frequently should be deleted as well

1953:

Yes, then you should also count some people's excellent replies to some of those responses, which also did not use bolded terms. Unless you decide to simply ignore everyone who disagrees with you, the community would appear to want it kept.

4427:

Creating an essay with a lot of perhaps valid references (and I didn't see the point in checking the references since the article itself is unredeemable) is not what Knowledge (XXG) is all about. Now go read those refrerences and produce an

251:

If you're suggesting that I'm not capable of assessing the article and making the decision that I did, let me disabuse you of that notion. I read it, I analyzed it, I considered it in the above-noted context, and that is my opinion. It

4281:

If the article simply needed editing as it was and AfD should not have even been started then why shouldn't the article simply be reinstated? Why should the article start from scratch without it's history and work done up to this point?

2423: 479:

My own reading of the discussion was that there was a consensus that the article was a POV fork, but an unresolved dispute as to how that POV fork should be addressed. Some editors thought that there was no redeemable content in the

3772: 3767: 1824:

have nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, the people in these cats are not notable, this is not a social networking site, no one cares what you are just how you edit, and whatever else they spewed out to delete all kinds of

3776: 3577:

researchers can use them in books, articles, research papers, anything. The German government isnt even involved and there should be no restrictions about having such images here. This is why I think it should be undeleted. -

3801: 3759: 3883:

technically, any contested prod should be undeleted by policy, but this particular article is so hopelessly spammy that it wouldn't last 5 minutes before being deleted again. Appearantly the author didn't bother to look at

4793:, but per policy this young former popstar, whose article was speedy deleted having existed in its factually correct form for eighteen months, warrants an article. I just wanted to bring it here before doing anything rash. 974:

For the record Dbachmann, and others started making edits to Origin of Religion in order to improve it for a merge (in fact I made an edit or two but stopped when it was clear you were going to keep on reverting to your

660:. the difference between "delete" and "redirect" is the loss of edit history (for purposes of attribution required by GFDL). If the outcome of the AfD debate was "content fork", the appropriate course would have been 4216:

call a rose by any other name and the No Consensus was plain. It makes me wonder if anyone that puts an article up for AfD actually does some research on the subject of an article before putting it up for AfD. --

1928:

article was deleted is when one admin decides he/she does not like one side, and simply ignores it. At least this time it was a mis-closure, rather than a simple random deletion like the last three times or so...

1969:

of them have the potential to be divisive" makes as little sense as "all articles are bad because some of them have the potential to be divisive". As a practical matter, the category concerned was used to found a

891:

I throughly critiqued the entire entry, and many other editors also commented on content. You have however refused to take any comments into account and simply keep on doing whatever it takes to try to make your

1518:

category. I believe this is an example of trying to make Knowledge (XXG) "tidy" and eliminating useful community-building features in the process. (Note that some arguments pertaining to this deletion are in the

509:

entry, but actually not enough of a consensus regarding what exactly to do in this regard. I also strongly believe that if this entry is temporarily undeleted a certain editor whose attitude seems to be one of

4796:

Please note that the final, cleanest version of the page is the "Revision as of 23:39, September 24, 2007", and any further restorations would warrant immediate reversion back to this revision of the article.

3926:

as a result of the creator's desire to push his own agenda on Knowledge (XXG). In earnest, I would suggest that you advertise your project on somewhere other than in Knowledge (XXG), much less the mainspace.--

2710:. Recreated (and G4 deleted) several times since then, and the notability and verifiability/reference issues from the AFD have never been dealt with. I finally reached the point of salting it yesterday. 4384:

I'm sorry, what was in the article that made it an encyclopedia article? The version that I see in the cache above, is not an article. That's why the deletion endorsement and the suggestion to rewrite.

1491: 1813: 1503: 201:. Additionally, the consensus in the AfD was clear about the article and its content, and Muntuwandi has not attempted to discuss the closure with the closing admin. This seems to be an invalid DRV, per 2380: 2375: 2015:

ignore everyone who disagrees with you! Regardless of opinions on whether this category should exist, the process by which the discussion was closed can not be allowed to malfunction in this manner.

324:

there I had never any attempt to edit that article. I had seen it, but the content is totally different from the sources that I have been reading on the origin of religion. As I mentioned before, the

3027:. In such cases normal wikipedians relist for more opinions, and the closing admin must be instructed of better practices. And the current shape of the article shows that it will easily survive AfD. 2384: 965:

was without merit and was simply an attempt to make the issue disappear. As you can see nobody has attempted to merge any of the information, which suggests there was never any intention to do so.

4144: 4133: 3253:

Husnock is notoriously unreliable in his claims for image sourcing. He never provided a specific source, merely "from internet". No reason to believe that this is indeed in the public domain.

2409: 2367: 2539: 2201:

was formed and expanded by contacting members of this category, and the project has continued to use the category to attract new members, as described in UCfD3 by one editor who was so found.

2605:– Early on, there was no consensus, but the direction of the debate was clearly toward overturning the deletion as the article improved. Can be relisted at AfD at editorial discretion. – 2139:

be more useful than the other, but I don't see how it matters, since the presence of one doesn't imply the other is redundant. Instead, why not have both, and gain the utility from both?

2127:

possible for there to be more than one useful grouping of users, and I gave an example of why I thought that was. Saying one particular category satisfies the needs better is like saying

1485: 1547:

Can people please stop lumping it in with "LGBT", "Sexuality and Gender", etc stuff? Maybe we should use precedents relevant to, dunno, video game consoles. Just about as irrelevant.

3024: 2707: 2697: 3621:

What would we need to verify this? A letter from College Park saying its so? An e-mail from a NARA employee? I can probably get either (But after m Wiki-Break I just started! HA!)

1126:

I have been searching the internet for topics related to "development of religion" and the topics that come up are inconsistent with the content from which the sources I have cited.

3815: 351: 166: 3180: 3175: 1942:- Note that since it is not a vote, I can consider the arguments of users who chose not to include bolded words in their comments, such as the analogy provided by WaltCip. -- 2891: 3184: 2044:

Please note that an argument of "keep this even though it is unencyclopedic" is not well reasoned. Also, when determining the strength of arguments, please remember that

527:

If someone wants to take on the job, the article could be userfied so they could try to find any relevant information to merge. However, it really seemed to be a mess of

945:

religion are truly the same field of study. Unfortunately nobody has tried to respond to this important inquiry. This is why the debate is being unnecessarily prolonged.

4359:

Damn ridiculous when people put so much work into an article to bring it up to standard and it gets wiped out with nothing more than "feel free to re-create it". Total

3278:; and that I have left dozens of appropriate images uploaded by Husnock intact and even corrected faulty license tags so those images would not be deleted by others. -- 2878:'s the diff from when it was added to the AFD page. Maybe it should be revisited anyway, but TexasAndroid is correct in that procedure was followed in those respects. - 3209: 3171: 1817: 1747: 505:

Is it possible to temporarily undelete the entry for this purpose? I do believe there was ample time to merge the negligible amount of relevant information into the

48: 34: 3996:

another good reason that expired prods should not automatically be restored when belatedly contested. I read it twice and still don't know what this film is about.

1991:

the "Wikipedians interested in X" and "Members of WikiProject X" categories are safe, but what else? The way things are going, there won't be anything else left. --

4090: 4085: 2953:- There's been enough time and edits to make the original point moot. We can just relist the article, let it run the full time and get a final decision made. -- 4094: 1231: 1226: 2740:

knows something we don't or she really dropped the ball on this one. No notability (basically a student radio station) and not a reliable source to be found.

588:. I therefore do not understand the hostility towards information that is cited from peer reviewed articles. This is the kind of information wikipedia desires. 455:

These are not average Joes, they are very notable people in their respective fields. by deleting the article a wealth of scholarly information is being lost.

43: 74:– Deletion endorsed. A lot of discussion about the merits, but there was clear consensus that there was nothing improper about the AfD or about its close. – 4147:

for the numerous media sources found and that were being added when the AfD was live. It should not have been deleted. Instead, it should have been tagged {{

3511: 2432:

I maintain that the organization satisfies WP:ORG and that relevant updates to the article during the deletion discussion were not taken into consideration.

1235: 1497: 762:. If people say the article was a mess, there is nothing wrong with cleaning it up rather than deleting information from peer reviewed scientific journals. 4119: 4077: 3223: 1471: 4253:

The closing admin specifically pointed out that there was no prejudice against re-creation in a better form. Sounds like there's no reason not to do it.

1519: 3651:

Well, it is definitely true that 'certain German governmental documents are not protected by copyright'. Not sure if this is one of them though. See the

3424: 3419: 1763:

I wish people wouldn't keep waving WP:NOT around like it's a magic wand. Knowledge (XXG) is not a site dedicated to social networking, but its community

1260: 1218: 3624:

Neither. A citation to a law providing that German governmental documents (or at least certain ones) are not protected by copyright is what we need. --

1717:

No, that's now how we do things (and Arbcom does not concern itself with content, even userspace content). It needs to be debated on the policy level.

4789:

I only recently realized that this had been deleted - it wasn't even on my list of monitored articles until I accidentally typoed from the more famous

2965:. Additional sources have been provided, and the initial debate was not particularly robust. That said, Rebecca could have handled this a lot better. - 3428: 2654: 2649: 1274: 1127: 3540:; and that I have left dozens of appropriate images intact and even corrected faulty license tags so those images would not be deleted by others. -- 3533: 3271: 2658: 3763: 242:

I would be happy if you could provide evidence, just saying that it is a syn without evidence could just be an opinion or a lack of understanding.

4813:

lazy A7 deletion... claims of importance included charting album in 2 countries and "signed a major deal with Sony music aged 18". Probably meets

3639: 3609: 3594:

The facts that researchers can obtain a copy and that you are unaware of any restrictions do not suggest that the image is free from copyright. --

3555: 3467: 3453: 3415: 3293: 2785:

per DRV rationale. This is not a valid Knowledge (XXG) article, and the user's attempts at recreating the article could be viewed as adverse to

545:

the aforementioned titles you will find all the same material that is in the article. There was nothing that was created from thin air. I think

2683: 2641: 1965:

See above point about over-broad generalizations that are used to justify deletion. Saying "all identity-based user categories are bad because

123: 118: 3755: 3719: 823:); the history is still available for the purposes of this AFD. Tags are not license to circumvent an AFD decision before the DRV closes, and 127: 3476:

Government public domain copy of an SS service record document was deleted in a massive purge, by a single admin, of all images uploaded by

1699:

I'm with you on this, Arkyan. The arguments on each side are always the same, so each decision is determined essentially by who shows up.

557:. This indicates that jreferee may not have the technical understanding to make an informed decision regarding the deletion of this article. 1849:

The people in those cats are indeed not notable, this is not a social networking site, and no, we don't care what you are. Well said. --

39: 935:

sympathetic they were initially to the idea of this entry, has been soured on your tireless crusade. When will you ever give it a rest?

152: 110: 2371: 2093:

feel feel more comfortable contacting "Members of WikiProject Furry" with updates on WP:FURRY-specific matters, since I know they are

3233: 2002: 1064:

This should probably be speedily closed as this isn't a DRV, it's an extension of the existing dispute. This isn't RFC or AFD II. --

392: 379: 328:

deals with specific religions. Whereas the authors cited make no reference to any specific relgion. The major sources cited include:

4780: 3836:

laughed at and no real informative entries will be posted sooner or later because some small group people don't understand them.

4638: 4499: 2363: 2327: 343: 1305:

book appears to be either vanity-published (it's on lulu.com) or similarly extremely obscure. Would certainly not pass an AfD.

21: 4081: 2564: 2477: 921: 906: 554: 515: 421:

No one bought this argument in the AfD. I doubt they will here, either. Note the very first sentence of the essay: POV forks

365: 339: 2198: 2107:

I understand that that's your perspective, but you're skirting the question. (Also wondering if Bushytails will respond.) -

3938:, all of those copyright claims make this inappropriate for Knowledge (XXG), regardless of the spamminess of the wording. 3567:

I think I read somewhere that pre-WWII German gov documents are now in the public domain. This should be verified, though.

4540: 4452:

please, I accept that the article needed work and work was indeed being done on it. Strongly disagree that the article is

1776:

leads to improvements - at least, if I don't spend all my time arguing about the value of a community-building mechanism.

3005:

Yeah, but lack of participation is certainly no reason to cut a discussion short prematurely, as you should well know. ~

878:

technical perspective. All I get is one-liners. This is unsatisfactory from an encyclopedia that is all about academics.

4295:

Put it this way: if you're working from what was there, the article you're creating will also be an essay. You would be

1651: 1604: 1110:

religion". This is an important question simply about the titles. Dbachmann himself mentioned that it was a valid topic

1080: 4847: 4703: 4663: 4566:- While I'm not going to second-guess the closing and deletion, per my own policy, I am glad the article was userfied. 4056: 4011: 3738: 3698: 3394: 3350: 3150: 3110: 2843:, regardless of how many participated in the original AfD, I see no reason to believe that their arguments were wrong. 2620: 2580: 2346: 2306: 1420: 1375: 1197: 1157: 879: 89: 17: 4737: 4732: 4578:- It's an encyclopedic topic that had a messy article. There wasn't at all a clear consensus to delete in this AfD. -- 4350:

Please explain why references, and other content besides the problematic essay-like portions should not be available.

4206:. I'm also unsure how long AfD's go for although many seem rather endless so maybe I'm just missing that information. 3528:

is still the underlying German government copyright. I should add that I was not the only admin deleting problematic

3236:

as a common image ineligable for copyright. Deleted in a massive purge, by a single admin, of all images uploaded by

581: 2770:

have elected to bring the issue to DRV instead of to summarily overturn a months-old, previously uncontested close.

1726:

Agreed. We need to establish a consensus policy on these categories, or this will just go round 'n round forever. --

1446: 1354:

How many times do I have to prove to you it wasn't. Please quite stalking me because it is becoming discontending. --

375: 3537: 3275: 3167: 3131: 1222: 4741: 4620: 4073: 4032: 2645: 180:

cover different time periods. The deletion of massive amounts of sourced material is at this stage is unwarranted.

3824:

1. Deletion happened 20 minutes prior to the proposed Oct 15, 2007 20:15 while the improving was still going on;

2435:

RAHB is further notable in the following respects (facts which I would propose be added to the restored article):

2060:

arguments, the deletion will be stand. If users don't like policies, they need to change them, not ignore them. --

2056:

violation presented by a single user even in a case where consensus (by vote counting) is against deletion due to

1656: 1437: 1396: 372:. I figure since this is one of the most reecognized newspapers in the world, he qualifies as a reliable source. 4766: 4724: 4689: 3983: 3872: 2966: 2879: 2444: 1767:

a social network, and user pages and categories are used to assist in its maintenance (regardless of what they

1454: 1214: 1178: 3510:

Husnock, who is not a reliable source, claimed "Released from S.S. Personnel Service Record, on file with the

2188:- What is the so-called "community building" power that this category has in order to justify its existence?-- 925:

scientific community. So what is happening here is strength of numbers is prevailing over quality of argument.

221:

immediately above has captured my thoughts on the article with respect to "cherry-picked sources presenting an

2210:

Yes, though see also my comments in that entry and the one just below it about LGBT for additional reasons.

1106: 816: 573: 569: 565: 561: 506: 485: 388:(1996) The Prehistory of the Mind: The Cognitive Origins of Art, Religion and Science. Thames & Hudson. 361:- Before The Dawn, Discovering the lost history of our ancestors. Penguin Books, London, 2006. p. 8 p. 165" 325: 321: 114: 3411: 3371: 2128: 1116:. Dbachmann has not objectively changed his mind, he has just changed his mind because he finds me annoying 518:

interfering with the productive attempt to utilize this information--however one accomplishes such a thing.

335:"King, Barbara (2007). Evolving God: A Provocative View on the Origins of Religion. Doubleday Publishing." 4834: 4825: 4804: 4692: 4652: 4627: 4611: 4582: 4570: 4558: 4546: 4506: 4484: 4465: 4436: 4422: 4398: 4389: 4379: 4354: 4343: 4319: 4305: 4286: 4272: 4237: 4227: 4210: 4192: 4177: 4166: 4045: 4000: 3988: 3956: 3942: 3930: 3911: 3875: 3862: 3844: 3727: 3687: 3663: 3646: 3616: 3581: 3571: 3562: 3518: 3502: 3484: 3383: 3339: 3314: 3300: 3257: 3244: 3139: 3099: 3074: 3062: 3043: 3031: 3009: 3000: 2991: 2982: 2969: 2957: 2943: 2929: 2915: 2898: 2882: 2861: 2849: 2831: 2827:

looking at the AFD, it seems like no one participated in it, should have been relisted for more comments.

2815: 2799: 2774: 2759: 2723: 2609: 2569: 2531: 2519: 2503: 2482: 2335: 2295: 2276: 2252: 2243: 2214: 2205: 2192: 2179: 2143: 2121: 2111: 2102: 2087: 2074: 2064: 2039: 2029: 2019: 2006: 1978: 1958: 1946: 1932: 1922: 1904: 1884: 1870: 1853: 1840: 1798: 1789: 1780: 1758: 1730: 1721: 1712: 1703: 1694: 1663: 1641: 1628: 1611: 1594: 1581: 1551: 1542: 1536: 1526: 1409: 1358: 1349: 1324: 1295: 1186: 1142: 1092: 1073: 1036: 984: 969: 959: 949: 939: 929: 900: 886: 866: 842: 797: 766: 754: 742: 709: 691: 681: 642: 610: 539: 522: 496: 472: 459: 444: 430: 416: 274: 261: 246: 233: 209: 184: 78: 2083:

a "furry", is more useful in community-building or in collaboration than a WikiProject Furry category? -

2079:

I'm sincerely interested in your opinion: Why do you feel that a category which states that a Wikipedian

4647: 4374: 4222: 4161: 3660: 3057: 2637: 2601: 2528: 1998: 1917: 1865: 1835: 819:. I've also changed the tag and blanked the recreated article (it should have been speedily deleted per 400: 258: 230: 4831: 4822: 3480:. Image was not a copyright violation, deletion reason was never discussed, and should be overturned - 3379:. The consensus below is that there is no reliable sourcing that the image is in the public domain. – 3240:. Image was not a copyright violation, deletion reason was never discussed, and should be overturned - 4517:

have been spent working on the article. I don't expect an apology or any recognition of that, but it

1689: 4513:

Still seems like it was a hasty or badly done deletion. A day wasted arguing over re-instating that

4173:

it for completeness sake. I trust users will be responsible with the deleted versions I give you. --

3006: 2988: 2912: 2500: 1120: 577: 2057: 789: 308: 4335:, the previous version was a POV essay, not an encyclopedia article. If you want to rewrite it to 4040: 3997: 3971: 3633: 3603: 3549: 3287: 2997: 2979: 2828: 2560: 2527:. I endorse the continued deletion; there is little or no notability added by the "firsts" IMHO. 2516: 2473: 2061: 1943: 1755: 1655:

finding sources for encyclopedic content) would be outweighed by the category's disruptive effect,

1404: 1088: 1068: 861: 837: 705: 677: 2045: 1355: 1292: 4554:- clearly no consensus whatsoever to delete. Admin substituted his judgment for the community's. 4481: 4462: 4433: 4419: 4395: 4386: 4351: 4340: 4316: 4283: 4234: 4207: 3951: 3939: 3309: 2940: 2926: 2844: 2543: 2538:

With respect to WP:RS, RAHB is a source that is cited/quoted in articles by third-party sources (

2167:. Self-identity categories do nothing to help the encyclopedia, and the deletion supported that. 2132: 1347: 1135: 1131: 580:. These articles cited are peer reviewed scholarly articles. For example google scholar turns up 489: 481: 106: 70: 4814: 4449: 3858:. (Or, if you're into wikilawyering, autorestore as a contested prod and immediately speedy.) — 2049: 1971: 976: 893: 298:

and misuse of the sources. There is nothing here to dispute the procedural close of the AfD. --

3888:

other wikipedia movie articles first. It also isn't on the IMDB (there is a 2007 short called

2176: 4801: 4536: 3859: 3627: 3597: 3543: 3281: 2895: 2720: 833:

is not appropriate here given the nature of the problem. This should probably be clarified. --

389: 362: 336: 4432:. Or else find a place where your own personal opinions and original research are welcome. 1659:

is unlikely to divide or inflame users or otherwise to distract from the project's mission.

226: 198: 4642: 4591: 4369: 4368:

PLEASE userfy the info to my userspace so we can finish the work on it and recreate it. --

4217: 4156: 4152: 3841: 3724: 3684: 3071: 3052: 2606: 2291: 2211: 2140: 2099: 1992: 1975: 1912: 1881: 1860: 1830: 1795: 1777: 1718: 1700: 1625: 1523: 1183: 75: 4818: 4199: 3962: 3923: 3918: 3855: 3851: 3491: 2790: 2786: 2766: 2053: 1751: 820: 785: 781: 635: 528: 511: 404: 295: 267: 222: 202: 194: 4595: 4394:

That's the point, the version that's in the cache had been expanded greatly and improved.

4148: 3568: 3380: 3323: 3136: 3083: 3028: 2978:

on this article speaks loudly especially as AFD is not a vote - so no quorum is required.

2332: 2249: 2227: 2118: 2071: 2036: 2016: 1955: 1929: 1901: 1548: 1139: 1033: 981: 966: 956: 946: 936: 926: 897: 883: 827: 794: 763: 751: 726: 607: 519: 456: 441: 413: 271: 243: 181: 176: 4773: 4458: 4126: 3808: 3460: 3322:

we are not a free image hosting service, especially when the copyright is questionable.

3216: 2690: 2512: 2416: 1607:, who could aid reasonably well in collaboration with articles regarding anti-Semitism.-- 1478: 1267: 532: 159: 4529:), it won't be deleted outright, causing delays in improving it to higher standards. -- 3532:

images; that the situation was discussed extensively at several places first (including

3270:

images; that the situation was discussed extensively at several places first (including

4624: 4254: 4204:

if an article can be improved through regular editing it's not a good candidate for AfD

4037: 3893: 3578: 3481: 3241: 2741: 2555: 2551: 2468: 1563: 1401: 1306: 1084: 1065: 858: 834: 701: 673: 369: 316:

than according to consensus. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first.

4526: 4522: 2459:

RAHB has also received numerous awards, including some non-Realtor specific, such as:

4579: 4555: 3040: 2771: 2491:

The closing admin could have prolonged the discussion, but really the added sources (

2272: 2226:

the category does nothing to help build the encyclopedia, the deletion was correct.

2026: 1850: 1786: 1660: 1621: 1539: 1342: 917: 688: 576:. I view it as a scapegoat to have the article deleted furthermore i see elements of 546: 396: 358: 218: 206: 3871:, blatant advertisement for the user's own film studio/movie-making technique/film. 4798: 4728: 4567: 4531: 3927: 3529: 3515: 3499: 3477: 3267: 3254: 3237: 2874:'s the diff from when it was added to the Australian deletion sorting project, and 2858: 2812: 2796: 2737: 2711: 2547: 2202: 2189: 2171: 2135:- neither being a subset of the other. It is possible that one of these categories 1709: 1638: 1608: 1591: 916:. You were disputing the authors of the study not the content. I mentioned earlier 851: 566:

Development_of_religion#Role_of_charismatic_figures_in_the_development_of_religions

493: 383: 4758: 4111: 3793: 3445: 3201: 2675: 2401: 1252: 560:

We were still debating the merger. My question remains unresolved and that is the

144: 857:

tag, to be fair, although this does not change my endorsement of the deletion. --

4301: 4188: 3652: 3232:

Public domain photo of an extremely common Vietnam era medal, verified with the

2287: 1684: 1650:

I suppose that the argument, as I imagine you recognize, would be that although

1535:

deletion per the "Sexuality and gender identification categories" DRV on Oct 10

910: 721:... but... if it can be verified that content was merged into another article, 294:

establish that there was a valid division between the articles, but that it was

4339:

an encyclopedia article, then go ahead, but you should write it from scratch.

3082:

since, apparently, there are or were sources aplenty to support this article.

793:

opinions of some editors who have some scientific knowledge in related fields.

687:

just to start over. That said, restore and redirect would be acceptable to me.

4521:

be nice to know that, as stated above, if an article can be improved (ie, has

4503: 4183: 4174: 905:

The problem with your critique is that you dispute accepted theories like the

488:

article. I'm concerned that the decision to delete without giving editors of

4619:

Geez, all this energy spent trying to overturn bad article's deletion? Just

2499:) are trivial. I'm also entirely unimpressed by the "firsts" listed above. ~ 2492: 3656: 2954: 2108: 2084: 1727: 639: 536: 469: 427: 299: 1772:

encourage me to spend more time on Knowledge (XXG) in the first place, and

4830:

Oh yeah, a #18 US single. Should probably just speedy overturn this... --

4474:

I apologize, my comments above were not meant as in "go away", they were

4360: 2267: 4790: 4720: 4684: 3889: 2455:

1993 - first fully constituted and duly elected ICI division in Ontario

2440: 1590:

Or the Wikipedist could do his/her homework and Google/Jeeves search.--

3829: 1338: 4590:. If you want a non-essay version of this article, go write one! {{ 2450: 725:. I rely on the administrators who comment here to make that call. 4478:

to mean "find a website where that sort of information would fit in.

1974:, which makes the arguments about divisiveness even more confusing. 4461:

issues. Again, article should be improved through regular editing.

2449:

1951 - first Photo Co-op System (predecessor to modern day MLS) in

1746:- Decision based on strength of arguments, precedent and the cited 4299:

starting from scratch. All of the relevant links are in the AfD. —

2463:

2002, 2005 - Pinnacle Award from Canadian Public Relations Society

2248:

Keep in mind deletion review is about the process of deletion...

638:

is for. Again, you have not introduced any new arguments here. --

1794:

Exactly. If they are getting in the way, it's not a good policy.

1513:

things." That doesn't seem to make sense, especially since there

1341:. Advertisement and a copyright violation. I have told you this. 4145:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Gay and lesbian retirement

3832:". Does it exist only because it has a BIGGER name - "Disney"? 920:

the admin who deleted the article was had never heard about the

347: 307:

The reason for closing was innapropriate content fork. however

229:"; I suggested deleting the original article for that reason. 3961:

Restore as contested PROD, followed by immediate Delete under

2052:

or opinion. For example, if an admin deletes something for a

484:

article. Others felt that material should be merged into the

2496: 723:

WE MUST RESTORE THE EDIT HISTORY TO MAINTAIN GFDL COMPLIANCE

564:

deals with some of the major religions of the world such as

2708:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Student Youth Network

606:"delete per nom" but how do you know the read the article. 3494:

or it is clearly - as you say - government public domain,

2811:- Article seems to establish notability and credibility.-- 882:

does allow reviewing content, it is not only procedural.

3756:

THE CHOSEN - An Avant Garde Film of Omniview Perspective

3720:

THE CHOSEN - An Avant Garde Film of Omniview Perspective

1637:

Reductio ad Hitlerum does not equate to anti-Semitism.--

535:

that would be hard to mine for solid facts to merge. --

4754: 4750: 4746: 4107: 4103: 4099: 3789: 3785: 3781: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3197: 3193: 3189: 2875: 2871: 2671: 2667: 2663: 2397: 2393: 2389: 1785:

Ah, those pesky policies, always getting in the way. --

1462: 1458: 1450: 1442: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1117: 1114: 1111: 914: 551: 140: 136: 132: 2892:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 25

1748:

DRV for Sexuality and gender identification categories

1603:

In any case, that rationale could be just as valid as

217:. I endorse the continued deletion of this article. 1911:

You missed the part that said this isn't a vote? --

378:

Matt J. Rossano, he is a professor of psychology at

847:I have restored the rest of the history behind the 672:(I am amazed at how many admins get this wrong). -- 514:of that entry should be kept administratively from 4639:userfied and is in the process of being re-written 2987:Yeah, but we run them for five days, not three. ~ 1708:Perhaps an Arbcom or a Wales intervention, then?-- 1287:does not qualify an article for this criterion." 492:time to merge may have overreached the consensus. 4418:and let's get on with writing an article or two. 342:. The author is is professor of anthropology at 1283:Encyclopic entry does not deserve speedy delete 570:Development_of_religion#Teleological_development 376:The Religious Mind and the Evolution of Religion 175:Insufficient review of information and sources. 2870:Actually, it's clear that the reverse is true. 1182:– Copyright violation, cannot be undeleted. – 8: 4637:Apparently you missed the part where it was 3892:, but that looks to be something different. 3512:National Archives and Records Administration 3051:Article is notable and full of sources. -- 4702:The following is an archived debate of the 4500:User:Allstarecho/gay and lesbian retirement 4055:The following is an archived debate of the 3737:The following is an archived debate of the 3393:The following is an archived debate of the 3149:The following is an archived debate of the 2619:The following is an archived debate of the 2364:REALTORS Association of Hamilton-Burlington 2345:The following is an archived debate of the 2328:REALTORS Association of Hamilton-Burlington 1419:The following is an archived debate of the 1196:The following is an archived debate of the 88:The following is an archived debate of the 4677: 4025: 3840:more about this domain and its forefront. 3830:http://en.wikipedia.org/Disney_Digital_3-D 3712: 3364: 3124: 2594: 2320: 1389: 1171: 63: 4502:. Again, I repeat my comments above. -- 3025:first afd was a mockery of community work 4846:The above is an archived debate of the 4662:The above is an archived debate of the 4010:The above is an archived debate of the 3697:The above is an archived debate of the 3349:The above is an archived debate of the 3109:The above is an archived debate of the 2579:The above is an archived debate of the 2305:The above is an archived debate of the 2048:trumps guideline, and guideline trumps 1374:The above is an archived debate of the 1298:--JRTyner 07:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC) 1156:The above is an archived debate of the 1875:And that's part of the problem. There 3653:German Knowledge (XXG) copyright page 2511:per Trialsanderrors; the sources are 368:, he is a science journalist for the 7: 1827:InsertYourOwnClassOf WikipediansHere 696:"deletion" on Knowledge (XXG) means 4641:before before being recreated? -- 1522:, since it covers the same ground) 1105:I would invest the effort into the 698:"hide edit history from non-admins" 464:Not a valid argument in either AfD 2439:1949 - first real estate group in 2286:, Knowledge (XXG) is not myspace. 1652:Category:Wikipedians who hate Jews 1605:Category:Wikipedians who hate Jews 1520:UCfD for Category:LGBT Wikipedians 290:- DRV is not AfD 2. Consensus did 28: 4036:– Recreated, history undeleted – 3234:National Personnel Records Center 2199:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Furry 2131:should be discarded in favour of 380:Southeastern Louisiana University 344:The College of William & Mary 4688:– speedy overturn and restore – 3070:per Kyelewis and Allstarecho. -- 913:indicate belief in the afterlife 3168:Image:VietnamGallantryCross.jpg 3132:Image:VietnamGallantryCross.jpg 1820:. Apparently, all of those and 922:recent single origin hypothesis 907:recent single origin hypothesis 880:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 555:recent single origin hypothesis 320:If you look at the history for 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 3965:. So, to make things simple, 2996:Not always, as you well know. 1123:I have ever seen on wikipedia. 1: 3917:Keep deleted or redelete per 2706:Originally deleted at AFD at 2197:I believe that historically, 4835:02:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4826:02:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4805:00:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4693:07:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4653:23:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 4628:23:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 4612:23:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 4583:17:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 4571:20:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 4559:14:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 4547:17:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 4507:21:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4485:03:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 4466:20:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4437:20:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4423:20:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4399:20:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4390:20:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4380:19:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4355:19:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4344:18:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4320:19:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4306:18:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4287:17:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4273:15:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4238:15:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4228:15:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4211:14:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4193:14:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4178:05:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4167:03:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 4046:00:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 4001:02:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 3989:20:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 3957:23:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3943:18:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3931:16:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3912:12:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3876:07:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3863:06:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3845:06:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3728:21:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 3688:15:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3664:23:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3647:19:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3617:18:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3582:18:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3572:17:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3563:17:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3519:17:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3503:16:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3485:14:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3384:22:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 3340:23:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3315:23:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3301:17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3258:17:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3245:14:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 3140:22:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 3100:23:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3075:21:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3063:17:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 3044:11:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 3032:04:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 3010:21:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 3001:20:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 2992:16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 2983:02:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 2970:16:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 2958:15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 2944:11:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 2930:06:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 2916:03:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 2899:12:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 2883:15:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 2862:00:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 2850:23:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 2832:23:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 2816:13:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 2800:16:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 2775:20:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 2760:15:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 2724:14:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 2610:01:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 2570:06:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 2532:03:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 2520:02:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 2504:16:09, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 2483:14:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 2336:22:23, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 2296:23:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 2277:23:34, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 2253:02:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 2244:23:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 2215:16:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 2206:16:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 2193:13:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 2180:02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 2144:02:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 2122:20:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 2112:20:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 2103:16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 2088:15:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 2075:05:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 2065:01:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 2040:18:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 2030:18:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 2020:16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 2007:16:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1979:15:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1959:16:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1947:09:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1933:16:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1923:06:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1905:06:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1885:15:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1871:03:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1854:03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1841:02:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1799:14:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1790:03:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1781:02:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1759:00:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1731:23:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 1722:20:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 1713:20:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 1704:19:27, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 1695:18:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 1664:20:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 1642:19:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 1629:19:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 1612:19:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 1595:16:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 1582:16:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 1552:06:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 1543:16:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 1527:16:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 1410:00:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 1359:19:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 1350:19:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 1325:19:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 1296:19:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 1187:19:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 1143:23:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 1093:09:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 1081:Talk:Development of religion 1074:05:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC) 1037:19:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 985:19:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 970:18:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 960:11:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 950:04:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 940:04:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC) 930:22:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 901:11:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 887:05:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 867:05:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 843:05:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 803:If nothing was merged, then 798:22:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 767:21:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 755:21:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 743:17:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 710:09:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 692:18:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 682:16:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 643:15:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 611:04:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 540:02:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 523:02:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 497:00:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 473:23:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 460:23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 445:23:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 431:23:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 417:23:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 399:, Professor of Archaeology, 275:04:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 262:04:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 247:03:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 234:03:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC) 210:23:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 185:22:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC) 79:01:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC) 3490:As long as the image meets 3266:admin deleting problematic 2975:Endorse deletion but relist 4873: 4498:I've userfied the page at 4074:Gay and lesbian retirement 4033:Gay and lesbian retirement 1657:Category:Furry Wikipedians 1438:Category:Furry Wikipedians 1397:Category:Furry Wikipedians 811:merged, then restore as a 1215:A Faraway Ancient Country 1179:A Faraway Ancient Country 1130:. If there is an article 227:pushing a specific theory 199:pushing a specific theory 4853:Please do not modify it. 4709:Please do not modify it. 4669:Please do not modify it. 4416:Overturn as no consensus 4062:Please do not modify it. 4017:Please do not modify it. 3744:Please do not modify it. 3704:Please do not modify it. 3400:Please do not modify it. 3356:Please do not modify it. 3156:Please do not modify it. 3116:Please do not modify it. 2626:Please do not modify it. 2586:Please do not modify it. 2445:Multiple Listing Service 2352:Please do not modify it. 2312:Please do not modify it. 1812:for the same reasons as 1426:Please do not modify it. 1381:Please do not modify it. 1203:Please do not modify it. 1163:Please do not modify it. 1134:then why not an article 807:, valid AFD. If content 553:. He is questioning the 288:Endorse and Speedy Close 225:with the open intent of 197:with the open intent of 95:Please do not modify it. 40:Deletion review archives 4817:, clearly doesn't meet 2732:and for goodness sakes 2265:unfamiliar topics. 1620:You might want to give 1107:Development of religion 817:Development of religion 574:development of religion 562:development of religion 507:Development of religion 486:Development of religion 352:are reviews on her book 326:development of religion 322:development of religion 223:inappropriate synthesis 195:inappropriate synthesis 4850:of the article above. 4706:of the article above. 4666:of the article above. 4059:of the article above. 4014:of the article above. 3741:of the article above. 3723:– Deletion endorsed – 3701:of the article above. 3412:Image:Auschappoint.jpg 3397:of the article above. 3372:Image:Auschappoint.jpg 3353:of the article above. 3153:of the article above. 3135:– Deletion endorsed – 3113:of the article above. 2939:. Article overhauled. 2736:it this time! Either 2623:of the article above. 2583:of the article above. 2349:of the article above. 2331:– Deletion endorsed – 2309:of the article above. 1423:of the article above. 1400:– Deletion endorsed – 1378:of the article above. 1200:of the article above. 1160:of the article above. 440:completely different. 319: 92:of the article above. 4182:I have to agree with 2638:Student Youth Network 2602:Student Youth Network 2129:Category:Furry comics 1880:"could be cohesive"? 1128:google search results 658:undelete and redirect 401:University of Reading 312: 4430:encyclopedia article 3924:Conflict of interest 3856:conflict of interest 1814:this UCFD discussion 1754:our purpose here. -- 1121:anti-intellectualism 775:social construction. 578:Anti-intellectualism 4690:Resurgent insurgent 3873:Resurgent insurgent 3852:Blatant advertising 3525:Endorse my deletion 3263:Endorse my deletion 2967:Hit bull, win steak 2880:Hit bull, win steak 1818:this DRV discussion 668:the redirect), not 348:this is her profile 3496:endorse recreation 2791:WP:NOT#ADVERTISING 2719:the existing AFD. 2544:Hamilton Spectator 2133:Category:Webcomics 1136:Origin of religion 1132:Origin of language 490:Origin of religion 482:Origin of religion 266:Well, I have read 107:Origin of religion 71:Origin of religion 4860: 4859: 4676: 4675: 4024: 4023: 3955: 3711: 3710: 3363: 3362: 3313: 3123: 3122: 3021:Overturn deletion 2855:Overturn deletion 2848: 2593: 2592: 2567: 2542:), including the 2480: 2443:to introduce the 2319: 2318: 1972:WikiProject Furry 1624:a read, WaltCip. 1388: 1387: 1337:And it was taken 1170: 1169: 1091: 708: 680: 4864: 4855: 4776: 4762: 4744: 4711: 4678: 4671: 4650: 4645: 4608: 4605: 4602: 4599: 4588:Endorse deletion 4545: 4544: 4377: 4372: 4333:Endorse deletion 4304: 4270: 4267: 4264: 4261: 4225: 4220: 4191: 4164: 4159: 4129: 4115: 4097: 4064: 4043: 4026: 4019: 3994:Endorse deletion 3976: 3974: 3954: 3948:Endorse deletion 3936:Endorse deletion 3909: 3906: 3903: 3900: 3811: 3797: 3779: 3746: 3713: 3706: 3681:Endorse deletion 3644: 3642: 3636: 3630: 3614: 3612: 3606: 3600: 3560: 3558: 3552: 3546: 3508:Endorse deletion 3463: 3449: 3431: 3402: 3377:Endorse deletion 3365: 3358: 3336: 3333: 3330: 3327: 3320:Endorse deletion 3312: 3306:Endorse deletion 3298: 3296: 3290: 3284: 3251:Endorse deletion 3219: 3205: 3187: 3158: 3125: 3118: 3096: 3093: 3090: 3087: 3060: 3055: 2847: 2837:Endorse deletion 2757: 2754: 2751: 2748: 2730:Endorse deletion 2693: 2679: 2661: 2628: 2595: 2588: 2559: 2529:Accounting4Taste 2472: 2419: 2405: 2387: 2354: 2321: 2314: 2284:Endorse deletion 2240: 2237: 2234: 2231: 2224:Endorse deletion 2165:Endorse Deletion 2005: 1995: 1920: 1915: 1868: 1863: 1838: 1833: 1810:Endorse Deletion 1744:Endorse deletion 1579: 1576: 1573: 1570: 1481: 1467: 1466: 1428: 1407: 1390: 1383: 1322: 1319: 1316: 1313: 1303:Endorse deletion 1270: 1256: 1238: 1205: 1172: 1165: 1087: 1071: 864: 856: 850: 840: 832: 826: 805:endorse deletion 739: 736: 733: 730: 704: 676: 259:Accounting4Taste 231:Accounting4Taste 162: 148: 130: 97: 64: 53: 33: 4872: 4871: 4867: 4866: 4865: 4863: 4862: 4861: 4851: 4848:deletion review 4785: 4779: 4772: 4771: 4765: 4735: 4719: 4707: 4704:deletion review 4667: 4664:deletion review 4648: 4643: 4606: 4603: 4600: 4597: 4534: 4530: 4525:sources and is 4375: 4370: 4300: 4268: 4265: 4262: 4259: 4223: 4218: 4187: 4162: 4157: 4138: 4132: 4125: 4124: 4118: 4088: 4072: 4060: 4057:deletion review 4041: 4015: 4012:deletion review 3987: 3972: 3970: 3907: 3904: 3901: 3898: 3850:Keep deleted. 3820: 3814: 3807: 3806: 3800: 3770: 3754: 3742: 3739:deletion review 3702: 3699:deletion review 3640: 3634: 3628: 3626: 3610: 3604: 3598: 3596: 3556: 3550: 3544: 3542: 3472: 3466: 3459: 3458: 3452: 3422: 3410: 3398: 3395:deletion review 3354: 3351:deletion review 3334: 3331: 3328: 3325: 3294: 3288: 3282: 3280: 3228: 3222: 3215: 3214: 3208: 3178: 3166: 3154: 3151:deletion review 3114: 3111:deletion review 3094: 3091: 3088: 3085: 3058: 3053: 3007:trialsanderrors 2989:trialsanderrors 2913:trialsanderrors 2839:with a dose of 2755: 2752: 2749: 2746: 2702: 2696: 2689: 2688: 2682: 2652: 2636: 2624: 2621:deletion review 2584: 2581:deletion review 2501:trialsanderrors 2428: 2422: 2415: 2414: 2408: 2378: 2362: 2350: 2347:deletion review 2310: 2307:deletion review 2238: 2235: 2232: 2229: 1997: 1993: 1918: 1913: 1866: 1861: 1836: 1831: 1577: 1574: 1571: 1568: 1508: 1502: 1496: 1490: 1484: 1477: 1476: 1470: 1440: 1436: 1424: 1421:deletion review 1405: 1379: 1376:deletion review 1320: 1317: 1314: 1311: 1279: 1273: 1266: 1265: 1259: 1229: 1213: 1201: 1198:deletion review 1161: 1158:deletion review 1069: 862: 854: 848: 838: 830: 824: 737: 734: 731: 728: 719:Endorse closure 664:(if necessary, 171: 165: 158: 157: 151: 121: 105: 93: 90:deletion review 62: 59:16 October 2007 55: 54: 51: 49:2007 October 17 46: 37: 35:2007 October 15 31: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 4870: 4868: 4858: 4857: 4842: 4841: 4840: 4839: 4838: 4837: 4787: 4786: 4783: 4777: 4769: 4763: 4714: 4713: 4698: 4697: 4696: 4695: 4674: 4673: 4658: 4657: 4656: 4655: 4631: 4630: 4614: 4585: 4573: 4561: 4549: 4510: 4509: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4469: 4468: 4442: 4441: 4440: 4439: 4408: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4403: 4402: 4401: 4347: 4346: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4309: 4308: 4290: 4289: 4276: 4275: 4255:Andrew Lenahan 4247: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4240: 4195: 4140: 4139: 4136: 4130: 4122: 4116: 4067: 4066: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4022: 4021: 4006: 4005: 4004: 4003: 3998:Carlossuarez46 3991: 3981: 3959: 3945: 3933: 3914: 3894:Andrew Lenahan 3878: 3865: 3822: 3821: 3818: 3812: 3804: 3798: 3749: 3748: 3733: 3732: 3731: 3730: 3709: 3708: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3674: 3673: 3672: 3671: 3670: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3565: 3521: 3505: 3474: 3473: 3470: 3464: 3456: 3450: 3405: 3404: 3389: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3361: 3360: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3317: 3303: 3260: 3230: 3229: 3226: 3220: 3212: 3206: 3161: 3160: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3121: 3120: 3105: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3077: 3065: 3046: 3034: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 2998:Carlossuarez46 2980:Carlossuarez46 2972: 2960: 2947: 2946: 2933: 2932: 2919: 2918: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2886: 2885: 2865: 2864: 2852: 2834: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2818: 2803: 2802: 2779: 2778: 2777: 2742:Andrew Lenahan 2704: 2703: 2700: 2694: 2686: 2680: 2631: 2630: 2615: 2614: 2613: 2612: 2591: 2590: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2552:Financial Post 2535: 2534: 2522: 2517:Carlossuarez46 2506: 2465: 2464: 2457: 2456: 2453: 2447: 2430: 2429: 2426: 2420: 2412: 2406: 2357: 2356: 2341: 2340: 2339: 2338: 2317: 2316: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2280: 2279: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2218: 2217: 2183: 2182: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2124: 2062:After Midnight 2009: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1963: 1962: 1961: 1944:After Midnight 1937: 1936: 1935: 1908: 1907: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1844: 1843: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1756:After Midnight 1741: 1740: 1739: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1645: 1644: 1632: 1631: 1615: 1614: 1598: 1597: 1585: 1584: 1564:Andrew Lenahan 1556: 1555: 1554: 1510: 1509: 1506: 1500: 1494: 1488: 1482: 1474: 1468: 1431: 1430: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1386: 1385: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1328: 1327: 1307:Andrew Lenahan 1281: 1280: 1277: 1271: 1263: 1257: 1208: 1207: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1168: 1167: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1124: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1039: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 999: 998: 997: 996: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 872: 871: 870: 869: 777: 776: 769: 757: 745: 716: 715: 714: 713: 712: 654: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 647: 646: 645: 620: 619: 618: 617: 616: 615: 614: 613: 596: 595: 594: 593: 592: 591: 590: 589: 558: 500: 499: 477: 476: 475: 452: 451: 450: 449: 448: 447: 434: 433: 410: 409: 408: 386: 373: 370:New York Times 355: 350:and these are 330: 329: 302: 284: 283: 282: 281: 280: 279: 278: 277: 237: 236: 212: 203:WP:DRV#Purpose 173: 172: 169: 163: 155: 149: 100: 99: 84: 83: 82: 81: 61: 56: 47: 38: 30: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4869: 4856: 4854: 4849: 4844: 4843: 4836: 4833: 4829: 4828: 4827: 4824: 4820: 4816: 4812: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4803: 4800: 4794: 4792: 4782: 4775: 4768: 4760: 4756: 4752: 4748: 4743: 4739: 4734: 4730: 4726: 4722: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4712: 4710: 4705: 4700: 4699: 4694: 4691: 4687: 4686: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4672: 4670: 4665: 4660: 4659: 4654: 4651: 4646: 4640: 4636: 4633: 4632: 4629: 4626: 4622: 4618: 4615: 4613: 4610: 4609: 4593: 4589: 4586: 4584: 4581: 4577: 4574: 4572: 4569: 4565: 4562: 4560: 4557: 4553: 4550: 4548: 4542: 4538: 4533: 4528: 4524: 4520: 4516: 4512: 4511: 4508: 4505: 4501: 4497: 4496: 4487: 4486: 4483: 4482:Corvus cornix 4477: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4467: 4464: 4460: 4455: 4451: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4438: 4435: 4434:Corvus cornix 4431: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4421: 4417: 4413: 4410: 4409: 4400: 4397: 4393: 4392: 4391: 4388: 4387:Corvus cornix 4383: 4382: 4381: 4378: 4373: 4367: 4362: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4353: 4349: 4348: 4345: 4342: 4341:Corvus cornix 4338: 4334: 4331: 4330: 4321: 4318: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4307: 4303: 4298: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4288: 4285: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4274: 4271: 4256: 4252: 4249: 4248: 4239: 4236: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4226: 4221: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4209: 4205: 4201: 4196: 4194: 4190: 4185: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4176: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4165: 4160: 4154: 4150: 4146: 4135: 4128: 4121: 4113: 4109: 4105: 4101: 4096: 4092: 4087: 4083: 4079: 4075: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4065: 4063: 4058: 4053: 4052: 4047: 4044: 4039: 4035: 4034: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4027: 4020: 4018: 4013: 4008: 4007: 4002: 3999: 3995: 3992: 3990: 3985: 3980: 3977: 3975: 3968: 3964: 3960: 3958: 3953: 3952:Seraphimblade 3949: 3946: 3944: 3941: 3940:Corvus cornix 3937: 3934: 3932: 3929: 3925: 3921: 3920: 3915: 3913: 3910: 3895: 3891: 3887: 3882: 3879: 3877: 3874: 3870: 3866: 3864: 3861: 3857: 3853: 3849: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3843: 3837: 3833: 3831: 3825: 3817: 3810: 3803: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3783: 3778: 3774: 3769: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3747: 3745: 3740: 3735: 3734: 3729: 3726: 3722: 3721: 3717: 3716: 3715: 3714: 3707: 3705: 3700: 3695: 3694: 3689: 3686: 3682: 3679: 3678: 3665: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3645: 3643: 3637: 3631: 3623: 3622: 3620: 3619: 3618: 3615: 3613: 3607: 3601: 3593: 3592: 3591: 3590: 3589: 3588: 3583: 3580: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3570: 3566: 3564: 3561: 3559: 3553: 3547: 3539: 3535: 3531: 3526: 3522: 3520: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3506: 3504: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3489: 3488: 3487: 3486: 3483: 3479: 3469: 3462: 3455: 3447: 3443: 3439: 3435: 3430: 3426: 3421: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3408: 3407: 3406: 3403: 3401: 3396: 3391: 3390: 3385: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3373: 3369: 3368: 3367: 3366: 3359: 3357: 3352: 3347: 3346: 3341: 3338: 3337: 3321: 3318: 3316: 3311: 3310:Seraphimblade 3307: 3304: 3302: 3299: 3297: 3291: 3285: 3277: 3273: 3269: 3264: 3261: 3259: 3256: 3252: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3225: 3218: 3211: 3203: 3199: 3195: 3191: 3186: 3182: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3164: 3163: 3162: 3159: 3157: 3152: 3147: 3146: 3141: 3138: 3134: 3133: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3119: 3117: 3112: 3107: 3106: 3101: 3098: 3097: 3081: 3078: 3076: 3073: 3069: 3066: 3064: 3061: 3056: 3050: 3047: 3045: 3042: 3038: 3035: 3033: 3030: 3026: 3022: 3019: 3011: 3008: 3004: 3003: 3002: 2999: 2995: 2994: 2993: 2990: 2986: 2985: 2984: 2981: 2976: 2973: 2971: 2968: 2964: 2961: 2959: 2956: 2952: 2951:Relist at AfD 2949: 2948: 2945: 2942: 2938: 2935: 2934: 2931: 2928: 2924: 2921: 2920: 2917: 2914: 2909: 2906: 2905: 2900: 2897: 2893: 2888: 2887: 2884: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2866: 2863: 2860: 2856: 2853: 2851: 2846: 2845:Seraphimblade 2842: 2838: 2835: 2833: 2830: 2826: 2823: 2822: 2817: 2814: 2810: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2801: 2798: 2794: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2773: 2768: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2758: 2743: 2739: 2735: 2731: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2725: 2722: 2718: 2713: 2709: 2699: 2692: 2685: 2677: 2673: 2669: 2665: 2660: 2656: 2651: 2647: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2629: 2627: 2622: 2617: 2616: 2611: 2608: 2604: 2603: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2589: 2587: 2582: 2577: 2576: 2571: 2566: 2562: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2541: 2537: 2536: 2533: 2530: 2526: 2523: 2521: 2518: 2514: 2510: 2507: 2505: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2487: 2486: 2485: 2484: 2479: 2475: 2470: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2454: 2452: 2448: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2433: 2425: 2418: 2411: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2386: 2382: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2358: 2355: 2353: 2348: 2343: 2342: 2337: 2334: 2330: 2329: 2325: 2324: 2323: 2322: 2315: 2313: 2308: 2303: 2302: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2282: 2281: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2269: 2263: 2260: 2259: 2254: 2251: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2242: 2241: 2225: 2222: 2216: 2213: 2209: 2208: 2207: 2204: 2200: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2191: 2187: 2184: 2181: 2178: 2177: 2175: 2174: 2170: 2166: 2163: 2145: 2142: 2138: 2134: 2130: 2125: 2123: 2120: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2110: 2106: 2105: 2104: 2101: 2096: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2086: 2082: 2078: 2077: 2076: 2073: 2068: 2067: 2066: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2051: 2047: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2038: 2033: 2032: 2031: 2028: 2025:the week. -- 2023: 2022: 2021: 2018: 2013: 2010: 2008: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1989: 1986: 1985: 1980: 1977: 1973: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1957: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1945: 1941: 1938: 1934: 1931: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1921: 1916: 1910: 1909: 1906: 1903: 1899: 1896: 1895: 1886: 1883: 1878: 1874: 1873: 1872: 1869: 1864: 1857: 1856: 1855: 1852: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1845: 1842: 1839: 1834: 1828: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1811: 1808: 1800: 1797: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1788: 1784: 1783: 1782: 1779: 1775: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1742: 1732: 1729: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1720: 1716: 1715: 1714: 1711: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1702: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1693: 1692: 1688: 1687: 1682: 1679: 1678: 1665: 1662: 1658: 1653: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1643: 1640: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1630: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1613: 1610: 1606: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1596: 1593: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1583: 1580: 1565: 1560: 1557: 1553: 1550: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1541: 1537: 1534: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1525: 1521: 1516: 1505: 1499: 1493: 1487: 1480: 1473: 1464: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1448: 1444: 1439: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1429: 1427: 1422: 1417: 1416: 1411: 1408: 1403: 1399: 1398: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1391: 1384: 1382: 1377: 1372: 1371: 1360: 1357: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1348: 1346: 1345: 1340: 1336: 1335: 1332: 1331: 1330: 1329: 1326: 1323: 1308: 1304: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1297: 1294: 1288: 1284: 1276: 1269: 1262: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1237: 1233: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1206: 1204: 1199: 1194: 1193: 1188: 1185: 1181: 1180: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1166: 1164: 1159: 1154: 1153: 1144: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1122: 1118: 1115: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1072: 1067: 1063: 1060: 1059: 1038: 1035: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 988: 987: 986: 983: 978: 973: 972: 971: 968: 963: 962: 961: 958: 953: 952: 951: 948: 943: 942: 941: 938: 933: 932: 931: 928: 923: 919: 918:User:Jreferee 915: 912: 908: 904: 903: 902: 899: 895: 890: 889: 888: 885: 881: 876: 875: 874: 873: 868: 865: 860: 853: 846: 845: 844: 841: 836: 829: 822: 818: 814: 810: 806: 802: 801: 800: 799: 796: 791: 787: 783: 773: 770: 768: 765: 761: 758: 756: 753: 749: 746: 744: 741: 740: 724: 720: 717: 711: 707: 703: 699: 695: 694: 693: 690: 685: 684: 683: 679: 675: 671: 667: 663: 659: 656: 655: 644: 641: 637: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 625: 624: 623: 612: 609: 604: 603: 602: 601: 600: 599: 598: 597: 587: 583: 579: 575: 571: 567: 563: 559: 556: 552: 548: 543: 542: 541: 538: 534: 530: 526: 525: 524: 521: 517: 513: 508: 504: 503: 502: 501: 498: 495: 491: 487: 483: 478: 474: 471: 467: 463: 462: 461: 458: 454: 453: 446: 443: 438: 437: 436: 435: 432: 429: 424: 420: 419: 418: 415: 411: 406: 402: 398: 397:Steven Mithen 394: 393:0-500-05081-3 391: 387: 385: 381: 377: 374: 371: 367: 364: 360: 359:Nicholas Wade 356: 353: 349: 345: 341: 338: 334: 333: 332: 331: 327: 323: 318: 317: 310: 306: 303: 301: 297: 293: 289: 286: 285: 276: 273: 269: 265: 264: 263: 260: 255: 250: 249: 248: 245: 241: 240: 239: 238: 235: 232: 228: 224: 220: 216: 213: 211: 208: 204: 200: 196: 192: 189: 188: 187: 186: 183: 178: 168: 161: 154: 146: 142: 138: 134: 129: 125: 120: 116: 112: 108: 104: 103: 102: 101: 98: 96: 91: 86: 85: 80: 77: 73: 72: 68: 67: 66: 65: 60: 57: 50: 45: 41: 36: 23: 19: 4852: 4845: 4810: 4795: 4788: 4708: 4701: 4683: 4668: 4661: 4634: 4616: 4596: 4587: 4575: 4563: 4551: 4518: 4514: 4479: 4475: 4454:unredeemable 4453: 4429: 4415: 4411: 4364: 4336: 4332: 4296: 4258: 4250: 4203: 4141: 4061: 4054: 4031: 4016: 4009: 3993: 3978: 3969: 3967:Keep Deleted 3966: 3947: 3935: 3916: 3897: 3885: 3881:Keep deleted 3880: 3869:keep deleted 3868: 3854:, egregious 3838: 3834: 3826: 3823: 3743: 3736: 3718: 3703: 3696: 3680: 3657:relevant law 3625: 3595: 3541: 3524: 3507: 3495: 3478:User:Husnock 3475: 3399: 3392: 3376: 3370: 3355: 3348: 3324: 3319: 3305: 3279: 3262: 3250: 3238:User:Husnock 3231: 3155: 3148: 3130: 3115: 3108: 3084: 3079: 3067: 3048: 3036: 3020: 2974: 2962: 2950: 2936: 2922: 2907: 2896:TexasAndroid 2854: 2840: 2836: 2824: 2808: 2782: 2781: 2745: 2738:User:Rebecca 2733: 2729: 2721:TexasAndroid 2716: 2712:User:Rebecca 2705: 2625: 2618: 2600: 2585: 2578: 2548:Toronto Star 2524: 2508: 2488: 2466: 2458: 2434: 2431: 2351: 2344: 2326: 2311: 2304: 2283: 2266: 2261: 2228: 2223: 2185: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2136: 2094: 2080: 2011: 1987: 1966: 1939: 1897: 1876: 1826: 1821: 1809: 1773: 1768: 1764: 1743: 1690: 1685: 1680: 1622:Godwin's law 1567: 1558: 1532: 1514: 1511: 1425: 1418: 1395: 1380: 1373: 1343: 1310: 1302: 1289: 1285: 1282: 1202: 1195: 1177: 1162: 1155: 1061: 815:redirect to 812: 808: 804: 778: 771: 759: 747: 727: 722: 718: 697: 669: 665: 661: 657: 634:That's what 621: 516:disruptively 465: 422: 314: 313: 304: 291: 287: 253: 214: 190: 174: 94: 87: 69: 58: 44:2007 October 3842:Yuechuan Ke 3725:Chick Bowen 3685:Chick Bowen 3072:AndrewHowse 2607:Chick Bowen 2212:GreenReaper 2141:GreenReaper 2100:GreenReaper 1994:Groggy Dice 1976:GreenReaper 1882:GreenReaper 1796:GreenReaper 1778:GreenReaper 1719:Chick Bowen 1701:Chick Bowen 1626:Chick Bowen 1524:GreenReaper 1184:Chick Bowen 977:synthesized 911:grave goods 405:his profile 384:his profile 76:Chick Bowen 4621:rewrite it 4523:verifiable 4297:better off 4184:User:Haemo 3919:WP:CSD#G11 3890:The Chosen 3381:Eluchil404 3137:Eluchil404 3029:Mukadderat 2550:, and the 2333:Eluchil404 2250:Bushytails 2119:Bushytails 2095:definitely 2072:Bushytails 2058:WP:ILIKEIT 2037:Bushytails 2017:Bushytails 1956:Bushytails 1930:Bushytails 1902:Bushytails 1549:Bushytails 1140:Muntuwandi 1079:topic, at 1034:Muntuwandi 982:PelleSmith 967:Muntuwandi 957:PelleSmith 947:Muntuwandi 937:PelleSmith 927:Muntuwandi 898:PelleSmith 884:Muntuwandi 795:Muntuwandi 790:WP:POVFORK 764:Muntuwandi 752:Muntuwandi 608:Muntuwandi 520:PelleSmith 457:Muntuwandi 442:Muntuwandi 414:Muntuwandi 366:1594200793 340:0385521553 309:WP:POVFORK 272:Muntuwandi 244:Muntuwandi 182:Muntuwandi 177:Muntuwandi 4819:WP:CSD#A7 4625:Fireplace 4251:Re-create 4151:}} and {{ 3973:SashaCall 3635:seriously 3605:seriously 3579:OberRanks 3551:seriously 3482:OberRanks 3289:seriously 3242:OberRanks 2894:page. - 2556:Robocoder 2469:Robocoder 1339:from here 821:WP:CSD#G4 813:protected 512:ownership 4815:WP:MUSIC 4811:Overturn 4580:Oakshade 4576:Overturn 4556:Otto4711 4552:Overturn 4541:contribs 4476:intended 4463:Benjiboi 4450:Civility 4420:Benjiboi 4412:Undelete 4396:Benjiboi 4361:bullshit 4352:Benjiboi 4317:Benjiboi 4284:Benjiboi 4235:Benjiboi 4208:Benjiboi 4202:is that 4155:}}. -- 3867:Obvious 3080:Overturn 3068:Overturn 3049:Overturn 3041:Kyelewis 3037:Overturn 2941:Benjiboi 2927:Benjiboi 2908:Overturn 2829:Jbeach56 2809:Overturn 2515:either. 2027:Kbdank71 1898:Undelete 1851:Kbdank71 1822:this cat 1787:Kbdank71 1559:Undelete 1540:Kbdank71 1344:IrishGuy 909:or that 689:Vassyana 662:redirect 547:Jreferee 468:DRV. -- 219:Vassyana 207:Vassyana 20:‎ | 4832:W.marsh 4823:W.marsh 4791:Rihanna 4767:restore 4738:protect 4733:history 4721:Rhianna 4685:Rhianna 4644:ALLSTAR 4635:Comment 4592:sofixit 4568:Bearian 4564:Comment 4532:SatyrTN 4527:notable 4371:ALLSTAR 4219:ALLSTAR 4158:ALLSTAR 4153:cleanup 4120:restore 4091:protect 4086:history 3963:CSD-G11 3928:WaltCip 3860:Cryptic 3802:restore 3773:protect 3768:history 3530:Husnock 3516:GRBerry 3500:WaltCip 3454:restore 3425:protect 3420:history 3268:Husnock 3255:GRBerry 3210:restore 3181:protect 3176:history 3054:ALLSTAR 2937:Comment 2923:Comment 2859:Rebecca 2813:WaltCip 2797:WaltCip 2717:Endorse 2684:restore 2655:protect 2650:history 2525:Endorse 2513:WP:RSes 2509:Endorse 2489:Endorse 2441:Ontario 2410:restore 2381:protect 2376:history 2262:Comment 2203:GRBerry 2190:WaltCip 2186:Comment 2012:Comment 1988:Comment 1940:Comment 1914:ALLSTAR 1862:ALLSTAR 1832:ALLSTAR 1710:WaltCip 1681:Comment 1639:WaltCip 1609:WaltCip 1592:WaltCip 1533:Endorse 1515:weren't 1472:restore 1451:history 1356:JRTyner 1293:JRTyner 1261:restore 1232:protect 1227:history 1062:Comment 772:comment 760:comment 748:comment 666:protect 582:rossano 494:Egfrank 423:usually 311:states 305:Comment 215:Endorse 191:Comment 153:restore 124:protect 119:history 4742:delete 4302:Verrai 4200:WP:AfD 4189:Verrai 4149:verify 4095:delete 3777:delete 3492:WP:PDI 3429:delete 3418:| ] | 3185:delete 3174:| ] | 3023:. The 2963:Relist 2825:Relist 2789:, and 2787:WP:COI 2659:delete 2546:, the 2451:Canada 2385:delete 2288:Stifle 2054:WP:BLP 2046:policy 1829:. -- 1769:should 1236:delete 828:delrev 786:WP:SYN 782:WP:NOR 670:delete 636:WP:AGF 586:mithen 529:WP:SYN 296:WP:SYN 268:WP:SYN 128:delete 4774:cache 4759:views 4751:watch 4747:links 4519:would 4515:could 4504:Haemo 4459:WP:OR 4365:: --> 4175:Haemo 4127:cache 4112:views 4104:watch 4100:links 4042:desat 3984:Talk! 3809:cache 3794:views 3786:watch 3782:links 3641:folks 3611:folks 3569:Tizio 3557:folks 3523:(ec) 3461:cache 3446:views 3438:watch 3434:links 3295:folks 3217:cache 3202:views 3194:watch 3190:links 2691:cache 2676:views 2668:watch 2664:links 2417:cache 2402:views 2394:watch 2390:links 2173:demon 2137:would 2050:essay 1504:UCfD3 1492:UCfD2 1486:UCfD1 1479:cache 1459:watch 1455:links 1406:desat 1268:cache 1253:views 1245:watch 1241:links 1070:desat 894:point 863:desat 839:desat 533:WP:OR 395:. by 160:cache 145:views 137:watch 133:links 52:: --> 16:< 4821:. -- 4799:Bobo 4755:logs 4729:talk 4725:edit 4649:ECHO 4617:Moot 4594:}} 4537:talk 4376:ECHO 4224:ECHO 4163:ECHO 4108:logs 4082:talk 4078:edit 4038:Core 3790:logs 3764:talk 3760:edit 3655:and 3538:here 3536:and 3534:here 3442:logs 3416:edit 3276:here 3274:and 3272:here 3198:logs 3172:edit 3059:ECHO 2955:Kesh 2876:here 2872:Here 2841:salt 2783:Salt 2734:salt 2672:logs 2646:talk 2642:edit 2554:.-- 2398:logs 2372:talk 2368:edit 2292:talk 2273:talk 2109:jc37 2085:jc37 1967:some 1919:ECHO 1867:ECHO 1837:ECHO 1816:and 1774:that 1728:Kesh 1538:. -- 1463:logs 1447:talk 1443:edit 1402:Core 1249:logs 1223:talk 1219:edit 1089:(𒁳) 1066:Core 980:you. 859:Core 835:Core 706:(𒁳) 678:(𒁳) 640:Kesh 584:and 568:and 537:Kesh 470:Kesh 428:Kesh 390:ISBN 382:, :: 363:ISBN 337:ISBN 300:Kesh 141:logs 115:talk 111:edit 32:< 4781:AfD 4604:sau 4598:Bur 4480:. 4266:bli 4134:AfD 3905:bli 3886:any 3816:AfD 3661:CBD 3629:But 3599:But 3545:But 3498:.-- 3468:AfD 3332:sau 3326:Bur 3283:But 3224:AfD 3092:sau 3086:Bur 2772:Joe 2753:bli 2698:AfD 2467:-- 2424:AfD 2268:DGG 2236:sau 2230:Bur 1877:are 1752:not 1691:ʏɑɴ 1686:ɑʀк 1661:Joe 1575:bli 1498:DRV 1318:bli 1275:AfD 1085:dab 852:drv 809:was 788:OR 735:sau 729:Bur 702:dab 674:dab 412:-- 292:not 167:AfD 22:Log 4757:| 4753:| 4749:| 4745:| 4740:| 4736:| 4731:| 4727:| 4623:. 4607:ce 4601:nt 4539:| 4366::o 4363:. 4337:be 4269:nd 4263:ar 4260:St 4257:- 4110:| 4106:| 4102:| 4098:| 4093:| 4089:| 4084:| 4080:| 3922:- 3908:nd 3902:ar 3899:St 3896:- 3792:| 3788:| 3784:| 3780:| 3775:| 3771:| 3766:| 3762:| 3444:| 3440:| 3436:| 3432:| 3427:| 3423:| 3375:– 3335:ce 3329:nt 3200:| 3196:| 3192:| 3188:| 3183:| 3179:| 3095:ce 3089:nt 2795:-- 2767:G4 2756:nd 2750:ar 2747:St 2744:- 2674:| 2670:| 2666:| 2662:| 2657:| 2653:| 2648:| 2644:| 2568:) 2481:) 2400:| 2396:| 2392:| 2388:| 2383:| 2379:| 2374:| 2370:| 2294:) 2275:) 2239:ce 2233:nt 2081:is 2001:| 1765:is 1578:nd 1572:ar 1569:St 1566:- 1461:| 1457:| 1453:| 1449:| 1445:| 1321:nd 1315:ar 1312:St 1309:- 1251:| 1247:| 1243:| 1239:| 1234:| 1230:| 1225:| 1221:| 1138:. 1113:, 1083:. 855:}} 849:{{ 831:}} 825:{{ 784:, 738:ce 732:nt 622:. 466:or 403:, 254:is 205:. 143:| 139:| 135:| 131:| 126:| 122:| 117:| 113:| 42:: 4802:. 4784:) 4778:| 4770:| 4764:( 4761:) 4723:( 4543:) 4535:( 4137:) 4131:| 4123:| 4117:( 4114:) 4076:( 3986:) 3982:( 3979:/ 3819:) 3813:| 3805:| 3799:( 3796:) 3758:( 3638:| 3632:| 3608:| 3602:| 3554:| 3548:| 3471:) 3465:| 3457:| 3451:( 3448:) 3414:( 3292:| 3286:| 3227:) 3221:| 3213:| 3207:( 3204:) 3170:( 2793:. 2701:) 2695:| 2687:| 2681:( 2678:) 2640:( 2565:c 2563:| 2561:t 2558:( 2540:3 2497:2 2495:| 2493:1 2478:c 2476:| 2474:t 2471:( 2427:) 2421:| 2413:| 2407:( 2404:) 2366:( 2290:( 2271:( 2169:^ 2003:C 1999:T 1507:) 1501:| 1495:| 1489:| 1483:| 1475:| 1469:( 1465:) 1441:( 1278:) 1272:| 1264:| 1258:( 1255:) 1217:( 896:. 531:/ 407:. 357:" 354:. 346:, 170:) 164:| 156:| 150:( 147:) 109:(

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 16 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index