1839:). While it is charming to think that Noah's web site and John's User talk are now the world centers of research on this topic, it does suggest there is no strong background in standard science to which this material can be anchored. If all we can do is write a 'He said, she said' article, we are just like journalists who don't understand the science and are merely writing down what people say. I also read part of a William Rhodes paper that I found on the web. While it seems that he does know how to execute some standard lab procedures, his claims for the high burning temperature of his mixed gas are hard to credit, and do seem contradictory, as I think someone else has noted in one of the WP discussions. But a detailed critique of Rhodes's work is another primary source analysis that I don't think is our business. Do you imagine that William Rhodes ever ventured into a university chemistry department to give a seminar talk? Do you imagine he ever tried to collaborate with a recognized combustion lab to see if they could reproduce his claimed results? If he did so, no-one has reported that yet in our WP discussions. What we do know is that he files patents that repeat his wonderful claims.
2463:
deletion? Also, to address an earlier point, I take exception to your claim that all the information was entirely referenced from the web site. Although I cited the web site to indicate the source of information, other information was taken from the
Revised Edition of the book, Interactive Video Workshop DVDs, Supercharging DVDs and Core Transformation DVDs. And re: self-evidently snake oil, I consider both Reiki and Quantum-Touch to be on equal footing there, as both practices were formed from the inspiration of a single person. Since p4 and p11 of the criterion for speedy deletion did not apply for this particular article, deletion was inappropriate.
2453:
article where I state any of QT's claims to be fact, please do. And back to COI - is it actually the case that a participant in a certain activity or sport cannot offer
Knowledge articles on said activities? Understand that I am not a QT employee peddling wares nor am I in any sense "competing" with other healing modalities, I am simply a person who is aware of several forms energy-based healing. I find the lack of a representative article on Knowledge notable for the simple fact that heaps of directly-related material is available here. If there are issues of tone or delivery in the article, I'm happy to work to fix those.
983:. What Omegatron says. The deletions, individually, clearly are justifiable. But as a whole, we should have at least one page on the topic. I agree there is enough outside coverage to make this notable, and there is evidence of a need for an article. (Though I'm not touching the task of maintaining it with a ten foot pole—but that's not a valid reason to have nothing at all on the topic other than salted pages.) Even if it's scientifically confused partisan nonsense, the need for this encyclopedia to explain the "why", and to cover the history, remains.
1997:. I'm afraid that, as something of a newbie, I failed to include links to these independent sources in my initial version of the entry, which I suspect is why DragonflySixtyseven performed a speedy deletion for reasons of notability. However, I am convinced that adding these independent, published sources to my entry would make Dead Oceans an entirely appropriate subject for a Knowledge article. Please consider undeleting it. It should go without saying that I have no personal connection whatsoever to this record label.
1534:
invalidity, except for some newish ones that nobody thinks worth refuting in a formal way. Sometimes there will be RSs from a real scientist or two supporting the theory; there is no education that prevents peculiarity. The only logical rule is that once it is in the newspapers, then it goes in WP. (I would personally extend this, and say that when it is discussed in several widely-read blogs not originating from the author of the theory, these are also RSs for the state of public notice. )
1492:
others. This allows readers who hear about these technologies to make their own opinions using more information than is provided by the people making the claims. As an example, if someone was to hear that there was a journal article about this, they would be impressed to find that the journal article really did exist and it is a reputable journal. However they would be less keen on the technology when they learn that
2303:. Not only have we debated the concept and found it wanting for independent sources, this article was blatantly promotional - in fact it looks like a copy-paste of a sales brochure. It is entirely referenced from the website selling the concept, and the concept is so self-evidently snake oil that I can't find any credible sources who even bother to debunk it. Finally, a quick Google indicates that Trane may have a
1292:
would be happy to have only one article restored (HHO gas being the best candidate IMO) and its content disputed on the Talk page rather than littered over many Afds and deleted talk pages. Femto makes a good point that not all of these should be restored. IMO having all of the articles restored would only result in more Afds. Note that
1989:, an important, previously unsigned band that has a Knowledge entry. Its creation is a significant event in the musical world. More importantly, although Dead Oceans is new, it meets Knowledge's notability criterion as a number of significant, independent sources have already written about it, including
2462:
I'd like to point out that
Blatant Advertising point 11 states "an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well". Although I disagree that the article is advertorial in nature, would you please indicate what content you thought to be inappropriate in support of speedy
1636:
Our problem is that there is no reliable secondary literature. I wouldn't trust a summary of this issue unless it was offered by somebody fluent in standard science. We only have documents created by partisans, in other words, we're struggling to parse the primary sources. It's not our duty to create
1558:
of deletion review. This deletion review invites discussion, the outcome of which could not be "to cover the topic in some way in
Knowledge, and to undelete one or two articles for this purpose" since such a request is vague (not clear) and ambiguous (could mean different things to different people).
1529:
Most know that total rejection of such topics is not likely, and so argue on the basis of N and RS. Given the scientific sophistication of the public, any fringe theory that can obtain some initial publicity usually becomes N, regardless of the absurdity. (there are exceptions where WP is being used
1491:
I agree that there are not many sources available for "endorsing or debunking the stuff", so the article shouldnt attempt to do either. That doesnt prevent an article being written about the claims that have been made, the facts that are known, and the general level of scepticism shown by media and
1291:
Good point. I dont think that there is any call for all of these articles to be undeleted; the problem is that any article remotely related to this are winding up on Afd (multiple times) and being deleted with calls for liberal salt. I am pretty sure that the serious contributors to these articles
1523:
and provide a chance for re-editing before relisting. (I presume this may result in a partial merge, but I make no assumption about what the merge should be. This is a matter for the editors. obviously some compromises will be necessary.) There are always voices wanting to reject articles on fringe
1537:
We really cannot discriminate of the grounds of scientific likelihood, for we are not judges of that any more than we are of religion or politics (and in a practical sense we cannot discriminate because we will rarely be able to achieve more than temporary consensus for what should be included).
2452:
I do believe that my use of terms such as "concepts of
Quantum-Touch are claimed to be related to", "it is claimed in the book that" and "techniques are claimed to cover the gamut of emotional and physical issues" decidedly remove any hint of advertising. If you can show me a single point in the
1533:
Given the state of scientific journalism, there will usually be RSs in the form of newspaper articles, which are probably truly RSs for giving the state of public notice and opinion, though hardly RSs for the state of scientific knowledge. Usually there will be RSs from scientists explaining the
2270:
Page flagged for speedy deletion due to reposted content. Content was written fresh from scratch (my first submission ever here). Admin deleted page due to reason "waving magic crystals". I do not believe a new article should be speedily deleted in this instance. See talk:Luigi30 for discussion
1783:
Perfectly neutral and reliably sourced. If you want to go further and evaluate the actual claims a little, you can, but it's only here that the secondary scientific literature comes in. If there really isn't any mention of this by reliable scientific sources, we can still make straightforward
1443:
HHO gas with the limited goal of determining whether this particular hoax is notable enough for a stand-alone article. It's alleged above but I'm not yet convinced. But the article was changed significantly during the discussion and if doesn't appear that the discussion participants noticed the
1022:
above, the previous AfD's were all valid and there was a strong consensus to delete, so there is no grounds to overturn the deletion. I do take issue with the protected deletion, however, as it precludes re-creating the article under encyclopedic standards. I do understand the closing admin's
2284:
assuming the version written was not spam. The original AfD referred to it being an advertisement, the other deletions were either due to a prod or via G11 - spam. If it's an ad, no complaints, but not if it isn't. Luigi's comment, as well, - "Your page has been deleted six times by several
2071:
That depends on your point of view. I see no reason to undelete an article that is going to fail to meet a core tenet such as verifiabilty. Anything that can be sourced is invariably worth having. Articles that cant be sources are invariably going to fail to meet basic requirements and will
1240:
as an argument for deletion was making an assumption that the patents and journal articles that were provided are false, and thus the subject isnt worth an article (undue weight). That rationale for deletion is also unpalatable, as it is in difference to the current practise of documenting
2513:
The AfD was partially based on lack of ghits, thus demonstrating that there was no general public awareness. There are now 210,000; removing duplicates & directory listings, there are probably about 50,000. Naturally, most of these are mentions of the books on the subject or personal
1137:: You still have to explain how buying a report in the media (established news organisation or not) is something other than a subtle advertisement. That still does not constitue RS. As long as no independent news organisation makes a non-promotional comment there is no RS and no NN.
2099:
Um, OK. Rereading this and in particular DS's comments, I see that he/she deleted the article because it wasnt yet notable. Jeff's right, that's not what A7 is for - although I have seen a lot of eminently worthless crud removed from the site by stretching A7 in that way. However,
881:
Yes, Noah needs to be prevented from biasing the article, but this is a user problem, not an article problem. We don't delete articles just because they've been edited by people who might be biased. (Note that he endorsed deletion after I had edited the article to be more
1744:
IMO, "HHO gas" is hovering somewhere between (a) and (b); some think it is definitely (b) and nominated the article after some (a) was added. Ed is spot on with their being a lack of "reliable secondary literature" for the scientific concept "HHO gas" (there are a few:
1510:
This subject keeps cropping up, including on TV, and similar things have appeared many times over the decades. And there are other articles that are related and would link to it. As pointed out above, according to WP:HOAX, honest articles about hoaxes are legitimate.
1104:
I already addressed your concerns in the nomination. Articles presented by third-party, independent newspapers are, in fact, reliable sources for the claims that have been made. They are not self-published, and they are not promotional. Please read through
2392:
I agree that Reiki gets more hits. I doubt that it would be incorrect to presume it is because Reiki has more history behind it. (It was defined in the mid-19th century.) QT does get over 200,000 Google hits, however, and that makes it notable in my opinion.
2032:
feature bold and timeless etc, I felt that the use of the future tense was sufficient indication that Dead Oceans isn't there yet. If you think there's enough for a new article, make a new article. If I agree, I'll undelete the old one for a history merge.
1626:, where we are allowed to have articles about famous hoaxes, known to be hoaxes. We are not in case (b) in the present discussion because we don't know it to be a hoax, we just know very little at all. His case (c) presumably describes stuff that fails
1186:
without prejudice to coverage as and when reliable independent sources can be found. We have deleted
Aetherometry and Electric Universe for pretty much the same reasons: no sources outside of their proponents, no critical review in reputable sources.
254:
and endorse re-deletions. This article was deleted for lack of notability. No new evidence has been presented to justify revisiting that decision. The webcomic has been released in print (3 books that I could find) but the Amazon sales rankings are
1976:
This page was speedy-deleted for lack of notability. I believe it should be undeleted, as subject meets
Knowledge's notability criterion. Dead Oceans is a new record label that is a sister label of two well-established indie record labels:
284:
for now. 3 book collections would seem like a good sign, but the Amazon rankings are abysmal and none of the 3 had any editorial reviews listed. The article itself was totally unreferenced, and we wouldn't want it coming back in that form.
1269:
to get a feel for the content that was in the latest article. To the admins, it is quite possible the article POV had switched before the Afd so I suggest going back to
Omegatron's last revision to see where the article was going.
890:
Repeated deletion and re-creation of similar articles is not a criteria for deletion. In fact, our deletion policy states that "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an
2046:
Are there multiple non-trivial sources and/or references to verify whether this label is notable. If these can be produced than its worth an article. Otherwise, keep deleted without prejudice to recreation when they are available.
1615:(c) if those are *individualized* crackpot ideas, i.e. stuff made up by one anonymous crank, then after some time on 'votes for deletion' they should just be deleted, not for being false, but for failing the test of confirmability.
1835:. Thinking that "common ducted electrolysis" might be a familiar technical term, I did a Google search for the fully quoted phrase. The first two hits are in Noah Seidman's wiki, the third hit is John Vandenberg's draft article! (
1604:(b) if those are *known* and *popular* crackpot ideas, then we should have an article about them, identifying them *as* ideas that are completely rejected by the consensus of leading scientists or NPOV verbiage to that effect
2104:
is probably the correct way to go now - but if someone can steer me in the direction of the AFD, I'm almost certainly going to argue for deletion in the absence of the multiple non-trivial sources I mentioned earlier.
2348:
and other approaches to energy-based healing are very much related and, in fact, several articles link back to QT here. I apologize if my article came off as ad copy; I was merely trying my very best to ensure it did
1777:
Ruggero
Santilli wrote a paper which claims this and this. Denny Klein runs a company that does this and says this about his products. None of this has been significantly reviewed or acknowledged by the scientific
1773:
This isn't a scientific journal or textbook; it's an encyclopedia, which means we cover notable things in a neutral way. The topic is clearly notable, so we should cover it. To write in a neutral way, we just
887:"But look at this huge list of related AfDs; this article should be deleted, too, because it's similar", "Numerous articles that did not survive AfD in the past are recently recreated as redirect to this page"
1630:
because it's a single crank. We are not in case (c), the isolated crank, because these are shared ideas, though they are not shared by people who can express themselves well using widely-understood scientific
2514:
testimonials in blogs. I think that shows N. The books on the subject are probably RSs for what the technique is, though of course not for N, but the ghits do show public awareness & so it is significant.
2010:. I'm making no statement on DF67's speedy (although being the label for a bluelinked artist is a worthwhile notability assertion), but there's more than enough here now to consider it on a broader scale. --
1748:, but they dont suffice to discredit the science); however there is a great deal of coverage of the idea of "HHO gas" and "Brown gas" and whatever it is that Santilli has written about in his journal article.
868:
is material that has been published by the author, or whose publisher is a vanity press, a web-hosting service, or other organization that provides little or no editorial oversight." Even the article in
264:
2131:) and grow the section until it's a viable stand-alone article. Can't chide the admin for deleting this because it's really just a presse release, but yeah, offspring of SC/Jag should be mentioned. ~
2173:
719:
845:"Violates WP:NN", "Google returns 769 hits on this person", "nothing that would qualify as a reliable source. Blogs, forums, post your own press release sites", "No reliable, third party sources"
1815:
Even without scientific literature or logical deductions, we can quote the opinions of people like Randi, who are not reliable sources on science, but notable enough to be sourced as critics. —
324:
as closing admin. Neither the article subject to AfD nor the recreated version come even close to meeting any notability guideline. Being published as a book does not constitute notability, as
1286:
256:
2285:
different administrators. That in itself is a criterion for being deleted." - is disconcerting due to its complete misunderstanding of speedy deletion policy, which may play a role here. --
260:
1282:: If seeking to overturn a consensus based deletion, it would be best to split these four deletion reviews out seperately so that they can be given consideration on an individual basis.
1217:
1036:
666:
613:
609:
218:
200:
175:
785:
to be covered in some form or other. Salting is entirely inappropriate. At least one or two of the articles need to be re-created, though I'm not sure which or in which format.
2412:
Any COI is irrelevant to this discussion - COI does not govern whether material should exist. The discussion from over a year ago never once touched upon sources, either. --
2434:
It is, however, relevant to discussions of process. The problems with the article are independent of the conflict of interest, and include the fact that it is advertorial.
1309:
I asked on the talk page and was told to list it like this, with all the articles at once so we can discuss them all at once, since only one or two need to be kept. See
1554:
The request of this deletion review - "to cover the topic in some way in
Knowledge, and to undelete one or two articles for this purpose" - is outside the scope of the
2357:, it wouldn't be an issue, right? If there are specific problems with the article itself, I would prefer we deal with those. I'm happy to fix any deficiencies there.
1474:
I think the lack of non-promotional sources discussing the subject is an indication of its notability. That is no RS are available endorsing or debunking the stuff.
772:
456:
312:
In the case of books it should be easy to point to reviews in mass market media to demonstrate notabilty. If you can do this, I'll be prepared to review my !vote.
2261:
1393:
Comment: WP:HOAX and WP:MADEUP say don't make up hoaxes and post them pretending to be real articles, not that the encyclopedia can't cover notable hoaxes.
723:
781:
A number of related articles are being repeatedly nominated for deletion for inappropriate reasons. Although I agree with some of the deletions, this topic
1317:
1304:
1040:
48:
34:
993:
as distinct topics, with restrictions of the content on POV, notability, and verifiability as per the previous AfDs. The ruling on other pages such as
1496:
has "self-published" the majority of his books and journal articles. We can join those dots by having an article based the reliable sources we have.
199:
now seeks review of the delete outcome of the 14 December 2006 AfD, reasoning that "this page was deleted simply because it had been deleted under an
43:
1994:
2466:
670:
617:
123:
118:
1300:
were also nominated for deletion without an afd warning being placed on my talk page (at that stage I was the only contributor to each article).
1018:. As much as I may feel that the concept, in general, has enough notability and can be well enough sourced to merit at least one article as per
928:
as nominator; weren't nominated for valid reasons. At the least, salting to prevent re-creation is inappropriate given notability of topic. —
127:
856:: It's been mentioned in a peer-reviewed journal and featured in a number of independent newspapers, in both articles and televised reports.
793:
of these articles. It is a request to cover the topic in some way in Knowledge, and to undelete one or two articles for this purpose. See
1283:
152:
110:
158:
2478:
1746:
1164:
considered it notable enough to mention it three times in the newsletter to refute the technology. Were all of those people "bought" ?
746:
741:
421:
416:
1538:
What we can judge, is what the state of public and scientific opinion is, and what we can be responsible for is accurate reporting.
917:
article was kept, so the magnecule stuff can go in his own article. Stuff about conventional electrolysis→oxyhydrogen welding goes in
750:
425:
1990:
2226:
2221:
39:
693:
688:
2230:
2028:
notable". Given that it was founded in February 2007, and that the article quoted from the press release saying that Dead Oceans
1967:
733:
450:
408:
1597:(a) if those are valid concepts about which we need an article, we should patch these up or rewrite them so they aren't nonsense
1932:
1927:
697:
2255:
2213:
1936:
1622:
His first point (a) is where we are now, trying to reconcile these ideas with standard science. His option (b) is covered by
1310:
794:
680:
1370:
are required... there are none. Keep them deleted, salt them, and indef block article recreators as timewasters violating
1023:
concerns though, as the article kept getting re-created and re-deleted, and the back and forth becomes a difficult issue.
829:
21:
808:
This is probably the biggest complaint, but is not, in fact, a valid criteria for deletion. Contrary to popular belief,
1961:
1919:
1836:
1293:
918:
801:
I've just gone through all the various AfDs, and all of the reasons cited for deletion fall under one of the following:
2353:
read as first-person spam. Re: Conflict of Interest - if I were a martial artist attempting to pen a solid article on
1322:
Indeed. Since this is the same issue for all four articles, it's better to discuss it in one thread rather than four.
640:
635:
583:
578:
1212:
should not be judged on the prior Afd's as Omegatron and others put a lot of work into ensuring this article had the
1446:
If this is kept deleted, I recommend unprotection so it can be replaced with an appropriate redirect instead of the
1005:, etc. will remain that they should not be recreated except as protected redirects to their appropriate main page.
865:
833:
644:
587:
2534:
2192:
2146:
1898:
1858:
1679:
1642:
1555:
549:
497:
387:
343:
89:
17:
1152:
Ok, I'll bite. Reliable sources and notability have provisions for not include non-independant sources such as
2034:
627:
570:
2417:
2290:
2090:
2062:
2015:
1670:
114:
2474:
1512:
825:
412:
2413:
2286:
2086:
2058:
2011:
106:
70:
2470:
2454:
2394:
2358:
2272:
2217:
1793:
2524:
2505:
2482:
2457:
2447:
2421:
2397:
2387:
2361:
2320:
2294:
2275:
2181:
2135:
2109:
2094:
2076:
2066:
2051:
2037:
2019:
2001:
1887:
1843:
1819:
1759:
1730:
1713:
1649:
1576:
1563:
1544:
1515:
1500:
1480:
1465:
1433:
1420:
1388:
1346:
1274:
1200:
1168:
1143:
1125:
1091:
1027:
1009:
973:
964:
932:
538:
486:
469:
376:
332:
316:
304:
276:
244:
228:
207:
178:
on 14 December 2006, stating that the outcome of the deletion debate was delete. On 19 December 2006,
78:
1755:, suggesting that we can write an article about it using primarily reputable scientific publications.
1590:
about Crackpot Physics from 2003 persuades me that having an article on these topics is not necessary.
878:"Violates WP:OR", " User:Nseidm1 editing/re-creating these articles may be in a Conflict of interest"
534:– Deletions endorsed w/o prejudice against creation of a sourced article, article space unprotected –
2502:
2354:
2132:
1450:
1242:
873:
doesn't count as self-publishing. Independent, third-party newspapers and journals definitely don't.
853:
737:
535:
404:
364:
241:
225:
2325:
2209:
2167:
179:
631:
1323:
1081:
All this resulted in the deletion of all these similar articles. As long as no editor can supply
998:
941:
837:
466:
1998:
1726:
So we are in (a), but the article should be deleted? Option a is "patched up or rewritten". —
1568:
If it helps you focus on the matter at hand, consider this as a deletion review specificly for
1060:
available. Even those by CNN and FOX are nothing more than reporting on the promotion by Klein.
913:
article, since they are promoted by different people and claimed to be unique substances. The
684:
2124:
2057:
Sources (or lack thereof) are irrelevant when it comes to A7s and assertions of notability. --
1982:
1797:
1785:
1686:
1461:
1398:
1382:
1118:
272:
234:
1660:
In case its useful to others, Jimbo's email lists three articles that were being considered:
1645:, then it's time for us to summarize this material in Knowledge. That time has not yet come.
1002:
899:
Me too, but it's our duty to cover it in some form, in a neutral, verifiable, scientific way.
623:
522:
1923:
1663:
1493:
1363:
1297:
914:
203:, and oddly enough, the nominator proved the notability of the work." (Summary provided by
190:
1035:
As is explained here there were numerous violations of policy cited in the many AfD's: see
812:
does not prohibit articles about hoaxes. Go read it. It prohibits creating articles that
2329:
1840:
1789:
1752:
1646:
1371:
817:
729:
530:
238:
222:
196:
1425:
Did you actually read those guidelines before citing them here? You should. Especially
1587:
805:"Violates WP:HOAX", "Most likely a hoax", " concept exists only within a fringe theory"
1816:
1727:
1702:
1623:
1430:
1426:
1359:
1314:
1246:
1122:
1110:
1050:
1019:
970:
929:
870:
821:
809:
481:
369:
329:
286:
171:
2442:
2436:
2382:
2376:
2315:
2309:
2304:
1627:
1560:
1254:
1237:
1195:
1189:
325:
204:
2178:
2106:
2073:
2048:
1986:
1884:
1800:
1693:
1530:
in an attempt to get the initial publicity, and these should of curse be rejected).
1457:
1409:
1405:
1394:
1375:
1367:
1266:
1229:
1225:
1213:
1157:
1153:
1114:
1106:
1075:
1071:
1067:
986:
906:
849:
676:
574:
526:
373:
313:
268:
75:
2247:
1953:
767:
714:
661:
604:
442:
193:
speedy deleted Accidental Centaurs writing, "Redeleting previously AFD'd article."
170:
is a webcomic created and drawn by John Lotshaw that debuted on January 15, 2002.
144:
2345:
1915:
1879:
1803:
1756:
1710:
1573:
1497:
1475:
1417:
1301:
1271:
1221:
1165:
1138:
1086:
1063:
There are no independent and journalistic credible sources debunking the claims.
1024:
2128:
1978:
1006:
994:
1258:
476:
2518:
Significant noticed total nonsense in my opinion, but that isn't a factor.
1559:
Rather than allowing others to waste time on this, speedy close please. --
2374:
Reiki gets rather more Google hits, and has reliable independent sources.
2520:
1540:
2328:
is one of a family of "modalities" commonly falling under the banner of
1160:, this topic has appeared on many separate TV stations, newspapers, and
2341:
1638:
1569:
1413:
1209:
990:
910:
566:
518:
1265:) (one Afd participant mentioned this). I suggest non-admins review
1216:
up front. I'm happy that this has been raised at DRV as the the last
852:
for the article, which also clearly demonstrates that the topic meets
182:
speedy deleted Accidental Centaurs and redirected it to deleted page "
1416:
article at one point or another in between various content disputes.
221:, and oddly enough, the nominator proved the notability of the work.
167:
2271:
engaged. First attempt to dialog was simply deleted from talk page.
1046:
Being a hoax is not relevant, the missing RS is what this is about.
2333:
1262:
217:
This page was deleted simply because it had been deleted under an
1311:
Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Reviewing_several_articles_at_once
795:
Knowledge talk:Deletion review#Reviewing several articles at once
1250:
1161:
940:, valid AFDs with clear and strong consensus towards deletion.
896:"I'm sick and tired of reverting this into a semi-sane state."
1228:
was in denial of the sources that Omegatron had collated on
2337:
1751:
In regards to "Brown's Gas", there are a decent number of
1043:
for a detailed analysis refuting nominators suggestions.
1784:
logical deductions, such as debunking Klein's quotes of
1224:
didnt notify anyone involved about the Afd. The use of
1037:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/HHO gas (3rd nomination)
2243:
2239:
2235:
1949:
1945:
1941:
861:"But those are all self-published promotional sources"
763:
759:
755:
710:
706:
702:
657:
653:
649:
600:
596:
592:
475:
Immediately undeleted since it was deleted as a PROD. —
438:
434:
430:
194:
187:
140:
136:
132:
1066:
The previous 2 points make any article a violation of
969:
Do you also endorse salting to prevent re-creation? —
1412:
based on those references, of which most were in the
1666:, which has many reputable source and still has the
1220:
skipped my attention because it wasnt delsorted and
1775:
1053:several commercial websites are used as source.
2081:It's really not a POV, CSD is very clear - an
1985:. The initial roster of Dead Oceans includes
1637:new secondary literature on this issue. After
1883:– overturned, merge suggested via template –
465:Escalalting use of the phrase in UK business
8:
816:hoaxes. We have hundreds of articles about
2191:The following is an archived debate of the
1897:The following is an archived debate of the
1041:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Denny Klein
548:The following is an archived debate of the
386:The following is an archived debate of the
88:The following is an archived debate of the
2160:
1872:
1572:, the most recently and least opined Afd.
1456:template. (No opinion yet on the others.)
1085:there is no point in recreating yet again.
511:
357:
63:
1705:with a section "Rotating magnetic fields"
1366:... absolutely zero facts involved here.
1427:WP:HOAX#Hoaxes vs. articles about hoaxes
2533:The above is an archived debate of the
2145:The above is an archived debate of the
1857:The above is an archived debate of the
1788:and mentioning similar things like the
496:The above is an archived debate of the
342:The above is an archived debate of the
919:Oxy-fuel welding and cutting#Hydrogen
7:
2501:no reason to invalidate the AfD. --
1806:without any bogus gas claims, etc.
789:This is not a request to undelete
28:
1408:? Please comment on the lack of
985:I support the suggestion to keep
2044:unhelpfully sitting on the fence
1792:, linking to the articles about
905:I'm currently leaning towards a
840:, and this is a very Good Thing.
2121:Restore, don't bother with AfD
1284:Can't sleep, clown will eat me
1:
1692:, and proposed to merge with
2500:, no reliable sources -: -->
1837:User_talk:Jayvdb/Denny_Klein
1641:publishes their article, or
1586:: This extract from Jimbo's
1294:Institute for Basic Research
2171:– overturned and listed at
2085:is all that's necessary. --
2560:
2525:19:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
2506:13:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
2483:00:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
2458:22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
2448:18:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
2422:16:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
2398:22:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
2388:18:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
2362:13:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
2321:10:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
2295:10:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
2276:09:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
2182:15:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
2136:04:14, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
2110:22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
2095:19:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
2077:19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
2067:22:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
2052:22:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
2038:21:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
2020:16:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
2008:Undelete and possibly list
2002:14:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
1888:18:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
1844:23:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
1820:07:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
1760:04:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
1731:02:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
1714:04:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
1650:01:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
1577:07:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
1564:05:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
1545:18:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
1516:14:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
1501:07:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
1481:15:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
1466:22:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
1434:00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
1421:23:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
1389:22:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
1347:08:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
1318:00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
1305:23:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
1287:21:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
1275:18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
1201:18:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
1169:07:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
1144:15:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
1126:00:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
1092:17:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
1028:17:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
1010:16:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
974:14:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
965:14:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
933:14:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
539:23:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
487:18:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
470:18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
377:19:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
333:06:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
317:19:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
305:13:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
277:22:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
245:22:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
229:22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
208:06:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
79:22:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
2072:eventually get deleted.
1701:, which now redirects to
1680:Dynamic theory of gravity
1643:Reviews of Modern Physics
1156:, but if you look at the
233:The book is published by
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
2540:Please do not modify it.
2198:Please do not modify it.
2152:Please do not modify it.
1904:Please do not modify it.
1864:Please do not modify it.
1786:a car that runs on water
555:Please do not modify it.
503:Please do not modify it.
393:Please do not modify it.
349:Please do not modify it.
95:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
2102:Restore and List at AFD
1699:Rotating magnetic field
1406:Talk:HHO gas#References
1358:jesus christ people...
1230:Talk:HHO gas#References
1083:non-promotional sources
1058:non-promotional sources
2537:of the article above.
2195:of the article above.
2149:of the article above.
1901:of the article above.
1861:of the article above.
1804:that electrolyze water
1780:
1619:
1208:. The latest article
552:of the article above.
500:of the article above.
390:of the article above.
372:deletion overturned –
346:of the article above.
92:of the article above.
74:– Deletion endorsed –
2469:comment was added by
2024:I deleted it as "not
1794:electrolysis products
1593:
1232:, and the use of the
866:self-published source
854:our primary criterion
239:Dread Lord CyberSkull
223:Dread Lord CyberSkull
197:Dread Lord CyberSkull
186:Accidental Centaurs."
2355:Chinese martial arts
2305:conflict of interest
1243:pathological science
1121:, very carefully. —
981:Conditional overturn
864:No they aren't. "A
850:a list of references
830:scientific fallacies
328:an index of books.
168:Accidental Centaurs
107:Accidental Centaurs
71:Accidental Centaurs
1158:list of references
2547:
2546:
2486:
2446:
2420:
2386:
2319:
2293:
2159:
2158:
2125:Secretly Canadian
2093:
2065:
2018:
1983:Secretly Canadian
1871:
1870:
1513:Man with two legs
1464:
1401:
1199:
510:
509:
356:
355:
275:
235:Plan 9 Publishing
189:On 12 March 2007
2551:
2542:
2498:Endorse deletion
2464:
2440:
2416:
2380:
2313:
2301:endorse deletion
2289:
2251:
2233:
2200:
2161:
2154:
2089:
2061:
2014:
1957:
1939:
1906:
1873:
1866:
1691:
1685:
1675:
1669:
1664:Plasma cosmology
1584:Endorse deletion
1494:Ruggero Santilli
1478:
1460:
1455:
1449:
1404:Did you look at
1397:
1387:
1380:
1356:Endorse deletion
1343:
1341:
1339:
1337:
1335:
1298:Ruggero Santilli
1193:
1141:
1089:
1033:Endorse deletion
1016:Endorse deletion
961:
959:
957:
955:
953:
938:Endorse deletion
915:Ruggero Santilli
771:
753:
718:
700:
665:
647:
608:
590:
557:
512:
505:
446:
428:
395:
358:
351:
302:
299:
296:
293:
271:
148:
130:
97:
64:
53:
33:
2559:
2558:
2554:
2553:
2552:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2538:
2535:deletion review
2465:—The preceding
2330:Energy medicine
2266:
2260:
2254:
2224:
2208:
2196:
2193:deletion review
2150:
2147:deletion review
2133:trialsanderrors
1991:Pitchfork Media
1972:
1966:
1960:
1930:
1914:
1902:
1899:deletion review
1862:
1859:deletion review
1790:water fuel cell
1757:John Vandenberg
1753:scholar results
1711:John Vandenberg
1689:
1683:
1673:
1671:totallydisputed
1667:
1574:John Vandenberg
1498:John Vandenberg
1476:
1453:
1447:
1418:John Vandenberg
1385:
1376:
1333:
1331:
1329:
1327:
1325:
1302:John Vandenberg
1272:John Vandenberg
1166:John Vandenberg
1139:
1087:
951:
949:
947:
945:
943:
909:article and an
744:
730:Magnecular bond
728:
691:
675:
638:
622:
581:
565:
553:
550:deletion review
536:trialsanderrors
531:Magnecular bond
501:
498:deletion review
461:
455:
449:
419:
405:The Brown Quote
403:
391:
388:deletion review
365:The Brown Quote
347:
344:deletion review
300:
297:
294:
291:
252:Endorse closure
163:
157:
151:
121:
105:
93:
90:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2557:
2555:
2545:
2544:
2529:
2528:
2516:
2515:
2508:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2460:
2427:
2426:
2425:
2424:
2414:badlydrawnjeff
2407:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2297:
2287:badlydrawnjeff
2268:
2267:
2264:
2258:
2252:
2203:
2202:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2184:
2157:
2156:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2138:
2123:, redirect to
2118:
2117:
2116:
2115:
2114:
2113:
2112:
2087:badlydrawnjeff
2079:
2059:badlydrawnjeff
2040:
2022:
2012:badlydrawnjeff
1974:
1973:
1970:
1964:
1958:
1909:
1908:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1869:
1868:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1781:
1778:establishment.
1767:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1749:
1738:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1703:Magnetic field
1696:
1682:, tagged with
1677:
1653:
1652:
1633:
1632:
1618:
1617:
1607:
1606:
1600:
1599:
1592:
1591:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1548:
1547:
1535:
1531:
1526:
1525:
1518:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1469:
1468:
1445:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1423:
1402:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1307:
1277:
1247:Fringe science
1203:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1147:
1146:
1129:
1128:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1079:
1064:
1061:
1054:
1047:
1030:
1020:User:Omegatron
1013:
978:
977:
976:
935:
903:
902:
901:
900:
894:
893:
892:
885:
884:
883:
876:
875:
874:
871:Nexus magazine
859:
858:
857:
848:I've compiled
843:
842:
841:
826:pseudosciences
779:
778:
775:
726:
673:
620:
560:
559:
544:
543:
542:
541:
508:
507:
492:
491:
490:
489:
463:
462:
459:
453:
447:
398:
397:
382:
381:
380:
379:
354:
353:
338:
337:
336:
335:
319:
307:
287:Andrew Lenahan
279:
249:
248:
247:
180:King of Hearts
165:
164:
161:
155:
149:
100:
99:
84:
83:
82:
81:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2556:
2543:
2541:
2536:
2531:
2530:
2527:
2526:
2523:
2522:
2512:
2509:
2507:
2504:
2499:
2496:
2495:
2484:
2480:
2476:
2472:
2471:Trane Francks
2468:
2461:
2459:
2456:
2455:Trane Francks
2451:
2450:
2449:
2444:
2439:
2438:
2433:
2432:
2431:
2430:
2429:
2428:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2399:
2396:
2395:Trane Francks
2391:
2390:
2389:
2384:
2379:
2378:
2373:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2369:
2368:
2363:
2360:
2359:Trane Francks
2356:
2352:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2335:
2331:
2327:
2326:Quantum-Touch
2324:
2323:
2322:
2317:
2312:
2311:
2306:
2302:
2298:
2296:
2292:
2288:
2283:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2274:
2273:Trane Francks
2263:
2257:
2249:
2245:
2241:
2237:
2232:
2228:
2223:
2219:
2215:
2211:
2210:Quantum-Touch
2207:
2206:
2205:
2204:
2201:
2199:
2194:
2189:
2188:
2183:
2180:
2176:
2175:
2170:
2169:
2168:Quantum-Touch
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2155:
2153:
2148:
2143:
2142:
2137:
2134:
2130:
2126:
2122:
2119:
2111:
2108:
2103:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2092:
2088:
2084:
2080:
2078:
2075:
2070:
2069:
2068:
2064:
2060:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2050:
2045:
2041:
2039:
2036:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2021:
2017:
2013:
2009:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2000:
1996:
1992:
1988:
1984:
1980:
1969:
1963:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1938:
1934:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1907:
1905:
1900:
1895:
1894:
1889:
1886:
1882:
1881:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1867:
1865:
1860:
1855:
1854:
1845:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1831:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1821:
1818:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1805:
1802:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1782:
1779:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1761:
1758:
1754:
1750:
1747:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1732:
1729:
1725:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1715:
1712:
1709:
1704:
1700:
1697:
1695:
1688:
1681:
1678:
1672:
1665:
1662:
1661:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1655:
1654:
1651:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1635:
1634:
1629:
1625:
1621:
1620:
1616:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1605:
1602:
1601:
1598:
1595:
1594:
1589:
1585:
1582:
1578:
1575:
1571:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1562:
1557:
1553:
1552:Speedy close.
1550:
1549:
1546:
1543:
1542:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1527:
1522:
1519:
1517:
1514:
1509:
1506:
1502:
1499:
1495:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1482:
1479:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1452:
1442:
1439:
1435:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1422:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1384:
1381:
1379:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1354:
1348:
1345:
1344:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1306:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1285:
1281:
1278:
1276:
1273:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1255:Pseudoscience
1252:
1248:
1244:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1204:
1202:
1197:
1192:
1191:
1185:
1182:
1181:
1170:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1145:
1142:
1136:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1127:
1124:
1120:
1117:, especially
1116:
1112:
1108:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1093:
1090:
1084:
1080:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1062:
1059:
1056:There are no
1055:
1052:
1048:
1045:
1044:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1031:
1029:
1026:
1021:
1017:
1014:
1012:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
982:
979:
975:
972:
968:
967:
966:
963:
962:
939:
936:
934:
931:
927:
924:
923:
922:
920:
916:
912:
908:
898:
897:
895:
889:
888:
886:
880:
879:
877:
872:
867:
863:
862:
860:
855:
851:
847:
846:
844:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
811:
807:
806:
804:
803:
802:
799:
798:
796:
792:
786:
784:
776:
774:
769:
765:
761:
757:
752:
748:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
725:
721:
716:
712:
708:
704:
699:
695:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
672:
668:
663:
659:
655:
651:
646:
642:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
619:
615:
611:
606:
602:
598:
594:
589:
585:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
563:
562:
561:
558:
556:
551:
546:
545:
540:
537:
533:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
515:
514:
513:
506:
504:
499:
494:
493:
488:
485:
484:
480:
479:
474:
473:
472:
471:
468:
458:
452:
444:
440:
436:
432:
427:
423:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
401:
400:
399:
396:
394:
389:
384:
383:
378:
375:
371:
367:
366:
362:
361:
360:
359:
352:
350:
345:
340:
339:
334:
331:
327:
323:
320:
318:
315:
311:
308:
306:
303:
288:
283:
280:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
253:
250:
246:
243:
240:
236:
232:
231:
230:
227:
224:
220:
216:
213:
212:
211:
209:
206:
202:
198:
195:
192:
188:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
160:
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:
59:14 March 2007
57:
50:
49:2007 March 15
45:
41:
36:
35:2007 March 13
23:
19:
2539:
2532:
2519:
2517:
2510:
2503:Sam Blanning
2497:
2435:
2375:
2350:
2308:
2300:
2281:
2269:
2197:
2190:
2172:
2166:
2151:
2144:
2120:
2101:
2082:
2043:
2042:
2029:
2025:
2007:
1987:Bishop Allen
1975:
1903:
1896:
1878:
1863:
1856:
1832:
1776:
1766:
1737:
1698:
1694:Nikola Tesla
1631:terminology.
1614:
1609:
1608:
1603:
1596:
1583:
1551:
1539:
1520:
1507:
1477:Nomen Nescio
1440:
1377:
1355:
1324:
1279:
1267:Talk:HHO gas
1233:
1205:
1188:
1183:
1154:vanity press
1140:Nomen Nescio
1134:
1088:Nomen Nescio
1082:
1057:
1049:Contrary to
1032:
1015:
984:
980:
942:
937:
925:
904:
813:
800:
790:
788:
787:
782:
780:
554:
547:
517:
502:
495:
482:
477:
464:
392:
385:
363:
348:
341:
321:
309:
290:
282:Weak endorse
281:
251:
214:
183:
166:
94:
87:
69:
58:
2346:acupuncture
1916:Dead Oceans
1880:Dead Oceans
1798:oxyhydrogen
1451:deletedpage
1222:User:Nescio
999:Denny Klein
987:Brown's gas
907:Brown's gas
677:Brown's gas
527:Brown's gas
191:BradBeattie
2129:Jagjaguwar
1995:Austin 360
1979:Jagjaguwar
1841:EdJohnston
1647:EdJohnston
1236:guideline
1119:WP:SELFPUB
995:Yull Brown
838:deceptions
326:we are not
219:AFD before
201:AFD before
44:2007 March
2299:Strongly
2083:assertion
1817:Omegatron
1728:Omegatron
1431:Omegatron
1364:WP:MADEUP
1315:Omegatron
1259:Polywater
1123:Omegatron
971:Omegatron
930:Omegatron
882:neutral.)
330:Sandstein
261:2,135,425
257:1,865,341
172:Sandstein
2511:overturn
2479:contribs
2467:unsigned
2282:Overturn
1687:accuracy
1561:Jreferee
1524:science.
1521:overturn
1508:Overturn
1444:change.
1372:WP:POINT
1234:proposed
1206:Overturn
926:Overturn
891:article"
215:Overturn
205:Jreferee
20: |
2342:qi gong
2256:restore
2227:protect
2222:history
2179:GRBerry
2107:Spartaz
2074:Spartaz
2049:Spartaz
1962:restore
1933:protect
1928:history
1885:GRBerry
1833:Comment
1801:welders
1639:Science
1624:WP:HOAX
1588:posting
1570:HHO gas
1556:purpose
1458:Rossami
1414:HHO gas
1395:Rossami
1378:ALKIVAR
1360:WP:HOAX
1280:Comment
1210:HHO gas
1184:Endorse
1135:Comment
1111:WP:SPAM
1051:WP:SPAM
1003:Aquygen
991:HHO gas
911:HHO gas
810:WP:HOAX
747:protect
742:history
694:protect
689:history
641:protect
636:history
624:Aquygen
584:protect
579:history
567:HHO gas
523:Aquygen
519:HHO gas
451:restore
422:protect
417:history
374:GRBerry
322:Endorse
314:Spartaz
310:Endorse
269:Rossami
174:closed
153:restore
124:protect
119:history
76:GRBerry
2307:here.
2231:delete
1937:delete
1628:WP:ATT
1462:(talk)
1441:Relist
1399:(talk)
1257:(e.g.
1251:Hoaxes
1238:WP:SCI
1113:, and
1025:Arkyan
836:, and
822:frauds
818:hoaxes
751:delete
698:delete
645:delete
588:delete
426:delete
273:(talk)
128:delete
2443:Help!
2383:Help!
2334:Reiki
2316:Help!
2248:views
2240:watch
2236:links
1954:views
1946:watch
1942:links
1429:. —
1410:WP:RS
1368:WP:RS
1326:: -->
1263:N ray
1226:WP:NN
1214:WP:RS
1196:Help!
1115:WP:RS
1107:WP:NN
1076:WP:RS
1072:WP:OR
1068:WP:NN
1007:Femto
944:: -->
783:needs
768:views
760:watch
756:links
724:AfD 1
720:AfD 2
715:views
707:watch
703:links
671:AfD 1
667:AfD 2
662:views
654:watch
650:links
618:AfD 1
614:AfD 2
610:AfD 3
605:views
597:watch
593:links
467:4five
443:views
435:watch
431:links
176:AfD#1
145:views
137:watch
133:links
52:: -->
16:<
2475:talk
2418:talk
2291:talk
2244:logs
2218:talk
2214:edit
2127:(or
2091:talk
2063:talk
2030:WILL
2016:talk
1999:BenA
1993:and
1981:and
1950:logs
1924:talk
1920:edit
1796:and
1774:say:
1342:<
1313:. —
1296:and
1162:JREF
1074:and
1039:and
989:and
960:<
834:cons
764:logs
738:talk
734:edit
711:logs
685:talk
681:edit
658:logs
632:talk
628:edit
601:logs
575:talk
571:edit
439:logs
413:talk
409:edit
370:PROD
265:None
263:and
141:logs
115:talk
111:edit
32:<
2521:DGG
2437:Guy
2377:Guy
2351:not
2310:Guy
2262:AfD
2174:AFD
2026:yet
1968:AfD
1676:tag
1541:DGG
1374:.
1218:AfD
1190:Guy
921:.
814:are
791:all
777:...
773:AfD
457:AfD
298:bli
267:.
210:).
184:The
159:AfD
22:Log
2481:)
2477:•
2344:,
2340:,
2338:Qi
2336:,
2332:.
2246:|
2242:|
2238:|
2234:|
2229:|
2225:|
2220:|
2216:|
2177:–
2035:DS
1952:|
1948:|
1944:|
1940:|
1935:|
1931:|
1926:|
1922:|
1690:}}
1684:{{
1674:}}
1668:{{
1454:}}
1448:{{
1362:,
1261:,
1109:,
1070:,
1001:,
997:,
832:,
828:,
824:,
820:,
766:|
762:|
758:|
754:|
749:|
745:|
740:|
736:|
722:,
713:|
709:|
705:|
701:|
696:|
692:|
687:|
683:|
669:,
660:|
656:|
652:|
648:|
643:|
639:|
634:|
630:|
616:,
612:,
603:|
599:|
595:|
591:|
586:|
582:|
577:|
573:|
529:,
525:,
521:,
483:gr
478:An
441:|
437:|
433:|
429:|
424:|
420:|
415:|
411:|
368:–
301:nd
295:ar
292:St
289:-
259:,
242:✎☠
237:.
226:✎☠
143:|
139:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
117:|
113:|
42::
2485:.
2473:(
2445:)
2441:(
2385:)
2381:(
2318:)
2314:(
2265:)
2259:|
2253:(
2250:)
2212:(
1971:)
1965:|
1959:(
1956:)
1918:(
1386:☢
1383:™
1340:t
1338:n
1336:a
1334:i
1332:d
1330:a
1328:R
1253:/
1249:/
1245:/
1198:)
1194:(
1078:.
958:t
956:n
954:a
952:i
950:d
948:a
946:R
797:.
770:)
732:(
717:)
679:(
664:)
626:(
607:)
569:(
460:)
454:|
448:(
445:)
407:(
162:)
156:|
150:(
147:)
109:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.