1292:. More than a few editors (including several admins) worked for several months on this article, discussing the reliability and suitability of sources, adding as much positive and neutral information as possible, rewriting, negotiating, sometimes reverting, meticulously citing what was deemed appropriate by nearly all editors involved and deleting the more problematic ones. I realize it may seem distasteful to mention anything negative about a living person, particularly one whose notability stems largely from the controversies involved. However, it was all well sourced and carefully worded in as NPOV a fashion as possible. It deserves more than a superficial glance before judgment is rendered about its appropriateness and adherence to policy. For those who can see the history, I would direct you to the Talk page discussions, particularly with respect to the RS used and good faith attempts to verify positive claims about the subject. I would also refer you to the content of edits by
1296:, presumed by other editors to be Bauer herself. Finally, I would agree with Calton that it is not a good idea to summarily delete an article in the face of a legal complaint, providing that the problematic material is well-sourced - which this was. If Wikimedia Foundation decides, after a good look at the article, that it is indeed unsuitable, then fine - but it should not be done on the basis of a cursory glance, or the mere presence of negative information. Indeed, part of the notability of the subject is a history of apparently ill-founded legal threats, many of which were not mentioned in the article because they were primarily reported in blogs and on message boards. Thank you.
2370:, which closed earlier this month, several of the purported sources do not even mention the group and almost all the rest are passing mentions, the DRV request is almost identical to the one which closed only very recently including these self-same sources, there is absolutely no need to reopen it however hard they are trolling for it. The list of people who think Myg0t is significant but are not themselves members is very short indeed, and does not appear to include external commentators. No other venue for debate exists because none is needed. We keep discussing it (because they keep asking us to) and we keep coming to the same conclusion.
1721:
article is that it is 1/ 100% OR, 2/no notability is shown, for there is no evidence that it has ever been discussed anywhere, and it is 3/ totally unsourced, except for a general reference to one standard advanced textbook, which I doubt supports any of the material in the article. There is no reason to have another AfD is spite of what I think were altogether irrelevant arguments in the AfD, as it will surely be deleted again. OR is not among the reasons for speedy, or it would certainly apply. Sandstein's advice to try to write a sourced article is the best way.
984:, which would be generally acceptable for many purposes but not sufficient for this sort of information. The quote in particular talks about "worst 10" and as mentioned above, this is simply not specific enough to be acceptable in an article about her. I do not immediately see a link on the page to anything more specific. except complaints on their blog, which are not RSs for this. Newspaper or other professional media stories are needed, so they can be quoted. There should be some, a/c NY Brad. If he adds them, and quotes from them to support the key material,
1256:. The version deleted was, IMO, not too problematic. The listing of her among the SFWA '20 worst agents' is from a notable organization in the field, and if she has an article it should not omit that information. I believe the quote is especially important since we're directly quoting the organization rather than using our own words. I do believe however that blog sources need more explanation of why they are notable opinions or sources - blogs can be acceptable sources if the author is notable/trustworthy.
2521:
the article I wrote was meticulously sourced. I made an effort to ensure that the article was about the
Internet phenomenon and not the unfortunate man himself; the notorious photo was not included. No one has ever given a coherent, in-policy explanation of why Knowledge (XXG) must make no mention whatsoever of this prominent Internet meme. I would like to hear a specific justification for deletion based on our policy, not an emotional argument about Peppers' feelings or an
888:, per Sandstein's reasoning. While I think Doc jumped the gun on the deletion, there's no reason to have a wheel war now while the Office catches up with things. The article was a good biographical stub, with a two-paragraph section about her agency. A bit of trimming might have been in order, but this ten-month-old article certainly wasn't a G10 ranting screed smear job. I assume someone's already notified Brad; he's still Foundation counsel until the end of the month.
1024:
undefined places. No reliable sources, no mainstream media interest. Whist we are not censored and all that shit, we are not a tabloid gutter medium. We simply don't need articles like this and there is no reason to upset the subjects. I stand by the deletion. Given the legal situation, I find the recklessness of asking for undeletion at this time unbelievable. If that's resolved, rebuild the thing - but find some evidence of mainstream encyclopedic value first.--
1342:
main mainstream media. We are not a tabloid - we don't do internet rumours and allegations - we don't do investigative journalism - other than the fact that some magazine gave her a bad review (so what?) there was nothing remotely encyclopedic there. This is simply not what wikipedia is - and is clearly not how we treat Living
Persons, not matter the legality or how much people disdain the subject. I stand by the deletion. Write a real article if you want.--
1564:"Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopedia, not a publisher of original thought. The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."
937:. BLP doesn't mean we can never write something that might reflect negatively on a living person; it means such claims have to be properly attributed and cited, which they are in the cached article. Furthermore, it would set a very bad precedent for the Wikimedia Foundation to allow an article to be deleted as a result of spurious legal threats or frivolous lawsuits. That would only invite a flood of additional such claims.
1125:, and whether the other source is good or not (it is asserted that the site is a notable and reliable source of such information) is an editorial judgement which can be hashed out in the usual way. I don't think we need be scared here, since we are republishing documented fact (i.e. that the SF Writers listed her as one of the 20 worst agents) rather than asserting as fact that she
1316:. As several other editors stated, the article was properly sourced with references to pages held by notable organizations and individuals in the writing field and was the result of extensive discussion amongst editors. The legal threat may be part of the reason this was deleted, but deleting articles based on spurious legal threats sets a bad precedent. -
1693:"This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome but instead if you think the debate was interpreted incorrectly by the closer or have some information pertaining to the debate that did not receive an airing during the AfD debate (perhaps because the information was not available at that time)."
2828:
Please reconsider the following deletion for undeletion. Further, since this discussion between the administrator and I began, it appears that the adminstrator has additionaly taken the egregious liberty of deleting every external link I have entered for the journal
Kritikos. I have only entered the
1175:
Apparently, the article was bad enough as written to merit a BLP takedown. As an OTRS volunteer who deals with a lot of questionable content in biographies, Doc has some experience with articles that contain badly sourced or poorly sourced or content that doesn't merit inclusion. Knowledge (XXG) is
1023:
The article I deleted was a bloody disgrace of tittle tattle. I knew nothing about the legal matters - I nuked it as an unencyclopedic BLP violation. There was nothing noteworthy in it, and a lot of 'allegations' about what someone might have posted on a message board. And various criticism of her in
2940:
I accept the decision. However, Kritikos is an open acess journal, indexed in university library datatbases all over the world. Placing such a link in the appropriate article, as I have done, is a reference for further research--not linkspamming to a commercial site. I kindly ask that these links
1341:
for reasons of legal threats of which I was unaware at the time. The article was a disgrace full of references to "complaints on internet message boards", "alleged" legal threats, imputed motives, vague references to "reports of behavior", and original research links to court reports that have never
1068:
MONMOUTH, NEW JERSEY is a ridiculously pre-emptive overreaction, not to mention putting his personal opinion of the article above encyclopedic standards. As for the BLP issues, hey, the official opinion of a professional writer's organization (the SFWA is not some random bunch of wannabes) regarding
576:
is that the article will be reviewed by the
Wikimedia Foundation legal staff ASAP, and Bastique (an employee of the Foundation) has requested to us to not undelete the article in the meantime. At that time, the legal staff will give us a bit of guidance on the issue. To use DRV jargon, that guidance
1720:
I am not happy with the AfD, which is mostly devoted to attempts at explaining why the theory is wrong. Wrong it is, no doubt, but that is not for an Afd debate to determine. There is no requirement that a WP article be correct, just that it be N, sourced, and not OR. The real reasons to delete the
2520:
This article was deleted out-of-process with the claim that it was an "attempt to re-create Brian
Peppers article." In fact, none of the content was taken from the original article (which I don't even have access to), so it did not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Every single fact in
2241:
original research, it is reporting from notable sources regarding an incident that involved myg0t. To say that the incident was nothing more than a synthesis from published stories is an outright lie, I have laid out irrefutable evidence of the event occurring in the manner I have described it as
1664:
Don't you care that
Knowledge (XXG) supports an outadet for almost 100 years Newtonian view over Einstein's that is still a leading theory of gravitation? Accidentally I'm using Einstein's theory in my PhD thesis but it has nothing to do with the issue. Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be based on
1092:
I did read it -- notice that I quoted you, and isn't it weird how you feel it's okay to bray about other people jumping to conclusions while doing so yourself? -- and I stand by what I wrote. I read the article before your pre-emptive deletion, so I know what was in it, and I know you deleted it
736:
According to press coverage and the official docket, the
Wikimedia Foundation and 14 other defendants were sued on Friday by the subject of this article. The Office has not yet had an opportunity to provide advice or instructions on what action, if any, should be taken. I strongly urge that no
966:
actions will happen as they will, I would tend to hope that such systems aren't so fragile as to be really damaged by the normal process and discussion seen here. I don't see a reason, let alone benefit, to tabling discussion. Not like we're likely to be overruling an office action, eh?
158:
2216:, a novel synthesis from published (or in this case published and self-published) sources. One is left with the overwhelming impression that absolutely nobody else in the world shares this group's belief in its own significance. Nothing has changed, no new information, speedy endorse.
1276:
Comment: A Foundation representative has requested that this article not be restored until they have completed their review. This should occur before this DRV is scheduled to conclude, but please do not close and restore early, no matter what consensus may be arrived at
179:
problem with the controversy being about the only element covered in this article. If this would be overturned, I would gladly contribute to an article about Arlon
Lindner (the person), but I cannot salvage this into an article with a completely different scope. ::
1082:
Try reading my post (only one above yours) before assuming my motives and then attacking them. The 'Trenton' quip isn't clever enough to justify ignoring the fact that I'd just said I had no knowledge of the lawsuit. Setting up straw-men to burn ill becomes
917:, I don't think the article was sourced that badly that deletion was the only solution. (But don't restore the article prematurely, and if the office steps in before the review has run its course, follow their lead. But I don't need to say that, do I?) --
123:
118:
1549:
itself since there are so many people who believe in real existence of the "universal gravitational attraction", that they always revert edits to this page and that's why I decided after many attempts to reason with them, and not wanting to engage in an
2829:
external link on pages of relevance (e.g. postmodern literature, postmodern, critical theory, etc.) This additional action by the adminstrator is exceedingly unethical and unfair. The discussion link follows below. Many thanks for your consideration.
2647:- Brian Peppers is a recurring meme in popular culture? Sounds like another grasping-at-straws attempt at recreating an article that should not exist. This repeated AfD/Deletion Review/Wikipedia Process mining is way past the point of being disruptive.
127:
1558:). After deleting this page there is no way a lay person can learn that there is a simple (scientific) explanation for the illusion of gravitational attraction and so this lay person is likely to believe in the over 300 years old prejudice instead.
2061:
is willing to patrol it for crap indefinitely (perhaps aided with indefinite semiprotection). Judging from the logs, this topic seems to attract a lot of crap, even if the press coverage above indicates that the group appears to be notable enough.
1156:: How do we get from "one of the 20 worst according to a list" to notability, though, particularly sufficient notability to sustain a controversial BLP? We don't typically have articles on literary agents for unknown writers, so far as I am aware.
152:
110:
1498:
The reality of gravitational attraction, despite being not supported by science, is still very popular among non physicists and even many physicists and consequently they try to push their
Newtonian POV, by using sentences like:
607:
ballpark right now, and our actions could make things worse from a legal standpoint if we are not careful. Once we have all the facts, we can (and should, and most likely, will) revisit this. At the very least, consider this a
1972:
Church of Fools
Incident - none of the articles mention myg0t by name but a forum post has recently been uncovered that shows the planning of the incident before it actually occurred and before the articles were published.
114:
2211:
this group? As before, only one of these references is anything other than a trivial passing mention, if any mention at all. Several do not even mention the group by name - the whole Church of Fools thing is blatant
979:
I do see serious BLP and sourcing problems with the March 20 version in the Google cache, I haven t seen anything later, so what I am saying may be out of date. The damaging info about her agency depends primarily on
2338:
I would appreciate it if you didn't hide my comments and I would also like if you didn't treat me like a common vandal. Using a template to force the end of a conversation is inappropriate. Especially since there is
1640:
page is too tough for the amount of editors with a lot of free time who fight for it. So let them have their (non Einsteinian) gravitation as they understand it intact and Knowledge (XXG) would have one suported by
1495:(which then might be a 15 year project). And so to understand why Newtonian gravitational attraction was once thought to be real and why since Einstein it is no more. Something what encyclopiedias are written for.
106:
70:
2951:
Unlikely, adding external links to the same webpage, when done by an editor with no other edit history, is most likely done for the benefit of that webpage, and not for the benefit of Knowledge (XXG). ~
1927:
1921:
737:
further action be taken on-wiki or comments made here until the Foundation has had a reasonable opportunity to provide input. I strongly urge that this review be closed for now, without prejudice.
2265:
At the risk of getting myself involved in a topic I don't much care about, I am reopening this DRV to permit continued discussion to take place. I have made this choice for a number of reasons:
1891:
1915:
1607:, and it was, by plain consensus. The submitter's argument as to why his gravitational theory should have an article is beside the point; we're not discussing the article on its merits here.
1570:
1466:
1903:
1214:
based on the idea that it would be cleaned up. The article remained a dump for comments from blogs and other unreliable internet sources. This has been a clear and persistent violation of
1885:
1121:. Understandable deletion, but I think cleanup is both possible and preferable in this case. The reference to the SF Writers of America passes a reasonable test of attribution even for
771:
I see no reason to, honestly, especially when it comes to silencing what could be productive discussion on the matter. The full deletion could have waited a day, too, could it not? --
590:
If the Foundation takes action on the articles, this DRV will be moot anyways. Maybe they will decide to simply undelete it for legal reasons. Maybe delete it for legal reasons. Maybe
1185:
If it will short-circuit this, I'm happy for an admin to undelete it - if they will go thorough it with a BLP blowtorch and make sure we've nothing there that's not backed up with a
704:
some debate as to whether the quote was appropriate, but the deletion appears to be a pre-emptive strike. Barring any Foundation-level intervention, this needs a full hearing, IMO.
2584:
You still haven't explained what specific policy the article violated. If you want to claim that an accurate, neutral, sourced article should be deleted, you ought to explain why.
1940:
New sources have been both uncovered, discovered, and/or published since the last DRV which contest the previous decision of non-notability. The current sources are listed below.
692:
Subject of the article is apparently, per a post on the wikien-l mailing list, suing the Wikimedia Foundation. Drove some new eyes to the article, where it was then deleted by
2476:
2471:
2807:
2480:
1201:. It should be noted that the Mystery Writers of America points their members to the SFWA's Writer Beware project. The MWA isn't exactly a group of wannabe writers either.
1005:
I'm not sure how my name is being invoked here; I raised only a process point (which is being roundly ignored), and said nothing about the specific allegations or sources.
819:, seeing as most of the cites were to her own website. In current circumstances this should not be recreated in the previous form: no prejudice against recreation, though.
828:
Um, you might want to check that. Only two of the eight sites were to Ms. Bauer's website; the links support the statements that she has a literary agency and a podcast.
587:(This is basically the entire reason for my closure - so it will be restarted once we know what the heck to do without being afraid of the world falling out on top of us.)
2505:
2463:
2187:
As far as I am concerned, only the Computer Games Magazine article serves as a reliable source, as all of the other scanned articles are merely tangential references.
1211:
683:
454:
530:
48:
34:
1933:
1782:
1431:
1426:
2511:
1435:
1101:
you overlook that?), so let us say I'm skeptical about your claims -- both the content and your oddly coincidental timing. Got a problem? Deal with it. --
1909:
43:
305:
300:
1215:
1460:
1418:
309:
2321:
Discussed on my talk page. DRV closures are not appealable. Barring substantial new evidence once a deletion has been endorsed the next step is to
1897:
2595:
2536:
948:
340:
334:
292:
2057:, but only after someone presents us with an article in userspace that contains not one bit of information that is not sourced to these sources,
2100:. Would have to say recreate. Has more notability then a lot of articles on wikipedia. Can't deny just because some people don't like them.
2772:
2767:
2278:
While the previous DRV was valid, it was closed more on the merits of the argument and the arguer (the SPA) then the merits of the evidence.
1879:
2776:
2251:
2162:
2031:
1569:
A main part of discussion about the deletion in which all concerns against the page were answered and none of mine (as you may see) is in
39:
2635:. Its deletion was endorsed through DRV before and I see nothing new that should lead this to be overturned, there are no new sources.
1561:
So please, leave the "gravitational attraction" intact, despite the consensus (9:1 for deletion), since as Knowledge (XXG)'s policy says
1242:: "Without prejudice" was from when I thought we could wait 24-48 hours to have this discussion. (Silly me for expecting such patience.)
962:. Probably sans the quote, which would appear the only real questionable bit. While I wouldn't say jump on it this red hot moment, and
2801:
2759:
1936:(DRV March 2007, speedy closed due to spurious "new" evidence - note: this is pretty much the same "new" evidence as presented below)
648:
643:
2879:. If you think you are notable enough for an encyclopedia article, you really should wait for someone else to write the article.
2869:
1869:
652:
988:
the article can & should be restored. The best thing to do right now is to get a good article ready without these problems.
21:
1491:. The page was explaining that legend so simply that an high school student could understand it, without necessity of studying
411:
406:
677:
635:
415:
2552:
2019:
2467:
905:, since this will stick around for at least five days. Article seems well-sourced, and moderate in its critical coverage.
2923:
2353:
2303:
1422:
1305:
2281:
This DRV is needed to recover the deleted content (to satisfy GFDL) since the new article would be based on that content.
1636:
than none and is pushing POV that is outdated for nearly 100 year as it is now. And as I mentioned before, improving the
457:. However, since the matter has since been resolved (I've restored part of the article), you can close this if you want.
1502:
1265:
398:
2967:
2880:
2738:
2698:
2578:
2442:
2398:
1800:
1756:
1397:
1357:
551:
504:
271:
231:
89:
17:
2591:
2532:
2459:
2419:
2343:. I don't want this to turn into a circus... but consensus for inclusion or exclusion needs to be built somewhere. ---
2293:. If anyone has any questions, feel free to shoot me an email, contact me on my talk page or leave a message here. ---
944:
723:
Standing decision is the keep closure from June 2006, speedy deletion amounts to a de-facto challenge to that closure.
296:
370:
1739:-- apparently to conform with his theory--as stated on that talk page, and expert attention might be needed there.
2865:
1834:
1829:
918:
2284:
Consensus can change... and if the response this DRV has been getting is any indication, it appears it might be.
2248:
2159:
2028:
1838:
1629:
1516:
1414:
1378:
893:
833:
2617:
2117:
1591:
848:
per Newyorkbrad, but that doesn't mean we can't already discuss the merits of the deletion. On these, I'd say
776:
753:
709:
1698:
If you want the topic to have an article again, write it in userspace, address the issues raised in the AfD,
2763:
2075:
1321:
583:
If the Foundation tells us that we can take action on it, then restart the DRV, or ideally, file a new one.
2863:
2586:
2527:
1863:
1821:
939:
288:
252:
2613:
2113:
1998:
1587:
772:
749:
705:
483:
Everything's fine now and the article is back again. This deletion review can be closed. Thanks a lot. --
2428:
1343:
1190:
1084:
1025:
639:
2956:
2945:
2934:
2892:
2871:
2820:
2755:
2727:
2719:
2687:
2675:
2663:
2659:
We don't have an article on Brian Peppers himself so obviously we shouldn't have an article on this. --
2651:
2639:
2621:
2601:
2568:
2542:
2431:
2383:
2362:
2329:
2312:
2254:
2229:
2191:
2179:
2165:
2145:
2133:
2121:
2104:
2092:
2083:
2066:
2047:
2034:
1789:
1745:
1727:
1706:
1673:
1653:
1611:
1595:
1577:
1551:
1386:
1346:
1323:
1308:
1283:
1269:
1246:
1234:
1222:
1193:
1180:
1160:
1142:
1109:
1087:
1077:
1052:
1028:
1009:
994:
971:
954:
921:
909:
897:
880:
837:
823:
789:
780:
766:
757:
742:
729:
713:
623:
540:
487:
466:
441:
387:
357:
260:
216:
207:
198:
184:
78:
2006:
Cartoon Network's Adult Swim show parodied myg0t's self-produced flash video "pwned.nl" on their show
2953:
2854:
2326:
2044:
1786:
1064:. Doc Glasgow's pushing the panic button because the subject is SUING WIKIPEDIA IN A COURT OF LAW IN
726:
438:
213:
195:
75:
2942:
2817:
1669:
and right now it is not. So it is a matter of merits and Knowledge (XXG)'s policy which is ignored.
349:
The article was OK and there was no problem reported with it. It contained the history paragraph of
2832:
2632:
2243:
2154:
2130:
2023:
1293:
1040:. The Science Fiction Writers of America, a professional writer's organization which gives out the
889:
829:
631:
525:
1984:
1231:
963:
591:
577:
would be "substantial new information" that would definitely affect the opinions of several users.
2325:. As Guy pointed out, there is no new evidence, so repeat nominations will be speedily closed. ~
2188:
1952:
1492:
1317:
462:
383:
2556:
2522:
1825:
2631:- This is an attempted recreation of a deleted article - this is really no different than just
1959:
1945:
1632:
in nature. So IMO it is better when Knowledge (XXG) has at least one page with POV supprted by
2917:
2888:
2648:
2564:
2349:
2299:
1966:
1535:
1301:
906:
2927:
2424:
1980:. Registration is required to view, use username/password combination of wikipedia/wikipedia
804:
2636:
2142:
2088:
1542:
since consensus of editors likes better explanation of the origin of species in Scriptures.
1280:
1261:
1243:
1157:
1106:
1074:
1049:
1006:
786:
763:
739:
693:
609:
402:
2905:
2901:
2850:
2842:
2357:
2307:
2022:, this DRV should remain open for a minimum of five days after the date of this signature.
1817:
1777:
1334:
1279:(This is from a Foundation representative on the mailing list; I am merely the messenger.)
1122:
934:
861:
853:
808:
613:
612:
to think about arguments for that debate, and to determine how to bring the article out of
364:
203:
I want to contest the result of the AfD. I was told this was the place to do so; sorry. ::
1666:
1642:
1633:
1625:
1555:
616:
concern territory, since at this time, there is no apparent consensus to keep it deleted.
353:
article and wanted to develop that part. The article just disappeared without any notice.
2213:
1186:
865:
812:
697:
573:
191:
1690:
discussing the article on its merits here. Please read the text at the top of the page:
2931:
2909:
2101:
2063:
1703:
1608:
1219:
877:
748:
I see no reason to stop discussion on the matter unless the office requests as such. --
375:
1507:
much simpler Newton's law of universal gravitation provides an excellent approximation
930:
869:
816:
2912:
07:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC) -- Addendum: Oh, and I have not deleted any links. It was
2672:
2660:
2612:
This is the sort of erroneous belief that is why we don't have a Peppers article. --
2378:
2372:
2224:
2218:
2007:
1177:
1137:
1131:
1041:
820:
762:
It's Sunday. The Office may not be open. You really don't think this can wait a day?
484:
459:
380:
354:
172:
2683:. Brian Peppers does not and will not have a place in Knowledge (XXG). Get over it.
2913:
2884:
2724:
2560:
2344:
2294:
1736:
1670:
1650:
1574:
1488:
1484:
1383:
1297:
968:
257:
2793:
2497:
2275:
The closing admin in this instance is the same admin that closed the previous case
1855:
1452:
669:
599:
I by no means intend for this closure to be permanent; I expect a vigorous debate
432:
326:
144:
1991:
1983:
The Lexington Herald-Leader covering the Church of Fools incident - article scan
1977:
1637:
1621:
1546:
1520:
1512:
1476:
1257:
1102:
1070:
1045:
617:
534:
394:
350:
603:
as soon as the Foundation gives us the green light to do so. However, it is in
2684:
2176:
2141:- excessive opportunities for, and potential publicity of, online harassment.
2011:
1539:
1202:
981:
212:
No, we're only doing the "delete" part. Sorry for giving you the runaround. ~
2289:
I am not taking a stance in this debate one way another. I may be consisted
1173:
focus your efforts on rewriting the article and not on this Deletion Review.
1479:
a page that would make Knowledge (XXG) a better encyclopedia. It was about
1545:
The misconception about "gravitational attraction" can't be fixed in page
2559:
violation. This is not and never has been a "prominent Internet meme".
2043:
DRV decisions aren't challengeable, if you want an article, write one. ~
2041:
The article space isn't protected, there is no restriction to recreation.
1741:
1723:
1480:
990:
204:
181:
1586:. Redirecting is an editorial decision, not governed by AfD results. --
1189:. All that 'allegation' and message board stuff needs to go, though.--
451:
2207:? In what way are we supposed to allow for sources which admittedly
1928:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September)
1645:
for those who are interested in real gravitation and not only in a
1530:(emphasis mine) while according to contemporary science they don't
1093:
after I posted the notice about the lawsuit (a lawsuit, you know,
194:
if you don't want to challenge the "keep" part of the decision. ~
107:
Lindner Ethics Complaint of the 83rd Minnesota Legislative Session
71:
Lindner Ethics Complaint of the 83rd Minnesota Legislative Session
2341:
no other venue to discuss the merits of inclusion of this article
2908:; see detailed discussion on my talk page at the link provided.
1997:
CNN News covering the Church of Fools incident - online article
1990:
BBC News covering the Church of Fools incident - online article
1922:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)
2153:- I don't understand what you mean here, could you elaborate?
1892:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 April)
1916:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 July)
1571:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Gravitational attraction
175:. I wish to contest this renaming as it has created a massive
1904:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 May)
1628:
on the subject of the issue of existence or non existence of
1554:, to make a page telling the story as it is told by science (
1069:
someone in their field counts as a reliable source for me. --
1886:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Myg0t (2nd nomination)
2323:
create a new article and to present it here for approval
2072:
Against my better judgement, allow recreation of article
1230:- And contrary to Brad, endorse with with prejudice. --
785:
Probably, but that's nothing that can be addressed now.
2789:
2785:
2781:
2493:
2489:
2485:
1851:
1847:
1843:
1624:
to which it is going to be redirected does not respect
1603:
We're reviewing whether the AfD was properly closed as
1448:
1444:
1440:
665:
661:
657:
447:
428:
424:
420:
322:
318:
314:
140:
136:
132:
2074:
As long as the user can create a subpage (you can use
876:
deletion (although sometimes I wish they were... :-)
585:
Give it the full five days with complete information.
374:.") Since the article was started by a sockpuppet of
2082:- then I do not have a problem with recreation. Per
392:
Seems like the text is still in the edit history of
2941:be restored. Thanks again for your consideration.
2084:
the fact Knowledge (XXG) does not work to deadlines
450:, but that's because of the notes on my talk page (
2883:are bad for the project for a number of reasons.
256:– agreement reached between nominator and admin –
1620:We don't? I want to create a separate page since
1523:that wrongly declares in its first sentence that
74:– Speedily closed, keep decision not contested –
1934:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2007 March 7
1501:"Modern physics describes gravitation using the
2010:with a word-for-word quote - comparison video
1910:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Myg0t (second)
1216:Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons
8:
2737:The following is an archived debate of the
2441:The following is an archived debate of the
1898:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Myg0t
1799:The following is an archived debate of the
1525:"Gravitation is a phenomenon through which
1396:The following is an archived debate of the
1176:not a tabloid, nor is it an attack column.
982:http://www.sfwa.org/beware/twentyworst.html
860:well sourced and not obviously derogatory.
550:The following is an archived debate of the
270:The following is an archived debate of the
88:The following is an archived debate of the
2849:published source and it is a violation of
2712:
2412:
1770:
1511:(emphasis mine). This is what was done in
1371:
700:shows a pretty decently sourced stub with
518:
245:
63:
2427:- deletion endorsed, don't be so silly.--
2368:No new sources since last deletion review
2272:is forming that the article should exist.
2203:since we last endorsed this one based on
1483:presently valid theory that implies that
929:. The article was well-sourced and meets
2270:on the merits of the arguments presented
1880:Knowledge (XXG):Votes for deletion/Myg0t
2966:The above is an archived debate of the
2697:The above is an archived debate of the
2397:The above is an archived debate of the
1965:Computer Games Magazine - article scan
1755:The above is an archived debate of the
1356:The above is an archived debate of the
503:The above is an archived debate of the
230:The above is an archived debate of the
2078:if you wish) which uses these sources
1944:Rolling Stone Magazine - article scan
1930:(DRV September 2006, endorse deletion)
2833:User talk:Sandstein#Nicholas Ruiz III
1976:Forum post dated 5/16/2004 - located
7:
2555:in the face of what appears to be a
1044:, not a reliable source? Riiight. --
803:- article failed multiple policies:
1924:(DRV August 2006, endorse deletion)
2237:- The Church of Fools incident is
1951:PC Format Magazine - article scan
455:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board
28:
2086:, I have no problem with this. --
2020:Knowledge (XXG) undeletion policy
1918:(DRV July 2006, endorse deletion)
2460:Brian Peppers in popular culture
2420:Brian Peppers in popular culture
2199:. What has changed in the last
1958:PC Zone Magazine - article scan
1912:(DRV May 2006, endorse deletion)
1647:"model that works in most cases"
1515:page and that's why redirecting
1129:one of the twenty worst agents.
367:("Pages created by banned users
2853:; given username of creator. --
1527:all objects attract each other"
1487:gravitational attraction is an
1095:mentioned in the article itself
529:– Closed temporarily (see also
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1906:(DRV May 06, endorse deletion)
1382:– redirect closure endorsed –
1212:saved from deletion months ago
363:Hi. I deleted the article per
1:
2926:) who correctly reverted the
1534:, is like redirecting a page
2669:Endorse deletion, obviously,
2645:Endorse deletion and protect
2551:. I am trying very hard to
1503:general theory of relativity
1702:submit it here for review.
2993:
2957:01:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
2946:12:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2935:07:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2893:05:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2872:03:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2821:01:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2728:16:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
2688:10:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2676:10:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2664:09:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2652:07:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2640:06:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2622:13:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2602:05:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2569:05:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2543:04:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2432:16:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2384:08:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
2363:03:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
2330:03:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
2313:02:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
2255:02:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
2230:23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2205:precisely the same sources
2192:20:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2180:20:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2166:02:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
2146:18:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2134:18:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2122:12:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2105:12:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2093:11:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2067:11:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2048:21:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
2035:06:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
1790:03:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
1746:17:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
1728:23:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
1707:18:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
1674:13:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
1667:reliable published sources
1654:13:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
1643:reliable published sources
1634:reliable published sources
1626:reliable published sources
1612:12:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
1596:12:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
1578:11:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
1556:reliable published sources
1387:14:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
1347:08:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
1331:Deleting admin's rationale
1324:04:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
1309:04:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
1284:01:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
1270:01:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
1247:01:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
1235:01:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
1223:00:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
1194:00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
1181:00:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
1161:03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
1143:23:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
1110:06:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
1088:23:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
1078:23:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
1053:23:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
1029:23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
1010:03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
995:23:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
972:20:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
955:20:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
922:20:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
910:20:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
898:18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
881:18:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
838:18:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
824:18:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
790:18:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
781:18:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
767:18:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
758:18:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
743:18:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
730:21:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
714:18:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
624:08:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
541:08:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
488:15:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
467:23:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
442:23:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
388:18:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
358:18:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
261:15:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
217:22:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
208:22:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
199:21:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
185:21:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
79:21:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
594:. We just don't know yet.
572:: What I understood from
378:, it meets the criteria.
2973:Please do not modify it.
2825:Greetngs administrator,
2744:Please do not modify it.
2704:Please do not modify it.
2448:Please do not modify it.
2404:Please do not modify it.
1894:(DRV April 06, undelete)
1806:Please do not modify it.
1762:Please do not modify it.
1630:gravitational attraction
1517:Gravitational attraction
1415:Gravitational attraction
1403:Please do not modify it.
1379:Gravitational attraction
1363:Please do not modify it.
580:So, my closure is this:
557:Please do not modify it.
510:Please do not modify it.
277:Please do not modify it.
237:Please do not modify it.
167:This AfD was closed and
95:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
2930:for Dr Ruiz's journal.
2877:Endorse speedy-deletion
2681:Speedy endorse deletion
2549:Endorse speedy-deletion
2523:argument from authority
1333:: I deleted this under
601:when things are clearer
2970:of the article above.
2741:of the article above.
2723:– request withdrawn –
2701:of the article above.
2445:of the article above.
2401:of the article above.
2076:User:SunStar Net/Myg0t
1803:of the article above.
1781:– Speedily closed per
1759:of the article above.
1400:of the article above.
1360:of the article above.
1258:Matthew Brown (Morven)
574:this mailing list post
554:of the article above.
507:of the article above.
289:History of Cluj-Napoca
274:of the article above.
253:History of Cluj-Napoca
234:of the article above.
92:of the article above.
2268:It appears consensus
2175:. Clearly notable --
1882:(August 2004, delete)
1171:My personal opinion:
856:case, the article is
2816:UNDELETE_Notability
1888:(March 2005, delete)
1735:jim has also edited
919:Eugène van der Pijll
872:are not reasons for
531:the continued debate
190:That's an issue for
2900:as deleting admin;
2845:, not covered by a
2843:very low notability
2579:221,000 Google hits
1210:. This article was
1038:No reliable sources
886:Suspend restoration
846:Suspend restoration
696:per BLP concerns.
1900:(May 2006, delete)
1584:Nothing to do here
1532:attract each other
1493:general relativity
1475:You redirected to
977:Do not restore yet
720:Procedural comment
2980:
2979:
2891:
2867:
2756:Nicholas Ruiz III
2720:Nicholas Ruiz III
2711:
2710:
2620:
2599:
2587:Crotalus horridus
2567:
2553:assume good faith
2540:
2528:Crotalus horridus
2411:
2410:
2382:
2361:
2311:
2228:
2214:original research
2120:
1769:
1768:
1601:Endorse redirect.
1594:
1536:Origin of species
1370:
1369:
1141:
952:
940:Crotalus horridus
779:
756:
712:
517:
516:
244:
243:
2984:
2975:
2887:
2866:
2861:
2840:Endorse Deletion
2797:
2779:
2746:
2713:
2706:
2657:Endorse deletion
2629:Endorse deletion
2616:
2589:
2563:
2530:
2501:
2483:
2450:
2413:
2406:
2376:
2347:
2297:
2222:
2197:Endorse deletion
2116:
2055:Allow recreation
1859:
1841:
1808:
1771:
1764:
1590:
1456:
1438:
1405:
1372:
1365:
1208:Endorse deletion
1135:
942:
852:. This is not a
844:(Edit conflict)
801:Endorse deletion
775:
752:
708:
694:User:Doc glasgow
673:
655:
621:
569:Closure comments
559:
538:
519:
512:
465:
436:
418:
386:
369:while they were
330:
312:
279:
246:
239:
148:
130:
97:
64:
53:
33:
2992:
2991:
2987:
2986:
2985:
2983:
2982:
2981:
2971:
2968:deletion review
2954:trialsanderrors
2881:Autobiographies
2855:
2812:
2806:
2800:
2770:
2754:
2742:
2739:deletion review
2702:
2699:deletion review
2516:
2510:
2504:
2474:
2458:
2446:
2443:deletion review
2402:
2399:deletion review
2327:trialsanderrors
2045:trialsanderrors
1874:
1868:
1862:
1832:
1816:
1804:
1801:deletion review
1787:trialsanderrors
1760:
1757:deletion review
1471:
1465:
1459:
1429:
1413:
1401:
1398:deletion review
1361:
1358:deletion review
727:trialsanderrors
688:
682:
676:
646:
630:
619:
555:
552:deletion review
536:
508:
505:deletion review
458:
439:trialsanderrors
409:
393:
379:
345:
339:
333:
303:
287:
275:
272:deletion review
235:
232:deletion review
214:trialsanderrors
196:trialsanderrors
163:
157:
151:
121:
105:
93:
90:deletion review
76:trialsanderrors
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2990:
2988:
2978:
2977:
2962:
2961:
2960:
2959:
2938:
2937:
2895:
2874:
2814:
2813:
2810:
2804:
2798:
2749:
2748:
2733:
2732:
2731:
2730:
2709:
2708:
2693:
2692:
2691:
2690:
2678:
2671:per Folantin.
2666:
2654:
2642:
2626:
2625:
2624:
2614:badlydrawnjeff
2607:
2606:
2605:
2604:
2600:
2582:
2572:
2571:
2541:
2518:
2517:
2514:
2508:
2502:
2453:
2452:
2437:
2436:
2435:
2434:
2409:
2408:
2393:
2392:
2391:
2390:
2389:
2388:
2387:
2386:
2333:
2332:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2315:
2287:
2286:
2285:
2282:
2279:
2276:
2273:
2260:
2259:
2258:
2257:
2209:do not mention
2194:
2182:
2170:
2169:
2168:
2136:
2124:
2114:badlydrawnjeff
2112:. Finally. --
2107:
2095:
2069:
2051:
2050:
2016:
2015:
2004:
2003:
2002:
1995:
1988:
1981:
1970:
1963:
1956:
1949:
1938:
1937:
1931:
1925:
1919:
1913:
1907:
1901:
1895:
1889:
1883:
1876:
1875:
1872:
1866:
1860:
1811:
1810:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1792:
1767:
1766:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1730:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1615:
1614:
1598:
1588:badlydrawnjeff
1509:in many cases"
1473:
1472:
1469:
1463:
1457:
1408:
1407:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1368:
1367:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1327:
1326:
1311:
1273:
1272:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1228:Endorse Delete
1225:
1205:
1196:
1183:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1146:
1145:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1032:
1031:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
998:
997:
974:
957:
953:
924:
912:
900:
890:TenOfAllTrades
883:
842:
841:
840:
830:TenOfAllTrades
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
773:badlydrawnjeff
750:badlydrawnjeff
733:
732:
706:badlydrawnjeff
690:
689:
686:
680:
674:
627:
626:
597:
596:
595:
588:
578:
562:
561:
546:
545:
544:
543:
515:
514:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
347:
346:
343:
337:
331:
282:
281:
266:
265:
264:
263:
242:
241:
226:
225:
224:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
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:
2989:
2976:
2974:
2969:
2964:
2963:
2958:
2955:
2950:
2949:
2948:
2947:
2944:
2936:
2933:
2929:
2925:
2922:
2919:
2915:
2911:
2907:
2903:
2899:
2896:
2894:
2890:
2886:
2882:
2878:
2875:
2873:
2870:
2868:
2864:
2862:
2860:
2859:
2852:
2848:
2844:
2841:
2838:
2837:
2836:
2834:
2830:
2826:
2823:
2822:
2819:
2809:
2803:
2795:
2791:
2787:
2783:
2778:
2774:
2769:
2765:
2761:
2757:
2753:
2752:
2751:
2750:
2747:
2745:
2740:
2735:
2734:
2729:
2726:
2722:
2721:
2717:
2716:
2715:
2714:
2707:
2705:
2700:
2695:
2694:
2689:
2686:
2682:
2679:
2677:
2674:
2670:
2667:
2665:
2662:
2658:
2655:
2653:
2650:
2646:
2643:
2641:
2638:
2634:
2633:Brian Peppers
2630:
2627:
2623:
2619:
2615:
2611:
2610:
2609:
2608:
2603:
2597:
2593:
2588:
2585:
2583:
2580:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2570:
2566:
2562:
2558:
2554:
2550:
2547:
2546:
2545:
2544:
2538:
2534:
2529:
2526:
2524:
2513:
2507:
2499:
2495:
2491:
2487:
2482:
2478:
2473:
2469:
2465:
2461:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2451:
2449:
2444:
2439:
2438:
2433:
2430:
2426:
2422:
2421:
2417:
2416:
2415:
2414:
2407:
2405:
2400:
2395:
2394:
2385:
2380:
2375:
2374:
2369:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2359:
2355:
2351:
2346:
2342:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2334:
2331:
2328:
2324:
2320:
2319:
2314:
2309:
2305:
2301:
2296:
2292:
2288:
2283:
2280:
2277:
2274:
2271:
2267:
2266:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2256:
2253:
2250:
2247:
2246:
2240:
2236:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2226:
2221:
2220:
2215:
2210:
2206:
2202:
2198:
2195:
2193:
2190:
2189:Corvus cornix
2186:
2183:
2181:
2178:
2174:
2171:
2167:
2164:
2161:
2158:
2157:
2152:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2144:
2140:
2137:
2135:
2132:
2128:
2125:
2123:
2119:
2115:
2111:
2108:
2106:
2103:
2099:
2096:
2094:
2091:
2090:
2085:
2081:
2077:
2073:
2070:
2068:
2065:
2060:
2056:
2053:
2052:
2049:
2046:
2042:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2036:
2033:
2030:
2027:
2026:
2021:
2013:
2009:
2008:Robot Chicken
2005:
2000:
1996:
1993:
1989:
1986:
1982:
1979:
1975:
1974:
1971:
1968:
1964:
1961:
1957:
1954:
1950:
1947:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1935:
1932:
1929:
1926:
1923:
1920:
1917:
1914:
1911:
1908:
1905:
1902:
1899:
1896:
1893:
1890:
1887:
1884:
1881:
1878:
1877:
1871:
1865:
1857:
1853:
1849:
1845:
1840:
1836:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1809:
1807:
1802:
1797:
1796:
1791:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1779:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1765:
1763:
1758:
1753:
1752:
1747:
1744:
1743:
1738:
1734:
1731:
1729:
1726:
1725:
1719:
1716:
1715:
1708:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1692:
1691:
1689:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1675:
1672:
1668:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1655:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1613:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1599:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1576:
1572:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1559:
1557:
1553:
1548:
1543:
1541:
1537:
1533:
1529:
1528:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1508:
1504:
1496:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1468:
1462:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1437:
1433:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1406:
1404:
1399:
1394:
1393:
1388:
1385:
1381:
1380:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1366:
1364:
1359:
1354:
1353:
1348:
1345:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1329:
1328:
1325:
1322:
1319:
1315:
1312:
1310:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1294:User:Cannoliq
1291:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1282:
1278:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1252:
1248:
1245:
1241:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1233:
1229:
1226:
1224:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1206:
1204:
1200:
1197:
1195:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1182:
1179:
1174:
1170:
1169:
1162:
1159:
1155:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1144:
1139:
1134:
1133:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1117:
1111:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1086:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1076:
1072:
1067:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1054:
1051:
1047:
1043:
1042:Nebula Awards
1039:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1030:
1027:
1022:
1019:
1018:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
996:
993:
992:
987:
983:
978:
975:
973:
970:
965:
961:
958:
956:
950:
946:
941:
938:
936:
932:
928:
925:
923:
920:
916:
913:
911:
908:
904:
901:
899:
895:
891:
887:
884:
882:
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
851:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
826:
825:
822:
818:
815:and possibly
814:
810:
806:
802:
799:
791:
788:
784:
783:
782:
778:
774:
770:
769:
768:
765:
761:
760:
759:
755:
751:
747:
746:
745:
744:
741:
738:
731:
728:
724:
721:
718:
717:
716:
715:
711:
707:
703:
699:
695:
685:
679:
671:
667:
663:
659:
654:
650:
645:
641:
637:
633:
632:Barbara Bauer
629:
628:
625:
622:
615:
611:
606:
602:
598:
593:
589:
586:
582:
581:
579:
575:
571:
570:
566:
565:
564:
563:
560:
558:
553:
548:
547:
542:
539:
532:
528:
527:
526:Barbara Bauer
523:
522:
521:
520:
513:
511:
506:
501:
500:
489:
486:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
468:
464:
461:
456:
453:) and at the
452:
449:
445:
444:
443:
440:
434:
430:
426:
422:
417:
413:
408:
404:
400:
396:
391:
390:
389:
385:
382:
377:
373:
372:
366:
362:
361:
360:
359:
356:
352:
342:
336:
328:
324:
320:
316:
311:
307:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
285:
284:
283:
280:
278:
273:
268:
267:
262:
259:
255:
254:
250:
249:
248:
247:
240:
238:
233:
228:
227:
218:
215:
211:
210:
209:
206:
202:
201:
200:
197:
193:
189:
188:
187:
186:
183:
178:
174:
173:Arlon Lindner
170:
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:
59:25 March 2007
57:
50:
49:2007 March 26
45:
41:
36:
35:2007 March 24
23:
19:
2972:
2965:
2939:
2928:linkspamming
2920:
2897:
2876:
2857:
2856:
2846:
2839:
2831:
2827:
2824:
2815:
2743:
2736:
2718:
2703:
2696:
2680:
2668:
2656:
2649:Thunderbunny
2644:
2628:
2548:
2519:
2447:
2440:
2423:– clear-cut
2418:
2403:
2396:
2371:
2367:
2340:
2322:
2290:
2269:
2244:
2242:occurring.
2238:
2234:
2217:
2208:
2204:
2200:
2196:
2184:
2172:
2155:
2150:
2139:Keep deleted
2138:
2126:
2109:
2097:
2087:
2079:
2071:
2058:
2054:
2040:
2024:
2017:
1939:
1805:
1798:
1783:last closure
1776:
1761:
1754:
1740:
1737:Total energy
1732:
1722:
1718:Keep deleted
1717:
1699:
1687:
1646:
1604:
1600:
1583:
1568:
1563:
1562:
1560:
1544:
1531:
1526:
1524:
1506:
1500:
1497:
1489:urban legend
1474:
1402:
1395:
1377:
1362:
1355:
1338:
1330:
1313:
1289:
1275:
1274:
1253:
1239:
1227:
1207:
1198:
1187:solid source
1172:
1153:
1130:
1126:
1118:
1098:
1097:-- boy, how
1094:
1065:
1061:
1037:
1020:
989:
985:
976:
959:
926:
914:
907:David Mestel
902:
885:
873:
857:
849:
845:
800:
735:
734:
722:
719:
701:
691:
604:
600:
584:
568:
567:
556:
549:
524:
509:
502:
368:
348:
276:
269:
251:
236:
229:
177:undue weight
176:
168:
166:
94:
87:
69:
58:
2637:Wickethewok
2143:Newyorkbrad
2089:sunstar net
1638:Gravitation
1622:Gravitation
1547:Gravitation
1521:Gravitation
1513:Gravitation
1477:Gravitation
1281:Newyorkbrad
1244:Newyorkbrad
1158:Newyorkbrad
1007:Newyorkbrad
858:prima facie
787:Newyorkbrad
764:Newyorkbrad
740:Newyorkbrad
395:Cluj-Napoca
351:Cluj-Napoca
2581:prominent.
1688:we are not
1540:Scriptures
1505:, but the
1481:Einstein's
854:WP:CSD#G10
448:some of it
44:2007 March
2943:Nick.ruiz
2932:Sandstein
2910:Sandstein
2902:WP:CSD#A7
2818:Nick.ruiz
2245:cacophony
2201:two weeks
2156:cacophony
2102:OverlordQ
2064:Sandstein
2025:cacophony
1704:Sandstein
1609:Sandstein
1485:Newtonian
1220:JWSchmidt
1178:Cary Bass
878:Sandstein
592:WP:OFFICE
376:Bonaparte
2924:contribs
2847:reliable
2673:Moreschi
2661:Folantin
2596:CONTRIBS
2557:WP:POINT
2537:CONTRIBS
2185:Comment:
2173:Recreate
2127:Recreate
2110:Recreate
2098:Recreate
1605:redirect
1552:edit war
1306:contribs
949:CONTRIBS
821:Moreschi
610:time-out
485:Roamataa
437:, no? ~
355:Roamataa
20: |
2914:Hatch68
2898:Endorse
2885:Rossami
2802:restore
2773:protect
2768:history
2725:GRBerry
2577:I call
2561:Rossami
2506:restore
2477:protect
2472:history
2425:WP:SNOW
2235:Comment
2151:Comment
2018:As per
1864:restore
1835:protect
1830:history
1733:comment
1461:restore
1432:protect
1427:history
1384:GRBerry
1314:Restore
1290:Restore
1254:Restore
1240:Comment
1232:Tbeatty
1199:Restore
1154:Comment
1119:Restore
1066:TRENTON
1062:Restore
1021:comment
969:Bitnine
960:Restore
927:Restore
915:Restore
903:Restore
850:restore
805:WP:NPOV
702:perhaps
678:restore
649:protect
644:history
412:protect
407:history
335:restore
306:protect
301:history
258:GRBerry
169:renamed
153:restore
124:protect
119:history
2906:WP:COI
2889:(talk)
2851:WP:COI
2777:delete
2565:(talk)
2481:delete
2291:nutral
1839:delete
1436:delete
1335:WP:BLP
1123:WP:BLP
1103:Calton
1083:you.--
1071:Calton
1046:Calton
964:OFFICE
935:WP:BLP
874:speedy
862:WP:BLP
809:WP:BLP
653:delete
614:WP:BLP
446:Well,
416:delete
371:banned
365:CSD G5
310:delete
128:delete
2794:views
2786:watch
2782:links
2685:MER-C
2498:views
2490:watch
2486:links
2379:Help!
2225:Help!
2177:Jmax-
2131:Denny
1856:views
1848:watch
1844:links
1818:Myg0t
1778:myg0t
1453:views
1445:watch
1441:links
1298:Karen
1277:here.
1203:St jb
1138:Help!
866:WP:RS
813:WP:RS
698:Cache
670:views
662:watch
658:links
605:their
433:views
425:watch
421:links
327:views
319:watch
315:links
192:WP:RM
145:views
137:watch
133:links
52:: -->
16:<
2918:talk
2904:and
2790:logs
2764:talk
2760:edit
2618:talk
2592:TALK
2533:TALK
2494:logs
2468:talk
2464:edit
2129:. -
2118:talk
2080:only
2012:here
1999:here
1992:here
1985:here
1978:here
1967:here
1960:here
1953:here
1946:here
1852:logs
1826:talk
1822:edit
1700:then
1686:No,
1592:talk
1449:logs
1423:talk
1419:edit
1337:and
1302:Talk
1218:. --
1107:Talk
1075:Talk
1050:Talk
986:then
945:TALK
933:and
931:WP:V
894:talk
870:WP:N
868:and
834:talk
817:WP:N
777:talk
754:talk
710:talk
666:logs
640:talk
636:edit
618:Tito
535:Tito
533:. –
463:khoi
460:Khoi
429:logs
403:talk
399:edit
384:khoi
381:Khoi
323:logs
297:talk
293:edit
141:logs
115:talk
111:edit
32:<
2808:AfD
2512:AfD
2429:Doc
2373:Guy
2358:WRE
2345:J.S
2308:WRE
2295:J.S
2239:not
2219:Guy
2059:and
1870:AfD
1742:DGG
1724:DGG
1671:Jim
1651:Jim
1575:Jim
1538:to
1519:to
1467:AfD
1344:Doc
1339:not
1318:Mgm
1191:Doc
1132:Guy
1099:did
1085:Doc
1026:Doc
991:DGG
684:AfD
341:AfD
205:ZJH
182:ZJH
171:to
159:AfD
22:Log
2858:KZ
2835:)
2792:|
2788:|
2784:|
2780:|
2775:|
2771:|
2766:|
2762:|
2594:•
2535:•
2525:.
2496:|
2492:|
2488:|
2484:|
2479:|
2475:|
2470:|
2466:|
1854:|
1850:|
1846:|
1842:|
1837:|
1833:|
1828:|
1824:|
1785:–
1649:.
1573:.
1451:|
1447:|
1443:|
1439:|
1434:|
1430:|
1425:|
1421:|
1304:|
1300:|
1268:)
1127:is
1105:|
1073:|
1048:|
947:•
896:)
864:,
836:)
811:,
807:,
725:~
668:|
664:|
660:|
656:|
651:|
647:|
642:|
638:|
620:xd
537:xd
431:|
427:|
423:|
419:|
414:|
410:|
405:|
401:|
325:|
321:|
317:|
313:|
308:|
304:|
299:|
295:|
143:|
139:|
135:|
131:|
126:|
122:|
117:|
113:|
42::
2921:·
2916:(
2811:)
2805:|
2799:(
2796:)
2758:(
2598:)
2590:(
2539:)
2531:(
2515:)
2509:|
2503:(
2500:)
2462:(
2381:)
2377:(
2360:)
2356:/
2354:C
2352:/
2350:T
2348:(
2310:)
2306:/
2304:C
2302:/
2300:T
2298:(
2252:►
2249:◄
2227:)
2223:(
2163:►
2160:◄
2032:►
2029:◄
2014:.
2001:.
1994:.
1987:.
1969:.
1962:.
1955:.
1948:.
1873:)
1867:|
1861:(
1858:)
1820:(
1470:)
1464:|
1458:(
1455:)
1417:(
1320:|
1266:C
1264::
1262:T
1260:(
1140:)
1136:(
951:)
943:(
892:(
832:(
687:)
681:|
675:(
672:)
634:(
435:)
397:(
344:)
338:|
332:(
329:)
291:(
162:)
156:|
150:(
147:)
109:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.