897:, something you failed to address in the closure (in fact with this reply you appear to be endorseing its use as a valid Afd argument), and you are failing to address now. Basically, please explain why you think the inconsistency you clearly disagree with too, but for different reasons, should remain. What would you do as an admin based on these conflicting results if someone renominated the sportsperson list now on the back of these comments? What would you do if a perfectly uninvolved editor created a football list based on the reasonable assumption that because lists for cricket, hockey, aussie rules etc currently exist football would be allowed. It is not acceptable to leave the current situation as it is, it makes a mockery of the pedia, and I'm not seeing any rational explanation why it should.
893:. That's the whole point, it wasn't and nothing you have said here, or anything that was said in either Afd has explained the difference between the two outcomes, so what is the point in blindly saying one group of editors were right and one were wrong, when they were discussing the same thing? The argument you just used to bin the football list can be used to all of them, it isn't specific to football (or can we delete the football section from the sportperson list based on this decision?). We have thousands and thousands of cricketer/hockey player etc. articles. What you failed to mention is that most of the delete votes in the football one were of the form
628:. Closure was good, there certainly was no consensus to delete, but just because people have edit warred over a merger because of the closure doesn't mean that the closure was suspect. I am confused as to how edit warring can be seen to be justified by a closure. The people edit warring are those responsible, not the closer (nless he edit warred too of course). Since when does edit warring require a deletion review? Note: I support a merger as well, but the closer didn't say a merge had to happen or not happen, only that it was recommended. Hence, people should be discussing whether to merge or not on the talk page(s), not conducting deletion reviews.
1201:
articles often do not survive, but main articles do. Each AfD was closed based on consensus. Consensus can and always will be formed differently at any given time. If someone wants to overturn my close and delete the whole list under the same premise as the fork, then I am fine with that since I do not have an opinion regarding it being kept. I see somewhere in the middle of the debate, you attack the future closer of the afd, and opt to delete under this rationale. I can see you are arguing this pretty strongly, and I think furthering this conversation will do not be productive.
1379:. No policy based reason to delete that has any validity IMO. "Not encyclopedic" is perhaps the best of the lot. Not sourceable is crazy talk, newspapers use nicknames all the time. Not maintainable also seems unlikely as long as we keep ourselves to the notable players that have articles (20K? more?). Simply put, the close was wrong and should have been "no consensus to delete" as there were only weak or provably wrong reasons given for deletion. The lack of consistency across wikipedia is also a problem. I honestly think if the nom of this
846:
notability, verifiability, source-ability or appropriateness/lack thereof for wikipedia, of lists of nicknames for sportspeople, whatever the sport named above. This opinion was barely refuted in either Afd for the closers to consider as a proper position, with the debates both concentrating on the concept of the appropriatenes of sportsperson nicknames generally. As such, a consistent opinion on the topic as whole should be declared, without deadlocking of the issue due to Afd/Drv process issues or misapplication of 'other stuff exists'.
429:. Depending on the outcome there this one may well be moot. Can we speedily close or suspend this please until we get a clear answer from WP:AN as to whether the nonadministrative closure result was actually a "keep" versus a "merge?" If it was a "keep" there's nothing to discuss here, the article is kept. If it was a "merge" we can have that discussion, but limit it to whether the closure was done correctly as opposed to the broader policy question of whether there is such a thing as a nonadministrative "merge". Thanks,
954:
disregarded. It is used everywhere, how do you think guidelines come into being, or that speedy deletion criteria such as schools/places/pokemon are notable get decided? Yes, some people think every single issue is always up for debate in Afd time and again, this clearly not a sustainable position, as it produces exactly this kind of contradiction. And as an aside, there were barely no valid deletion votes if you actualy examine the reasons specified in the
821:, whereby because of the delete close, a recreation of the football article would be speedy deleted as recreation of deleted material, but because of the contradictory keep, an Afd of the sportsperson list on the basis of the consensus apparently shown by the delete vote of Football (which has by the above closure ruled sportsperson nickname lists are "not appropriate content"), would be speedy closed as too soon after a keep result. So I request an
1323:. Why is nobody actually getting my point here? I can only assume nobody actually read my Drv nomination in full: I am not challenging the deletion of this one article and that's it, I just want people to demonstrate an ounce of perspective here outside of the one article/Afd and just have the intelligence to accept that their (i.e. your) reasons apply to all the other lists, and
865:
list and a specific football one. In my mind, the arguments for deleting the football list were persuasive, particularly the point that, in theory, every football player has a nickname, and thus the list could end up being thousands and thousands of players long. If anything, the other article should have been deleted too. Given your outbursts in both AfDs, I suggest you read
513:
Apparently there is not. This forum is not the place to decide that kind of policy. Rootology created the process fork by bringing it here instead. I wouldn't call it forum shopping - he/she isn't hoping for a better result here than in the proper forum. It's a simple good faith decision, even though I think it's wrong to create process forks in this way.
1220:
inconsistent hole in the coverage of wikipedia, because only two lists were nominated, the main list and the football fork (without any explanation of why only those two required deletion, when the nomination reason applies to all of the forks). That and the fact the nominator didn't even have the simple courtesy to even
1337:
table on the perfectly reasonable assumption it was valid content given the existence of footballers in the main list, and the existence of umpteen other fork articles. I also hope nobody makes the same mistake in future, as there is the sum amount of zero information anywhere to show they would be wasting their time.
1186:
footbal Afd of there being any merit in keeping a main list and not forks. In fact, if you look at the football Afd, a keep vote was registered to actually transfer all the football entries in the main list to the fork list, this seems to have been ignored in amongst all the general UNENYC delete votes.
1158:
It's well established that even if a 100 editors makes an argument not based in policy and 1 does, then that one person is not wrong. There is no current debate over the merit of the fork articles right now, there was of sorts a long time ago, and that only concerned how to keep them synchronised. If
1120:
and wondering why there is a big football shaped hole in it (not that they would have any link to these deletion discussions to find out the quirky nature of Afd). Otherwise, I will request from you as I have from the others above, if you endorse this result as is, then what would your response as an
981:
were raised in the Afd, and thoroughly considered. While persuasive to me, there was a clear consensus to delete that was not outside of policy. I don't feel that the list was indiscriminate, or lack sufficient inclusion criteria, but I can't say that the contrary position in this AfD violated policy
940:
per Number 57. Furthermore, actions carried out on
Knowledge (XXG) should not be based on "precedent", so your argument that one article being deleted while the other remains sets a bad precedent is moot. The only reason that the deletion should be overturned is if the reasons for its deletion are no
864:
as closer of the AfD. What you fail to mention is that there were 10 delete !votes in the football related one, but only your own spiteful delete vote in the general sportsman one (a debate in which you described the nominator as a c**t). Thus there were clearly differing opinions on a general sports
781:
general lists were nominated yet none of the others (see below). Both lists contain the same type of content, lists of sportpersons and their nickname. The football Afd was closed as delete with the only closing note being "the prevailing opinion is that it not appropriate content" (although the list
1139:
Well no. This is not one of those cases for IAR. I wasn't aware of this deletion before I kept that article, but even still, I don't see anything wrong here. The one I kept was a main article and apparently (unless I'm wrong) the fork articles are the subject of debate. You happen to be arguing this
531:
Traditionally, there are two possible results of an AFD, which are delete and !delete. This one closed as !delete. Therefore, the page is not deleted. Had I closed the debate, I would have done so with the closure "no consensus to delete — whether or not to merge can be dealt with on the talk page".
221:
wanted to ruleslawyer about whether "merge" was an admin action because he (mistakenly) believed "merge" meant "delete and move," which is an especially thin line of reasoning. The article, in its current form (and, I imagine, in all future forms) is a quick overview of the video and then a bunch of
184:
which has now led to edit warring. From looking at the AFD, there is no consensus but to Keep, or no-consensus at all, which defaults to Keep. The novel solution (by a non-admin) has been taken by some editors as a license to go nuts edit warring with redirects, despite other editors flat-out saying
1336:
one day and notice the big whole, as I was way back when. Faced with the incredible narrowminded willfull blindness being demonstrated in here and the Afd, I certainly now wish I could go back in time and get back the hours I spent forking and formatting that article out of the main list and into a
1200:
The soccer AfD was deleted on August 21, and I closed out the main article on August 20. I was aware of the debate but as I said, I was not aware of the deletion because it happened a day after I closed the main one. While the content may have been the same, theres a difference (albeit small). Fork
1185:
P.S. You should have been aware of the other Afd when closing that one, as I cross linked both of them as they were made at the same time by the same person for the same reason. This is what makes the resulting divergence so bizzare, when as said directly above, not one person made mention in the
1049:
That every footballer in the world could have a nickname? This is clearly an argument against the general topic of sportsperson nicknames, if this realy is the assertion, then clearly you three should all be supporting an overturn, and group re-nomination of all the lists, as I explained in the
911:
The two AfDs had different results because different editors voted. There were far more contributions to the football debate than to the general sports one, which suggests that a wider audience feels that the article is not appropriate. As for why the inconsistency should remain, there were two
845:
actually supports this DRv nomination as it encourages the application of consistency in deletion outcomes when there is no material difference between the topic of articles being compared (c.f. Yoda vs. Windu). I will state right now my personal view that there is no material difference in the
512:
Cumulus clouds, you're being terribly uncivil and tendentious - your ridiculous accusations of bad faith are just plain juvenile. Will you please cut that out? I bring a simple question to WP:AN (not WP:ANI) about whether there is such a thing as a nonadministrative "merge and keep" result.
1219:
A raft of invalid reasons for deletion is not a consensus, and yes I lost my cool but this was because I could see the possibility, eventually proven right, that a closure based on a vote count of invalid reasons would end up outweighing policy based reasons for keeping, resulting in this now
953:
I'm not sure what wikipedia you have been editing, but precedent is very much a central part of what goes on around here, or do you think the same arguments being made again and again is productive, or even actually happens? Please give an example where an established precedent is routeinely
825:
of the deletion of the football list on the basis that the judgement that nickname lists are "not appropriate content" is not supportable given the contradictory keep closure of the sportsperson list (and I might add a few Afds having been passed keep on some of the other sport lists),
1167:, sportsperson nicknames. I ask you to please explain the reasons in detail if you seriously believe differently. We aren't talking about a complex content issue here. And even if the merit of the forks was currently in dispute such that forks should be deleted and the main one kept,
1224:
the article talk page of the football list with his concerns before nominating, and nearly everyone voting simply refused to answer valid questions about their rationales, again reinforcing the impression of a sloppy non-policy IDON'TLIKEIT vote counting exercise was in progress.
425:- it's unclear what the closure was. Although I agree with the nominator that the result was "keep", and that any nonadministrative "merge" result is both incorrect and invalid (as not an option open to a nonadministrative closure), we are currently discussing the whole thing at
1331:
the articles in one go, instead of lawyering about precedents/afd processes and pretending the problem of the obvious inconstistency produced now doesn't exist and everything is fine and dandy in the world of the future reader who might be perusing
465:
Hell no. If there's an objection to the closing status of a deletion debate, it's brought to deletion review. Forum shopping for your preferred outcome won't find you any favors. You should give up on the AN thread and let this one run its course.
1318:
to warrent outright deletion (as could have easily been demonstrated if the nominator had not acted so rashly in Afd'ing an article which had zero comments on its talk page), your stated reasons and those of the closing editor you now endorse
762:
488:, but I'm agreeing with CC who is opposed to me that this belongs on DRV. Besides, even if DRV somehow endorses the close, this is where I'll bring it back in 2-3 weeks to fork it right back out when I add 20-30+ new sources in one of my
352:
348:
84:
to delete the article. A merge is not supported by consensus at AfD and thus not mandatory following this closure. Any merge/redirection in the future is subject to editor discretion and should only be performed with consensus. –
344:
278:
Only when you disagree with the result. If you review the AN thread you will find several very experienced administrators who concur with the consensus. And if that's true, maybe you should get drunk and go to sleep.
304:
I am. You'll notice I'm not objecting to this being here. I very much look forward to watching this discussion unfold. My points about AN are only that they corroborate the closing user's impression of consensus.
1121:
admin be if somebody either nominated all other lists for deletion as innappropriate content on the basis of the football Afd consensus, or re-created a football list by splitting the footbnall content from the
1077:
per the well reasoned and perfectly logical arguments above. These XfDs are conducted on a case by case basis, then deleted or kept per consensus to do so. I also ignored your delete !vote when I closed the
726:
721:
730:
754:
713:
1104:
the argument to support the idea that one nickname list is "innappropriate content" and another isn't, barring the fact two separate Afd's were visited by different people for different reasons -
447:
It should be on DRV. ANI is a waste of time trainwreck for all but simple stuff. DRV is made for correcting bad or incorrect closures, and DRV is the final authority on these. DRV outranks ANI.
181:
175:
1356:
the
Football article to no-consensus. Put simply, I do not see a consensus for deletion. I'm surprised it was not a keep, given that the deletion reasons were irrational--I can not see how
1159:
anything, the borderline consensus then with a small number of editors involved was to transfer the main list entries where forks existed and use the proper sub page {link}. I can't see how
777:
were Afd's by the same person, for the same reason: "Unmaintainable list that seems based mainly on original research and has little verifibility" with no mention of why only the football
595:, as a delete closure would have been clearly inappropriate. For all the users taking that close as a free reign to redirect and the like, point out to them that it was closed as
390:
Is that notable enough? Myself or anyone else with 5-10 hours maximum to spend can trivially get this to Good
Article status. All that aside, it's so far beyond notable as to be
1116:
because adhering to the Afd case by case policy is creating a non-sensical situation that makes the pedia look inconsistent and incomprehensible to an outside reader looking at
230:. Several third parties at the AN discussion have since concurred that there was a general consensus to merge, as did the closing user, as did the article's creator. I strongly
1257:
Same difference. Were it possible I would have made a joint DRv, but as the
Football one is deleted I did it in that one's name to highlight the consequence of the deletion.
256:
I plan to heavily expand this. There is such a large amount of material under sourcing as I listed on the AFD that I can get this to Good
Article status asleep and drunk.
1108:, and neither did the deletion nomination reason. If this is your only case for endorsing, that Afd's are done on a case by case basis, then clearly this is a case of
188:
I have begun collecting a wide array of sources I will use to expand this out, which even further demonstrate notability of the video itself. You can review them at:
1314:
Apart from sourceing, which I demonstrated within the first few hours of the Afd was clearly not a serious enough issue to come close to the necessary violation of
580:- Stifle is correct and the result here is !delete...everything else is a matter for editors of the article to sort out amongst themselves, not a matter for DrV. -
51:
37:
1163:
difference can be drawn between the main list and single sports lists where you end up with a conclusion that one huge list is appropriate and sub lists aren't,
139:
134:
1239:
You do realize that you can ask here that we relist the AfD I closed right? I am not adverse to this, so long as you include all of these lists as a batch.
335:
I'm not even going to bother listing out the various sources, since... well, c'mon.... This is absurdly notable. Is it a long news cycle? Maybe, maybe not.
46:
222:
citations for all the times it was mentioned in the news media. This does not make a good encyclopedic topic on its own and is best served by being merged
143:
769:
I would like a review of the contradictory content precedent arising by the recent closure of two related Afd's as keep and delete in the same week. Both
1288:
just because nicknames is used it shouldn't be claimed it is all OR as many times it is easy to find the nicknames mentioned in various news articles.
790:
167:
126:
810:
42:
806:
789:
Now clearly this has produced a rather big contradiction, when considered also with the fact that we also have person nickname lists for
717:
252:
There was an alleged consensus, which is disputed. A close or contentious AFD needs to be closed by experienced admins. As I mentioned
1125:
all sports list? (the deleted article was actually in a much better sortable table format, but hey, nobody seems to care about that).
814:
831:
770:
709:
669:
774:
912:
separate debates with two separate outcomes. Perhaps it is appropriate to have one for all sports, but not sport-specific ones.
21:
923:
880:
842:
555:
394:
notable. Look at my links above. Now, lets let everyone else do what DRV does. You don't need to reply to everything I say.
213:
There was a consensus on that page to merge the material. To call this "going nuts" is inappropriate. The material at both
982:- reasonable minds can differ. As this is merely a review of the process of the AfD, the close as delete was appropriate.
130:
1113:
1333:
1117:
992:
1407:
955:
786:), while the general sportspeople Afd (which includes soccer players) was closed as keep, with no reason given at all.
693:
648:
105:
17:
818:
1100:
What logical and reasonable arguments? I will request again, as it seems to be being purposely ignored, what exactly
894:
802:
798:
189:
794:
471:
310:
284:
239:
122:
76:
1140:
as if the articles are the same. They aren't. The fact that no one agrees with you should tell you something.
489:
1360:
list is unmaintainable if people are willing to maintain it, nor how nicknames of players cannot be sourced.
1040:
1012:
541:
625:
467:
306:
280:
235:
1396:
1371:
1346:
1309:
1292:
1266:
1252:
1234:
1214:
1195:
1180:
1171:
in this Afd, so how is it even relevant now when passing judgement in review of the original deletion?.
1153:
1134:
1095:
1063:
1044:
1030:
1016:
999:
967:
948:
928:
906:
885:
855:
682:
637:
614:
587:
567:
545:
522:
505:
475:
460:
438:
407:
381:
314:
288:
269:
243:
205:
94:
1342:
1262:
1230:
1191:
1176:
1130:
1059:
1026:
963:
902:
851:
945:
918:
875:
633:
584:
518:
499:
454:
434:
401:
375:
362:
263:
199:
609:
866:
297:
ANI is not where these things are decided. DRV is. You should let it function as is appropriate.
217:
and this article are identical. The redirect itself was put in place by the article's creator.
1305:
1247:
1209:
1148:
1090:
678:
563:
90:
1384:
1315:
988:
838:
if anybody wishes to speedy prevent that based on any recent keeps on the other articles).
185:
they're going to expand the ultra-covered topic extensively. Was this a good close or bad?
1109:
1082:
because it was a personal attack. I'd like to recommend that you avoid this in the future.
835:
783:
1392:
1338:
1258:
1226:
1187:
1172:
1126:
1055:
1022:
978:
959:
898:
847:
1387:
this would have been kept as people realized the inconstancy with other similar topics.
758:
426:
171:
958:, unless you count personal opinion while stating no policy as a valid deletion reason.
941:
longer valid. I can see that this is not the case, and the deletion should be upheld. –
830:
a group re-nomination of all the sportsperson nickname lists to cater for the fact that
942:
913:
870:
629:
581:
514:
493:
448:
430:
395:
369:
356:
339:
says "multiple non-trivial". Here's several sources, of which you can take any several
257:
218:
193:
336:
1367:
604:
1301:
1241:
1203:
1142:
1084:
674:
559:
227:
214:
86:
747:
160:
1289:
1036:
1008:
983:
537:
80:– Keep closure by non-admin endorsed, as it is clear overwhelming consensus is
1388:
1362:
492:. The article is going to stand in the end, but this is the right venue.
1054:
address your apparent general concerns regarding this type of list.
603:, so that part of the close is just the closer's opinion. Cheers.
558:). The merge is not a result, it is just a (strong) recommendation.
1106:
the arguments on both did not make any distinction between the two
182:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Paris Hilton energy plan
891:
If anything, the other article should have been deleted too
1300:
per comments I made at the time and per closing editor.
743:
739:
735:
253:
156:
152:
148:
1035:
I concur with the opinions of Number57 and PeeJay2K3.
841:
As a pre-emptive point for anyone who goes that way,
484:Wikidemon, listen to CC. I'm agreeing with your
771:List of football (soccer) players by nickname
710:List of football (soccer) players by nickname
670:List of football (soccer) players by nickname
8:
869:before contributing to any similar debates.
692:The following is an archived debate of the
104:The following is an archived debate of the
662:
69:
556:Knowledge (XXG):Guide_to_deletion#Closure
1050:nomination. Endorsing this one deletion
41:
355:. Take your pick of any several dozen.
50:
554:. I think my closure was correct (see
33:
7:
1169:that argument was not even mentioned
536:outcome in so far is it is !delete.
1410:of the page listed in the heading.
651:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
1165:they contain the same information
576:though I would have closed it as
775:List of sportspeople by nickname
180:This was a non-admin closure at
1406:The above is an archive of the
1321:are applicable to all the lists
647:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
367:) 01:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)"
1:
1327:, i.e. to delete/keep/change
784:what wikipedia content is not
683:00:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
215:Paris Hilton#Political Satire
190:User talk:Rootology/Sandbox 7
30:
1334:category:nicknames in sports
1118:Category:Nicknames in sports
343:from any of these searches:
1397:16:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
1372:01:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
1347:22:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
1310:21:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
1293:02:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
1267:17:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
1253:16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
1235:14:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
1215:01:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
1196:22:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
1181:22:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
1154:21:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
1135:18:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
1096:16:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
1064:14:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
1045:11:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
1031:16:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
1017:15:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
1000:13:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
968:10:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
949:10:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
929:13:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
907:10:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
886:07:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
856:05:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
638:14:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
615:12:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
588:10:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
568:09:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
546:08:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
523:07:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
506:06:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
476:06:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
461:06:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
439:06:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
408:06:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
382:06:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
315:06:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
289:06:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
270:06:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
244:06:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
206:06:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
95:13:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
1433:
782:does not seem to infringe
1413:Please do not modify it.
1325:to do something about it
699:Please do not modify it.
654:Please do not modify it.
123:Paris Hilton energy plan
111:Please do not modify it.
77:Paris Hilton energy plan
43:Deletion review archives
1021:Which "above" exactly?
673:– Deletion endorsed. –
696:of the article above.
108:of the article above.
977:. The points made by
1383:DRV hadn't violated
832:consensus can change
807:Ozzie rules football
1114:other stuff exists
843:other stuff exists
828:with the option of
323:As I wrote on AFD:
232:endorse the merger
1420:
1419:
997:
995:So let it be done
990:
895:WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC
661:
660:
60:
59:
1424:
1415:
1298:Endorse deletion
1250:
1244:
1212:
1206:
1151:
1145:
1110:ignore all rules
1093:
1087:
993:
989:
938:Endorse deletion
926:
921:
916:
883:
878:
873:
862:Endorse deletion
836:ignore all rules
766:
751:
733:
701:
663:
656:
502:
496:
457:
451:
404:
398:
378:
372:
365:
359:
266:
260:
202:
196:
179:
164:
146:
113:
70:
56:
36:
31:
1432:
1431:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1411:
1408:deletion review
1248:
1242:
1210:
1204:
1149:
1143:
1091:
1085:
996:
956:deletion policy
924:
919:
914:
881:
876:
871:
752:
724:
708:
697:
694:deletion review
652:
649:deletion review
574:Endorse Closure
500:
494:
455:
449:
402:
396:
376:
370:
363:
357:
264:
258:
200:
194:
165:
137:
121:
109:
106:deletion review
68:
61:
54:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1430:
1428:
1418:
1417:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1374:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1295:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1183:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1002:
994:
972:
971:
970:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
834:(and invoking
704:
703:
688:
687:
686:
685:
659:
658:
643:
642:
641:
640:
626:Cumulus Clouds
618:
617:
590:
549:
548:
528:
527:
526:
525:
510:
509:
508:
479:
478:
468:Cumulus Clouds
463:
442:
441:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
387:
386:
385:
384:
325:
324:
320:
319:
318:
317:
307:Cumulus Clouds
299:
298:
292:
291:
281:Cumulus Clouds
273:
272:
247:
246:
236:Cumulus Clouds
219:User:Wikidemon
116:
115:
100:
99:
98:
97:
67:
65:28 August 2008
62:
58:
57:
49:
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1429:
1416:
1414:
1409:
1404:
1403:
1398:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1375:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1364:
1359:
1355:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1335:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1317:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1296:
1294:
1291:
1287:
1284:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1251:
1246:
1245:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1223:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1213:
1208:
1207:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1184:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1152:
1147:
1146:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1094:
1089:
1088:
1081:
1076:
1073:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1003:
1001:
998:
991:
987:
986:
980:
976:
973:
969:
965:
961:
957:
952:
951:
950:
947:
944:
939:
936:
930:
927:
922:
917:
910:
909:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
889:
888:
887:
884:
879:
874:
868:
863:
860:
859:
858:
857:
853:
849:
844:
839:
837:
833:
829:
824:
820:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
787:
785:
780:
776:
772:
767:
764:
760:
756:
749:
745:
741:
737:
732:
728:
723:
719:
715:
711:
706:
705:
702:
700:
695:
690:
689:
684:
680:
676:
672:
671:
667:
666:
665:
664:
657:
655:
650:
645:
644:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
620:
619:
616:
613:
612:
608:
607:
602:
598:
594:
591:
589:
586:
583:
579:
575:
572:
571:
570:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
547:
543:
539:
535:
530:
529:
524:
520:
516:
511:
507:
503:
497:
491:
490:sandbox pages
487:
483:
482:
481:
480:
477:
473:
469:
464:
462:
458:
452:
446:
445:
444:
443:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
421:
420:
409:
405:
399:
393:
389:
388:
383:
379:
373:
368:
366:
360:
354:
350:
346:
340:
338:
334:
329:
328:
327:
326:
322:
321:
316:
312:
308:
303:
302:
301:
300:
296:
295:
294:
293:
290:
286:
282:
277:
276:
275:
274:
271:
267:
261:
255:
251:
250:
249:
248:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
220:
216:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
207:
203:
197:
191:
186:
183:
177:
173:
169:
162:
158:
154:
150:
145:
141:
136:
132:
128:
124:
118:
117:
114:
112:
107:
102:
101:
96:
92:
88:
83:
79:
78:
74:
73:
72:
71:
66:
63:
53:
48:
44:
39:
32:
23:
19:
1412:
1405:
1380:
1376:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1297:
1285:
1240:
1221:
1202:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1141:
1122:
1105:
1101:
1083:
1079:
1074:
1051:
1004:
984:
974:
937:
890:
861:
840:
827:
822:
788:
778:
768:
707:
698:
691:
668:
653:
646:
621:
610:
605:
600:
596:
592:
578:no consensus
577:
573:
551:
550:
533:
485:
422:
391:
342:
333:Obvious keep
332:
330:
231:
228:Paris Hilton
223:
187:
120:
110:
103:
81:
75:
64:
1007:per above.
47:2008 August
1339:MickMacNee
1259:MickMacNee
1227:MickMacNee
1188:MickMacNee
1173:MickMacNee
1127:MickMacNee
1056:MickMacNee
1023:MickMacNee
979:MickMacNee
960:MickMacNee
899:MickMacNee
848:MickMacNee
811:basketball
192:. Thanks.
630:Deamon138
582:Peripitus
515:Wikidemon
495:rootology
450:rootology
431:Wikidemon
397:rootology
392:painfully
371:rootology
358:rootology
259:rootology
195:rootology
52:August 29
38:August 27
1377:Overturn
1354:overturn
1286:Comment:
1080:keep afd
1052:does not
867:WP:CIVIL
823:overturn
799:baseball
606:lifebaka
599:and not
486:position
20: |
1385:WP:DICK
1316:wp:cite
1302:Peanut4
1075:Endorse
1005:Endorse
975:Endorse
819:snooker
815:cricket
755:restore
727:protect
722:history
675:Stormie
622:Endorse
593:Endorse
552:Comment
534:Endorse
168:restore
140:protect
135:history
87:PeaceNT
1290:Mathmo
1037:Stifle
1009:Stifle
985:Xymmax
915:пﮟოьεԻ
872:пﮟოьεԻ
795:hockey
731:delete
585:(Talk)
560:Ruslik
538:Stifle
351:, and
144:delete
1389:Hobit
1222:start
803:darts
759:cache
748:views
740:watch
736:links
601:merge
427:WP:AN
341:dozen
226:into
172:cache
161:views
153:watch
149:links
119:====
55:: -->
16:<
1393:talk
1368:talk
1343:talk
1306:talk
1263:talk
1249:ergy
1231:talk
1211:ergy
1192:talk
1177:talk
1150:ergy
1131:talk
1123:kept
1112:per
1092:ergy
1060:talk
1041:talk
1027:talk
1013:talk
964:talk
903:talk
852:talk
817:and
773:and
744:logs
718:talk
714:edit
679:talk
634:talk
624:per
597:keep
564:talk
542:talk
519:talk
472:talk
435:talk
423:Note
353:here
349:here
345:here
337:WP:N
311:talk
285:talk
254:here
240:talk
224:back
157:logs
131:talk
127:edit
91:talk
35:<
1381:AfD
1363:DGG
1358:any
1329:all
1243:Syn
1205:Syn
1161:any
1144:Syn
1086:Syn
946:Jay
943:Pee
791:NFL
779:and
763:AfD
176:AfD
82:not
22:Log
1395:)
1370:)
1345:)
1308:)
1265:)
1233:)
1194:)
1179:)
1133:)
1102:is
1062:)
1043:)
1029:)
1015:)
966:)
905:)
854:)
813:,
809:,
805:,
801:,
797:,
793:,
761:|
757:|
746:|
742:|
738:|
734:|
729:|
725:|
720:|
716:|
681:)
636:)
611:++
566:)
544:)
521:)
504:)
474:)
459:)
437:)
406:)
380:)
347:,
313:)
287:)
268:)
242:)
234:.
204:)
174:|
170:|
159:|
155:|
151:|
147:|
142:|
138:|
133:|
129:|
93:)
85:--
45::
1391:(
1366:(
1341:(
1304:(
1261:(
1229:(
1190:(
1175:(
1129:(
1058:(
1039:(
1025:(
1011:(
962:(
925:7
920:5
901:(
882:7
877:5
850:(
765:)
753:(
750:)
712:(
677:(
632:(
562:(
540:(
517:(
501:T
498:(
470:(
456:T
453:(
433:(
403:T
400:(
377:T
374:(
364:T
361:(
331:"
309:(
283:(
265:T
262:(
238:(
201:T
198:(
178:)
166:(
163:)
125:(
89:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.