354:(Guide to Global Civil Society Networks). The UIA has created the IGO Search interface to facilitate public access to the rich variety of information that these bodies make publicly available." It asserts importance as the major product of a notable organization. It is a little spammy, but that can be solved by editing. It will need to have sources, however, but that's not a reason for deletion, and certainly not speedy. You did right to bring it here--there is no need to get personal. You probably should have asked the admin who tagged it first, but that's just a procedural detail. It might though have reduced tensions, so it's always a good step to do. You seem to have contacted only the relatively inexperienced editor who placed the tag, but the responsibility for deletion is on the admin who actually does it.
321:
the non-commercial non-governmental nature and superb respectability of the publisher of the service described (mandate of the United
Nations, 101 year history as an international research institute, etc.) I also said, citing help sources, that if notability was in question, speedy deletion is the last resort of an editor, and I asked him to reconsider. Afterwards he asked for sources, which I was ready to answer, were the article not already deleted in the meantime. It would have been enough if he changed it to possible deletion, giving me and other people more time, don't you think?
523:. DGG is of course more than welcome to write a new article on the topic. While notability is not in general inherited, that doesn't mean that being connected to something notable is not some claim of notability. (This is more than just wikilawyering. One reason that we allow a minimal claim of notability to avoid A7 is because it makes it much more likely that we will find something demonstrating actual notability. Connection to something notable frequently is correlated with other forms of actual notability).
210:
Knowledge (XXG) it is not possible that one single person wrecks work of somebody else, without discussing, without opinions from other people. I would like to reopen a proper discussion about what, if anything, was inappropriate about the content, so that it could be improved. Marking the work of as 'blatant advertisement' was almost an insult, especially if the person failed to provide any reasons. Thanks for any help on investigating both the article publication and the suspected deletionism issue.
1429:(emphasis in original) of the material violates the policy, revert to a non-infringing prior version; and 3) delete only if none of these can be done. In both cases, the articles had been completely rewritten to address any possible copyvio issues. The speedy deleting administrator has failed to specify what material has infringed on a copyright and has failed to take the required steps to address the supposed violation without deletion. As the
454:. Deor is correct that this is a copyright violation. I am also uncomfortable with DGG's reasoning that this page asserted importance merely by being a product of a notable organization. Notability is not inherited. In my opinion, things need an assertion in their own right to escape deletion under A7. This specific case might have been close enough to list to AfD but the copyright violation makes relisting moot.
1568:(which I have endorsed the deletion of at the previous DRV) and cannot see it as being a page which 'exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic'. It does not look to be a bad start to an article for me. Also it is not a valid G4 as the nominator has stated (no previous AFd) and because it is completely different to the previous version.
1812:: It is my firm opinion that the consensus in the discussion indicates that the game is not yet notable, though the release of the GameZone review may change that. The review has yet to be posted to the site, however (yes, I did just go check), and so the article should not currently exist. I stated in the close that I'm willing to restore when the review is published. Cheers.
1421:(based on duplicate text on a Knowledge (XXG) mirror), the article had been restored to a previous version as a stub. I had added to that stub material that is fully referenced from reliable and verifiable sources. The article does not contain a word that can possibly be deemed to violate a copyright. Even if there was a perception that the policy had been violated,
1017:
There was no clear consensus for a deletion rather than a redirect with undeleted edit history. Assuming that one AfD is the end all of the matter is false. One AfD is not definitively binding on what we can do with the content in question. There's no actual reason not to undelete the edit history
977:
All I am asking for is to keep the already in place and apparently uncontested redirect, but also just undeleting the edit history. If the close violated anything, it closed as an outright delete even though a number of those who had the bold delete in the arguments actually said in subsequent posts
320:
I reacted on the 'speedy deletion' nomination mere minutes after it was posted today. I asked the editor, very politely, why this was done. Initially he cited 'blatant advertising', which I questioned, and he changed it to lack of 'notability', which I countered providing objective information about
1611:
NOTE: Both articles were recreated in their entirety after the other DRV had been initiated, and both articles contained reliably-sourced material when they were arbitrarily and unjustifiably speedy deleted. The discussion of these speedy deletions, and that they violated
Knowledge (XXG) policy, is
909:
be part of that story. but it redirects to GoW. And it is also beside the point. the article was deleted. If you are prepared to argue that the deletion was wrong, then you can of course do so. but if the article was deleted, there is no reason to go around the deletion policy and restore the
209:
Deletion without editorial concensus, based on opinion of one single editor, who refused to explain reasons for deletion nomination, despite many comments and questions from the article's author. Suspicion of an extreme case of deletionism and/or abuse of editor power. I would have thought that in
928:
argument, having the edit history of redirectable articles undeleted should not be an issue unless if there is something copy vio or libelwise that must be kept from the public's eyes. Plus, one five day AfD with a dozen odd participants is not the end all of any article's content and what to do
890:
The fact that someone else went ahead and redirected after the AfD and has not been reverted shows that redirecting is not something being opposed. As to the edit history, those who originally created and worked on the article may be curious why it redirects there and the edit history is part of
781:
toowntown seems like the most legitimate redirect. List of cogs to GOW, the current redirect seems like a real stretch but redirects are pretty harmless. But even if somehow we have decided that it is a legit redirect to GoW, that doesn't make the article history relevant. As for the article
718:
I've redirected the article already, as it's pretty simple to just restore the history under it regardless and I'm pretty sure the redirect is uncontroversial enough. I don't really see restoration of the history under it as terribly useful, however. I'm open to being swayed on that, though.
742:
system on the sly here. The ex post facto redirect suggested is not a reasonable search term and does not benefit from the history of the page being attached (it would, in fact, confuse me to see an article about
Toontown online redirected to GoW). The 'redirect and protect' results from the
430:
If you think you can write an article that asserts and establishes the notability of this Web content, which is nothing more than a custom-filtered version of a Google search, I don't see anything that's stopping you. However, we're here to review the speedy deletion of a different article.
293:
Would you consider part of your question like "How does it feel to delete someone else's work if you are unsure it was a right decision, while you seem to have been just the only person who was of such opinion. Do you feel victorious? Do you feel you've done a good work?" to be in anyway
833:
I always discuss with admins first, but after a day or so passed, when I elaborated on my request at a redirect and undeletion of the edit history, I did not receive a reply even though that admin was still editing. I have also of course notified that admin of this discussion.
999:(keep deleted) unless there's an actual reason to restore access to the pagehistory. The AfD consensus was clear and I can find no process problems in that decision, nor any subsequent reasons here to overturn it. The assertion that the subsequent creation of a redirect is
350:(UIA), which has been collecting information on international non-profit non-governmental organizations since 1907. All of the IGOs, and all international non-governmental organizations, are profiled in detail in one of the UIA's flagship databases known as the
224:
I am afraid my suspicions of deletionism and power abuse are growing. When I asked for more information to the editor who had my article speedy deleted, the editor did not act on my valid complaints and questions, and even deleted my text from his talk page.
1635:, but the version at the new name looks much, much less promotional. And with the rewrite removing the copyvios at the Bramson article, I would have to say that neither CSD reason properly applied to the versions specifically in question at this DRV. -
229:
is the last revision, where my complaint was deleted. How can deletions be discussed when people solely responsible for them delete the questions? I call for an objective investigation of this case, or for directions on how to conduct one. Thanks for any
743:
Warhammer AfD's and DRV's were compromises stemming from the fact that a significant amount of information that pertained to the parent existed in the redirected articles--history in that case could be used to selectively merge certain items to
1072:, consensus in the AfD discussion was clear that the article should be deleted, and that it did not contain content which was worth merging into another Knowledge (XXG) article (it has already been transwiki'd to a more appropriate place,
1381:
of the page was blatant advertising and a likely copyvio (i tagged it for removal myself three times), In its current state the article does not, to the best of my knowledge, violate any policy in such a way to warrant a CSD template.
963:(outdent). None of those are reasons to overturn the close. the length of time at AfD's is a matter for deletion policy. as is the suggestion of a pure wiki deletion proposal. How did the close violate procedure or policy?
274:
Greetings, Corvus cornix. Summary: one single person has deleted my page without proper reasons, despite me actively trying to discuss solutions to the situation. What can a simple editor like me do in such cases? Please help.
818:
in this DRV. We can't just assume that it was and then proceed from there. And assuming that you make this case, you would also have to detail why it would be a matter to bring to DRV and not just discuss with the admin.
1575:
article appears to have been rewritten from scratch and not using any copvio material. Again it now looks to be a good valid start for an article. Therefore I cannot see it as being a valid speedy deletion for copyvio.
978:
that they wouldn't oppose redirects and if something is redirected there's no real reason not to have the edit history undeleted as well. A discriminate list need not have its edit history removed if redirected. --
1396:). However, Since that ANI notice was placed several editors have completely re-written that article in a way that i cannot imagine it is still a possible copyvio, although i have no way to check this anymore
1863:
also explicitly requires multiple sources for notability, which I did not see evidence of. Of course, this changes when the GameZone review is published, which is why I stated I will undelete at that time.
747:
from a daughter article. It didn't define a new stance toward deletion or set the stage for the same sort of suggestion to be used where the 'parent' and 'daughter' articles have no topical relationship.
1538:
left on my talk page signaled it was deleted due to G4, but the log shows G11. Doesn't chance much to the case though, as the CSD sill does not apply. I updated the text to reflect the logs though.
876:
Ok. But now you still have to make an affirmative case that the refusal to redirect was a bad call and that the retention of the edit history somehow makes sense given the current redirect target.
83:. No prejudice against creation of a fresh article on the subject, although given the notability concerns expressed, it should definitely establish notability via "significant coverage in
314:
For anybody looking into this case, please take into account my original points in the talk page which were deleted in mid discussion, and my points to user Corvus cornix at my talk page
910:
article history just because someone came along and created a redirect. I can redirect any number of deleted articles. Me doing that doesn't suddenly void the reason for deletion.
377:. In addition, it seems to me to fall under CSD A7 (if not G11, which was the criterion cited by the deleting admin) as nonnotable Web content. A mention or external link in
848:
Oh, no no no, I didn't mean that. I mean that if you aren't arguing that there is something wrong with the close procedurally, then maybe DRV isn't really the right venue.
1833:: I disagree with lifebaka. Notability was established early on via an article in the premier newspaper in Portugal. There was much discussion subsequently about whether
786:
that may or may not be search terms for anything notable. Even if it is a legitimate search term for GoW, that still doesn't provide a reason to undelete the history.
1781:
1681:
1355:
Incorrect deletion under G11 and G12 criteria. The G11 and G12 criteria specifically state that a page can only be eligible for deletion trough these category if:
1117:
It was; there was simply no valid or compelling reason presented for redlinking the article and keeping the edit history hidden from the public; hence, the drv. --
691:
1470:
51:
37:
800:
As it was a bad call, it is being reviewed here as there is no compelling need for the edit history to remain deleted. We don't gain anything from that. --
46:
1089:
The AfD i not the end all of the matter. As the consensus was unclear in the discussion, there's no valid reason not to undelete the edit history. --
780:
Oh I don't think so. It seems that the validity of this as a redirect to
Toontown was discussed and rejected by the closing admin. List of Cogs-: -->
862:
Well, I didn't see any consensus in the discussion that was adamantly or convincing against some kind of redirect without the edit history intact. --
1859:
The presence of a previous DRV because of the sources pretty well invalidated the idea that the other sources established notability, in my mind.
1303:
1298:
382:
351:
1346:
1307:
1277:
1234:
1229:
1332:
1290:
1238:
42:
378:
347:
1263:
1221:
200:
929:
with it. If AfDs were definitive, then we would never allow renominations (and we do even though off-wiki sites mock us for it). --
1738:
1733:
1120:
1092:
1056:
1021:
981:
932:
894:
865:
837:
803:
769:
706:
583:
505:
474:
295:
1794:
will give it a complete review. I suggest the administrator restore the article and let editors add reception from GameZone later.
1742:
762:
If it wasn't a legitimate search term no one would have created the article in good faith in the first place. There's no reason
744:
648:
643:
21:
1433:
G11/G12 requirements have not been met and as both deletions are completely out of process, both articles should be undeleted.
652:
343:
1425:
provides rather clear instructions for dealing with copyright violations: 1) the infringing material should be removed. 2) if
1767:
1725:
157:
152:
1053:
No compelling reason or valid was provided to delete in the first place, which is why the history needs to be restored. --
677:
635:
161:
84:
1937:
1704:
1655:
1378:
1200:
1143:
614:
543:
111:
17:
186:
144:
88:
1374:
1294:
738:. The suggested redirect target doesn't make any sense to me and I don't see any good reason to switch to a
1602:
294:
constructive? I'm not really suprised they didn't want to enter into any significant discussion with you. --
257:
1640:
1225:
739:
485:
1729:
299:
1926:
1899:
1877:
1850:
1825:
1803:
1693:
1644:
1621:
1606:
1585:
1546:
1529:
1515:
1495:
1442:
1404:
1189:
1126:
1112:
1098:
1084:
1062:
1048:
1027:
1012:
987:
972:
938:
925:
919:
900:
885:
871:
857:
843:
828:
809:
795:
775:
757:
730:
712:
603:
532:
511:
497:
480:
463:
440:
416:
398:
373:. Assuming that the text quoted above by DGG is accurate, the article was, in large part, a copyvio of
365:
332:
303:
284:
265:
239:
219:
134:
100:
1895:
1846:
783:
1422:
1418:
342:
The article qualifies for speedy under neither G11 nor A7. The full content was: "' all websites of
1799:
1721:
1676:
1632:
1594:
1572:
1565:
1475:
1466:
1458:
1414:
1386:
1286:
1680:– Deletion endorsed, the arguments presented here against deletion have already been discussed at
1520:
The CSD justifications have been corrected. The argument that the deletions were improper stands.
1870:
1818:
1617:
1581:
1535:
1525:
1510:
1490:
1438:
725:
490:
328:
280:
250:
235:
215:
1791:
1689:
1636:
1561:
1479:
1450:
1370:
1217:
1164:
1108:
1080:
1043:
1008:
968:
915:
881:
853:
824:
791:
753:
639:
528:
459:
130:
96:
1883:
1860:
1185:
814:
Well that's cool, but in my opinion that means you have an affirmative case to make that it
599:
1887:
1462:
1454:
1390:
1003:
evidence that the deletion discussion was in error or even that it was disputed is false.
1922:
1891:
1842:
1841:
of the sources cited weren't notable. I feel the outcome should have been no consensus.--
1181:
1073:
595:
148:
1774:
1339:
1270:
700:
I am only asking for undeletion of edit history and (can even be protected) redirect per
684:
193:
1795:
436:
394:
346:(IGOs) (currently over 3000 bodies). IGO-search.org has been developed in 2008 by the
1865:
1813:
1613:
1577:
1539:
1521:
1505:
1485:
1434:
1397:
720:
412:
361:
324:
276:
231:
211:
405:
the copyvio material can be rewritten easily enough, and I am prepared to do it.
1685:
1631:- I was one of the admins who G11 speedied the original version of one of these at
1104:
1076:
1038:
1004:
964:
911:
877:
849:
820:
787:
749:
631:
564:
524:
455:
126:
92:
1759:
1324:
1255:
1103:
I don't believe the consensus of that AfD discussion was even remotely unclear. --
669:
178:
1598:
586:
in requester's user space. That ought to make everyone happy. Joy for all! –
1918:
1174:
588:
140:
76:
432:
390:
407:
356:
248:. Personal attacks and snotty comments do not a cogent argument make.
1037:, no compelling reason to restore the history of the deleted content.
315:
1373:
has been fully rewritten in a non advertising way (Copy can be found
905:
But thats the thing. If it redirected to
Toontown, the edit history
502:
It's an "argument" that I don't find compelling or convincing. --
1469:
was previously deleted under G11 as well and is currently at DRV
1886:
would apply to an organisation rather than a game, and I think
1564:
was completely rewritten from the previous article deleted at
1413:
After some rather sketchy allegations had been made that the
389:
needs a more compelling raison d'etre than this one offered.
1837:
sources cited were notable, and I think it was agreed that
80:– Deletion endorsed, content confirmed to be a copyvio of
374:
81:
1917:
either a restore or a relist might be a good solution.
1755:
1751:
1747:
1394:
1385:
I also notice that the deleting admin has also removed
1320:
1316:
1312:
1251:
1247:
1243:
701:
665:
661:
657:
226:
174:
170:
166:
1478:
is salted due to repeated recreation, so I'm salting
1366:
the article is a literal copy of the external source
385:
might be appropriate, but a stand-alone article on a
318:, especially the following reasoning I put forward:
1682:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2008 February 4
582:(by IAR). I will place the article history in a
1534:Oops is also the word i need to use now. The
488:. You should be well aware of this by now. —
8:
1703:The following is an archived debate of the
1199:The following is an archived debate of the
613:The following is an archived debate of the
110:The following is an archived debate of the
1669:
1157:
782:creation argument, people create articles
557:
69:
1890:addresses the previous deletion review.--
41:
1684:, nothing new has been offered here. –
383:Yearbook of International Organizations
352:Yearbook of International Organizations
50:
33:
1389:, a page which has been discussed at
7:
1369:Both of these do not apply anymore.
1940:of the page listed in the heading.
1658:of the page listed in the heading.
1146:of the page listed in the heading.
1018:and keep the redirect in place. --
546:of the page listed in the heading.
379:Union of International Associations
348:Union of International Associations
28:
1465:'d. Also, a page with the title
766:to undelete the edit history. --
1790:Wuite popular among gamers, and
745:Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000)
471:due to inherited notability. --
1936:The above is an archive of the
1913:at least until review show up,
1654:The above is an archive of the
1593:discussion to the below DRV on
1482:pending the result of this DRV.
1142:The above is an archive of the
542:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
344:intergovernmental organization
1:
30:
1122:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1094:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1058:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1023:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
983:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
934:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
896:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
867:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
839:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
805:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
771:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
708:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
507:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
476:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
403:""If that's the only problem
1927:20:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
1694:00:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
1645:14:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
1622:12:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
1190:01:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
1127:01:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
1119:Happy editing! Sincerely,
1113:01:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
1099:00:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
1091:Happy editing! Sincerely,
1085:00:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
1063:23:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
1055:Happy editing! Sincerely,
1049:21:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
1020:Happy editing! Sincerely,
980:Happy editing! Sincerely,
931:Happy editing! Sincerely,
924:As much as I hate to use a
893:Happy editing! Sincerely,
864:Happy editing! Sincerely,
836:Happy editing! Sincerely,
802:Happy editing! Sincerely,
768:Happy editing! Sincerely,
705:Happy editing! Sincerely,
604:02:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
533:23:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
521:endorse deletion of copyvio
512:00:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
504:Happy editing! Sincerely,
498:19:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
486:Notability is not inherited
473:Happy editing! Sincerely,
441:20:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
417:08:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
135:01:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
101:01:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
1963:
1900:20:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
1878:16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
1851:02:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
1826:20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
1804:20:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
1607:19:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
1586:17:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
1547:17:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
1530:17:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
1516:17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
1496:17:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
1443:17:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
1405:16:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
1028:16:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
1013:21:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
988:02:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
973:02:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
939:02:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
920:02:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
901:02:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
886:02:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
872:02:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
858:02:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
844:01:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
829:01:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
810:00:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
796:00:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
776:00:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
758:21:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
731:19:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
713:17:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
481:16:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
464:21:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
399:04:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
366:03:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
333:22:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
304:07:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
285:21:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
266:21:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
240:21:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
220:20:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
1417:had been in violation of
1361:It is blatant advertising
1943:Please do not modify it.
1831:Comment from participant
1710:Please do not modify it.
1661:Please do not modify it.
1393:for a possible copyvio (
1206:Please do not modify it.
1149:Please do not modify it.
620:Please do not modify it.
549:Please do not modify it.
117:Please do not modify it.
43:Deletion review archives
1504:Oops, already salted.
492:The Hand That Feeds You
452:Endorse speedy-deletion
1707:of the article above.
1203:of the article above.
617:of the article above.
114:of the article above.
1377:). Even though the
1810:Comment from closer
1612:taking place here.
1573:Bramson ORT College
1484:Cheers, everyone.
1459:Bramson ORT College
1415:Bramson ORT College
1387:Bramson ORT College
1287:Bramson ORT College
1453:was deleted under
740:pure wiki deletion
91:of the subject" –
1950:
1949:
1668:
1667:
1562:The Ort Institute
1480:The Ort Institute
1451:The Ort Institute
1371:The Ort Institute
1218:The Ort Institute
1188:
1165:The Ort Institute
1156:
1155:
1011:
602:
556:
555:
462:
60:
59:
1954:
1945:
1911:endorse deletion
1875:
1823:
1777:
1763:
1745:
1712:
1670:
1663:
1544:
1402:
1379:previous version
1342:
1328:
1310:
1273:
1259:
1241:
1208:
1180:
1177:
1158:
1151:
1125:
1123:
1097:
1095:
1070:Endorse deletion
1061:
1059:
1026:
1024:
1007:
986:
984:
937:
935:
899:
897:
870:
868:
842:
840:
808:
806:
774:
772:
711:
709:
687:
673:
655:
622:
594:
591:
584:userfied version
558:
551:
510:
508:
493:
479:
477:
458:
371:Endorse deletion
264:
260:
253:
196:
182:
164:
119:
85:reliable sources
70:
56:
36:
31:
1962:
1961:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1941:
1938:deletion review
1871:
1819:
1786:
1780:
1773:
1772:
1766:
1736:
1720:
1708:
1705:deletion review
1659:
1656:deletion review
1540:
1398:
1351:
1345:
1338:
1337:
1331:
1301:
1285:
1282:
1276:
1269:
1268:
1262:
1232:
1216:
1204:
1201:deletion review
1175:
1147:
1144:deletion review
1121:
1118:
1093:
1090:
1057:
1054:
1022:
1019:
997:Endorse closure
982:
979:
933:
930:
895:
892:
891:that story. --
866:
863:
838:
835:
804:
801:
770:
767:
707:
704:
696:
690:
683:
682:
676:
646:
630:
618:
615:deletion review
589:
547:
544:deletion review
506:
503:
491:
475:
472:
325:Tomas J. Fulopp
277:Tomas J. Fulopp
263:
258:
251:
249:
232:Tomas J. Fulopp
212:Tomas J. Fulopp
205:
199:
192:
191:
185:
155:
139:
115:
112:deletion review
68:
61:
54:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1960:
1958:
1948:
1947:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1903:
1902:
1882:Well, I think
1854:
1853:
1828:
1788:
1787:
1784:
1778:
1770:
1764:
1715:
1714:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1666:
1665:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1588:
1569:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1518:
1499:
1498:
1457:, not G4, and
1445:
1362:
1353:
1352:
1349:
1343:
1335:
1329:
1283:
1280:
1274:
1266:
1260:
1211:
1210:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1154:
1153:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1032:
1031:
1030:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
816:was a bad call
733:
698:
697:
694:
688:
680:
674:
625:
624:
609:
608:
607:
606:
570:Request denied
554:
553:
538:
537:
536:
535:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
466:
448:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
423:
422:
421:
420:
368:
336:
335:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
288:
287:
269:
268:
255:
207:
206:
203:
197:
189:
183:
122:
121:
106:
105:
104:
103:
67:
62:
58:
57:
49:
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1959:
1946:
1944:
1939:
1934:
1933:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1916:
1912:
1909:
1908:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1876:
1874:
1869:
1868:
1862:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1840:
1836:
1832:
1829:
1827:
1824:
1822:
1817:
1816:
1811:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1783:
1776:
1769:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1744:
1740:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1722:Astro empires
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1713:
1711:
1706:
1701:
1700:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1678:
1677:Astro empires
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1664:
1662:
1657:
1652:
1651:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1633:ORT INSTITUTE
1630:
1629:Overturn Both
1627:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1595:ORT INSTITUTE
1592:
1589:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1574:
1571:Secondly the
1570:
1567:
1566:ORT INSTITUTE
1563:
1559:
1558:Overturn both
1556:
1555:
1548:
1545:
1543:
1537:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1517:
1514:
1513:
1509:
1508:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1497:
1494:
1493:
1489:
1488:
1483:
1481:
1477:
1476:ORT INSTITUTE
1472:
1468:
1467:ORT INSTITUTE
1464:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1449:
1446:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1411:Overturn both
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1403:
1401:
1395:
1392:
1388:
1383:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1367:
1365:
1360:
1356:
1348:
1341:
1334:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1314:
1309:
1305:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1279:
1272:
1265:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1240:
1236:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1209:
1207:
1202:
1197:
1196:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1178:
1171:
1170:Overturn both
1167:
1166:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1152:
1150:
1145:
1140:
1139:
1128:
1124:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1101:
1100:
1096:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1071:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1047:
1046:
1042:
1041:
1036:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
995:
989:
985:
976:
975:
974:
970:
966:
962:
940:
936:
927:
923:
922:
921:
917:
913:
908:
904:
903:
902:
898:
889:
888:
887:
883:
879:
875:
874:
873:
869:
861:
860:
859:
855:
851:
847:
846:
845:
841:
832:
831:
830:
826:
822:
817:
813:
812:
811:
807:
799:
798:
797:
793:
789:
785:
779:
778:
777:
773:
765:
761:
760:
759:
755:
751:
746:
741:
737:
734:
732:
729:
728:
724:
723:
717:
716:
715:
714:
710:
702:
693:
686:
679:
671:
667:
663:
659:
654:
650:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
628:
627:
626:
623:
621:
616:
611:
610:
605:
601:
597:
593:
592:
585:
581:
579:
574:
571:
567:
566:
562:
561:
560:
559:
552:
550:
545:
540:
539:
534:
530:
526:
522:
519:
513:
509:
501:
500:
499:
496:
494:
487:
484:
483:
482:
478:
470:
467:
465:
461:
457:
453:
450:
449:
442:
438:
434:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
419:
418:
414:
409:
406:
402:
401:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
369:
367:
363:
359:
358:
353:
349:
345:
341:
338:
337:
334:
330:
326:
323:Thank you. --
322:
317:
313:
312:
305:
301:
297:
292:
291:
290:
289:
286:
282:
278:
273:
272:
271:
270:
267:
262:
261:
254:
252:Corvus cornix
247:
244:
243:
242:
241:
237:
233:
228:
222:
221:
217:
213:
202:
195:
188:
180:
176:
172:
168:
163:
159:
154:
150:
146:
142:
138:
137:
136:
132:
128:
124:
123:
120:
118:
113:
108:
107:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
82:
79:
78:
74:
73:
72:
71:
66:
65:7 August 2008
63:
53:
48:
44:
39:
32:
23:
19:
1942:
1935:
1914:
1910:
1872:
1866:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1820:
1814:
1809:
1789:
1709:
1702:
1675:
1660:
1653:
1637:TexasAndroid
1628:
1590:
1557:
1541:
1511:
1506:
1491:
1486:
1474:
1447:
1430:
1426:
1410:
1399:
1384:
1368:
1363:
1358:
1357:
1354:
1205:
1198:
1173:
1169:
1163:
1148:
1141:
1069:
1044:
1039:
1034:
1000:
996:
906:
815:
784:all the time
763:
736:Probably not
735:
726:
721:
699:
632:List of Cogs
619:
612:
587:
577:
575:
572:
569:
565:List of Cogs
563:
548:
541:
520:
489:
468:
451:
410:
404:
386:
370:
355:
339:
319:
256:
246:Speedy close
245:
223:
208:
116:
109:
75:
64:
926:WP:HARMLESS
703:. Thanks!
387:search page
296:82.7.39.174
89:independent
47:2008 August
1892:S Marshall
1843:S Marshall
1463:WP:CSD#G12
1455:WP:CSD#G11
1423:WP:Copyvio
1419:WP:Copyvio
1186:count/logs
600:count/logs
141:IGO Search
77:IGO Search
1796:RekishiEJ
719:Cheers.
230:advice.--
87:that are
1867:lifebaka
1815:lifebaka
1792:GameZone
1614:Alansohn
1578:Davewild
1560:Firstly
1542:Excirial
1536:template
1522:Alansohn
1507:lifebaka
1487:lifebaka
1448:Comment:
1435:Alansohn
1400:Excirial
1001:de facto
722:lifebaka
580:approved
576:request
469:Overturn
52:August 8
38:August 6
20: |
1884:WP:CORP
1861:WP:CORP
1768:restore
1739:protect
1734:history
1686:Stormie
1333:restore
1304:protect
1299:history
1264:restore
1235:protect
1230:history
1105:Stormie
1077:Stormie
1035:Endorse
1005:Rossami
965:Protonk
912:Protonk
878:Protonk
850:Protonk
821:Protonk
788:Protonk
750:Protonk
678:restore
649:protect
644:history
525:JoshuaZ
456:Rossami
340:Restore
187:restore
158:protect
153:history
127:Stormie
93:Stormie
1888:WP:CCC
1743:delete
1599:Stifle
1391:WP:ANI
1308:delete
1239:delete
1009:(talk)
653:delete
460:(talk)
162:delete
1919:Hobit
1835:other
1775:cache
1760:views
1752:watch
1748:links
1591:Merge
1340:cache
1325:views
1317:watch
1313:links
1271:cache
1256:views
1248:watch
1244:links
1176:Jerry
1075:). --
907:might
685:cache
670:views
662:watch
658:links
590:Jerry
578:kinda
194:cache
179:views
171:watch
167:links
55:: -->
16:<
1923:talk
1915:then
1896:talk
1847:talk
1839:some
1800:talk
1756:logs
1730:talk
1726:edit
1690:talk
1641:talk
1618:talk
1603:talk
1582:talk
1526:talk
1471:here
1461:was
1439:talk
1375:here
1321:logs
1295:talk
1291:edit
1252:logs
1226:talk
1222:edit
1182:talk
1109:talk
1081:talk
1040:Sher
969:talk
916:talk
882:talk
854:talk
825:talk
792:talk
754:talk
666:logs
640:talk
636:edit
596:talk
529:talk
437:talk
433:Deor
413:talk
395:talk
391:Deor
375:this
362:talk
329:talk
316:here
300:talk
281:talk
259:talk
236:talk
227:Here
216:talk
175:logs
149:talk
145:edit
131:talk
97:talk
35:<
1782:AfD
1473:.
1427:all
1364:G12
1359:G11
1347:AfD
1278:AfD
1045:eth
764:not
692:AfD
573:and
408:DGG
381:or
357:DGG
201:AfD
22:Log
1925:)
1898:)
1873:++
1849:)
1821:++
1802:)
1758:|
1754:|
1750:|
1746:|
1741:|
1737:|
1732:|
1728:|
1692:)
1643:)
1620:)
1605:)
1597:.
1584:)
1528:)
1512:++
1492:++
1441:)
1431:G4
1323:|
1319:|
1315:|
1311:|
1306:|
1302:|
1297:|
1293:|
1254:|
1250:|
1246:|
1242:|
1237:|
1233:|
1228:|
1224:|
1184:¤
1172:–
1168:–
1111:)
1083:)
971:)
918:)
884:)
856:)
834:--
827:)
794:)
756:)
727:++
668:|
664:|
660:|
656:|
651:|
647:|
642:|
638:|
598:¤
568:–
531:)
439:)
415:)
397:)
364:)
331:)
302:)
283:)
275:--
238:)
218:)
177:|
173:|
169:|
165:|
160:|
156:|
151:|
147:|
133:)
125:--
99:)
45::
1921:(
1894:(
1845:(
1798:(
1785:)
1779:|
1771:|
1765:(
1762:)
1724:(
1688:(
1639:(
1616:(
1601:(
1580:(
1524:(
1437:(
1350:)
1344:|
1336:|
1330:(
1327:)
1289:(
1281:)
1275:|
1267:|
1261:(
1258:)
1220:(
1107:(
1079:(
967:(
914:(
880:(
852:(
823:(
790:(
752:(
695:)
689:|
681:|
675:(
672:)
634:(
527:(
495::
435:(
411:(
393:(
360:(
327:(
298:(
279:(
234:(
214:(
204:)
198:|
190:|
184:(
181:)
143:(
129:(
95:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.