3528:. In this case, the list of quarterbacks was one of a group of lists that was designed to cover all of the football positions. I think the earlier AfD should have nominated the entire group of lists; by failing to do so, the discussion didn't take account of the usefulness or lack of usefulness of the entire group. With one of the positions now out of scope, the AfD on the other lists in this group will be biased toward deletion, since even if the merits of the case find the full group is useful, the group of lists with one of the positions missing is necessarily much less useful. Breaking up a cohesive group of lists and making deletion decisions individually is simply a poor way to make decisions. I'll also add that the earlier decision can't be characterized as "nearly unanimous." When first listed, the opinions were evenly split, with half of the opinions strongly in favor of keeping the list. It was then relisted and the consensus swung toward deletion. Because the AfD only considered one member of the group of lists, however, it failed to consider the ramifications for the entire group of lists.
2058:, I initially failed to see the evidence that the above editors so confidently extract from it. Perhaps, since I know that what they conclude is false, I was not able to see the language that has misled them. However, looking back, I can see something that they could, with a suspicious mind, searching for some proof of bad faith, intepret as they have. I knew, and said, that some editors would be opposed, and that others would favor. I also predicted that there would be higher opposition among administrators than among the general editor community, something which hasn't yet been proven either way, and, in fact, could be very difficult to prove. Is there something wrong with saying this? Should I not participate in someone else's proposal because I know someone will be opposed? Surely this would be a strange restriction! And these editors continue to misrepresent what the proposal actually was. Mangojuice, in particular, should know better, since he was active with the proposal and helped it develop.--
197:
United Sates, is the largest
Christian ministry of its kind in the world, and plays host the the largest Christian automotive forum on the internet. These reasons, as I believe, are quite enough to justify a page to them--I believe--after having read over the Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. I worked on the page, learning the code as I went, for quite some time. During one point, a banner was created saying that it was going to be deleted because of the reason, "Just another pointless car club." I objected, saying that it was a Christian ministry, and the largest in the world. I then worked more on the page, creating a Non-profit box in the correct format, internal links, sub-categories of all kinds, and such, to meet the Knowledge (XXG) standards. At some point, over the last month, it was deleted. I would like to ask that it be reinstated due to the organization's international recognition and size and importance in its own industry. No where on the page was there any sort of "Spam".
590:. The sparse discussion consisted of the nomination, one person who supported deletion (but said they would "revisit this discussion if some(any) good sources are posted"), and one person who wanted the article kept. This last person also added some material to the article, including an additional source—the article already had several sources, but these apparently weren't considered sufficiently "third-party"—but neither of the other two, nor the closing administrator, seems to have noticed this. Based on, I guess, a calculation that this is 2-1 in favor of deletion, the discussion was closed as "delete". Now in the first place, I disagree and think that at minimum, the nomination should have been relisted for more discussion. The failure to consider new evidence also means the arguments for deletion need to be reevaluated. Fortunately, the person trying to save this article happens to be
3055:
deletion had addressed most, if not all, concerns brought up on the delete side. It also satisfied several other opinions. It satisfied the 19 renames because their main concern was the neutrality of the title. It satisfied the 10 delete opinions that were based solely on the title/subject. It also did satisfy the argument on speculation because the article at the time of deletion included all talk of a precedent, the main thing brought up by delete voters, as part of a controversy over whether Kosovo's independence was a precedent or not. That section included statements from government officials made after independence and included both sides. Yet, the closing admin didn't even take into consideration these changes. The closing admin basically acted like they didn't happen and the article was the same one nominated for deletion. Given that I think a relist is more than fair.--
1590:– This debate has been specially brought to my attention -- I remain inactive, but I feel comfortable making an early closure at this DRV because I know that it's Kim Bruning's utmost desire to see beyond bureaucracy and reach a good result. Kim is retired as an admin, presumably -- at least in part -- so that he does not have to deal with the daily pain of administrative chores. When one lays down the mop, one is admitting that one may become less involved and aware of evolving policies and standards. Kim was right to suggest that MfD is not the best forum to address rejected policy pages, but he failed to account fully for the "disruptiveness" exception pointed out below. He also was wrong to "warn" User:B, a respected administrator
2793:
around four days before it was deleted. During the whole discussion there were 44 deletes, 14 keeps, 19 renames, and 6 merges. Given rename and merge need an article to rename or merge it could be fairly said there were 39 keeps. On the deletes there was an assortment of reasons but broken down it was 20 citing speculation as the only reason, 10 objecting specifically to subject/title of the article, 4 who gave no clear reason, 3 who mainly cited point of view but mentioned speculation, 3 who cited original research, and 2 who cited point of view as the reason for deletion. After the article was changed to
Controversy only one delete response was given. My proposal then is to undelete the article and relist it on AfD.--
1947:
likely to step in and stop it. Your broad assertion that deleting discussions about the future of wikipedia being the same are just laughable. If the community decides to delete this I wish you luck in getting the foundation to stop in to stop it. (Note this isn't to say there aren't good reasons to keep this and indeed those reasons maybe generally applicable, but a mere declaration that we must always do X, when a reasonable amount of the commenters so far are either unaware of those reasons or disagree with them, is simply a non-starter) --
1603:
should elapse, so that admins do not "race" to re-close it with a particular result. I trust the eventual closer to exercise circumspection, consider the arguments made the MfD on their merits (especially, whether this page is sufficiently outside the norm such that it need not be archived), and reach the proper result in due time. Stopping this DRV now prevents process from dragging on when an easy restart is possible, something everyone should be keen to avoid. –
1917:. Closer seems to place policy over consensus, when in fact the reverse should be true. Knowledge (XXG) is a fairly lenient encyclopedia. Policies are shaped like Amendments in the United States Constitution, rather than stringent codes such as the rules to chess or the Ten Commandments. Just because the consensus disagrees with policy, we don't throw out the consensus as a result. We change the policy. That's the ideology of Knowledge (XXG).--
1249:. As stated earlier, this is a completely non-replaceable image (it shows a irreproducible event), and its use on Knowledge (XXG) is not going to eliminate "the original market role". Only this image is being used, without any of the article. There is still reason to visit the original site. This is a key image (it shows an international incident condemned by the Security Council) and the article is greatly advanced by its presence.
2055:
bad faith? Be prepared for the consequences! I likewise believe that
Knowledge (XXG) could benefit from this (would I be spending my life promoting something that I don't think would work? Have you ever actually thought about what you are saying?), but I did not consider the time ripe for an actual proposal. Absidy did all of that on his own, and then I started to comment on it and help out. As to the post to the list
2080:
the opiners did so argue, and it is difficult to discern what the consensus on rejection versus deletion is. Thus it should be relisted, with opiners told to be explicit on whether the page is so inherently disruptive that marking as rejected is inadequate and deletion is needed or in the alternative that it should merely be marked as rejected. If we do that, we'll have a clear decision that we can all live with.
3569:
from a group and then nominates the rest of the group will tend to bias both decisions and lead to poorer decisions than considering the entire group simultaneously. The guidelines for AfDs ought to strongly encourage that closely related lists or articles be nominated as a group. However, I now realize that the DRV may have been the wrong forum in which to raise my concerns about the process.
1302:** Repeating the argument of non-replaceability in new guises won't cut it, as it has been determined that (non-)replaceability simply doesn't enter the equation here. By the way, if you want to engage in a discussion about fair use, you might want to get your terminnology right (the term "fair use" in your sentence above is used incorrectly, and that's not the first time).
3002:
change in the article which did address many of the arguments given for deletion. I'm only suggesting a relist because it seems to be the fair thing to do. I can guarantee the same arguments will not come up except maybe from disgruntled editors or people who do not review the article, which did happen in the first AfD and quite possible happened in the second.--
2988:
people giving them. There seemed to be very little consensus on what actually made the article worthy of deletion and whether it was actually worthy of deletion. Many expressly gave the title or subject as reason for deletion, said subject or title being, according to them, biased or speculative. However, no one could argue the article title or subject under
1232:, IAR as a policy is about improving the encyclopedia, it isn't about ignoring stuff just because it's convenient. Including more "non-free" content in a "free" encyclopedia for many people most certainly isn't improving it. Regardless certain foundation issues and legal issues cannot be ignored regardless of what that page says. --
2030:
at how careless a series of administrators are being in how they are conducting themselves. Where to begin? Do MfDs determine bad faith? MfDs are about proposals, not about users. Want to make a charge of bad faith: make it against a user, not an article or proposal. And be sure you can back it up, otherwise you are in clear
2038:, for dropping an image of an upraised finger on that administrator's Talk page, because what had happened before that deserved, at most, a warning. His first warning that I've seen in a very long record, when you look at the complete record (as far as I know it, back to 2005). He was also warned, then, for the image, by
3309:. I subsequently explained to him why I'd deleted the page (ie. A7, not spam) and suggest two alternatives, one of which was deletion review, which he chose. The misunderstanding was, in my view, eliminated before he got to this page, so I'm not sure exactly why his notes above are phrased the way they are.
3610:
A "test case" of listing one article of a group to check consensus before listing all in a group happens all the time. The deletion of the quarterbacks article was done within policy, and with a clear consensus. There is no valid reason presented that argues the need for the quarterbacks article to
2948:
The article was rewritten when the name was changed. The issue of a Kosovo precedent, which is the main, really sole, cause of the crystal ball accusation, was put under a section "Kosovo as a precedent or special case" and included a State department memo saying it served as a unique case and wasn't
2029:
One wishes that the objection in principle had translated to an objection in fact, for what do we call people with high principles and lower standards? I won't. Instead, I will make it moot. As the author of that post, I'm happy to make it a part of the record here. Not that it's relevant! I'm amazed
1598:
Kim's intentions were good, and his judgment is usually excellent; however, these sorts of mistakes are the kind that a non-admin (or a retired one) might well make. He failed to appreciate that an unusual nomination was coming from a respected source -- with a different, but fair and interesting --
3568:
I'm sorry that it may have appeared that by requesting a deletion review I was trying to leverage an open AfD; that certainly wasn't my intention. I actually haven't made up my mind yet about the new AfD. My concern is about the process; in my opinion a process that initially nominates a single list
3054:
It seems like people come on these things and give an opinion without bothering to look at everything. The argument isn't about how many votes went which way, but why they did and whether they were addressed. That has to be taken into consideration with an AfD. My point is the article at the time of
2270:
was proposing voting (not true, but also not relevant here), yet, when a closure occurs that was contrary to a strong majority, we now see the same users arguing that the majority should be followed. This DRV was improperly closed, that's true, due to a COI closer. However, it is also true that this
2079:
Kim is right that ordinarily we don't delete policy proposals or process pages. B is right that the MFD instructions do have that clause about disruptive proposals. The MfD nomination, however, did not clearly argue that the page was inherently disruptive even after being marked rejected. Some of
1995:
and others in the same mailing list: Abd knew full well that this would be strongly opposed, and yet pushed the proposal anyway to try to use
Knowledge (XXG) as an experimental testbed. Many comments from these two suggest they did not care what the community thought about the idea, they intended to
1946:
Your example of deleting wikipedia is just firvolous, we are exteremely unlikely (to say the least) to get to the state where that occurred, even less likely any admin would be open to implementing it, and ultimately it's a foundation issue, we couldn't override it, and if we tried the foundation is
1879:
Ok, this was closed by Kim and reverted by B. Fortunately, Kim consented to allowing me to reopen the DRV, as far as I know without having seen that B had already reopened it. The three prior comments should be disregarded as solely part of this process hiccup (but Kim's substantive comment should
732:
Hi. I know
Richard and found his page when people were beginning to assert his lack of notability (I did not participate in the deletion debate). My comments on the talk page, where I disclose my conflict of interest and add a couple of sources, are presumably visible to admins. At that time, it was
3235:
as web content that doesn't indicate its importance or significance. I have reviewed the deleted article, and I find that it does indeed fail to mention anything about why the website is important or significant. It merely says when it was started and what features it has, as well as a much longer
2792:
I originally created this article so I could be said to have a conflicting interest. When it was nominated the article was called
Potential crises resulting from the Kosovo precedent and was changed by the nominator to Possible consequences of Kosovo independence. The change to controversy was made
2637:
right?, why are we debating something that can be avoided by a very simple step, with editors adding redundant arguments: if editors still think the proposal should be deleted, then renominate it for that! No wiki-fuss. An argument that it was properly closed should be sufficient to allow immediate
2514:
is a rejected proposal to allow each user to designate a trusted user to speak on his behalf in debates in which the user does not participate personally. It was determined to be antithetical to
Knowledge (XXG)'s core principles and soundly rejected. Further, it was determined that the proposal was
2186:
For the record, my closure was not on purely bureaucratic grounds. If I had deleted or closed or otherwise halted the policy discussion that was MFD'ed, I would have caused more disruption, and been vilified even more thoroughly. This is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't . As actually
384:
Not sure how an article can be at a disadvantage as such, it's not a competition and we don't have an obligation to meet any exact concept of fairness between size and content of articles. That said this sort of deletion seems silly ("Bite your nose off to spite your face" sort of thing), if it was
366:
at a distinct disadvantage: all other major U.S. TV networks have
Infobox logos as Fair Use, e.g., ABC, CBS, and Fox Network, but the NBC article has no longer. I have requested the deleting admin to reconsider, but have had no response. I would like to have it temporarily undeleted long enough for
3283:
but permit re-creation of a sourced article to show it is a major website, if indeed it is. My own practice when changing a tag on a speedy is to just change the tag, and let a different admin do the deletion (unless, of course, it's a clear change to db-vandalism or db-attack or db-copyvio). That
3001:
happen. This crucial change goes unmentioned by the closing admin. Also none of the information was "improperly referenced" as every single statement or fact was referenced by reliable sources and properly attributed. The question here is whether the deletion of the article was justified given the
2535:
And, in fact, this interpretation was specifically denied. Indeed, had this been the proposal, I'd have been against it, and I said as much. As far as actually implementing this idea, I'd favor deletion, in fact. Because then the idea can be implemented under current policies without any fuss, not
2098:" Both of those reasons - being pushed by a ring of sock puppets (although subsequently, one of the users was demonstated not to be a sockpuppet) and the potential that someone could use its existence as an excuse for vote stacking - are claims of disruption, even though I didn't use that word. --
2054:
what I was proposing, and decided it was more important than anything else he could work on. He did countless hours of work on the proposal, learning about templates and transclusions and system variables and MediaWiki bugs, and he believed that it would improve
Knowledge (XXG). You want to charge
1602:
Again, knowing Kim desires expediency, I will close this DRV and reopen the MfD. The question of how long the MfD should remain open afterwards is difficult to say. It need not be very long, four days having elapsed already before Kim's action. Of course, common courtesy suggests that some time
3483:
Although I am sure that the requester has acted in good faith, we do not use DRV to try to force AfD consensus to be consistent across numerous articles, just because we may think that they should all be treated the same. All articles stand on their own merit, and it is quite palusible to have a
2987:
I did not bring up the vote count to suggest somehow the majority rules, if I did then it would have been delete anyway. Consensus implies a general agreement or reasonable agreement and that the arguments given are sound. Hence why I pointed out the arguments given for deletion and the number of
2605:
and get a full correct decision that we keep such pages rather than hide them. Guy has it right about the result, though: this is better kept than hidden. When consensus is clear, but the matter is actively disputed or significant, its always better to do it according to the full procedure. Had
2332:
unclearly stated, with numerous administrators taking actions that are outside policy and quite possibly worthy of loss of the admin bit, is this disruptive? Obviously, it is. But the energy of the disruption isn't coming from the proposer, rather, the proposer catalyzed its release, by violating
2163:
to consider deletion of a policy proposal, and some argued against deletion, but none argued that the venue was inappropriate or that the MfD should be closed on that basis.) Historically, I've found that the community will consider issues wherever it damn well pleases; Kim's purely bureaucratic
1864:
Seems reasonable, Kim seems to have set himself up as sole arbiter as to if the is such an "exceptional" circumstance as listed above. Indeed if community consensus is as Kim states that we don't delete this stuff, then the MFD would have shown that. Policy is descriptive not prescriptive and all
1784:
closing admin doesn't seem to realise that consensus can change and that binding decisions are not made. A previous agreement on MFD or previous form is no bar to the community doing something different, in this case it appears that a large part of the community agreed to the process in this case
3590:
I think we do need some way to establish a reasonable consistency in at least some cases, but when one AfD is initiated to see what opinions are, and the opinion is delete, to then reverse it because the others are not yet deleted does not make much sense as a reasonable way. It seems obvious we
2331:
violation. Do we !vote on the intentions of an article creator? Or is it in the result, i.e., if someone proposes an idea and a firestorm of cries to "shut up" erupts and the proposer is ejected and, having a totally clean record for three years is now indef blocked from a single offense, rather
2133:
and delete. The argument that 'We don't delete proposals; we just mark them rejected' was made very early in the deletion discussion. Virtually all of the participants in the discussion had the opportunity to read and be aware of that position; despite that, there was an overwhelming number of
1734:
I think that the debate was prematurely closed, and people should be allowed to continue to discuss this article until a consensus on how to act upon it is reached. The page continues to be a source of disruption even AFTER the proposal was marched as rejected with impunity. The nomination, as
196:
Spam To start off, I would like to say that I sure hope that I am abiding by the appropriate format. I am here requesting review of the deletion of a page about a
Christian Ministry, Holy Rollerz. My reasons are that the organization is recognized as a 501(c) Not For Profit organization by the
3208:
Page was speedily deleted as it was accused of being spam. However, the reasons given seemed to be more of a notability issue as VWvortex is not in the business of actually selling anything. It is rather just a website with information and forums. It needs to have its "day in court" so to speak
2875:
controversy over declaration of independence by Kosovo, and this is sourced to many very reliable sources quoting very prominent people. This is not crystal-balling at all, nor OR. The article may contain elements of both, but then it should be cleaned up, not deleted. Closing admin should have
649:
there was no consensus. The nominator said "I'm not sure if.." the only delete comment was hesitant and said "if sources..." and the keep was fairly confident it should be kept. There was no elaboration in the closing statement as to how the outcome arrived at delete. Closing as delete was a
2992:
was biased or speculative. The main issue seemed to be the aspect dealing with a precedent. At the time of deletion this was only a section, albeit large section, with others dealing with other controversies, and a precedent was treated under its section as a controversy, the controversy being
2522:
Well, this would be new. The description does not match the proposal, which began as brainstorming and which ultimately settled, among those who favored it (two editors maybe a little more), as the development of a file format with then a proposal to announce that users could play with it, and
2373:
If I were to reverse the close and delete the page myself, that would be bad, but undoing a plainly inappropriate non-admin close and allowing an uninvolved administrator to make the decision on the outcome of the discussion is an action that anyone - involved or otherwise can take. There's a
1800:
The request to overturn here is based on a misunderstanding of MFD policy. We DO NOT DELETE proposals except in exceptional circumstances, which are far from being met here. Use of MFD is inappropriate in that situation. Consensus in an MFD debate does not alter policy. Consensus for a clearly
2271:
DRV is out-of-process. Deletion Review is not intended as a deletion process; it has always been used, in my understanding, to reconsider deletion. Not not-deletion. The remedy for improper not-deletion is a second nomination. Why, then, this odd DRV? Well, it is because there has been a
1204:
The non-free content issue as a whole is Foundation policy. It is true that NFCC2 in particular is not mandated by an explicit Foundation decree, as far as I'm aware. It doesn't have to, because unlike most other parts of NFCC, this one is a direct, obvious outgrowth of actual copyright
2014:
I object in principle to posting links to off-wiki material, particularly where the poster has taken efforts to conceal their on-wiki identity. However, MJ's link above clearly identifies the disruptive intent of the DP proposal. If there was any doubt in my mind, that post erased it.
2317:
There is nothing preventing a second nomination for deletion; however, there is a serious problem: For starters, the nomination made false statements about the proposal, statements which were then apparently swallowed in whole by many !voters (and if you read a false argument that is
3492:. The AfD had nearly unanimous recommendations from a very large number of responsible wikipedians for delete, and to throw their opinions out for some idea that several articles should be considered together to attempt to make their deletion status the same, is not a good idea.
2134:
editors who felt that the unusual circumstances surrounding the proposal warranted a departure from our usual process. Kim's closure ignored those arguments and ignored the spirit of flexibility with which we (wisely) approach the interpretation of all Knowledge (XXG) policies.
3458:
3448:
2374:
difference between making the decision and vacating an out of process close. If we don't permit involved users to vacate an out of process close, then all discussions are potentially held hostage to the tyranny of the heckler. In any event, I didn't, so this is moot. --
2095:
This proposal is being pushed by a ring of sockpuppets who want to move it forward even though nobody has actually agreed with it. There's no good reason to leave it here, even in its rejected state, as it is merely an invitation to vote stack under the guise of an
2557:
Yes, this should have gone the full time. However it is clear that regardless this is a highly rejected suggestion. I don't see what is gained by further discussion. And the issue of whether we should delete the page completely or not is simply a waste of time.
3546:
Wait for the outcome of the present AfD. You might find that they all get deleted, in which case consistency has been achieved. But, as Jerry says, I do not think it is an appropriate use of deletion review to try to leverage an AfD which has not yet finished.
1292:: to be in the riots would have been tantamount to endangering the life of a reporter. Thus, no fair use image is likely to have been taken of the event. Possibly this may be a one-article use of this type of picture for illustrative purposes only perhaps?
1708:, "if a proposal is not serious or is disruptive ... it can be nominated for deletion". This proposal is obviously disruptive and thus a nomination for deletion is procedurally appropriate. I ask that the close, which was obviously against consensus, be
1164:"), which is exacly applicable here. The argument that this image is "non-replaceable" (NFCC 1) is irrelevant as soon as any of the other necessary conditions is demonstrably not met. Proper deletion process was followed, 48h notification period as per
2972:. Some editors, including me, thought that the most important aspect of the deleted article was "will Kosovo's independence set a precedent for independence in Transnistria or Abkhazia or South Ossetia", not "what will happen to Kosovo itself". --
1349:
I've asked the Department of State about their copy - technically it may not be the exact same image. I will advise when State public affairs informs on the provedence of their pic to see if it is covered under Work of a US Government Agency.
3036:, Knowledge (XXG) is based on consensus, not votes, and the AfD was correctly handled by the closing admin. And nobody forbids anyone to create a different and distinct article, obviously with no original researches or crystal ball claims. --
2158:
grounds. Many, many editors in good standing and long experience – including several admins and at least one member of ArbCom – saw fit to comment on the MfD; none raised a procedural objection on that basis. (Several observed that it was
1991:, is actually the inventor of the delegable proxy idea, and has a major conflict of interest, and is not really interested in improving Knowledge (XXG)'s decision-making process, but in experimenting with his voting system. See for instance
3405:
3400:
2783:
3409:
2434:. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is
2929:
The name change midway was in this case cause enough for relisting. But as a practical matter it would be much better to have an article that will not be subject to as many objections, and would more clearly be likely to pass AfD.
1364:
Thanks for making the enquiry. I'm a bit at a loss how you can think it might not be the same image – it very obviously is the same photograph, only cropped a bit differently. But okay, let's wait a day or two to see if they respond.
2187:
deleting policy discussions leads to wonderful catch-22 situations, closing MFD discussions about policy discussions (And closing DRV discussions about MFD discussions about policy discussions) is typically the least of all evils. --
3434:
3392:
1801:
inappropriate action does not make the action appropriate. Deletion review also does not alter policy, therefore deletion review is equally inappropriate. Alteration to MFD policy can be made by normal wiki-editing, or use of
2536:
that it makes much difference. The rejection or deletion of a project page does not create any new policy, it prohibits nothing that was not already prohibited, and deletion is even less effective. MfDs do not set policy.--
1759:. Overturn premature closure. This page should be deleted as per consensus. I do not agree with closing admin's rationale for closing the debate. There are serious issues w.r.t. disruptiveness, sock-puppetry, promotion of
3611:
be restored and relisted in the subsequent AfD. That said, I'd see no reason not to recreate an article that removes the "retired" qualifier, lists all players and attempts to be more than a category in list form. i.e.:
600:. So arguably the article could have yet another source now. Poetry often languishes in obscurity, making research challenging for those who don't know their way around, but let's not compound the problem in this case. --
2322:
to what is true, it's easy, then, to misread if you say, then read the proposal itself). Is the proposal disruptive? where is that defined? How is it determined? By intention? To assume, without clear evidence, that the
1971:'s instructions allow for deletion of bad-faith, disruptive proposals, and that's what this was in the view of many who commented at the MfD. The proposal was created and pushed by two users who are closely linked. One,
1931:
Heh, you're mostly correct. Even so, an MFD discussion can't for instance decide to delete wikipedia (or, on a lesser scale, it can't decided to delete consensus discussions about the future of wikipedia, as is the case
1599:
take on established policies. Kim is free to take up the mop again at his wish; but, until he does, his actions are easily reversible by any admin, precisely because he might be expected to make these sorts of mistakes.
941:
Editor who nominated deletion misunderstood image. He claimed that the copyright was unclear. I remember that it was clearly in the public domain, as it was a cropped version of another image that had been used for the
2217:
and for the same reasons. Many rejected proposals could be seen as disruptive, some are in fact disruptive, but are still kept as a record of what we've decided we don't want. Kim is right that disruptiveness is the
2515:
presented disruptively with the involvement of deceptive sock-puppetry. Although the main proposal has deleted per consensus, this stub has been left for posterity to document the community's decision in this matter.
1996:
implement the system and encourage people to use it. Since the system itself amounts to encouraging blind voting and canvassing, these goals are not merely misuse of Knowledge (XXG), but actually disruptive.
1703:
is a horribly bad idea that is STILL being pushed on the talk page. It was created by a farm of sock puppets and leaving it around even as a rejected policy serves only to give credence to the idea. Under
2266:, and that the closer closed based on an understanding of the arguments, not on the number of votes, which are irrelevant. It's ironic that if we look at the original MfD, the predominant argument was that
1893:
I'd certainly suggest moving these comments to the talk page, since they are more meta comments about DRV than part of the review, though Kim may like to refactor some of his comment for DRV's purpose.
1059:
1054:
1063:
1696:
1687:
2154:
participant in the entire process to reach the conclusion that MfD was an inappropriate forum for discussion of deletion of the page in question, and that the nomination should be closed on purely
310:
305:
3263:, as a textbook A7 on the face of the article. It was just a canter through what's on the site, with no assertions of notability. If the nominator here can provide a few non-trivial sources (see
1088:
1050:
314:
2313:
There is nothing explicit there; given that another remedy exists (renom), the background of that paragraph would indicate that the assumption is that deletion review is about reviewing, well,
681:, not the best argument, and although one source was added that isn't necessarily proof of notability. (If he wants to be an article saver, he'd better get to know the effective arguments.) --
339:
301:
3267:), to establish putative notability then I imagine we can undelete the article and see what happens to it. As a starting point, I would observe that it is not in Alexa's top 100,000 sites.
3011:
2958:
2863:
2424:
Policy is descriptive, not proscriptive and always has exceptions. I would think that a clear community consensus to delete would be one of them. On a related note, the text in question on
2476:
as there was a solid consensus to delete, and it is clear that the argument "we don't delete proposals" was refuted again and again, as further arguments were made in spite of that one. --
1983:(and several others), created the proposal and made grossly inappropriate attempts to promote it despite it's clear lack of approval, even going so far as to be blocked indefinitely for
2748:
2743:
3305:
That's fair enough, (I was the deleting admin concerned) but the misunderstanding was eliminated after the deletion (but before Analogue Kid came here) by my own post to his talk page
2752:
3064:
1009:– Deletion endorsed. Image clearly fails WP:NFCC #2 as an AP image, and there is no evidence that the image is iconic enough to be the direct subject of discussion in an article. –
2573:
2777:
2735:
2584:. Silly proposal that never had a chance, keep it in case anyone ever proposes something like this again so we can hopefully dissuade them from making such a suggestion again.
2293:
You are incorrect - DRV is the place to reconsider the close of a deletion discussion, be it deletion or non-deletion. Please see the second sentence of the second paragraph of
2576:
385:
an original work the uploader could have a claim over I can see why we might want to, in this case where the copyright lies solely with another party, I can't see the issue. --
1811:
to review policy before further using any of the deletion or deletion review systems in future. The correct venue for further debate on the delegable proxy proposal is -: -->
2243:
the only issue - it is a prerequisite issue. In other words, once it is established that the proposal is disruptive, it can be deleted for any otherwise correct reason. --
2297:. That said, had I realized that the closer was not an admin, I simply would have reverted the inappropriate non-admin close rather than bothering with this formality. --
2629:
On the face of it, there is no emergency here. No significant amount of editor time was being wasted in continued discussion of the proposal, and, indeed, deletion would
2138:
a soapbox, and we don't – or shouldn't – offer a permanent web presence to self-promoters of neologisms just because they couch their fringe notions as policy proposals.
615:
Standard gripe about no apparent discussion with the deleting admin before bringing it here. Many of these sort of cases should be resolvable with a little discussion. --
1149:
587:
577:
37:
1102:
353:
187:
629:
This is, indeed, true. People are often confronted with a deletion and imagine the deleting admin as a scary desk sergeant or whatnot. Regardless, here we are. --
362:
This image was Speedy Deleted because it was originally uploaded by a banned user sock. Howver, the image itself is valid and its deletion has placed the article
46:
2802:
1168:
I7. And "ignore all rules" doesn't mean "dodge all rules whenever you feel like it", certainly not in the area of non-free content, which is Foundation Policy.
2854:
then consider whether the article on Controversy over Kosovo independence meets the standards for deletion of an article, not just a modification of content.--
51:
2633:
discussion, just as proposing deletion has generated quite a bit of traffic. I prefer to read arguments from all sides before !voting; since ! !votes don't
2949:
a precedent. It was still in need of work, but I think the changes made addressed the main concerns of speculation and problems with the subject/title.--
1673:
677:, this is a marginal case but a relist would have been a better choice than any other, even to get just one more !vote. Baker, unfortunately, !voted per
3488:
article but not have this one. This DRV request is attempting to force a policy down the throat of AfD that has no consensus, specifically contradicts
955:
3396:
2739:
3209:
regarding whether it is notable. But it certainly is not spam, especially considering the page had existed for nearly four years on Knowledge (XXG).
2993:
whether Kosovo was a precedent or not. As such it could no longer be said to be a speculative subject as it involved an active dispute not over what
1802:
1209:. Violating some of the others means "merely" an offense against our own, internal free-content-first ideals. Violating this one is simply illegal.
932:
918:
3388:
3347:
3520:
I understand that we don't try to force AfD consensus to be consistent across articles, but I think consistency ought to be a consideration for
3045:
3028:
2979:
2941:
2917:
2900:
2885:
2830:
2360:
as bad as what Kim did! You were the nominator of the original MfD, being an administrator does not allow you to overturn a non-admin closing
2084:
because I think that this is the right outcome in the end, though I wouldn't object to a customized rejection notice of "rejected because..."
2034:
failure, which is ... disruptive. Absidy was not blocked for sock puppetry. Read the record. It's totally clear that he was indef blocked, by
3227:; requester has misstated the criteria under which this article was deleted. Although the editor who tagged it for speedy deletion used the
1269:
isn't optional; it's been adopted by the Wikimedia Foundation as the official Exemption Doctrine Policy for the English Knowledge (XXG) (see
2731:
2690:
1880:
stand, possibly with revision). Hopefully we can shut off this act of the drama. And hopefully you two can make amends sometime soon...
1699:
was inappropriately closed early with an inappropriate result. There was overwhelming consensus to delete this page, but it was ignored.
42:
2364:; otherwise a non-admin would need to check everytime he or she closed to make sure the nom wasn't by an admin who would simply revert.--
1337:, under the (likely mistaken) assumption that its use on a US government website implies it is now public domain. This is being checked.
1334:
2897:
1369:
1341:
1306:
1213:
1172:
3485:
2495:
Above I call for overturn and delete. After further discussion with Kim, perhaps a stub can be left with something like the following.
1948:
1895:
1866:
1786:
1233:
973:
616:
534:
529:
386:
216:
1523:
1145:
737:
started his own page, presumably ignorant of Knowledge (XXG) norms. If it would be helpful, I can start a page for him from scratch.
3199:
538:
2042:
but then blocked shortly thereafter by Jehochman. This is a highly unusual response, and totally improper, see the desysop case of
1812:
1648:
2000:
144:
139:
2275:
violation, and when Rule 0 violations are involved, very odd things happen, because such violations are intolerable, yet Rule 0
1046:
1005:
21:
3060:
3007:
2954:
2859:
2798:
563:
521:
148:
297:
256:
2894:
1746:
1366:
1338:
1303:
1210:
1194:
1169:
2201:
Next time, you try to find a solution that keeps everyone -if not all equally happy- then at least all equally unhappy. ^^;;
1480:
1475:
173:
131:
2472:, that closure rationale is no reason to close an active MFD. This closure was completely out of process. Alternatively,
3156:
3151:
1484:
3649:
3371:
3326:
3122:
3077:
2714:
2669:
1700:
1639:
1622:
1586:
1565:
1446:
1398:
1029:
984:
896:
852:
500:
455:
280:
235:
110:
17:
3160:
837:
3056:
3003:
2950:
2855:
2794:
1162:
A photo from a press agency (e.g. AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article.
3457:
A number of related lists of retired American football players by position have now been nominated for deletion at
1509:
1467:
962:
1377:
I checked the alttext on the image, the photo is from the Associated Press and I removed it from Knowledge (XXG).
1225:
1122:
3634:
3185:
3143:
2649:
wrote? He was there before the beginning, when all was formless and void. Pay attention! There will be a test. --
2606:
this been done, we wouldnt be here. It does not save time in the end to close controversial matters prematurely.
3489:
3351:– Deletion endorsed. Subsequent group-listing AfD of similar articles closed as delete with solid consensus. –
2976:
2173:
2143:
742:
2811:
Improperly referenced POV op-ed crystal ballery. Proper determination of consensus. Votecount is irrelevant.
951:
3041:
1656:
946:
article. That uncropped image is now in use on the geisha page - I would suggest this picture be undeleted.
833:
759:
404:
for uploading if a source can be given. The blocked sock removed a no-source tag with the edit summary of "
3638:
3621:
3602:
3578:
3559:
3537:
3511:
3474:
3360:
3315:
3295:
3275:
3255:
3218:
3111:
2703:
2658:
2617:
2597:
2567:
2545:
2504:
2485:
2464:
2416:
2383:
2368:
2349:
2306:
2288:
2252:
2234:
2196:
2177:
2123:
2107:
2088:
2067:
2024:
2007:
1956:
1941:
1926:
1903:
1884:
1874:
1858:
1843:
1824:
1794:
1776:
1751:
1725:
1612:
1555:
1435:
1383:
1372:
1359:
1344:
1309:
1281:
1257:
1241:
1216:
1199:
1175:
1134:
1018:
885:
841:
816:
796:
779:
763:
746:
727:
706:
689:
669:
637:
624:
609:
489:
444:
417:
394:
378:
269:
224:
209:
99:
3612:
3356:
3306:
3214:
3107:
2699:
1952:
1899:
1870:
1790:
1533:
1424:
1237:
1014:
620:
605:
390:
260:– Deletion endorsed without prejudice to reuploading image with proper sourcing and license information –
220:
2843:
714:
I thought it was a quick delete. I suspect that only marginal notability exists but the article deserves
2192:
2119:
1937:
1839:
1820:
912:
873:
2263:
678:
3019:
This is a severe fracture in international relations, and it is notable enough to be covered on WP. --
2340:
which doesn't state the rule except very indirectly and describes what happens when it is violated. --
1277:
3630:
3465:
the quarterbacks with them, since the lists only make sense if they are available for all positions.
3024:
485:
265:
2851:
2847:
1471:
3147:
2973:
2480:
2169:
2139:
1254:
738:
525:
413:
2333:
1760:
3618:
3459:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of retired professional American football runningbacks
3037:
2913:
2500:
2452:
2020:
1772:
1740:
1735:
noted above, was not out of procedure, and should be allowed to reach its natural conclusion. --
1273:
947:
813:
755:
723:
702:
686:
634:
205:
3236:(inappropriately-so) description of the company who owns it. The deletion was entirely proper.
1984:
1541:
2430:"Nominating for deletion a proposed policy or guideline page that is still under discussion is
2279:
To do so would be a violation of Rule 0. We must not mention that the emperor has no clothes.--
1463:
1419:
3352:
3210:
3139:
3103:
3098:
2695:
2572:
Looks like a very sensible close to me. Thanks, Kim, for your usual display of commonsense. --
2563:
1972:
1922:
1355:
1327:
1297:
1270:
1130:
1116:
1010:
792:
601:
135:
3311:
1181:
1153:
3556:
3507:
3272:
3251:
3228:
2969:
2838:
Before any one goes and makes the assertions I advise you to look at the relevant policies:
2826:
2646:
2638:
relisting. DRV connot delete an article, it can only confirm or reverse a deletion, it is a
2412:
2188:
2115:
1933:
1835:
1816:
1432:
1111:
WP:NFCC1 and lack of proper deletion review - let's talk about this as a group here, please
970:
882:
828:
add the NYRB reference on the talk page in a "mentioned by the press" box, like done on the
665:
440:
95:
3264:
3232:
2839:
2425:
2328:
2294:
2267:
2135:
2031:
1968:
1764:
1705:
1266:
1229:
1165:
1157:
3503:
3247:
3020:
2822:
2408:
2337:
2272:
2043:
2039:
1997:
1976:
1608:
661:
591:
481:
436:
261:
91:
3441:
3192:
2336:
Oops. Forgot. Rule 0 isn't a policy, to state Rule 0 would violate Rule 0. Instead, see,
1680:
1516:
1095:
925:
808:
Do you mean the source that Wageless added during the AFD? (It wasn't there at first.) --
570:
346:
180:
3574:
3533:
3470:
2881:
2477:
2035:
1552:
1537:
1378:
1250:
965:(an FP), which presumably correctly is GDFL. I've undeleted it, and fixed the tagging.
517:
476:
409:
2224:
so inherently disruptive that marking as rejected is inadequate and deletion is needed
1767:
that warrant the page being deleted (see MangoJuice's comment below for more details)
3615:
3598:
3291:
2937:
2909:
2654:
2613:
2592:
2586:
2541:
2496:
2446:
2345:
2284:
2063:
2016:
1768:
1736:
1185:
809:
719:
698:
682:
630:
201:
2968:
provided that such endorsement will not preclude the creation of an article titled
2559:
2214:
2085:
1918:
1881:
1351:
1323:
1293:
1126:
1112:
788:
773:
754:. Came here from NYRB as well. Which I suspect now serves as an additional source.
734:
408:" (shocking that he was a banned user, eh?) but no source was really identified. —
370:
127:
76:
3426:
3177:
2769:
1501:
1080:
555:
331:
165:
3461:. To give fair consideration to that group of lists, it would be appropriate to
1992:
3552:
3268:
2379:
2302:
2248:
2168:
an appropriate forum in which to consider the deletion of the page in question.
2103:
2056:
1980:
1854:
1721:
1428:
966:
878:
771:
insufficient consensus to delete the article. I would have relisted the debate.
3495:
3239:
2814:
2533:
allow each user to designate a trusted user to speak on his behalf in debates.
2400:
1604:
653:
428:
83:
3570:
3529:
3466:
2877:
2365:
2231:
1548:
877:– Undeleted after indication of correct GFDL licensing of source image. –
3629:
no valid reason given to delete. Seems to make a better category anyway
3593:
3286:
2932:
2650:
2608:
2537:
2341:
2280:
2114:
I'm going to leave things in the capable hands of GRBerry for DRV. :-) --
2059:
1988:
697:, lack of consensus, this should be relisted and given another chance. --
2438:
to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors."
1156:
2, "respect for commercial opportunities", as explained specifically at
961:
The copyright tagging of this was a mess. It is however a derivative of
595:
2694:– Endorse deletion, but allow re-write of topic at different name. –
2375:
2298:
2244:
2099:
1850:
1717:
943:
2093:
I didn't use the word "disruptive" in my nomination, but I did say "
2164:
closure does not reflect the evident community consensus that MfD
1594:, as if Kim's were the only possible interpretation of the policy.
829:
80:– Deleting admin undeleted the article; no discussion required. –
1697:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Delegable proxy
363:
215:
Seems redundant, deleting admin has since restored content. --
480:– Deletion overturned. Relisting at editorial discretion. –
423:
Just re-upload it with proper license and source information
3389:
List of retired professional American football quarterbacks
3348:
List of retired professional American football quarterbacks
1319:
1125:
could apply if the rationale on the talk page is followed.
586:
This article about a poet was deleted last month based on
2893:, thoughtful and responsible decision by closing admin.
2397:
out-of-process close due to misunderstanding of policy.
2230:
as supported by policy against deletions of proposals.--
3422:
3418:
3414:
3173:
3169:
3165:
2765:
2761:
2757:
1831:
1664:
1660:
1652:
1644:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1333:
Procedural note: Mikebar has re-uploaded this image as
1076:
1072:
1068:
551:
547:
543:
327:
323:
319:
161:
157:
153:
1849:
I have reverted this inappropriate non-admin close. --
406:
Removed vandalism by ChrisRuvolo it is sourced, moron!
2226:. Also per GRBerry, the next best alternative is to
1335:
Image:Burning of the US embassy in Belgrade 2008.jpg
588:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Richard Denner
2642:review. Review of deletion. Does anyone read what
3486:retired football players who juggle live muskrats
3284:would have eliminated the misunderstanding here.
1732:Restore debate and allow consensus to be reached
2509:
787:. People didn't even consider the last source.
367:me to re-upload it myself with appropriate FUR
2356:Say it isn't so; because that would have been
8:
2222:issue, and as GRBerry points out it must be
1803:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Miscellany for deletion
3370:The following is an archived debate of the
3121:The following is an archived debate of the
2713:The following is an archived debate of the
1621:The following is an archived debate of the
1536:or similar for review following request at
1445:The following is an archived debate of the
1322:so that can be used. Sorry for the fuss.
1047:Image:Serbs_burn_US_embassy_in_Belgrade.jpg
1028:The following is an archived debate of the
1006:Image:Serbs_burn_US_embassy_in_Belgrade.jpg
895:The following is an archived debate of the
594:, and took the time to write about this in
499:The following is an archived debate of the
279:The following is an archived debate of the
109:The following is an archived debate of the
3340:
3091:
2683:
2574:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The
1579:
1412:
998:
866:
469:
249:
69:
1592:with a sound argument behind his position
298:Image:NBC Stacked Logo Legal Identity.svg
257:Image:NBC Stacked Logo Legal Identity.svg
1265:. As per the parallel case cited above.
41:
3102:– Endorse speedy deletion as CSD A7. –
2470:Speedily overturn and reopen discussion
2150:: I also note that Kim Bruning is the
2050:of work that I was doing, but actually
1987:violation and sockpuppetry. The other,
1544:for original content lost to deletion.
50:
2876:discounted these incorrect arguments.
1318:- www.state.gov has secured rights at
1148:and previously appealed parallel case
33:
2691:Controversy over Kosovo independence
7:
2990:controversy over Kosovo independence
2732:Controversy over Kosovo independence
2077:1st choice: Relist with instructions
3652:of the page listed in the heading.
3329:of the page listed in the heading.
3080:of the page listed in the heading.
2672:of the page listed in the heading.
1568:of the page listed in the heading.
1401:of the page listed in the heading.
987:of the page listed in the heading.
855:of the page listed in the heading.
458:of the page listed in the heading.
238:of the page listed in the heading.
200:Thank you for your time with this,
3591:should wait for the related AfDs.
1160:, examples of unacceptable uses ("
28:
2146:) 20:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1706:Knowledge (XXG):MFD#Prerequisites
1119:) 11:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
3231:, it was actually deleted under
3648:The above is an archive of the
3325:The above is an archive of the
3076:The above is an archive of the
2925:which in effect is the same as
2668:The above is an archive of the
2440:(emphasis mine) - its hardly a
1701:Knowledge (XXG):Delegable proxy
1640:Knowledge (XXG):Delegable proxy
1587:Knowledge (XXG):Delegable proxy
1564:The above is an archive of the
1397:The above is an archive of the
983:The above is an archive of the
851:The above is an archive of the
454:The above is an archive of the
402:Leave deleted without prejudice
234:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
2395:Overturn and relist discussion
1813:Wikipedia_talk:Delegable_proxy
1:
3639:18:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
3622:17:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
3603:17:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
3579:23:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
3560:13:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
3538:05:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
3512:04:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
3475:02:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
3316:19:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
3296:17:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
3276:13:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
3256:04:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
3219:04:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2959:18:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2942:17:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2918:17:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2901:12:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2886:12:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2864:05:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2831:04:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2803:04:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2486:23:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2465:21:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2417:21:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2384:21:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2369:21:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2362:in which you have an interest
2307:21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2289:21:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2253:21:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2235:21:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2178:23:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2124:20:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2108:19:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2089:19:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2025:21:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
2008:19:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1942:20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1927:19:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1904:19:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1885:19:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1875:18:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1859:18:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1844:12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1825:11:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1795:07:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1777:06:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1752:05:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1726:05:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1556:05:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1436:13:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1258:20:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1242:18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1228:seems to be an essay form of
1226:Knowledge (XXG):No firm rules
1176:11:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1135:11:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
1123:Knowledge (XXG):No firm rules
974:13:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
956:11:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
886:13:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
690:23:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
670:21:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
638:23:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
625:18:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
610:18:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
445:21:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
418:21:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
395:18:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
379:18:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
225:21:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
210:20:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
100:21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
30:
597:The New York Review of Books
2082:2nd choice: Endorse closure
1300:) 07:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
1142:Comment from deleting admin
963:Image:Geisha Kyoto Gion.jpg
3675:
2327:is disruptive would be an
3361:14:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
3112:01:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
3065:19:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
3046:17:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
3029:16:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
3012:08:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2980:07:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2704:01:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
2659:18:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2618:16:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2598:10:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2577:05:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2568:00:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2546:05:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2505:00:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2350:07:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2197:00:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2068:08:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
2046:. Absidy was a political
1957:10:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
1613:18:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
1384:04:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
1373:18:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
1360:14:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
1345:12:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
1310:08:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
1282:14:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1217:15:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
1200:07:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
1019:14:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
842:23:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
817:10:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
797:01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
780:10:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
764:09:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
747:03:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
728:21:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
707:17:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
490:01:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
270:01:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
3655:Please do not modify it.
3377:Please do not modify it.
3332:Please do not modify it.
3128:Please do not modify it.
3083:Please do not modify it.
2720:Please do not modify it.
2675:Please do not modify it.
2211:Relist with instructions
1628:Please do not modify it.
1571:Please do not modify it.
1452:Please do not modify it.
1404:Please do not modify it.
1035:Please do not modify it.
990:Please do not modify it.
902:Please do not modify it.
858:Please do not modify it.
506:Please do not modify it.
461:Please do not modify it.
286:Please do not modify it.
241:Please do not modify it.
116:Please do not modify it.
43:Deletion review archives
2923:Rewrite and then Relist
1320:http://blogs.state.gov/
3613:List of NHL players: A
3374:of the article above.
3125:of the article above.
2871:with new title. There
2717:of the article above.
2517:
2432:generally frowned upon
2277:must not be described.
2262:Users are reminded of
2136:Knowledge (XXG) is not
1625:of the article above.
1449:of the article above.
1032:of the article above.
913:Image:Kyoto geisha.jpg
899:of the article above.
874:Image:Kyoto geisha.jpg
503:of the article above.
283:of the article above.
113:of the article above.
2844:consensus in practice
1184:Foundation policy? —
3057:The Devil's Advocate
3004:The Devil's Advocate
2951:The Devil's Advocate
2908:per Future Perfect.
2856:The Devil's Advocate
2840:reasons for deletion
2795:The Devil's Advocate
1966:Overturn and delete.
1534:User:Kinai/Noi Morei
1425:User:Kinai/Noi Morei
1316:Now Endorse deletion
1152:. Clear-cut case of
1144:: See discussion at
2527:That is, there was
2474:overturn and delete
2927:permit re-creation
2442:policy requirement
2239:Disruptiveness is
3662:
3661:
3510:
3339:
3338:
3254:
3090:
3089:
2997:happen, but what
2829:
2682:
2681:
2596:
2444:that we keep it.
2415:
2203:
1973:User:Sarsaparilla
1749:
1743:
1578:
1577:
1411:
1410:
1382:
997:
996:
865:
864:
834:A rabid following
668:
468:
467:
443:
248:
247:
98:
60:
59:
3666:
3657:
3608:Endorse deletion
3502:
3501:
3498:
3444:
3430:
3412:
3379:
3341:
3334:
3246:
3245:
3242:
3229:Template:db-spam
3225:Endorse deletion
3195:
3181:
3163:
3130:
3092:
3085:
3034:Endorse deletion
2970:Kosovo precedent
2966:Endorse deletion
2821:
2820:
2817:
2809:Endorse deletion
2773:
2755:
2722:
2684:
2677:
2590:
2483:
2463:
2460:
2457:
2449:
2407:
2406:
2403:
2213:as suggested by
2199:
2005:
1830:Proposer warned
1747:
1741:
1712:and the page be
1683:
1669:
1668:
1630:
1580:
1573:
1519:
1505:
1487:
1454:
1427:as requested. –
1413:
1406:
1381:
1230:ignore all rules
1190:
1098:
1084:
1066:
1037:
999:
992:
928:
904:
867:
860:
660:
659:
656:
573:
559:
541:
508:
470:
463:
435:
434:
431:
373:
349:
335:
317:
288:
250:
243:
183:
169:
151:
118:
90:
89:
86:
70:
65:29 February 2008
56:
36:
31:
3674:
3673:
3669:
3668:
3667:
3665:
3664:
3663:
3653:
3650:deletion review
3631:Charles Stewart
3496:
3493:
3490:WP:ALLORNOTHING
3453:
3447:
3440:
3439:
3433:
3403:
3387:
3375:
3372:deletion review
3330:
3327:deletion review
3314:
3240:
3237:
3233:WP:CSD#A7 (web)
3204:
3198:
3191:
3190:
3184:
3154:
3138:
3126:
3123:deletion review
3081:
3078:deletion review
2815:
2812:
2788:
2782:
2776:
2746:
2730:
2718:
2715:deletion review
2673:
2670:deletion review
2512:Delegable proxy
2481:
2458:
2453:
2447:
2445:
2401:
2398:
2228:endorse closure
2044:User:Physchim62
2040:User:Mangojuice
2001:
1977:User:Ron Duvall
1692:
1686:
1679:
1678:
1672:
1642:
1638:
1626:
1623:deletion review
1569:
1566:deletion review
1528:
1522:
1515:
1514:
1508:
1478:
1462:
1450:
1447:deletion review
1402:
1399:deletion review
1197:
1186:
1146:image talk page
1107:
1101:
1094:
1093:
1087:
1057:
1045:
1033:
1030:deletion review
988:
985:deletion review
937:
931:
924:
923:
917:
900:
897:deletion review
856:
853:deletion review
733:mentioned that
654:
651:
592:Nicholson Baker
582:
576:
569:
568:
562:
532:
516:
504:
501:deletion review
459:
456:deletion review
429:
426:
371:
358:
352:
345:
344:
338:
308:
296:
284:
281:deletion review
239:
236:deletion review
192:
186:
179:
178:
172:
142:
126:
114:
111:deletion review
84:
81:
68:
61:
54:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
3672:
3670:
3660:
3659:
3644:
3643:
3642:
3641:
3624:
3605:
3584:
3583:
3582:
3581:
3563:
3562:
3543:
3542:
3541:
3540:
3515:
3514:
3455:
3454:
3451:
3445:
3437:
3431:
3382:
3381:
3366:
3365:
3364:
3363:
3337:
3336:
3321:
3320:
3319:
3318:
3310:
3299:
3298:
3278:
3258:
3206:
3205:
3202:
3196:
3188:
3182:
3133:
3132:
3117:
3116:
3115:
3114:
3088:
3087:
3072:
3071:
3070:
3069:
3068:
3067:
3049:
3048:
3031:
3014:
2982:
2974:Metropolitan90
2962:
2961:
2945:
2944:
2920:
2903:
2888:
2866:
2833:
2790:
2789:
2786:
2780:
2774:
2725:
2724:
2709:
2708:
2707:
2706:
2680:
2679:
2664:
2663:
2662:
2661:
2620:
2600:
2579:
2570:
2551:
2550:
2549:
2548:
2508:
2507:
2489:
2488:
2467:
2419:
2392:
2391:
2390:
2389:
2388:
2387:
2386:
2354:
2353:
2352:
2257:
2256:
2255:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2204:
2181:
2180:
2170:TenOfAllTrades
2140:TenOfAllTrades
2127:
2126:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2073:
2072:
2071:
2070:
2036:User:Jehochman
2011:
2010:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1960:
1959:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1888:
1887:
1847:
1846:
1805:. Proposer is
1798:
1797:
1779:
1765:WP:NOT#SOAPBOX
1754:
1694:
1693:
1690:
1684:
1676:
1670:
1633:
1632:
1617:
1616:
1596:
1595:
1576:
1575:
1560:
1559:
1538:User_talk:Here
1530:
1529:
1526:
1520:
1512:
1506:
1457:
1456:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1423:– Userfied to
1409:
1408:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1379:User:Zscout370
1347:
1331:
1285:
1284:
1260:
1244:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1193:
1109:
1108:
1105:
1099:
1091:
1085:
1040:
1039:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
995:
994:
979:
978:
977:
976:
939:
938:
935:
929:
921:
915:
907:
906:
891:
890:
889:
888:
863:
862:
847:
846:
845:
844:
832:'s talk page.-
822:
821:
820:
819:
800:
799:
782:
766:
749:
739:JonathanPenton
730:
709:
692:
672:
643:
642:
641:
640:
584:
583:
580:
574:
566:
560:
518:Richard Denner
511:
510:
495:
494:
493:
492:
477:Richard Denner
466:
465:
450:
449:
448:
447:
420:
398:
397:
360:
359:
356:
350:
342:
336:
291:
290:
275:
274:
273:
272:
246:
245:
230:
229:
228:
227:
194:
193:
190:
184:
176:
170:
121:
120:
105:
104:
103:
102:
67:
62:
58:
57:
49:
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
3671:
3658:
3656:
3651:
3646:
3645:
3640:
3636:
3632:
3628:
3625:
3623:
3620:
3617:
3614:
3609:
3606:
3604:
3600:
3596:
3595:
3589:
3586:
3585:
3580:
3576:
3572:
3567:
3566:
3565:
3564:
3561:
3558:
3554:
3551:, I suppose.
3550:
3545:
3544:
3539:
3535:
3531:
3527:
3523:
3519:
3518:
3517:
3516:
3513:
3509:
3505:
3500:
3499:
3491:
3487:
3482:
3481:Strong oppose
3479:
3478:
3477:
3476:
3472:
3468:
3464:
3460:
3450:
3443:
3436:
3428:
3424:
3420:
3416:
3411:
3407:
3402:
3398:
3394:
3390:
3386:
3385:
3384:
3383:
3380:
3378:
3373:
3368:
3367:
3362:
3358:
3354:
3350:
3349:
3345:
3344:
3343:
3342:
3335:
3333:
3328:
3323:
3322:
3317:
3313:
3308:
3304:
3301:
3300:
3297:
3293:
3289:
3288:
3282:
3279:
3277:
3274:
3270:
3266:
3262:
3259:
3257:
3253:
3249:
3244:
3243:
3234:
3230:
3226:
3223:
3222:
3221:
3220:
3216:
3212:
3201:
3194:
3187:
3179:
3175:
3171:
3167:
3162:
3158:
3153:
3149:
3145:
3141:
3137:
3136:
3135:
3134:
3131:
3129:
3124:
3119:
3118:
3113:
3109:
3105:
3101:
3100:
3096:
3095:
3094:
3093:
3086:
3084:
3079:
3074:
3073:
3066:
3062:
3058:
3053:
3052:
3051:
3050:
3047:
3043:
3039:
3035:
3032:
3030:
3026:
3022:
3018:
3015:
3013:
3009:
3005:
3000:
2996:
2991:
2986:
2983:
2981:
2978:
2975:
2971:
2967:
2964:
2963:
2960:
2956:
2952:
2947:
2946:
2943:
2939:
2935:
2934:
2928:
2924:
2921:
2919:
2915:
2911:
2907:
2904:
2902:
2899:
2896:
2892:
2889:
2887:
2883:
2879:
2874:
2870:
2867:
2865:
2861:
2857:
2853:
2849:
2845:
2841:
2837:
2834:
2832:
2828:
2824:
2819:
2818:
2810:
2807:
2806:
2805:
2804:
2800:
2796:
2785:
2779:
2771:
2767:
2763:
2759:
2754:
2750:
2745:
2741:
2737:
2733:
2729:
2728:
2727:
2726:
2723:
2721:
2716:
2711:
2710:
2705:
2701:
2697:
2693:
2692:
2688:
2687:
2686:
2685:
2678:
2676:
2671:
2666:
2665:
2660:
2656:
2652:
2648:
2645:
2641:
2636:
2632:
2628:
2624:
2623:endorse close
2621:
2619:
2615:
2611:
2610:
2604:
2601:
2599:
2594:
2589:
2588:
2583:
2580:
2578:
2575:
2571:
2569:
2565:
2561:
2556:
2555:endorse close
2553:
2552:
2547:
2543:
2539:
2534:
2530:
2526:
2525:nothing more.
2521:
2520:
2519:
2518:
2516:
2513:
2506:
2502:
2498:
2494:
2491:
2490:
2487:
2484:
2479:
2475:
2471:
2468:
2466:
2462:
2461:
2456:
2450:
2443:
2439:
2437:
2433:
2427:
2423:
2420:
2418:
2414:
2410:
2405:
2404:
2396:
2393:
2385:
2381:
2377:
2372:
2371:
2370:
2367:
2363:
2359:
2355:
2351:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2335:
2330:
2326:
2321:
2316:
2312:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2304:
2300:
2296:
2292:
2291:
2290:
2286:
2282:
2278:
2274:
2269:
2265:
2261:
2258:
2254:
2250:
2246:
2242:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2233:
2229:
2225:
2221:
2216:
2212:
2209:
2208:
2202:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2185:
2184:
2183:
2182:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2167:
2162:
2157:
2153:
2149:
2145:
2141:
2137:
2132:
2129:
2128:
2125:
2121:
2117:
2113:
2109:
2105:
2101:
2097:
2096:"experiment".
2092:
2091:
2090:
2087:
2083:
2078:
2075:
2074:
2069:
2065:
2061:
2057:
2053:
2049:
2045:
2041:
2037:
2033:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2022:
2018:
2013:
2012:
2009:
2006:
2004:
1999:
1994:
1990:
1986:
1982:
1978:
1974:
1970:
1967:
1964:
1958:
1954:
1950:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1939:
1935:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1924:
1920:
1916:
1913:
1912:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1889:
1886:
1883:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1845:
1841:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1809:
1804:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1783:
1780:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1755:
1753:
1750:
1744:
1738:
1733:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1716:. Thank you.
1715:
1711:
1707:
1702:
1698:
1689:
1682:
1675:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1641:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1631:
1629:
1624:
1619:
1618:
1615:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1600:
1593:
1589:
1588:
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1574:
1572:
1567:
1562:
1561:
1558:
1557:
1554:
1550:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1535:
1525:
1518:
1511:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1486:
1482:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1455:
1453:
1448:
1443:
1442:
1437:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1421:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1407:
1405:
1400:
1395:
1394:
1385:
1380:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1371:
1368:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1348:
1346:
1343:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1329:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1308:
1305:
1301:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1268:
1264:
1261:
1259:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1245:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1224:
1218:
1215:
1212:
1208:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1196:
1191:
1189:
1183:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1174:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1118:
1114:
1104:
1097:
1090:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1065:
1061:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1038:
1036:
1031:
1026:
1025:
1020:
1016:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
993:
991:
986:
981:
980:
975:
972:
968:
964:
960:
959:
958:
957:
953:
949:
945:
934:
927:
920:
914:
911:
910:
909:
908:
905:
903:
898:
893:
892:
887:
884:
880:
876:
875:
871:
870:
869:
868:
861:
859:
854:
849:
848:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
824:
823:
818:
815:
811:
807:
804:
803:
802:
801:
798:
794:
790:
786:
783:
781:
778:
777:
776:
770:
767:
765:
761:
757:
756:Relata refero
753:
750:
748:
744:
740:
736:
731:
729:
725:
721:
717:
713:
710:
708:
704:
700:
696:
693:
691:
688:
684:
680:
676:
673:
671:
667:
663:
658:
657:
648:
645:
644:
639:
636:
632:
628:
627:
626:
622:
618:
614:
613:
612:
611:
607:
603:
599:
598:
593:
589:
579:
572:
565:
557:
553:
549:
545:
540:
536:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
514:
513:
512:
509:
507:
502:
497:
496:
491:
487:
483:
479:
478:
474:
473:
472:
471:
464:
462:
457:
452:
451:
446:
442:
438:
433:
432:
424:
421:
419:
415:
411:
407:
403:
400:
399:
396:
392:
388:
383:
382:
381:
380:
377:
375:
374:
365:
355:
348:
341:
333:
329:
325:
321:
316:
312:
307:
303:
299:
295:
294:
293:
292:
289:
287:
282:
277:
276:
271:
267:
263:
259:
258:
254:
253:
252:
251:
244:
242:
237:
232:
231:
226:
222:
218:
214:
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
198:
189:
182:
175:
167:
163:
159:
155:
150:
146:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
124:
123:
122:
119:
117:
112:
107:
106:
101:
97:
93:
88:
87:
79:
78:
74:
73:
72:
71:
66:
63:
53:
48:
47:2008 February
44:
39:
32:
23:
19:
3654:
3647:
3626:
3607:
3592:
3587:
3548:
3525:
3521:
3494:
3480:
3462:
3456:
3376:
3369:
3353:IronGargoyle
3346:
3331:
3324:
3302:
3285:
3280:
3260:
3238:
3224:
3211:Analogue Kid
3207:
3127:
3120:
3104:IronGargoyle
3097:
3082:
3075:
3033:
3016:
2998:
2994:
2989:
2984:
2965:
2931:
2926:
2922:
2905:
2890:
2872:
2868:
2848:crystal ball
2835:
2813:
2808:
2791:
2719:
2712:
2696:IronGargoyle
2689:
2674:
2667:
2643:
2639:
2634:
2630:
2626:
2622:
2607:
2602:
2585:
2581:
2554:
2532:
2531:proposal to
2528:
2524:
2511:
2510:
2492:
2473:
2469:
2454:
2451:
2441:
2436:often useful
2435:
2431:
2429:
2421:
2399:
2394:
2361:
2357:
2324:
2319:
2314:
2276:
2259:
2240:
2227:
2223:
2219:
2215:User:GRBerry
2210:
2200:
2165:
2160:
2155:
2151:
2147:
2130:
2094:
2081:
2076:
2051:
2047:
2002:
1965:
1949:81.104.39.63
1914:
1896:81.104.39.63
1867:81.104.39.63
1848:
1807:
1806:
1799:
1787:81.104.39.63
1781:
1756:
1731:
1713:
1709:
1695:
1627:
1620:
1601:
1597:
1591:
1585:
1570:
1563:
1545:
1531:
1451:
1444:
1418:
1403:
1396:
1315:
1289:
1287:
1286:
1262:
1246:
1234:81.104.39.63
1206:
1187:
1161:
1141:
1120:
1110:
1034:
1027:
1011:IronGargoyle
1004:
989:
982:
948:John Smith's
940:
901:
894:
872:
857:
850:
825:
805:
784:
774:
772:
768:
751:
715:
711:
694:
674:
652:
646:
617:81.104.39.63
602:Michael Snow
596:
585:
505:
498:
475:
460:
453:
427:
422:
405:
401:
387:81.104.39.63
369:
368:
361:
285:
278:
255:
240:
233:
217:81.104.39.63
199:
195:
128:Holy Rollerz
115:
108:
82:
77:Holy Rollerz
75:
64:
2852:POV forking
2647:Kim Bruning
2264:WP:NOTAVOTE
2189:Kim Bruning
2116:Kim Bruning
1981:User:Absidy
1934:Kim Bruning
1836:Kim Bruning
1817:Kim Bruning
716:due process
679:WP:HARMLESS
38:February 28
3526:categories
3508:count/logs
3252:count/logs
3021:Hereward77
2827:count/logs
2627:do nothing
2582:Do nothing
2413:count/logs
2315:deletions.
2156:procedural
1710:overturned
1542:User:Kinai
1540:by author
1532:Userfy to
666:count/logs
482:Eluchil404
441:count/logs
262:Eluchil404
96:count/logs
2895:Fut.Perf.
2625:-- i.e.,
2325:intention
1993:this post
1761:WP:FRINGE
1464:Noi Morei
1420:Noi Morei
1367:Fut.Perf.
1339:Fut.Perf.
1304:Fut.Perf.
1251:Superm401
1211:Fut.Perf.
1182:WP:NFCC#2
1170:Fut.Perf.
650:mistake.
410:Wknight94
3588:Postpone
3549:Postpone
3140:VWvortex
3099:VWvortex
3017:Overturn
2910:Eusebeus
2640:deletion
2631:increase
2497:Ronnotel
2493:Proposal
2422:Overturn
2358:at least
2148:Addendum
2131:Overturn
2048:opponent
2017:Ronnotel
1989:User:Abd
1985:WP:POINT
1932:here).--
1915:Overturn
1865:that. --
1769:Ronnotel
1757:Overturn
1748:contribs
1737:Jayron32
1247:Overturn
1188:xDanielx
826:Overturn
810:Dhartung
785:Overturn
769:Overturn
752:Overturn
720:Stormbay
712:Overturn
699:Mbimmler
695:Overturn
683:Dhartung
675:Overturn
647:Overturn
631:Dhartung
202:Skiendog
20: |
3627:Endorse
3435:restore
3406:protect
3401:history
3281:Endorse
3261:Endorse
3186:restore
3157:protect
3152:history
2985:Comment
2906:Endorse
2891:Endorse
2836:Comment
2778:restore
2749:protect
2744:history
2560:JoshuaZ
2428:reads:
2320:related
2260:Comment
2161:unusual
2086:GRBerry
1919:WaltCip
1882:GRBerry
1782:Comment
1714:deleted
1674:restore
1653:history
1510:restore
1481:protect
1476:history
1352:Mikebar
1324:Mikebar
1294:Mikebar
1263:Endorse
1180:How is
1154:WP:NFCC
1127:Mikebar
1121::Also,
1113:Mikebar
1089:restore
1060:protect
1055:history
919:restore
806:Comment
789:Wiwaxia
775:Hut 8.5
735:Richard
564:restore
535:protect
530:history
372:JGHowes
340:restore
311:protect
306:history
174:restore
145:protect
140:history
52:March 1
3553:Splash
3463:relist
3410:delete
3269:Splash
3265:WP:WEB
3161:delete
3038:Angelo
2999:should
2977:(talk)
2869:Relist
2850:, and
2753:delete
2635:count,
2603:Relist
2426:WP:MFD
2338:Rule 0
2334:Rule 0
2295:WP:DRV
2273:Rule 0
2268:WP:PRX
1969:WP:MFD
1808:warned
1763:, and
1485:delete
1429:Splash
1274:ChrisO
1272:). --
1267:WP:NFC
1166:WP:CSD
1158:WP:NFC
1064:delete
1053:| ] |
967:Splash
944:geisha
879:Splash
539:delete
315:delete
304:| ] |
149:delete
3522:lists
3497:Jerry
3442:cache
3427:views
3419:watch
3415:links
3241:Jerry
3193:cache
3178:views
3170:watch
3166:links
2816:Jerry
2770:views
2762:watch
2758:links
2593:Help!
2482:desat
2402:Jerry
2366:Doug.
2232:Doug.
2003:juice
1998:Mango
1681:cache
1661:watch
1657:links
1605:Xoloz
1517:cache
1502:views
1494:watch
1490:links
1096:cache
1081:views
1073:watch
1069:links
926:cache
830:Mzoli
655:Jerry
571:cache
556:views
548:watch
544:links
430:Jerry
347:cache
332:views
324:watch
320:links
181:cache
166:views
158:watch
154:links
85:Jerry
55:: -->
16:<
3635:talk
3619:lute
3616:Reso
3599:talk
3575:talk
3571:BRMo
3534:talk
3530:BRMo
3524:and
3504:talk
3471:talk
3467:BRMo
3423:logs
3397:talk
3393:edit
3357:talk
3307:here
3303:Note
3292:talk
3248:talk
3215:talk
3174:logs
3148:talk
3144:edit
3108:talk
3061:talk
3042:talk
3025:talk
3008:talk
2995:will
2955:talk
2938:talk
2914:talk
2882:talk
2878:Fram
2860:talk
2823:talk
2799:talk
2766:logs
2740:talk
2736:edit
2700:talk
2655:talk
2614:talk
2564:talk
2542:talk
2501:talk
2478:Core
2409:talk
2380:talk
2346:talk
2303:talk
2285:talk
2249:talk
2220:only
2193:talk
2174:talk
2152:only
2144:talk
2120:talk
2104:talk
2064:talk
2052:read
2021:talk
1953:talk
1938:talk
1923:talk
1900:talk
1871:talk
1855:talk
1840:talk
1832:here
1821:talk
1791:talk
1773:talk
1742:talk
1722:talk
1665:logs
1649:talk
1645:edit
1609:talk
1549:here
1498:logs
1472:talk
1468:edit
1356:talk
1328:talk
1298:talk
1290:Note
1278:talk
1255:Talk
1238:talk
1150:here
1131:talk
1117:talk
1077:logs
1051:edit
1015:talk
952:talk
838:talk
814:Talk
793:talk
760:talk
743:talk
724:talk
718:. --
703:talk
687:Talk
662:talk
635:Talk
621:talk
606:talk
552:logs
526:talk
522:edit
486:talk
437:talk
414:talk
391:talk
328:logs
302:edit
266:talk
221:talk
206:talk
162:logs
136:talk
132:edit
92:talk
35:<
3594:DGG
3449:AfD
3287:DGG
3200:AfD
2933:DGG
2784:AfD
2651:Abd
2644:God
2609:DGG
2587:Guy
2538:Abd
2459:man
2448:Mr.
2342:Abd
2329:ABF
2281:Abd
2241:not
2166:was
2060:Abd
2032:AGF
1688:MfD
1524:AfD
1207:law
1103:AfD
933:AfD
578:AfD
364:NBC
354:AfD
188:AfD
22:Log
3637:)
3601:)
3577:)
3557:tk
3555:-
3536:)
3506:¤
3473:)
3425:|
3421:|
3417:|
3413:|
3408:|
3404:|
3399:|
3395:|
3359:)
3312:GB
3294:)
3273:tk
3271:-
3250:¤
3217:)
3176:|
3172:|
3168:|
3164:|
3159:|
3155:|
3150:|
3146:|
3110:)
3063:)
3044:)
3027:)
3010:)
2957:)
2940:)
2916:)
2884:)
2873:is
2862:)
2846:,
2842:,
2825:¤
2801:)
2768:|
2764:|
2760:|
2756:|
2751:|
2747:|
2742:|
2738:|
2702:)
2657:)
2616:)
2566:)
2544:)
2529:no
2503:)
2455:Z-
2411:¤
2382:)
2348:)
2305:)
2287:)
2251:)
2195:)
2176:)
2122:)
2106:)
2066:)
2023:)
1955:)
1940:)
1925:)
1902:)
1894:--
1873:)
1857:)
1842:)
1834:--
1823:)
1815:--
1793:)
1785:--
1775:)
1724:)
1663:|
1659:|
1655:|
1651:|
1647:|
1611:)
1500:|
1496:|
1492:|
1488:|
1483:|
1479:|
1474:|
1470:|
1433:tk
1431:-
1358:)
1288:*
1280:)
1253:-
1240:)
1198:\
1133:)
1079:|
1075:|
1071:|
1067:|
1062:|
1058:|
1017:)
971:tk
969:-
954:)
883:tk
881:-
840:)
812:|
795:)
762:)
745:)
726:)
705:)
685:|
664:¤
633:|
623:)
608:)
554:|
550:|
546:|
542:|
537:|
533:|
528:|
524:|
488:)
439:¤
425:.
416:)
393:)
376:-
330:|
326:|
322:|
318:|
313:|
309:|
268:)
223:)
208:)
164:|
160:|
156:|
152:|
147:|
143:|
138:|
134:|
94:¤
45::
3633:(
3597:(
3573:(
3532:(
3469:(
3452:)
3446:|
3438:|
3432:(
3429:)
3391:(
3355:(
3290:(
3213:(
3203:)
3197:|
3189:|
3183:(
3180:)
3142:(
3106:(
3059:(
3040:(
3023:(
3006:(
2953:(
2936:(
2912:(
2898:☼
2880:(
2858:(
2797:(
2787:)
2781:|
2775:(
2772:)
2734:(
2698:(
2653:(
2612:(
2595:)
2591:(
2562:(
2540:(
2499:(
2378:(
2376:B
2344:(
2301:(
2299:B
2283:(
2247:(
2245:B
2191:(
2172:(
2142:(
2118:(
2102:(
2100:B
2062:(
2019:(
1979:/
1975:/
1951:(
1936:(
1921:(
1898:(
1869:(
1853:(
1851:B
1838:(
1819:(
1789:(
1771:(
1745:.
1739:.
1720:(
1718:B
1691:)
1685:|
1677:|
1671:(
1667:)
1643:(
1607:(
1553:♠
1551:…
1546:∴
1527:)
1521:|
1513:|
1507:(
1504:)
1466:(
1370:☼
1354:(
1342:☼
1330:)
1326:(
1307:☼
1296:(
1276:(
1236:(
1214:☼
1195:C
1192:/
1173:☼
1129:(
1115:(
1106:)
1100:|
1092:|
1086:(
1083:)
1049:(
1013:(
950:(
936:)
930:|
922:|
916:(
836:(
791:(
758:(
741:(
722:(
701:(
619:(
604:(
581:)
575:|
567:|
561:(
558:)
520:(
484:(
412:(
389:(
357:)
351:|
343:|
337:(
334:)
300:(
264:(
219:(
204:(
191:)
185:|
177:|
171:(
168:)
130:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.