759:
not the inventor and the page Opiton Knob is a descriptive page of a viable object - not a blatent advertisement. So the descriminating factors that led to a speedy deletion are inaccurate and thus false. Upon this accusation I made note to the administrator that I happen to be the cousin of the person who invented this Option Knob, and because of my name or the user account I created to make this entry there is confusion that I am the inventor. But my attempt to create this wiki page was outside of any intention of the inventor, and the page was developed by benchmarking the wiki page Guitar Pick - so the style and content of the Option Knob page was done consistently with another invention of similar caliber on wikipedia, the Guitar Pick. I request that this please be reviewed and re-instated. Thank You.
2129:- As Jc37 notes above, there are much better names for such a category if collaboration is the true intent of its creation. As named, this category discouraged those who were interested about collaborating on such topics, but were not queer themselves. Categories like "American Wikipedians" have been allowed based on the understanding that "basic demographic information" via user categories is allowed. Is sexual orientation basic demographic information? That's debatable. I like to determine that by asking "Would a lender ask this information for a loan application? In this case, no.
1708:. We dpon't have much guidance on what to do when you wish to recreate a category which has been previously dleted, but I think the user is following the right channels, I think the merits of the circumstances can be reviewed and I think we could avoid accusing people of disruption simply because they disagree. I don't think Knowledge (XXG) has become a closed shop just yet. Just because you have the chairs on the table and have started mopping the floor, doesn't mean the rest of us have finished drinking. Where else do people go when they want to recreate something previously deleted?
1558:
Wikiproject category would do all these categories do, and some other people were saying no it wouldn't. You can't have a stronger argument on the side of someone who asserts something is so than on the side that asserts it isn't so when that something is a matter of personal opinion and not objective fact. All that said, the categories have been allowed to lay deleted by the community for over two months, which suggests the consensus lies in them being deleted. I can't endorse the close, but perhaps a relisting might work for one and all?
2369:
topic" may be allowed, especially when initiated by committed
Wikipedians with good edit histories. At their best, such activities help us to build the community, and this helps to build the encyclopedia. But at the same time, if user page activity becomes disruptive to the community or gets in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia, it must be modified to prevent disruption." This indicates that a harm resulting from this user category must be proven.
2585:, unnecessarily exclusionary, collaboration on such articles would be much better served by a category "Wikipedians interested in Queer issues", or similar. That way non-Queer Wikipedians interested in collaborating on such issues can join in, and Queer Wikipedians who aren't so interested in contributing on those topics won't be assumed to be. Looking at the original discussion, the arguments for keeping this look weak.
1662:- An inaccurate statement. According to the tool on my user page, there have been 1022 unique editors to that page alone (not to mention the CFD discussions prior to that). And over 150 of them have more than 10 edits to the page. 90+ have more than 20. This isn't a case of 5 editors forcing their will upon the rest of Knowledge (XXG), no matter how one may wish to believe that to be so. -
1427:) would actually attract members. Or in other words, is this honestly about creating a "by interest" category for collaboration, or is this about having a "feel-good" category. If it's about collaboration, calling the category "Queer Wikipedians" excludes those who might be interested and/or knowledgeable about such topics, who may not themselves idenitify as
1534:
and that leads to a rather useless category. If I have a category for "Bergen Evans fans" on my user page, that tells a fellow editor something about me and my extraordinary interests and about some topics that I am likely to have a significant opinion on. On the other hand, a category for "TV owners" would tell the editor significantly less.
452:. In addition to the UCA link above, they have had mention in several US newspapers (LA Times, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Erie Times). Some are trivial, some go beyond just venue listings. There may be enough for criterion 1. Also, their 2005 event on the Great Wall was reported in Asian media (here from a wire service repeating China Daily
240:
1746:
users might be interested in a collaboration category with a specific name, and I'm not sure it's my place to tell them otherwise either. regardless of whether some people are retrying the cfd, I still think it was a bad close and I think that's what we're supposed to assess here, and I think the community blew it twice on this.
1641:
categories are not useful, it therefore follows they should not be deleted. Based on that and the deletion debate listed above, I believe that's a bad close based on my reasoning above. Others did not take that view at the previous DRV, granted, however, maybe the consensus has changed. We'll just have to wait and see.
1785:. I am also troubled by the continual re-nomination of the categories in the hopes of, as one commentator called it, "out-stubborning" the proponents. And for the record, dismissing sexuality issues as "who people like to have sex with" is indicative of an extremely low level of understanding of the subject matter.
1381:. The claim that this "category" of potential collaborators is actually more important or relevant to collaboration was cited as a reason to automatically delete. I have never collaborated with Montanans, cellists, or even administrators on Knowledge (XXG) through user categories while I have collaborated through
236:
2471:
option suggested above (by me, and others). If the intention is collaborative, then I'd suggest renaming the cat to follow current convention. But since it's already been deleted (apparently several times), then the suggestion is to create the cat of the new name which follows current convention, and
2411:
So far only the title of the user category has been proposed as an indicator of collaborative potential. This indicates that the statement of collaborative intent should be enough to justify a user category. The only reason given that this must be stated in the category title is to reduce beurocratic
2315:
I agree in all respects with Otto. If there's anything clear, its there is no consensus of this sort of category. I can never imagine using any personal-identity or interest category myself, but let others do as suits them. If there's a better name, suggest a change, not a deletion. there is not the
1722:
Oh, I understand where you're coming from, and I (mostly) agree with you in theory. (Though I think there should be some positive prior impetus, not some negative IWANTIT edit warring...) Note that there's a
Village Pump discussion under way simultaneous to this discussion which would seem to provide
1671:
I'm indicating that 1052 is a limited pool spread over two years. Probably over one day, when you think about it. When you get down and root through UCFD I'm indicating it's a limited pool of contributors. I'm not suggesting anything other than it is, like almost every page on
Knowledge (XXG), edited
1576:
a DRV concerning the discussion, which was closed as "endorse". That said, I think that this nom (at least on the surface) claims to be about creating a category showing interest in collaboration. If so, I suggest a different (more clear) name. (I noted two possible suggestions in my comments above.)
1533:
It seems to me that the issue here is that most
Wikipedians are going to be interested in their sexuality at some level, and that, logically, every single user entry would wind up with a category leading to some form of sexuality. At that point, we will have categories with millions of users apiece,
758:
I would like to state that the page the Option Knob should be re-instated due to an incorrect speedy deletion. The speedy deletion was said to have occured because the admin claimed that i was just using wikipedia to advertise my invention - this is not true and is a case of mistaken identity. I am
2199:
I think
Hyacinth has demonstrated that this category can be and in fact has been used to further the interests of the project. That it could also function as a sort of social network (though we lack evidence that it does) is irrelevant. Just linking to WP:NOT isn't enough — the unrebutted evidence
1989:
Jc was asserting that if you want to recreate this category because another category similar to it exists, you should instead nominate the other category for deletion. At least, that is how I read the comment, and why I have responded as I have. I believe if you want to recreate a category that was
1539:
I don't know the solution for this, but perhaps a better idea for this category might be something along the lines of "Queer activists"? It tells you that the user is not only queer, but also has a significant interest and knowledge in issues dealing with queer activism. It could also be separated
2700:
I'd say that several of those have higher collaborative potential, location for instance can be useful, but certainly not all of them. I'd have no problem seeing them deleted since I think that user categories have limited utility and high potential for abuse. They are on my user page as a result
1731:
is not what DRV is for. Again I point you to the idea that if the 3 users were actually interested in a collaboration category, as the nom claims, I would presume they would jump at the chance to have it by any name, since collaboration is their goal as stated. Have you noticed I've had no response
1503:
Why must there be only one way for LGBT Wikipedians to find each other for collaboration? Maybe there are queer
Wikipedians who aren't interested in joining a Wikiproject. Maybe there are queer Wikipedians who don't like the people in the LGBT Wikiproject. Maybe there are queer Wikipedians who have
2361:
indicates that "Your userpage is for anything that is compatible with the
Knowledge (XXG) project" including "organizing the work that you are doing on the articles in Knowledge (XXG), and also a way of helping other editors to understand with whom they are working." The user category would assist
1557:
The debate looks a clear no consensus. The central factor is whether the category is of use. Some wikipedians felt it was, some didn't, and there was no consensus on the utility of all categories nominated. I don't understand the strength of argument comment, since one side were asserting that the
2681:
could the same not be said about
Wikipedians interested in Narnia, Wikipedians who like Star Trek, Wikipedians who read A Song of Ice and Fire, Wikipedian San Antonio Spurs fans, Wikipedians in Texas, Wikipedians in San Antonio and Wikipedians who read Tolkien, all of which are on your user page?
1690:
Also, where is this change of consensus you suggest? Or are you suggesting that any time someone wants to regauge consensus on something, they should DRV any previously closed XfD discussion at any time, no matter how much time has passed, just "to see"? I'll have to look for it, but I think that
1635:
I'm indicating that the consensus that that was a valid close may well have changed. I'm also positing that if the user wants to recreate deleted material then the user is likely in the right place to seek a consensus. It's been established that some user categories are not wanted. This does not
1745:
Like I say, if you know of a better venue to discuss the disputed deletion, I'm all ears. I don't want to second guess motives. If people want to self identify on
Knowledge (XXG) as something, I'm not convinced it is my place to tell them not to. I'll leave that to consensus. I think the three
2368:
does not include any restriction which would apply to the user category. It clarifies: "The
Knowledge (XXG) community is generally tolerant and offers fairly wide latitude in applying these guidelines to regular participants. Particularly, community-building activities that are not strictly "on
1640:
pool of participants in deletion debates over two years do not over rule a wider consensus if it can be established. The only guidance I could find last time I looked regarding user categories was that when creating them people should consider their utility. If there is no consensus that the
227:- I don't have access to the deleted page, and there may well have been no assertion of notability, but on research I think there is enough that is notable about this group for them to avoid a speedy. There are plenty of sources from which an encyclopaedic page can be written. See
1187:
consensus was clear. On a process note: We keep saying that DRV isn't AFD round 2, but frankly it has become so with late arriving evidence to show notability or that some band played some tour or another. Better than a bureaucracy but encourages everyone to take his or her shot.
2013:
You're right, I hadn't considered the fact that someone who couldn't understand why "something" exists whilst "something else" they thought should and was similar but was deleted would be most bothered about wanting to rename the something. I'll bear that in mind in future.
777:. From the sentence-and-a-half I get in the deletion log, it looks pretty clearly like advertising (whether it was or not). It was only a single speedy, and you can still create it again, though I do suggest you change the tone a little. Also, I suggest you read
392:
It might. Our comments were in an edit conflict and I haven't yet had time to consider them. But if you're sure they'll hold up, don't wait on me to change my opinion (which was an assessment only of the validity of the speedy-deletion at the time of deletion) -
458:
If NPR's instrumental selections are considered to be the "rotation" of a "major radio network", which I would argue is an appropriate standard for the genre, then the band also satisfies criterion 11. There's plenty out there for a decent stub, at the least.
2465:- For several days now I've attempted to answer Hyacinth's questions. And though I continue to do so, at this point I wonder if we're watching an attempt at circular debate. And as an aside, I'm still noting that the user continues to directly ignore the
352:
may be rare but it is not so rare that every user of it becomes automatically worthy of an encyclopedia article. Notability is not inherited. Using such an instrument is not a credible assertion of notability. Allow recreation if there is some
2157:
There were other concerns leading to the deletion of those, AFAIK. Also I think only the age categories for those under 18 were deleted, I think categories grouping Wikipedians in the decade they were born were allowed, last I checked at least.
1097:- the consensus at AfD was clear and we are not here to second guess the decision of the Community, but to ensure that the AFD was properly closed; which it was. Further, the subject has played at the highest level of Aussie Rules and thus meets
1021:
as playing at professional level and being a professional sportsman are not the same thing. The article has insufficient content, context or analysis and it does not assert any claim to notability for the player. Notability to come perhaps.
2090:. It's been established in over several years of discussions, which involved many different Wikipedians, that Wikipedian categories should not be used for "feel-good" socialising, but instead as navigation tools (which is what categories
2478:
for a name which is contrary to convention, and has already gone through CFD and DRV, without showing that consensus has changed anywhere, would seem to indicate POV pushing to me. Though I'd honestly love to hear evidence otherwise. -
1600:
Sure. However, the UCFD discussion linked to by the nominator already had a DRV, which endorsed the closure. The nomination above in no way suggests that "Consensus has changed", but rather that they wish this to be a "Collaborative"
1466:
the "instrument" categories (UpMerging all the "number" cats) has been previously discussed, though not as a nomination as I recall. If you have concerns about a Wikipedian category, please feel free to nominate it for discussion. -
2028:
Your sarcasm aside, such a discussion is actually going on right now, which (I think) proves the point. Whether the nom was in "bad faith" or not, the topic is being discussed by others, and not all proposals are keep or delete. -
1606:". As I've said several times now, if they do so, the category likely won't be deleted. If now the nominator wants to suggest that consensus has changed, I'd be interested in seeing that consensus, as nearly, if not all of the
1393:. The "Queer Wikipedians" category is not substantially different from the other subcategories of "Wikipedians by interest" or the other categories on my userpage and substantial reasons have not been given for its deletion. -
1863:
absolutely can change. I find it more than a little amusing that the deletion of categories that came about only after repeated attempts to delete them is being defended with no regard to the notion of changeable consensus.
2351:
Proponents of deletion claim that WP:NOT prevents categories which are not used for collaboration but have not proposed a method for verifying whether potential categories may be or existing categories are used for
587:
any plausible claim or assertion of mindication of notability is enough to defeat a speedy. It may even be notable, but that;s for AfD. Bottom line, Andrew: it does not have to pass WP:MUSIC to prevent a
1362:
1346:
2341:
Proponents of the user category deletion have cited one policy, "What Knowledge (XXG) is not" as supporting deletion without citing a policy which opposes the existence of the category, including
2004:
Not exactly, but close enough. Though "for discussion", rather than "for deletion", noting that CfD/UCfD are discussions with many possible outcomes, and are not keep/delete dualism debates. -
1620:
for over 2 years, that Wikipedian categories should not be used merely for self-identification - a userpage notice of some kind (including a userbox) is enough for that, there's no need for a
1266:
be used for collaboration is not relevant. Yes, many user categories still need to be brought in line with the need for collaboration, but that is not a reason to undelete any one of them. –
811:, you would do far better to let someone independent write the page. As it is, I can find no external sources for this article (by contrast, there are thousands of independent sources on the
2660:
per Xoloz close of the previous DRV. Given their limited value to encyclopedia building such purely identificary categories tend to do more harm than good; even if the harm is very slight.
1365:). The primary argument appears to be that the category is unnecessary to collaboration. However, the category was not considered in view of existing "collaborative" user categories such as
206:. Essentially this DRV hinges on whether this is a reliable source: if it is we have an article (well a stub anyway), if not, then yes it does deserve to be deleted. What do you think?
1727:("...unless there is evidence to the contrary"). I personally think that at least part of what's going on here is an attempt to use DRV to "retry" the CFD discussion, which, as noted at
1891:- This has already been discussed at DRV once and upheld. I see nothing here to indicate that the facts surrounding this case have changed to justify this going through DRV again. --
1389:
stating that "This user category is for the purpose of fostering a collaborative environment between queer editors and editors of articles covering queer topics" and placing it under
186:
I feel a little guilty about this as if I saw this at AfD while just passing by, I'd probably vote delete, but here goes. As I said on the now deleted talk page while arguing with a
134:
129:
490:
2101:
the categories. This is intended to cut down on the bureaucratic overhead of creating a naming convention for every parent category. (Since Knowledge (XXG) is not a bureaucracy.)
1957:
That's a facile and redundant argument. If you believe there is a double standard operating, but want both categories kept, why on earth would you nominate the second category?
138:
1586:
Consensus can change. The categories were nominated for deletion how many times? I guess we can have a couple of DRV's then. Or have we introduced binding decisions recently?
292:
that the group is probably notable enough for a page, but rather than bringing this here it'd be easier to just go ahead and create it. After all, the name isn't protected. --
1054:
While I see your point, DRV isn't intended to be where to go when you disagree with consensus in an AfD, it's for evaluating problems in process or when circumstances change.
468:
1676:. I wanted to post the opposing view for the purposes of informing debate. And if we want to swap stats, well, ten contributors have made roughly half the edits to the page.
163:
121:
2316:
least reason to think this has been used or will be used to harm the encyclopedia, or for lobbying. We should delete only user categories that have actually proved harmful.
1420:
1081:. DRV is not AfD round 2. There's a pretty clear consensus based on WP:BIO that all professional athletes are notable. This AfD verified that with a clear consensus. --
1412:
1352:
1014:
1004:
322:
a lot there to assert the notability, but with the sources BlueValour has found I think a decent stub can be created. I would love to see the version deleted under
51:
37:
2502:
2106:
2104:
Based on that, in reading your nomination, at least, your proposed category should follow the naming convention of: "Category:Wikipedians interested in <x: -->
1424:
2253:. Seems comfortable enough to decree consensus and majority rules when one isn't the minority and a small one at that. Personally this seems to me to fall under
415:
as above. While many notable musicians use unusual instruments, using an unusual instrument is not in itself a claim to notability. Bottom line: doesn't pass
2497:
is not to determine whether or not a particular act was a good idea, but whether or not the close was done so with a viable consensus. I personally agree with
46:
1781:- I have little to no interest in or use for user categories and indeed find them almost uniformly silly. However, the debate on these categories resulted in
177:
1332:
2561:
1824:
as no consensus, the closing admin was in error to close it as delete, the arguments for deletion were not strong and the deletions should be overturned.
2447:: If "categories are designed and intended to be for navigation purposes only" then collaborative categories are as inappropriate as "feel good" ones.
2701:
of the transclusion of userboxes which I consider a convenient way of indicating interests and biases but I don't support the categories themselves.
125:
481:
of the noncopyvio version so I can see what came before, and then I'll go ahead and create the properly sourced stub and save a lot of bother.
2560:. It is certainly interesting to compare the discussions on the deletions / reviews of this category with those for my request to delete the
2620:
284:
is independent of questions of notability, as it explicitly states. Chances are it was just difficult for the tagger and deleting admin to
1370:
512:
42:
2556:. I believe this meets the criterion of being beneficial to a better WP in practical use than some of the existing / surviving cats, eg.
749:
117:
76:
961:
956:
815:) and the tone of the deleted page was far more advertorial than encyclopedic. The speedy-deletion was within reasonable bounds.
804:
1733:
1548:
1488:
1390:
965:
843:
21:
1366:
1307:
706:
701:
2493:- While I'm not particularly fond of their existence (and in fact, would vote to delete if this were the UCfD), the intent of
260:
2624:
1441:
1374:
990:
948:
793:
710:
507:
304:
1930:
As has been noted above, if you have an issue with a Wikipedian category please feel free to nominate it for discussion. -
2557:
2530:
1905:
1378:
1477:
1416:
735:
693:
2725:
1281:
1229:
927:
883:
672:
628:
100:
17:
1605:
category. If so, then it should be named similarly to those categories: "Category:Wikipedians interested in <x: -->
486:
464:
2372:
2342:
2348:
Proponents of deletion have not shown any harm would occur to Knowledge (XXG) through the existence of the category.
1254:– Deletion endorsed again. The issue is actually much simpler than many arguments below suggest, and I think there
1909:
1445:
1386:
1298:
1250:
2472:
please refrain from the POV nominations and other such (at least semi-)disruptive actions. The fact that they are
1540:
from "Queer rights activists", which could be a category for those who are not queer but participate in activism.
1382:
1159:
1127:
851:
2505:
would be ideal). However, the UCfD should have been closed as no consensus. It is important to understand that
1315:
1193:
1176:
1118:
for now, although a renomination in a few months might be in order if the article isn't sourced independently.
1037:
I can't quite work out how being a paid professional in your sport means you are not a professional sportsman.
868:
2682:
Those certainly have limited value to encyclopedia building and are purely identificary. I'm just sayin'...
1027:
2640:
We should also look into some of these other past discussions about user categories, as I really think the
2533:. Further, Hyacinth has raised valid concerns and has shown that the deletion of this cat was in error. --
2257:
as it seems to be hurting no one unless jealousy is a factor to which I have no immediate writable answer.
1971:
Who nominated anything here? We're talking about the Queer Wikipedians cat that's already been deleted. --
1106:
482:
460:
383:
288:
the notability of the group (i.e. the article didn't assert the importance of the subject). I agree with
268:
85:
2365:
2358:
1705:
2710:
2695:
2688:
2669:
2648:
2631:
2609:
2594:
2577:
2546:
2539:
2521:
2483:
2456:
2439:
2421:
2405:
2387:
2327:
2303:
2289:
2273:
2261:
2243:
2228:
2213:
2185:
2167:
2152:
2138:
2119:
2081:
2047:
2033:
2023:
2008:
1999:
1984:
1977:
1966:
1952:
1945:
1934:
1925:
1918:
1895:
1873:
1846:
1833:
1803:
1794:
1755:
1740:
1717:
1695:
1685:
1672:
only by a limited pool of contributors. I do this only because you made the point of stating their were
1666:
1650:
1630:
1595:
1581:
1567:
1521:
1471:
1457:
1435:
1402:
1270:
1218:
1197:
1179:
1163:
1145:
1131:
1110:
1089:
1073:
1046:
1031:
916:
872:
855:
824:
798:
768:
661:
616:
599:
579:
562:
533:
528:
518:
438:
387:
370:
338:
333:
309:
272:
218:
213:
89:
1363:
Knowledge (XXG):User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/October_2007#Sexuality_and_gender_identification
697:
455:) and could be argued to fulfill BAND 4. Also, their music is included in NPR's "Musical Interludes".
2706:
2665:
2644:
argument keeps getting cited (even now) are being applied to many cats that have no such problem. --
2513:. The only issue at hand is whether or not an XfD was closed properly, and in this case, it was not.
2173:
1545:
1485:
1214:
1155:
1141:
1123:
1102:
1087:
847:
837:
833:
379:
349:
289:
264:
195:
2641:
394:
2590:
2283:. Can't see any reason that this is helpful to the project, even after evaluating the arguements.
1892:
1577:
As such, if they create an actual "interested in" category, there's no need for this DRV at all. -
1189:
864:
612:
256:
2143:
But out of interest, weren't the relationship and age categories deleted? Lenders ask about that.
760:
448:
the non-copyvio version for review and expansion. This group appears to meet the requirements of
2605:
2452:
2435:
2417:
2401:
2383:
2299:
2258:
2239:
2224:
2209:
2163:
2134:
2077:
1869:
1829:
1790:
1517:
1453:
1398:
1023:
952:
789:
689:
649:
558:
503:
453:
300:
232:
228:
2176:. I recall the under 18 one's going, that caused a stir. Still never mind. No harm done. Ta.
1842:
Even in light of there already having been a DRV on the subject, which endorsed the closure? -
1463:
416:
358:
315:
550:
314:
It's been deleted three times already. I have no particular desire to get a 24-hour block for
2573:
2204:
a collaborative tool, and there's no reason to think it has costs that outweigh that benefit.
2072:
Please cite and quote a Knowledge (XXG) policy which would prohibit the use of this category.
1820:(obviously it wasn't since the categories were deleted). To clarify, in my opinion the debate
820:
764:
402:
366:
81:
808:
456:
449:
2683:
2534:
2284:
2181:
2148:
2115:
be nominated for deletion, as the inclusion criteria would thus be clearer in its naming. -
2043:
2019:
1995:
1972:
1962:
1940:
1913:
1751:
1713:
1681:
1646:
1591:
1563:
1267:
1042:
522:
327:
207:
2506:
2494:
2254:
2087:
1856:
1728:
1724:
1701:
1700:
You are suggesting that something which has been deleted and had that deletion endorsed at
1607:
1505:
1206:
1119:
1098:
1018:
778:
323:
281:
198:. It's very large, very rare, and very uncommon to hear anyone play it in public. I have
2702:
2661:
1541:
1481:
1210:
1137:
1082:
575:
189:
1339:
997:
742:
170:
1175:. The consensus seems pretty clear to me, and the arguments presented were reasonable. -
2645:
2628:
2586:
1421:
Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on sexuality and gender-related issues
1055:
608:
420:
1151:
2601:
2448:
2431:
2413:
2397:
2379:
2323:
2295:
2270:
2235:
2220:
2205:
2159:
2130:
2097:
In addition, naming conventions for the categories is by convention of those already
2073:
1865:
1825:
1786:
1513:
1449:
1394:
944:
904:
782:
595:
554:
496:
293:
2219:
Where is the justification for categories based on "basic demographic information"?
1415:
for the DRV of the UCFD discussion linked to above. As noted several times, there's
2569:
816:
398:
362:
982:
727:
357:
evidence that could be used to assert that this band meets the generally accepted
155:
2515:
2177:
2144:
2039:
2015:
1991:
1958:
1747:
1709:
1677:
1642:
1587:
1559:
1038:
910:
812:
655:
252:
318:. As any admin capable of seeing the most recent version will tell you, there
203:
2430:: How may we verify how categories are actually being used for collaboration?
1419:
for collaborating concerning these topics. As I noted previously, I wonder if
571:
477:
Actually, I'll step up to the plate here and write it. I'd like to request a
1939:
If I had an issue with the cat itself, I would. I'm making a distinction. --
2498:
2480:
2116:
2030:
2005:
1931:
1843:
1800:
1737:
1692:
1663:
1627:
1578:
1468:
1432:
378:- hmm - why doesn't the other material I found constitute 'other evidence'?
202:
source (actually the origin of a copyvio for the page three deletions ago):
80:– Speedy deletion overturned. Listing at AfD is at editorial discretion. –
2501:
in that the category should have a less controversial name (the suggested
2362:
both with organizing work and helping other editors understand each other.
607:, not a purely open-and-shut case. Best take it to AfD just to be sure.
2318:
1732:
to the alternate naming suggestions which would follow the convention of
590:
244:
2412:
overhead (to eliminate the need to actually look at the category page).
1614:
been deleted/renamed/merged. It's been established again, and again, by
495:
That oughta' work. I'd be happy to assist you, if you'd like me to. --
397:
and write a better page that clearly satisfies the inclusion criteria.
248:
1610:
examples in the "several previously nominations" which you note, have
2105:" - In this case, presumably "LGBT issues". Which gives a name of:
1704:
is therefore forever to be deleted? I think that's in violation of
807:. If this device truly meets Knowledge (XXG)'s generally accepted
1428:
1260:
user categories should be explicitly oriented toward collaboration
570:
They appear to have some notability, needs to go to a full AfD.
2619:
per my comments on the English mailing list a while back (see
2366:
Knowledge (XXG):User page#What may I not have on my user page?
1816:
I had not intended to imply that the debate itself was closed
1572:
I'm not sure if you noticed, but in case it was missed, there
2038:
I've already commented there, but thank you for the pointer.
1017:
that this Aussie rules footballer meets the requirements of
1361:
The category was deleted "based on strength of arguments" (
2396:: What indicates that a user category is collaborative?
1660:
pool of participants in deletion debates over two years"
1323:
1319:
1311:
1303:
978:
974:
970:
723:
719:
715:
151:
147:
143:
1476:
For the record, you're not going to get very far with
2378:
Given the above I must vote to restore the category.
863:
proper speedy. Someone can always try to rewrite it.
2269:. I don't see anything different this go-round. --
2375:
contains no support for the user category deletion.
1908:is certainly plausable while identifying by use of
1413:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2007 October 10
517:If you need any help from my end don't hesitate to
2564:one which nobody has (so far) tried to justify as
194:, this group is notable mainly for its use of the
1136:What "independent sources" are you looking for?
251:concert that was broadcast live throughout Asia (
2294:What arguments? Please cite a policy or reason.
2172:Age related cats aren't jumping out at me from
2503:Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues
2107:Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues
1855:Yes, even in light of that discussion because
1425:Category:Wikipedians interested in LGBT issues
1262:. The argument that the category in question
259:. They also seem to have a decent discography
2373:Knowledge (XXG):Categorization#User namespace
2343:Knowledge (XXG):Categorization#User namespace
781:, since Knowledge (XXG) isn't consistent. --
8:
204:http://www.uca.edu/news/index.php?itemid=648
1990:previously deleted, you come here and ask.
1691:that's suggested to be a disruptive act. -
1280:The following is an archived debate of the
926:The following is an archived debate of the
671:The following is an archived debate of the
99:The following is an archived debate of the
1243:
897:
642:
69:
2234:Apparently consensus changed since then.
1508:force them to organize or collaborate as
1504:never heard of the LGBT Wikiproject. Why
1013:I disagree with the concensus reached at
41:
2600:What about looking at this discussion?
2568:for collaboration and only as 'fun'. --
1371:Category:Knowledge (XXG) administrators
255:) and instigated a unique event at the
50:
243:for example. In addition to playing a
33:
2094:) for collaboration and contribution.
7:
1799:Note my comments to Hiding above. -
2728:of the page listed in the heading.
2109:. Such a category would presumably
1636:mean all of them are unwanted. The
1385:or similar categories. I recreated
1232:of the page listed in the heading.
1122:doesn't trump our core policies. ~
886:of the page listed in the heading.
803:Family members are also subject to
631:of the page listed in the heading.
2529:- I see no difference in this and
280:, though I'm tempted to endorse.
118:Nuclear Whales Saxophone Orchestra
77:Nuclear Whales Saxophone Orchestra
28:
1205:. I think that the guidelines at
1904:Right, so identifying by use of
1734:Category:Wikipedians by interest
1444:assist with collaboration while
1391:Category:Wikipedians by interest
2724:The above is an archive of the
1367:Category:Wikipedians in Montana
1228:The above is an archive of the
882:The above is an archive of the
832:Blatant advertising written by
627:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
2625:User:Ned Scott/User categories
1442:Category:Wikipedian cellists-2
1375:Category:Wikipedian cellists-2
1:
2558:Category:American Wikipedians
2531:Category:American Wikipedians
1906:Category:American Wikipedians
1379:Category:Wikipedian composers
247:of an instrument they gave a
30:
2711:23:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
2696:06:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
2670:05:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
2649:06:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
2632:05:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
2610:03:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
2595:03:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
2578:19:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
2547:05:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
2522:05:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
2484:04:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
2457:23:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
2440:05:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
2422:02:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
2388:23:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
2328:18:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
2304:00:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
2244:00:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
1552:2008 January 08, 14:22 (UTC)
1492:2008 January 08, 11:55 (UTC)
1271:00:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
1219:00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
1209:are clear in this respect.
1164:15:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
1146:00:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
917:01:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
662:01:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
617:03:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
600:15:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
90:02:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
2406:22:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2290:23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2274:20:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2262:18:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2229:12:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2214:07:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2186:02:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2168:01:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2153:01:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2139:01:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2120:01:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2082:00:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2048:02:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2034:02:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2024:02:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2009:01:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
2000:01:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1985:01:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1967:01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1953:00:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1935:00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1926:00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1896:00:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1874:03:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1847:00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1834:00:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1804:00:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1795:00:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1756:02:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1741:02:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1718:02:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1696:01:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1686:02:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1667:01:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1651:01:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1631:01:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1596:01:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1582:00:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1568:14:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
1522:00:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1472:10:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
1458:10:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
1436:10:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
1403:07:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
1198:20:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1180:14:39, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1132:13:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
1111:19:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
1090:16:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
1074:15:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
1047:14:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
1032:14:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
873:21:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
856:16:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
825:21:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
799:21:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
769:17:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
580:22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
563:20:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
534:11:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
513:01:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
491:22:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
469:21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
439:21:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
388:21:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
371:21:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
339:21:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
310:21:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
273:20:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
219:19:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
2751:
1910:Category:Queer Wikipedians
1446:Category:Queer Wikipedians
1409:Endorse previous consensus
1387:Category:Queer Wikipedians
1299:Category:Queer Wikipedians
1251:Category:Queer Wikipedians
2359:Knowledge (XXG):User page
2200:shows that this category
1859:. And consensus that was
1383:Category:LGBT Wikipedians
348:under criterion A7. The
2731:Please do not modify it.
1723:the "evidence" noted in
1287:Please do not modify it.
1235:Please do not modify it.
933:Please do not modify it.
889:Please do not modify it.
678:Please do not modify it.
634:Please do not modify it.
106:Please do not modify it.
43:Deletion review archives
1822:should have been closed
346:Endorse speedy-deletion
1284:of the article above.
930:of the article above.
908:– Closure endorsed. –
675:of the article above.
653:– Deletion endorsed –
103:of the article above.
2617:Overturn/undelete all
2562:American Wikipedians
2335:Overturn and restore
2313:Overturn and restore
2174:Category:Wikipedians
1857:consensus can change
805:conflict of interest
350:contrabass saxophone
196:contrabass saxophone
2554:Overturn / undelete
1258:consensus on this:
1177:Hit bull, win steak
1150:Those mentioned in
479:userfied undeletion
2693:
2686:
2544:
2537:
1982:
1975:
1950:
1943:
1923:
1916:
1912:isnt, correct? --
809:inclusion criteria
359:inclusion criteria
2738:
2737:
2692:
2689:
2684:
2543:
2540:
2535:
2184:
2151:
2046:
2022:
1998:
1981:
1978:
1973:
1965:
1949:
1946:
1941:
1922:
1919:
1914:
1754:
1716:
1684:
1649:
1594:
1566:
1448:only feels good?
1242:
1241:
1045:
896:
895:
823:
797:
641:
640:
511:
405:
369:
308:
60:
59:
2742:
2733:
2690:
2583:Endorse Deletion
2541:
2518:
2287:
2180:
2147:
2127:Endorse deletion
2042:
2018:
1994:
1979:
1961:
1947:
1920:
1750:
1712:
1680:
1645:
1590:
1562:
1506:bureaucratically
1478:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1342:
1328:
1327:
1289:
1244:
1237:
1071:
1068:
1065:
1062:
1041:
1000:
986:
968:
935:
913:
898:
891:
819:
787:
745:
731:
713:
680:
658:
643:
636:
501:
483:Serpent's Choice
461:Serpent's Choice
436:
433:
430:
427:
413:Endorse deletion
401:
365:
298:
193:
173:
159:
141:
108:
70:
56:
36:
31:
2750:
2749:
2745:
2744:
2743:
2741:
2740:
2739:
2729:
2726:deletion review
2623:), reposted at
2516:
2511:not another XfD
2285:
1551:
1491:
1357:
1351:
1345:
1338:
1337:
1331:
1301:
1297:
1285:
1282:deletion review
1233:
1230:deletion review
1185:Endorse closure
1156:trialsanderrors
1124:trialsanderrors
1116:Endorse closure
1095:Endorse closure
1069:
1066:
1063:
1060:
1009:
1003:
996:
995:
989:
959:
943:
931:
928:deletion review
911:
887:
884:deletion review
848:trialsanderrors
754:
748:
741:
740:
734:
704:
688:
676:
673:deletion review
656:
632:
629:deletion review
434:
431:
428:
425:
187:
182:
176:
169:
168:
162:
132:
116:
104:
101:deletion review
68:
61:
54:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2748:
2746:
2736:
2735:
2720:
2719:
2718:
2717:
2716:
2715:
2714:
2713:
2673:
2672:
2654:
2653:
2652:
2651:
2635:
2634:
2614:
2613:
2612:
2580:
2550:
2549:
2524:
2487:
2486:
2468:non-disruptive
2425:
2424:
2391:
2390:
2376:
2370:
2363:
2356:
2353:
2352:collaboration.
2349:
2346:
2338:
2337:
2331:
2330:
2309:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2277:
2276:
2264:
2247:
2246:
2217:
2216:
2194:
2193:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2189:
2188:
2124:
2123:
2122:
2102:
2095:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2050:
1955:
1899:
1898:
1893:After Midnight
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1850:
1849:
1837:
1836:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1688:
1554:
1553:
1544:
1536:
1535:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1484:
1474:
1359:
1358:
1355:
1349:
1343:
1335:
1329:
1292:
1291:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1240:
1239:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1200:
1190:Carlossuarez46
1182:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1113:
1092:
1076:
1056:Andrew Lenahan
1049:
1011:
1010:
1007:
1001:
993:
987:
938:
937:
922:
921:
920:
919:
894:
893:
878:
877:
876:
875:
865:Carlossuarez46
858:
827:
801:
756:
755:
752:
746:
738:
732:
683:
682:
667:
666:
665:
664:
639:
638:
623:
622:
621:
620:
602:
582:
565:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
472:
471:
441:
421:Andrew Lenahan
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
343:
342:
341:
275:
184:
183:
180:
174:
166:
160:
111:
110:
95:
94:
93:
92:
67:
65:8 January 2008
62:
58:
57:
49:
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2747:
2734:
2732:
2727:
2722:
2721:
2712:
2708:
2704:
2699:
2698:
2697:
2694:
2687:
2680:
2677:
2676:
2675:
2674:
2671:
2667:
2663:
2659:
2656:
2655:
2650:
2647:
2643:
2639:
2638:
2637:
2636:
2633:
2630:
2626:
2622:
2618:
2615:
2611:
2607:
2603:
2599:
2598:
2596:
2592:
2588:
2584:
2581:
2579:
2575:
2571:
2567:
2563:
2559:
2555:
2552:
2551:
2548:
2545:
2538:
2532:
2528:
2525:
2523:
2520:
2519:
2512:
2508:
2504:
2500:
2496:
2492:
2489:
2488:
2485:
2482:
2477:
2476:
2470:
2469:
2464:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2458:
2454:
2450:
2446:
2442:
2441:
2437:
2433:
2429:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2403:
2399:
2395:
2389:
2385:
2381:
2377:
2374:
2371:
2367:
2364:
2360:
2357:
2354:
2350:
2347:
2344:
2340:
2339:
2336:
2333:
2332:
2329:
2325:
2321:
2320:
2314:
2311:
2310:
2305:
2301:
2297:
2293:
2292:
2291:
2288:
2282:
2279:
2278:
2275:
2272:
2268:
2265:
2263:
2260:
2256:
2252:
2249:
2248:
2245:
2241:
2237:
2233:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2226:
2222:
2215:
2211:
2207:
2203:
2198:
2195:
2187:
2183:
2179:
2175:
2171:
2170:
2169:
2165:
2161:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2150:
2146:
2142:
2141:
2140:
2136:
2132:
2128:
2125:
2121:
2118:
2114:
2113:
2108:
2103:
2100:
2096:
2093:
2089:
2085:
2084:
2083:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2070:
2049:
2045:
2041:
2037:
2036:
2035:
2032:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2007:
2003:
2002:
2001:
1997:
1993:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1983:
1976:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1954:
1951:
1944:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1933:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1924:
1917:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1902:
1901:
1900:
1897:
1894:
1890:
1889:Endorse again
1887:
1886:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1862:
1858:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1848:
1845:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1835:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1810:
1805:
1802:
1798:
1797:
1796:
1792:
1788:
1784:
1780:
1777:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1739:
1735:
1730:
1726:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1694:
1689:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1665:
1661:
1659:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1639:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1629:
1625:
1624:
1619:
1618:
1613:
1609:
1604:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1580:
1575:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1556:
1555:
1550:
1547:
1543:
1538:
1537:
1532:
1529:
1528:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1490:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1473:
1470:
1465:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1417:a WikiProject
1414:
1410:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1354:
1348:
1341:
1334:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1300:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1290:
1288:
1283:
1278:
1277:
1272:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1238:
1236:
1231:
1226:
1225:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1201:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1186:
1183:
1181:
1178:
1174:
1171:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1114:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1093:
1091:
1088:
1086:
1085:
1080:
1077:
1075:
1072:
1057:
1053:
1050:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1024:Gavin Collins
1020:
1016:
1006:
999:
992:
984:
980:
976:
972:
967:
963:
958:
954:
950:
946:
945:Ashley Fernee
942:
941:
940:
939:
936:
934:
929:
924:
923:
918:
915:
914:
907:
906:
905:Ashley Fernee
902:
901:
900:
899:
892:
890:
885:
880:
879:
874:
870:
866:
862:
859:
857:
853:
849:
845:
842:
839:
835:
831:
828:
826:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
800:
795:
791:
786:
785:
780:
776:
773:
772:
771:
770:
766:
762:
751:
744:
737:
729:
725:
721:
717:
712:
708:
703:
699:
695:
691:
687:
686:
685:
684:
681:
679:
674:
669:
668:
663:
660:
659:
652:
651:
647:
646:
645:
644:
637:
635:
630:
625:
624:
618:
614:
610:
606:
603:
601:
597:
593:
592:
586:
583:
581:
577:
573:
569:
566:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
545:
544:
535:
532:
531:
526:
525:
520:
516:
515:
514:
509:
505:
500:
499:
494:
493:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
475:
474:
473:
470:
466:
462:
457:
454:
451:
447:
446:
442:
440:
437:
422:
418:
414:
411:
404:
400:
396:
391:
390:
389:
385:
381:
377:
374:
373:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
351:
347:
344:
340:
337:
336:
331:
330:
325:
321:
317:
313:
312:
311:
306:
302:
297:
296:
291:
287:
283:
279:
276:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
226:
223:
222:
221:
220:
217:
216:
211:
210:
205:
201:
197:
191:
179:
172:
165:
157:
153:
149:
145:
140:
136:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
114:
113:
112:
109:
107:
102:
97:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
74:
73:
72:
71:
66:
63:
53:
48:
44:
39:
32:
23:
19:
2730:
2723:
2678:
2657:
2616:
2582:
2565:
2553:
2526:
2514:
2510:
2490:
2474:
2473:
2467:
2466:
2462:
2444:
2443:
2427:
2426:
2393:
2392:
2334:
2317:
2312:
2280:
2266:
2250:
2218:
2201:
2196:
2126:
2111:
2110:
2098:
2091:
1888:
1861:no consensus
1860:
1821:
1818:no consensus
1817:
1783:no consensus
1782:
1779:Undelete all
1778:
1706:WP:CONSENSUS
1673:
1657:
1655:
1637:
1626:to do so. -
1622:
1621:
1616:
1615:
1611:
1602:
1573:
1530:
1509:
1408:
1360:
1286:
1279:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1249:
1234:
1227:
1211:--Craw-daddy
1203:Endorse keep
1202:
1184:
1172:
1138:--Craw-daddy
1115:
1094:
1083:
1078:
1059:
1052:Endorse keep
1051:
1012:
932:
925:
909:
903:
888:
881:
860:
840:
829:
783:
774:
757:
677:
670:
654:
648:
633:
626:
604:
589:
584:
567:
549:. They made
546:
529:
523:
497:
478:
444:
443:
424:
412:
375:
354:
345:
334:
328:
319:
294:
285:
277:
224:
214:
208:
199:
185:
105:
98:
82:IronGargoyle
75:
64:
47:2008 January
2355:In contrast
2286:David Fuchs
1603:by interest
1411:- See also
1268:Chick Bowen
813:Guitar pick
690:Option Knob
650:Option Knob
2703:Eluchil404
2662:Eluchil404
2642:WP:MYSPACE
1542:superluser
1482:superluser
1464:babelising
1103:BlueValour
1084:Smashville
834:Optionknob
380:BlueValour
290:BlueValour
265:BlueValour
257:Great Wall
2646:Ned Scott
2629:Ned Scott
2587:Lankiveil
2499:User:Jc37
1512:see fit?
1440:How does
1423:(or even
609:Lankiveil
326:though!
324:WP:CSD#G1
52:January 9
38:January 7
2602:Hyacinth
2527:Overturn
2491:Overturn
2449:Hyacinth
2445:Question
2432:Hyacinth
2428:Question
2414:Hyacinth
2398:Hyacinth
2394:Question
2380:Hyacinth
2296:Hyacinth
2271:Kbdank71
2259:Benjiboi
2236:Hyacinth
2221:Hyacinth
2206:atakdoug
2197:Undelete
2160:VegaDark
2131:VegaDark
2074:Hyacinth
1866:Otto4711
1826:Otto4711
1787:Otto4711
1623:grouping
1514:Otto4711
1450:Hyacinth
1395:Hyacinth
844:contribs
794:Contribs
784:lifebaka
605:Undelete
585:Undelete
568:Undelete
555:Hyacinth
547:Undelete
508:Contribs
498:lifebaka
445:Undelete
417:WP:MUSIC
316:WP:POINT
305:Contribs
295:lifebaka
253:see here
245:behemoth
241:and here
225:Undelete
20: |
2685:ALLSTAR
2679:Comment
2658:Endorse
2570:AlisonW
2536:ALLSTAR
2475:pushing
2463:Comment
2281:Endorse
2267:Endorse
2251:Comment
1974:ALLSTAR
1942:ALLSTAR
1915:ALLSTAR
1658:limited
1638:limited
1333:restore
1312:history
1173:Endorse
1079:Endorse
991:restore
962:protect
957:history
861:Endorse
830:Endorse
817:Rossami
775:Endorse
761:Chalhub
736:restore
707:protect
702:history
588:speedy.
450:WP:BAND
399:Rossami
395:be bold
376:Comment
363:Rossami
278:Neutral
249:Beijing
164:restore
135:protect
130:history
2566:useful
2517:Justin
2507:WP:DRV
2495:WP:DRV
2255:WP:IAR
2178:Hiding
2145:Hiding
2088:WP:NOT
2086:Sure,
2040:Hiding
2016:Hiding
1992:Hiding
1959:Hiding
1748:Hiding
1729:WP:DRV
1725:WP:AGF
1710:Hiding
1702:WP:DRV
1678:Hiding
1643:Hiding
1608:WP:WAX
1588:Hiding
1560:Hiding
1377:, and
1207:WP:BIO
1120:WP:BIO
1099:WP:BIO
1039:Hiding
1019:WP:BIO
966:delete
912:Kurykh
821:(talk)
779:WP:WAX
711:delete
657:Kurykh
403:(talk)
367:(talk)
190:hangon
139:delete
2627:. --
1656:"The
1429:Queer
1340:cache
1320:watch
1316:links
1264:could
998:cache
983:views
975:watch
971:links
846:). ~
743:cache
728:views
720:watch
716:links
572:RMHED
530:melon
524:Happy
355:other
335:melon
329:Happy
320:isn't
215:melon
209:Happy
171:cache
156:views
148:watch
144:links
55:: -->
16:<
2707:talk
2691:echo
2666:talk
2621:here
2606:talk
2591:talk
2574:talk
2542:echo
2481:jc37
2453:talk
2436:talk
2418:talk
2402:talk
2384:talk
2324:talk
2300:talk
2240:talk
2225:talk
2210:talk
2164:talk
2135:talk
2117:jc37
2078:talk
2031:jc37
2006:jc37
1980:echo
1948:echo
1932:jc37
1921:echo
1870:talk
1844:jc37
1830:talk
1801:jc37
1791:talk
1738:jc37
1736:? -
1693:jc37
1674:many
1664:jc37
1628:jc37
1617:many
1612:also
1579:jc37
1531:Prod
1518:talk
1469:jc37
1454:talk
1433:jc37
1431:. -
1399:talk
1347:UCfD
1324:logs
1308:talk
1304:edit
1194:talk
1160:talk
1154:. ~
1152:WP:N
1128:talk
1107:talk
1028:talk
979:logs
953:talk
949:edit
869:talk
852:talk
838:talk
790:Talk
765:talk
724:logs
698:talk
694:edit
613:talk
596:talk
576:talk
559:talk
504:Talk
487:talk
465:talk
384:talk
301:Talk
269:talk
261:here
237:here
233:here
229:here
152:logs
126:talk
122:edit
86:talk
35:<
2509:is
2319:DGG
2112:not
2092:are
1574:was
1510:you
1462:De-
1353:DRV
1067:bli
1015:AfD
1005:AfD
750:AfD
591:DGG
551:AMG
521:.
519:ask
432:bli
361:.
286:see
178:AfD
22:Log
2709:)
2668:)
2608:)
2597:.
2593:)
2576:)
2455:)
2438:)
2420:)
2404:)
2386:)
2326:)
2302:)
2242:)
2227:)
2212:)
2202:is
2166:)
2137:)
2099:in
2080:)
1872:)
1832:)
1793:)
1520:)
1480:.
1456:)
1401:)
1373:,
1369:,
1322:|
1318:|
1314:|
1310:|
1306:|
1256:is
1217:|
1213:|
1196:)
1162:)
1144:|
1140:|
1130:)
1109:)
1101:.
1070:nd
1064:ar
1061:St
1058:-
1030:)
981:|
977:|
973:|
969:|
964:|
960:|
955:|
951:|
871:)
854:)
792:-
767:)
726:|
722:|
718:|
714:|
709:|
705:|
700:|
696:|
615:)
598:)
578:)
561:)
553:.
506:-
489:)
467:)
435:nd
429:ar
426:St
423:-
419:.
386:)
303:-
282:A7
271:)
263:.
239:,
235:,
231:,
192:}}
188:{{
154:|
150:|
146:|
142:|
137:|
133:|
128:|
124:|
88:)
45::
2705:(
2664:(
2604:(
2589:(
2572:(
2451:(
2434:(
2416:(
2400:(
2382:(
2345:.
2322:(
2298:(
2238:(
2223:(
2208:(
2182:T
2162:(
2149:T
2133:(
2076:(
2044:T
2020:T
1996:T
1963:T
1868:(
1828:(
1789:(
1752:T
1714:T
1682:T
1647:T
1592:T
1564:T
1549:c
1546:t
1516:(
1489:c
1486:t
1452:(
1397:(
1356:)
1350:|
1344:|
1336:|
1330:(
1326:)
1302:(
1215:T
1192:(
1158:(
1142:T
1126:(
1105:(
1043:T
1026:(
1008:)
1002:|
994:|
988:(
985:)
947:(
867:(
850:(
841:·
836:(
796:)
788:(
763:(
753:)
747:|
739:|
733:(
730:)
692:(
619:.
611:(
594:(
574:(
557:(
527:‑
510:)
502:(
485:(
463:(
382:(
332:‑
307:)
299:(
267:(
212:‑
200:a
181:)
175:|
167:|
161:(
158:)
120:(
84:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.