1143:
than me was also attempt to revise the article. There is no pressing need to hurry up and delete articles when editors are actively trying to address the nominator's concerns. We should show those editors respect and give them a chance to see what they can do; we aren't so beholden to an AfD deadline, especially when someone new comes along beyond me and is trying to do so. It'd be one thing if I was the only person who argued these articles should be kept or who was trying to improve them. If AfD was a vote and not a discussion, then okay, but if we look at the AfD as a discussion and not a vote, we'll see that while the first few days of the discussion were indeed moving toward a delete consensus, that began to change on June 19th. After I posted indicating that I had revised the article with "Update: Article has been revised during the discussion. Please note nominated version versus current version and that such revisions are still ongoing. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des
CitrouillesTally-ho! 05:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)", two editors in a row argued to keep, the next delete was from an account whom I don't believe I have ever seen argue to keep across scores of AfDs and who was sanctioned by ArbCom for controversial edits regarding trying to delete fictional character articles, then another keep argument, etc. In fact, Stormie, who had argued earlier to delete then said, "The "Creation" paragraph would be a quite reasonable one to merge into Crash of the Titans." A Link to the Past who argued with obvious conviction throughout the discussion to delete then said, "I strongly suggest Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles save the Creation section." And the final comment in the AfD was from someone in effect arguing to keep, who like me was actively working to address the others' concerns. So, if we approach the AfD as a discussion and not a vote, then we see that the discussion did start to see some value in the article or at least aspects of the article and that I was at the end of it not alone in trying to save the article. Even some who argued to delete, started to go in "merge" territory, which if we did that per the GFDL (see
1155:. But in the case of the Titans, I and at least one other were really trying to address others' concerns and at a certain point, editors did start to see some value in these edits and thus what we had was consensus to delete the nominated version of the article, but a shift in consensus once the improvements, which were still ongoing, started to show some promise. I think it significant to note when more than one who argued to delete starts to think maybe we can at least merge some of it now (plus even before then, you did have at least two editors also suggest merging). Even the second to last delete saying "it easily be summed up within any relevant articles" sounds more a case for redirecting than outright deleting. So, again, please consider the change in course in the discussion and how it concludes as where the consensus was. Yes, consensus was to delete the nominated version, but there was no consensus in the end to delete the revised version that was planned to be revised further, especially when some of those who previously argued to delete started to suggest merging or saving some of the new material.
861:). According to Knowledge (XXG), there are 4 criteria for notabile sources. Without reciting the article, I have a hard time understanding how the previous version of "Gabriel Murphy" does not meet the notability bar for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). I have asked for clarification on this point without any response. I have additional edits I would like to make to the article with additional sources (The Kansas City Star, BusinessWire, Inc. Magazine) but cannot with the protection in place. I am asking that the article be allowed to be edited/re-written from the most recent version so everyone can then consider whether the article achieves notability (which I think it clearly already does based on its 16 referenced sources). Please let me know if you have any other questions.
2691:; many of them are just a sentence or two from articles that would contain much more information if the whole article could be read: perhaps some of our Canadian users would have access to content or to libraries with full text. (Some of what I have on that user page are not, in themselves, reliable sources, but quote reliable sources, so they have been quite useful in finding such. Lots of links are dead, because once-public content has become pay content.) I think that many earlier Delete voters assumed that there wasn't more RS; in fact, there is plenty of it. --
200:. Notability and WP:BIO were quoted by those who argued for deletion and in my view this addressed their concerns. However nobody commented after I produced those two sources and the AFD was subsequently closed as Delete. I think this decision should be overturned and the article relisted on AFD to allow the sources I produced to be considered. I think it very unlikely that those who argued for deletion saw the sources I added and the closing admin should have at least relisted the AFD to allow more people to consider those sources.
1667:, Spartaz correctly interpreted the near-unanimous consensus. And I strongly object to LGRdC's suggestion that my statement that one paragraph of the article was useful content which could be used elsewhere is some sort of change of heart away from my initial delete vote. I stand entirely by my opinion that this article was "pure game guide material with no evidence nor even assertion of real-world notability," and I believe that there is strong precedent that such articles are not appropriate for Knowledge (XXG). --
769:
flaw that would require relisting. I've also reviewed the most recent deleted version of the article, and I do not feel it introduces enough new assertions of notability as to make it different from the old version, so the speedy deletion as recreation of material deleted by XfD still applies. If one of the editors would like that version restored to userspace to work on, I think that's a reasonable accomodation; however, I don't think the article is ready for mainspace yet. —
1173:
thereby failed to demonstrate real world notability and, at the end of this discussion, we were still awaiting multiple sources to demonstrate real world notability. All that Le Gran Roi des
Citrouilles needs to do to get the article undeleted is demonstrate the multiple sources that will establish real world notability. Bringing t here instead of providing the sources is just further pointy abuse of the DRV process. by this user. Am I the only one getting tired of this?
2774:
between this and "edit warring" is academic. All this has only a little to do with this
Deletion Review, and it would have even less to do with it if continued, so I don't plan to reply again here. If someone thinks my behavior improper, by all means, warn me on my Talk page. I take warnings seriously, always. Doesn't mean that I always comply, but I don't lightly disregard the opinions of other editors. Meanwhile, is that
2541:
personal attachment to this article, I just happened to be in position at the time. Anyway, it worked. Shereth agreed to a "compromise," which was actually everything I was asking for: essentially considering the AfD to have been No
Consensus rather than a binding Merge. Deletion was never really an option for this article, there was too much reliable source. Merge
2767:
to counsel him that he was losing it, and perhaps encourage him to relax. I wrote a review of what had happened with him that I put on his Talk page after his "retirement," he reverted it (which is certainly his right) with the summary "Violated rules" which is iffy but still not a big problem in itself. I put it on my own Talk if anyone is interested:
956:. Once you have done that you should bring the userfied version back to Deletion Review for that version to be considered. Depending on how improved the article is it would then either be restored to mainspace, sent back to AFD for another discussion or would stay deleted if people felt it had not improved sufficiently.
2759:. The edit summary for this was "reply to moron," and the edit content was "SHE IS NOT NOTABLE." In fact, the AfD had decided on Merge, and no AfD for this woman ever concluded she was not notable, the only real question was whether or not she was sufficiently notable for her own article ("Keep") or only for mention in
336:
2419:. Given that the 3rd nomination was within 24 hours of the 2nd closing, given the outcome of the 2nd, and given the minimal rationale given for the nomination—with no expansion from the second—the speedy close is warranted. (If anything, it could be argued that the correct closure of the 3rd AfD should have been
1801:. AfD was closed in keeping with the spirit and letter of the guidelines. Relisting is not a necessary remedy here, although if an editor would like to take it into his user space to work on it, I would be open to later consideration of whether an improved article is sufficiently different to warrant inclusion. —
1402:
This is really tiring and time wasting. I will always restore any article I deleted if there is proper sourcing for an article. But there is nothing secondary here that does not discuss the characters in a non-trivial way that is incidental to the game and we already have an article on the game don't
499:
This page is clearly notable (as defined by
Knowledge (XXG), "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable", as it has 16 links to news articles in reliabile, secondary sources that are independent (Kansas
2766:
My interest in this is primarily how a long-time editor like GreenJoe could end up being so ... what would you call it? What leads an editor to essentially flame out like that? I'd say he was isolated, he didn't have a community aware of what he was doing, people he trusted, who would have been able
2686:
retired in disgust over this, after edit warring with
Shereth over the 3rd AfD and notices to the article, with a comment that indicated very strong attachment to deleting the article no matter what. Meanwhile, I did start to improve the article; help will be appreciated. I have a list of sources at
1647:
I don;t know how it will go, but another discussion would be appropriate, for the improvements at the end of the discussion were not taken into account in the close. Whether they are enough to change the result this time around, I don't know; we have a good way of finding out, though. I don't think
1205:
Again, the section on creation was sourced with something other than the game or a strategy guide (I suppose it would be easier for any non-admin if you restored the article and I can point directly to the section) and that section especially influenced others in the discussion to suggest a merge at
1182:
The consensus shifted once the article started being improved. Even two of those who argued to delete then started to say to merge at least some instead. At the end of the discussion sources were being added by myself and another was also working to improve the article. And at that point the new
619:
linked from the speedy template) - so editors were deprived of the whole story of the article's history at AfD. It is disappointing that an admin decided to proceed with the speedy deletion and then to salt the page without making any apparent effort to address this omission, or to communicate with
1576:
Well, Halloween is my favorite holiday... Anyway, though, the thing that gets me with overly defensive "endorse deletion" comments or claims as if starting a deletion review for a discussion that was hardly unanimous are when those making them have no problem challenging admins who closed AfDs as
1172:
my own closure. My talk page already has extensive coverage of this closure. Consensus is judged by strength of argument against sources not head count or assertions of improvement. The article has been tagged for sources for months. The article was nominated on the basis that it was unsourced and
666:
I have previously been told by an admin that previous XfD's ARE relevant, as establishing a pre-existing consensus which would have to be overturned. I do think that the latest AfD should have mentioned the previous, just as the Speedy template should have included the link to the earlier one (the
2540:
and few administrators have the time to do hours of research to become fully informed, I explained the situation in more detail and stated that I wanted to avoid going to
Deletion Review, which was true. Big hassle for everyone. I had no idea that GreenJoe would take it so hard. I didn't have any
2535:
Thanks, C.Fred. I learned a lot with this AfD. I had been inclined to go to DRV directly, but then read the
Deletion Review material and noticed the recommendation. "Why not? No hurry!" I thought, so I dropped a request for reconsideration on Shereth's Talk. He didn't agree at first, but I, again
2134:
Community members had created versions of article that were incomplete and were deleted. Article was being reworked using external references and highlighting notable contributions of the site members, and some of this information had already been added immediately before deletion. The site has a
1142:
The last comment in the discussion this time was further evidence of an effort to revise the article. On a project without a deadline, we cannot just arbitrarily decide enough time was given. Therefore, I request that you relist or close as "no consensus". Based on the discussion someone other
792:
Hi C.Fred. I was hoping you might withold your vote until the article is re-written. I started re-writing the article from its previous version but it was deleted no sooner than I can start my edits. I just need an opportunity to add to the article and to understand exactly what threashold for
768:
deletion of article; keep redirect only. Whichever of #1 or #3 off my list applies, I endorse the deletion. (#2 has already been overturned; I recreated the redirect, but that's not really the issue here.) Yes, the previous AfD was omitted in the most recent AfD, but I do not think that's a fatal
827:
I am fine with that C.Fred. I just want to add to the article (I am assume that is what needs to occur) so that it can/wil be included in
Knowledge (XXG). Can you or someone tell me what the criteria for inclusion that the article is not meeting? Thanks for your help. I will have the article
2773:
Shereth, I know you are attempting to be as even-handed as possible with this, which is noble particularly considering how GreenJoe responded to you, but you did warn him that if he repeated his action (that is, reverted you again), it would be considered "a disruptive edit," and the difference
2584:
Personally I would have prefered for the 3rd AFD to continue as I think with the new evidence found by Abd it would have ended as a clear keep. However given that the previous AFD only finished 24 hours before I can understand the decision. Lets give the article a bit of time to see how it is
929:
was actually the first AfD and was a much much different version of the article in question (unfortunately I do not think there is a way to verify this). No one can tell me simply what criteria for inclusion in
Wikipeida this article fails to meet. Perhaps you can tell me? And yes, I would
332:
306:
2399:
as closer - the previous AfD had closed hardly 24 hours before this renomination and hardly hours before related discussion had allowed for the article to be restored and reworked. I fail to see how my closing this rapid renomination is any more "wrong" than the rapid renomination itself.
1977:
It's not about the outcome I wanted, it's about where the discussion ended and it ended with an increasing move toward keeping or merging. I see no reason why it would be a problem to as a fair compromise merge the material that two users suggested be merged and then redirect the article.
1027:. The close was appropriate, and the discussion does not appear to be going in a firm direction. Relisting would create more discussion with the same direction, and consensus here is to endorse the close. The AfD was not unanimous by any means, but the arguments were strong.
1705:
The problem there is that I can't do that as I am not an admin and can't see that section. Please note that I had not re-seen the AfD in time after the other editor said I should save it. I only notice that after the AfD was closed and the article deleted. Sincerely,
712:
It's becoming less clear what the requester is trying to accomplish. IMHO, the status quo is achieved, since the Aplus.Net article is back. If the requester is trying to create a new article about Murphy, that's another matter entirely, and not what my comments address.
2610:
but Shereth was correct that those who oppose keeping this article should eventually have their opportunity to continue tilting at windmills. Yes, I, likewise, would have preferred a clear Keep close, but it seems we might have that already, in fact if not technically.
2745:(the topic of this Deletion Review). The key is that it was done without discussion. And that was generally true of GreenJoe's contentious actions; there was little or no discussion, and the edits were accompanied by cryptic edit summaries, not uncommonly uncivil, see:
1578:
857:) pointed out, I am trying to restore the article to its previous version. I admit that I am new to Knowledge (XXG), but I am trying to follow the rules of inclusion for the article. As far as I can tell, the only inclusion criteria is notability (
1183:
posts were increasingly arguments to keep or merge. Saying "speedy endorse" is just further pointed abuse of responses of the DRV process by the above user. I am indeed getting tired of unreasonableness in closing AfDs. Sincerely, --
2501:
to reverting the merge and I consented to doing so, pursuant to a subsequent discussion. Anyone taking the time to actually read what's going on would have realized this was not an out-of-the-blue action on the part of one editor.
195:
This page was deleted at AFD yesterday. After all the delete opinions had been made I posted a keep opinion with two new sources which I believe provide significant coverage in reliable sources thus establishing notability per
2778:
I notice falling here? Is there a reason to keep this open? The nominator retired, never did give a good reason to overturn, and nobody else has !voted to overturn a clearly decent decision that doesn't prejudice future AfDs.
2518:
And it is the closing admin's prerogative to revisit a decision. In fact, that's the recommended first line of action (as in, before taking an issue to DRV). What's missing is documentation on the 2nd AfD that it happened.
1445:- admin took a contentious discussion (made more contentious by the carpet-bombing haranguing strategy of LGRC) and made a proper interpretation. And no, the closing admin is not the only one grown weary of LGRC's tactics.
1582:
1416:
If you think it is a waste of time, then why continue to comment? In any event, why not compromise with those at the end of the discussion and merge and redirect then? I am never opposed to fair compromises? Best,
2482:
hold on - this is only here because someone reverted the merge saying the 2nd afd didn't count in that sense. So the 3rd AFD was entirely justified. I'll be AFDing it, if it's not merged at the end of this process.
1148:
2649:
closure. Renominating an article barely 24 hours after a no-consensus closure of the previous nomination, without expanding on the nomination rationale at all, is never appropriate in the first place — and
1152:
1762:
I am aware of these notions and I have always rejected them completely. You can't evaluate consensus by considering arguments, because consensus reflects the will of a group. Consensus means that people
2753:
2742:
2453:
2445:
2373:
1133:
85:
504:). On the second AfD, the article was nominated not for deletion, but as a redirect and marge into aplus.net (an article that no longer exists). The discussion on the merge and redirect is here:
526:
This article clearly establishes notability and should be included in Knowledge (XXG). The first AfD shows a keep, even though that article had much fewer sources than the present article.
2662:
need to provide a stronger rationale rather than simply copying and pasting the same deletion rationale you used the previous time, and a cooling-off period is generally a good idea too.
245:. The opportunity should be afforded for fuller consideration of the new sources. I would add that it would it have been better if the closing admin had provided reasoning for the close.
2717:
did not engage in an edit war, he reverted the closure a single time. It is also probably best not to try and characterize his motives for trying to get the article deleted. Cheers,
1741:
2658:
indicated on the article's talk page that they're currently researching to see if additional sources can be found. If you want to renominate after a no-consensus result,
1286:^ Jon Jordan, "Talking Crash of the Titans DS, PSP and GBA with Radical Entertainment: Six gamemakers spill the beans on next Crash Bandicoot," Pocket Gamer (15/8/2007).
926:
881:
639:
490:
1090:
1085:
1094:
2154:
I would suggest working on the article in User space until it's complete and fully cited. Are you requesting a restore of the deleted version to your user space? —
1147:), we would restore the article, merge, and redirect, but not keep it deleted. It's not as if I think all game articles are notable. Please note my stances at
1119:
1077:
2756:
with the edit summary of "rvv." I.e., "reverted vandalism," and then, finally, he does reply in Talk (everything I was doing had been explained in Talk), with
186:
51:
37:
2738:. As to edit warring, a single revert, in the context, is arguably edit warring, and is sometimes treated so, particularly when done without discussion. With
1726:, closing admin admits to making the decision based on "strength of arguments" rather than assessment of numbers, which in my view invalidates the decision.
885:
615:
I added a "hangon" to the Gabriel Murphy page today as I was concerned that the speedy tag failed to mention the "Keep" AfD, as had the "delete" AfD (which
46:
1681:
p.s. saving the "Creation" paragraph by no means creates any sort of GFDL entanglement - that entire section was written by you (admins can see it in
1459:
Do you really think such comments help? And if that's the route you want to take, then keep in mind that plenty of editors have grown weary of your
643:
729:
The requester (not me) is requesting that the most recent version be restored. I think that is clear from his post at the start of this review.
2178:
2125:
42:
2082:
2077:
533:
1744:: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." Spartaz did
1380:^ Crash of the Titans Crash: *Babbles* Aku: Oh, him. Yeah. Umm...leave him here, I guess. He seems OK. Yuktopus: *Looks up and grunts*
2086:
1609:
Closing Admin: please note that the last revision was undeleted for the deletion review. please redelete if the result is to endorse.
447:
442:
1980:
1957:
1914:
1884:
1858:
1819:
1708:
1587:
1537:
1419:
1214:
1185:
1157:
451:
1740:
Come on Everyking, as such a long-time contributor and former administrator, surely you know that AfD is not a vote, and have read
500:
City Business Journal, etc.). In the first AfD (even though that article only had 6 sources, here is the link to the discussion:
2111:
2069:
567:
646:)—had a result of delete. Instead of deleting the page outright, it was turned into a redirect, which is a reasonable outcome. —
21:
2760:
2546:
2457:
2330:
2325:
476:
434:
2218:
2334:
1635:
1624:
as a list I figured sourcing could be left to parent article. And length then comes into play for daughter articles. Cheers,
949:
908:
808:
387:
143:
138:
1558:
Wow, you're a scary fellow. How much time did you spend poring through old revisions of my talk page to find all of those?
667:
template does, I believe, have the ability to do this). A redirect may well be appropriate - deletion and salting was not.
620:
me, or apparently to communicate with the article's creator (who also was not informed of the speedy tag, until I did so).
147:
1144:
508:. Now that the aplus.net article is gone, and given the fact that the article is clearly notable, it should be created.
2359:
2317:
2801:
2296:
2247:
2048:
2003:
1081:
1056:
998:
412:
361:
109:
17:
2557:. This process was, for me, a good example of how Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to work, by editors seeking consensus.--
2222:
501:
172:
130:
302:
2763:. (To be fair, GreenJoe then reverted his reblanking of the article to restore it and add the new AfD notice to it.)
1869:"Actual consensus" was not based on policy, nor was it even anything close to "actual consensus" even if it was. --
1835:. The close clearly reflects the consensus demonstrated in the AfD. There's really very little to discuss here.
1304:^ Crash of the Titans The information contained within this page comes from the events that happen within the game.
1938:. Not even close to controversial, nor do the objections make much sense. And no, I don't need or want an instant
1073:
344:
318:
2545:
like a good compromise, but was problematic because dumping all the sourced biographical material on Upson on
233:
537:
2637:
2488:
2205:
1196:
Sources??? How do you propose to improve the article without sources without engaging in original research?
743:
That's what I'm coming to realize. Hence I've removed my !vote until I look at deleted versions some more. —
250:
1393:
My fave - a copyvio of in game footage. Hopeless for establishing real world notability for the characters.
555:
529:
2688:
2189:
2073:
1040:
1031:
92:
2735:
I'd respectfully disagree. I haven't stated his motive here, but it's apparent from his parting comment,
2173:
No non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. The PCWorld reference doesn't even mention the forum; the
1295:
Appears to be game review. Limited application for establishing real world notability for the characters.
807:
I think the solution, then, is to restore the most recent version of the article into a user page (i.e.,
2144:
1255:
Primary source and mostly about the game. Hopeless for establishing real world notability for the titans
2536:
carefully and noting what agreement I could find (which was quite a bit, his decision was a decent one
892:, but I'm afraid that it's been well established that the previous versions shouldn't be here. We can
2788:
2728:
2700:
2675:
2641:
2620:
2594:
2566:
2530:
2513:
2492:
2473:
2437:
2411:
2390:
2285:
2236:
2209:
2192:
2165:
2148:
2140:
2037:
1986:
1972:
1963:
1950:
1920:
1907:
1890:
1877:
1864:
1847:
1825:
1812:
1791:
1780:
1757:
1735:
1714:
1700:
1676:
1659:
1639:
1614:
1593:
1567:
1543:
1454:
1425:
1407:
1220:
1200:
1191:
1177:
1163:
1045:
987:
965:
943:
913:
870:
837:
822:
802:
780:
754:
738:
724:
676:
657:
629:
607:
571:
541:
517:
401:
348:
322:
293:
274:
254:
237:
223:
209:
97:
2065:
2024:
939:
866:
854:
833:
798:
734:
672:
625:
563:
513:
340:
314:
505:
2497:
Did you bother reading the discussion on the talk page? The user in question discussed it with me
2382:
An admin wrongly closed the latest afd not even 24 hours after it was started. This is just wrong.
1939:
1776:
1731:
1687:
1019:
438:
2590:
2484:
2033:
1896:
1836:
1629:
1563:
1450:
961:
904:
263:
246:
205:
2663:
2461:
1359:
310:
1371:
Screen capture or self made image of a character. Hopeless for establishing real world sources.
698:
589:
552:
How are users suppose to comment/vote on this without having the ability to read the article?
2723:
2671:
2508:
2469:
2406:
2183:
1753:
1696:
1672:
1037:
1028:
89:
2775:
889:
593:
2526:
2433:
2321:
2161:
1947:
1874:
1808:
983:
818:
776:
750:
720:
653:
638:
The old "keep" AfD is irrelevant, since it was a prior AfD. The most recent AfD—which is at
603:
397:
2710:
2629:
1955:
It's controversial, because the discussion ended with a different consensus. Sincerely, --
953:
197:
2281:
1322:^ Crash of the Titans "You'd think he was a really fast hedgehog or something." Ratnician.
948:
Userfication means that an admin will restore the article to your user space (probably at
935:
862:
850:
829:
794:
730:
668:
621:
559:
509:
134:
2420:
2366:
2118:
1579:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Jayne Mansfield in popular culture (2nd nomination)
1126:
828:
completed later and I will message you on your talk page to let you know when it is done.
483:
179:
1882:
The actual consensus was indeed based on policy and was to keep or merge. Sincerely, --
2231:
1772:
1727:
430:
382:
2784:
2714:
2696:
2683:
2616:
2586:
2562:
2387:
2029:
1655:
1625:
1559:
1446:
957:
897:
289:
201:
2139:
for example, which has an entry. Thank you for your time in reviewing this request.
2718:
2667:
2503:
2465:
2401:
1969:
1788:
1749:
1692:
1668:
1611:
1404:
1197:
1174:
220:
2351:
2103:
1111:
468:
164:
2749:
2633:
2554:
2521:
2428:
2313:
2268:
2201:
2174:
2156:
1943:
1870:
1803:
978:
813:
771:
745:
715:
648:
598:
392:
2585:
improved and then it can be renominated if someone still feels it is required.
1243:
2277:
1856:
of the discussion was to keep or merge due to the improvements. Sincerely, --
1349:
game review so not going to establish real world notability for the characters
592:
article now exists again. (I restored it, since it was deleted for an expired
502:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gabriel_Murphy_1st_nom
126:
76:
2602:
The 3rd AfD was clearly premature. There was no point in further discussion
2226:
1577:"no consensus" and "keep" and just keep trying to get articles deleted a la
1817:
I think at a minimum, I would at least request userfication. Sincerely, --
1381:
2780:
2692:
2612:
2558:
1650:
1583:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/UFC Fight Night 12 (2nd nomination)
284:
1771:—weighing arguments is what voters should be doing, not closing admins.
1748:
what an administrator is supposed to do in closing an AfD discussion. --
1340:^ Michael Pereira, "Crash of the Titans Review," IGN (October 17, 2007).
1227:
Ok I have restored the last revision and here are the sources provided:
219:
per nom. This is so obvious that I almost just went ahead and did it.
1149:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts
262:. I'm a little surprised that the closer hasn't done this already.
2135:
larger userbase and is more notable for its contributions than site
1153:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/The Best of Sonic the Hedgehog
930:
appreciate being able to add to the article, but I have no idea how
2454:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Donna Upson (3rd nomination)
2446:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Donna Upson (2nd nomination)
1313:
Self-referential. Hopeless for establishing real world notability.
952:) in order for you to work on the article to make it comply with
506:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_2
86:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Vic Jacobs (2nd nomination)
2770:. He was burning out, he'd acknowledged the stress at one point.
2136:
2752:
pursuant to agreement found with the closing administrator for
976:
Since the text has been userfied, I'm closing the discussion. —
793:
inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) the article current does not meet.
1852:
There's a lot to discuss, because the actual consensus at the
697:
The closure of the most recent AfD as delete (and redirect to
1360:
http://kravenous.deviantart.com/art/Crash-Foxfeather-65332639
386:– Deletion endorsed, text of most recent version userfied at
1968:
Controversial ≠that you didn't get the outcome you wanted.
1265:
858:
707:
The speedy deletion (G4) of the new version of the article.
925:
Hello Lifebaka, the previous version that you refer to as
2456:
as frivolous and disruptive. The merge & redirect to
1212:
by those who had earlier argued to delete. Sincerely, --
282:. As neither the closer nor anyone else says otherwise.
1767:. It has nothing to do with who has the better argument
1685:), it can be (and probably should be) inserted into the
690:
Which deletion is being contested here? There are three:
2768:
2757:
2746:
2739:
2736:
2347:
2343:
2339:
2099:
2095:
2091:
1912:
Please take these discussions seriously. Sincerely, --
1787:
What an amazing rational for overturning an AFD close.
1682:
1533:
1530:
1527:
1524:
1521:
1518:
1515:
1512:
1509:
1506:
1503:
1500:
1497:
1494:
1491:
1488:
1485:
1482:
1479:
1476:
1473:
1470:
1467:
1464:
1460:
1210:
1207:
1107:
1103:
1099:
888:. If you'd like to attempt to write a better version,
464:
460:
456:
160:
156:
152:
1742:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion guidelines for administrators
704:
The speedy deletion (G8) of the redirect to Aplus.Net.
2754:
WP:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson (2nd nomination)
2743:
WP:Articles for deletion/Donna Upson (3rd nomination)
811:), so you can work on it there until it's finished? —
640:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Gabriel Murphy
2551:nobody had consulted the editors of that article,
2741:, GreenJoe reverted Shereth's speedy closure of
2628:, repeated nominations in such close succession
2028:– Deletion endorsed, will userfy on request –
896:a version for you, if you'd like. Cheers. --
688:Request for clarification from the requester.
8:
2181:in regards to the location of a hack post.
1244:http://hpzr.freeweb7.com/interviewtitans.htm
2295:The following is an archived debate of the
2047:The following is an archived debate of the
1055:The following is an archived debate of the
411:The following is an archived debate of the
390:for improvement and reconsideration later —
108:The following is an archived debate of the
2261:
2017:
1648:it's clear-cut enough to simply overturn.
1012:
375:
69:
2460:is an appropriate course of action for a
1358:^ Kravenous (2007). Crash of the Titans
41:
2538:if one did not have all the information
1264:^ (2007) Crash of the Titans Interview
1242:^ (2007) Crash of the Titans Inverview
50:
2632:that there is a good reason for them.
1382:http://youtube.com/watch?v=xPFt6MDFX-w
581:Overturn speedy deletion, restore the
33:
934:works as I am new to Knowledge (XXG).
586:. Rationale R1 no longer valid, since
7:
2804:of the page listed in the heading.
2549:was too much for that article, and
2250:of the page listed in the heading.
2006:of the page listed in the heading.
1001:of the page listed in the heading.
880:, we shouldn't undelete this. The
859:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:N
364:of the page listed in the heading.
2748:where he reverts my unblanking of
2553:who were not necessarily watching
28:
2221:" as an argument. I have listed
1691:article and attributed to you. --
596:.) Redirect should be restored. —
1942:from LGRDC, thankyouverymuch. --
1145:Knowledge (XXG):Merge and delete
2800:The above is an archive of the
2761:Ottawa municipal election, 2003
2547:Ottawa municipal election, 2003
2458:Ottawa municipal election, 2003
2246:The above is an archive of the
2200:, utterly non-notable website.
2002:The above is an archive of the
997:The above is an archive of the
360:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
950:User:LakeBoater/Gabriel Murphy
809:User:LakeBoater/Gabriel Murphy
388:User:LakeBoater/Gabriel Murphy
331:Vic's headlines listed at AfD
1:
2272:– Speedy close of the AfD is
1206:least, i.e. such comments as
884:] was clearly delete and was
30:
2464:"biography" such as this. --
1982:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1959:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1916:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1886:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1860:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1821:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1710:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1589:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1539:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1421:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1216:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1187:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1159:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
1074:Titans (Crash of the Titans)
1036:19:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC) –
886:already endorsed on June 2nd
301:. Here's another one. Vic's
2827:
309:is headline news. Another
2789:22:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2729:21:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2701:18:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2676:16:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2642:14:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2621:12:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
2595:07:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
2567:23:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2531:03:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
2514:03:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
2493:02:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
2474:01:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
2438:01:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
2412:00:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
2391:00:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
2286:14:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
2237:15:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2210:14:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
2193:13:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
2166:03:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
2149:01:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
2038:17:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
1987:18:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
1973:18:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
1964:17:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
1951:15:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
1921:18:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
1908:18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
1891:17:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
1878:15:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
1865:17:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
1848:11:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
1826:01:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
1813:01:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
1792:15:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
1781:04:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
1758:09:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
1736:06:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
1715:00:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
1701:04:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
1677:04:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
1660:01:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
1640:21:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1615:21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1594:00:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
1568:23:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1544:21:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1455:21:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1426:21:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1408:21:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1266:http://hpzr.freeweb7.com/
1221:21:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1201:19:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1192:18:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1178:18:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1164:17:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
1046:19:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
988:00:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
966:21:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
944:21:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
914:20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
871:19:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
838:21:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
823:20:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
803:19:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
781:19:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
755:19:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
739:18:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
725:18:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
677:18:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
658:18:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
630:18:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
608:17:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
572:17:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
542:17:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
518:17:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
402:00:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
349:07:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
323:07:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
294:01:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
275:12:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
255:02:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
238:23:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
224:21:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
210:20:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
98:20:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
2807:Please do not modify it.
2426:under criterion 2.iv.) —
2302:Please do not modify it.
2253:Please do not modify it.
2054:Please do not modify it.
2009:Please do not modify it.
1062:Please do not modify it.
1004:Please do not modify it.
418:Please do not modify it.
367:Please do not modify it.
115:Please do not modify it.
43:Deletion review archives
2386:closing of latest AfD.
644:/Gabriel Murphy 1st nom
2299:of the article above.
2051:of the article above.
1059:of the article above.
415:of the article above.
112:of the article above.
2654:not when people have
2225:for speedy deletion.
2217:Be careful of using "
1535:, etc. Sincerely, --
1461:persistent incivility
927:the most recently AfD
2689:User:Abd/Donna Upson
2630:strain my assumption
1688:Crash of the Titans
1331:This made no sense.
1020:Crash of the Titans
313:for Vic the Brick.
280:Overturn and relist
260:Overturn and relist
243:Overturn and relist
229:Overturn and relist
217:Overturn and relist
2452:speedy closure of
2219:other stuff exists
642:(while the old is
303:Sports Illustrated
215:Total no brainer.
2814:
2813:
2260:
2259:
2016:
2015:
1683:this deleted edit
1043:
1034:
1011:
1010:
912:
574:
558:comment added by
544:
532:comment added by
374:
373:
95:
60:
59:
2818:
2809:
2369:
2355:
2337:
2304:
2262:
2255:
2234:
2229:
2198:Endorse deletion
2187:
2179:mentions it once
2171:Endorse deletion
2121:
2107:
2089:
2056:
2018:
2011:
1985:
1983:
1962:
1960:
1919:
1917:
1904:
1899:
1889:
1887:
1863:
1861:
1844:
1839:
1824:
1822:
1713:
1711:
1665:Endorse Deletion
1592:
1590:
1585:. Sincerely, --
1542:
1540:
1443:Endorse deletion
1424:
1422:
1219:
1217:
1190:
1188:
1162:
1160:
1129:
1115:
1097:
1064:
1041:
1032:
1013:
1006:
902:
553:
527:
486:
472:
454:
420:
376:
369:
307:Vic's job change
271:
266:
182:
168:
150:
117:
93:
70:
56:
36:
31:
2826:
2825:
2821:
2820:
2819:
2817:
2816:
2815:
2805:
2802:deletion review
2666:pertains here.
2378:
2372:
2365:
2364:
2358:
2328:
2312:
2300:
2297:deletion review
2251:
2248:deletion review
2232:
2227:
2185:
2130:
2124:
2117:
2116:
2110:
2080:
2066:IPod touch Fans
2064:
2052:
2049:deletion review
2025:iPod touch Fans
2007:
2004:deletion review
1981:
1979:
1958:
1956:
1936:Endorse closure
1915:
1913:
1900:
1897:
1885:
1883:
1859:
1857:
1840:
1837:
1833:Endorse closure
1820:
1818:
1709:
1707:
1588:
1586:
1538:
1536:
1420:
1418:
1215:
1213:
1186:
1184:
1158:
1156:
1138:
1132:
1125:
1124:
1118:
1088:
1072:
1060:
1057:deletion review
1002:
999:deletion review
882:most recent AfD
876:I'm sorry, but
495:
489:
482:
481:
475:
445:
429:
416:
413:deletion review
365:
362:deletion review
341:JohnABerring27A
339:bouncing back.
315:JohnABerring27A
267:
264:
236:
191:
185:
178:
177:
171:
141:
125:
113:
110:deletion review
68:
61:
54:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2824:
2822:
2812:
2811:
2796:
2795:
2794:
2793:
2792:
2791:
2771:
2764:
2732:
2731:
2704:
2703:
2678:
2644:
2623:
2597:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2575:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2571:
2570:
2569:
2477:
2476:
2440:
2414:
2380:
2379:
2376:
2370:
2362:
2356:
2307:
2306:
2291:
2290:
2289:
2288:
2258:
2257:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2239:
2212:
2195:
2168:
2132:
2131:
2128:
2122:
2114:
2108:
2059:
2058:
2043:
2042:
2041:
2040:
2014:
2013:
1998:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1662:
1642:
1618:
1617:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1571:
1570:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1411:
1410:
1395:
1394:
1386:
1385:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1364:
1363:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1342:
1341:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1324:
1323:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1306:
1305:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1288:
1287:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1270:
1269:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1248:
1247:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1170:Speedy Endorse
1140:
1139:
1136:
1130:
1122:
1116:
1067:
1066:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1009:
1008:
993:
992:
991:
990:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
917:
916:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
784:
783:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
710:
709:
708:
705:
702:
692:
691:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
661:
660:
633:
632:
610:
576:
575:
546:
545:
497:
496:
493:
487:
479:
473:
431:Gabriel Murphy
423:
422:
407:
406:
405:
404:
383:Gabriel Murphy
372:
371:
356:
355:
354:
353:
352:
351:
326:
325:
296:
277:
257:
240:
234:TravellingCari
232:
226:
193:
192:
189:
183:
175:
169:
120:
119:
104:
103:
102:
101:
67:
62:
58:
57:
49:
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2823:
2810:
2808:
2803:
2798:
2797:
2790:
2786:
2782:
2777:
2772:
2769:
2765:
2762:
2758:
2755:
2751:
2747:
2744:
2740:
2737:
2734:
2733:
2730:
2727:
2726:
2722:
2721:
2716:
2712:
2709:Please apply
2708:
2707:
2706:
2705:
2702:
2698:
2694:
2690:
2685:
2682:
2679:
2677:
2673:
2669:
2665:
2661:
2657:
2653:
2648:
2645:
2643:
2639:
2635:
2631:
2627:
2624:
2622:
2618:
2614:
2609:
2605:
2604:at this time.
2601:
2598:
2596:
2592:
2588:
2583:
2580:
2579:
2568:
2564:
2560:
2556:
2552:
2548:
2544:
2539:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2528:
2524:
2523:
2517:
2516:
2515:
2512:
2511:
2507:
2506:
2500:
2496:
2495:
2494:
2490:
2486:
2485:Killerofcruft
2481:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2475:
2471:
2467:
2463:
2459:
2455:
2451:
2447:
2444:
2441:
2439:
2435:
2431:
2430:
2425:
2424:
2418:
2415:
2413:
2410:
2409:
2405:
2404:
2398:
2395:
2394:
2393:
2392:
2389:
2385:
2375:
2368:
2361:
2353:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2336:
2332:
2327:
2323:
2319:
2315:
2311:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2305:
2303:
2298:
2293:
2292:
2287:
2283:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2270:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2256:
2254:
2249:
2244:
2243:
2238:
2235:
2230:
2224:
2220:
2216:
2213:
2211:
2207:
2203:
2199:
2196:
2194:
2191:
2190:
2188:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2169:
2167:
2163:
2159:
2158:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2146:
2142:
2138:
2127:
2120:
2113:
2105:
2101:
2097:
2093:
2088:
2084:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2057:
2055:
2050:
2045:
2044:
2039:
2035:
2031:
2027:
2026:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2019:
2012:
2010:
2005:
2000:
1999:
1988:
1984:
1978:Sincerely, --
1976:
1975:
1974:
1971:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1961:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1934:
1922:
1918:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1905:
1903:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1888:
1881:
1880:
1879:
1876:
1872:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1862:
1855:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1845:
1843:
1834:
1831:
1827:
1823:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1805:
1800:
1797:
1793:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1778:
1774:
1770:
1766:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1722:
1716:
1712:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1689:
1684:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1666:
1663:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1652:
1646:
1643:
1641:
1637:
1634:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1620:
1619:
1616:
1613:
1610:
1607:
1606:
1595:
1591:
1584:
1580:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1545:
1541:
1534:
1531:
1528:
1525:
1522:
1519:
1516:
1513:
1510:
1507:
1504:
1501:
1498:
1495:
1492:
1489:
1486:
1483:
1480:
1477:
1474:
1471:
1468:
1465:
1462:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1441:
1440:
1427:
1423:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1409:
1406:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1383:
1379:
1378:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1356:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1339:
1338:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1321:
1320:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1303:
1302:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1285:
1284:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1268:(in English).
1267:
1263:
1262:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1246:(in English).
1245:
1241:
1240:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1218:
1211:
1208:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1199:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1189:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1176:
1171:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1161:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1135:
1128:
1121:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1096:
1092:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1065:
1063:
1058:
1053:
1052:
1047:
1044:
1039:
1035:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1021:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1007:
1005:
1000:
995:
994:
989:
985:
981:
980:
975:
974:
967:
963:
959:
955:
951:
947:
946:
945:
941:
937:
933:
928:
924:
921:
920:
919:
918:
915:
910:
906:
901:
900:
895:
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
874:
873:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
839:
835:
831:
826:
825:
824:
820:
816:
815:
810:
806:
805:
804:
800:
796:
791:
788:
787:
786:
785:
782:
778:
774:
773:
767:
764:
763:
756:
752:
748:
747:
742:
741:
740:
736:
732:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
717:
711:
706:
703:
700:
696:
695:
694:
693:
689:
686:
685:
678:
674:
670:
665:
664:
663:
662:
659:
655:
651:
650:
645:
641:
637:
636:
635:
634:
631:
627:
623:
618:
614:
611:
609:
605:
601:
600:
595:
591:
587:
585:
584:
578:
577:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
551:
548:
547:
543:
539:
535:
534:69.76.132.152
531:
525:
522:
521:
520:
519:
515:
511:
507:
503:
492:
485:
478:
470:
466:
462:
458:
453:
449:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
427:
425:
424:
421:
419:
414:
409:
408:
403:
399:
395:
394:
389:
385:
384:
380:
379:
378:
377:
370:
368:
363:
358:
357:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
330:
329:
328:
327:
324:
320:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
297:
295:
291:
287:
286:
281:
278:
276:
272:
270:
261:
258:
256:
252:
248:
247:Smile a While
244:
241:
239:
235:
230:
227:
225:
222:
218:
214:
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
199:
188:
181:
174:
166:
162:
158:
154:
149:
145:
140:
136:
132:
128:
124:
123:
122:
121:
118:
116:
111:
106:
105:
99:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
74:
73:
72:
71:
66:
63:
53:
48:
44:
39:
32:
23:
19:
2806:
2799:
2724:
2719:
2680:
2659:
2655:
2651:
2646:
2625:
2607:
2603:
2599:
2581:
2550:
2542:
2537:
2520:
2509:
2504:
2498:
2449:
2442:
2427:
2422:
2416:
2407:
2402:
2396:
2383:
2381:
2301:
2294:
2273:
2267:
2252:
2245:
2214:
2197:
2182:
2170:
2155:
2133:
2053:
2046:
2023:
2008:
2001:
1935:
1901:
1853:
1841:
1832:
1802:
1798:
1768:
1764:
1745:
1723:
1686:
1664:
1649:
1644:
1632:
1621:
1608:
1442:
1169:
1141:
1061:
1054:
1038:PeterSymonds
1029:PeterSymonds
1024:
1018:
1003:
996:
977:
931:
922:
898:
893:
877:
848:
812:
789:
770:
765:
744:
714:
687:
647:
616:
612:
597:
582:
580:
579:
549:
523:
498:
417:
410:
391:
381:
366:
359:
337:Vic's career
298:
283:
279:
268:
259:
242:
228:
216:
194:
114:
107:
90:PeterSymonds
81:
75:
65:22 June 2008
64:
2750:Donna Upson
2555:Donna Upson
2314:Donna Upson
2269:Donna Upson
2175:ArsTechnica
2141:Cruelio1998
554:—Preceding
528:—Preceding
305:biography.
2656:explicitly
2652:especially
936:LakeBoater
863:LakeBoater
851:DuncanHill
830:LakeBoater
795:LakeBoater
731:DuncanHill
669:DuncanHill
622:DuncanHill
560:LakeBoater
510:LakeBoater
335:headline,
127:Vic Jacobs
77:Vic Jacobs
2606:I think,
1773:Everyking
1746:precisely
1728:Everyking
890:feel free
699:Aplus.Net
590:Aplus.Net
47:2008 June
2715:GreenJoe
2684:GreenJoe
2664:WP:POINT
2587:Davewild
2462:WP:BLP1E
2388:GreenJoe
2384:Overturn
2274:endorsed
2186:itsJamie
2030:Davewild
1940:rebuttal
1895:Nuh-uh!
1724:Overturn
1636:contribs
1626:Casliber
1622:Overturn
1560:Otto4711
1447:Otto4711
958:Davewild
909:Contribs
899:lifebaka
583:redirect
568:contribs
556:unsigned
530:unsigned
524:Overturn
333:Job move
311:headline
299:Overturn
231:per nom
202:Davewild
20: |
2713:here -
2681:Comment
2668:Bearcat
2647:Endorse
2626:Endorse
2600:Endorse
2582:Endorse
2466:Stormie
2450:endorse
2443:Endorse
2421:speedy
2417:Endorse
2397:Endorse
2360:restore
2331:protect
2326:history
2215:Comment
2112:restore
2083:protect
2078:history
1970:Spartaz
1799:Endorse
1789:Spartaz
1750:Stormie
1693:Stormie
1669:Stormie
1612:Spartaz
1405:Spartaz
1198:Spartaz
1175:Spartaz
1120:restore
1091:protect
1086:history
1025:Endorse
923:Comment
790:Comment
766:Endorse
613:Comment
594:WP:PROD
550:Comment
477:restore
448:protect
443:history
221:Spartaz
173:restore
144:protect
139:history
52:June 23
38:June 21
2711:WP:AGF
2634:Stifle
2543:seemed
2522:C.Fred
2429:C.Fred
2335:delete
2202:Stifle
2157:C.Fred
2087:delete
1944:Calton
1902:DrNick
1871:Calton
1842:DrNick
1804:C.Fred
1769:per se
1645:Relist
1095:delete
1042:(talk)
1033:(talk)
979:C.Fred
954:WP:BIO
932:userfy
894:userfy
814:C.Fred
772:C.Fred
746:C.Fred
716:C.Fred
649:C.Fred
599:C.Fred
452:delete
393:C.Fred
269:DrNick
198:WP:BIO
148:delete
94:(talk)
84:. See
82:Relist
2608:ever,
2499:prior
2367:cache
2352:views
2344:watch
2340:links
2278:RMHED
2177:link
2119:cache
2104:views
2096:watch
2092:links
1765:agree
1403:we??
1277:Ditto
1127:cache
1112:views
1104:watch
1100:links
484:cache
469:views
461:watch
457:links
426:====
180:cache
165:views
157:watch
153:links
55:: -->
16:<
2785:talk
2776:snow
2720:Sher
2697:talk
2672:talk
2638:talk
2617:talk
2591:talk
2563:talk
2527:talk
2505:Sher
2489:talk
2470:talk
2434:talk
2423:keep
2403:Sher
2348:logs
2322:talk
2318:edit
2282:talk
2223:TUAW
2206:talk
2184:OhNo
2162:talk
2145:talk
2137:TUAW
2100:logs
2074:talk
2070:edit
2034:talk
1948:Talk
1875:Talk
1809:talk
1777:talk
1754:talk
1732:talk
1697:talk
1673:talk
1656:talk
1630:talk
1564:talk
1451:talk
1209:and
1151:and
1108:logs
1082:talk
1078:edit
984:talk
962:talk
940:talk
905:Talk
867:talk
855:talk
834:talk
819:talk
799:talk
777:talk
751:talk
735:talk
721:talk
673:talk
654:talk
626:talk
604:talk
588:the
564:talk
538:talk
514:talk
465:logs
439:talk
435:edit
398:talk
345:talk
319:talk
290:talk
251:talk
206:talk
161:logs
135:talk
131:edit
35:<
2781:Abd
2725:eth
2693:Abd
2660:you
2613:Abd
2559:Abd
2510:eth
2408:eth
2374:AfD
2228:swa
2126:AfD
1854:end
1651:DGG
1581:or
1134:AfD
849:As
617:was
491:AfD
285:DGG
187:AfD
22:Log
2787:)
2779:--
2699:)
2674:)
2640:)
2619:)
2611:--
2593:)
2565:)
2529:)
2491:)
2483:--
2472:)
2448:,
2436:)
2350:|
2346:|
2342:|
2338:|
2333:|
2329:|
2324:|
2320:|
2284:)
2276:–
2208:)
2164:)
2147:)
2102:|
2098:|
2094:|
2090:|
2085:|
2081:|
2076:|
2072:|
2036:)
1946:|
1906:!
1898:Hi
1873:|
1846:!
1838:Hi
1811:)
1779:)
1756:)
1734:)
1706:--
1699:)
1675:)
1658:)
1638:)
1566:)
1532:,
1529:,
1526:,
1523:,
1520:,
1517:,
1514:,
1511:,
1508:,
1505:,
1502:,
1499:,
1496:,
1493:,
1490:,
1487:,
1484:,
1481:,
1478:,
1475:,
1472:,
1466:,
1463::
1453:)
1417:--
1110:|
1106:|
1102:|
1098:|
1093:|
1089:|
1084:|
1080:|
1023:–
986:)
964:)
942:)
907:-
878:no
869:)
836:)
821:)
801:)
779:)
753:)
737:)
723:)
701:).
675:)
656:)
628:)
606:)
570:)
566:•
540:)
516:)
467:|
463:|
459:|
455:|
450:|
446:|
441:|
437:|
400:)
347:)
321:)
292:)
273:!
265:Hi
253:)
208:)
163:|
159:|
155:|
151:|
146:|
142:|
137:|
133:|
88:.
80:–
45::
2783:(
2695:(
2670:(
2636:(
2615:(
2589:(
2561:(
2525:(
2519:—
2487:(
2468:(
2432:(
2377:)
2371:|
2363:|
2357:(
2354:)
2316:(
2280:(
2233:q
2204:(
2160:(
2143:(
2129:)
2123:|
2115:|
2109:(
2106:)
2068:(
2032:(
1807:(
1775:(
1752:(
1730:(
1695:(
1671:(
1654:(
1633:·
1628:(
1562:(
1469:,
1449:(
1384:.
1362:.
1137:)
1131:|
1123:|
1117:(
1114:)
1076:(
982:(
960:(
938:(
911:)
903:(
865:(
853:(
832:(
817:(
797:(
775:(
749:(
733:(
719:(
713:—
671:(
652:(
624:(
602:(
562:(
536:(
512:(
494:)
488:|
480:|
474:(
471:)
433:(
396:(
343:(
317:(
288:(
249:(
204:(
190:)
184:|
176:|
170:(
167:)
129:(
100:–
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.