818:: I dont know why but in spite of having done everything what I was told, there seem to be problem now also. Initially I was asked to supply some reliable third party sources, now I made available links of national newspapers, then too a very abstract issue of subtantiality of the coverage of the newspaper is raised. There are as many as 6 neutral and unique third party reliable sources in the article and then too a very speculative issue is raised. Less substantiality of the article is always at the cost of neutrality or non advertising nature of the article, as should be the case. newspapers always cover incidents in a neutral and informative manner, so the very speculative issue of substantiality should be declined. I have used this portal and all the discussions and talk platforms to the maximum to raise my voice. I also tried to abide by all wikipedia policies and i hereby testify my acquaintance with the concerned wikipedia policies. Knowledge is all about incorporation of more and more prominent stuffs, be it an article about an organization like Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or an article about an organization like Youth United. I agree both are not notable to the same extend, but at the same time I affirm the notability of Youth United, to the extend, which is in accord with wikipedia polices. Let's improve Knowledge, as should be the case. Please refer to the case history section of Youth United, posted above at this page.
893:
policy. Being a normal user of wikipedia, I also know that I have appealed against the earlier deletion decision and thats why I am having a deletion review here. I am using the right platform to raise my issues and this wiki admin is just using his admin tools in a very illegitimate manners. I request you to to unprotect this page and use this platform to say what you have to say. this wiki admin is not replying to any of my question and hence not in any justifiable position. Knowledge now seems to be all meant for this wiki admin, who by using admin tool can do anything he wants, no matter its in accordance with any wikipedia policy or not. Let wikipedia be a website meant for bot admins and users. Users are now getting the feeling that they are being dictated by few of wiki admins' bureaucracy. Knowledge is a user encyclopedia and try to assist the users and not dictate them. Seeking your cooperation.
450:
sources at this point of time should suffice to this issue, as was told to me earlier. I do have a lot of print third party sources too, which can be produce at ease, if required. If these media mentions in the print can not suffice to the purpose, then what on earth is required now. Something was told to me and we did the same. This article, after having posted and finalized, would not infringe any of the wikipedia policies, nor this is a case of a brand promotion as in other classic cases. Most importantly, if you are to be believed and followed , then I should try posting this article after 50 years or so. None of wikipedia policies are prohibiting any article about a new organization to be posted here. After 50 years also, I testify that I will be getting the coverage in a similar manners in almost same newspapers, so then too this
840:: Hi. Don,t you think it is illegitimate to delete the content of the article Youth United, leaving only the undelete template. further you have protected the page too, an action which is not covered by any wikipedia policy. Try contributing to the deletion review and say what you have to say, there only. No intimation on any talk or discussion page, indicates non accordance of wikipedia policies. Please do consider wikipedia policies and guidelines, and behave accordingly. especially when delrev and undelete templates were placed on the article to review the earlier deletion, you haven't said anything on deletion review page and just deleted the page. Undelete template says it can not be deleted until review is not finished.
1791:
AfD and it reaching the Old
Backlog) prior to putting it back up for relisting at the reasonable request of Metropolitan90. It was again relisted, correctly IMO by Master of Puppets because no other comments had been received. I did not canvass for votes or have anything else to do with the article. The article immediately received further comments that formed an even greater consensus towards delete based on lack of notability - even after Kurt put up some rather unhelpful comments such as
1054:. The participants in that AfD seemed to interpret "Lists of fictional things" as "List of fictional things", the latter being seen as far too large in scope for a single list (and therefore indescriminate), while the former title signified a list of existing lists on Knowledge and therefore was not indescriminate at all (as it was intended as a navigation aid to fictional things presented in Knowledge, to provide a "top end" to the list structure that already exists for this subject).
1218:. It did not reference a single other list. The version immediately prior to the deletion from the AfD was, however, properly as described in the nomination statement here. I'm not sure yet what to say, but I am concerned that a good number of the deleters in the AfD were mis-reading or misguided about what the article actually was. That itself would be enough to overturn (and revert to 31 July 2007) to have the chance to conduct the AfD with a clearer statement of content.
2501:, with no prejudice against what Splash and Fram said about how to write a great one. Unfortunately, we cannot accept copyrighted (copywrit?) material here per our license. Write a great article about NHSC in your "userspace" (and please ask anyone here if you don't know what that means or how to create something in your sandbox) and bring your draft here for review. I'd be happy to help you recreate a neutral and sourced article in mainspace at that time. Cheers,
760:. I also admit that earlier AfD was closed correctly, but it did not mean that I could not resolve the issues and I resolved all the issues now by properly citing the reliable third party sources to justify the notability of the article and hence organization. Kindly check the article and refer to the case history, cited above in this page only. So having resolved the issue of notability, i recommend the retention of this article to all the wiki admins.Thanx
858:: I have restored an article on Youth United, with 9 added reliable third party sources. Lack of third party sources was the only reason to delete the article earlier. 9 reliable third party sources are sufficient enough for the retention of the article as told earlier. In fact more than 2 third party reliable sources were enough as was told to me earlier. So the prerequisite for having the reliable third party sources were met. Furthermore
230:. note nos 4, 8, 10, 11 and 12 are working links and they belong to different newspapers or other third party sources. they are from different national newspapers so reliability should not be questioned. this organization has a lot more print coverage so I ma arranging some scanned copies of those sources too. I recommend the retention of this article and with graduated coverage, I will keep on quoting more and more third party sources.
1973:
1923:; we need multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject of the article. This community consensus is reflected in the consensus of opinions in the AFD - that such sources were not presented. Should they be found and an article created that uses them, there will not be difficulty in recreating. But consensus was clear and in line with community consensus and no procedural flaws exist.
1969:
1144:. As such, creating lists is part of Knowledge's mission, and lists are undeniably a part of Knowledge. This is not the place to debate the merit of the guidelines and design philosophies of the encyclopedia, only their applicability to this specific list creation proposal. I hope that you agree that my request is consistent with Knowledge's guidelines and established development goals.
2450:, with many sentenecs lifted straight or near-straight from that page. So, without commenting on possible other problems, the first thing to change would be to create a version which is not so firmly based on another text (website), but consists of your own words. Furthermore, it is best that articles are based on different sources, to provide a balanced, neutral view of the subject.
213:. I can only see 2 working links, both to the Times of India. That's a decent source, but you need more substantial and widespread coverage in order to satisfy people that this should be overturned. Perhaps the best thing would be to userfy the article for now and bring it back when there's more substantial, widespread, 3rd party coverage. --
493:, and recall what I have written on your talk page. I have never said that I am the owner of this logo. Instead I have said that logo is copyrighted with official website of the organization, which is registered with the president of the organization, and written permission of the same can be mailed to anyone with ease.
2267:
As was explained above, the consensus was to delete at any given point in time of the AfD discussion (in the eyes of the closing admin), so most of the points raised concerning procedure are moot. And with or without this review, once better sources for notability can be found, nothing speaks against
1139:
I use them for that purpose, and I get praise from time to time from others who find the lists I've created useful. So that's some indication. More relevant to this discussion is that the community intends them to be used in this way, because the community has made navigation one of the purposes of
454:
will be raised. So as per you, I should try forgetting posting my article here. i am acquainted with at least a dozen wikipedia users, who have left wikipedia, just because of exaggeration of comparatively relaxed and flexible wikipedia policies. In the line of the ongoing discussion you may consider
1910:
After something has been relisted, it is always eligible for closure. The timing argument above is just plain wrong. The only keep argument presented after relisting was that the article can be kept simply because we can verify the existence of the play. That is also wrong; we keep articles where
1790:
To increase the bar of accuracy somewhat here (as the closing Admin) I comment as follows. The article has had 20 days to find consensus. I did not have a prejudice towards deletion or to the article itself but I did form the opinion that it had reached a consensus for delete (after 10 days of first
1589:
each other, they do not necessarily replace each other. Though I personally often dislike using lists for navigation (generally because so many lists are of poor quality), it is a valid option and is one that many find to be intuitively easier and more logical. Plus, a list of fictional topics would
880:
delrev:-this article is currently under discussion at
Knowledge:Deletion review, because a recent decision to retain or delete it on Knowledge has been appealed. You may wish to contribute to the review. While the review is in progress, you are welcome to edit the article, but please do not blank it
345:
myself (if that's not out of order). This is a classic case of failure to meet our standards of notability. Most of the links come back to the same two or three articles, about a demonstration which this new group took the lead in organizing. This s.p.a. is so excited about the wonders of her group,
2002:
Procedurally sound closure, but probably the wrong result. Google books shows at least one useful seeming source, news shows an LA Times review. Given the rather poor coverage those tools provide, there's likely more out there in a major library. The tedious implications of conspiracy and bad faith
1803:
Relisting does not guarantee a further 5 days but seeks to generate further discussion so that consensus can be reached. Further in the 20 days of AfD - despite some valiant attempts by
Metropolitan90, and no further return by the originating author (even though some suggestions directly to him/her
2120:
I can't find anything wrong with the closure. I also agree with the deletion decision. This just looks like a not (yet) notable play to me that got reviewed a couple of times and (though not a reason for deletion) it was written by a person who purports to be the playwright. Just because a play is
1085:. When a subject covered in a list becomes too large to be handled in a single list, its parts are split off and the main list becomes a list of lists. Lists of lists are also created by gathering lists belonging to an overriding topic together, which is what I want to do for fictional topics.
416:
The AfD discussion was about whether the sources are enough to show notability or not, and interpreting the result as a consensus to delete was proper. And while the (all added since, I assume) articles about the candle light vigil do indeed mention the group (I assume the Hindi one also was about
2464:
Thank you for the detailed statement you have provided here. I'm sorry you've not heard back from the deleting administrator. As identified by Fram above, the article is an infringement of the copyright at the identified website. Perhaps you work for that organisation, but even so the language an
2417:
I am hoping to receive some guidance from
Knowledge administrators on the exact protocol regarding the deletion of an article. In mid-December I posted an article entitled “National High School Center”. For background, the National High School Center is an educational organization funded by the
194:
it was deleted again giving the reason that it doesnt have any third party source. In spite of the fact that I have changed my article Youth United in terms of the no of third party sources. the problem earlier was referred to as the lack of third party sources in the article Youth United. I have
892:
in spite of these 2 templates, this wiki admin seemed to have forgotten all the wiki policies, have deleted a template and left the whole page blank. To add on everything this wiki admin has also protected the page, so that no further edits can be done, an action which is not covered by any wiki
1106:, but I believe I can do a better job presenting Knowledge's fiction-related lists than the cateogory does, and the new list would tie Knowledge's existing lists of fictional topics together so that they can serve as an integrated table of contents to the fictional topics included on Knowledge.
449:
without being advertising in nature, which in turn is a violation of wikipedia policies. Second, I have never said that the organization is new and it is going to be notable someday, instead I have been affirming on the point that this organization is notable, though new, and a few third party
659:
True, I got the same message. However, that has all started after my previous comment above. Seeing as how the message was sent primarily to people who already commented here at DRV, I believe it was an honest misunderstanding of that template (which is meant to invite others here that have
2431:
Per
Knowledge’s protocol, I contacted DragonflySixtyseven on February 12, 2008 on his/her talk page to discuss in detail the deletion of our article but have not yet heard back from the user. Is there any way I can get more information regarding the deletion of our article from Knowledge
486:
again, where styles are particularly mentioned when referenced from any book and I am citing online sources from official websites of the newspapers, which can only be cited in classic style. further i am not citing any challenged materials like any contentious material or living persons.
1291:, with minimal dissent. We appear to be being asked to reverse a repeatedly-expressed consensus of many different editors on at least two different articles on at least three separate occasions (AfD, AfD, DRV), not to mention the talk pages of the various articles. Why should we do so?
779:: I have added 2 more reliable third party sources, from reputed national newspaper Indian Express. now consider reading note nos 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15. Note no 12 is not self created it is from a news website and not from a blog. I still anticipate your cooperation. thanks .
2418:
U.S. Department of
Education that provides information and free-of-charge resources on high school improvement issues. As of now, Knowledge has a category for “Educational organization” which lists 183 other educational organizations similar to the National High School Center.
292:
In spite of providing all what was called for, it was again deleted without even noticing the incorporation of reliable third party sources this time. Despite all this, I affirm the exaggeration of
Knowledge's relaxed and liberal policies by few administrators. Consider reading
251:
As currently numbered, (you have 2 '9's) 12 is self-published, so isn't reliable. 11 requires Hindi so I can't verify that; perhaps you can find an independent editor to verify that one. I think we have rough consensus here. Suggest we close this as upheld and consider warning
2069:
The procedure is not a rigid rules book for us to use to nuke content. There's enough here to convince me that the play existed and still is playing on and off - the notability concerns given seem relatively weak. Deleting this was a mistake, and it should be recreated.
1234:
using this excellent rationale by
Transhumanist. If the prior list was flawed, it should not impact a new list that is within the scope of the actual title. If as Splash suggests the voted-on article was merely vandalized, we have a flawed AFD and an overturn is warranted.
323:
I hereby recommend the retention of this article to improve
Knowledge and to use Knowledge's liberal and flexible policies and usages for the purposes they are meant for. I hereby testify my amenabilty to further provide the third party sources from time to time.
862:
states that it is a guideline and not the rule or policy so it must be treated with occasional exception. I don't anticipate exception in this regard, but you should at aleast try to consider it as a general case and now this article is in conformance of
1936:. It merely describes what has happened in the past; there is absolutely no obligation to abide by it in the present. Bureaucratic rules and policies are not relevant; all that matters is whether keeping it around helps or hurts the encyclopedia.
2432:
administrators? Further, what are the next steps for re-posting the article or editing it so that it can be re-posted? I was hoping to receive guidance on how exactly to modify it and re-post the article so users can benefit from our information.
543:. DRV is not a second round to attempt to get a more favourable decision than AFD. It is only a check that the deletion process was followed correctly. All the "votes" on the AFD were in favour of deleting, therefore deletion was the decision.
444:
First, the classic case of failure to meet the standards of notability is the lack of third party sources and not the so called newly formed substantiality issue. The sources cited were from national newspapers, and the coverage cant be that
1632:– This one is fairly tight, just like the original AFD (which perhaps might have been closed as no consensus rather than a second relisting). Four overturn requests and six endorses came out of this DRV, and I think the correct result is
2104:, obviously per my !vote, but without prejudice against a sourced article. The accusations, hand-waving, and attacks on procedure (and just barely not on editors) by Kurt Weber were not helpful, and I would hope he would realize that. --
1057:
I've come before you to clear up this confusion, and to request that you allow me to create a new list from scratch designed to assist in the navigation of
Knowledge's fiction lists, and by extension the fictional topics they present.
1318:, consensus at the AfD is clear that such a list is too wide in scope, I don't think that has changed. The issues brought up in the AfD still apply. I see no reason to overturn this unanimous consensus. Please correct me if I am wrong.
889:
furthermore as per second template undelete, which states that an appeal has been made at Knowledge:Deletion review to restore the page. To facilitate that discussion, this page has been temporarily restored with this message in place.
1815:
To increase the bar of accuracy here (sorry, couldn't resist) I'll point out that by my reading (including one "Comment") it looks like 4 to 5 in favor of deleting. That is a squeaker of a majority, and not consensus by any means.
1338:. DRV is not a venue to try and get a more sympathetic result than AFD, rather it is a venue to check that the deletion process has been followed. There is a consensus that the article should be deleted, why should we change that?
1387:
Um, not really. When it was deleted it was indeed a list of lists. That is exactly how it would return, as I mentioned above. The question is whether the deleters in the first place had correctly understood the article.
1762:. The closing admin closed it after a momentary shift in consensus, shortly after it was re-listed, when that shift just happened to be in the direction that he indicated he already agreed with. If, after
354:
notable someday (the up-and-coming garage-band argument, I call it). I genuinely sympathise with her, but feel the actions of myself and other deleting admins were in order and in accord with our standards.
1754:, ostensibly to seek a "more thorough discussion", after the initial period produced no consensus either way--and there were no further contributions during the first relisting period. It was closed
2229:
without prejudice to re-creation if better sources can be found. Even though I supported keeping the article during the AfD, the consensus after the second relisting was in favor of deletion. --
2408:
1256:
G4 speedied. The article was in its correct state during the AfD. Aaaaand, as I set out below, that's not even the AfD being considered; the nomination here is rather indirect in that sense.
1545:
195:
included 4-5 third party sources to justify the notability of the article. these are from National Newspapers online links. Challenging the reliability of these sources are out of question.
1280:
1272:
1051:
1038:
1556:
608:
And compared to what most SPAs seem to do, which is out of process recreation and talkpage spamming, this is actually refreshing to see the right venue being used. That being said...
1047:
I would like to organize the lists on Knowledge about fictional things. There are many lists of fictional things on Knowledge, but no list to tie them together in a meaningful way.
2244:
per nom. If consensus was not reached for that long, a sudden change in consensus immediately before closure simply looks fishy, regardless of the intention of the closing admin.--
1562:
I'd suggest undeleting both lists (fictional topics and fictional things), if they both have relevant content, to allow any useful content to be merged into a single list. --
1804:
had been placed in the AfD) the article still does not appear provide notability to the standards required - and this is the consensus that was formed by nominating users.--
821:
I, assuming, you all having read all the case history and other concerned discussions, hereby appeal, to close the discussion in the favor of the retention of this article.
1741:
1358:
Why should we change that? Er, I think that's what he explained in his opening paragraph. He's not trying to recreate what was deleted, persay, but make it what it was
1185:
That'd fall foul pretty instantaneously of CSD G4 given the exactitude of the content and substantial prior AfD. I presume that is why Transhumanist has sought a DRV.
878:, which clearly states Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate. I put 2 templates delrev and undelete in this regard,
2365:
2360:
459:, which is a policy, and it is not on your discretion, that you choose to follow it or not. I request you to be flexible and cooperative, using wikipedia policies.
482:- now three more issues are raised whose justifications are quite implied in the case history, I have posted above. about citing sources, you may consider reading
2369:
1510:
995:
990:
2394:
2352:
1288:
999:
276:
185:
51:
1559:
for details. Futhermore, most of the previous AfD responses did seem to argue based on idontlikeit, or a misunderstanding of the page's intended purpose.
1541:
1024:
982:
37:
2121:
written, performed and reviewed does not make it notable and I'm seeing nothing in the sources cited so far that makes me think this is a notable play.
46:
2473:
for example). For content guidance as to appropriateness and standards of inclusion as you consider re-writing the article, see specifically
1698:
1693:
881:
or remove this notice. For more information, particularly on merging or moving articles under review, please see Knowledge:Guide to deletion.
1702:
570:, which says that Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion.
1126:
Is the 'navigational aid' point anything other than a nice theory? As in, does anybody know them to be actually used for that purpose?
1727:
1685:
1103:
730:, the AfD was closed correctly, the subject matter has not been established as being significantly notable per inclusion guidelines.
42:
1509:
I've tried to get people to discuss them as a group, but they seem to constantly get argued over individually (see the just-ended
142:
137:
2437:
146:
2215:
2075:
2036:
1424:
2533:, specifically Knowledge is not a free web host. Also copyright issues. A better deletion summary by D67 would have helped.
2165:(for movies) may be considered analogous to a hypothetical one for plays, although the criteria are essentially the same. --
1840:
We are, but I counted the author and forgot the nom, plus I included a "Comment" that was mostly a keep. Ah... higher math.
650:
402:
171:
129:
21:
2356:
2130:
Answer me two questions, please: (1) What makes a play "notable", and (2) Why is being "notable" even relevant here?
2018:
1522:
1160:. You've presented your rationale well, and I agree with your reasoning. I say permit recreation by Transhumanist.
1145:
1115:
1066:
2426:
14:57, 19 January 2008 DragonflySixtyseven (Talk | contribs) deleted "National High School Center" ‎ (not an article)
986:
2433:
1070:
864:
859:
456:
316:
304:
298:
294:
2557:
2348:
2331:
2312:
2291:
2211:
2071:
1664:
1607:
1089:
961:
912:
875:
567:
108:
17:
2233:
2057:
1582:
1249:
978:
933:
483:
382:
256:
about SPAs and harassment. S/he seems to be hijacking the process here as a soapbox for his/her own concern. --
2003:
are not helpful. Endorse closure, lament deletion, encourage recreation, happy to userfy the deleted article.
1829:
Ahmm are we reading the same AfD - I read 6 deletes and 2 keeps (plus probably one from the original author)--
874:
a wiki admin pegasus has deleted the whole content of the article which was restored by me in accordance with
313:
3)reliable sources are required when some facts are to be proven (not to mention i aint proving any fact here.
1988:
Not exactly definitive sources, but in the absence of a clear consensus to delete, it should have been kept.
518:
You are right, note 8 is a mention in connection with a different event. Still, I'm not convinced this meets
2465:
organisation uses to talk about itself is not in general suitable for re-deployment in an encyclopedia (see
2092:
2007:
1689:
883:
in spite of the warning that this template can not be removed and this page can not be left blank the admin
2316:– Now known to be a copyright violation, so can't be restored. Guidance on possible recreation within. –
495:
Lastly, I want the note no 8 to be checked , which covers altogether different event of the organization.
1977:
1758:
after the second relisting, when the consensus was momentarily in favor of deletion. Folks, this looks
1283:, unanimously deleted the article, even collecting deletes from some notable inclusionists. The AfD for
898:
845:
827:
802:
784:
765:
575:
503:
464:
329:
282:
261:
239:
218:
200:
2546:
2521:
2493:
2459:
2441:
2320:
2277:
2259:
2236:
2219:
2205:
2173:
2144:
2125:
2112:
2096:
2079:
2060:
2045:
2023:
2010:
1996:
1981:
1950:
1927:
1902:
1877:
1848:
1835:
1824:
1810:
1784:
1681:
1653:
1628:
1596:
1571:
1516:
There are at least 3 possible options for these "navigational" style lists, that I've suggested before.
1494:
1473:
1446:
1429:
1396:
1382:
1351:
1330:
1308:
1299:
1264:
1243:
1226:
1193:
1180:
1150:
1134:
1120:
950:
902:
849:
831:
806:
788:
769:
750:
716:
684:
654:
628:
603:
579:
556:
531:
507:
468:
434:
425:
does not apply as it's a non-profit organization like any other, so standard guidelines can be used. --
406:
367:
346:
that she wants us to IAR. I've attempted over and over again to explain that the articles must include
333:
265:
243:
222:
204:
97:
2157:
that it is a valid way to evaluate whether a topic should be covered by Knowledge. The sub-guidelines
1766:, no consensus is reached, it's horribly bad form to close it a mere 12 hours after re-listing when a
1521:
accept their existence and leave them as they are. (with the aim of developing them to the quality of
1319:
350:
discussion of the organization; but she feels we should cut them some slack because they are new, and
2478:
2200:
2053:. Shouldn't the edit history have been maintained upon userfication? It doesn't seem to have been. --
1920:
1796:
598:
417:
that event, I could not find an automated translator for it), I don't believe that is enough to meet
362:
288:
2230:
2154:
2054:
2508:
2273:
2252:
2170:
2109:
2088:
2004:
1898:
1567:
1529:
1460:
1420:
1369:
1240:
1167:
1078:
1074:
867:, guideline (AND NOT POLICY) then being admin, you should consider the retention of this article.
737:
671:
615:
527:
430:
1857:- that would be the comment from Dhartung which he later turned into a Delete? - good come back
2448:
2421:
A couple weeks after my article was posted, it was deleted by user DragonflySixtyseven:
2040:
1872:
1862:
1830:
1805:
1592:
1442:
646:
398:
133:
1535:
move them to portalspace. (complicated and currently consensusless option, but a possibility)
1437:
Since this has been covered many times, why not make it in userspace and then have this DRV.
2542:
2538:
2490:
1994:
1846:
1822:
1649:
1645:
1393:
1347:
1343:
1296:
1261:
1223:
1190:
1131:
946:
942:
894:
841:
823:
798:
780:
761:
712:
708:
571:
552:
548:
499:
460:
386:
325:
319:, clearly states that If a rule prevents from improving or maintaining Knowledge, ignore it
257:
253:
235:
214:
196:
93:
89:
1271:
Woah hang on. The nomination here is slightly misleading. The AfD that is talked about was
2194:
2162:
2122:
1141:
1093:
1082:
1062:
592:
356:
2401:
2210:
Kurt is not the only person coming to that conclusion. This has probably gone too far.
1734:
1031:
178:
2470:
2466:
2455:
2185:- and wish to point out that Kurt Weber has taken a position (here and elsewhere) that
1912:
273:
I recommend everyone to get acquainted with the case history of Youth United. for that
2530:
2514:
2502:
2474:
2269:
2245:
2166:
2105:
1894:
1858:
1563:
1490:
1466:
1454:
1415:
1375:
1363:
1236:
1173:
1161:
743:
731:
677:
665:
621:
609:
523:
519:
490:
426:
422:
418:
390:
2482:
2317:
2158:
2131:
2032:
1937:
1924:
1771:
1438:
1410:
642:
394:
125:
76:
2386:
1719:
1016:
876:
Knowledge:Deletion_review#Principal_purpose_.E2.80.94_challenging_deletion_debates
568:
Knowledge:Deletion_review#Principal_purpose_.E2.80.94_challenging_deletion_debates
163:
1871:
Does that at all make you want to change your comment below on consensus point?--
1801:
Read it; it's bullshit--it runs counter to the entire purpose of an encyclopedia.
2534:
2486:
2186:
2150:
1989:
1916:
1841:
1817:
1641:
1389:
1339:
1292:
1257:
1219:
1186:
1127:
938:
704:
544:
85:
1640:
against recreating the article with improved sources and notability details. –
234:
Seeking your cooperation.P.S. Note no 12 requires a hindi font to be downloaded
1305:
2451:
2087:
This looks like a perfectly valid article on a perfectly legitimate play.
1485:
1453:
I would support a userfied version, pre-DRV. Good suggestion, JoshuaZ.
1304:
Notable inclusionists? Isn't that a reason to have an article on them? -
1215:
664:
deletion discussions (which is allowed and not considered canvassing).
1211:
1275:, where there may have been some problems of perception. The AfD for
1210:
of fictional things, but a list singular of fictional things, from
1099:
The new list that I'd like to create would be part of that system.
2016:
Userfy and return to article space once it has sufficient sources.
311:
2) it should be treated with common sense and OCCASIONAL EXCEPTION
1795:; and in response to a request by another editor for him to read
2447:
Looking at the deleted version, it was a copyright violation of
1770:
just happens to agree with the closing admin's own prejudices.
1061:
For a comparison of other lists of lists on Knowledge, see
1636:, but based on the comments it should be clear that it is
1546:
Knowledge talk:Move navigational lists to portal namespace
1096:
system, which serves as a table of contents to Knowledge.
1483:
if it will be an improved article over what was deleted.
1281:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional topics
1273:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional things
1052:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lists of fictional things
1252:, it was like this: (article proper to its title) -: -->
856:
Rationality and sensibility is expected from wiki admins
2382:
2378:
2374:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1557:
Knowledge:Categories, lists, and navigational templates
1200:
Looking at the last-but-one deleted revision, this was
1012:
1008:
1004:
638:
159:
155:
151:
1542:
Knowledge:Village pump (policy)/Archive 14#Index lists
1934:
on Knowledge, what is termed "policy" is non-binding
1590:
be a part of the existing "lists of topics" series.
587:
She has a good point here, Stifle; seems to me this
1932:So-called "policy compliance" is irrelevant, since
1911:we can write policy compliant articles - including
1435:
allow recreation in userspace and see how that goes
1919:. The community consensus on this is captured at
887:has deleted this template and left the page blank.
389:has persisted in reuploading deleted material and
381:. Even the latest reliable sources do not follow
591:the proper venue for her to raise her issues! --
1255:Recreated as list of fictional creatures -: -->
480:if you dont't want to listen, you won't listen.
1528:tag them as being "disambiguation" pages. (as
1511:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Lists of films
1855:the old count the comment as required routine
385:and do not account for much of the text, and
8:
484:Knowledge:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources
383:Knowledge:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources
277:Knowledge:Articles_for_deletion/Youth_United
2330:The following is an archived debate of the
1793:Frankly, why is "notability" even relevant?
1663:The following is an archived debate of the
960:The following is an archived debate of the
289:User_talk:Orangemike#Regarding_Youth_United
107:The following is an archived debate of the
2305:
1621:
926:
69:
1861:. I like it - made me smile. Cheers!--
1502:. As TT points out, this is part of the
41:
1548:, and other places linked from those 2.
50:
2153:is relevant because the community has
1585:(not "things") - lists and categories
1104:category for lists of fictional things
33:
309:1) this is a guideline and not policy
7:
2035:to userfy to his pages. Now done to
1248:Sorry, that's not what I meant. For
283:User_talk:Extolmonica#Youth_United_3
2560:of the page listed in the heading.
2294:of the page listed in the heading.
1610:of the page listed in the heading.
915:of the page listed in the heading.
637:engaged in talkpage spamming, see
28:
1414:, and consensus remains clear. /
1050:The primary list was deleted at
703:My recommendation is unchanged.
478:you are following the statement
2556:The above is an archive of the
2290:The above is an archive of the
1606:The above is an archive of the
911:The above is an archive of the
2031:Have since been approached by
777:added more third party sources
660:contributed to the article or
1:
2483:reliable, third-party sources
1555:redundant to categories, see
1092:, and together they form the
30:
1768:momentary shift in consensus
1544:, and current discussion at
2349:National High School Center
2313:National High School Center
1867:23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1540:See previous discussion at
1523:Lists of mathematics topics
1362:to be in the first place.
1067:Lists of mathematics topics
2583:
2547:14:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2522:23:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2494:17:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2481:, along with the need for
2460:15:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2442:13:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2321:21:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2278:16:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
2260:05:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
2237:02:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
2220:19:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2206:13:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2174:06:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2145:06:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2126:03:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2113:02:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2097:01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2080:23:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2061:02:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
2046:22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2024:21:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2011:21:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1997:21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1951:21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1928:21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1903:21:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1878:23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1849:22:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1836:21:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1825:21:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1811:21:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1785:20:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1654:08:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
1597:00:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
1572:19:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
1495:00:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
1474:20:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
1447:20:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
1430:18:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
1397:23:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
1383:17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
1352:14:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
1331:14:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
1309:17:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
1300:10:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
1265:10:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
1244:02:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
1227:01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
1194:01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
1181:23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1151:00:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
1135:22:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1121:21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
1071:Lists of philosophy topics
951:08:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
903:20:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
865:Knowledge:Reliable sources
860:Knowledge:Reliable sources
850:15:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
832:19:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
807:18:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
797:Thanks for renumbering. --
789:18:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
770:17:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
751:17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
717:21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
685:17:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
655:17:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
629:17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
604:14:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
580:14:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
557:14:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
532:15:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
508:14:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
489:Consider reading this too
469:14:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
457:Knowledge:Ignore_all_rules
435:13:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
407:13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
368:13:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
334:22:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
317:Knowledge:Ignore all rules
305:Knowledge:Reliable sources
299:Knowledge:Ignore all rules
295:Knowledge:Reliable sources
266:17:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
244:22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
223:21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
205:20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
98:08:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
1583:Lists of fictional topics
1250:Lists of fictional things
979:Lists of fictional topics
937:– Recreation permitted –
934:Lists of fictional topics
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
2563:Please do not modify it.
2337:Please do not modify it.
2297:Please do not modify it.
1670:Please do not modify it.
1613:Please do not modify it.
1408:- this has been covered
967:Please do not modify it.
918:Please do not modify it.
114:Please do not modify it.
43:Deletion review archives
1500:Strong Allow recreation
1279:article was different:
1140:lists as stated in the
2334:of the article above.
1667:of the article above.
964:of the article above.
307:, clearly states that:
111:of the article above.
2434:Highschoolimprovement
1750:Article was relisted
1638:without any prejudice
1532:was for a few months)
1513:(overwhelming keep)).
1109:Please let me do so.
564:Consider Reading this
2212:Georgewilliamherbert
2072:Georgewilliamherbert
1921:Knowledge:Notability
1287:was endorsed at DRV
2485:to back things up.
2477:and more generally
1551:Finally, lists are
1504:navigational system
1088:Knowledge has many
566:. consider reading
391:asserting ownership
2189:is bad policy and
2043:
1992:
1875:
1865:
1844:
1833:
1820:
1808:
1756:less than 12 hours
1530:Lists of languages
1142:guideline on lists
1079:Lists of mountains
1075:Lists of countries
2570:
2569:
2518:
2304:
2303:
2155:reached consensus
2041:
2020:The Transhumanist
1990:
1873:
1863:
1842:
1831:
1818:
1806:
1760:really really bad
1682:Klondike Kalamity
1629:Klondike Kalamity
1620:
1619:
1470:
1428:
1379:
1328:
1177:
1147:The Transhumanist
1117:The Transhumanist
925:
924:
747:
681:
625:
82:Deletion endorsed
60:
59:
2574:
2565:
2527:Endorse deletion
2519:
2516:
2511:
2505:
2499:Endorse deletion
2404:
2390:
2372:
2339:
2306:
2299:
2256:
2250:
2203:
2197:
2161:(for books) and
2141:
2138:
2118:Endorse closure.
1947:
1944:
1781:
1778:
1737:
1723:
1705:
1672:
1622:
1615:
1579:Allow recreation
1481:allow recreation
1471:
1468:
1463:
1457:
1418:
1406:Endorse deletion
1380:
1377:
1372:
1366:
1336:Endorse deletion
1326:
1320:
1232:Allow recreation
1178:
1175:
1170:
1164:
1034:
1020:
1002:
969:
927:
920:
748:
745:
740:
734:
728:Endorse deletion
682:
679:
674:
668:
626:
623:
618:
612:
601:
595:
541:Endorse deletion
365:
359:
254:User:Extolmonica
181:
167:
149:
116:
70:
56:
36:
31:
2582:
2581:
2577:
2576:
2575:
2573:
2572:
2571:
2561:
2558:deletion review
2515:
2509:
2503:
2413:
2407:
2400:
2399:
2393:
2363:
2347:
2335:
2332:deletion review
2295:
2292:deletion review
2268:re-creation. --
2265:Endorse closure
2254:
2246:
2227:Endorse closure
2201:
2195:
2183:Endorse closure
2139:
2136:
2102:Endorse closure
1945:
1942:
1908:Endorse closure
1779:
1776:
1746:
1740:
1733:
1732:
1726:
1696:
1680:
1668:
1665:deletion review
1634:endorse closure
1611:
1608:deletion review
1467:
1461:
1455:
1376:
1370:
1364:
1327:
1322:
1174:
1168:
1162:
1094:Lists of topics
1083:Lists of topics
1063:Lists of people
1043:
1037:
1030:
1029:
1023:
993:
977:
965:
962:deletion review
916:
913:deletion review
872:On the Contrary
744:
738:
732:
678:
672:
666:
622:
616:
610:
599:
593:
363:
357:
352:are going to be
275:1) Please read
190:
184:
177:
176:
170:
140:
124:
112:
109:deletion review
68:
61:
54:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2580:
2578:
2568:
2567:
2552:
2551:
2550:
2549:
2524:
2496:
2462:
2429:
2428:
2415:
2414:
2411:
2405:
2397:
2391:
2342:
2341:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2302:
2301:
2286:
2285:
2283:
2281:
2280:
2262:
2239:
2231:Metropolitan90
2224:
2223:
2222:
2193:be ignored. --
2180:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2176:
2149:Our guideline
2115:
2099:
2082:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2064:
2063:
2055:Metropolitan90
2013:
2005:Angus McLellan
1986:
1985:
1984:
1983:
1979:
1975:
1971:
1964:
1963:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1905:
1888:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1883:
1882:
1881:
1880:
1748:
1747:
1744:
1738:
1730:
1724:
1675:
1674:
1659:
1658:
1657:
1656:
1618:
1617:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1560:
1549:
1537:
1536:
1533:
1526:
1518:
1517:
1514:
1497:
1477:
1476:
1450:
1449:
1432:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1355:
1354:
1333:
1321:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1254:Deleted -: -->
1229:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1090:Lists of lists
1045:
1044:
1041:
1035:
1027:
1021:
972:
971:
956:
955:
954:
953:
923:
922:
907:
906:
891:
888:
882:
879:
869:
868:
835:
834:
819:
812:
811:
810:
809:
792:
791:
773:
772:
754:
753:
724:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
560:
559:
537:
536:
535:
534:
497:
496:
494:
488:
472:
471:
452:substantiality
438:
437:
410:
409:
371:
370:
339:
338:
337:
336:
322:
314:
312:
310:
308:
303:
302:
291:
286:
280:
274:
268:
232:
231:
225:
192:
191:
188:
182:
174:
168:
119:
118:
103:
102:
101:
100:
67:
62:
58:
57:
49:
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2579:
2566:
2564:
2559:
2554:
2553:
2548:
2544:
2540:
2536:
2532:
2528:
2525:
2523:
2520:
2512:
2506:
2500:
2497:
2495:
2492:
2488:
2484:
2480:
2479:WP:NOTABILITY
2476:
2472:
2468:
2463:
2461:
2457:
2453:
2449:
2446:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2439:
2435:
2427:
2424:
2423:
2422:
2419:
2410:
2403:
2396:
2388:
2384:
2380:
2376:
2371:
2367:
2362:
2358:
2354:
2350:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2340:
2338:
2333:
2328:
2327:
2322:
2319:
2315:
2314:
2310:
2309:
2308:
2307:
2300:
2298:
2293:
2288:
2287:
2284:
2279:
2275:
2271:
2266:
2263:
2261:
2258:
2257:
2251:
2249:
2243:
2240:
2238:
2235:
2232:
2228:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2209:
2208:
2207:
2204:
2198:
2192:
2188:
2184:
2181:
2175:
2172:
2168:
2164:
2160:
2156:
2152:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2142:
2133:
2129:
2128:
2127:
2124:
2119:
2116:
2114:
2111:
2107:
2103:
2100:
2098:
2094:
2090:
2089:Eclecticology
2086:
2083:
2081:
2077:
2073:
2068:
2062:
2059:
2056:
2052:
2049:
2048:
2047:
2044:
2038:
2034:
2030:
2027:
2026:
2025:
2022:
2021:
2017:
2014:
2012:
2009:
2006:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1995:
1993:
1982:
1980:
1978:
1976:
1974:
1972:
1970:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1962:per nom, and:
1961:
1958:
1957:
1952:
1948:
1939:
1935:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1926:
1922:
1918:
1914:
1909:
1906:
1904:
1900:
1896:
1892:
1889:
1879:
1876:
1870:
1866:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1847:
1845:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1834:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1823:
1821:
1814:
1813:
1812:
1809:
1802:
1798:
1797:WP:EVERYTHING
1794:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1782:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1764:20 whole days
1761:
1757:
1753:
1743:
1736:
1729:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1709:
1704:
1700:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1683:
1679:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1673:
1671:
1666:
1661:
1660:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1630:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1616:
1614:
1609:
1604:
1603:
1598:
1595:
1594:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1577:
1573:
1569:
1565:
1561:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1538:
1534:
1531:
1527:
1524:
1520:
1519:
1515:
1512:
1508:
1507:
1505:
1501:
1498:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1487:
1482:
1479:
1478:
1475:
1472:
1464:
1458:
1452:
1451:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1433:
1431:
1426:
1422:
1417:
1413:
1412:
1407:
1404:
1403:
1398:
1395:
1391:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1381:
1373:
1367:
1361:
1357:
1356:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1334:
1332:
1329:
1325:
1317:
1314:
1310:
1307:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1263:
1259:
1251:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1242:
1238:
1233:
1230:
1228:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1179:
1171:
1165:
1159:
1156:
1152:
1149:
1148:
1143:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1119:
1118:
1113:
1110:
1107:
1105:
1100:
1097:
1095:
1091:
1086:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1059:
1055:
1053:
1048:
1040:
1033:
1026:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1001:
997:
992:
988:
984:
980:
976:
975:
974:
973:
970:
968:
963:
958:
957:
952:
948:
944:
940:
936:
935:
931:
930:
929:
928:
921:
919:
914:
909:
908:
905:
904:
900:
896:
886:
877:
873:
866:
861:
857:
854:
853:
852:
851:
847:
843:
839:
833:
829:
825:
822:
817:
814:
813:
808:
804:
800:
796:
795:
794:
793:
790:
786:
782:
778:
775:
774:
771:
767:
763:
759:
756:
755:
752:
749:
741:
735:
729:
726:
725:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
686:
683:
675:
669:
663:
658:
657:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
631:
630:
627:
619:
613:
607:
606:
605:
602:
596:
590:
586:
583:
582:
581:
577:
573:
569:
565:
562:
561:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
539:
538:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
505:
501:
492:
491:Knowledge:OWN
485:
481:
477:
474:
473:
470:
466:
462:
458:
453:
448:
443:
440:
439:
436:
432:
428:
424:
420:
415:
412:
411:
408:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
373:
372:
369:
366:
360:
353:
349:
344:
341:
340:
335:
331:
327:
320:
318:
306:
300:
296:
290:
284:
278:
272:
269:
267:
263:
259:
255:
250:
249:
248:
247:
246:
245:
241:
237:
229:
228:Working links
226:
224:
220:
216:
212:
209:
208:
207:
206:
202:
198:
187:
180:
173:
165:
161:
157:
153:
148:
144:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
122:
121:
120:
117:
115:
110:
105:
104:
99:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
74:
73:
72:
71:
66:
65:10 March 2008
63:
53:
48:
44:
39:
32:
23:
19:
2562:
2555:
2543:trivial vote
2526:
2498:
2430:
2425:
2420:
2416:
2336:
2329:
2311:
2296:
2289:
2282:
2264:
2253:
2247:
2241:
2226:
2190:
2182:
2135:
2117:
2101:
2084:
2050:
2028:
2019:
2015:
1987:
1959:
1941:
1933:
1907:
1890:
1868:
1854:
1800:
1792:
1775:
1767:
1763:
1759:
1755:
1751:
1749:
1669:
1662:
1650:trivial vote
1637:
1633:
1627:
1612:
1605:
1593:Black Falcon
1591:
1586:
1578:
1552:
1503:
1499:
1484:
1480:
1434:
1411:ad infinitum
1409:
1405:
1359:
1348:trivial vote
1335:
1323:
1316:Keep deleted
1315:
1284:
1276:
1231:
1206:
1205:
1201:
1157:
1146:
1116:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1101:
1098:
1087:
1060:
1056:
1049:
1046:
966:
959:
947:trivial vote
932:
917:
910:
884:
871:
870:
855:
837:
836:
820:
815:
776:
758:Rationality:
757:
727:
713:trivial vote
661:
634:
588:
584:
563:
553:trivial vote
540:
515:
498:
479:
475:
451:
446:
441:
413:
378:
374:
351:
347:
342:
315:
271:Case History
270:
233:
227:
210:
193:
126:Youth United
113:
106:
94:trivial vote
81:
77:Youth United
75:
64:
2196:Orange Mike
1112:Sincerely,
1102:There is a
895:Extolmonica
842:Extolmonica
824:Extolmonica
799:AndrewHowse
781:Extolmonica
762:Extolmonica
594:Orange Mike
572:Extolmonica
500:Extolmonica
476:Rationality
461:Extolmonica
447:substantial
387:Extolmonica
358:Orange Mike
348:substantial
326:Extolmonica
258:AndrewHowse
236:Extolmonica
215:AndrewHowse
197:Extolmonica
2517:Disclaimer
2132:Kurt Weber
1938:Kurt Weber
1772:Kurt Weber
1587:complement
1469:Disclaimer
1378:Disclaimer
1253:AfD -: -->
1176:Disclaimer
838:to Pegasus
816:the appeal
746:Disclaimer
680:Disclaimer
624:Disclaimer
455:reading :
47:2008 March
1893:per nom.
1799:he wrote
1158:Go for it
639:this diff
442:The point
301:policies.
2270:Minimaki
2248:Dycedarg
2242:Overturn
2167:Dhartung
2163:WP:MOVIE
2106:Dhartung
1960:Overturn
1895:Mvuijlst
1891:Overturn
1564:Quiddity
1416:Blaxthos
1360:supposed
1324:(1Â ==Â 2)
1237:Dhartung
1216:Big Bird
651:contribs
633:But she
524:Minimaki
427:Minimaki
403:contribs
379:redelete
285:and then
281:2) read
52:March 11
20: |
2395:restore
2366:protect
2361:history
2318:GRBerry
2085:Restore
2051:Comment
2033:Toglmer
2029:Comment
1925:GRBerry
1913:WP:NPOV
1853:Ahhh -
1728:restore
1699:protect
1694:history
1439:JoshuaZ
1212:Rudolph
1025:restore
996:protect
991:history
885:pegasus
643:Jeff G.
641:.  —
516:Comment
395:Jeff G.
393:.  —
287:3) read
172:restore
143:protect
138:history
38:March 9
2535:Stifle
2531:WP:NOT
2504:Keeper
2487:Splash
2475:WP:ORG
2370:delete
2234:(talk)
2140:Colts!
2058:(talk)
2008:(Talk)
1991:Avruch
1946:Colts!
1843:Avruch
1819:Avruch
1780:Colts!
1703:delete
1642:Stifle
1456:Keeper
1390:Splash
1365:Keeper
1340:Stifle
1293:Splash
1285:Things
1258:Splash
1220:Splash
1187:Splash
1163:Keeper
1128:Splash
1081:, and
1000:delete
939:Stifle
733:Keeper
705:Stifle
667:Keeper
611:Keeper
545:Stifle
520:WP:ORG
423:WP:IAR
419:WP:ORG
414:Uphold
375:Uphold
343:Uphold
297:, and
279:, then
211:Uphold
147:delete
86:Stifle
2402:cache
2387:views
2379:watch
2375:links
2159:WP:BK
2123:Sarah
1752:twice
1735:cache
1720:views
1712:watch
1708:links
1306:Bobet
1032:cache
1017:views
1009:watch
1005:links
662:prior
585:Reply
179:cache
164:views
156:watch
152:links
55:: -->
16:<
2539:talk
2529:per
2471:here
2469:and
2467:here
2456:talk
2452:Fram
2438:talk
2383:logs
2357:talk
2353:edit
2274:talk
2216:talk
2202:Talk
2191:must
2187:WP:N
2171:Talk
2151:WP:N
2110:Talk
2093:talk
2076:talk
2037:here
1917:WP:V
1915:and
1899:talk
1716:logs
1690:talk
1686:edit
1646:talk
1568:talk
1491:talk
1443:talk
1344:talk
1289:here
1277:this
1241:Talk
1204:list
1013:logs
987:talk
983:edit
943:talk
899:talk
846:talk
828:talk
803:talk
785:talk
766:talk
709:talk
647:talk
600:Talk
576:talk
549:talk
528:talk
522:. --
504:talk
465:talk
431:talk
399:talk
377:and
364:Talk
330:talk
262:talk
240:talk
219:talk
201:talk
160:logs
134:talk
130:edit
90:talk
35:<
2541:) (
2513:|
2507:|
2409:AfD
2199:|
2039:.--
1859:Max
1742:AfD
1648:) (
1581:of
1553:not
1486:DGG
1465:|
1459:|
1374:|
1368:|
1346:) (
1214:to
1202:not
1172:|
1166:|
1039:AfD
945:) (
742:|
736:|
711:) (
676:|
670:|
635:has
620:|
614:|
597:|
551:) (
361:|
186:AfD
92:) (
22:Log
2545:)
2510:76
2491:tk
2489:-
2458:)
2440:)
2385:|
2381:|
2377:|
2373:|
2368:|
2364:|
2359:|
2355:|
2276:)
2218:)
2169:|
2143:)
2137:Go
2108:|
2095:)
2078:)
2042:VS
1949:)
1943:Go
1901:)
1874:VS
1869:PS
1864:VS
1832:VS
1807:VS
1783:)
1777:Go
1718:|
1714:|
1710:|
1706:|
1701:|
1697:|
1692:|
1688:|
1652:)
1570:)
1506::
1493:)
1462:76
1445:)
1423:/
1419:(
1394:tk
1392:-
1371:76
1350:)
1297:tk
1295:-
1262:tk
1260:-
1239:|
1235:--
1224:tk
1222:-
1191:tk
1189:-
1169:76
1132:tk
1130:-
1077:,
1073:,
1069:,
1065:,
1015:|
1011:|
1007:|
1003:|
998:|
994:|
989:|
985:|
949:)
901:)
848:)
830:)
805:)
787:)
768:)
739:76
715:)
673:76
653:)
617:76
589:is
578:)
555:)
530:)
506:)
467:)
433:)
421:.
405:)
355:--
332:)
264:)
242:)
221:)
203:)
162:|
158:|
154:|
150:|
145:|
141:|
136:|
132:|
96:)
84:–
80:–
45::
2537:(
2454:(
2436:(
2412:)
2406:|
2398:|
2392:(
2389:)
2351:(
2272:(
2255:ж
2214:(
2134:(
2091:(
2074:(
1940:(
1897:(
1774:(
1745:)
1739:|
1731:|
1725:(
1722:)
1684:(
1644:(
1566:(
1525:)
1489:(
1441:(
1427:)
1425:c
1421:t
1342:(
1207:s
1042:)
1036:|
1028:|
1022:(
1019:)
981:(
941:(
897:(
844:(
826:(
801:(
783:(
764:(
707:(
649:|
645:(
574:(
547:(
526:(
502:(
463:(
429:(
401:|
397:(
328:(
321:.
260:(
238:(
217:(
199:(
189:)
183:|
175:|
169:(
166:)
128:(
88:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.