74:– I'm pretty sure I did this before, but this is the wrong venue and DRV isn't going to overturn a merge at AFD as the only option available is delete as keep, non-consensus and merge all are defaults to keep. Please don't undo this agin barbario. This is long standing practise and you shold accept it and go look for a new consensus rather then butting heads over this. –
818:. The previous DRV on this matter was reviewed and taken in to account; I have essentially treated this as a continuation thereof. The relist based on a somewhat early close is probably not the best idea, particularly not in a contentious case such as this one, but what is done is done. In any event, while it may be accurately stated that there is no
269:, which may explain the lack of activity during the initial AFD period. This was then compounded as the following week was Thanksgiving in the US. Perhaps Administrators should be cautioned against closing debates over holiday weekends and allowing them explicit extra time beyond them if further debate is needed to draw consensus. --
1212:
A reasonable point, but WP:RELIST has it as relisting if there is only one or two commenters (including the nominator). That one was at 3 or 4 depending on how you count. I agree we commonly see discussions relisted with more comments so I understand that reality and the rules-as-written vary. But
1182:
Meaning no offense to Tim, I don't believe that should have been relisted, it was an obvious keep at that point, and certainly didn't meet WP:RELISTs guideline for relisting. Even when it was closed the !vote was nearly even and there was no need to then close it so soon after the relist. In short,
439:
that the article is required to be merged into another, then the content deleted and replaced with a redirect. I think it's actually a novel invention here that Merge is not a result that requires the deletion of material in some way. Clearly some material is going to be lost in the merge due, and it
286:
The content has not been deleted, and merge is a variety of keep from the perspective of DRV. Unless the nominator wants the content deleted, which it does not appear he does, there is nothing here for DRV. Merging is subject to discussion by editors on the talk page of the appropriate article(s).
193:
Two issues with this AFD. First, it was re-listed despite having more than two comments on it, and substantial policy related statements given. Second, the deleting admin has chosen Merge despite no clear consensus to do so. (Four Merge !votes to Four Keep !votes) I have attempted to ask the admin to
1327:
put simply, at the AfD , there just was no consensus to delete. The correct action would have been to keep the relist open the full time & if the situation did not change, to close as non-consensus. There was a group of keeps before the relist, and some deletes afterwards. Closing as soon as
708:
DRV, and the speedy deletion was overturned. It seems to me, reading over that discussion and the speedy policy page, when there's been a good faith effort to improve the article, and there's a reasonable case that there's been some improvement, that the decision on redeletion should be made by the
667:
This article has been deleted twice. Once at the start of the year and once now. I have written the article, taking on feedback from before and added it tonight. I feel I have added so much information and referanced it all as much as i can. It is all fact. The person is known in LGBT circles and is
318:
Wait, what? Merge isn't deletion? It sure looks like it to me. If editors tried to keep the article around they would be overridden - the alternative was merge or delete, not merge or keep. That said, I think the conclusion was correct; there's just not enough about this person in verifiable sources
516:
delete the redirect after a merge, because that breaks GDFL. I've posted more on the Talk page, but "Merge" closures have been with us for a long time now, and standing procedure is to discuss the Merge at the merge-target page. DRV doesn't touch it unless there is something admins have to fix (ie.
444:
that now has to be over-come rather than a mere suggestion. I am also concered by those admins that claim this is the incorrect venue to discuss this. The current wording of the various policy, guideline and templates all direct disputes over AFD results to DRV. Claiming that Merge results now need
945:
in unblanked form) rather clearly shows no consensus; the error, then is to have closed a no-consensus AfD as delete. There is particular concern from the fact that in the original run of the AfD there was clear consensus for keep; it was relisted -- and then closed later the very same day -- as
357:
as wrong venue. Nothing has been deleted and there's no request to overturn to delete. Therefore, because no use of the delete button is necessary, there is nothing for DRV to do here. To overturn an AfD "merge" close, start a discussion on the article's talk page and get a consensus not to merge
961:
I'm afraid that
Nomoskedasticity is not exactly picking up my exact meaning. My point about fresh nominations was more to do with DRVs closed very early before any real discussion has taken place. I closed the scroogle DRV around 12 hours early after the nominator started attacking other users'
472:
Barberio is simply wrong when he says that merge decisions cannot be overriden by normal discussion. A merge decision at an AfD can be changed by the simple expedient of getting consensus to demerge on the talk page of the merge target. Incidentally, merging and deletion is really bad because it
1328:
there were enough delete comments to balance, was wrong. I think it was just a careless misjudgment. If we are judging the close, not the ultimate issue, the close was wrong. Thedesire to end discussion on a contested debate early normally fails to end the discussion, and just sends it here.
1096:
Bleah, endorse. I probably would have gone the other way at the AfD, and based on that I commented here initially. I have since read through the other Drv, and am satisified that the matter has received the attention it's due. I might not agree, but there's no abuse of process here, and nothing
409:
I've seen this used as a defence many times by many people when it's pointed out that what happened doesn't match the consensus developed guidelines or policies. Sometimes it is correct, but most times it is simply that people have managed to do so un-noticed. This does not equate to 'its the
684:
is the version that I deleted today as a G4. Certainly, the articles are not identical. But the issue that caused the AFD participants to support deletion, the lack of coverage in reliable third party sources, does not appear to have been addressed in the new version, making it, I believe,
242:
weigh the strength of arguments. The arguments for keep were weak, so I gave them substantially less weight. The only argument for keep was "he won an award", but it is a minor furry fandom award, not a major award. I think my reading of the debate as favouring merge was correct.
1197:
I relisted due to the SPA keep !vote, with which discounted there was less than three !votes on either side. At the time of the relist, I thought that it could be closed with a couple more keeps and actually said that in response to an IRC query. How wrong I was......
215:. I relisted the discussion because I did not see substantial enough discussion and saw no harm in letting the debate run an additional seven days. Consensus can be some time in forming. I take no formal opinion on the close itself (which I had nothing to do with).
170:
about refusing to discuss 'Merge' closures, I'm reopening this. As it stands, it appears there's a pretty strong rejection that 'Merge' closures can not be reviewed. Discussion on if merge closures can be discussed or not needs to take place *there* not *here*.
426:
This is odd... Since it's not 'a single source'. It's 'a single source' *and* 'winning an award'. And had Fences read the article in question, he should have noted that there already existed a third source, of an interview conducted in 2004 with the
Comixtalk
743:. Looking at the lead sentences, there are new assertions about the individual. I agree that there are enough differences that the new version must stand on its own–even if that means getting deleted in another AfD, it at least should get the discussion. —
703:
send to AFD if desired. G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version." This page is not substantially identical to the deleted version, as the deleting admin acknowledges. The same issue was raised in the
November 23
410:
accepted practice'. If Fences and
Mackensen feel that the guideline here is incorrect, they should start a consensus effort to change it. But till then, I think it should stand since there hasn't been demonstrated consensus that the guideline is wrong.
1881:
then nominate it for deletion via prod or AfD--after you have checked to see that there are in fact no sources available. This is the place to review decision that have already been made , not to discuss them for the initial discussion.
822:
consensus one way or another in either this debate or the one that preceeded it, I am simply not seeing a compelling argument to belabor this issue any further, nor am I seeing any continued discussion as resulting in anything other than
1078:
Not on my part. I've been here just shy of two years; I know very little about DB and have no agenda regarding him. "What's going on" for me is simply out-of-process deletions -- particularly when no consensus is closed as delete.
337:
that the article should be replaced with a redirect to merged information in another article. Are you saying now that Merge results may be ignored, and should only be enacted if there's consensus on the talk pages of both articles?
473:
makes the GFDL a sad panda. If we are now treating merge decisions as not easily overridable then they must move to now be within the review of DRV. In which case, I would see clear notability and go for overturning.
936:
An earlier DRV (23 November) was closed early because of perceptions of bad faith and abusiveness on the part of the nominator (I don't dispute those perceptions). The person who closed the DRV has suggested
1245:), I typically relist when there are less than three !votes on either side, not counting SPAs. I also do it when late in the debate someone introduced some material information not previously considered.
298:
Good point, merge is not deletion. The interview that
Barberio is presenting is a nice source, but notability isn't established by a single source. At least it can be used to verify some of the content.
1056:
Hmm. Before I opine one way or the other, I'm not altogether sure I'm following everything here I should. I'm aware of DB's prior interaction w/ Knowledge (XXG); is there anything else going on here?
1213:
I really think it should have been closed there as keep. That said, the early close after the relist seemed quite problematic as I don't believe consensus can be said to have formed by that point.
1593:. On wikipedia there are thousands of articles about professional fourth division footballers and managers of many different countries,so I think they are accepted. In addiction he managed in one
919:
376:
Can I suggest you edit the
Deletion policy and Deletion policy review pages to say so if this is the accepted consensus. Otherwise, as written, disputing AFD results is to occur here. --
668:
a charity chairperson etc and does a lot of different work. I would appreciate if this could be looked at again. I have spoken to the admin who is not wishing to change his views.
1683:, this isn't a speedy. As a general rule, I recommend against using A7 when you feel it may be a close call: speedies aren't for close calls. I'd like to echo HW's Kudos though!
1666:. Nominator makes a reasonable case for notability, which in turn indicates that speedy deletion was not appropriate. Kudos to closing admin for not taking adversarial stance.
287:
Practically, I'd start by cutting this back to the reliably sourced content - which is indeed very little of the article. Then discuss whether that should be merged or not.
239:
1183:
it shouldn't have been relisted, and if it was, the relist should have been left to allow more discussion until consensus was clear (which the closing noted it wasn't...)
34:
1261:
I agree it is commonly violated, but I'd prefer we either change the policy or follow it. In this case, I'd prefer we follow it and close as NC in such a situation.
150:
48:
1285:
I have nothing to add to the remarks I made at the previous DRV, but I should be grateful if the closer would take those remarks into account when closing this one.—
1822:
1361:. On the topic of the earlier DRV, I feel it should have been left open, but attacks removed, or hidden. This is because early closure does not end the debate!
43:
1378:
The original AFD close was procedurally appropriate and this nomination is a premature collateral attack on it that is time-barred because of the recent DRV.
1357:
I was the first to question the rationale for closure of the AFD, however I was satisfied with the answer. However I would still like to see an article on
962:
motives. I see no point in redoing that DRV at this point and exactly what is the scope here? Are we considering my close or the deletion of the article?
1837:
1557:
1162:
No it wasn't, The nominator misunderstood my meaning - or I wasn't be very clear one or the other. I wasn't referring to the
Scroogle DRV.
1097:
productive can come of a 2nd DRV on the heels of the other one. I guess this is what happens when you take a few days off from this place.
576:
39:
831:
to see if it warrants any mention there, but there is no sense in making a zombie of this topic by kicking it back to AfD to be relisted
138:
774:
cases, ideally there would be significant interest in the article from other people. That said, I think a new AfD is reasonable here.
643:
1572:
1242:
167:
1296:
21:
1671:
1313:
714:
907:
159:
658:
1107:
1066:
308:
252:
194:
review this, but his response is that he decided to discount the Keep arguments because in his opinion they were wrong.
1906:
1772:
1719:
1507:
1467:
857:
789:
593:
537:
89:
17:
197:
Administrators are clearly not supposed to substitute their own judgement when a discussion results in no-consensus.
1792:
1667:
1654:
1309:
1087:
990:
951:
710:
767:
1395:
1366:
928:
423:
The interview that
Barberio is presenting is a nice source, but notability isn't established by a single source.
266:
1788:
1740:
1411:
1034:
946:
delete. This was hasty in the extreme, particularly insofar as the discussion was by that point evenly split.
828:
571:
941:
that the way to approach this is to lodge a more reasonable nomination. So here we are. The AfD (available
1126:- The DrV was closed a mere 12 hours early, and I don't see anything to overturn the close decision with. —
985:
The AfD, since the earlier discussion was closed early because of misbehavior on the part of the nominator.
300:
244:
1857:
1893:
1872:
1761:
1706:
1692:
1675:
1656:
1636:
1619:
1606:
1496:
1456:
1439:
1398:
1386:
1370:
1349:
1317:
1303:
1270:
1254:
1222:
1207:
1192:
1166:
1157:
1135:
1114:
1091:
1073:
1046:
1028:
1010:
994:
980:
966:
955:
846:
778:
754:
735:
718:
694:
582:
526:
500:
482:
458:
385:
371:
347:
328:
313:
291:
278:
257:
222:
206:
187:
78:
1649:
1644:
It seemed to me that A7 applied, possibly by a narrow margin. But I am happy, as I have already said to
1597:
match replacing the lead coach,even if I think this is not a relevant fact. The article was referenced.
1527:
1236:
1083:
986:
947:
690:
324:
108:
613:
238:, but if you want to just look at numbers there were four keeps vs five merges and two deletes. Admins
235:
1645:
1602:
1598:
1362:
1293:
1146:
that DRV was relisted by agreement with the closer. See the DRV nomination statement at the top.
1590:
1404:
1042:
1024:
1016:
1006:
566:
563:
219:
104:
70:
1847:
1423:
and close early. What on earth is going on here? It's dead - let it go already. Geez, people :( -
1228:
705:
609:
558:
403:
231:
1868:
1757:
1702:
1632:
1616:
1250:
1203:
1128:
976:
519:
454:
381:
367:
343:
274:
202:
183:
1851:
1452:
841:
478:
1745:
1523:
1488:
1232:
1103:
1062:
775:
770:
image to commons, I gather that the article author is, in fact, Mr McDowall? As often with
750:
686:
320:
1749:
771:
359:
1688:
1286:
1266:
1218:
1188:
731:
496:
1038:
1020:
1002:
216:
396:: In the above, Fences the closing admin has made the following claims about the AFD.
1889:
1864:
1753:
1698:
1628:
1345:
1335:
1246:
1199:
1153:
972:
877:
763:
512:, but there was nothing wrong with the Merge closure. As others have pointed out, we
450:
377:
363:
339:
270:
198:
179:
1493:
1448:
1380:
1163:
963:
836:
474:
288:
265:. As an extra bit of data, the original AFD took place at the same time as a major
75:
230:
as closing admin. 1. Relisting in this case was totally normal. If the guideline
1424:
1098:
1057:
745:
1394:
and close this DRV - smacks of "make 'em vote again until they get it right".--
1684:
1262:
1214:
1184:
727:
492:
418:
Not true on simply re-reading the AFD. There was an extra source identified.
445:
to be disputed by getting consensus on the talk page of the merged-to page
1884:
1586:
1582:
1358:
1340:
1330:
1148:
1081:
anyone who wants to enlighten me with a precis on DB is welcome to do so.
873:
810:
1594:
709:
community absent some compelling factor like copyvio or BLP violation.
1648:, to abide by consensus. Certainly I would not dispute an overturn. --
1846:
this article has no sources and there for i think should be removed.
234:
doesn't reflect standard practice we should change it. 2. AfD is
1231:
has to be the most frequently violated guidelines ever...Like
680:
was the version of the article deleted at AFD in April 2008.
1019:
or not? I think that's the only question of importance. --
1001:
I don't think this is a good idea. Let sleeping dogs lie. --
402:
Relisting in this case was totally normal. If the guideline
827:. The sanest suggestion I have seen is to discuss this at
1863:
Original timestamp was incorrect; correct one appended.
726:
per HW. Not a clear G4, let's just ship it off to AfD.
1829:
1815:
1807:
1799:
1564:
1550:
1542:
1534:
942:
938:
914:
900:
892:
884:
681:
677:
650:
636:
628:
620:
406:
doesn't reflect standard practice we should change it.
195:
145:
131:
123:
115:
449:, and seems to be invention of a new unwritten rule.--
1589:
is a fourth division professional championship,like
1627:, especially given the reference. This is not A7.
415:The only argument for keep was "he won an award".
487:I agree it needs to be made clear in policy, but
168:Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review#Edit_the_policies
333:In the past, Merge results have been viewed as
319:for a separate article to be more than a stub.
1615:– I don't think it quite meets A7 in my view.
766:is the same username as the user who uploaded
671:Thanks Np097264 23:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
8:
971:Is this a DRV to review the DRV or the AFD?
174:Speedy closing on the grounds of a disputed
1860:comment added 04:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC).
1771:The following is an archived debate of the
1506:The following is an archived debate of the
1033:Completely agreed. Seems like a matter for
856:The following is an archived debate of the
592:The following is an archived debate of the
88:The following is an archived debate of the
1733:
1481:
1447:both the original AfD and the recent DRV.
803:
551:
63:
435:Merge results at AFD have been taken as
166:(In line with the on-going dispute at
7:
1909:of the page listed in the heading.
1722:of the page listed in the heading.
1470:of the page listed in the heading.
792:of the page listed in the heading.
540:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
1037:, not Deletion review, though. --
1905:The above is an archive of the
1854:) 9:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
1718:The above is an archive of the
1466:The above is an archive of the
1338:) 18:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
1015:Is Scroogle worth a mention at
788:The above is an archive of the
536:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1:
583:04:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
562:– Overturn and list on AfD –
1894:07:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
1873:13:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
1762:08:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
1707:06:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
1693:06:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
1676:00:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
1657:20:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
1637:17:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
1620:17:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
1607:11:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
1497:03:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
1457:06:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
1440:04:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
1399:00:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
1387:23:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
1371:21:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
1350:17:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
1318:17:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
1304:11:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
1271:16:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
1255:07:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
1223:07:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
1208:06:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
1193:06:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
1167:02:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
1158:23:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
1136:23:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
1115:23:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
1092:23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
1074:23:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
1047:20:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
1029:20:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
1011:20:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
995:20:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
981:19:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
967:19:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
956:19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
847:16:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
779:22:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
755:22:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
736:17:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
719:00:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
695:23:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
527:19:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
501:06:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
483:05:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
459:03:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
386:03:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
372:03:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
348:03:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
329:03:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
314:01:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
292:01:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
279:01:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
258:00:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
223:00:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
207:00:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
188:18:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
79:19:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
1585:teams for almost 10 years.
1308:Same request as SMarshall.
1932:
675:Deleting admin's comments:
1789:The Day It All Made Sense
1741:The Day It All Made Sense
825:more continued discussion
768:this evidently self-taken
1912:Please do not modify it.
1778:Please do not modify it.
1725:Please do not modify it.
1513:Please do not modify it.
1473:Please do not modify it.
1035:Talk:Criticism of Google
863:Please do not modify it.
829:Talk:Criticism of Google
795:Please do not modify it.
599:Please do not modify it.
543:Please do not modify it.
95:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
1130:The Hand That Feeds You
521:The Hand That Feeds You
432:Merge is not deletion.
178:was not a great idea.--
1775:of the article above.
1510:of the article above.
1492:– speedy overturned –
860:of the article above.
596:of the article above.
92:of the article above.
1668:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
1403:What SMarshall said.
1310:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
1227:Meh. That portion of
711:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
772:conflict-of-interest
517:delete/undelete). —
1744:– Wrong venue. Try
1591:Football League Two
1017:Criticism of Google
508:- I'm a big fan of
1919:
1918:
1875:
1732:
1731:
1480:
1479:
1180:Overturn deletion
1112:
1110:So let it be done
1105:
1082:
1071:
1069:So let it be done
1064:
802:
801:
741:Overturn deletion
550:
549:
267:fandom convention
1923:
1914:
1862:
1861:
1842:
1840:
1832:
1818:
1810:
1802:
1780:
1734:
1727:
1651:Anthony.bradbury
1577:
1575:
1567:
1553:
1545:
1537:
1524:Carlo Garavaglia
1515:
1489:Carlo Garavaglia
1482:
1475:
1437:
1434:
1432:
1414:
1383:
1301:
1291:
1131:
1124:Procedural Close
1108:
1104:
1084:Nomoskedasticity
1080:
1067:
1063:
987:Nomoskedasticity
948:Nomoskedasticity
931:
926:
917:
903:
895:
887:
865:
804:
797:
663:
661:
653:
639:
631:
623:
601:
579:
574:
569:
552:
545:
522:
491:, wrong venue.
447:contradicts this
311:
307:
303:
255:
251:
247:
162:
157:
148:
134:
126:
118:
97:
64:
53:
35:2009 November 30
33:
1931:
1930:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1910:
1907:deletion review
1855:
1836:
1834:
1828:
1827:
1821:
1814:
1813:
1806:
1805:
1798:
1797:
1776:
1773:deletion review
1723:
1720:deletion review
1571:
1569:
1563:
1562:
1556:
1549:
1548:
1541:
1540:
1533:
1532:
1511:
1508:deletion review
1471:
1468:deletion review
1430:
1428:
1425:
1412:
1396:Scott Mac (Doc)
1381:
1363:Graeme Bartlett
1300:
1297:
1287:
1129:
1111:
1070:
927:
925:
922:
913:
912:
906:
899:
898:
891:
890:
883:
882:
861:
858:deletion review
793:
790:deletion review
657:
655:
649:
648:
642:
635:
634:
627:
626:
619:
618:
597:
594:deletion review
577:
572:
567:
541:
538:deletion review
520:
309:
305:
301:
253:
249:
245:
158:
156:
153:
144:
143:
137:
130:
129:
122:
121:
114:
113:
93:
90:deletion review
62:
59:1 December 2009
55:
54:
51:
49:2009 December 2
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1929:
1927:
1917:
1916:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1844:
1843:
1825:
1819:
1811:
1803:
1795:
1783:
1782:
1767:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1730:
1729:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1678:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1622:
1579:
1578:
1560:
1554:
1546:
1538:
1530:
1518:
1517:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1478:
1477:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1442:
1418:
1401:
1389:
1373:
1352:
1321:
1320:
1306:
1298:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1169:
1139:
1138:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1109:
1068:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1013:
999:
998:
997:
969:
934:
933:
923:
910:
904:
896:
888:
880:
868:
867:
852:
851:
850:
849:
800:
799:
784:
783:
782:
781:
757:
738:
721:
665:
664:
646:
640:
632:
624:
616:
604:
603:
588:
587:
586:
585:
548:
547:
532:
531:
530:
529:
503:
485:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
430:
429:
428:
421:
420:
419:
413:
412:
411:
391:
390:
389:
388:
351:
350:
331:
316:
295:
294:
281:
260:
225:
154:
141:
135:
127:
119:
111:
100:
99:
84:
83:
82:
81:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1928:
1915:
1913:
1908:
1903:
1902:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1886:
1880:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1859:
1853:
1849:
1839:
1831:
1824:
1817:
1809:
1801:
1794:
1790:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1781:
1779:
1774:
1769:
1768:
1763:
1759:
1755:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1742:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1728:
1726:
1721:
1716:
1715:
1708:
1704:
1700:
1697:Echo echoed.
1696:
1695:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1679:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1662:
1658:
1655:
1653:
1652:
1647:
1643:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1623:
1621:
1618:
1614:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1604:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1584:
1574:
1566:
1559:
1552:
1544:
1536:
1529:
1525:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1516:
1514:
1509:
1504:
1503:
1498:
1495:
1491:
1490:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1476:
1474:
1469:
1464:
1463:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1446:
1443:
1441:
1438:
1436:
1422:
1419:
1417:
1415:
1408:
1407:
1402:
1400:
1397:
1393:
1390:
1388:
1385:
1384:
1377:
1374:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1360:
1356:
1353:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1342:
1337:
1333:
1332:
1326:
1323:
1322:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1305:
1302:
1294:
1292:
1290:
1284:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1241:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1181:
1178:
1177:
1168:
1165:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1150:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1137:
1134:
1132:
1125:
1122:
1116:
1113:
1106:
1102:
1101:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1072:
1065:
1061:
1060:
1055:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
984:
983:
982:
978:
974:
970:
968:
965:
960:
959:
958:
957:
953:
949:
944:
940:
930:
921:
916:
909:
902:
894:
886:
879:
875:
872:
871:
870:
869:
866:
864:
859:
854:
853:
848:
845:
844:
840:
839:
834:
830:
826:
821:
817:
813:
812:
808:
807:
806:
805:
798:
796:
791:
786:
785:
780:
777:
773:
769:
765:
764:User:Np097264
761:
758:
756:
752:
748:
747:
742:
739:
737:
733:
729:
725:
722:
720:
716:
712:
707:
702:
699:
698:
697:
696:
692:
688:
685:G4-eligible.
683:
679:
676:
672:
669:
660:
652:
645:
638:
630:
622:
615:
611:
608:
607:
606:
605:
602:
600:
595:
590:
589:
584:
580:
575:
570:
565:
561:
560:
556:
555:
554:
553:
546:
544:
539:
534:
533:
528:
525:
523:
515:
511:
507:
506:Endorse close
504:
502:
498:
494:
490:
486:
484:
480:
476:
471:
468:
467:
460:
456:
452:
448:
443:
438:
434:
433:
431:
425:
424:
422:
417:
416:
414:
408:
407:
405:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
395:
387:
383:
379:
375:
374:
373:
369:
365:
361:
356:
353:
352:
349:
345:
341:
336:
332:
330:
326:
322:
317:
315:
312:
304:
297:
296:
293:
290:
285:
282:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
261:
259:
256:
248:
241:
237:
233:
229:
226:
224:
221:
218:
214:
211:
210:
209:
208:
204:
200:
196:
191:
189:
185:
181:
177:
172:
169:
164:
161:
152:
147:
140:
133:
125:
117:
110:
106:
105:Thomas K. Dye
102:
101:
98:
96:
91:
86:
85:
80:
77:
73:
72:
71:Thomas K. Dye
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
44:2009 December
41:
36:
23:
19:
1911:
1904:
1883:
1845:
1777:
1770:
1739:
1724:
1717:
1680:
1663:
1650:
1641:
1624:
1612:
1580:
1512:
1505:
1487:
1472:
1465:
1444:
1426:
1420:
1409:
1405:
1391:
1379:
1375:
1354:
1339:
1329:
1324:
1288:
1239:
1179:
1147:
1127:
1123:
1099:
1058:
1053:
935:
862:
855:
842:
837:
832:
824:
819:
815:
809:
794:
787:
759:
744:
740:
723:
706:Alison Rosen
700:
674:
673:
670:
666:
610:Rob McDowall
598:
591:
559:Rob McDowall
557:
542:
535:
518:
513:
509:
505:
489:speedy close
488:
469:
446:
441:
436:
393:
392:
355:Speedy close
354:
334:
283:
262:
227:
212:
192:
175:
173:
165:
103:
94:
87:
69:
58:
1856:—Preceding
1581:He managed
1233:Ron Ritzman
776:Chick Bowen
687:Steve Smith
358:there. See
321:GreenReaper
284:Wrong venue
1646:Der Schalk
1599:Der Schalk
1289:S Marshall
833:ad nauseum
510:Newshounds
240:can and do
236:not a vote
1752:. NAC. –
1229:WP:RELIST
1039:MZMcBride
1021:SmokeyJoe
1003:MZMcBride
762:. Since
442:direction
437:direction
427:magazine.
404:WP:RELIST
335:direction
232:WP:RELIST
217:Mackensen
1865:Tim Song
1754:Tim Song
1699:Tim Song
1681:overturn
1664:Overturn
1629:Tim Song
1625:Overturn
1617:MuZemike
1613:Overturn
1587:Serie C2
1583:Serie C2
1359:Scroogle
1355:Overturn
1325:Overturn
1247:Tim Song
1243:contribs
1200:Tim Song
973:Tim Song
874:Scroogle
816:endorsed
811:Scroogle
701:Restore,
451:Barberio
378:Barberio
364:Tim Song
340:Barberio
271:Barberio
199:Barberio
180:Barberio
20: |
1858:undated
1848:Charaba
1838:restore
1808:history
1746:WP:PROD
1642:Comment
1595:Serie A
1573:restore
1543:history
1494:Spartaz
1445:Endorse
1421:Endorse
1392:Endorse
1382:MBisanz
1376:Endorse
1164:Spartaz
1054:Comment
964:Spartaz
929:restore
893:history
760:Comment
724:Restore
659:restore
629:history
564:King of
475:JoshuaZ
470:comment
394:Comment
310:Windows
289:GRBerry
263:Comment
254:Windows
228:Comment
213:Comment
160:restore
124:history
76:Spartaz
1750:WP:AFD
1100:Xymmax
1059:Xymmax
820:strong
746:C.Fred
514:do not
360:WP:ND3
302:Fences
246:Fences
220:(talk)
1890:talk
1830:watch
1823:links
1685:Hobit
1565:watch
1558:links
1449:Kevin
1346:talk
1336:talk
1263:Hobit
1215:Hobit
1185:Hobit
1154:talk
915:watch
908:links
728:Hobit
651:watch
644:links
493:Hobit
440:is a
306:&
250:&
176:essay
146:watch
139:links
52:: -->
16:<
1869:talk
1852:talk
1816:logs
1800:edit
1793:talk
1758:talk
1703:talk
1689:talk
1672:talk
1633:talk
1603:talk
1551:logs
1535:edit
1528:talk
1453:talk
1413:Talk
1367:talk
1314:talk
1299:Cont
1267:talk
1251:talk
1237:talk
1219:talk
1204:talk
1189:talk
1088:talk
1043:talk
1025:talk
1007:talk
991:talk
977:talk
952:talk
943:here
939:here
901:logs
885:edit
878:talk
838:Sher
835:. –
751:talk
732:talk
715:talk
691:talk
682:This
678:This
637:logs
621:edit
614:talk
497:talk
479:talk
455:talk
382:talk
368:talk
344:talk
325:talk
275:talk
203:talk
184:talk
132:logs
116:edit
109:talk
32:<
1885:DGG
1748:or
1341:DGG
1331:DGG
1149:DGG
920:XfD
918:) (
843:eth
151:XfD
149:) (
22:Log
1892:)
1871:)
1760:)
1705:)
1691:)
1674:)
1635:)
1605:)
1455:)
1431:is
1406:NW
1369:)
1348:)
1316:)
1269:)
1253:)
1221:)
1206:)
1191:)
1156:)
1090:)
1045:)
1027:)
1009:)
993:)
979:)
954:)
814:–
753:)
734:)
717:)
693:)
581:♠
499:)
481:)
457:)
384:)
370:)
362:.
346:)
338:--
327:)
277:)
205:)
190:)
186:)
163:)
42::
1888:(
1867:(
1850:(
1841:)
1835:(
1833:)
1826:|
1820:|
1812:|
1804:|
1796:|
1791:(
1756:(
1701:(
1687:(
1670:(
1631:(
1601:(
1576:)
1570:(
1568:)
1561:|
1555:|
1547:|
1539:|
1531:|
1526:(
1451:(
1435:n
1433:o
1429:l
1427:A
1416:)
1410:(
1365:(
1344:(
1334:(
1312:(
1295:/
1265:(
1249:(
1240:·
1235:(
1217:(
1202:(
1187:(
1152:(
1133::
1086:(
1041:(
1023:(
1005:(
989:(
975:(
950:(
932:)
924:|
911:|
905:|
897:|
889:|
881:|
876:(
749:(
730:(
713:(
689:(
662:)
656:(
654:)
647:|
641:|
633:|
625:|
617:|
612:(
578:♣
573:♦
568:♥
524::
495:(
477:(
453:(
380:(
366:(
342:(
323:(
273:(
201:(
182:(
155:|
142:|
136:|
128:|
120:|
112:|
107:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.