1113:. The TfD nomination has an unfortunate procedural problem that results from our somewhat bureaucratic template rules: Userboxes are allowed in template space (if they are utterly uncontroversial), in project space (if it's a WikiProject template, although this is discouraged) or in user space (anything that we as a community can tolerate as being within our standards). Per previous discussion, however, all userboxes are supposed to be discussed at MfD regardless. If the discussion at TfD had only encompassed the template-space userbox, that would be a minor flaw not worth quibbling about; however, applying it to a userspace copy that wasn't part of the original nomination is problematic, because it's entirely possible that editors commenting on a userspace template at MfD would have applied a different standard from the one they have for templates in the main template namespace. The userspace version of the template ought to be reconsidered in the correct venue. Having said that, the principal result of the TfD nomination looks solid - there is a consensus not to have such a template in the main template namespace. Short version: What Collect said, in its entirety.
1712:
raising awareness about this should be praised not criticized! Secondly, there is nothing to suggest that rules #9 and #10 above applies to
Knowledge (XXG) in other languages. Of course vilifying editors on English Wiki is not ok because people can in fact read English and make up their own opinion about who's right and who's wrong. But people on English Wiki CANNOT understand the atrocities happening on Arabic Knowledge (XXG), and many of us feel that they need to. Thirdly, this is personal freedom and we are not harming anybody. This is merely our own opinion about a certain website. Like another person said, would you delete a template saying that rock music sucks because you would be harming the feelings of rock musicians??? Where exactly did the freedom of speech go??? --
1760:
Knowledge (XXG) guidelines did not consider
Knowledge (XXG) in other languages to be relevant, then that would mean this userbox doesn't even exist for the purpose of improving the encyclopedia it's on, and therefore there is even less reason to keep such a userbox. (c) Regardless of (a) and (b), some Arabic Knowledge (XXG) editors (you, for example!) are also English Knowledge (XXG) editors; I assume that even some Arabic Knowledge (XXG) administrators are English Knowledge (XXG) editors as well. Saying the output of Arabic editors is "completely biased" and "run by" Islamic fundamentalism is a direct attack on their willingness to follow Knowledge (XXG) guidelines, which compromises their reputation for
1263:. There is a clear consensus that this does not belong in the template namespace, but there are equally strong arguments for and against having this in userspace and there was no consensus about whether it should exist there. Combine this with TfD not being the proper venue for userbox deletions (and thus many of those interested and experienced in dealing with disputed userboxes may have missed this discussion), that not everyone in the discussion clearly expressed an opinion regarding having it in userspace (the anon's reason for deletion is irrelevant to userspace userboxes for example), and I cannot endorse deletion of the userspace version from this discussion. No prejudice against an MfD though.
650:(GUS) is long past. That said, the GUS still represents an important principle to consider in the default location of userboxes at their creation. Most userboxes are now moved to the userspace by default. This makes userboxes in template space the exception rather than the rule. Consequently, the location of the discussion becomes less of an important process issue. Similarly, the community's depreciation of CSD T1 indicates a shift toward discussion generally, but also away from a need to conduct said discussions in a given namespace. We are dealing with one userbox here and not the systematic deletion of many.
1247:. Support for the template came in the form of non-arguments like "it's true" and the rather self-perpetuating "keep because others want it kept". This isn't a vote, so it doesn't matter how many bad arguments were made to keep it if they fail to address the concerns raised. I can see this being relisted at MfD and getting the same result, so I would regard that as a waste of time. (note that I don't usually go in for bolding my stance in XfDs these days, but Lanternix has made a royal hash of the above discussion by repeatedly re-commenting and as such it's difficult to tell what's going on.)
1744:, which exposes Knowledge (XXG) itself to legal liability. This is the most strictly enforced rule on Knowledge (XXG), just for that reason. I am not sure how one can have 5300 edits on en.wikipedia and not have a clear idea of how important it is to avoid defaming living persons based on just thinking everyone else would believe you if they saw what you saw. Unless you have third party, uninvolved, already publicly-credible sources to show that every active person in a leadership role on Arabic Knowledge (XXG) either follows beliefs that are widely held to be
1748:, or self-identifies as an Islamic fundamentalist, one cannot make this statement without attracting legal problems for Knowledge (XXG) from anyone who believes you have unfairly labeled them as following a belief they don't identify themselves as. It is prohibited on Knowledge (XXG) to make controversial statements about living people without something more concrete than the equivalent of "I know lots of people who think so" and "if you could see what I see, you'd know" (which is
1784:: "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts). Although Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge." It's worth pointing out that making your "opinions become part of such knowledge" is exactly what you've said the intent of that userbox is. (It is also worth pointing out that even very free societies have defamation exceptions to
300:,speedy deleted as A7 in turn by admins NawlinWiki JamieS93 , and Lectonar. The article deleted differs from the current one in user space only by also including more of the subject's poetry. No possible notability at present; no published work, no public notice. The only source is some material he has posted on a blog. This is the sort of article A7 is designed for. The aritcle says he plans to run for Mayor of Lyon in 2011. If he wins, he will be notable.
2459:
irrelevant to userspace (notably "does not show expertise for article improvement on
English wikipedia"). And while several of the keep votes are weak (e.g. "I also think you guys should go and see some Arabic articles and judge for yourself.") this boils down to "it is a true statement", which should (and probably did) hold little weight for keeping the template but should not be discounted as a reason for keeping it as a userbox (it shouldn't be given
502:. Consider me confused about what you're asking for here. This was originally an article about a specific, non-notable collection of toys in Ohio. This was deleted at an AfD in 2007. On the same day the original article was deleted, the present article about toy museums in general was started. This present article has an unbroken edit history since 20 August 2007, has not been deleted (or even nominated for deletion) since.
664:(5) I acknowledge that I have no knowledge or opinion either way on the potential bias or POV of the Arabic and/or any other language Knowledge (XXG). I do not know the true motives of the userbox creator/users. It is possible that they are valid concerns of bias, and it is also possible that they represent another systematic bias on the part of said creators/users. It is not the part of this DRV to read hearts and minds.
1772:(XXG), second only to exposing personal identities of editors without consent. As I mentioned above to Arthur B above: If a template accused rock musicians of being "run by" people of a controversial religious belief (especially one with no specific definition) and of being "completely biased" as Knowledge (XXG) editors, yes, it would and should get deleted from Knowledge (XXG). Freedom of speech went to
900:. First, just to address the purely numerical issue: there were 2 keep comments, 5 who said to move the userbox from template space to user space, 7 who said to delete it, and 1 comment that I could not classify as making any recommendation. But of course consensus is not just about numbers, and I found the delete arguments to have more support from the guidelines they cited. Lanternix decided
2421:, we already went through another disucssion before about this before most people agreed to keep it yet it be moved to userspace which it was but still deleted anyway. Who on earth is this admin to overule on a voting outcome? which favoured keeping the template this is undermining the whole point of even bringing any complaints or discussion here if the outcome is already masterminded.
2187:" (emphasis added). Whilst the recipients may have expressed an opinion in the deletion discussion, deletion review considers a completely different issue - whether process was followed correctly. This is something that clearly could not have been discussed during the initial discussion and telling every user that the deletion was "
653:(3) Issues of process are not limited to discussion, but also to applications of speedy deletion policy. The main thread in opposition to undeleting or re-listing the userbox is based upon application of CSD G10. The argument of these !voters was that the userbox was an attack page--no matter what namespace it was present in.
2138:, leading Lanternix to notify the remaining participants (except two, who I notified to make it complete). I didn't bother to complain about the tilted wording because the participants from the TFD already had opinions about the subject and I didn't think the choice of phrasing would do much to change their views. --
2463:
weight, but should be given some). Also, as the copy to userspace did not happen until late in the discussion, you can't be certain that those commenting early one who didn't explicitly say anything about userspace hold the same opinion for both namespaces. All this points to there being no consensus
2226:
Of course you believe the deletion was unfounded; that's implied by the fact that you acted to challenge deletion, and doesn't especially need to be repeated. The editors commenting above are correct in saying that you should strive to be neutral in your notifications regardless, which can usually be
1625:
While there was a consensus that this userbox should have been deleted in the template mainspace, I cannot discern a consensus for deletion in userspace, at least not in the TfD. Indeed, many participants in the discussion explicitly supported userfying the userbox. Ultimately, this can be sorted out
1548:
Most of the editors !voting to delete did so after most of the "move" !voters, so if they meant it was not OK in template space but was OK in user space, then they could have easily said "move" like the others. Also, the arguments I gave the greatest weight cited guidelines that clearly apply to user
1533:
I don't think the discussion significantly addressed userspace at all other than those wanting to move it into userspace. How could the consensus be to delete something that was only discussed in the "keep" sense (moving to it)? I'm okay with those claiming that it's a G10. Though I disagree, it's
1186:
Even though I was on the fence between delete and keep, and am still not entirely convinced it should exist anywhere, I now think that on procedural grounds, the template should be restored in userspace. The reason why I'm saying this is simply because it could create a bad precedent. I have no doubt
1078:
you feel it useful to do so. And it would appear that the 7 editors who felt it proper in userspace made up a significant part of the entire discussion panel, while only 2 voiced specific desire for simple deletion. Note: I !voted for userspace in the original discussion, and would !vote "keep" in
1453:
Thanks Tim. I don't see a clear G10 here. The difference between disparaging and reasonable (though heated) criticism isn't a bright line and IMO this userbox isn't clearly on one side of that murky line. I'd stick with overturn (as the discussion certainly lacks consensus to delete in userspace)
827:
1. The debate was about the template in the public space NOT about the template in my own private space. The administrator involved (User:RL0919) has deleted both! This is in spite of the fact that most opinions were that it's a matter of personal freedom, and that it is perfectly fine to keep it in
1759:
Second, as far as #9 and #10 (which have since become unnumbered) not applying to
Knowledge (XXG) in other languages: (a) You are the only person I can recall ever claiming that Knowledge (XXG) editors in other languages weren't really Knowledge (XXG) editors when it came to policy. (b) If English
1093:
I'm not sure how you interpreted the comments to say that only two editors "voiced specific desire for simple deletion". The comments included one simple delete, two "speedy" deletes (speedy was, quite properly, declined), "it should go", and "Delete, delete, delete (and did I say "delete"?)", plus
1954:
in both spaces, per rationale of RL0919, DGG, and
Closeapple. I would, however, support recreation of this userbox with some minor modifications in the language. Clearly, one should be allowed to express an opinion, but there are some limitations. I am hopeful that a reasonable compromise can be
1910:
The images are there even though they are "divisive"! Isn't this the argument used against my template? And even if they're only there to "improve the encyclopaedia", so is my template. It raises awareness about and exposes wrong actions on Arabic
Knowledge (XXG), which are the first steps toward
269:
I've made some arrangements to the best of my abilities. Most references to this person are in French as he has been more active in Europe. I was able to find a French blog which publishes in
English. But it is the only source I could find in English. I've also deleted any information which might
1590:
I do think the flow of a discussion is part of its interpretation, but more immediately relevant is that I believe my interpretation of the delete comments is supported by some of the same editors' comments here. But even if I was entirely right about what they meant, deleting the user copy that
1322:
Apart from the sarcasm which I will deliberately ignore, I believe that if your arguement is true and nobody owns his own webpage, then there is no use for userboxes all together. What is the point of having a user page if you are not to write about yourself in it? It goes without saying that in
1295:
Perhaps. But certainly if it extended that to making controversial claims about the ethics or religious holdings of Eminem or rap's other participants. And certainly if it made controversial claims about two separate classes of
Knowledge (XXG) editors. What one may "believe" is not the point;
2458:
Arguments are indeed weighed and not counted, which is why the deletion of the userspace version should be overturned. Several of those who thought it did not belong in the template namespace explicitly stated it should be moved to userspace; others advocating deletion advanced reasons that are
1771:
On the third point: It is policy and widely held consensus on
Knowledge (XXG), as well as official Wikimedia Foundation policy (per the organization's board of directors, if I remember), that defamatory statements about living people is about as close to "harming anybody" as exists on Knowledge
1969:
I will not engage in discussion about the template until the template is restored in my own userspace, since I continue to believe the deletion is unfounded, unilateral and not in accordance with proper
Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. Once my template is restored, I may be willing to discuss minor
1711:
in fact run by people who sympathize with Islamic terrorism. This is not only my opinion, but that of many Arabic-speakers users, some of whom did in fact express their opinions here or in the previous discussion (including Ysamina, Toothie, Arthur B, and Degen Earthfast). The fact that we are
1595:
are discussed, regardless of namespace. So one option would have been to close the discussion as being the wrong venue and require the whole thing (including the template space version) to be listed at MFD instead. I would have done exactly that if I had caught the discussion early enough (see
660:
should not be taken as a suicide pact to prevent any discussion and criticism aimed at bettering the reputation of all Wikimedia projects. That said, English Knowledge (XXG) is probably not the best place to be having discussions about other-language Wikipedias (despite the fact that it is the
675:). The uncertain spirit of CSD G10 in cases of intra-wiki criticism, and its potential to squelch valid opinion (on this or other topics) remains a concern, but it cannot be examined directly without the potential of a biased closure if one has a preconceived opinion in the issues involved. –
2348:?. This is Political corectness beyond an abnormal scale. You know what there should be another template created stating; This user believes English wikipedia is manipulated by radicals and their apologists. why is templates that endorse violence allowed to be on wikipedia, yet this one not?
1928:
because it resulted in extensive press coverage, major international diplomacy issues, and riots. Unless ambassadors and heads of state have had press conferences about this userbox, the reasons the Muhammad drawing is on Knowledge (XXG) don't apply to some Wikipedian's userbox creation.
1600:, for example), but after seven days of robust discussion that would have been needlessly bureaucratic. Deciding (as I finally did) that separately listing the user space copy was also unnecessary was much less obvious. Still, I thought it was the right call at the time and I still do. --
1229:
immediately. Also like I said before I really recommend people to read the translated version of Arabic wikipedia articles to see how biased they are just like most their editors even in the English version, the Middle Eastern articles are often subjected to edit wars against these
1323:'talking about yourself' you are actually making statements that can be offensive to others. Where do you draw the line? I feel offended when I read that someone is Christian or Buddhist or Satanist. Why not ban these userboxes? I feel offended when i see userboxes like these:
1094:
an editor who changed position from move to delete based on one of the "speedy delete" comments, and the nominator who made it clear that he would have nominated the same box if it were in user space. But as noted above I did not base my close on headcounting. --
2037:
And as you can see, the overwhelming majority of people here are against the deletion. If it doesn't matter what people think, then I suggest you go ahead and suggest that Knowledge (XXG) deletes the deletion review pages! Oh, and by the way, now we're up to
1014:
See my reply to Collect below. I did not "vote", so I was not counting myself. Toothie3's comment is the one that I could not interpret as making any specific recommendation. And yes, IP editors' comments count unless there is some reason to discount them.
2343:
which was clearly made for Hezbollah whcih may I remind you all is by law in most the western world considered a terrorist organization yet a template raising the concern over the bias and extremist sympathizing taking place on the articles is considered
1875:! Excellent point! Why allow Knowledge (XXG) to insult all Muslims by posting Muhammad's caricatures, but prevent some users from expressing their opinion about Arabic Knowledge (XXG)? How is the former considered freedom of speech and the later not? --
2329:
first of all I would like to know why is it a geniune concern like this is being deleted (wrongfully since most favoured against deletion before) is being trialed like this when other editors have templates openly stating they support Violence against
1280:
the one in the userspace. Knowledge (XXG) is a 💕. It's not up to anybody, as far as I believe, to tell me what to believe in. There is a very popular userbox that misnames "rap" music to "Crap". Would you go delete this one because it offends Eminem?
2209:", and this is why I called for re-evaluation here. I thought it was redundant to mention something like this, but apparently some people still don't understand that I believe deleting something on my userspace without any consensus whatsoever is
1668:
exists specifically to proscribe this type of content: #9 ("statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons") and #10 ("Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws"). See also
2023:
As explained to you on at least two occasions now, this is not a vote. It doesn't matter how many non-arguments are made to keep the template if the primary argument that it is intended solely to disparage another subject is not addressed.
904:
to make a copy of the box in user space, without waiting to see what the close was. Since the deletion rationale was based on concerns that apply across namespaces, I deleted the user copy as well rather than force a repeat discussion at
1991:
I think the Arabic edition need to be kept on, especially when we all try to project a more honest information fountain to be available to some that have no reliable sources at hand, such as 9so many in the) the Arabic speaking world..
1856:
the one in the userspace. Knowledge (XXG) is a 💕. It's not up to anybody, as far as I believe, to tell me what to believe in. We as a community kept the pictures of Mohammed on the Mohammed page. Someone gets offended, oh well. WP:Not
2227:
done simply by omitting comments about why you chose to challenge deletion. Anyone with an interest in the matter will be able to read your rationale at the actual deletion review. Just something to keep in mind for the future.
2439:
deletion from userspace as a correct reading of consensus in the debate. Arguments are weighed, not counted. This is a clearly unacceptable userbox and needs to stay gone. The one mentioned above probably do to but
909:, where the exact same deletion arguments would have been valid. (MFD is technically is where the discussion should have started since this is a userbox, but it was a rather late to be moving the discussion, and
1534:
not at all unreasonable. But to claim a discussion about template space applies to userspace is pretty novel. I believe we rejected a similar argument (article space and user space) quite recently for a bio...
2468:. Of the CSD only G10 is a possible fit here, and several administrators have explicitly said that it doesn't meet the criteria for G10, meaning that CSD cannot apply and thus it is not "clearly unacceptable".
2373:
It IS a userbox and explain why a userbox regardless if it's not a template which states a certain editor endorses violence not being automatically deleted yet this which was voted to be kept, was?
1472:
think the userbox qualified for G10 speedy deletion, and did not base the close on that. However, I was swayed by the arguments that the content was divisive enough to violate the guidelines at
1360:? I don't see those as attacking a group of people, just a simple statement of the user's religion. Like I said below, I feel a compromise can be reached, with a minor change in the language.
744:
1674:
879:
858:
566:
Or even if you don't want to be exact, we can continue on the talk page. In response to what you've written. "Yes, I think you are right. Is there something wrong with the article?". --
801:
1591:
Laternix made late in the discussion was a difficult judgment call, so I'm not surprised that some of the uninvolved commenters here agree with it and some disagree. MFD is where user
484:
I believe this to be a notable phenomenon, as evidenced by some of the examples given in the list in the article. I am aware of at least one in this city as well, which isn't listed.
759:
1203:
applies. G10 is not limited to personal attacks, and the template is a page that "disparage ... some other entity", i.e., the Arabic Knowledge (XXG), and "serve no other purpose".
1664:
in any space. The original content in question accused an entire Knowledge (XXG) language of being "completely biased and unfair" and "Run by some Islamic fundamentalists".
816:
1831:
DRV discussions are usually kept open for 7 days or so. This discussion, for example, is scheduled to be closed on the 18th or 19th. The relevant policy on closing is
1517:
not clear enough for a speedy, but not suitable content, even in user space. A decision that did express the consensus, and I personally agree with that consensus.
2464:
to delete the userspace version. The only pages on Wikiepdia that are "clear unacceptable" without their being a consensus to this effect are those pages that meet the
2388:
If you want to have another userbox deleted, you can nominate it for deletion? This discussion is reviewing the deletion procedure of one particular userbox. Also, as
656:(4) I am sensitive to concerns that strong and intractable POVs on this or other Wikimedia projects could very well bring Wikimedia projects as a whole into disrepute.
1304:
If you have been believing otherwise and using a different meaning for "free" (which refers to the right to copy and distribute), my condolences, but now you know:
646:(2) The process issue regarding which forum was chosen (TfD vs. MfD) should not be blindly considered, especially given changing community norms. The advent of the
1298:"Knowledge (XXG) is not a forum for unregulated free speech. ... Your user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog. More importantly, your user page is
48:
34:
1439:
I added the DRV links for the template space one, which from what I gather is identical to the userspace one. You should be able to see it in the Google cache.
467:
245:
43:
839:! In spite of this, the administrator involved (User:RL0919) has deleted both the page in question and another page I had just created in my user space.
1924:
The drawing of Muhammad is on Knowledge (XXG) because of a month of discussion (and then some), about the primary element of an event that clearly met
1814:
When do such discussions usually conclude? And will be majority vote that rules, or will be again the conviction and judgment of the deleting admin? --
882:) is about the public domain template, NOT about the one in my own user space, which is the one for which I am requesting restoration here. Thanks! --
1780:". Knowledge (XXG) was not created to be a free web host for personal beliefs. There are millions of other websites and hosts for that. See also
635:– There are several points I want to make in the closure of this very complex DRV. The summary decision, for those wanting to get to the point is
1689:
different statement that meets guidelines, it shouldn't be anywhere, user space or otherwise, regardless of which deletion procedure was used. --
643:(1) Forum (i.e., MfD vs. TfD) is an issue of process, and arguments of process are often more heavily weighted arguments in the close of a DRV.
260:
1756:
says Knowledge (XXG) is not for. The first paragraph of that section specifically notes that it applies to templates and user pages as well.
1889:
1141:
1381:
as a correct application of policy. While it may be technically correct to undelete and send to MfD, such content is not permissible per
39:
2282:
1835:. This is not, strictly, a majority vote, but DRV's are more rarely closed "against the numbers" than AfD's though by no means never.
2135:
1645:. No clear G10 and no consensus for deletion. Template expresses personal opinion, and user has the right to do so in own space. --
2336:
This user supports the right of all individuals and groups to violently resist military aggression and occupation by other parties
1491:
771:
455:
2276:. There seemed to be a consensus at the TfD discussion that this belonged in Userspace, and Lanternix moved it in good faith. —
1925:
714:
21:
2181:
To avoid disrupting the consensus building process on Knowledge (XXG), editors should keep the number of notifications small,
1631:
328:
767:
323:. The article gave no indication of its subject's notability, thus making it an appropriate candidate for the A7 criterion.
1682:
1047:
710:
631:
1324:
2441:
2162:
said, I messaged everyone I thought was involved in the previous discussion (I happened to miss 2 of them by mistake). --
2490:
694:
610:
405:
360:
195:
155:
98:
17:
476:
910:
2363:
simple: It's not a template. If you'd like to complain about an individual user's page-design, bring it up at ANI.
1327:
1773:
1297:
1862:
1728:
The first statement is the strongest reason the reason this content is up for deletion, and why I have mentioned
1627:
324:
2311:
Userboxes with the purpose of disparaging specific groups do not belong in any namespace. This is a good close.
1888:
The images aren't there as an exercise in freedom of speech, they are present to improve the encyclopaedia. Per
215:
1145:
1170:(not in mainspace), but I don't really have anything to say beyond what I already said the first time around.
1001:
By counting the above, there were clearly more people interested in keeping the template than deleting it. --
2426:
2378:
2353:
1339:
1330:
1235:
283:
2176:
1765:
1753:
1357:
1137:
657:
297:
211:
176:
2406:
1959:
1745:
1364:
1336:
1333:
1054:
proceeded to delete both, even though nobody expressed concern about the template in my own user space. --
865:
680:
1832:
1665:
1477:
1473:
2392:
already mentioned, those particular userboxes are not transcluded templates, they are using the generic
2277:
2234:
2029:
1252:
1120:
279:
83:
2477:
2453:
2430:
2411:
2382:
2367:
2357:
2320:
2303:
2286:
2267:
2239:
2221:
2200:
2170:
2147:
2134:
These were the participants in the TFD. Initially the notification was just to "keep" !voters, which I
2129:
2054:
2032:
2018:
2001:
1982:
1964:
1938:
1919:
1905:
1883:
1866:
1844:
1822:
1801:
1720:
1698:
1654:
1635:
1609:
1585:
1566:
1543:
1528:
1503:
1463:
1448:
1434:
1402:
1369:
1351:
1317:
1290:
1272:
1255:
1239:
1212:
1191:
1179:
1149:
1125:
1103:
1088:
1062:
1024:
1009:
926:
890:
870:
847:
684:
593:
575:
561:
541:
525:
511:
493:
394:
349:
332:
311:
287:
184:
145:
87:
2449:
1934:
1872:
1858:
1840:
1797:
1694:
1485:
1313:
976:
votes (Robofish, Closeapple, Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556, Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky))
537:
489:
1200:
2473:
2402:
template. See the wikicode. So the correct place to bring up those pages would be at ANI. Thanks!
2219:
2196:
2168:
2125:
2052:
2016:
1980:
1917:
1901:
1881:
1820:
1718:
1268:
1160:
1060:
1007:
888:
845:
589:
571:
521:
507:
271:
75:
2077:
2069:
1670:
2422:
2374:
2349:
2312:
2263:
1444:
1347:
1286:
1231:
1208:
1175:
557:
390:
341:
181:
296:--and protect against re-creation. To clarify, this is about the speedy deletion of the article
2403:
2299:
1997:
1971:
1956:
1785:
1581:
1361:
1084:
862:
676:
140:
129:
1761:
1390:
2396:
2389:
2364:
2316:
2230:
2143:
2025:
1605:
1562:
1499:
1415:
1248:
1188:
1116:
1099:
1020:
922:
914:
345:
79:
2465:
1789:
1781:
1777:
1764:
in English as well. Feeling that "they need to" introduce opinions is (again) exactly why
1733:
1729:
1678:
1550:
1382:
1305:
906:
647:
320:
114:
2445:
1930:
1836:
1793:
1690:
1650:
1539:
1481:
1459:
1430:
1309:
581:
533:
485:
425:
70:
1749:
1741:
1554:
1386:
1421:
I can't see a way to see what exactly this thing said. Per the discussion I'm going to
2469:
2214:
2192:
2163:
2121:
2073:
2047:
2011:
1975:
1912:
1897:
1876:
1815:
1713:
1398:
1264:
1055:
1002:
883:
840:
585:
567:
517:
503:
2259:
1524:
1440:
1343:
1282:
1225:
this to userspace. I did not vote infavour of deleting this. Ofcourse this should be
1204:
1171:
1156:
553:
386:
307:
119:
2010:
vote. I'm keeping track, and so far there are 12 Undelete against 6 Endorse, FYI. --
917:, so you may want to review my comments there for further insight on my thinking. --
2295:
1993:
1577:
1080:
135:
124:
1217:
I thought this issue was resolved before because clearly most people did agree to
1576:. MfD is where userpages get discussed. Has that policy been altered recently?
532:
You could at least discuss it. What's the point of this bloody page otherwise? --
2159:
2158:
I can message whomever I'd like. Wiki-hounding me won't do you any good. But as
2139:
1601:
1558:
1495:
1411:
1095:
1051:
1016:
937:
918:
340:
Because there was no indication of notability, speedy deletion was appropriate.
1677:, in which I described several guideline violations, including an argument for
1737:
1646:
1535:
1455:
1426:
421:
381:
1394:
2417:
my point is there is clearly a double standard in what wikipedia considers
1519:
302:
2185:, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions.
1571:
I can find no precedent for weighing what one feels a person's opinion
2258:
And of course Lanternix has a right to message whome ever he desires.
1575:
from looking at the point at which they state their opinion <g: -->
1557:, I can't possibly take them to mean "but only in template space". --
2338:
2082:
Hello! I am requesting a re-evaluation of the unfounded deletion...
1296:
whether Knowledge (XXG)'s system is used to carry it is the point:
983:
vote from an anonymous IP, and I am even sure if that counts at all
1788:. Legal ramifications for Knowledge (XXG) are one of the reasons
1454:
and refer to MfD if desired. I'd probably !vote to keep at MfD.
913:.) I have talked about this at some length with Lanternix on my
272:
http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Disgracious23/John_Micheal_McCarthy
2341:
1725:
These points are already addressed by Knowledge (XXG) policy:
1666:
Knowledge (XXG):User page#What may I not have on my user page?
1038:
Second of all, in addition to the above, the voting was about
954:
comments (AnonMoos, Collect, Arthur_B, ♥Yasmina♥, Gavia immer)
548:
117:
but appears to assert notability. It had references including
1393:, applied liberally, can save us a pointless exercise here.
936:
First of all, I would like to contest the numbers given by
1894:
Knowledge (XXG) is not a forum for unregulated free speech
270:
seem promoting. The edited article is in my talk section:
2006:
Just so people understand, this was another user with an
2254:
Please reevaluate it, Lanternix's arguement makes sense.
2118:
2115:
2112:
2109:
2106:
2103:
2100:
2097:
2094:
2091:
2088:
2085:
1597:
1039:
808:
794:
786:
778:
751:
737:
729:
721:
667:(6) The weight of argument in this discussion falls to
462:
448:
440:
432:
252:
238:
230:
222:
661:
largest and most widely read Knowledge (XXG) by far).
1425:. But to evaluate the G10 claim I need to see it...
2294:
per CSD G10, serves no purpose beyond disruption. --
1974:
that would allow my to freely express my opinion. --
1134:- obvious case of abuse of power by administrator.
2084:" - this is clearly not neutral wording (messages:
1494:) in the TFD were particularly thorough on this. --
990:that were not expressed but could be classified as
1752:on its face anyway). "Raising awareness" is what
1187:that the closing admin acted in good faith here.
552:you can explain what exactly you want DRV to do.
2205:Needless to say, I believe the deletion was "
1412:Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)
878:Please be aware that the TFD provided above (
8:
996:who happens to be the admin at question here
1890:Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not
693:The following is an archived debate of the
404:The following is an archived debate of the
194:The following is an archived debate of the
97:The following is an archived debate of the
1389:regardless of how many votes may pop up.
671:being strongly endorsed in this case (and
624:
516:Can't work out what is to be reviewed. --
374:
169:
63:
1740:statements about living people without
1261:Overturn deletion of userspace version
768:Template:Biased Arabic Knowledge (XXG)
1703:First of all, Arabic Knowledge (XXG)
1683:User:Lanternix/userboxes/BiasedARWiki
1468:For what it's worth, I personally do
1342:Why don't you people go delete them?
1306:Knowledge (XXG) is not your web host.
711:User:Lanternix/userboxes/BiasedARWiki
632:User:Lanternix/userboxes/BiasedARWiki
7:
2080:. Messages to multiple users start "
1778:Knowledge (XXG) is not your web host
74:– Article restored by administrator
2493:of the page listed in the heading.
1926:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (events)
1070:(ec twice) No harm will arise from
961:that could be classified as either
613:of the page listed in the heading.
363:of the page listed in the heading.
158:of the page listed in the heading.
2191:" is clearly not neutral wording.
947:votes (Lanternix, Degen Earthfast)
28:
669:a literal application of CSD G10
2489:The above is an archive of the
1072:restoring the copy in userspace
609:The above is an archive of the
546:I'll be happy to undo my close
359:The above is an archive of the
154:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
2026:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
1418:); March 11, 2010; 14:36 (UTC)
1249:Chris Cunningham (not at work)
902:during the deletion discussion
831:2. The majority consensus was
1:
2183:keep the message text neutral
1325:User:Selfworm/FormerChristian
673:limited in scope to this case
584:for us to continue there. --
2466:criteria for speedy deletion
1970:modifications suggested by
1423:overturn userspace deletion
134:20:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
2516:
2478:13:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
2454:08:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
2431:22:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
2412:20:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
2383:19:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
2368:19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
2358:18:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
2321:00:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
2304:02:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
2287:18:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
2268:17:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
2240:20:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
2222:19:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
2201:11:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
2177:Knowledge (XXG):Canvassing
2171:03:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
2148:02:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
2130:01:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
2055:19:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
2033:13:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
2019:08:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
2002:07:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
1983:03:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
1965:21:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
1939:09:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
1920:03:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
1906:01:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
1884:03:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
1867:17:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
1845:05:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
1823:18:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
1802:08:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
1721:18:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
1699:11:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
1655:21:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1636:16:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
1610:17:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
1586:09:53, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
1567:23:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1544:23:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1529:19:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1504:17:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1464:15:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1449:15:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1435:14:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1403:14:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1370:15:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
1352:13:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
1328:User:Selfworm/NotChristian
1318:06:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
1291:12:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1273:09:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1256:08:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1240:06:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1213:03:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1192:02:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1180:01:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1150:01:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1126:01:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1104:01:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1089:01:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1063:01:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1025:01:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
1010:00:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
994:(Chris Cunningham, RL0919
927:00:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
891:00:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
871:00:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
848:00:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
685:19:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
594:13:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
576:13:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
562:12:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
542:12:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
526:06:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
512:21:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
494:19:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
395:18:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
350:00:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
333:16:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
312:20:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
288:19:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
185:19:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
146:20:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
88:21:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
2040:15 votes against deletion
1833:Knowledge (XXG):Consensus
2496:Please do not modify it.
2365:Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
1623:Overturn and list at MfD
1549:space. If someone cites
1189:Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
1111:Undelete and send to MfD
1050:. To my utter surprise,
700:Please do not modify it.
616:Please do not modify it.
411:Please do not modify it.
385:– Nothing to do here. –
366:Please do not modify it.
201:Please do not modify it.
180:– Deletion endorsed. – –
161:Please do not modify it.
104:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
1383:Knowledge (XXG):CSD#G10
1340:User:Selfworm/NotJewish
1331:User:Selfworm/NotMuslim
1074:and instituting an MfD
898:Deleting admin comments
648:German Userbox Solution
1746:Islamic fundamentalism
1707:completely biased and
1337:User:Selfworm/Buddhism
1334:User:Selfworm/NotHindu
697:of the article above.
580:I have copied this to
408:of the article above.
212:John Micheal McCarthy
198:of the article above.
101:of the article above.
1166:I think it should be
857:The TFD can be found
298:John Micheal McCarthy
177:John Micheal McCarthy
2044:6 votes for deletion
1643:Undelete immediately
1628:A Stop at Willoughby
325:A Stop at Willoughby
319:speedy deletion per
78:(non-admin close) --
2442:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
952:5 Move to Userspace
2332:military agression
1480:. The comments of
1410:, mostly per G10.—
2503:
2502:
1786:freedom of speech
1736:before: It makes
1168:kept in userspace
1140:comment added by
911:WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY
637:deletion endorsed
623:
622:
373:
372:
168:
167:
144:
133:
2507:
2498:
2401:
2395:
2340:and another one
2309:Endorse deletion
2292:Endorse deletion
2238:
2217:
2166:
2136:complained about
2050:
2014:
1978:
1952:Endorse deletion
1915:
1879:
1818:
1774:WP:NOTFREESPEECH
1742:reliable sources
1716:
1675:the original TfD
1662:Endorse deletion
1152:
1124:
1058:
1005:
886:
843:
821:
819:
811:
797:
789:
781:
764:
762:
754:
740:
732:
724:
702:
625:
618:
479:
474:
465:
451:
443:
435:
413:
375:
368:
338:Endorse deletion
294:Endorse deletion
265:
263:
255:
241:
233:
225:
203:
170:
163:
138:
127:
113:Was deleted per
106:
64:
53:
33:
2515:
2514:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2494:
2491:deletion review
2409:
2399:
2393:
2285:
2228:
2215:
2164:
2076:in the form of
2048:
2012:
1976:
1962:
1913:
1911:improvement! --
1877:
1873:Degen Earthfast
1859:Degen Earthfast
1816:
1714:
1367:
1135:
1114:
1056:
1003:
884:
868:
841:
822:(For reference)
815:
813:
807:
806:
800:
793:
792:
785:
784:
777:
776:
758:
756:
750:
749:
743:
736:
735:
728:
727:
720:
719:
698:
695:deletion review
614:
611:deletion review
582:Talk:Toy_museum
475:
473:
470:
461:
460:
454:
447:
446:
439:
438:
431:
430:
409:
406:deletion review
364:
361:deletion review
259:
257:
251:
250:
244:
237:
236:
229:
228:
221:
220:
199:
196:deletion review
159:
156:deletion review
102:
99:deletion review
71:Ohorongo Cement
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2513:
2511:
2501:
2500:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2481:
2480:
2415:
2414:
2407:
2371:
2370:
2324:
2323:
2306:
2289:
2281:
2256:
2255:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2244:
2243:
2242:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2074:User:Lanternix
2063:
2062:
2061:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2057:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1985:
1960:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1826:
1825:
1811:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1769:
1757:
1658:
1657:
1639:
1638:
1620:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1419:
1405:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1365:
1320:
1275:
1258:
1242:
1215:
1194:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1153:
1142:166.137.137.20
1128:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1065:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
984:
977:
970:
955:
948:
930:
929:
915:user talk page
894:
893:
873:
866:
851:
850:
829:
824:
823:
804:
798:
790:
782:
774:
765:
747:
741:
733:
725:
717:
705:
704:
689:
688:
641:
640:
621:
620:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
529:
528:
514:
482:
481:
471:
458:
452:
444:
436:
428:
416:
415:
400:
399:
398:
397:
371:
370:
355:
354:
353:
352:
335:
314:
277:
267:
266:
248:
242:
234:
226:
218:
206:
205:
190:
189:
188:
187:
166:
165:
150:
149:
109:
108:
93:
92:
91:
90:
76:Cobaltbluetony
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2512:
2499:
2497:
2492:
2487:
2486:
2479:
2475:
2471:
2467:
2462:
2457:
2456:
2455:
2451:
2447:
2443:
2438:
2435:
2434:
2433:
2432:
2428:
2424:
2420:
2413:
2410:
2405:
2398:
2391:
2387:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2380:
2376:
2369:
2366:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2355:
2351:
2347:
2342:
2339:
2337:
2333:
2328:
2322:
2318:
2314:
2310:
2307:
2305:
2301:
2297:
2293:
2290:
2288:
2284:
2279:
2278:Malik Shabazz
2275:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2265:
2261:
2253:
2252:
2241:
2236:
2232:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2220:
2218:
2212:
2208:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2184:
2178:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2169:
2167:
2161:
2157:
2156:
2155:
2154:
2149:
2145:
2141:
2137:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2127:
2123:
2119:
2116:
2113:
2110:
2107:
2104:
2101:
2098:
2095:
2092:
2089:
2086:
2083:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2068:- seems like
2067:
2064:
2056:
2053:
2051:
2045:
2041:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2031:
2027:
2022:
2021:
2020:
2017:
2015:
2009:
2005:
2004:
2003:
1999:
1995:
1990:
1989:
1984:
1981:
1979:
1973:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1963:
1958:
1953:
1950:
1940:
1936:
1932:
1927:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1918:
1916:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1903:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1886:
1885:
1882:
1880:
1874:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1864:
1860:
1855:
1852:
1851:
1846:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1824:
1821:
1819:
1813:
1812:
1803:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1770:
1767:
1766:WP:NOTSOAPBOX
1763:
1758:
1755:
1754:WP:NOTSOAPBOX
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1731:
1727:
1726:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1719:
1717:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1687:substantially
1684:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1667:
1663:
1660:
1659:
1656:
1652:
1648:
1644:
1641:
1640:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1626:best at MfD.
1624:
1621:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1594:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1574:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1521:
1516:
1513:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1490:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1406:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1377:
1371:
1368:
1363:
1359:
1358:WP:OTHERSTUFF
1355:
1354:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1338:
1335:
1332:
1329:
1326:
1321:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1301:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1279:
1276:
1274:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1259:
1257:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1243:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1198:
1195:
1193:
1190:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1164:
1162:
1158:
1155:Comment from
1154:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1133:
1129:
1127:
1122:
1118:
1112:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1066:
1064:
1061:
1059:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1034:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1008:
1006:
1000:
999:
997:
993:
989:
985:
982:
978:
975:
971:
968:
964:
960:
956:
953:
949:
946:
942:
941:
939:
935:
932:
931:
928:
924:
920:
916:
912:
908:
903:
899:
896:
895:
892:
889:
887:
881:
877:
874:
872:
869:
864:
860:
856:
853:
852:
849:
846:
844:
838:
834:
830:
826:
825:
818:
810:
803:
796:
788:
780:
773:
769:
766:
761:
753:
746:
739:
731:
723:
716:
712:
709:
708:
707:
706:
703:
701:
696:
691:
690:
687:
686:
682:
678:
674:
670:
665:
662:
659:
658:WP:NOTSOAPBOX
654:
651:
649:
644:
638:
634:
633:
629:
628:
627:
626:
619:
617:
612:
607:
606:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
578:
577:
573:
569:
565:
564:
563:
559:
555:
551:
550:
545:
544:
543:
539:
535:
531:
530:
527:
523:
519:
515:
513:
509:
505:
501:
498:
497:
496:
495:
491:
487:
478:
469:
464:
457:
450:
442:
434:
427:
423:
420:
419:
418:
417:
414:
412:
407:
402:
401:
396:
392:
388:
384:
383:
379:
378:
377:
376:
369:
367:
362:
357:
356:
351:
347:
343:
339:
336:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
315:
313:
309:
305:
304:
299:
295:
292:
291:
290:
289:
285:
281:
280:Disgracious23
275:
273:
262:
254:
247:
240:
232:
224:
217:
213:
210:
209:
208:
207:
204:
202:
197:
192:
191:
186:
183:
179:
178:
174:
173:
172:
171:
164:
162:
157:
152:
151:
148:
147:
142:
137:
131:
126:
122:
121:
120:The Economist
116:
111:
110:
107:
105:
100:
95:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
59:11 March 2010
57:
50:
49:2010 March 12
45:
41:
36:
35:2010 March 10
23:
19:
2495:
2488:
2460:
2436:
2418:
2416:
2404:Plastikspork
2372:
2345:
2335:
2334:an example;
2331:
2326:
2325:
2308:
2291:
2273:
2257:
2210:
2206:
2188:
2182:
2180:
2081:
2065:
2043:
2039:
2007:
1972:Plastikspork
1957:Plastikspork
1951:
1893:
1853:
1782:WP:NOT#ESSAY
1708:
1704:
1686:
1661:
1642:
1622:
1592:
1572:
1518:
1514:
1488:
1478:WP:User page
1474:WP:Userboxes
1469:
1422:
1407:
1378:
1362:Plastikspork
1299:
1277:
1260:
1244:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1197:Keep deleted
1196:
1167:
1161:my talk page
1131:
1110:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1043:
1035:
995:
991:
987:
980:
973:
966:
962:
958:
951:
944:
933:
901:
897:
875:
863:Plastikspork
854:
836:
832:
699:
692:
677:IronGargoyle
672:
668:
666:
663:
655:
652:
645:
642:
636:
630:
615:
608:
547:
499:
483:
410:
403:
380:
365:
358:
337:
316:
301:
293:
276:
268:
200:
193:
175:
160:
153:
118:
112:
103:
96:
69:
58:
2390:Seb az86556
2231:Gavia immer
2078:campaigning
1792:exists.) --
1685:contains a
1136:—Preceding
1117:Gavia immer
986:There were
972:There were
950:There were
943:There were
861:. Thanks!
828:user space.
274:Cordially,
80:Mkativerata
2446:Eluchil404
2070:canvassing
1931:Closeapple
1871:Thank you
1837:Eluchil404
1794:Closeapple
1738:defamatory
1730:WP:CSD#G10
1691:Closeapple
1681:. Unless
1679:WP:CSD#G10
1551:WP:CSD#G10
1482:Closeapple
1310:Closeapple
1201:WP:CSD G10
1130:Of course
979:There was
969:(Toothie3)
957:There was
837:not delete
534:MacRusgail
486:MacRusgail
422:Toy museum
382:Toy museum
44:2010 March
2470:Thryduulf
2423:♥Yasmina♥
2375:♥Yasmina♥
2350:♥Yasmina♥
2216:λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ
2211:unfounded
2207:unfounded
2193:Guest9999
2189:unfounded
2165:λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ
2122:Guest9999
2049:λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ
2013:λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ
1977:λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ
1955:reached.
1914:λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ
1898:Guest9999
1878:λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ
1817:λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ
1715:λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ
1671:WP:BATTLE
1555:WP:UP#NOT
1387:WP:UP#NOT
1300:not yours
1265:Thryduulf
1232:♥Yasmina♥
1227:undeleted
1079:an MfD.
1057:λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ
1048:this page
1040:this page
1004:λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ
885:λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ
842:λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ
586:SmokeyJoe
568:SmokeyJoe
518:SmokeyJoe
504:Thryduulf
321:WP:CSD#A7
2419:ofensive
2274:Overturn
2260:Toothie3
2008:Undelete
1854:Undelete
1492:contribs
1441:Tim Song
1344:Arthur B
1283:Arthur B
1278:Undelete
1205:Tim Song
1172:AnonMoos
1157:AnonMoos
1138:unsigned
1132:Undelete
981:1 Delete
974:4 Delete
880:this one
554:Tim Song
387:Tim Song
182:MuZemike
20: |
2437:Endorse
2397:userbox
2346:extreme
2327:comment
2296:Stormie
2066:Comment
1994:Geenahs
1768:exists.
1762:WP:NPOV
1578:Collect
1573:must be
1515:endorse
1408:Endorse
1391:WP:BURO
1385:and/or
1379:Endorse
1245:Endorse
1230:biases.
1081:Collect
1068:Comment
1036:Comment
988:2 Votes
934:Comment
876:Comment
855:Comment
817:restore
787:history
760:restore
730:history
500:Comment
477:restore
441:history
317:Endorse
261:restore
231:history
136:Toddst1
125:Toddst1
2313:Cunard
2160:RL0919
2140:RL0919
1790:WP:BLP
1734:WP:BLP
1673:, and
1602:RL0919
1559:RL0919
1496:RL0919
1096:RL0919
1052:RL0919
1046:about
1042:, and
1017:RL0919
992:Delete
959:1 Vote
945:2 Keep
938:RL0919
919:RL0919
907:WP:MFD
342:Cunard
115:CSD A7
2283:Stalk
1857:PC.--
1776:via "
1750:WP:OR
1647:Khips
1593:boxes
1536:Hobit
1525:talk
1456:Hobit
1427:Hobit
809:watch
802:links
752:watch
745:links
463:watch
456:links
308:talk
253:watch
246:links
52:: -->
16:<
2474:talk
2461:much
2450:talk
2427:talk
2379:talk
2354:talk
2317:talk
2300:talk
2264:talk
2235:talk
2213:! --
2197:talk
2175:Per
2144:talk
2126:talk
2046:. --
2042:and
2030:talk
1998:talk
1935:talk
1902:talk
1863:talk
1841:talk
1798:talk
1732:and
1695:talk
1651:talk
1632:talk
1606:talk
1598:this
1582:talk
1563:talk
1540:talk
1500:talk
1486:talk
1476:and
1460:talk
1445:talk
1431:talk
1399:talk
1395:Tarc
1356:See
1348:talk
1314:talk
1287:talk
1269:talk
1253:talk
1236:talk
1223:MOVE
1221:but
1219:KEEP
1209:talk
1176:talk
1146:talk
1121:talk
1100:talk
1085:talk
1021:talk
967:Move
963:Keep
923:talk
859:here
835:and
833:move
795:logs
779:edit
772:talk
738:logs
722:edit
715:talk
681:talk
590:talk
572:talk
558:talk
538:talk
522:talk
508:talk
490:talk
449:logs
433:edit
426:talk
391:talk
346:talk
329:talk
284:talk
239:logs
223:edit
216:talk
141:talk
130:talk
84:talk
32:<
2444:.
2120:).
2072:by
1896:".
1553:or
1520:DGG
1470:not
1416:yo?
1414:• (
1159:on
1044:NOT
965:or
549:iff
468:XfD
466:) (
303:DGG
22:Log
2476:)
2452:)
2429:)
2408:―Œ
2400:}}
2394:{{
2381:)
2356:)
2319:)
2302:)
2266:)
2229:—
2199:)
2146:)
2128:)
2117:,
2114:,
2111:,
2108:,
2105:,
2102:,
2099:,
2096:,
2093:,
2090:,
2087:,
2028:-
2000:)
1961:―Œ
1937:)
1929:--
1904:)
1865:)
1843:)
1800:)
1709:IS
1705:IS
1697:)
1653:)
1634:)
1608:)
1584:)
1565:)
1542:)
1527:)
1502:)
1462:)
1447:)
1433:)
1401:)
1366:―Œ
1350:)
1316:)
1308:--
1302:."
1289:)
1271:)
1251:-
1238:)
1211:)
1199:.
1178:)
1163::
1148:)
1115:—
1102:)
1087:)
1076:if
1023:)
1015:--
998:)
940::
925:)
867:―Œ
683:)
592:)
574:)
560:)
540:)
524:)
510:)
492:)
393:)
348:)
331:)
310:)
286:)
278:--
123:.
86:)
42::
2472:(
2448:(
2425:(
2377:(
2352:(
2315:(
2298:(
2280:/
2262:(
2237:)
2233:(
2195:(
2179:"
2142:(
2124:(
1996:(
1933:(
1900:(
1892:"
1861:(
1839:(
1796:(
1693:(
1649:(
1630:(
1604:(
1580:(
1561:(
1538:(
1523:(
1498:(
1489:·
1484:(
1458:(
1443:(
1429:(
1397:(
1346:(
1312:(
1285:(
1267:(
1234:(
1207:(
1174:(
1144:(
1123:)
1119:(
1098:(
1083:(
1019:(
921:(
820:)
814:(
812:)
805:|
799:|
791:|
783:|
775:|
770:(
763:)
757:(
755:)
748:|
742:|
734:|
726:|
718:|
713:(
679:(
639:.
588:(
570:(
556:(
536:(
520:(
506:(
488:(
480:)
472:|
459:|
453:|
445:|
437:|
429:|
424:(
389:(
344:(
327:(
306:(
282:(
264:)
258:(
256:)
249:|
243:|
235:|
227:|
219:|
214:(
143:)
139:(
132:)
128:(
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.