1772:
subject regardless of prior discussions. If we're looking for errors, apparently the close gave too much weight to completely erroneous claims of OR, to a failure to consider potential sourcability, and to changes made during the discussion. As no reason was given, as is the closer's general practice, it is impossible to be sure, thus my wording of "apparently" but they are the only factors which I think could have resulted in the decision. In particular, the failure to give a detailed rationale when the article changes leaves it unclear how well the close has been considered. The reason the closer gives here is that he disagrees with the contents of the article, about as wrong a reason for closing as can be imagined--such disagreements are for the article talk page. As others have noted, there seem to be two subjects here, and there should be two articles. I think the griffith technique so extremely well documented in the literature that it should be a separate article, and should be approached from that direction. The section "origin" in the current user space version is sufficient of a RS to establish the subject as notable, (I am truly astounded at the initial nomination as "hoax" ) and the remainder of the sourcing there is excellent. The "last-minute hero" should probably be a separate article, but I have not examined sourcing for it.
2188:
2111:
2250:
694:
inured to claims of discrimination, but even 15 years after the elections that officially ended apartheid in South Africa, use of the word still demands attention. Because it carries such a significant POV, however, Knowledge has to be cautious in its use, especially in article titling. It is one thing to note, in the context of a human rights discussion, that the
Guardian or the New York Times or Human Rights Watch has expressed concerns that a policy or condition might constitute apartheid or be "apartheid-like". It is another thing entirely for an article to be titled as though the existence of apartheid in ... whatever country is the topic at hand at the time ... is a matter of settled, universally-agreed fact.
2182:
2107:
2145:
415:. Many of them also expressly noted that while some sources may have used the word "apartheid" to characterize Bahraini discrimination, that did not mean that this labeling itself merited its own article. This was also one of several similar "apartheid in FOO" articles created by you that were all deleted recently for the same reasons. So absent a DRV consensus recognizing that something had changed, my speedy deletion of your recreation was quite proper, and your unilateral recreation was not. Particularly when part of the problems cited with an article in an AFD are related to
1834:, which I can chalk up again to a lack of understanding deletion policy and article standards, but unfortunately instead of him recognizing that maybe there's something he's not getting, he's refused to take others' criticisms and comments seriously. So as I said, I think he needs to spend more time actually learning how Knowledge works by more small-scale, mundane editing, rather than jumping into the deep end and expecting unrealistic results. And maybe someone from Wikiproject film, for example, may be willing to mentor him if that's the area he wants to focus on.
2103:
1858:
collection of pop-culture references in the style of a TVTropes article. As I could find no resources to substantiate the claim that this was indeed a real term, I initially labeled it as a possible hoax, and definite OR. The pages author completely revamped the article during the AfD discussion, which is why it probably seems strange at this point as to why it was ever considered to be a flat out hoax. This probably has little to do with the current discussion, but I thought I would just clear that up for you.
1930:- I'm not ready to approve it for the mainspace yet, but let's have a fresh, uncontroversial AfD based on the new title and new article. It's not perfect, but this user clearly is trying to work on it in good faith even with us all babbling on about original research. It seems this user, while he comes across a bit, er, opinionated at times, is trying in good faith to come up with an article here, and there is more merit to a discussion of where the content can be used if not in its own article.
1648:. First and foremost, DRV is not intended to be a second-run AFD; there were no procedural errors during the AFD process and no reason to believe that the closing admin misinterpreted consensus or closed in a way incompatible with it. Generally speaking, that suggests there is no need to overturn here. Procedure aside, there really is nothing to suggest that this moves beyond original research -- specifically, it was a
2219:- At this time, in light of the evidence brought up above, I am going to request a closure of this DRV by an uninvolved admin. An article with copyvios lifted and embedded inside should not be present on Knowledge. I will also request the user's working copy deleted and the user's editing privileges blocked temporarily until we can determine whether any other copyvios have taken place that have not yet been found.
1021:
2489:
1827:
Which means that he might be better off taking some time to edit existing articles (and learn more about how
Knowledge works and how to work with other editors) rather than trying to start new ones where he isn't even clear on what the topic is and not fluent enough with English. Again, all of this except for "the clear consensus in the AFD was delete" is all post-DRV observations and conclusions.
2191:("...a relatively truncated version of the last minute rescue...Even so, Griffith employs both editing..."). Note that these are only the portions of the text I searched for, and all of them turned out to be lifted; I have not checked the entire article, so I can't say this is it, and as I noted above, at least part of another article he posted also has text lifted verbatim from a source.
2284:
1248:
1754:. In both the AfD and the article itself, the article creator made it quite clear that the stock character name ("just in time lad") was an irrelevance and could be changed. There is therefore no room to suggest that a revised character name makes any difference to the AfD opinion which was clearly and unabiguously expressed, so there is no convincing case to overturn its outcome.
859:– Current nomination now moot. The nominator has been indefinitely blocked for consistent violations of copyright, and his draft has been deleted for the same. Consensus on whether or not the deletion itself was correct is difficult to judge from the below, due to the amount of time spent on copyright issues, so another DRV is suggested if anyone else feels it necessary. –
190:, the Foreign Minister of Iran, has formally expressed his government's concern over the “apartheid-like” discrimination practiced against the the Shiite majority by the government of Bahrain in a letter addressed to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. And the press, particularly in Iran, has continued to cover the issue and to call it apartheid, as does the
496:
546:. I'm sure it's possible to find some recent articles that use the words "Bahrain" and "apartheid" in close proximity, but that's not a proper standard for inclusion. There is no general debate about the existence or non-existence of "apartheid in Bahrain," and hence no reason for this article to exist. The deletion took place in accordance with proper procedure.
2009:. The deletion review part of this is easy, because the deletion for "Just-in-time lad" was conducted correctly and closed in accordance with the consensus. But, the deletion discussion for "Just-in-time lad" would have focused on the sources for that title. This is a different title, and therefore the sources will differ. It warrants a fresh discussion.
1467:
Ex
Machina" or the "In Other Cultures" section already have their own, much more comprehensive articles on Knowledge. The vast majority of the remainder of the article is solely on D. W. Griffith's work. Even if the OR issues are cleared up, it would make a lot more sense to just integrate any actual relevent and fully sourced material from it into
1418:
2293:: No need in urgent closure. Quick "switch" from OR to CV haven't been settled yet. When other discussants, who stated that the article is an OR, will confirm that it is not an original research and stands far from original research, I will rework copyvio in a single edit (I've stored a reworked version, cause I knew that this moment will come). –
1733:, or genre slapstick to the inter-cut style of D. W. Griffith (likely because those movies do not use that technique). The inclusion of a figure from the Qur'an in a article ostensibly (at the moment) about a cinematography technique underscores the reasons why the AFD participants uniformly felt the article fell short of policy expectations.
1085:
793:"It's apartheid," said Mansoor Jamri, who was forced to resign as editor of the independent Al Wasat newspaper. "They've made a decision that half the population is not wanted, and they want to instill fear in this population and dehumanize them."Los Angeles Times, "After crushed protests, Bahrain is accused of deepened oppression of Shiites"
1725:, according to its lede, it is an article about "a type of cross-cutting or inter-cutting used in cinematography." The protean nature of this article's topic does nothing to disguise the problems with original research and novel synthesis. The cited references do not describe any relationship between the cinematography of
1301:). Particularly given that this started out as an attempt to describe a purported archetype and only shifted once it was pointed out in the AFD that "just-in-time-lad" was made up and not supported by the sources George claimed it was, it's clear that the very concept of the subject is confused in addition to the details.
389:, all of which have published reports and articles about the anti-Shia discrimination in Bahrain calling it "apartheid." When I posted the article with this extensive sourcing, in addition to sourcing form a number of publications and human rights organization in the Muslim world, it was instantly deleted by
679:
government of
Bahrain recruits foreign settlers of its own ethno/sectarian type (sunni) and gives them citizenship and jobs in the government and security services that it denies to native Shia. Major international newspapers call this apartheid or apartheid-like. Why is this not worthy of an article?
1613:
Speaking in good faith, it sounds like you don't understand how
Knowledge works. Surely additional people will come in who tend to focus more on deletion reviews (I'm one of them). However, those involved in the AfD are also welcome to provide their comments in a deletion review as well. You cannot
1546:
This deletion review is to discuss whether the original close was correct and whether there is enough changes to the article to warrant overturning to keep or even relisting at AfD. Original research is not the only thing to be discussed. With that said, I would urge others from the AfD to bring up
2302:
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your statement "I've stored a reworked version, cause I knew that this moment will come", so you've knowingly put up a copyvio version? You have a version which is (in your view) non-copyvio, but wanted to wait until found out to fix it? Why put something you know is wrong
2166:
I found the first paragraph starting a copyvio at the bottom of page 36 of that source, and paragraph 2 leads in around page 38. I lost track soewhere in the middle of that paragraph. The third and fourth paragraphs I have not specifically found. Can you give us page numbers of these? Once these
1821:
I formed my opinion and observations written above only after this DRV was listed, because I then reviewed the article and noticed for myself that the creator simply doesn't seem to know what basic film terms mean or how to use them. His response to my criticism above illustrates this well, in that
1466:
As the person who initially tagged the original article for deletion, I want to point out that even if the article in question wasn't plagued by the question of OR, would the subject of the aticle even be noteworthy enough to stand alone as its own article? Most of the minor sections, such as "Deus
1454:
I've named article "just-in-time-lad" and made some other weak definitions, because it's only one year passed since I've started to study
English and I've never been to English-speaking country before. You (as well as the others) were able to point it with teplates: , , etc. Deletion is actually the
293:
George
Serdechny, that count of 752 is misleading because it just shows occurrence of the terms "apartheid" and "Bahrain" on the same page. It does not represent all of the stories about "apartheid in Bahrain." Many of the hits (as seen on the first page of results) are from different stories that
2416:
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what
Knowledge means by "original research". An author can have clear citations to facts A, B and C but still be committing original research if he/she then uses them to conclude D when no published sources have previously concluded D. That's the
2352:
of the article, which was already tagged for deletion as an OR, and eventually deleted as OR. I did not create the article from copyrighted material, from the very beginning. It's two big differences and I hope you can distinguish between them. The problem is the unwillingness of the group of users
1976:
article produced from this could see mainspace at least to be relisted, but I'm not comfortable recommending that course of action until the article has a specifically defined topic and sticks to it. The current userspace situation, with a lede (and quite a bit of text) about a cinematography/film
1720:
AFD most certainly did not start with that version, as any admin with the ability to view the deleted content can attest to. The article, as it existed at the time of my AFD participation, referred to a "last-minute hero" in the lede and gave the general impression of discussing a stock character,
1218:
I have given the article another look since my comment. My main issue is that I can't verify a single one of these sources. It looks like some of the sources are themselves encyclopedias, which does suggest notability. I am wondering whether it might be appropriate to relist and at the same time
708:
I find
Serpent39's argument compelling, which is why it is particularly troubling that although the term "apartheid" is being widely applied to the political situation in Bahrain, Knowledge appears to allow application of the term only to Israel. This has the distasteful appearance of treating the
2233:
Everybody knows that any copyvio can be reworked in a few minutes. And you know why I've copied it without any changes? Because I knew for sure that even after the artcile has been rewritten completely, it will be still framed with OR. Now the truth surfaced and yet nobody took back allegations of
2122:. Everything in the sentence after "According to Richard Abel, Professor...Arts" is a verbatim quote from that text. So he's literally copied and pasted text from different books together. This userspace page needs to be deleted, and the rest of his contributions reviewed for further copyvios.
1826:
actually means. I understand that this difficulty comes at least in part because
English is not his first language, so I don't doubt his good intentions here, but he isn't demonstrating a clear understanding of the subject matter or an ability to properly represent what the sources actually say.
2431:
Right, he's taken different paragraphs from different works by different film critics and historians, lumped them together out of context and without clearly identifying them as the opinions and analysis of these particular scholars, and added a bit of a gloss (factually incorrect in its use and
2011:
I'm not overjoyed about the accusations flying around here. Deletion Review is about content, and this is not the place to make accusations of bad faith against anyone. We don't have the power to enforce sanctions against editors and we don't make decisions on the basis of an editor's conduct.
1303:
So I see no reason to question or overturn the judgment of the AFD participants, and no reason to relist. George certainly shouldn't have come here with the "final edition of the article prior to be deleted", "still insisting that the article has no OR problems." If he's going to try to use his
678:
make a claim that, like the indigenous black population of South Africa, the local indigenous Shia live in a position of legal, economic ans social inferiority imposed by a foreign, colonial regime with an imported Sunni ethno/cultural identity. Like the apartheid-era regime of South Africa, the
590:
I reverted that out of that article, it was only as recent addition by our DRV filer here. I wouldn't be terribly opposed to a redirect, but the addition of an apartheid section to a article that is pretty much just a blurb about different ethnic and religious groups is a bit of a stretch, This
693:
Apartheid is a word with an incredible amount of historical baggage and very strongly associated emotional response. As with many other terms of similar weight, it gets used from time to time by people making statements to the media, or even by respectable organizations. People may have become
1771:
An AfD that does not give a reasonable result is a wrongly closed AfD, and in view of the present user space article, I regard the result as clearly very wrong, and contrary to the plain documented facts of the subject. We're not a bureaucracy, so we can consider what we ought to do with the
1367:
Are you accusing postdif of editing in bad faith? Keep in mind that he is not going to advise one way or the other because that suggests that he has an opinion and would invalidate his close. If you were to inquire about protesting the close as he read it, he would be able to suggest deletion
1818:
My only opinion when I closed the AFD was "every participant but for the article creator credibly asserts that this article is OR," and even the creator conceded to some extent that he was making some things up or that the sources didn't support everything; that's at least part of why he keeps
1223:
even if it means a haircut reducing the article to a fifth its current size (I have no idea if that would be the case, I'm being hypothetical). I might even be able to head to a library at some point and look up some of these, but don't hold your breath for that. Also, don't be in a hurry to
1122:
that it was an article that was just AFD'd. So I think there are a number of problems here, first and foremost is that I see no indication that George Serdechny has acknowledged, or understood, the issues raised in the AFD, if he still insists that it has no OR problems. He had already tried
2044:
Edits were made to the page during the AfD discussion. The last two commentors reviewed the revised content (based upon the timestamps, one covering all changes and the other seeing all but the very last edit which changed the opening paragraph) and both explicitly commented that it remained
1857:
As to why it was initially nominated as a "Hoax", when I initially tagged it for Speedy Deletion, and then subsequenty as a AfD nomation, the article was nowhere near the form it is now. It was titled "Just-In-Time-Lad", and rather than focusing on Griffith, the whole thing was just a random
340:
Oh, my bad. I did click to the AfD after posting the comment and found it closed on April 10, so I wondered if it was just being brought up again very quickly on the heels of the closed AfD. Either way, I am willing to entertain a discussion on it, I have not yet cast an opinion. Also,
2393:
Again a strawman, no one has said every single comment you've made is troll like, but your continued strawmen here, apparent desire to sweep the copyvio issue under the carpet and continued the evasion of answering direct questions on the issue is still far from constructive discussion.
2037:
I find no errors in the closure of the AfD discussion. The community consensus was clear. The one piece of contrary evidence (almost 17 million google hits) was rightly discounted because it was based upon a malformed search - the search returned hits with
448:. Fundamentally, this would constitute a "criticsm of..." article, which, when not developed organically as spinout articles from an overlarge section established by consensus (and, often, even then), must overcome a considerable presumption of being an
1118:), incredibly claiming that he wanted it undeleted so he could nominate it for FA; and after another admin userfied it the creator seemed to treat it as a foregone conclusion that the article was going to be restored to mainspace, not even mentioning in
2417:"synthesis" part of original research. Even if all the underlying facts are true, it is not an encyclopedia's place to be the first entity to make the conclusions that go beyond those bare facts. Encyclopedias are, by definition, tertiary sources.
1677:-- even an article of its own, although I'm dubious. But that's not what the article we saw at AFD presented. The AFD article wasn't about a storytelling technique, it was about a character. It was an article that purported that the characters who
506:
he's created recently, but if you read the text of the article it might as well be titled "Apartheid in Lebanon". This is the sort of tendentious editing that needs to be squashed, honestly. Why are we here at DRV, to discuss a "new source" of the
304:
CycloneGU, I. Causabon is basically asking for an "allow recreation" judgment, which doesn't deal with whether the prior AFD was valid but instead argues that circumstances have changed, such as by new sources arising that establish notability. See
1268:
Notwithstanding that DRV is not AFD round 2, the confusion in the lede alone doesn't inspire me with a lot of confidence that the sources are being interpreted correctly. It claims that it's a "type of cross-cutting...used in cinematography," when
2185:("Griffith interspersed shots of Danton..."). The first sentence is also from p. 62 of that source as well, though more edited ("the film chronicles the misadventures...their separation before and during the French Revolution, culminating...").
294:
all contain links to the same editorial by Kristof. Some are from reader comments and are thus obviously not reliable sources. Others can clearly be identified as false hits from their summaries alone in your search results (e.g., from page 2:
1565:. There's no wonder that those who vote to delete the article without reading it, will skip any common sense arguments in order to erase even the single mention of this blunder. Of course you should notify them, and entire community as well. –
185:
I believe that the page should be put back up in light of ongoing media coverage of apartheid policies being practiced by the indigenous Shia majority of Bahrain by the Sunni monarchy and government. In particular, Since the page was deleted,
2075:
the plot device. The draft also incorrectly attributes this literary technique to modern times when it actually traces back to, well, no one really knows - it was well-established by the time of the Greeks, though. This version still fails
633:
I take it that everyone here is supporting a general rule: Except for South Africa, all apartheid sections should be rredireced to pages that begin "Human Rights in _____". I am good with such a rule. Even in cases, such as this, where
490:
444:. Even accepting for the sake of argument that reliable sources exist for the claim of apartheid in Bahrain that extend beyond the mere use of the term, I see no justification for this to exist as a stand-alone article apart from
1392:
in my comments and here again if you need the definition. Unless you mean the article, let's let this appeal play out and see what others think. It might be appealable under the new name, but I'm not an expert in the subject.
276:
It's slightly more complex than that. The common statement of "not afd round 2" encapsulates that. So merely stating overturn because you disagree with the outcome, or endorse merely because you agree are not valid sentiments.
2541:
As a note, I think it laughable that the person responsible for the copyvio article is taking the weekend off. I think it would be wise to finish this up before he gets back and send the message that this is not acceptable.
1293:. And if you read the whole article, you see that it's actually trying to describe "last-minute rescue" as a narrative device, not something unique to film (and probably just a typical suspense-increasing tactic, where the
1498:
and prove it belongs in the namespace as its own article. We're not denying your contributions, as some can be used in other articles; the comment you are replying to is discussing whether this should be its own article.
2432:
application of terms, as I noted above) purporting to tie it all together. Which is why it all read as disjointed and sliding from one subject to another, despite the coherence within certain individual paragraphs.
1304:
userspace copy to forum-shop an end run around AFD (as he did with the film Wikiproject) without actually addressing any of the reasons why it was deleted, I think the userfied version should be deleted as well.
1985:
isn't still a live problem here. The whole purpose of userfication is so that the editor taking possession of the would-be article can attend to its flaws and get it mainspace-ready ... and, so far, this isn't.
1354:, he did not stated nothing even barely close to "George, I was so tired when summarized AfD, but you can go to DRV. Good luck!", he decided that it will be better to ignore my request to userfy and to start to "
763:, or at AFD -- none of which is where you are at the moment. Oh ... and if you do raise such an objection, you probably shouldn't sock to do it; just sayin'. For my part, I think there's a better way to handle
1665:. That's the sort of thing that should certainly be discussed in Griffith's article, if it's not already (I haven't looked). There's enough coverage of the film concept that it might even earn a passage in
2253:("the last-minute rescue in Slapstick comedies is not brought about by divine intervention or melodramatic coincidence..." + "The games slapstick comedy performs take place on the brink of the abyss...").
1656:, but that fundamental flaw appears inescapable. The article's author extensively cites critical analysis of D. W. Griffith. And, to be fair, there is plenty written about Griffith's "last minute rescues"
2507:
and decide to him(her)self whether or not it was an original research ; as well as everybody interested is free and encouraged to continue the discussion if he or she wants to, but temporarily without me.
1258:
and other free-access web-resources. Other 4 available for authorized customers only, but you can easily verify quotations by matching them in the google search line. There are mostly direct quotations. –
1819:
changing the article title and topic around. Really, this AFD stood out as an easy one to close, so whether or not I agreed with the participants it could not have been closed as anything but delete.
988:
1711:
of the article 3 days before it was deleted. Well, two and a half days, if precisely. Is there any comma or any single dot, which makes it different from the version, which we're discussing now? –
1628:
I've told you, I do not want these people to agree with me, cause I feel no need in such agreement, whether they will make any comments or not. I cannot control them and I never wanted to. –
2330:
That's a total strawman, this isn't about if this is OR or not, this is about constructing a Copyright Violation. If you are saying you constructed an article which was a copyvio to make a
486:
2167:
are proven, the entire section immediately needs to be deleted without haste and I would perhaps the page speedied out of sight so the copyvios are permanently deleted from the history.
2303:
in expecting to be found out? Why wait to be found out to resolve it? If it's there waiting now, why haven't you fixed it now having been found out? This makes absolutely no sense. --
2035:
Interesting. I see little connection between the version of the article now in the user's space and the version of the page I commented on in the AfD. Let's take the pieces in turn.
2042:
of those three words. A google search on the exact phrase returns far fewer hits and the majority of those are false-positives and do not support the argument being made in the AfD.
1788:
I've actually been debating changing my opinion to relist due to the new title, but have not decided that for certain yet. However, where does postdif say his opinion in the AfD?
1742:
1694:
1429:). I've decided that "used in cinema" is not the best possible definition and replaced it with "used in cinematography" (because cinematography is a process, while cinema is not).
776:
163:
2051:
Rewrites have continued since the restoration and movement to the userspace. A casual review would suggest that this page is so different that the normal course of editing (
1586:
Also, the entire community has a chance to participate in any AfD. These are the people who participated. Thus, it can be assumed they are most interested in this review.
703:
461:
1995:
1822:
he made an admittedly personal decision to define a technique as being used "in cinematography" even though the original source does not say that and it's contrary to what
1663:
1661:
1659:
1151:
And "yes", I'm still insisting that the article has no OR problems. The problem is mostly about the "massive effect" of those who claim it has, without even reading it.
2561:
2520:
2381:
1537:
Instead of discussing my (or anybody's else) personal qualities/contributions/intentions and other miscellaneous things, can we go closer to the point (OR). Thanks. –
1111:
1057:
1010:
943:
565:
529:
This discussion should be confined to the existence of apartheid in Bahrain, and the significant sources that discuss the conditions in Bahrain as anti-Shia apartheid
1944:
There is absolutely no doubt that the editor is working in good faith. There is an equal amount of doubt as to whether the article is entirely original synthesis.
767:
article than its current trainwreck state, too, but my editing time is far, far too limited at current for me to be willing to dive into anything related to I/P.
2234:
original research. You know how it looks like? It looks like: "Delete it! Delete it! For God's Sake! Delete it!". What's up, uneasy conscience betrays itself? –
1092:. Besides, it's not "a reworking". It's final edition of the article prior to be deleted. Anyone, who can point me out any OR issues in it, strongly welcomed. –
250:
As an FYI, the options for a deletion review differ from an AfD. I had to learn this as well, so I am pointing it out to you here. The options are to either
48:
34:
1034:
151:
1042:, who is in charge: I'd like to ask you to restore it along with its talk page, which has not been moved to my userspace (original talkpage is here:
43:
1110:, purporting to be a stock character, and was deleted as OR. The creator was dismissive and sarcastic in response to the deletion arguments in the
1652:. The article, as it appeared in AFD, was well-referenced, but it was the article, not those references, making the connections. I applaud the
300:"...for the safety of the journalists we've deployed in Egypt, Bahrain, ... Africa was to negotiate job security for the apartheid-era army. ..."
2045:
original research. Even had all the prior opinions been discounted, that still would have been sufficient consensus to close as a "delete". I
1485:
We did not and do not discuss merging yet. Besides, I'm planning to expand the article, but only after it will be restored in the main space. –
1127:) I see no argument here for undeletion or moving his userpage draft to article space other than the fact that he disagreed with the outcome.
931:
2119:
820:
295:
2148:. I don't have time to follow up further right now, but this obviously needs more investigation and a removal of all the infringing texts.
299:
296:"... Jimmy Carter and the South African anti-apartheid leader Desmond Tutu, ... In Bahrain, a Proxy Battle Between Saudi Arabia and Iran ..."
172:
1336:, it is merely his reading of the consensus. He read a consensus to delete, and closed the AfD as such. I do not question his actions.
1715:
729:
2495:
My working day and working week came to an end (it's a Friday and it's a short day today), so I congratulate everyone with the upcoming
744:
725:
1977:
editing technqiue, but sections discussing movies that do not employ that technique, a passage about a figure in the Qur'an, and the
1153:
Like you, for example. You reproach me with "last-minute-hero" but there were no such definitions in the article when you deleted it.
2472:
Seems the copyvio deal is resolved, isn't it? So the question arising, was there a need in shouting "delete it! delete it!". It's a
2395:
2367:
2335:
2304:
1415:
Let's get back to things which "doesn't inspire postdlf with a lot of confidence that the sources are being interpreted correctly":
1025:
952:
278:
39:
980:
1580:
edit. Telling an administrator that his record willbe blemished by voicing his opinion on an article against your own opinion is
2025:
748:
581:
474:
218:
2366:
then. Essentially from your comments at the AFD and your comments here are further into troll territory than reasoned debate. --
407:
The AFD commenters expressly criticized the very notion of having this topic as a stand-alone article, calling the article POV,
1119:
794:
675:
656:
Um, no, that is not the case; there is no "one size fits all" rule here, we evaluate each independently and on its own merits.
191:
2246:
2099:
974:
2081:
1576:
All right, I only had to notify one user; the rest were alerted by postdif to this review. Among my perusals I also noted
238:
21:
1991:
1738:
1690:
1323:
Umm, can I ask you: Why didn't you share this wisdom with me, before deleting the article? And still, where's OR?.. –
772:
699:
457:
2458:
I find the editor's blasé attitude to copyright violation worrying. I have tagged the article for speedy deletion.
756:
180:
1145:
You only forgot to mention that my "dismissive and sarcastic respond", was a respond to the following statement: "
2588:
2523:. There are still copyvios in the userspace draft, and it's pervasive through other articles posted by George.
2245:
Ok, last post before I head to bed: I found copyvios elsewhere in the article, not just the Griffith section: In
2114:... I first noticed it with the text cited in his userspace article to footnote three, p. 606 of Richard Abel's
1978:
1894:
Does indeed seem entirely appropriate for tvtropes, although they no doubt already have a corresponding article.
1297:
of any kind occurs at the proverbial "last minute" whether or not it involves a rescue or other action; see also
1061:
881:
834:
568:. The consensus is, quite correctly, that there should not be a separate article called "Apartheid in Bahrain".—
374:
102:
17:
1981:, perhaps left over from what originally showed up at AFD, doesn't fill me with a great deal of confidence that
2496:
121:
759:. If you object to the titling or content of an article, raise the objection at that article's talk page, at
740:
721:
2463:
1759:
1114:; rude in response to my valid, skeptical questions about why I should userfy it when he asked me to do so (
592:
503:
445:
79:
2271:"Verbatim" — that's right! So it's not OR any longer, it's a copyvio now. I wish you good sleep tonight. –
2055:
post it and re-AfD if necessary) would be appropriate. However, since the question has been posed here, I
1043:
901:
369:
The expanded version of this article that I wish to create is sourced to the Foreign Minister of Iran, the
1987:
1734:
1686:
768:
695:
671:
453:
117:
70:
1205:
As I've allready said: Anyone, who can point me out any OR issues in the article, strongly welcomed. So,
2511:
2477:
2459:
2399:
2385:
2371:
2354:
2339:
2322:
2308:
2294:
2272:
2235:
1755:
1712:
1629:
1605:
1566:
1547:
their points here. I will take the courtesy of notifying some of the participants as a neutral party.
1538:
1486:
1456:
1359:
1355:
1324:
1260:
1210:
1165:
1093:
1047:
855:
736:
717:
560:
I'd endorse the original deletion, of course. The nominator's remarks suggest it may be appropriate to
282:
242:
2577:
2551:
2536:
2514:
2480:
2467:
2445:
2426:
2403:
2388:
2375:
2357:
2343:
2325:
2312:
2297:
2275:
2266:
2238:
2228:
2204:
2176:
2161:
2135:
2093:
2029:
1967:
1953:
1939:
1903:
1889:
1867:
1847:
1813:
1797:
1783:
1763:
1632:
1623:
1608:
1595:
1569:
1556:
1541:
1529:
1508:
1489:
1480:
1459:
1402:
1377:
1362:
1345:
1327:
1317:
1263:
1237:
1213:
1200:
1168:
1140:
1096:
1077:
1050:
870:
804:
688:
665:
651:
622:
604:
585:
555:
538:
524:
432:
402:
358:
326:
286:
271:
245:
222:
91:
2521:
Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Need closure of deletion review, copyvio investigation
1107:
1033:
There is no certain opinion about article's new name, however different points of view represented at
897:
2021:
1455:
last thing to do with a new-made article. Did somebody used templates, or asked for clarification? –
800:
713:
684:
647:
577:
534:
478:
398:
214:
206:
87:
2573:
2547:
2473:
2224:
2172:
1963:
1935:
1925:
1885:
1863:
1793:
1619:
1591:
1552:
1504:
1476:
1398:
1373:
1341:
1233:
1196:
354:
267:
2141:
1666:
1298:
1294:
865:
635:
551:
386:
1432:
I've intended to define D. W. Griffith as a "cinemtographist", but the dictionary, which I use (
1350:
You don't, I do. Yes, I agree that "he read a consensus to delete, and closed the AfD as such".
1614:
control that or tell them you don't want them here; if they want to comment, they will do so.
1187:
is removed, this article isn't worthy of being in the mainspace, let alone being nominated for
2531:
2440:
2422:
2261:
2199:
2156:
2130:
2089:
1949:
1899:
1842:
1525:
1312:
1135:
1115:
1072:
617:
449:
427:
419:
issues, simply invoking the number of sources the article relies upon isn't going to cut it.
321:
310:
1830:
I was also put off by him demanding that I userfy his article so he could nominate it for FA
1721:
as might be expected from the use of the stock characters template that continues even now.
195:
187:
1441:
1437:
1281:
is the actual process of using a camera and lighting to film shots. It also misidentifies
822:"Bahrain Tells UN About Hezbollah’s Efforts to Topple Monarchy", April 26, 2011, Bloomberg.
2363:
2331:
2013:
1802:
He didn'tat the AfD , but he did above in the discussion here at Del Rev, near the top.
1670:
1445:
1286:
1158:
It seems your time is not so precious as you previously claimed while responding me with "
796:
680:
643:
569:
530:
482:
470:
416:
412:
408:
394:
382:
210:
83:
2249:, the last three sentences of that section are taken verbatim, though out of order, from
2569:
2543:
2362:
So you added copyvio material, knowing that it was copyvio material in order to make a
2319:
because verbatim citation of competent sources could not be called an original research
2220:
2168:
2052:
1959:
1931:
1921:
1881:
1877:
1859:
1823:
1789:
1615:
1587:
1548:
1500:
1472:
1468:
1394:
1369:
1337:
1282:
1278:
1229:
1192:
1035:
Knowledge talk:WikiProject Film#"Last-minute rescue" or "Griffith's last-minute rescue"
661:
600:
520:
370:
350:
263:
199:
2077:
2059:. The tone of the article has shifted from a neologism about a particular character
1982:
1809:
1779:
1653:
1649:
1520:- a well-written and very original article. As such, it doesn't belong on Knowledge.
1290:
1270:
860:
547:
233:, regardless of how it will be titled ("discrimination against Shiites" or elsehow).
2181:
The second sentence of the third paragraph is a nearly verbatim copy beginning with
2525:
2434:
2418:
2255:
2193:
2150:
2124:
2085:
1945:
1895:
1836:
1521:
1389:
1306:
1274:
1255:
1225:
1220:
1188:
1184:
1129:
1066:
760:
611:
421:
393:, on the grounds that the previous version with far fewer sources had been deleted.
390:
378:
315:
82:
is probably the best place for any related content that can be reliably sourced. –
2488:
1685:
with independent notability. And I cannot source that connection or that claim.
1332:
postdif was the closing admin. in the AfD. What this means is that the result is
1584:. If you are trying to get people to agree with you, this is not how to do it.
1681:
those last-minute rescues, those climaxes, those deus ex machina constitute an
485:
hit the AfD hat trick a few weeks ago,m having this article deleted along with
2064:
1958:
Agreed, and I think an AfD on the new version of the article would be handy.
642:
and the local Human Rights NGO's and minority press are calling it apartheid.
2060:
1682:
1433:
709:
Jewish state differently than other states. And there is a word for that.
657:
596:
516:
181:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apartheid_in_Bahrain
477:, an article despised by a small cadre of editors. Basically, one massive
1191:
as this user has clearly indicated he wants to do in two April 22 edits.
1037:. The point is mainly about restoring the article under its current title.
1804:
1774:
1147:
I don't see any hope that this could eventually be restored as an article
639:
2500:
2384:: "Everybody, who have eyes and able to read, can judge by himself". –
1368:
review. But prior to that he is not required to make the suggestion.
78:. There is a rough consensus below that the AfD closure was correct.
2560:
The nominating party has been banned for copyright infringement after
2110:. The fourth paragraph of that section is taken almost verbatim from
2071:
of that plot device are well documented, there are no sources talking
495:
2140:...and it's not limited to this article by George Serdechny: compare
1657:
2098:
We have another problem here: copyvios. The first two paragraphs
2106:. The third paragraph of that section is almost verbatim from
511:
foreign minister penning a letter to the UN complaining about
234:
1436:- the most used in Russian part of the Web) showed up that
566:
Ethnic, cultural and religious groups of Bahrain#Apartheid
2505:
final version of the article 3 days before it was deleted
1494:
That's not how it works. Expand the article where it is
2353:
to reconsider their previous statements and mistakes. –
2504:
2012:
That kind of thing belongs on one of the drama boards.—
1873:
1708:
1701:
But that's not what the article we saw at AFD presented
1577:
1159:
1146:
1124:
992:
984:
938:
924:
916:
908:
306:
158:
144:
136:
128:
1026:
Knowledge:Requests for undeletion § Last-minute rescue
1423:
came to be known as the "Griffith last-minute rescue"
2503:. Of course, everyone interested is able to see the
1254:
15 of 19 referred sources are publicly available at
1123:
retitling it during the AFD to "last-minute-hero".(
2247:User:George_Serdechny/Last-minute_rescue#Slapstick
1604:to agree with me. I want more broad discussion. –
963:Final version of the article before it was deleted
1046:- seems it contains some useful info). Thanks. –
2183:the last word on p. 62 here and continuing on 63
1471:, rather than insisting this be its own article.
1058:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Just-in-time lad
1011:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Just-in-time lad
609:Yeah, I agree that's the best target article.
2251:the second paragraph on p. xxii of this source
1769:overturn and restore current userspace version
670:Oh. In that case I think we should reinstate
1162:". Well, if so, then I have to answer simply:
8:
880:The following is an archived debate of the
179:This page was deleted after a discussion.
101:The following is an archived debate of the
2080:. Relisting would be pointless even to a
1056:It's a reworking of an article deleted at
848:
674:. Reliable NGO's, both HRW and the local
63:
2334:about OR, that is in itself a problem. --
2057:can not endorse movement to the mainspace
1654:efforts to improve the article during AFD
638:, international newspapers including the
2476:, so you are freed from answering it. –
975:User:George Serdechny/Last-minute rescue
1832:immediately after it was deleted at AFD
812:
515:human rights track record? Seriously?
467:Endorse deletion, and oppose recreation
2380:Let me cite my own "troll" comment at
544:Endorse deletion and oppose recreation
473:attempt to provide counter-balance to
194:and international observers including
1149:". What a valid, skeptical questions!
262:(in this case to keep the article).
254:the outcome (in this case deletion),
7:
1421:type of crosscutting or intercutting
1106:. The article was originally titled
2591:of the page listed in the heading.
1120:a Wikiproject discussion he started
837:of the page listed in the heading.
2067:. While the examples proving the
2063:to a neologism about a particular
1060:. As such, it should be taken to
469:- All this article ever was was a
28:
2283:
1972:I'm not opposed to the idea that
1438:there are no such word in English
1299:Dramatic structure#Falling action
1247:
1228:either, that is still far away.
1219:try to give assistance to remove
591:material would be more suited to
2519:I've started an AN/I thread, at
2499:and I'll see you soon after the
2487:
2282:
1427:The New Encyclopaedia Britannica
1246:
1116:"I did not ask for your opinion"
1083:
1019:
494:
475:Israel and the apartheid analogy
2587:The above is an archive of the
2102:are taken almost verbatim from
1451:) and film-maker, respectively.
833:The above is an archive of the
676:Bahrain Centre for Human Rights
192:Bahrain Centre for Human Rights
1:
2564:. This review can be closed.
2187:The fourth paragraph is from
1928:) 04:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC))
2116:Encyclopedia of Early Cinema
1563:are not the "neutral party"
2614:
2578:23:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
2552:13:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2537:13:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2515:09:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2481:08:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2468:07:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2446:14:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2427:14:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2404:16:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2389:09:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2376:09:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2358:09:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2344:09:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2326:08:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2313:08:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2298:07:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2276:07:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2267:04:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2239:07:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2229:04:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2205:04:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2177:04:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2162:04:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2136:04:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
2094:22:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
2030:10:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
1996:19:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
1968:04:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
1954:03:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
1940:02:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
1904:02:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
1890:02:41, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
1868:02:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
1848:19:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
1814:19:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
1798:00:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
1784:00:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
1764:20:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1743:21:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1716:20:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1695:20:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1633:20:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1624:20:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1609:20:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1596:19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1570:19:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1557:19:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1542:19:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1530:19:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1509:19:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1490:19:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1481:19:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1460:18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1440:, while "cinematographer"
1403:18:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1378:19:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1363:18:36, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1346:18:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1328:18:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1318:17:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1264:17:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1238:17:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1214:15:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1201:14:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1169:15:25, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1141:14:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1097:14:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1078:13:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1051:06:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1017:
896:nominated for deletion as
704:21:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
689:16:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
666:16:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
652:15:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
623:14:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
605:11:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
586:09:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
562:allow a protected redirect
556:03:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
539:22:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
525:22:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
462:21:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
433:21:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
403:21:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
359:20:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
345:basically goes along with
327:20:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
287:20:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
272:19:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
246:19:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
241:for the last 12 months. –
223:19:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1979:stock characters template
1062:Knowledge:Deletion review
491:the Palestinian Authority
375:Christian Science Monitor
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
2594:Please do not modify it.
2497:International Labour Day
1880:edited it on April 19.
887:Please do not modify it.
840:Please do not modify it.
108:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
1727:Raiders of the Lost Ark
871:22:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
805:22:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
777:21:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
730:07:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
593:Human rights in Bahrain
504:Palestinians in Lebanon
446:Human rights in Bahrain
92:05:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
80:Human rights in Bahrain
2493:Suspension in debates:
2317:This makes all sense,
2562:an AN/I investigation
1164:Don't waste mine. –
1044:Talk:Just-in-time lad
749:few or no other edits
2348:I've constructed an
751:outside this topic.
672:Apartheid in Bahrain
118:Apartheid in Bahrain
71:Apartheid in Bahrain
2217:Request for Closure
2189:beginning on p. 120
1872:To the interested,
1444:"кинематографист" (
1160:Don't waste my time
1104:Comment from closer
884:of the page above.
757:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
564:from this title to
105:of the page above.
1920:(again, see below
1876:is the version as
1667:climax (narrative)
856:Last-minute rescue
636:Human Rights Watch
387:Human Rights Watch
2601:
2600:
2425:
2092:
2028:
1929:
1600:No, I don't want
1561:AfD participants
1434:slovari.yandex.ru
1242:Well thanks, but
1221:original research
1185:original research
1182:
1000:
967:
966:(page is deleted)
847:
846:
752:
733:
716:comment added by
584:
502:, there's even a
347:permit recreation
226:
209:comment added by
2605:
2596:
2512:George Serdechny
2491:
2478:George Serdechny
2421:
2386:George Serdechny
2355:George Serdechny
2323:George Serdechny
2295:George Serdechny
2291:Note to reviewer
2289:
2286:
2285:
2273:George Serdechny
2236:George Serdechny
2088:
2020:
2018:
1988:Serpent's Choice
1919:
1752:Endorse deletion
1735:Serpent's Choice
1731:Thief of Baghdad
1713:George Serdechny
1687:Serpent's Choice
1646:Endorse deletion
1630:George Serdechny
1606:George Serdechny
1567:George Serdechny
1539:George Serdechny
1487:George Serdechny
1457:George Serdechny
1442:is translated as
1360:George Serdechny
1358:" each other. –
1325:George Serdechny
1261:George Serdechny
1253:
1250:
1249:
1224:nominate it for
1211:George Serdechny
1189:featured article
1180:
1177:Endorse deletion
1166:George Serdechny
1125:see comment here
1108:Just-in-time lad
1094:George Serdechny
1091:
1087:
1086:
1048:George Serdechny
1040:To administrator
1023:
1022:
999:
996:
970:
965:
955:
950:
941:
927:
919:
911:
898:Just-in-time lad
889:
849:
842:
823:
817:
769:Serpent's Choice
734:
732:
710:
696:Serpent's Choice
576:
574:
498:
454:Serpent's Choice
442:Endorse deletion
243:George Serdechny
237:search shows up
225:
203:
196:Nicholas Kristof
188:Ali Akbar Salehi
175:
170:
161:
147:
139:
131:
110:
64:
53:
33:
2613:
2612:
2608:
2607:
2606:
2604:
2603:
2602:
2592:
2589:deletion review
2287:
2100:of this section
2047:endorse closure
2014:
1671:deus ex machina
1650:novel synthesis
1535:Urgent request:
1449:cinemtographist
1388:Also, I linked
1334:not his opinion
1287:cinematographer
1277:technique, and
1273:is actually an
1251:
1084:
1082:
1029:
1028:
1020:
997:
971:
951:
949:
946:
937:
936:
930:
923:
922:
915:
914:
907:
906:
885:
882:deletion review
838:
835:deletion review
827:
826:
818:
814:
711:
570:
204:
171:
169:
166:
157:
156:
150:
143:
142:
135:
134:
127:
126:
106:
103:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2611:
2609:
2599:
2598:
2583:
2582:
2568:Note added by
2557:
2556:
2555:
2554:
2517:
2509:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2456:
2455:
2454:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2414:
2413:
2412:
2411:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2406:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2243:
2242:
2241:
2214:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2096:
2050:
2043:
2036:
2033:
2007:Take it to AfD
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1998:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1906:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1824:cinematography
1766:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1637:
1636:
1635:
1585:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1532:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1469:D. W. Griffith
1464:
1463:
1462:
1452:
1430:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1289:when he was a
1283:D. W. Griffith
1279:cinematography
1266:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1163:
1154:
1152:
1150:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1064:, if at all.
1038:
1018:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
968:
947:
934:
928:
920:
912:
904:
892:
891:
876:
875:
874:
873:
845:
844:
829:
828:
825:
824:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
558:
541:
527:
513:someone else's
464:
438:
437:
436:
435:
371:New York Times
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
333:
332:
331:
330:
291:
290:
289:
231:Strong support
200:New York Times
167:
154:
148:
140:
132:
124:
113:
112:
97:
96:
95:
94:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2610:
2597:
2595:
2590:
2585:
2584:
2581:
2580:
2579:
2575:
2571:
2565:
2563:
2553:
2549:
2545:
2540:
2539:
2538:
2534:
2533:
2528:
2527:
2522:
2518:
2516:
2513:
2506:
2502:
2498:
2494:
2490:
2486:
2482:
2479:
2475:
2471:
2470:
2469:
2465:
2461:
2460:RichardOSmith
2457:
2447:
2443:
2442:
2437:
2436:
2430:
2429:
2428:
2424:
2420:
2415:
2405:
2401:
2397:
2392:
2391:
2390:
2387:
2383:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2373:
2369:
2365:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2356:
2351:
2347:
2346:
2345:
2341:
2337:
2333:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2324:
2320:
2316:
2315:
2314:
2310:
2306:
2301:
2300:
2299:
2296:
2292:
2281:
2277:
2274:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2264:
2263:
2258:
2257:
2252:
2248:
2244:
2240:
2237:
2232:
2231:
2230:
2226:
2222:
2218:
2215:
2207:
2206:
2202:
2201:
2196:
2195:
2190:
2184:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2174:
2170:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2159:
2158:
2153:
2152:
2147:
2143:
2139:
2138:
2137:
2133:
2132:
2127:
2126:
2121:
2117:
2113:
2109:
2105:
2101:
2097:
2095:
2091:
2087:
2083:
2079:
2074:
2070:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2054:
2048:
2041:
2034:
2032:
2031:
2027:
2023:
2019:
2017:
2008:
2005:
1997:
1993:
1989:
1984:
1980:
1975:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1965:
1961:
1957:
1956:
1955:
1951:
1947:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1937:
1933:
1927:
1923:
1918:
1917:
1913:
1905:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1892:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1879:
1875:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1856:
1850:
1849:
1845:
1844:
1839:
1838:
1833:
1828:
1825:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1806:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1795:
1791:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1781:
1777:
1776:
1770:
1767:
1765:
1761:
1757:
1756:RichardOSmith
1753:
1750:
1744:
1740:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1714:
1710:
1706:
1702:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1662:
1660:
1658:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1644:
1634:
1631:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1621:
1617:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1607:
1603:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1583:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1540:
1536:
1533:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1516:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1497:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1488:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1465:
1461:
1458:
1453:
1450:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1428:
1424:
1422:
1417:
1416:
1414:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1391:
1387:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1326:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1315:
1314:
1309:
1308:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1291:film director
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1271:cross-cutting
1267:
1265:
1262:
1257:
1245:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1222:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1179:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1167:
1161:
1157:
1148:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1138:
1137:
1132:
1131:
1126:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1102:
1098:
1095:
1090:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1074:
1069:
1068:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1036:
1032:
1027:
1012:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
994:
990:
986:
982:
978:
977:
976:
969:
964:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
954:
945:
940:
933:
926:
918:
910:
903:
899:
894:
893:
890:
888:
883:
878:
877:
872:
869:
868:
864:
863:
858:
857:
853:
852:
851:
850:
843:
841:
836:
831:
830:
821:
816:
813:
806:
802:
798:
795:
792:
791:
778:
774:
770:
766:
762:
758:
755:That word is
754:
753:
750:
746:
742:
738:
737:ShadeofCalvin
731:
727:
723:
719:
718:ShadeofCalvin
715:
707:
706:
705:
701:
697:
692:
691:
690:
686:
682:
677:
673:
669:
668:
667:
663:
659:
655:
654:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
632:
631:
624:
620:
619:
614:
613:
608:
607:
606:
602:
598:
594:
589:
588:
587:
583:
579:
575:
573:
567:
563:
559:
557:
553:
549:
545:
542:
540:
536:
532:
528:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
505:
501:
497:
492:
488:
484:
480:
479:WP:OTHERSTUFF
476:
472:
468:
465:
463:
459:
455:
451:
450:improper fork
447:
443:
440:
439:
434:
430:
429:
424:
423:
418:
414:
410:
406:
405:
404:
400:
396:
392:
388:
384:
383:Time Magazine
380:
376:
372:
368:
367:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
329:
328:
324:
323:
318:
317:
312:
308:
301:
297:
292:
288:
284:
280:
275:
274:
273:
269:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
248:
247:
244:
240:
236:
232:
229:
228:
227:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
201:
197:
193:
189:
183:
182:
177:
174:
165:
160:
153:
146:
138:
130:
123:
119:
115:
114:
111:
109:
104:
99:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
59:27 April 2011
57:
50:
49:2011 April 28
45:
41:
36:
35:2011 April 26
23:
19:
2593:
2586:
2567:
2559:
2558:
2530:
2524:
2492:
2439:
2433:
2349:
2318:
2290:
2260:
2254:
2216:
2198:
2192:
2186:
2155:
2149:
2129:
2123:
2115:
2082:process-wonk
2072:
2068:
2056:
2049:of the AfD.
2046:
2039:
2015:
2010:
2006:
1973:
1915:
1914:
1841:
1835:
1831:
1829:
1820:
1803:
1773:
1768:
1751:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1707:. Here is a
1704:
1700:
1678:
1674:
1673:. Maybe --
1645:
1602:these people
1601:
1581:
1562:
1534:
1517:
1495:
1448:
1426:
1420:
1351:
1333:
1311:
1305:
1302:
1256:google books
1243:
1209:. Please. –
1207:point it out
1206:
1183:- Until the
1176:
1175:
1155:
1134:
1128:
1103:
1088:
1071:
1065:
1039:
1031:
1030:
1009:Deleted per
973:
972:
962:
895:
886:
879:
866:
861:
854:
839:
832:
819:ill Varner,
815:
764:
616:
610:
571:
561:
543:
512:
508:
499:
487:Saudi Arabia
466:
441:
426:
420:
391:User:Postdlf
379:The Guardian
346:
342:
320:
314:
303:
259:
255:
251:
230:
205:— Preceding
184:
178:
116:
107:
100:
75:
69:
58:
2396:82.7.44.178
2368:82.7.44.178
2336:82.7.44.178
2305:82.7.44.178
2112:this source
2108:this source
2104:this source
1703:". That is
1181:(see below)
1024:Moved from
747:) has made
712:—Preceding
481:argument.
279:82.7.44.178
239:752 results
74:– Deletion
2474:rhetorical
2084:like me.
2065:plot twist
2016:S Marshall
797:I.Casaubon
681:I.Casaubon
644:I.Casaubon
572:S Marshall
531:I.Casaubon
483:I.Casaubon
395:I.Casaubon
311:discussion
211:I.Casaubon
84:Eluchil404
44:2011 April
2570:CycloneGU
2544:CycloneGU
2221:CycloneGU
2169:CycloneGU
2069:existence
2061:archetype
1960:CycloneGU
1932:CycloneGU
1922:CycloneGU
1882:CycloneGU
1878:Rorshacma
1860:Rorshacma
1790:CycloneGU
1683:archetype
1616:CycloneGU
1588:CycloneGU
1549:CycloneGU
1501:CycloneGU
1496:right now
1473:Rorshacma
1446:translit.
1395:CycloneGU
1370:CycloneGU
1338:CycloneGU
1244:note that
1230:CycloneGU
1193:CycloneGU
409:WP:POINTy
351:CycloneGU
264:CycloneGU
2501:May Days
2364:WP:POINT
1705:not true
1582:not cool
862:lifebaka
745:contribs
726:contribs
714:unsigned
640:Guardian
548:CJCurrie
500:Facepalm
417:WP:SYNTH
413:WP:SYNTH
343:overturn
260:overturn
219:contribs
207:unsigned
76:Endorsed
20: |
2526:postdlf
2508:Cheers!
2435:postdlf
2419:Rossami
2350:edition
2256:postdlf
2194:postdlf
2151:postdlf
2125:postdlf
2086:Rossami
1946:Dlabtot
1896:Dlabtot
1837:postdlf
1709:version
1679:perform
1522:Dlabtot
1518:Comment
1307:postdlf
1275:editing
1130:postdlf
1067:postdlf
953:restore
917:history
612:postdlf
509:Iranian
422:postdlf
349:here.
316:postdlf
307:warning
252:endorse
198:of the
173:restore
137:history
2423:(talk)
2090:(talk)
2078:WP:SYN
2053:boldly
1983:WP:SYN
1916:Relist
1295:climax
493:. And
471:pointy
411:, and
385:, and
373:, the
256:relist
202:.
2332:point
2144:with
2073:about
1810:talk
1780:talk
1675:maybe
1419:This
1285:as a
993:watch
989:links
939:watch
932:links
761:WP:RM
258:, or
159:watch
152:links
52:: -->
16:<
2574:talk
2548:talk
2532:talk
2464:talk
2441:talk
2400:talk
2372:talk
2340:talk
2321:. –
2309:talk
2262:talk
2225:talk
2200:talk
2173:talk
2157:talk
2146:this
2142:this
2131:talk
2120:here
1992:talk
1974:some
1964:talk
1950:talk
1936:talk
1926:talk
1900:talk
1886:talk
1874:here
1864:talk
1843:talk
1794:talk
1760:talk
1739:talk
1691:talk
1620:talk
1592:talk
1578:this
1553:talk
1526:talk
1505:talk
1477:talk
1399:talk
1374:talk
1356:bull
1342:talk
1313:talk
1234:talk
1197:talk
1156:P.S.
1136:talk
1089:Done
1073:talk
985:logs
981:talk
979:· (
925:logs
909:edit
902:talk
801:talk
773:talk
765:that
741:talk
722:talk
700:talk
685:talk
662:talk
658:Tarc
648:talk
618:talk
601:talk
597:Tarc
552:talk
535:talk
521:talk
517:Tarc
489:and
458:talk
428:talk
399:talk
355:talk
322:talk
309:and
302:).
283:talk
268:talk
215:talk
145:logs
129:edit
122:talk
88:talk
32:<
2382:AfD
2040:any
1805:DGG
1775:DGG
1723:Now
1669:or
1352:But
1112:AFD
987:|
944:XfD
942:) (
313:.
235:NYT
164:XfD
162:) (
22:Log
2576:)
2566:-
2550:)
2535:)
2510:–
2466:)
2444:)
2402:)
2394:--
2374:)
2342:)
2311:)
2265:)
2227:)
2203:)
2175:)
2160:)
2134:)
2118:,
1994:)
1966:)
1952:)
1938:)
1902:)
1888:)
1866:)
1846:)
1812:)
1796:)
1782:)
1762:)
1741:)
1729:,
1693:)
1622:)
1594:)
1555:)
1528:)
1507:)
1479:)
1401:)
1390:OR
1376:)
1344:)
1316:)
1236:)
1226:FA
1199:)
1139:)
1076:)
998:·
991:|
983:|
956:)
867:++
803:)
775:)
743:•
735:—
728:)
724:•
702:)
687:)
664:)
650:)
621:)
603:)
595:.
554:)
537:)
523:)
460:)
452:.
431:)
401:)
381:,
377:,
357:)
325:)
298:,
285:)
277:--
270:)
221:)
217:•
176:)
90:)
42::
2572:(
2546:(
2529:(
2462:(
2438:(
2398:(
2370:(
2338:(
2307:(
2288:*
2259:(
2223:(
2197:(
2171:(
2154:(
2128:(
2026:C
2024:/
2022:T
1990:(
1962:(
1948:(
1934:(
1924:(
1898:(
1884:(
1862:(
1840:(
1808:(
1792:(
1778:(
1758:(
1737:(
1699:"
1689:(
1618:(
1590:(
1551:(
1524:(
1503:(
1475:(
1425:(
1397:(
1372:(
1340:(
1310:(
1252:*
1232:(
1195:(
1133:(
1070:(
995:)
948:|
935:|
929:|
921:|
913:|
905:|
900:(
799:(
771:(
739:(
720:(
698:(
683:(
660:(
646:(
615:(
599:(
582:C
580:/
578:T
550:(
533:(
519:(
456:(
425:(
397:(
353:(
319:(
281:(
266:(
213:(
168:|
155:|
149:|
141:|
133:|
125:|
120:(
86:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.