Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2011 July 2

2587:. I really don't think this one is all that complicated. The action by the deleting admin was obviously bold and bordered on, or perhaps just plain ran across, the ignore all rules line. Both of those things are fine, so long as the actions are largely endorsed, or not complained about, afterward. Clearly that's not what is happening at this deletion review since there is significant disagreement with the speedy deletion. The solution is pretty simple: list the thing at AfD, which in hindsight would have been the best action to begin with. Personally I don't know whether I would support deleting it or keeping it there—since this is a deletion review that doesn't matter, though it's often hard for people to remember that. Also it's worth pointing out that the Lewinsky/Santorum comparisons, analogies, etc. are distractions in this discussion. One could want the Lewinsky thing deleted and the Santorum thing kept, the Santorum thing deleted and the Lewinsky thing kept, both deleted, or both kept. All of those arguments could be constructed with some validity under Knowledge (XXG) policies, believe it or not. There is room for legitimate disagreement among well-meaning people on these issues, which again means AfD is the right place to go, although I doubt that said AfD will be particularly edifying. Finally a bit of advice to Dreadstar—if you are going to take a controversial admin action (and you had to know this would be just that), I think you really need to be able to take the heat a bit better than you have here. You have lashed out—and I can tell that you are frustrated, which of course is understandable—at multiple editors on this DRV and that isn't really appropriate behavior for an admin whose actions are being reviewed. I think it is making the discussion more difficult than it need be. -- 2128:

based on attack p. or BLP violation are in ignorance of the Real World: given the history of the period and the massive international publicity there is no conceivable way this can be considered an attack page or a BLP violation. . All the arguments here for endorsing the deletion because the page should not be in Knowledge (XXG) is irrelevant , because regardless of the ultimate decision, it was not a valid speedy. Any admin can make an error with a speedy, --I have done so a number of times, but colleagues always correct me & I hope I do not then continueto insist on it, as here. --but that others actually endorse an error as they do here because THEYDONTLIKEITEITHER is the embodiment of folow-the-leaderbad judgment. There are 800 active admins, each with their personal views. That's why we have AfD, and why speedy is restricted to unquestionable deletions. Considering that santorum survived AfD , the community decided that that page was not an attack p, or a valid BLP deletion, and arguing we should delete this one on the precedent of a similar page that was

2616:"what ought to be deleted". Speedy has narrow rules, and they are there for the very purpose of preventing controversial speedy deletions. Such deletions, especially if they are related to widely known subjects or matters that have had much argument here for one reason or another, do much more harm to the reputation of everyone involved than a normal procedure would have done. This is what always and inevitably happens when something controversial and noticeable is deleted speedy. Dreadstar, the only rational thing for you to do at this point is to reinstate the article and AfD it, thus showing you have learned something. Otherwise, to be honest with you, a deletion such as this casts doubt on all your speedy deletions. (I speak as someone who has done 10,000 speedy deletions myself, 10 or so of which were totally wrong, and from which I learned how to do it better.) 974:(aside: It's good to see that folks are actually being consistent in their views rather than siding with one side or the other in the political debate.) That said, I'd never before heard of this term used this way, but after a quick review of the sources it actually seems to have a better case of being a real neologism than that other article. I don't think it counts as a G10 (it is quite well sourced and high-quality sources are generally enough to ward off a G10) and I don't see any other speedy criteria. I honestly don't think it has a snowballs chance of being deleted at AfD, but I've been wrong before. The fact that she is no longer a public figure might be the turning factor at an AfD. We'll see. 2480:

scandel in a second stand alone article. I question whether the neologism aspect is even something Knowledge (XXG) should be dealing with. Knowledge (XXG) is not a dictionary. So now, we are arguing to have three standalone articles based on the mistake made by one human being. How despicable, embarrassing, and unprofessional of us as editors and an encyclopedia, and how heartless of us as human beings. And what ? We aren't good enough editors to have the neoligisn content, in a do no harm way, integrated into two other articles. Do we even need two articles? The actions necessary for deleting BLP content is clear. Remove it. And that 'remove' has to be as fast as possible to avoid harm.

2570:. I'll be directing the next editor who invites me to create an account to this discussion. I've made roughly 1000 good faith edits as an IP, but as long as new editors are blocked as sockpuppets without even alleging who they're a sock of, or for being a SPA before they've had enough time to pick a second topic to edit, I'm convinced I'd be unwelcome if I ever tried to edit from an account. Sure, I can't vote in Arbcom elections, but at least IPs aren't (usually) given long blocks unless they actually engage in the types of vandalism I'd rather remove than create. 2314:

fuck is wrong with people these days??? If we send this to AfD what is the point, do you like drama? No, the speedy was totally correct. We must preserve what little dignity is left. BLP is about PROTECTING PEOPLE. A reliable source does not automatically make harmful material acceptable for inclusion. We must use COMMON FUCKING SENSE (wait ...) and FUCKING PROTECT PEOPLE. Now pardon me while I make sexual neologisms out of several peoples' usernames and see what happens.

373:, who said that it violated BLP but did not list any specific CSD reason. He also blocked, without warning, the editor who created it. The article appears to have been well-sourced, and the word has been included in at least one slang dictionary. Those of us who are old enough may recall that it did, in fact, become a euphemism for fellatio. I suggest that the article be restored and go through AFD. 2669:. There's very little left to be said. The article was plainly a POINTY creation, and the out-of-process deletion has produced the level of disruption that the creator hoped to achieve. Neologisms happen. The question here is whether this one has enough independent significance to require more than a sentence or three in one of the broader relevant articles. Cf 2698:. I don't think we need this article, but deleting it won't do a thing to help any living person. I guess that AfD will find out that this is a fairly trivial neologism no longer in current use, and probably doesn't need to be documented, but there is certainly no reason to speedily delete this unless you want to increase the amount of drama. — 1666:(ec)Monica Lewinsky was nobody's pawn. And "giving a Lewinsky" would be immediately clear to anyone who followed the Bill Clinton scandal. The "santorum" thing has nothing to do with the politician, so to find out what it is, you have to reference the shock-jock who invented it - and there, sports fans, is what that "santorum" thing is 309:"Editorial: Lewinsky, the verb". Savannah Morning News. Retrieved 1 July 2011. "THE LONG-term historical repercussions of the Clinton impeachment are impossible to predict. But the Lewinsky episode has produced at least one short-term contribution to the popular culture lexicon: an eponymous euphemism for oral sex." 1860:. The fact that this deletion is controversial (among accomplished, respected editors) means that it's not a good candidate for speedy deletion. What BLP violation did this article have, and was it serious enough to merit speedy deletion, rather than editing it out, and sending to AFD if sourcing's a concern? 2723:"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing. 2313:

Article was completely inappropriate; have we lost all respect for other people? If YOU were Monica Lewinsky, how would YOU feel? Disgusted? Sad? Angry? Appalled? Appalled that now EVERYONE has free access to learning about the different times people have used your name to refer to oral sex? What the

1816:

it I can't say. There is no justification for speedy deleting it without letting people read it and decide in discussion. Above all, I am disturbed by the blocking of the person who created this article, who like the victim of some Soviet purge would seem to be guilty of nothing but standing in the

1750:

There is a huge difference between media outlets getting a laugh from some titillating episode (the reliable sources) and an encyclopedia permanently recording a fad name–this article is simple trolling and the longer it is discussed the more foolish we appear. A neologism like this might be suitable

2491:

The Santorum article has been a huge draw on Knowledge (XXG) editor hours, this second article created with all of the concerns listed above would undoubtedly have created another similar cess pool. If the article was truly notable and did not violate BLP, fine, but its not notable and it is by its

2357:

If I were M.L., my disgust would be at the inventors of the neologism, and not at the fact that when it unfortunately and stupidly became notable , an encyclopedia included it. The harm has been done, And, not that it is to the point, I agree with Baseball that the only person who engaged in truly

2127:

An entirely out of process IAR deletion. I am not at all certain about whether this term is suitable for an article, and so it needs to be discussed. Calling out BLP is not a free pass, as arb com made clear. What does no harm is not a BLP violation. Bad taste is not a BLP violation. The arguments

2083:

Based on I read it and it's not an attack page. I have no idea whose opinions/actions are what they really believe and whose are just for the purpose of fighting the Santorum war on another front. Shame on anyone who is !voting here based on the Santorum article. I'm sure that the SPA who created

2497:

There is a point where we as editors have to display some common sense, ignore all rules and act boldly for the sake of the encyclopedia. Then if the community agrees reverse, but in the meantime a human being has been harmed as little as possible. We don't have the right to harm anybody . We only

2479:

A third stand alone article on Monica Lewinsky whose only claim to notability is an affair with a US president is a violation of BLP. Yes, we are doing harm by dealing with this woman and her one and only notsble action three times The biography has been covered in a stand alone article, as has the

1755:

some specialist publication has written that the claimed word really does have currency (as opposed to revivals of old jokes). Slang dictionaries on the Internet are full of random made-up nonsense and are not a suitable basis for determining when a joke has become a notable neologism. If we were a

1608:

There's no comparison, if you're poor little Monica it's one thing; if you're an ex-senator, presidential hopeful, it's quite another. And I doubt the senator was a pawn of a more powerful person, or that he ever created the frothy mix. I tend to be far more sympathetic towards Miss Lewinsky than

929:

You seem to think that WP is the only source of anything. There are countless other sources, and if I were looking for alternatives for "giving head" WP is the last place I'd go looking. Given this event is mentioned in other articles on WP to raise the issue of censorship over the deletion of this

1774:

Note: If everything you said were true then this would probably fail an AFD, though there'd be no harm in actually having one to find out. However this word appears in two printed slang dictionaries, and has been used a couple of times this year by Rush Limbaugh plus numerous sources over the past

212:

Thibault, David (2004-06-25). "Lewinsky: Clinton is a 'Liar and a Creep'". CNSNews.com. Archived from the original on 2005-12-30. "After years of therapy, Lewinsky told the Daily Mail that she is still tormented by the affair and its resultant publicity, especially because her name continues to be

2548:

have some control over without blocking editors and throwing out content: like the rush to put that guy from the IMF at the top of the Main Page news as an alleged rapist, complete with picture, even though the only evidence was one woman's allegation. Which have turned out to be rather frayed

2009:

Thanks for the condescending attitude. I have read the latest version of the article, and it's written in a reasonably neutral fashion that concentrates more on use of the term in the media, rather than shits-and-giggles namecalling like you seem to imply. It's probably embarrassing for Monica

1059:

AGF, are you serious? Do you really think a brand-new, never before edited with another account person pulls a contentious article out of his ass hours after account creation, fully formatted and cited? One that parallels what is arguably the project's most contentious article at the moment?

747:

You're the one who brought up the NYT citation, can't you defend it? I don't think you can; and I don't think the other 30 are defensible either - how many did you look at that didn't even mention this puported neologism? I know how many I looked at, and it was insufficient for this article.

2132:

deleted is perverse-- or perhaps prejudiced. (I note again I am not passing judgement on the p. itself, nor am I saying that I regard the Santorum p. in any of its versions as suitable. I have certain prejudices about the decency of political discourse myself, but I do not impose them on the

292:

Leibowitz, David (20 October 1999). "Lewinsky name becomes lewd noun". Arizona Republic. "It seems that last week, in one of those beautiful art-mirrors-life moments, a Law & Order character searching for exactly the right euphemism to describe oral sex uttered a novel, yet deadly accurate

255:

Parker, Kathleen (15 September 1999). "Were Jones' claim true -- that the then-Arkansas governor invited her to perform a Lewinsky -- she should have smirked, thrown back her head and laughed shrilly". USA Today. "Start with Paula Jones, who, you have to admit, pre-surgery, bore a striking

259:

Groen, Rick (20 November 1998). "Woody's comic muse craps out". Globe & Mail: p. E1. "Early on, one grateful subject (Melanie Griffith) invites him back to her childhood home, wiggles suggestively on her old frame bed, then thanks Lee by performing a full Lewinsky on his startled

2637:

of supporting it or commenting on it in any way - thereby reducing its google bomb weight increased by large discussions here at wikipedia. As its clear there are plenty of users that support this type of content at the moment, rather than oppose it just remove it from your view -

870:

The santorum article remains because there's a fuckton of people who agree with Dan Savage but cannot being themselves to be objective about the matter. This is a prime example of what happens when the Knowledge (XXG)'s crowdsourcing approach to editorial control is a failure.

2485:

Further a likely sock with knowledge of the Santorum article, for anyone who is aware of that article will see the parallels immediately, is playing games with us possibly to make a point, maybe just to have some fun. This is disruption pure and simple with a BLP violation at

1033:, and do it properly with a AfD discussion. I would like to remind everyone that this is a discussion concerning whether Dreadstar's speedy deletion was carried out properly; it isn't a substitute AfD discussion. I personally believe that the content should be merged with 285:

Limbaugh, Rush (21 February 2011). "Study: Lewinskys Cause More Throat Cancer Than Tobacco". The Rush Limbaugh Show. Retrieved 1 July 2011. "I'll leave that up to you, moms and dads, to explain to your youngsters, "What is a Lewinsky?" I'm just trying to keep the program

223:

a b Ross, Ally (14 October 1999). "Monica Lewinsky; UK Confidential.". The Sun: p. 22. "BOLDLY following the trail blazed by Errol Flynn, MONICA LEWINSKY's name has now become the unofficial American slang term for what we modestly refer to in the tabloid press as a "sex

1877:

The primary point of BLP is to minimize harm. Given how incredibly famous the individual in question is that isn't an issue here. The large number of reliable sources make the claim of a BLP issue even more problematic. Similarly, the unblock seems like a bad idea.

2632:

Yes, Dreadstar- reinstate the article, consensus is pretty clear, rather now than later. I was thinking for the users that object to such content, its better rather than attempting to resist such disruptive content to just remove it from your watchists and

914:

a matter of being objective. We should cover everything that people find reliable sources for. I am very, very tired of being accused of being "not objective" because I don't think you can censor whatever you don't like for no other reason than that.

233:

Boone, Matt (22 May 2009). "Jim Ross On WWE/Denver Incident, RAW Announcing, Tag-Teams". Wrestlezone. Retrieved 2 July 2011. "Most know what a "Lewinsky" refers to so I wonder if arena scheduling issues might be referred to as "Kroenke's" in the

520:

The "Santorum" article survived an AFD, indicating that similar material probably does not qualify for speedy deletion. Again I ask Dreadstar: under which CSD was it deleted? To Baseball Bugs: which provision of BLP does the article violate?

409:

requirements for high quality reliable sources. The editor who posted it was an obvious sock/spa with only this BLP violation as edits. User:Will Beback's personal recollections and experience in this subject are of no relevance whatsoever.

219:

Shittu, Hakeem; Callie Query. "Glossary". Absurdities, Scandals & Stupidities in Politics. p. 128. "Slang term for oral sex coined in the wake of the political scandal over President Bill Clinton's liaisons with White House intern Monica

1029:– There seems to be a atmosphere of bad faith and distrust whenever politics are involved. Will Beback said that the article was well-sourced. Do we have the right to assume Kiwi Bomb is here solely for malice? Let's restore the article, 256:

resemblance to a certain Oz character. Hint: I'll get you my little pretty. Were Jones' claim true -- that the then-Arkansas governor invited her to perform a Lewinsky -- she should have smirked, thrown back her head and laughed shrilly."

281:

Limbaugh, Rush (2 June 2011). "On Leaders and Their Flaws". The Rush Limbaugh Show. Retrieved 1 July 2011. "I mean there are women who write of Bill Clinton, "I would give Clinton a Lewinsky myself just to thank him for keeping abortion

1396:

So the username of the blocked editor was Kiwi Bomb? So, kiwi's look like shit, and "bomb" as in "google bomb?" I think that probably establishes intent. But anyway, at first glance anyway the sources look very poor, nothing like at

1326:. One of the main reasons why IP editors get accounts is to start a new article - doesn't mean they never tried an edit before that. There were doubtless people at the Salem witch trials who used better logic and rules of evidence. 991:- totally agree with Tarc's comments - this place is overrun by the crowdcomplex - go on give me a lewinsky - what crap. I sometimes have to remind myself, a lot of contributors in discussions at wikipedia are twelve year old boys. 305:

Wolk, Josh. "Blown Opportunity". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved 1 July 2011. "Now no one will know if getting a Lewinsky means receiving oral sex, or receiving a lot of publicity for a clichéd joke that otherwise would have been

450:, and many other mainstream news sources. Most editors would not consider those to be "low-quality, mostly comedic and unreliable sources". Did you delete it under "G10: Attack page", or as an "ignore all rules" deletion? 2413:, there was a time to use common sense and protect people - and it was back when that ridiculous farce of a special prosecution over a comment in civil litigation came up. The court could have defined "sexual relationship" 1838:

Out of process deletion, we are probably better off without the article, nonetheless I don't think it warranted an out of process deletion. As illustrated by the large number of people above, this deserved a discussion.

2674: 1125:

That's a crock of shit and you know it. Both of you. I swear to christ this Miss Manners-ish "tsk tsk, we shan't believe in naughty people" air some of you pretend to affect makes me wat to vomit in my own mouth.

2266:

statements about Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, Rick Santorum and the like. Statements that are negative but factual and impeccably sourced ("George W. Bush was once arrested for drunk driving . . ") do not qualify.

2392:

but if WP:BLP is to be used as a shield to block the creation of this article I think it would be a good idea if that were exposed to community input, rather than the limited input afforded by speedy deletion.

835:

So, the "lewinsky joke" is an encyclopedic article? At least Santroum has some claim to reality because it had politial and social effects. This is just a pathetic joke, unworthy of an encyclopedic article.

2102:, not sure where you got that I deleted it as an attack page, but I'm sure somewhere in our combined logic there's a reason for deletion besides it being created by an SPA - because that's not good grounds. 1895:

I don't see the draft as a major BLP violation, while there may be some BLP concerns involved I don't think they are severe enough to justify speedy deletion. There might be a case that this actually meets

1984:

BLP overrides all that, and totally justifies so-called 'speedy' in this case. Base your arguments on the facts of the article, not some vague "enough room for doubt"....there IS no room for doubt in a

1808:", made up by people on the spot who expect to be understood, rather than coded with a specific meaning that is remembered. Note that people know what Monica Lewinsky is famous for and draw the meaning 543:, this one doesn't even come close to the sources that parrot that other article. Second, no - if you don't understand deletion because it was a WP:BLP violation, then you clearly have have a problem. 368: 1099:. Other wikis, such as Wookieepedia, use Knowledge (XXG)-like citations. Perhaps Kiki Bomb learned it elsewhere. Privacy while editing or creating articles on controversial subjects is listed as a 2084:

it was someone's bad hat sock and I'd be more inclined to agree with the deletion on those grounds (WP:DENY and all that), but the article is well-sourced and not an appropriate BLP deletion. --

645:

The concise new Partridge dictionary of slang and unconventional English" has a similar entry for "an act of oral sex on a man", although the listing is under "Bill Clinton" rather than Lewinsky

2417:, and asked Lewinsky yes or no based on that; or conducted the whole line of questioning in chambers - they chose not to do that. And now, fifteen years after the horses have bolted, you want 2540:

What really ticks me off is that even while people make these absurd arguments trying to suppress encyclopedic coverage in obscure articles (thereby vastly inflating their importance via the

1576:

Thanks for the detail - so it was created by a disruptive sock. I hope a checkuser gets their account. The worst part is that we have users that support that kind of disruptive contribution.,

852:

The "santorum" article was kept at repeated AFD. As you say, this is even more reflective of "reality". So why would it qualify for speedy deletion when the "santorum" article does not?

1078:

That's not a reason for speedy deletion unless the account is known to be a sock of a banned user. Sock accounts may be blocked, but we do not automatically delete their contributions.

1401:

If the sources turn out to be very good, against my expectations, then I might change my opinion here. Also, there is in this case a totally appropriate article to discuss such a topic,

1756:

bureaucracy, overturning to allow prolonged discussions might be appropriate, but in this case the delete decision was entirely correct and there would be no benefit from an overturn.

93: 2670: 2442:

Deleting admin has repeatedly been unable to answer questions, which is a violation of wikietiquette. Special purpose accounts are explicitly allowed for use on sex topics.

2384:

The problem is that when you abuse a policy and then you wish to apply it appropriately, it is no longer a policy with the same clear and beneficial purpose that it once had.

2474:, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Sources as a whole for the most part are weak, and its very questionable whether they can be considered as "significant coverage". 1812:, not as a result of reading a meaning intended for the word on Dan Savage's web site. I am skeptical that the article will have sufficient references to keep, but without 1821:

to be made about "santorum", this could have been a noncontroversial decision to transwiki and redirect to Wiktionary without any deletion or admin action of any variety.

1211:

Perhaps the user was clever, but clever in a different way. Perhaps he was clever enough to lurk and learn about sourcing quickly. You can't know these things for sure.

2010:

Lewinsky, but it largely meets WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR, just as the BLP policy demands. Granted, I'll probably still vote Delete in the AFD if and when it happens.

1026: 216:

a b "If The Spiked Heels Fit, Well...". San Jose Mercury: p. 6b. 1999-10-19. "And Monica Lewinsky? Her name is passing into the vernacular as a synonym for oral sex."

2549:

around the edges. But when it doesn't involve actually chopping out and suppressing content there's just nothing sexy about BLP and no one seems to care that much.

795:- Yet another "word" being used to get a few laughs over the years; an episode of one of those banal Law and order episodes, I believe. Just an extension of the 713:, and even if it's there, is that sufficient for a BLP? NO. What did you see in the New York Times article that makes it a RS, Will? Drop the stick indeed. 2154:

I would personally vote delete for such an article, but it didn't fall under any of the Speedy Deletion categories. Calling it an attack page is just false.

1526:

Since Will Beback believes in this so much, perhaps he will post this BLP violation in his own userspace and then accept the consequences of that, if any.

48: 34: 1041:(which describes an event rather than a dictionary term), this is simply a word without a major machine campaigning to transform a name into a new word. -- 2720:

I've restored the article per the comments above; I'll leave it to others to list it at AfD. I strongly urge those who would keep the article to review

168: 2722: 2421:

to try to impose the discretion that the prosecutor and court wouldn't? Really? We're here to record history - we don't have the power to rewrite it.

43: 1684: 639:

Please explain your own opinion on this, the article itself goes against one of the sources you cite as making this article sufficiently sourced per

1038: 227:

Partridge, Eric; Tom Dalzell, Terry Victor (2007). The concise new Partridge dictionary of slang and unconventional English. Routledge. p. 55.

729:

Delete the NYT citation and there are still 30 left. One bad citation is not a reason to speedy delete an otherwise well-sourced article.

183: 272:

Miller, Dennis (30 July 2008). "Dennis Miller Opines on Scott McClellan, McCain Ad, L.A. Earthquake". The O'Reilly Factor. Fox News Network.

2726:", which was the basis for my deletion. As for unblocking the creator of this article, I will not object if another admin wishes to do so. 1968:. There's enough room for doubt here that a speedy deletion is not appropriate. Let the community have a say in the appropriate forum. 39: 2348: 1674: 1272:

Yeah, quoting WR goes a long way here. I don't even know why I deleted it now. Um...who am I? WR? What? Hello world! <sigh: -->

1173:

it somewhere else? And it just happened to coincide with the Santorum affair? Puh-lease, who the frack do you think this crap fools?

889: 826: 495: 1542:

This issue is thirteen years old and the idea that it is suddenly an accepted notable neothingy of encyclopedic value is just a joke -

2597: 2571: 957:

And hooray for dreadstar. We hardly need any more euphemism for blow jobs, cocksucking, lollipop love, bibble, domer, head, etc, etc.

1367:, with a barnstar for Dreadstar. Hilarious though it is that people get this butthurt about the Santorum article, we can't allow the 663: 405:

Take a look at the sourcing, it depends on low-quality, mostly comedic and unreliable sources that in no way meet the threshold of

621:

There are over 30 sources cited. But this DRV concerns your action, so again please give a policy-based reason for the deletion.

2328: 1384: 2498:

have the right to write fairly about the harm already done and published in RS in a manner that can be considered significant.(

2358:

bad behavior was not her, but the President. And BLP violations with respect to him about this affair ware almost impossible.

312:

Wolf, Dick; Susan Green, Randee Dawn (2009). Law & Order: Special Victims Unit Unofficial Companion. BenBella Books. p. 291.

21: 2682: 1626:

That's really not a deletion issue, that's just grandstanding. Let's keep this discussion focused on relevant issues, please.

1430:. Any chance of temporarily restoring the article so we can properly review? Otherwise, only admins can properly comment here. 605:

Please explain how you read that NYT source and decided it was of sufficient quality and content to support this BLP article.

332: 278:

Kahane, David (June 6 2011). "Wasting Away in Tonyweinerville". National Review Online. National Review. Retrieved 1 July 2011.

700:

Tarc, I can't get the deleting admin to point to the part of BLP which this violates. Can you do so? 00:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

682:

Will, drop the stick and stop being obtuse. BLP concerns override the shit argument that is "OMG RELIABLE SOURCEZZZZZZ!!!"

1733:- Deletion was out of process. If this is to be deleted it needs to be done by community consensus, not unilateral action. 1609:

Santorum. This is just a pathetic worse step against human dignity. So yeah, let's victimize Monica even more. Pile on.

344: 1435: 362: 350: 2771: 118: 17: 2709: 338: 2535:

To take out content and make the encyclopedia "better" by "not harming" people with unfortunate information, that is.

1800:. I googled "giving a lewinsky", and there are 60 results for it. Some use the word in scare quotes. I think that 1008:. I would hope the article would not be kept at AfD, but I reluctantly don't think it qualifies as a speedy delete.-- 799:

seen over the santorum debacle. Btw, what is the timestamp of the article's creation? I can't see that in the log.

2678: 2242: 1212: 1104: 822:- The Lewinsky joke at least reflects reality. The "santorum" thing is the twisted fantasy of a radio shock-jock. ← 356: 252:

Kastor, Elizabeth (25 January 1998). "Political Troublespeak: With Each Scandal, a New Lingo". The Washington Post.

2523:

Complaining about any type of article wastes time, and we must not waste time, therefore the complainers must win.

2344:. And I haven't seen anything to suggest that she was ashamed of any of it. It was like collecting an autograph. ← 289:

Bleyker, Katie Den (2 October 2001). "Comedy 'Patterson' cannot compare to clever 'Seinfeld'". The Michigan Daily.

240:

Peterkin, Allan (1999). The bald-headed hermit and the artichoke:an erotic thesaurus. Arsenal Pulp Press. pp. 154.

230:

Lakely, James G. (19 March 2000). "For once, Clinton foe is using Clintonian tactics". The Free Lance-Star: p. E3.

2503: 2447: 1297: 1263: 1220: 1152: 1112: 1046: 138: 2517:

To me this not merely exemplifies many of the fallacies on your side of the argument, but adds some new ones:

473: 2409:

Give me a break. You seriously are reduced to textually shouting obscenities over Monica Lewinsky's honor?

2293: 1431: 962: 935: 302:

a b Ojumu, Akin (17 October 1999). "Taking the Lewinsky name in vain". The Guardian. Retrieved 1 July 2011.

2593: 2575: 2160: 134: 70: 2389: 1558:(del/undel) (diff) 21:25, 1 July 2011 . . Kiwi Bomb(talk | contribs | block) (13,482 bytes)(new article). 2238: 1782: 1738: 1633: 1515: 1496: 1085: 859: 736: 671: 628: 594: 528: 457: 393: 380: 296:

a b "Lewinsky's dad mad at use of name". Reading Eagle: p. W17. 15 October 1999. Retrieved 1 July 2011.

2647: 2499: 2443: 2323: 2221: 1581: 1547: 1418: 1380: 996: 662:

dictionary says: "Lewinsky: an act of oral sex" and goes one to define it and give examples of usage.

2758: 2737: 2713: 2686: 2651: 2627: 2601: 2579: 2558: 2507: 2451: 2430: 2402: 2369: 2352: 2335: 2305: 2276: 2246: 2225: 2208: 2181: 2165: 2144: 2113: 2093: 2078: 2062: 2033: 2014: 2000: 1972: 1954: 1936: 1909: 1887: 1869: 1852: 1830: 1788: 1765: 1742: 1725: 1705: 1678: 1659: 1639: 1620: 1585: 1571: 1551: 1537: 1521: 1489: 1471: 1453: 1439: 1422: 1388: 1335: 1317: 1301: 1284: 1267: 1250: 1224: 1202: 1184: 1156: 1135: 1116: 1091: 1069: 1050: 1017: 1000: 983: 966: 939: 924: 893: 880: 865: 847: 830: 808: 759: 742: 724: 691: 677: 634: 616: 600: 554: 534: 515: 499: 486: 463: 421: 399: 105: 83: 2731: 2466:

The subject matter is not notable enough to have a stand alone article and as for the sources, per

2107: 2072: 2027: 1994: 1930: 1723: 1699: 1653: 1614: 1565: 1531: 1483: 1311: 1293: 1278: 1259: 1244: 1216: 1178: 1148: 1108: 1042: 841: 753: 718: 610: 548: 509: 480: 415: 326: 2470:,""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a 2289: 2398: 2345: 2301: 1865: 1845: 1761: 1671: 1371:

of pointy disruption to take root. Other crap exists, but that's no justification for this crap.—

958: 931: 886: 823: 492: 266:

Schoenkopf, Rebecca (2 December 1999). "The Full Lewinsky". The OC Weekly. Retrieved 1 July 2011.

97: 2234: 1818: 796: 249:"CLINTON'S SEX-CAPADES LEAD STUDENTS TO SERIOUS DIALOGUE". The Times Leader. 19 September 1998. 2588: 2272: 2155: 1950: 1905: 1883: 1236: 1232: 1190: 1100: 2541: 2050: 1777: 1734: 1628: 1510: 1508:

That's not really the best way for an admin to respond to issues about a speedy deletion.

1402: 1080: 1034: 854: 731: 666: 623: 589: 523: 452: 388: 375: 101: 79: 2467: 2385: 2285: 2255: 2053:, but this isn't AFD. There is no warrant for a speedy deletion of this article in BLP. -- 1986: 1897: 1030: 640: 540: 406: 269:

Lawson, Dominic (2 February 2006). "We expect no better of John Prescott". The Independent.

2754: 2705: 2695: 2643: 2318: 2217: 2201: 2174: 1577: 1543: 1372: 1255: 1013: 992: 979: 709:

And is that reference in the article? I didn't see it, just the 'similar' comment in the

2461:

for multiple reasons. The acting admin acted in a bold way for sure, and thank goodness.

275:

Marcus, Lloyd (1 July 2011). "A Case For Cain". American Thinker. Retrieved 1 July 2011.

2727: 2103: 2068: 2023: 2011: 1990: 1969: 1926: 1718: 1695: 1649: 1610: 1561: 1527: 1479: 1449: 1307: 1274: 1240: 1198: 1174: 1131: 1065: 876: 837: 804: 749: 714: 687: 606: 544: 505: 476: 411: 321: 2233:, not an attack page, not a candidate for speedy deletion. The only person guilty of 1945:

When I wrote "draft" I was referring to the cached version of the article that I saw.

2623: 2554: 2426: 2394: 2365: 2297: 2140: 1861: 1840: 1826: 1757: 1645: 1331: 920: 74:– Restored by deleting admin, with nomination at AfD left to editorial discretion. – 2268: 1946: 1901: 1879: 1368: 1322:

It's ridiculous to say that a newly registered user can't know Wiki format. It's

1103:

for creating an alternate account. Perhaps Kiwi Bomb's employer is a Clinton fan.

2529:

If it's right to have one article, or maybe two, then having three is just wrong.

2089: 2058: 75: 1900:, so I think we'd be best to at least have a deletion discussion on the issue. 2750: 2700: 2194: 1805: 1670:

about: a shock-jock drawing attention to himself by slandering someone else. ←

1009: 975: 1445: 1194: 1127: 1061: 872: 800: 683: 263:

Lyall, Sarah (24 December 2000). "Return to Sender, Please". New York Times.

1215:. Let's base our decisions on evidence rather than feelings and hunches. -- 1105:

A wise person doesn't claim to know something she or he doesn't surely know

299:"Lewinsky father enraged by new TV slang". BBC News. Retrieved 1 July 2011. 2612:

The deleting admin, must come to realize that the criterion for speedy is

2288:, as repeated abuse of that area of policy has made it a blunt tool. (See 1499:

you wrote: "And yet another neologism BLP vio. Sadly, here's another one".

243:

Garnett, Gale (17 July 1999). "More vulgar than erotic". Globe & Mail.

2618: 2550: 2422: 2360: 2190: 2135: 1822: 1502:

When I complained on your user page about canvassing you said, "Fuck off"

1327: 916: 2749:. I for one thank you for sparing us six more days of this discussion.-- 428:

The concise new Partridge dictionary of slang and unconventional English

587:

Please explain: which specific part of BLP does the article violate?

2642:- of even commenting about such content thereby reducing its profile. 2492:

added presence to two other articles a BLP violation that does harm.

2085: 2054: 1691: 1189:

Even socks can be clever and pick a completely new IP to edit from.

2284:

Justification for speedy deletion murky, especially the invoking of

475:? Did you acually read the reason I deleted it? (BLP Violation?). 2022:

Yes, of course, your own condescending attitude notwithstanding.

1688: 1817:

wrong political place at the wrong time! If there hadn't been a

1556:

Well, it was created yesterday by an account created yesterday:

237:

Dalzell, Tom; Terry Victor (2007). Sex Slang. Routledge. p. 105.

2675:

WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Plaxico (2nd nomination)

2296:.) Allow AfD to run its course. Community input called for. 1405:. This article is totally unnecessary as a separate piece. 246:"Lewinsky and the first lady". USA Today. AP. 19 March 2008. 1717:- Has no encyclopedic value but to disparage the namesake. 1273:

just when I thought this couldn't get any lower.... man.

94:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Lewinsky (neologism)

1775:

decade. So your assumptions are not entirely correct.

491:

So how is this "santorum" nonsense not a BLP violation? ←

1506: 1503: 1500: 1475: 1289: 1256:

http://wikipediareview.com/blog/20100614/the-duck-test/

1144: 655:

for this purported neologism. 23:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

175: 161: 153: 145: 2388:

has been widely abused. Perhaps I would be guilty of

1444:Click the "cache" link at the top of this section. 1027:

Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppet_investigations/Kiwi_Bomb

2049:- Were this AFD, I would opine to redirect it to 1478:, obviously meant to attract sympathetic votes. 1239:ends and where it begins. This ain't not that. 2342:is because Monica blabbed to a "friend" about it 1798:Overturn and list and unblock the poor editor 1306:Nah, WR Law. You start it, I'll finish it. 8: 2671:WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Plaxico 2544:), they completely ignore the BLP issues we 2133:community when it has decided otherwise.) 2694:. Seriously, this is not a BLP: that is at 117:The following is an archived debate of the 2216:. Unilateral Action not supported by CSD. 1235:when I see it, and I certainly know where 200:The following discussion has been closed. 191: 92:The article was nominated for deletion at 63: 1685:President of the United States of America 815:Remain deleted but also delete "santorum" 1107:, so let's avoid making assumptions. -- 7: 2340:The reason the world knows about it 1925:? Ah, no, there's no such thing. 1694:. But she's nobody's pawn. Yeah. 2774:of the page listed in the heading. 504:I agree. And this one is worse. 320:The article was speedy deleted by 28: 1751:for an article in another decade 1039:Campaign for "santorum" neologism 2770:The above is an archive of the 820:Either keep both or delete both 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 1648:are mere grandstanding. Yeah. 1145:Where's your sockpuppetry now? 1: 1804:"santorum", this is truly a " 1169:, that's where. Come on, he 293:coinage: Getting a Lewinsky." 2098:Glad to hear you agree with 1097:Innocent until proven guilty 472:the New York Times source? 386:22:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 2797: 1193:is quite applicable here. 930:article is quite bizarre. 213:synonymous with oral sex." 1602:Comparisons with santorum 989:Endorse deletion and salt 2777:Please do not modify it. 2759:20:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2738:20:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2714:19:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2692:Overturn and send to AfD 2687:19:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2652:19:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2628:19:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2602:19:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2580:17:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2559:17:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2508:16:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2452:14:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2431:14:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2403:13:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2370:19:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2353:13:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2336:13:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2306:12:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2277:11:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2247:11:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2226:07:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2214:Overturn and list at AfD 2209:07:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2187:Overturn and list at AfD 2182:04:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2166:03:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2152:Overturn and list at AfD 2145:03:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2125:Overturn and send to afd 2114:04:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2094:04:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2079:03:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2063:03:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2034:04:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2015:03:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 2001:03:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1973:03:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1966:Overturn and list at AFD 1955:03:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1937:03:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1910:03:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1888:02:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1875:overturn and send to AfD 1870:02:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1858:Overturn and send to AFD 1853:01:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1831:01:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1789:07:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1766:01:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1743:01:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1731:Overturn and list at AFD 1726:00:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1706:01:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1679:00:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1660:01:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1640:00:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1621:00:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1586:00:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1572:00:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1552:00:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1538:23:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 1522:23:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 1490:23:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 1454:02:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1440:02:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1423:00:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1389:00:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1336:14:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1318:04:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1302:03:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1285:03:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1268:03:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1251:03:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1225:03:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1203:02:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1185:02:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1157:02:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1136:02:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1117:00:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1092:00:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1070:00:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1051:00:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 1018:23:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 1001:23:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 984:23:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 967:23:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 940:17:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 925:07:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 894:00:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 881:23:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 866:23:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 848:00:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 831:23:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 809:23:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 760:02:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 743:00:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 725:00:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 692:23:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 678:23:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 635:23:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 617:23:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 601:23:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 555:23:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 535:23:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 516:23:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 500:23:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 487:23:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 464:23:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 422:23:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 400:22:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC) 203:Please do not modify it. 124:Please do not modify it. 106:22:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 84:20:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC) 40:Deletion review archives 1989:, don't you get that? 1213:You need to admit that 2679:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz 2667:Overturn, list at AFD 2585:Overturn, list at AfD 1497:User talk:Jimbo Wales 2568:Overturn and Unblock 2440:Overturn and unblock 2264:questionably sourced 2237:here is Dreadstar. 1505:and deleted my post. 1324:not that complicated 135:Lewinsky (neologism) 71:Lewinsky (neologism) 1919:Major BLP violation 643:, it clearly says " 195:List of references 121:of the page above. 2527:Reverse induction: 2193:has it spot on. -- 1432:Christopher Connor 2784: 2783: 2736: 2600: 2533:Ignore all rules: 2180: 2112: 2077: 2032: 1999: 1935: 1850: 1836:Overturn and list 1704: 1658: 1619: 1570: 1536: 1488: 1387: 1316: 1283: 1249: 1183: 1101:legitimate reason 1031:assume good faith 1006:Overturn and list 972:Overturn and list 846: 758: 723: 615: 553: 514: 485: 468:Did you actually 434:. Routledge, the 426:Sources include : 420: 318: 317: 2788: 2779: 2734: 2730: 2591: 2542:Streisand effect 2334: 2331: 2326: 2321: 2239:Nomoskedasticity 2206: 2199: 2179: 2177: 2171:Endorse deletion 2163: 2158: 2110: 2106: 2075: 2071: 2067:Based on what? 2051:Lewinsky scandal 2030: 2026: 1997: 1993: 1933: 1929: 1893:Overturn and AfD 1846: 1843: 1785: 1780: 1748:Endorse deletion 1721: 1715:Endorse deletion 1702: 1698: 1656: 1652: 1644:Sure, calls for 1636: 1631: 1617: 1613: 1568: 1564: 1534: 1530: 1518: 1513: 1486: 1482: 1470:And now this is 1415: 1403:Lewinsky scandal 1394:Support deletion 1379: 1377: 1365:Endorse and salt 1314: 1310: 1281: 1277: 1247: 1243: 1231:Sure. I know a 1181: 1177: 1165:In the realm of 1088: 1083: 1035:Lewinsky scandal 955:Endorse deletion 862: 857: 844: 840: 793:Endorse deletion 756: 752: 739: 734: 721: 717: 674: 669: 631: 626: 613: 609: 597: 592: 551: 547: 531: 526: 512: 508: 483: 479: 460: 455: 418: 414: 396: 391: 383: 378: 372: 205: 192: 188: 186: 178: 164: 156: 148: 126: 64: 53: 33: 2796: 2795: 2791: 2790: 2789: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2775: 2772:deletion review 2732: 2696:Monica Lewinsky 2521:Whine to death: 2444:Unscintillating 2329: 2324: 2319: 2315: 2252:Strong undelete 2202: 2195: 2175: 2161: 2156: 2108: 2073: 2028: 1995: 1931: 1849: 1841: 1783: 1778: 1719: 1700: 1654: 1634: 1629: 1615: 1566: 1532: 1516: 1511: 1484: 1421: 1410: 1373: 1312: 1279: 1245: 1179: 1086: 1081: 860: 855: 842: 754: 737: 732: 719: 672: 667: 629: 624: 611: 595: 590: 549: 529: 524: 510: 481: 458: 453: 444:National Review 436:Washington Post 416: 394: 389: 381: 376: 324: 201: 182: 180: 174: 173: 167: 160: 159: 152: 151: 144: 143: 122: 119:deletion review 62: 55: 54: 51: 46: 37: 31: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 2794: 2792: 2782: 2781: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2741: 2740: 2717: 2716: 2689: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2658: 2657: 2656: 2655: 2654: 2582: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2561: 2538: 2537: 2536: 2530: 2524: 2512: 2511: 2494: 2493: 2488: 2487: 2482: 2481: 2476: 2475: 2463: 2462: 2459:Endorse delete 2455: 2454: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2390:forum shopping 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2372: 2308: 2279: 2249: 2228: 2211: 2184: 2173:per Johnuniq. 2168: 2148: 2147: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2116: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2019: 2018: 2004: 2003: 1977: 1976: 1962: 1961: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1940: 1939: 1913: 1912: 1890: 1872: 1855: 1847: 1833: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1769: 1768: 1745: 1728: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1683:So, we have a 1664: 1663: 1662: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1425: 1416: 1391: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1294:Michaeldsuarez 1260:Michaeldsuarez 1228: 1227: 1217:Michaeldsuarez 1206: 1205: 1187: 1160: 1159: 1149:Michaeldsuarez 1139: 1138: 1120: 1119: 1109:Michaeldsuarez 1094: 1073: 1072: 1054: 1053: 1043:Michaeldsuarez 1020: 1003: 986: 969: 952: 951: 950: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 896: 850: 811: 789: 788: 787: 786: 785: 784: 783: 782: 781: 780: 779: 778: 777: 776: 775: 774: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 702: 701: 656: 570: 569: 568: 567: 566: 565: 564: 563: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 440:New York Times 430:. Routledge., 316: 315: 314: 313: 310: 307: 303: 300: 297: 294: 290: 287: 283: 279: 276: 273: 270: 267: 264: 261: 257: 253: 250: 247: 244: 241: 238: 235: 231: 228: 225: 221: 217: 214: 207: 206: 197: 196: 190: 189: 171: 165: 157: 149: 141: 129: 128: 113: 112: 111: 110: 109: 108: 87: 86: 61: 56: 47: 38: 30: 29: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2793: 2780: 2778: 2773: 2768: 2767: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2745: 2744: 2743: 2742: 2739: 2735: 2729: 2725: 2724: 2719: 2718: 2715: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2702: 2697: 2693: 2690: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2665: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2636: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2620: 2615: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2599: 2595: 2590: 2586: 2583: 2581: 2577: 2573: 2569: 2566: 2565: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2534: 2531: 2528: 2525: 2522: 2519: 2518: 2516: 2515: 2514: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2496: 2495: 2490: 2489: 2484: 2483: 2478: 2477: 2473: 2469: 2465: 2464: 2460: 2457: 2456: 2453: 2449: 2445: 2441: 2438: 2437: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2391: 2387: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2371: 2367: 2363: 2362: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2350: 2347: 2346:Baseball Bugs 2343: 2339: 2338: 2337: 2333: 2332: 2327: 2322: 2312: 2309: 2307: 2303: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2287: 2283: 2280: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2253: 2250: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2229: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2212: 2210: 2207: 2205: 2200: 2198: 2192: 2188: 2185: 2183: 2178: 2172: 2169: 2167: 2164: 2159: 2153: 2150: 2149: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2137: 2131: 2126: 2123: 2115: 2111: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2076: 2070: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2045: 2044: 2035: 2031: 2025: 2021: 2020: 2016: 2013: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2005: 2002: 1998: 1992: 1988: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1974: 1971: 1967: 1964: 1963: 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1938: 1934: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1894: 1891: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1876: 1873: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1856: 1854: 1851: 1844: 1837: 1834: 1832: 1828: 1824: 1820: 1815: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1799: 1796: 1795: 1790: 1787: 1786: 1781: 1773: 1772: 1771: 1770: 1767: 1763: 1759: 1754: 1749: 1746: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1729: 1727: 1724: 1722: 1716: 1713: 1712: 1707: 1703: 1697: 1693: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1676: 1673: 1672:Baseball Bugs 1669: 1665: 1661: 1657: 1651: 1647: 1646:Human dignity 1643: 1642: 1641: 1638: 1637: 1632: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1618: 1612: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1569: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1535: 1529: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1520: 1519: 1514: 1507: 1504: 1501: 1498: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1487: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1455: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1426: 1424: 1420: 1414: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1395: 1392: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1376: 1370: 1366: 1363: 1362: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1315: 1309: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1282: 1276: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1248: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1229: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1204: 1200: 1196: 1192: 1188: 1186: 1182: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1158: 1154: 1150: 1146: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1118: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1095: 1093: 1090: 1089: 1084: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1058: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1028: 1024: 1021: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1007: 1004: 1002: 998: 994: 990: 987: 985: 981: 977: 973: 970: 968: 964: 960: 959:John lilburne 956: 953: 941: 937: 933: 932:John lilburne 928: 927: 926: 922: 918: 913: 909: 908: 907: 906: 905: 904: 903: 902: 895: 891: 888: 887:Baseball Bugs 884: 883: 882: 878: 874: 869: 868: 867: 864: 863: 858: 851: 849: 845: 839: 834: 833: 832: 828: 825: 824:Baseball Bugs 821: 817: 816: 812: 810: 806: 802: 798: 794: 791: 790: 761: 757: 751: 746: 745: 744: 741: 740: 735: 728: 727: 726: 722: 716: 712: 708: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 689: 685: 681: 680: 679: 676: 675: 670: 664: 661: 657: 654: 650: 646: 642: 638: 637: 636: 633: 632: 627: 620: 619: 618: 614: 608: 604: 603: 602: 599: 598: 593: 586: 585: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 578: 577: 576: 575: 574: 573: 572: 571: 556: 552: 546: 542: 538: 537: 536: 533: 532: 527: 519: 518: 517: 513: 507: 503: 502: 501: 497: 494: 493:Baseball Bugs 490: 489: 488: 484: 478: 474: 471: 467: 466: 465: 462: 461: 456: 449: 445: 441: 437: 433: 429: 425: 424: 423: 419: 413: 408: 404: 403: 402: 401: 398: 397: 392: 385: 384: 379: 370: 367: 364: 361: 358: 355: 352: 349: 346: 343: 340: 337: 334: 331: 328: 323: 311: 308: 304: 301: 298: 295: 291: 288: 284: 280: 277: 274: 271: 268: 265: 262: 258: 254: 251: 248: 245: 242: 239: 236: 232: 229: 226: 222: 218: 215: 211: 210: 209: 208: 204: 199: 198: 194: 193: 185: 177: 170: 163: 155: 147: 140: 136: 133: 132: 131: 130: 127: 125: 120: 115: 114: 107: 103: 99: 95: 91: 90: 89: 88: 85: 81: 77: 73: 72: 68: 67: 66: 65: 60: 57: 50: 45: 41: 36: 23: 19: 2776: 2769: 2746: 2721: 2699: 2691: 2666: 2639: 2634: 2617: 2613: 2589:Bigtimepeace 2584: 2572:99.164.32.24 2567: 2545: 2532: 2526: 2520: 2471: 2458: 2439: 2418: 2414: 2410: 2359: 2341: 2316: 2310: 2281: 2263: 2259: 2251: 2230: 2213: 2204:(Discussion) 2203: 2196: 2186: 2170: 2151: 2134: 2129: 2124: 2099: 2046: 1965: 1922: 1918: 1892: 1874: 1857: 1835: 1813: 1809: 1801: 1797: 1776: 1752: 1747: 1730: 1714: 1667: 1627: 1607: 1557: 1509: 1472:WP:CANVASSed 1469: 1427: 1412: 1406: 1398: 1393: 1374: 1364: 1323: 1290:Godwin's Law 1170: 1166: 1096: 1079: 1022: 1005: 988: 971: 954: 911: 853: 819: 814: 813: 792: 730: 711:lead section 710: 665: 659: 652: 648: 644: 622: 588: 522: 469: 451: 447: 443: 439: 435: 431: 427: 387: 374: 365: 359: 353: 347: 341: 335: 329: 319: 286:aboveboard." 202: 123: 116: 69: 58: 2258:applies to 1779:Will Beback 1735:Umbralcorax 1689:22-year-old 1630:Will Beback 1512:Will Beback 1369:ForestFires 1082:Will Beback 1060:Seriously? 856:Will Beback 733:Will Beback 668:Will Beback 651:entry, but 625:Will Beback 591:Will Beback 525:Will Beback 454:Will Beback 390:Will Beback 377:Will Beback 345:protections 59:2 July 2011 49:2011 July 3 35:2011 July 1 2644:Off2riorob 2294:WP:BLPZEAL 2218:Agathoclea 2176:SlimVirgin 1806:nonce word 1578:Off2riorob 1544:Off2riorob 1464:Canvassing 1375:S Marshall 993:Off2riorob 797:pointiness 357:page moves 220:Lewinsky." 2728:Dreadstar 2472:guarantee 2290:WP:CRYBLP 2282:Overturn. 2260:unsourced 2104:Dreadstar 2069:Dreadstar 2024:Dreadstar 2012:Lankiveil 1991:Dreadstar 1970:Lankiveil 1927:Dreadstar 1720:My76Strat 1696:Dreadstar 1650:Dreadstar 1611:Dreadstar 1562:Dreadstar 1560:Lovely. 1528:Dreadstar 1480:Dreadstar 1476:this edit 1399:santorum. 1308:Dreadstar 1275:Dreadstar 1241:Dreadstar 1175:Dreadstar 1037:. Unlike 838:Dreadstar 750:Dreadstar 715:Dreadstar 660:Partridge 607:Dreadstar 545:Dreadstar 506:Dreadstar 477:Dreadstar 432:Sex Slang 412:Dreadstar 351:deletions 322:Dreadstar 306:ignored." 44:2011 July 2598:contribs 2395:Bus stop 2298:Bus stop 2235:WP:POINT 2231:Overturn 1862:Buddy431 1819:WP:POINT 1810:directly 1758:Johnuniq 1687:, and a 1413:Critical 1023:Overturn 653:no entry 448:BBC News 333:contribs 282:legal."" 234:future?" 20:‎ | 2747:Comment 2640:opt out 2635:opt out 2349:carrots 2311:Endorse 2269:Wiwaxia 1947:Qrsdogg 1902:Qrsdogg 1880:JoshuaZ 1814:reading 1675:carrots 1428:Comment 1237:WP:SOCK 1233:WP:DUCK 1191:WP:DUCK 1171:learned 1167:obvious 890:carrots 827:carrots 649:similar 539:First, 496:carrots 184:restore 154:history 2486:stake. 2468:WP:GNG 2386:WP:BLP 2286:WP:BLP 2256:WP:BLP 2157:Silver 2100:delete 1987:WP:BLP 1898:WP:NEO 1802:unlike 1692:intern 1668:really 885:Yep. ← 647:". A 641:WP:BLP 541:WP:WAX 438:, the 407:WP:BLP 363:rights 339:blocks 260:self." 224:act"." 98:Cunard 76:RL0919 2751:Bbb23 2701:Kusma 2624:talk 2546:could 2500:olive 2415:first 2366:talk 2325:COMMS 2320:ƒETCH 2197:Bduke 2162:seren 2141:talk 1923:Draft 1842:Monty 1753:after 1474:with 1010:Bbb23 976:Hobit 910:This 176:watch 169:links 52:: --> 16:< 2755:talk 2683:talk 2673:and 2648:talk 2614:not: 2594:talk 2576:talk 2555:talk 2504:talk 2448:talk 2427:talk 2399:talk 2302:talk 2292:and 2273:talk 2243:talk 2222:talk 2090:talk 2059:talk 1951:talk 1921:? 1906:talk 1884:talk 1866:talk 1827:talk 1784:talk 1762:talk 1739:talk 1635:talk 1582:talk 1548:talk 1517:talk 1450:talk 1446:Tarc 1436:talk 1419:Talk 1332:talk 1298:talk 1292:. -- 1264:talk 1221:talk 1199:talk 1195:Tarc 1153:talk 1132:talk 1128:Tarc 1113:talk 1087:talk 1066:talk 1062:Tarc 1047:talk 1014:talk 997:talk 980:talk 963:talk 936:talk 921:talk 877:talk 873:Tarc 861:talk 805:talk 801:Tarc 738:talk 688:talk 684:Tarc 673:talk 658:The 630:talk 596:talk 530:talk 470:read 459:talk 395:talk 382:talk 327:talk 162:logs 146:edit 139:talk 102:talk 80:talk 32:< 2619:DGG 2596:| 2551:Wnt 2423:Wnt 2411:Yes 2361:DGG 2262:or 2191:DGG 2136:DGG 2130:not 2047:AFD 1848:845 1823:Wnt 1495:At 1328:Wnt 917:Wnt 369:RfA 22:Log 2757:) 2712:) 2685:) 2677:. 2650:) 2626:) 2592:| 2578:) 2557:) 2506:) 2450:) 2429:) 2419:us 2401:) 2368:) 2351:→ 2304:) 2275:) 2254:. 2245:) 2224:) 2189:. 2143:) 2092:) 2061:) 1953:) 1908:) 1886:) 1868:) 1829:) 1764:) 1741:) 1677:→ 1584:) 1550:) 1452:) 1438:) 1417:__ 1407:BE 1334:) 1300:) 1266:) 1258:-- 1223:) 1201:) 1155:) 1147:-- 1134:) 1115:) 1068:) 1049:) 1025:– 1016:) 999:) 982:) 965:) 938:) 923:) 912:is 892:→ 879:) 829:→ 818:- 807:) 690:) 498:→ 446:, 442:, 104:) 96:. 82:) 42:: 2753:( 2733:☥ 2710:c 2708:· 2706:t 2704:( 2681:( 2646:( 2622:( 2574:( 2553:( 2510:) 2502:( 2446:( 2425:( 2397:( 2364:( 2330:/ 2317:/ 2300:( 2271:( 2241:( 2220:( 2139:( 2109:☥ 2088:( 2086:B 2074:☥ 2057:( 2055:B 2029:☥ 2017:. 1996:☥ 1975:. 1949:( 1932:☥ 1904:( 1882:( 1864:( 1825:( 1760:( 1737:( 1701:☥ 1655:☥ 1616:☥ 1580:( 1567:☥ 1546:( 1533:☥ 1485:☥ 1448:( 1434:( 1411:— 1409:— 1385:C 1383:/ 1381:T 1330:( 1313:☥ 1296:( 1280:☥ 1262:( 1246:☥ 1219:( 1197:( 1180:☥ 1151:( 1130:( 1111:( 1064:( 1045:( 1012:( 995:( 978:( 961:( 934:( 919:( 875:( 843:☥ 803:( 755:☥ 720:☥ 686:( 612:☥ 550:☥ 511:☥ 482:☥ 417:☥ 371:) 366:· 360:· 354:· 348:· 342:· 336:· 330:· 325:( 187:) 181:( 179:) 172:| 166:| 158:| 150:| 142:| 137:( 100:( 78:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 2 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index