1013:. Reasonable reading of the consensus, and per Newyorkbrad. There was a majority for deletion, and many of the "keep" votes were either vague or gave irrelevant rationales while the "delete" votes were grounded in the userpage policy. "I am becoming increasingly concerned that BLP has become a euphemism for political censorship" and "Too many important contributers have been driven out of Knowledge (XXG) by debates like this already" don't address the issue that the content on the userpage was blog material. It is perfectly acceptable to declare political preferences, but extended political and news commentary should be done on an external site; it is then acceptable to link to that site from the userpage.
901:
dispute. Eventually they might impose their consensus on the page. But no part of that requires deletion, and nothing about this deletion prevents future disputes. So why are we here with a deletion? Are you afraid he might mention the history version to someone? Does that mean that even if he had changed the page back, or if someone added the old version and then he reverted it, you'd delete the page again, or insist on RevDeling the history just to make sure that there is no way to see an unauthorized political opinion? Because that's the message you seem to send by making a deletion rather than simply editing the page like anyone else.
1042:); (2) is based on "NPOV is for articles, bias is better declared"; (3) has the author undertake to address any BLP vios that are brought up; (4) relies on "considerable latitude with what they do with their user page, and while I wouldn't highlight Timeshift's user page as being good practice, it's not particularly bad either"; (5) suggests issue is a content dispute and expresses a concern "that BLP has become a euphemism for political censorship"; (6) asserts that "many important contributers have been driven out of Knowledge (XXG) by debates like this already" and, when asked, proposed as an example a user who was
613:). At the time of closing the comments were weighted towards deletion, but I don't think that this was by a sufficient margin to indicate that it was a consensus view, particularly as two editors had indicated that editing the user page to remove the political statements was an acceptable alternative to deletion. As noted on my talk page, I commend T. Canens for asking for a review of his closure here, and hope that I'm as courteous when other editors question my actions as an admin.
1387:
appear in any and all forums -- they are necessary for these forums to function. You could use an all-encompassing view to arbitrarily censor anything said behind the scenes at the wiki, so the policy is not only unrealistic but potentially harmful. Note for instance, that I'm on a soapbox right now. Does that mean that this discussion should also be deleted according to
1142:
the deletion of
Timeshift9's userpage are hardly productive content contributors. Our system values productive people and unproductive people equally, and there are administrators with less than a dozen page creations to their credit. They would no doubt say that they contribute to the Wiki in ways that don't involve content.—
692:, a degree of soapboxing is permitted in userspace. There's no consensus about how much soapboxing constitutes "a degree", although custom and practice shows wide latitude is given to userboxes or essays in userspace. To me, the substantive question is about the alleged BLP violations: per policy, it's clear that
1168:
you are right, i take it back, i over reacted to the comment: "perhaps less drama is warranted and rewarded by self exile?" which i would say refutes itself: more drama is created, since less drama is warranted. let's create some more drama here in order to stomp on a recalcitrant editor. and i agree
604:
I think (as someone who voted to keep the page) that the status of this discussion at the time it was closed was 'no consensus' rather than a consensus to delete. What's acceptable on user pages is a grey area, and this was reflected by the comments in the discussion - the editors who commented (most
900:
The fact is, any of the people proposing or voting for deletion was free to scratch out the stuff they think violated policy with a simple edit. They could discuss their position on the talk page (Timeshift9's), go to dispute resolution, make an RfC or whatever, like people do for any other content
1141:
Timeshift9 created 285 articles, excluding redirects, during his editing tenure. They were mostly related to
Australian politics. I rather object to the phrase, "the drama queens are all here"—we try to keep DRV as a drama-free zone—but it's true, and rather ironic, that many of those calling for
1122:
how many among you have created as many articles as this user? how many prefer to enforce rules? how do you expect to improve the wiki without editing in article space? when will you realize the steering wheel isn't connected to the tires? this is a volunteer organization, and we need to accomodate
920:
applies to every page on
Knowledge (XXG). Cute. You have to almost admire how, no matter how clearly a project or nation is founded with a policy against censorship, those looking to prohibit things always manage to finagle a way to make their chosen vehicle more important than everything else in
844:
I think that one can reasonably read a consensus to delete out of that MfD. That said, if the BLP problems listed in the MfD were the worst of them I'd likely have !voted to keep.In any case, the right way forward was for
Thimeshift9 to clean up their page, which they _sounded_ willing to do. So
1333:
works based on individual analysis and consensus, not absolutes. Therefore, it was the stated opinion of the keep votes that the userpage did not go far enough as to violate policy (aside from BLP issues, which were dealt with). This is a common pattern on
Knowledge (XXG) where editors dismiss any
369:
It doesn't bother me one bit if he has the page in the IP's userspace, so long as someone remembers to move it over if the IP changes. At the MFD, It seems like the IP was objecting to the deletion, and then it went ahead anyway after a day of brief discussion. It might not be a bad idea to relist
801:
The user quitting the project was always a major risk. Deleting someone's actual userpage is a very personal thing and the chances that they will subsequently leave the project seem very high to me. I'm certain that if mine got deleted, I'd pause only to raise my middle finger at the
Knowledge
726:
Much of it was given to links to stories in the news media which were unfavourable to the
Liberal Party (Australia's conservative party), and his comments on them. While one was left in no doubt as to his personally held political opinions, and might take offence if one was a particularly strong
1386:
to articles and is designed to keep advocacy and opinions out of article content. While it suggests that the policy be broadened to encompass every other userspace on the wiki, that's not at all realistic and does not reflect the truth of what happens. Opinions, advocacy, etc. almost inevitably
925:
would claim that we don't enforce policies just to make a point, when there is no possible benefit to be had from the attempt. The problem we have here is that there are simply bad policies joining together, pushing aside their less bullyish rivals and by themselves disrupting
Knowledge (XXG).
1117:
the intent may not be to drive away productive editors, but that is the result. this editor made a good faith effort to cleanup his talk page, but because he was not obsequious enough, it's "delete is all"; it's not as if the only thing he did was edit in user space. this my way or the highway
656:
my view at the AfD was to keep. In terms of this review I am persuaded by the comments of Nick-D that at best the AfD should have been closed as no consensus. I should add that I am here because the closing admin contacted me on my talkpage inviting me to participate in this DRV. He is to be
882:
After all, the page exists right now, and anyone can edit it. If
Timeshift9 --- or someone else --- puts back some of the material that was on it before, will there be another AfD? Notice that AfD here is being used in the opposite way of how it is supposed to work. In a normal AfD, you
696:. This leads me to wonder exactly how egregious these alleged BLP violations really were, and whether it would be reasonable for them to have been addressed via revision deletion; but I'm unwilling to ask for a BLP-violating page to be temp-restored so that I can see for myself.
1169:
article creation is not the end all criteria. i would say to you the things you reward, you shall have: if you reward productive content in article space you will get it; if you reward voting in talk space you will get it; if you reward drama seeking admins you will get it.
831:
The closer misread the consensus that had (or, in my view, had not) developed at the MfD. Broadly speaking I share
Surturz's and Nick-D's views. The user had removed the alleged BLP violations before, or around the time that, the MfD started, so that wasn't the issue here.
488:– Several commentators have felt that this fell within the discretionary zone and while opinions vary about where the closing admin should have applied their discretion there is a slight majority in favour of the deletion. I wouldn't call it a ringing endorsement but
743:
lol @ , opposition immigration spokesman, showing true Liberal Party colours with his exploit muslims for electoral effect comments. You sir, just show and confirm that your party's plans and policies for the future are anti-intellectual non-merit 1950s
737:
423:
357:
151:
1192:
but urge him/her to remain in the project - the irony is that if I were an Australian and the userpage was a blog, I'd probably be watching it, as I often agreed with Timeshift's opinions; but that doesn't excuse the clearcut violation of
1413:
the userpage deletion has had the happy side effect of self exiling a disruption, obnoxious and blatantly POV editor who continuously being blocked for edit warring and for being rude and unpleasant. It is the project that has won here.
440:
I am not sure the IP user intended for it to be anything more than a userspace draft at this point, but one more unfinished essay will not make much difference. Unless I miss my guess, they are no longer editing from that IP anymore.
1316:
I disagree, the keep opinions (including mine) directly addressed the arguments for deletion. They only did so in a manner that the delete voters didn't like and conveniently dismissed with policies which don't quite apply.
396:
for me to use instead? I just want to write an essay." This comment was ignored, and I cannot understand why. There's nothing wrong with having this essay in the Knowledge (XXG) namespace, as a sort of counterpoint to
139:
698:
So, while I can't come to a definite opinion on this, my view is that the discussion does not justify deletion on consensus grounds alone, but BLP concerns may or may not be sufficient to tip this over into
255:
You're welcome to recreate the redirect any time you like, but then the page can't be moved back to the same title. You'll have to pick one or the other - either the move or the creation of a redirect. --
945:. Although some political commentary may be appropriate on a userpage this was excessive. The user can request that the former contents of the page be e-mailed to him if he wishes to use it elsewhere.
160:
727:
Liberal supporter, and the selection of articles was manifestly one-sided, I think calling it "BLP violating" would be a real stretch. Ironically, it was better sourced than some of our articles.
1118:
attitude is profoundly distructive to the wiki. i've heard this before: 'if they can't take a joke, or are too thin skinned, good riddance'. look around you, the drama will not decrease, because
1279:) note above, several of the "keep" opinions failed to address the arguments for deletions and were therefore accorded less weight. The "delete" side persuasively argued that the violations of
996:- my preference is that bloggy material is published on blogs. Also if an editor is thin skinned about their userpage, perhaps less drama is warranted and rewarded by self exile?
569:
674:
Within discretion. If we accept that these are grey areas, which I do, then we also have to accept that closing these MfDs are grey areas for admins and allow discretion. --
628:
779:'s editing history abruptly stops at the user page deletion. Ultimately the question is: has this admin action benefited the project? It is hard to see how enforcing
639:
call, and I welcome this review. Another admin might have called it differently, and this impacts the amount of leeway that editors are given in userspace. --
197:
you are welcome to continue editing this and treat it as if it is your usersubpage. So you should be arguing a requested move rather than a deletion review.
233:
Correct. The page was moved from my user-space to another user's, and then the redirect was deleted. I'm requesting that both of those actions be reverted.
48:
34:
962:
and keep. the consensus was not so much to delete as to reduce the antiliberal blog. This cannot be called a BLP issue, everything is clearly referenced.
1355:
43:
632:
370:
the page at MFD for further discussion. No need to undelete or move back until there's a consensus one way or the other. (Though, honestly - why not
557:
419:
393:
1360:
1232:
234:
179:
398:
39:
1415:
1221:, then redacting the violations may have sufficed. However, because the user page and its revision history contained what MfD nominator
380:
109:
1442:
1123:
productive editors. we need a profound change in attitude, and until that change instituted by leadership, the drama will continue.
1155:
815:
712:
578:
307:
224:
105:
70:
21:
1248:
1038:
and some had defects: (1) includes "should be strongly encouraged to move the commentary to an off-WP blog site" (that's in a
1276:
845:
basically while closer made a reasonable close given the discussion, I can't agree with the outcome based on what I can see.
406:
371:
891:
of dreck, and contains nothing of value. But in this or any future AfD on this user page, you'd delete the page because it
1382:
As mentioned earlier, the BLP issues were dealt with before the conclusion of that discussion. As for WP:SOAP, it applies
446:
194:
876:
seems like more of a stretch to me - it was not a personal narrative but a description of some news stories as I recall.)
211:
For a G7 to be correct, the author would have had to request deletion. Would I be right in thinking the author didn't?—
1467:
636:
507:
463:
89:
17:
1217:
as the only reasonable assessment of the consensus in the debate. Had the page contained merely content that violated
1100:. It is a matter for the closing admin to balance policy with consensus. There is no indication that did not occur.
635:. As per my !vote at AfD, I agree that the close was the right decision, but it is true that the close was a close
1262:
591:
967:
402:
202:
1388:
1226:
442:
238:
183:
1419:
74:– This has moved to project space and I'm really not seeing any clear consensus so I'm calling this moot. –
833:
728:
361:
605:
of whom are long-established editors) made different interpretations of the relevant guidelines (notably
1436:
950:
679:
587:
1334:
opinion not littered with ] links and refuse to address the actual logical basis for rendered opinions.
610:
1341:
the deletion as per Mkativerata: the delete closure was well within the closing admin's discretion. ˉˉ
1204:
1151:
963:
811:
708:
662:
527:
303:
220:
198:
1456:
1423:
1395:
1372:
1345:
1326:
1304:
1288:
1209:
1194:
1178:
1159:
1132:
1109:
1092:
1075:
1059:
1022:
1005:
988:
971:
954:
935:
854:
836:
819:
792:
780:
755:
731:
716:
693:
683:
666:
648:
622:
595:
496:
450:
435:
410:
384:
364:
351:
329:
311:
285:
265:
242:
228:
206:
187:
78:
1242:
1222:
1174:
1128:
1017:
1001:
644:
1363:
states: "This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages."
1361:
Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not#Knowledge (XXG) is not a soapbox or means of promotion
913:
905:
1364:
1296:
1270:
1071:
747:
586:
Several users have questioned my close of this MfD, so I might as well bring it here for review.
427:
346:
325:
281:
261:
1392:
1342:
1237:
On the whole, both the number and strength of the arguments rested with the "delete" side. As
1046:
driven away by a user page deletion; (7) expresses a reasonable opinion, but one not based on
984:
788:
375:
1322:
1284:
1218:
1063:
922:
917:
909:
873:
863:
689:
1432:
1368:
1300:
946:
751:
675:
618:
431:
1318:
1292:
772:
606:
276:
Considering that the page has not been deleted, only moved, this DRV should be closed. --
1198:
1143:
850:
803:
776:
768:
700:
658:
523:
484:
295:
212:
1330:
1280:
1055:
1047:
1035:
1083:- Weak keep calls were weighted less, leaving a consensus to delete. No problems here.
1452:
1256:
1238:
1170:
1124:
1105:
1088:
1014:
997:
640:
340:
24.177 is currently blocked for 31 hours. Don't expect replies from xer to be rapid.
172:
1266:
1067:
931:
341:
321:
277:
257:
980:
784:
493:
424:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/User:24.177.120.138/Don't create an account
358:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany_for_deletion/User:24.177.120.138/Don't_create_an_account
75:
614:
846:
895:
something you don't like. I don't think that's something we should be doing.
1447:
1252:
1101:
1084:
688:
I think there's a consensus that, while the encyclopaedia must be strictly
927:
979:
Pretty innocuous userpage, was a poor call that even got it this far.
633:
Wikipedia_talk:Miscellany_for_deletion#Admin_action_or_consensus.3F
320:
A redirect can simply be created if that's all that's desired. --
1235:) termed "egregious BLP issues", retaining it would be untenable.
1329:
allows for opinion so long as it relates to article content and
1356:
Knowledge (XXG):Biographies of living persons#Non-article space
866:, however ill-considered I think it is, would seem to affect
1358:, "he BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages".
392:
In the MfD, the page's creator wrote, "You want to create
564:
550:
542:
534:
146:
132:
124:
116:
916:
applies only to "mainspace articles and images" while
168:
Page was moved into another user's userspace and then
629:
Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Front matter
880:
is deletion a viable solution to this policy issue?
627:Seems to be related to the recent edit history of
193:Only the redirect was deleted, and the page is at
862:. The people advising deletion are correct that
1295:meant that the page's content was unacceptable.
771:had already shown that he was willing to fix up
657:commended for inviting review of his decision.
802:(XXG) community before scuppering my account.—
740:. An example of a BLP violation in the cache:
767:. There was no consensus to delete the page.
736:The content of this user page remains in the
694:BLP violations are not permitted in userspace
8:
1058:and pointed out that the user page violated
506:The following is an archived debate of the
106:User:24.177.120.138/Don't_create_an_account
88:The following is an archived debate of the
71:User:24.177.120.138/Don't_create_an_account
477:
356:There appears to be a rather short MfD at
63:
420:Knowledge (XXG):Don't create an account
178:ed without so much as a by your leave.
887:delete an article because it consists
399:Knowledge (XXG):Why create an account?
1431:, essentially agree with comments by
7:
195:User:Frankie/Don't create an account
1470:of the page listed in the heading.
466:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
294:A redirect was deleted under G7.—
422:per 24.177.120.138's request at
1466:The above is an archive of the
1054:comments were largely based on
462:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1120:the drama queens are all here.
783:outweighs losing an editor. --
426:and per the suggestions here.
1:
1034:comments were not based on
1493:
870:parts of that user page.
394:WP:Don't create an account
372:WP:Don't areate an account
1457:03:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
1424:01:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
921:the cosmos. Even though
904:Now I see that they have
497:01:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
418:I have moved the page to
79:01:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
1473:Please do not modify it.
1396:23:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
1373:22:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
1346:15:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
1305:21:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
1210:15:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
1179:16:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
1160:15:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
1133:14:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
1110:13:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
1093:13:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
1076:08:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
1023:07:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
1006:02:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
989:01:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
972:21:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
955:21:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
936:19:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
855:16:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
837:15:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
820:13:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
793:13:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
756:21:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
732:17:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
717:12:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
684:11:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
667:10:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
649:10:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
623:10:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
596:10:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
513:Please do not modify it.
469:Please do not modify it.
451:23:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
436:22:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
411:18:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
385:16:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
365:13:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
352:02:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
330:00:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
312:22:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
286:22:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
266:00:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
243:23:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
229:21:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
207:21:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
188:21:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
95:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
746:
741:
390:Move to project-space
1337:All of that said, I
654:Overturn and restore
602:Overturn and restore
403:A Stop at Willoughby
1325:apply to articles,
912:which asserts that
510:of the page above.
443:Delicious carbuncle
92:of the page above.
659:Miss E. Lovetinkle
637:wp:rough consensus
1480:
1479:
1158:
1020:
877:
818:
715:
476:
475:
383:
310:
227:
1484:
1475:
1429:Endorse deletion
1411:Endorse deletion
1215:Endorse deletion
1207:
1201:
1150:
1148:
1028:Endorse deletion
1018:
1011:Endorse deletion
994:Endorse deletion
943:Endorse deletion
871:
810:
808:
707:
705:
581:
576:
567:
553:
545:
537:
515:
478:
471:
379:
302:
300:
219:
217:
177:
171:
163:
158:
149:
135:
127:
119:
97:
64:
53:
33:
1492:
1491:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1471:
1468:deletion review
1205:
1199:
1144:
964:Graeme Bartlett
804:
777:User:Timeshift9
769:User:Timeshift9
701:
577:
575:
572:
563:
562:
556:
549:
548:
541:
540:
533:
532:
524:User:Timeshift9
511:
508:deletion review
485:User:Timeshift9
467:
464:deletion review
296:
213:
199:Graeme Bartlett
175:
169:
159:
157:
154:
145:
144:
138:
131:
130:
123:
122:
115:
114:
93:
90:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1490:
1488:
1478:
1477:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1426:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1377:
1376:
1349:
1348:
1335:
1309:
1308:
1223:GorillaWarfare
1212:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1163:
1162:
1136:
1135:
1112:
1095:
1078:
1025:
1008:
991:
974:
957:
939:
938:
902:
897:
896:
857:
839:
825:
824:
823:
822:
796:
795:
761:
760:
759:
758:
734:
721:
720:
686:
669:
651:
625:
584:
583:
573:
560:
554:
546:
538:
530:
518:
517:
502:
501:
500:
499:
474:
473:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
413:
387:
367:
354:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
315:
314:
289:
288:
273:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
248:
247:
246:
245:
235:24.177.120.138
209:
180:24.177.120.138
166:
165:
155:
142:
136:
128:
120:
112:
100:
99:
84:
83:
82:
81:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1489:
1476:
1474:
1469:
1464:
1463:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1449:
1445:), above. --
1444:
1441:
1438:
1434:
1430:
1427:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1416:98.248.210.39
1412:
1409:
1408:
1397:
1394:
1390:
1389:WP:WTFOMGBBBQ
1385:
1381:
1380:
1379:
1378:
1375:
1374:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1357:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1347:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1307:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1275:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1261:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1247:
1244:
1240:
1234:
1231:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1213:
1211:
1208:
1202:
1196:
1191:
1188:
1187:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1147:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1121:
1116:
1113:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1096:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1079:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1026:
1024:
1021:
1016:
1012:
1009:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
992:
990:
986:
982:
978:
975:
973:
969:
965:
961:
958:
956:
952:
948:
944:
941:
940:
937:
933:
929:
924:
919:
915:
911:
907:
903:
899:
898:
894:
890:
886:
881:
875:
869:
865:
861:
858:
856:
852:
848:
843:
840:
838:
835:
830:
827:
826:
821:
817:
813:
809:
807:
800:
799:
798:
797:
794:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
766:
763:
762:
757:
753:
749:
745:
739:
735:
733:
730:
725:
724:
723:
722:
719:
718:
714:
710:
706:
704:
695:
691:
687:
685:
681:
677:
673:
670:
668:
664:
660:
655:
652:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
603:
600:
599:
598:
597:
593:
589:
580:
571:
566:
559:
552:
544:
536:
529:
525:
522:
521:
520:
519:
516:
514:
509:
504:
503:
498:
495:
491:
487:
486:
482:
481:
480:
479:
472:
470:
465:
460:
459:
452:
448:
444:
439:
438:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
414:
412:
408:
404:
400:
395:
391:
388:
386:
382:
377:
373:
368:
366:
363:
359:
355:
353:
350:
349:
345:
344:
339:
338:
331:
327:
323:
319:
318:
317:
316:
313:
309:
305:
301:
299:
293:
292:
291:
290:
287:
283:
279:
275:
274:
267:
263:
259:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
249:
244:
240:
236:
232:
231:
230:
226:
222:
218:
216:
210:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
191:
190:
189:
185:
181:
174:
162:
153:
148:
141:
134:
126:
118:
111:
107:
104:
103:
102:
101:
98:
96:
91:
86:
85:
80:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1472:
1465:
1446:
1439:
1428:
1410:
1383:
1359:
1338:
1273:
1259:
1245:
1236:
1229:
1214:
1189:
1145:
1119:
1114:
1097:
1080:
1051:
1043:
1039:
1031:
1027:
1010:
993:
976:
959:
942:
908:referencing
892:
888:
884:
879:
867:
859:
841:
834:Orderinchaos
828:
805:
764:
742:
738:Yahoo! cache
729:Orderinchaos
702:
697:
671:
653:
601:
585:
512:
505:
489:
483:
468:
461:
416:Speedy close
415:
389:
376:UltraExactZZ
362:Orderinchaos
347:
342:
297:
214:
167:
94:
87:
69:
58:
1433:Newyorkbrad
1200:Orange Mike
947:Newyorkbrad
676:Mkativerata
611:WP:USERPAGE
59:5 June 2011
49:2011 June 6
35:2011 June 4
1327:WP:NOTBLOG
1289:WP:NOTBLOG
1195:WP:NOTBLOG
1146:S Marshall
1060:WP:NOTBLOG
806:S Marshall
781:WP:NOTBLOG
703:S Marshall
699:"delete".—
298:S Marshall
215:S Marshall
1384:primarily
1239:Sjakkalle
1171:Slowking4
1125:Slowking4
1015:Sjakkalle
998:Shot info
977:Overturn.
914:WP:CENSOR
906:WP:DELETE
744:claptrap.
641:SmokeyJoe
588:T. Canens
492:it is. –
44:2011 June
1443:contribs
1354:No. Per
1277:contribs
1267:Johnuniq
1263:contribs
1249:contribs
1233:contribs
1115:Overturn
1068:Johnuniq
1019:(Check!)
960:Overturn
893:contains
889:entirely
885:(should)
860:Overturn
829:Overturn
765:Overturn
490:endorsed
343:lifebaka
326:Edgar181
282:Edgar181
262:Edgar181
20: |
1339:endorse
1323:WP:SOAP
1285:WP:SOAP
1265:), and
1219:WP:SOAP
1190:Endorse
1098:Endorse
1081:Endorse
1064:WP:SOAP
981:Rebecca
923:WP:BURO
918:WP:SOAP
910:WP:USER
874:WP:BLOG
864:WP:SOAP
842:Comment
785:Surturz
672:Endorse
579:restore
543:history
494:Spartaz
161:restore
125:history
76:Spartaz
1365:Cunard
1321:&
1319:WP:BLP
1297:Cunard
1293:WP:BLP
1291:, and
1052:delete
1050:. The
775:vios.
773:WP:BLP
748:Cunard
615:Nick-D
607:WP:BLP
428:Cunard
1331:WP:UP
1281:WP:UP
1056:WP:UP
1048:WP:UP
1036:WP:UP
1030:Most
847:Hobit
565:watch
558:links
173:db-g7
147:watch
140:links
52:: -->
16:<
1453:talk
1448:Cirt
1437:talk
1420:talk
1391:? ˉˉ
1369:talk
1301:talk
1271:talk
1257:talk
1253:Tarc
1243:talk
1227:talk
1206:Talk
1197:. --
1175:talk
1129:talk
1106:talk
1102:WWGB
1089:talk
1085:Tarc
1072:talk
1062:and
1040:keep
1032:keep
1002:talk
985:talk
968:talk
951:talk
932:talk
878:But
868:some
851:talk
789:talk
752:talk
690:NPOV
680:talk
663:talk
645:talk
631:and
619:talk
609:and
592:talk
551:logs
535:edit
528:talk
447:talk
432:talk
407:talk
239:talk
203:talk
184:talk
133:logs
117:edit
110:talk
32:<
1251:),
1203:|
1044:not
928:Wnt
570:XfD
568:) (
381:Did
374:?)
152:XfD
150:) (
22:Log
1455:)
1422:)
1393:╦╩
1371:)
1343:╦╩
1303:)
1287:,
1283:,
1177:)
1131:)
1108:)
1091:)
1074:)
1066:.
1004:)
987:)
970:)
953:)
934:)
853:)
791:)
754:)
682:)
665:)
647:)
621:)
594:)
449:)
434:)
409:)
401:.
360:.
348:++
328:)
322:Ed
284:)
278:Ed
264:)
258:Ed
241:)
205:)
186:)
176:}}
170:{{
42::
1451:(
1440:·
1435:(
1418:(
1367:(
1299:(
1274:·
1269:(
1260:·
1255:(
1246:·
1241:(
1230:·
1225:(
1173:(
1156:C
1154:/
1152:T
1127:(
1104:(
1087:(
1070:(
1000:(
983:(
966:(
949:(
930:(
872:(
849:(
816:C
814:/
812:T
787:(
750:(
713:C
711:/
709:T
678:(
661:(
643:(
617:(
590:(
582:)
574:|
561:|
555:|
547:|
539:|
531:|
526:(
445:(
430:(
405:(
378:~
324:(
308:C
306:/
304:T
280:(
260:(
237:(
225:C
223:/
221:T
201:(
182:(
164:)
156:|
143:|
137:|
129:|
121:|
113:|
108:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.