Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2011 November 7

1705:

represents arrant propaganda for the theory, and would need to be totally rewritten, in which case it would be eligible for speedy deletion as G11. I don't want to confuse matters by doing this now, but if I saw it for the first time, I might well have done just that. I'm not clear about the mention of arb com, and I see nothing in the arb com decision cited that would have affected the suitability for AfD. The only remedy that passed was directed at a single editor--and is not relevant relevant. The only principle that would have specifically applied is "Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought." -- it could be argued that the presentation in the article violated it, to the extent that rewriting was impossible and deletion necessary. The principles in the arb case about RS and so forth were just standard.

2930:

materials technology and the other on protestor numbers in Melbourne regarding the Occupy Movement! I am not aware if these count as full edits as I am relatively new to Knowledge (XXG) editing. I have also done edits on Knowledge (XXG) articles as to books published by Black Pepper Publishing under a former user name some months ago (no one could know this of course). Sorry to raise personal issues. I am absolutely neutral on the hoax or breakthrough issue myself indeed wavering on the hoax side but that will certainly be resolved soon. In the meantime the article can be shortened and care should be taken not to add to it unless substantial developments occur. I do not think it is appropriate to merge it into other pages such as Rossi or cold fusion.

317:. Before replying, I would like to express my distress about how the matter was handled. I had stumbled across the article and had spent a considerable amount of my time trying to rescue it as I saw it of value — I am a biochemist and find a lot of the content of wikipedia a lot more unencyclopaedic — and tried to bring it up to standard: consequently finding it gone without being included in the argument angers me greatly. I strongly advice that next time a page with a significant amount of text and edits is proposed for deletion the main contributors be informed, I know that the main problem with wikipedia is the lack of community spirit, but this takes the biscuit. I strongly believe the article is worth keeping 674:" into a mini-article that would logically be better suited for wiktionary were it not for the notable commentary on its lack of a rhyme (which really doesn't belong in wiktionary). Rather than starting up an odd collection of "Placeholder (word)" or, worse, "Words with X property" stubs, a better solution would be to have some sort of a hub article either standing alone (as it was until recently) or as merged into Logology. To assuage DGG's concern of unboundedness, I'd say that the limiting criterion should be verifiable notability. Beyond that, I second S Marshall's contention that concise and thoughtful editing should manage any unhelpful sprawl. - 191:) — several case brought forth for its deletion were in fact these edits. As a consequence the page was too long and poorly connected, hence one proposal for split. It was considered informative, albeit disorganised and subjective in some passages. This could have been solved by removing several passages which were subjective and expanding on the discussion of the unique nature of the letters "w" and "y", which several users found problematic. Furthermore, this page actually acted as a hub, interlinking several smaller articles, which, now that the redlinks have been removed, have now been tagged as orphans. -- 3678:). In the meantime (the following applies only applies to this one image, but if the circumstances of the others are similar relist them also): the image was deleted at a fairly underpopulated discussion -- there was one one "vote" (and that was Keep) Since there were no Delete "votes", should have been closed as Keep or No Consensus unless on strength of argument. Strength of argument is based solely on one of the following propositions being true: 1) Portraits of a person in an article about that person inherently fail 305:. Our conception of notability is tied into the GNG which is negated by preponderance of unreferenced content in the article and the failure to find a scholarly scope/inclusion criteria. Knowledge (XXG) consensus is bound by matching arguments to policy and giving much less weight to arguments that are either not policy based or do not reflect the actual policies. I hope the detailed explanation above explains why I found the policy based arguments were the deletion ones and why I therefore found for deletion. 494:

the wrong article name. The authors knew they were developing something worthwhile but they hadn't even figured out what it was properly called. So of course, once it got to AfD, the AfD participants googled "English words with uncommon properties" and (surprise, surprise) found absolutely no sources. And none of them thought any further than that, which is of course the usual problem with AfD, so we ended up here. Meanwhile, the actual encyclopaedic topic the authors were groping towards, which is called

1292:. I should perhaps point out here this discussion on Tone's talk page: I Asked "I note that you closed the E-Cat debate 11 minutes after closing another AfD. Was this all the time you allowed to read the discussion and arrive at your decision? This would seem a rather short time, to me". Tone's response was "Regarding my time of reading, you'll see that many arguments are really repetitive so it does not take so long to read through and get a big picture. At least that's my opinion". 2804:

some reason to hold this review, but otherwise I don't see how any other conclusion could have been made. The nominator of this deletion review certainly didn't make any sort of argument in the actual AfD based upon policy for why this article should have been deleted, nor has he given any reasonable basis for a review other than perhaps the off-wiki canvassing. The closing admins, in both cases, don't appear to have been swayed by those single-use accounts. --

716:

addressing the issues of referencing, properly explaining the reasoning behind certain properties or basic rules (e.g. Proper nouns are not included in dictionaries) and giving it a coherent logic. Regarding sources, The article title does not have many hits as it is a rather long name, but there are many books on the topic and even with google there are a lot of pages dedicated to the subheadings of the topic and I am not referring solely to "Scrabble words". --

479:

In other words the decision appears to have been a practical rather than a policy-motivated decision. Either way, given that the topic is verifiably notable (i.e. it meets Wikiepdia's basic inclusion criteria), let's userfy to allow Squidonius the ability to properly source it. Perhaps messages should also be left with some of the major contributors like User:DavidWBrooks, User:Ajd, User:Ichthyoid, and some of the other 147 page watchers. -

187:

wikipedia and in my opinion the action taken should not have been delete, but the recruitment of experts in the English language to overhaul the article. The article, which had been in place for several years and had over 1,000 views per day, was subject to a lot of IP user edits which increased its contents often in the wrong direction and subjective but in good faith (which were not deleted in order to encourage new users, i.e.

3590:, probably after close of the RfC. Even if the close maintains the status quo,, a good argument can and should be made for these illustrations, and a fuller discussion will be necessary. Doing large scale deletions based on a single instance is not good practice, and these need further attention. The original FfD needs reversal also: it amounts to a supervote against consensus. But that too should wait till after the RfC. 733:. My reading of the AfD is that, while unacceptable as it stands, and possibly always unacceptable in this form, the article does contain some usable information which it is worthwhile to preserve in the appropriate place(s). Userfication gives interested users an opportunity to fix what can be fixed before bringing potentially troublesome content back into the main space. 2853:'s edit history myself, and it turns out that the previous statement is not even true (last edit was a minor edit in June 2011, and quite active participation in 2010). This is simply sloppy, and rather rude. Please don't throw around SPA-accusations thoughtlessly just because the consensus in a discussion you feel strongly about didn't coincide with your own convictions. 1399:

also one reliable source - a blog by a Forbes contributor. There's a lot of text, and a lot of sources, due to the pressure by actual paid advocates who are engaging in what appears to be challenged as fraud by many. This is an entity attempting to sell units to the general public - and we're basically complicit. Hipocrite (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

1260:). There is no reason that this AFD, which was massively polluted by off-wiki canvasing, and actual paid advocates (note SPAs) demonstrates a consensus to keep - at best, it's no consensus to do anything, which, while it defaults to keep, is still an important point of process, and needed education for future contentious AFD closers. 786:: Review some of the comments above. There is talk of adding more reliable sources to those RSes already used in the article and possibly of merging the sourceable info into "lexicology of English". That should take care of NOT, RS, and OR. LSC does not apply in this case as S Marshall clearly explained above. - 3289:

The article needs considerable work but documents a controversial item of note. Yes, better citations as above, general editorial issues also as noted by previous comments, these all need to be addressed, but, the article should remain as documenting contemporary issues in science and law, even if it

3078:

in the context of 'leading-edge science'? Regardless of the merits of the article, or of the E-Cat, in isolation, there seems to be a great deal of evidence that Knowledge (XXG) itself has become a significant actor in this whole smoke-and-mirrors show. This clearly has consequences that require more

3073:

have apparently agreed to... wait for it... no, surely not... yes!... Sell Rossi some instruments! Doh!...). Can I therefore ask all the contributors that !voted keep in the AfD, and have backed the closing decision here, to help keep this dogs-breakfast of an article in some sort of shape until such

2745:

Mathsci, either your checking wasn't very thorough, or you misunderstand the concept of an SPA. I've already asked you politely (on your talk page) to remove me from your list, as I'm obviously not an SPA, and I object strongly to that label. Your only response was to delete my post on your talk page

1838:

The sources are presumably dispassionately evaluated? Declaring something as a "load of impossible bollocks" without detailing the steps used to reach that conclusion is an odd way of contributing to a serious discusion. At least there ought to be a list of wiki policies used when evaluating, and how

1778:

this really needs to be merged into Cold Fusion, because at the moment by having a separate article it gives the impression that Knowledge (XXG) is credulous of this complete load of impossible bollocks, regardless of how the article is written to be critical. Major scams can be notable on their own

1756:

There seems to be a common sentiment in this discussion that, just because something is a scam, all claims to notability are void. That's not the case. The multitude of sources I'm seeing mention Rossi and the E-Cat extensively. Even if they were all making it up and it was a conspiracy, that made-up

1704:

There is no real question whether Knowledge (XXG) should have an article. Tone reached the only possible conclusion there. I did not participate in the debate, but it occurred to me that a question that should have been raised was whether this article is rescuable as a NPOV article, or whether it

1398:

I have reviewed the sourcing. Aside from Ny Teknik, which appears to be a mouthpiece for the "inventors," and "New Energy Times," a pseudo-blog published by a frequently blocked/banned/whatever wikipedian, and a bunch of other blogs, SEO aggregates and credulous sources that repeat the blogs, there's

493:

I think it's more complicated than this, actually, folks. The reason this is so difficult is because throughout the article's history, insufficient attention has been paid to the sources, leading to the development of a horrible hodgepodge of original research and unrelated topics, assembled beneath

3686:

XYZ per se. It's not at all clear that either of these propositions is true so the close wasn't in order. Looking at the RfC as of this writing, it's not at all clear to me that this deletion is supported by policy, consensus, or usual practice. Clarification of the policy would be ideal, but absent

3522:

I think a cite to a single FfD justifying the deletion probably isn't enough of a reason to delete given the discussion. I think a wider and better-attended discussion is likely after this DrV and would be helpful here. Put another way, there was no consensus formed and the application of NFCC here

3266:

when you remove the primary sources, self-published sources, and the blogs, what you are left with are a few reliable sources that basically say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" and "treat this as a hoax until this has been independently verified." If the claims made by Rossi have

2834:

goes both ways: if the sources we have report about a potential (even though unlikely) breakthrough in science/engineering, we can't simply delete an article based essentially on the argument that "those sources are wrong because they don't understand physics". Have some patience: if the device is a

1644:

Methodological note: counted via regular expression. Not a perfect search, by all means, as it ignores contributions that weren't written in the keep/delete answer format, or contributions that were variations of the keep/delete format that I didn't think of (e.g. I allowed brackets around "strong",

478:

per Herostratus. I was quite surprised by the decision to delete given that the topic was demonstrated to be notable by alf.laylah.wa.laylah in the AfD. I can only suppose that Spartaz did not consider it likely that the lack of thorough sourcing would in fact be remedied if the article was left up.

395:

Is there any chance of a temporary restore for DRV purposes? I'd like to see which sources were cited in the article (and to cross-check them against sources I have on my bookshelf), because depending on the exact definition of "uncommon properties" used, I rather think there might be an article to

300:

are always going to fail as we can't possibly run any kind of credible deletion system without a consistent approach. IAR in deletion discussions always causes more trouble then its worth. There are several references this being a notable list or words being notable but no explanation of how this is

3097:

above and in the AfD and FWIW am keeping an open mind about the E-Cat (I neither believe in it nor disbelieve in it, really). I do want to work on the article as it is in a poor state but I'm reluctant to do so while it keeps coming up for AfD. Like many I am a busy person and don't want to waste

3068:

of course, but it does rather imply a conflict of interest. The recent flurry of claims and counter-claims looks to me like the start of the end-game regarding the E-Cat, as Rossi now has to 'put up or shut up', and actually produce evidence of customers - which seem once again to be notable mostly

2825:'s summary: deletion proposers failed to address the matter of notability and media coverage, which, unless the consensus would have been that an objective article given the reliable sources we have for now cannot be written at the moment, strongly suggests there should be an article on the subject. 296:

arguing that LSC isn't a reason for deletion negates the fact that it is both a style and a content guideline with a clear inference is that content that doesn't meet the standard can be removed. If you did that here the whole list disappears, which = delete. Keep arguments based on a subset of IAR

217:

I really wish my friend Spartaz, an admin admirable in every other respect, would realize the advantages of giving reasons initially when he closes non-obvious AfDs, including every AfD where there are good faith divided opinions. . It would greatly facilitate later discussion, and understanding of

2929:

It is notable there is another reference to the issue in the very well known PhysOrg.com website today (Nov 8 US time). Why is there a claim above that I am "editing solely in this area"? I have made two contributions to other issues, in the talk pages, one on radiation shielding in space elevator

2803:

or a similar page. I admit that there has been off-wiki canvassing going on, but the weakness of the arguments for deletion is really the matter here rather than vote counting or who may or may not have participated in the discussion. If the review is to examine the closing process, there may be

3215:

Very true. And given the clear evidence that the original closure was done by an admin who apparently doesn't understand what 'no consensus' closures imply (or doesn't think they are possible), only one logical conclusion can be reached - the AfD closure was flawed. Still, if the 'keepistas' make

669:

as a model of sorts. As Squidonius points out, the article has served as a kind of hub and thus aided in navigation of the related topics it covered. There are distinctly notable word games and riddles that standing alone might not make for much of an article but whose loss within Knowledge (XXG)

2903:

is commonly done to simply see if a topic has any references or articles on the internet or in common reference libraries. I've been involved with moving quite a bit of content between the various Wikimedia sister projects over the years, and there certainly have been pages created on Knowledge

1731:, CBS, and MSNBC pretty much settles the notability issue. The problem now is to write an article that accurately states the real status of this thing, which is difficult because most sources are credulous or involved, if not both. Possibly such an article could be short enough to be merged into 1676:

On the strength of the arguments, it's 100% clear to me that Knowledge (XXG) should have an article on this subject. We need an article about Rossi's energy catalyzer for exactly the same reason as we have articles on other notable hoaxes: because we are the information source ranking highest in

295:

content. Deletion arguments were backed by reference to policy and I have bracketed the policys after the subject. The keep side mostly relied on assertion and failed to effectively rebut the deletion arguments. Where they did refer to policy it was either misused or misinterpreted - for example

3648:

The trouble with this is that NFCC#8 is so damnably vague. People's ability to understand things in context is almost always enhanced, to a greater or lesser extent, by images. My immediate reaction is that the deletion looked a bit harsh to me, but that should of course be subject to the RFC

2730:

That is not quite true, since this kind of thing is usually indicated by tagging during an AfD, which did not happen systematically here. Careful checking of individual accounts was required. That took me at least three quarters of an hour. Perhaps DGG could have done it quicker, but he didn't.

1032:

To counter the false information there, both members have been in notable bands. Olivarez founded Sugarland. Elkins was in The Swear. Granville Automatic is on PBS' Sun Studio Sessions. Elkins won Grand Prize (not third place) in the John Lennon contest. Album is not sold at shows, has not been

186:

Article was deleted despite the discussion being inconclusive (6 votes pro deletion, 1 split and 6 keeps). I am one of the main curators of the page, but I was not informed and the discussion for its deletion just slipped past me. I believe the article is informative and should have a place in

3329:. I see no reason to destroy it. trending beliefs or disbeliefs are irrelevant of the credence this article has. the good old fashion excuse of notability is also irrelevant here, as this has caused quite a vortex of opinionated debate all over the net/italian news/ cold fusion news etc.-- 2949:

I'm scandalized by the behaviour of mathsci who felt very intelligent to make an accounting of the solely use intervenants. I personnaly did a lot of articles and contributions since 2007 in the french wikipedia under the "berpi" name, who was unavailable in the english edition. I made this

715:

Thank you all for all the comments. I was not aware of a "userfy" option to incubate the article, but I am keen on trying this. If so, I also very gladly accept the guidance and help of S Marshall. This would allow a complete overhaul of the structure and rewriting/deletion of many sections

3629:

I'll point out that there was a "doesn't improve understanding/yes it does" argument. As it's pretty much a matter of opinion, I don't really see either side with the stronger argument. I agree though that we tend to treat these by "equivalence class" and the RfC should solve this...

2746:

without comment, which seens rather uncivil. I ask you again to please remove my username from your list, as it clearly doesn't belong there, and I consider it quite defamatory. I would remove it myself, but I do not want to edit other people's edits. I'm sure you see my point. Thanks.

1677:

google searches, and that puts a duty on us. If we take no steps to explode the myth, then if others are deluded by it, we will be complicit. Therefore, while I don't necessarily endorse the keeping of the article in its present form, I most certainly endorse the outcome of the AfD.—

2014:

Having said that I did request that the closing administrator check for single purpose accounts. Here is a list of those editing solely in this area, sometimes after a long break. Many of these should have been checked and tagged during the debate to help the closing administrator.

838:, I did not do this sooner as I want unaware that I could copy the source code from the past. As I mentioned above, any help/direction is welcome. As mentioned by me and DGG, one thing the deleted page did was link other pages together, so I cobbled together a proof-of-principle 321:

and would normally argue for it, but the attitude here is not constructive: I found quite patronising the comment that I was not crying out "Tied vote! No consensus!" as mention and I found incomprehensible the list of acronyms (WP:AIR is wikiproject aircraft) spouted at me.

3017:

You realise this isn't another AFD but instead is a deletion review right? Your !vote for keep combined with your later comments may make people think you don't understand the difference which may lead to your opinions being discounted when it comes to determining consensus

248:- By my count it's 6 deletes, one split and four keeps. But that's not really relevant since AfD is not a headcount and I don't think cries of "Tied vote! No consensus!" hold much weight. Reading the discussion, many people had concerns about poor sourcing, problems with 670:

inappropriately limits Knowledge (XXG)'s breadth of coverage. For example, the lack of a rhyme for the word "orange" has been reported on in reliable sources since at least the 30s and almost certainly long before that. To accommodate this, we've expanded an article on "

1726:

Having reviewed the various deletion arguments, they all add up to "delete because it's a cold fusion/free energy hoax that we don't want to publicize." Notability was not addressed in those arguments, for the most part, and unfortunately having this thing show up in

2794:

by two different uninvolved admins with essentially the same conclusion (just reworded), I fail to see what other conclusion can obtained even by reopening the discussion. Few if any of the arguments for deletion were based upon any sort of policy (particularly

1465:

Insilvis, can you provide the raw numbers, and indicate whether your figure indicates the highly-questionable !votes from new contributors with no other editing history, and the !keep votes which were based on 'I like it', rather than on policy, as is required?

1099:

deletion. I voted against them in the AfD, and the reinstater's blurb pretty much sums up why: the mild notability achieved by band members in their former careers plus their mild potential to achieve some in the future does not make up for the lack of evidence

2799:) and are more an attack upon the topic itself than upon even the quality of the article. Neither this Deletion Review nor the AfD are appropriate forums for arguing as to if this is an appropriate kind of topic for Knowledge (XXG), which instead belongs on 3074:

time as we can actually find some sources that tell us what happened. And when the fog has cleared, and the cell door closes or the Nobel prize is awarded (yeah, right...), can I suggest that we take another look at the way we handle topics regarding

2638:

There is nothing wrong with checking a discussion for SPAs, but your methodology in compiling this list was sloppy, bordering on insulting. See my 'endorse' comment below, where I argue that you simply misstate facts, e.g. about the edit history of

1275:

I stand by keep. The closing statement was later modified to reflect the fact that there had been an ArbCom case related to the topic. I don't think it was a good idea to put it to AfD in the first place, ArbCom decisions should be applied instead.

3172:

I did. There is nothing 'polite' about abusing Knowledge (XXG) resources to promote hoaxes, hogwash, and wishful thinking. Do you really think that a patent is a 'validation'? If you do, I suggest you do some research into the subject. It isn't.

856:

Probably not the best thing to do. You need to maintain attribution to the rest of the editors on that article. The page will need top be moved to your subpage so the whole history comes along with it if that is the determination of this DRV.

436:

To me too, but looking at just one revision can be a bit misleading. For example, Spartaz has given weight to the WP:LSC argument despite the fact that this clearly wasn't a list. Based on the one revision I can see, I can't make sense of that

2999:. Arguments about balance and neutrality are another matter, and a case can be made that the article is still too credulous, but there is no doubt in my mind that we should, in some shape or form, have a Knowledge (XXG) article on this topic. 3064:(Sterlingda states on his talk page that he is responsible for the PESN site, so I'm not outing him). Whether this is true or not seems currently to be in doubt, as Rossi's blog had a rather ambiguous disclaimer. None of this is remotely 3234:

is dismissive of the opinions of others. Why don't you try respecting the opinions of others even when they disagree with you? When I see dismissive attitudes like that it discourages me from spending more time on Knowledge (XXG).

3121:

The government of Italy has issued a patent on the Energy Catalyzer. The article about the Energy Catalyzer should therefore stay in Knowledge (XXG). If you think otherwise, hire a lawyer and sue to have the patent invalidated.

3069:

by their absence. In this situation, we clearly need plenty of eyes on the article, and to be prepared for all sorts of spin (already evident on the talk page, with attempts to gain credibility for the E-Cat on the basis that

1033:

released. Live at Sun Studio will be released on iTunes this month. Both band members have their own notable Wiki pages. This being deleted doesn't make sense since they are already both notable. Please consider reinstating.

2898:

There are more reasons for why an article can be deleted besides notability, but that is usually the easiest method to objectively deny its existence on Knowledge (XXG), hence a very common rationale for deletion. The

822:

I believe S Marshall & DGG are both correct. There is a viable Article in this mess, but it may even need to be split into multiple Articles to achieve proper focus. Needs time and space to incubate a while longer.

3537:

I'll also note that there were a large set of very similar deletions at the same time (see the FfD) most of which were deleted after all comers but the nom !voted to keep. Perhaps the right way to go is an RfC?

2880:. I've only been here a short while, and the rudeness and venom being posted is amazing. All that's supposed to happen here is that we decide whether the entry is notable and whether the sources are sufficient. 1078:

notable, and there's a limit to how much notability can be inherited. Suggest waiting until the band releases some albums and gets some significant press reviews and so forth before creating an article on them.

2840:

Finally, about the claim that opinion in the AfD was tipped towards a 'keep' result by single purpose accounts: I have no idea how many SPAs (on either side) really took part, but I strongly disagree with

3079:

thought than the usual recital of 'policy' that so often passes for debate here. Maybe we need to look at 'notability' again, and ensure that we don't unwittingly create it by stating that it exists...

869:

Technically, there are several ways to maintain attribution, and it's not strictly necessary to move the whole history, although that would be optimum. One could also provide a list of authors in a

2714:

I think that all admins know enough to take account of obvious SPAs & do not need such reminders; we admins may be no smarter than anyone else, but we are not on the average much stupider.

1513:

There was canvassing outside of wikipedia for the yes vote as is evident from the discussion. Knowledge (XXG) is not about the number of votes but the strength of arguments. It is not a democracy.

537:

article on the subject? The author of a conventionally written book has the privilege of being as arbitrary as they please about what gets included--books about words are in essence books about

162: 1645:

but nothing else), but as an approximation, I think it's reasonably telling. Here are the two regexes I used. Try them yourself on the source of the AfD page to be sure I didn't make them up.

1251:

Should have been closed as no consensus. The discussion does not evidence an agreement that the sources provide enough detail to write an article. There are also strong merge arguments made.

2830:

In addition, I want to point out the following: while we don't have to turn off our brains when editing (or forget everything we learned in order to get a physics degree), keep in mind that

3675: 1028:

Article should be reinstated. Article was already under deletion review once and all notability guidelines were met and it was reinstated. Now, it has been redeleted for incorrect reasons.

369:, etc. -- and these are very popular articles, and people like working on them, and people like to read them, and they enhance the encyclopedia, and they are just, generally, a good thing 564:, even though the number of things there are to discuss about astronomy are, well, astronomical! We write an encyclopaedia article by deciding what we can omit and what we can condense.— 3267:

become notable, then I see no problem keeping this article and informing the public what the scientific community (reliable sources) has had to say on the subject - all while avoiding

177: 835: 252:, and felt the list was inherently subjective. These concerns were not addressed, and so I can't see anything wrong with concluding that the strength of argument favoured deletion. 78: 1011: 1066:

deletion. According to her article, Olivarez was never a member of Sugarland, she just wrote a couple of songs for them. Elkins doesn't even have an article, but according to

1234: 3395: 51: 37: 3704:

Whether NFCC #8 is met or not is a matter of opinion, and 100% of the one person besides the nom commenting agreed that the picture belonged in the encyclopedia.

3466: 839: 46: 3484: 3727:

I cannot really say overturn to keep, when there was so little participation (though I certainly think that keep is the correct decision on the question)

842:, which can help out the various articles while the deleted page is restructured/rewritten to comply with the comments about which will take a while. -- 3493: 999: 504:

this material so that I can collaborate with Squidonius and any other interested editors to produce a proper, encyclopaedic article on this subject.—

1939:, which seems to be the argument given by the closer. However, even if the result were legitimately "Keep", the article could still be merged into 1433:

There are dramatically more than 4% of commentators arguing for delete. Please cease fabricating statistics. Thanks. My rationale for delete holds.

874: 750:

as reflecting the consensus at AfD. Userfication of deleted articles is always available, but I'm not seeing much of a plan to address issues of

1152:

without prejudice toward needed rewrites, including rewrites that end in a merge if a consensus for that option can be found at a later time. –

1222: 358: 2849:

on this list was: "one year break in editing before resuming on 29 Oct 2011" -- hardly reason to make an accusation of SPA. Then I looked at

2647:: "Please keep in mind that the tag may be taken as an insult or an accusation—use with consideration." -- something you ignored thoroughly. 2412: 2164: 1040: 3039:. The topic is notable and being covered by the media hence retaining the article is valid. Whether or not E-Cat is a hoax is irrelevant. 3000: 2492: 1020: 95: 42: 1975:. The consensus was that notability is given. More news articles are published each day. The closer assessed the discussion correctly. -- 3155: 2835:

scam (which it might well be, I personally believe), sooner or later articles will appear stating precisely that, and we can quote them.

2700:. I've made plenty of edits before even stumbling across this increasingly silly discussion. I'm assuming that I was included in error. 2624:

or related articles. Most of the accounts above are anolomous in some way; in some cases the contribution to the AfD is the sole edit.

2544: 2320: 2260: 2148: 2092: 2064: 1889: 646: 642: 423: 3614:

Keep !vote (bar possibly Flyer22's) didn't reference the issue of NFCC at all (i.e. why did the image pass #8). However, whether it a

2696:

I've obviously been included in this list simply because my username looks like an IP address, I don't have a user page, and I !voted

2468: 2440: 2232: 1581:

You have fabricated your numbers, yet again. There were not 100 keeps. There were more than 4 keeps. Please cease fabricating things.

2800: 1619:, here are the actual numbers: 53 Keep or Strong Keep vs. 11 Delete or Strong Delete. Almost a 5-to-1 ratio. Quite impressive, right? 2360: 2284: 2196: 1243: 606:

Okay. Let's say the topic that has a place in our encyclopaedia and can be extracted from the text is lexicology of English. :)—

3662: 2681: 2344: 2132: 2116: 1879: 1829: 1690: 890: 619: 577: 517: 450: 413: 132: 1052:

The article was deleted because of lack of reliable references. Can you provide them? If so, article can always get improved. --

21: 3744:

You've already !voted, DGG. Never mind, I'll replace yours with mine below, and I'm not sure why this hasn't been closed yet.

397: 2606:

What is this ? I thought that the implying of conspiracy theories was exclusively reserved for the CF-believers fraction. ? --

2392: 2376: 2300: 877:

for more information. (And I see I've failed to thank GB fan for the temporary restore, so let me fix that: thanks GB fan!)—

128: 73: 2904:(XXG) that deserve to go elsewhere. None of that seems to be the case or even a rationale for deletion of this article. -- 2966: 2524: 2044: 1839:

these lead to the result. If this is not the case, then it ought to be discounted! This would never stand up in court ;)

1310:

Note that I have reevaluated my decision later on and reached the same conclusion. Ok, now I am out of this discussion. --

366: 1866:

Thanks for that. On the basis of that post, and your contribution history, we can evaluate you dispassionately as well.—

3203:

This is supposed to be a review of whether the decision was closed correctly, not a new vote based on new arguments. —

2212: 2028: 3777: 3416: 3369: 1172: 1123: 949: 909: 112: 17: 2582:

Excuse me but I have edited extensively in other areas well before coming to this article and also under 96.30.232.50

2508: 2180: 1888:

Thanks for that. On the basis of that post, and your contribution history, we can evaluate you dispassionately too :)

1855: 3676:

Knowledge (XXG) talk:Non-free content/Archive 52/Archives/ 41#RFC: Clarifying policy on pictures of deceased persons

400:

has "uncommon properties", and there are scholarly sources about what those properties are and how they came about.—

3478: 3436: 1029: 3240: 3103: 3044: 2158: 1109: 362: 3432: 3390: 2909: 2809: 2406: 969: 805:. In my personal opinion the article does contain some usable information which it is worthwhile to preserve.-- 666: 90: 3004: 2900: 2486: 1336: 1044: 297: 2538: 2314: 2254: 2086: 2058: 1893: 353:

raises some points: it's a potentially really useful article, had a lot of editors, yadda yadda. There are a

349:

close or anything, and DRV is not supposed to be another AfD, so Bob's your uncle... usually. But, you know,

2751: 2705: 2434: 2142: 650: 427: 3057:

A postscript to this discussion (it doesn't seem to be going anywhere). One of the 'keep' !votes came from

2954: 2278: 2190: 1843: 1036: 638: 495: 3766: 3750: 3738: 3717: 3696: 3666: 3639: 3624: 3601: 3576: 3562: 3547: 3532: 3513: 3405: 3356: 3338: 3317: 3299: 3279: 3244: 3225: 3221: 3210: 3207: 3198: 3182: 3178: 3167: 3149: 3145: 3131: 3107: 3088: 3084: 3048: 3027: 3008: 2989: 2970: 2939: 2913: 2889: 2866: 2813: 2782: 2755: 2740: 2725: 2709: 2689: 2656: 2633: 2615: 2591: 2569: 2462: 2400: 2226: 2005: 1984: 1967: 1950: 1947: 1926: 1897: 1883: 1859: 1833: 1811: 1793: 1768: 1744: 1716: 1694: 1659: 1590: 1560: 1522: 1503: 1475: 1471: 1442: 1412: 1370: 1348: 1316: 1303: 1299: 1282: 1269: 1161: 1113: 1088: 1058: 938: 894: 864: 851: 829: 814: 795: 778: 774: 742: 725: 707: 683: 654: 623: 601: 581: 555: 521: 488: 470: 454: 431: 417: 390: 331: 309: 267: 238: 229: 208: 101: 3705: 2620:

Probably you should refactor that statement and be more careful what you write in future. I do not edit

2482: 302: 3692: 3194: 3163: 3127: 2935: 2747: 2701: 2532: 2354: 2308: 2248: 2138: 2080: 2052: 1192: 1084: 386: 3553: 2456: 2428: 2220: 1257:) and was forced to revise what was basically a super-vote when it turns out their premise was flawed ( 2931: 2350: 2274: 2206: 2186: 1735:(as I and another proposed), but given the way it is being edited now, that's obviously not possible. 3761: 3745: 3658: 3619: 3557: 3236: 3099: 3070: 3040: 2685: 2673: 2611: 2338: 2154: 2126: 2110: 1980: 1922: 1875: 1825: 1788: 1686: 1648:

grep -c ''\'\'\'\(*trong\)*]eep'\|'\'\'\'eep'' and grep -c ''\'\'\'\(*trong\)*]elete'\|'\'\'\'elete''

1157: 1105: 886: 847: 810: 738: 721: 704: 695:

The close was appropriate, but much of the content seems like it could be salvaged for Wiktionary. --

615: 573: 513: 446: 409: 327: 204: 196: 3352: 3313: 3295: 3023: 2905: 2805: 2290: 1586: 1518: 1438: 1366: 1265: 965: 930: 85: 82: 3075: 3713: 3275: 2587: 2418: 2386: 2370: 2294: 2202: 2018: 1963: 1556: 1408: 1344: 2498: 345:'s userspace. There were a lot of non-policy arguments on both sides. The thing is, it wasn't a 292: 2550: 2326: 2266: 2098: 2070: 1067: 3217: 3204: 3174: 3141: 3080: 2985: 2962: 2862: 2736: 2652: 2629: 2565: 2518: 2474: 2446: 2238: 2038: 2001: 1944: 1655: 1467: 1295: 770: 3679: 3268: 1936: 1616: 188: 3688: 3402: 3190: 3159: 3123: 2778: 2022: 1958:. The original closing decision was extensively discussed and broad consensus was reached.-- 1943:. The ArbCom finding applies to editor actions, not to keeping or deleting the article. — 1764: 1740: 1499: 1254:

Beyond that, the closer has never in a substantial history closed an AFD as "no consensus" (

1188: 1144: 1080: 861: 791: 679: 484: 467: 422:

The Google cache is showing a revision of the article while it was at AFD (at least to me).

382: 373:. Do we want to clear out all these articles? I don't. So how about userfying and seeing if 2831: 2644: 757: 753: 378: 280: 276: 3650: 3635: 3572: 3543: 3528: 3511: 3058: 2885: 2677: 2607: 2502: 2334: 2174: 2122: 2106: 1976: 1918: 1867: 1851: 1817: 1807: 1678: 1333:. I have rarely seen such a high consensus for keeping a page, read it with your own eyes: 1153: 1104:

that this new band has achieved notability sufficient to merit an encyclopedia article. --

878: 870: 843: 806: 734: 717: 696: 661:

If the article is considered too vague, I'd first userfy and then merge its contents with

607: 565: 505: 438: 401: 374: 350: 342: 323: 200: 192: 3065: 2796: 765: 761: 288: 284: 249: 3348: 3309: 3291: 3061:, who now claims to be responsible for setting up a website for Rossi's Leonardo Corp. 3019: 1996:. At present it is based too much on primary sources and unreliable newspaper reports. 1582: 1514: 1434: 1362: 1261: 260: 1816:

The process by which we can tell this is technically called "evaluating the sources".—

1783:

needs to be re-written to ensure that the casual reader is completely aware that this

3734: 3709: 3597: 3271: 2721: 2583: 2382: 2366: 1959: 1712: 1552: 1404: 1340: 671: 597: 551: 225: 590:

Personally, I think the topic is more akin to "Interesting facts about astronomy".

544:. We need to be clearer and more explicit, or we have difficulty working together. 2981: 2958: 2858: 2845:'s list of shame, which seems way too inclusive. For example the reason to include 2842: 2732: 2648: 2625: 2561: 2514: 2034: 1997: 1651: 935: 306: 235: 1802:

I'm curious - how do you know that it's a "complete load of impossible bollocks"?

1551:

it. This is a fact. You can disagree with the decision, but the result is clear.--

1494:

Occurences of '* Keep' in afd page: 23 I.e. 18% for deletion and 82% for keep.--

769:, so i doubt userification is going to lead to a viable article in the long-run. 3399: 2822: 2774: 2621: 1993: 1940: 1779:

if they have some real-world notability; this one doesn't. If not, the article

1760: 1736: 1732: 1495: 858: 787: 675: 480: 464: 3501:

The image gives the readers a better understanding of the crime and the victim

1992:

I agree with others that the article should be stubbified and then merged into

3631: 3568: 3539: 3524: 3502: 2881: 2395:) (self-declared activist, collecting on-wiki petition to send to White House) 2170: 1847: 1803: 1751:

I would also like to point to the remarks made at the first, premature close

3708:

are not enough to sustain a deletion of a photo of a notable murder victim.

3396:

Knowledge (XXG):Files for deletion/2011 November 21#File:JesseDirkhising.jpg

3330: 2854: 2731:

Writing "we are not on the average much stupider" seems to miss that point.

1312: 1278: 1054: 561: 253: 1030:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Granville_Automatic

1615:

You're right, it looks like those numbers are made up. And now, in before

3729: 3592: 3567:

Wow, I'm so good my requests happen before I ask! Thanks Black Kite :-)

2716: 1707: 662: 592: 546: 220: 2773:

as the obviously correct closure based on the content of the arguments.

2676:? Josephson has the same voting rights as all the other users, although 1337:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Energy_Catalyzer

3687:

that then a clear consensus to delete must be obtained for each case.

2560:

Definitely something irregular happened with the voting at this AfD.

3062: 645:

isn't. As a one-sentence dicdef, it's nearly as shameful, though.

2379:) (almost all content edits to this article, promotional userpage) 3674:. re the above comments, I opened the RfC to clarify the matter ( 3098:

my time working on an article which could be deleted soon after.

2850: 2846: 2640: 3618:

reading of policy or not is something the RFC may determine.

3554:

WT:NFC#RFC:_Clarifying_policy_on_pictures_of_deceased_persons

3140:

How many non-sequiturs can you balance on the head of a pin?

560:

Sure, why not? It's possible to produce a single article on

3290:

doesn't yet do enough to address them in form or substance.

1787:, indeed, a scam. Otherwise, we're failing our readership. 2047:) (one year break in editing before resuming on 29 Oct 2011 2680:

and an advocate of the E-Cat (as he has always stated).--

533:

S Marshall, do you really think it possible to produce a

275:

Deletion arguments were a lack of an encyclopaedic scope

3523:

isn't so clear as to override that lack of consensus.

834:

Having started the thread I copied the page to my page,

3473: 3459: 3451: 3443: 2950:

intervention because the e-cat IS and remain a FACT !

1752: 1293: 1258: 1255: 1229: 1215: 1207: 1199: 1006: 992: 984: 976: 169: 155: 147: 139: 836:

User:Squidonius/English words with uncommon properties

79:

User:Squidonius/English words with uncommon properties

3682:

or 2) Articles such as "Death of XYZ" are not really

377:

can clean it up and come up some way to overcome the

81:

to give Squidonius the opportunity to improve it. –

2303:) (two year break in editing before voting in AfD) 291:being added as a result as well as suggestions of 2857:was justified in closing the AfD, I believe. -- 2347:) (free energy advocate, 6 edits since Nov 2007) 1547:my conclusion is that the community decided to 218:the reasons for keeping and deleting articles. 1074:not Elkins. None of these people or bands are 1917:on basis of sound arguments given by closer. 8: 3188:Yes, under Italian law it is a "validation". 396:be written. For example, every word in the 3415:The following is an archived debate of the 1171:The following is an archived debate of the 948:The following is an archived debate of the 111:The following is an archived debate of the 3383: 3216:enough noise, maybe nobody will notice... 1137: 1034: 923: 463:I have restored the article for the DRV. 381:problem, would that be an OK compromise,? 66: 3158:; "Please stop shouting and being rude." 1480:Occurences of '* Delete' in afd page: 5 359:List of commonly misused English words 129:English words with uncommon properties 74:English words with uncommon properties 2801:Knowledge (XXG):Village pump (policy) 7: 1396:Delete and banhammer a bunch of SPAs 1070:article the Lennon Prize was won by 3780:of the page listed in the heading. 3372:of the page listed in the heading. 1126:of the page listed in the heading. 912:of the page listed in the heading. 643:English lexicology and lexicography 3154:Andy, did you read the message by 1757:conspiracy would still be notable. 28: 875:WP:Copying within Knowledge (XXG) 1361:Your statistics are fabricated. 665:(rather than Lexicology) taking 3776:The above is an archive of the 3368:The above is an archive of the 1122:The above is an archive of the 908:The above is an archive of the 752:lack of an encyclopaedic scope 398:list of English irregular verbs 199:) 23:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review 2678:he is a Nobel prize in physics 498:, is still a shameful redlink. 1: 3767:23:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 3751:23:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 3739:23:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC) 3406:01:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 3357:12:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3339:11:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3318:12:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3300:08:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3280:04:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3245:10:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3226:03:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3211:03:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3199:06:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3183:03:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3168:03:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3150:02:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3132:02:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3108:08:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 3089:05:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC) 3049:16:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC) 3028:12:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC) 3009:14:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 2990:18:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 1504:10:11, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 1387:Ok. Saw you are in the 4% of 1325:Basically, there were 96% of 1162:04:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC) 1114:03:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC) 1089:02:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 939:11:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC) 895:14:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC) 865:12:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC) 852:11:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC) 830:23:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC) 815:14:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 796:01:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 779:00:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 684:01:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 624:23:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC) 367:List of common misconceptions 234:I have now added a rational. 102:05:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC) 3718:07:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 3697:06:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 3667:15:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 3640:13:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 3625:07:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 3602:04:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 3577:03:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 3563:03:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 3548:03:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 3533:03:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 3514:00:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 2971:18:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 2940:01:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 2914:19:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2890:17:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2867:15:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2814:15:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2783:07:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2756:22:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2741:21:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2726:17:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2710:17:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2690:16:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2668:. And what's wrong with the 2657:16:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2634:14:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2616:11:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2592:03:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 2570:10:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 2006:04:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 1985:22:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1968:22:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1951:22:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1927:21:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1898:17:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 1884:17:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 1860:07:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 1834:22:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1812:20:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1794:19:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1769:19:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1745:19:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1717:18:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1695:15:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1660:19:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 1591:17:10, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1561:17:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1523:16:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1476:16:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1443:16:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1413:16:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1371:16:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1349:16:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1317:15:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1304:15:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1283:14:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1270:14:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 1059:21:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 743:19:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 726:09:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 708:23:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 655:18:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 602:15:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 582:17:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 556:17:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 522:17:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 489:15:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 471:13:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 455:12:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 432:10:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 418:09:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 391:07:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 371:provided they're well tended 332:05:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 310:04:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 268:00:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 239:04:03, 8 November 2011 (UTC) 230:23:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 209:23:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC) 3394:– Relisting per discussion 3803: 2167:) (self-declared advocate) 1047:) 20:59, November 7, 2011‎ 363:Commonly misspelled words 357:of articles like this -- 3783:Please do not modify it. 3433:File:JesseDirkhising.jpg 3422:Please do not modify it. 3391:File:JesseDirkhising.jpg 3375:Please do not modify it. 1178:Please do not modify it. 1129:Please do not modify it. 955:Please do not modify it. 915:Please do not modify it. 667:Recreational mathematics 118:Please do not modify it. 43:Deletion review archives 3760:per my comments above. 840:navigation bar template 934:– Deletion Endorsed – 641:may be redlinked, but 341:, that is, restore to 3606:No, the original FFD 3552:Like this one? -: --> 2790:- Having been closed 1539:If I see one hundred 639:Lexicology of English 496:lexicology of English 3071:National Instruments 539:Words That Interest 273:Endorse own deletion 3419:of the page above. 3093:Hi Andy. I stated 1175:of the page above. 966:Granville Automatic 952:of the page above. 931:Granville Automatic 115:of the page above. 3610:was fine, because 2672:vote expressed by 764:original research 287:original research 3790: 3789: 3665: 3382: 3381: 3230:Using terms like 2974: 2957:comment added by 1882: 1863: 1846:comment added by 1832: 1693: 1136: 1135: 1048: 1039:comment added by 922: 921: 893: 828: 622: 580: 520: 453: 416: 250:original research 3794: 3785: 3764: 3748: 3702:Overturn to keep 3657: 3655: 3622: 3560: 3508: 3496: 3491: 3476: 3462: 3454: 3446: 3424: 3384: 3377: 3336: 2973: 2951: 2555: 2554: 2535: 2479: 2478: 2459: 2451: 2450: 2431: 2423: 2422: 2403: 2331: 2330: 2311: 2271: 2270: 2251: 2243: 2242: 2223: 2103: 2102: 2083: 2075: 2074: 2055: 1874: 1872: 1862: 1840: 1824: 1822: 1791: 1685: 1683: 1246: 1241: 1232: 1218: 1210: 1202: 1189:Energy Catalyzer 1180: 1145:Energy Catalyzer 1138: 1131: 1023: 1018: 1009: 995: 987: 979: 957: 924: 917: 885: 883: 827: 826: 702: 614: 612: 572: 570: 512: 510: 445: 443: 408: 406: 258: 182: 180: 172: 158: 150: 142: 120: 98: 93: 88: 67: 56: 36: 3802: 3801: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3793: 3792: 3791: 3781: 3778:deletion review 3762: 3746: 3651: 3620: 3558: 3504: 3492: 3490: 3487: 3483: 3472: 3471: 3465: 3458: 3457: 3450: 3449: 3442: 3441: 3420: 3417:deletion review 3373: 3370:deletion review 3331: 3237:Robert Brockway 3100:Robert Brockway 3059:user:Sterlingda 3041:Robert Brockway 2952: 2674:Brian Josephson 2536: 2531: 2530: 2460: 2455: 2454: 2432: 2427: 2426: 2404: 2401:217.149.200.230 2399: 2398: 2312: 2307: 2306: 2252: 2247: 2246: 2224: 2219: 2218: 2155:Brian Josephson 2084: 2079: 2078: 2056: 2051: 2050: 1868: 1841: 1818: 1789: 1679: 1242: 1240: 1237: 1228: 1227: 1221: 1214: 1213: 1206: 1205: 1198: 1197: 1176: 1173:deletion review 1148:– Keep closure 1127: 1124:deletion review 1106:Hobbes Goodyear 1019: 1017: 1014: 1005: 1004: 998: 991: 990: 983: 982: 975: 974: 953: 950:deletion review 913: 910:deletion review 879: 824: 760:with unsourced 700: 608: 566: 506: 439: 402: 315:Complaint lodge 283:with unsourced 264: 254: 176: 174: 168: 167: 161: 154: 153: 146: 145: 138: 137: 116: 113:deletion review 96: 91: 86: 65: 62:7 November 2011 58: 57: 54: 52:2011 November 8 49: 40: 38:2011 November 6 34: 26: 25: 24: 12: 11: 5: 3800: 3798: 3788: 3787: 3772: 3771: 3770: 3769: 3763:Black Kite (t) 3755: 3754: 3753: 3747:Black Kite (t) 3720: 3699: 3669: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3621:Black Kite (t) 3585: 3584: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3580: 3579: 3559:Black Kite (t) 3499: 3498: 3488: 3481: 3469: 3463: 3455: 3447: 3439: 3427: 3426: 3411: 3410: 3409: 3408: 3380: 3379: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3342: 3341: 3323: 3322: 3321: 3320: 3303: 3302: 3283: 3282: 3260: 3259: 3258: 3257: 3256: 3255: 3254: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3201: 3135: 3134: 3115: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3052: 3051: 3033: 3032: 3031: 3030: 3012: 3011: 3001:86.176.214.139 2993: 2992: 2975: 2943: 2942: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2916: 2906:Robert Horning 2893: 2892: 2870: 2869: 2837: 2836: 2827: 2826: 2816: 2806:Robert Horning 2785: 2767: 2766: 2765: 2764: 2763: 2762: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2712: 2694: 2693: 2692: 2662: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2575: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2558: 2557: 2556: 2528: 2512: 2496: 2483:Richardbamberg 2480: 2452: 2424: 2396: 2380: 2364: 2348: 2332: 2304: 2288: 2272: 2244: 2216: 2200: 2184: 2168: 2152: 2136: 2120: 2104: 2076: 2048: 2032: 2009: 2008: 1987: 1970: 1953: 1930: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1900: 1797: 1796: 1790:Black Kite (t) 1772: 1771: 1748: 1747: 1720: 1719: 1698: 1697: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1649: 1646: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1401: 1392: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1334: 1320: 1319: 1307: 1306: 1286: 1285: 1249: 1248: 1238: 1225: 1219: 1211: 1203: 1195: 1183: 1182: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1134: 1133: 1118: 1117: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1041:170.140.221.45 1026: 1025: 1015: 1002: 996: 988: 980: 972: 960: 959: 944: 943: 942: 941: 920: 919: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 898: 897: 873:. Please see 832: 817: 800: 799: 798: 745: 728: 710: 689: 688: 687: 686: 659: 658: 657: 636: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 626: 526: 525: 491: 473: 461: 460: 459: 458: 457: 393: 336: 335: 334: 298:WP:COMMONSENSE 270: 262: 243: 242: 241: 184: 183: 165: 159: 151: 143: 135: 123: 122: 107: 106: 105: 104: 64: 59: 50: 41: 33: 32: 30: 27: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3799: 3786: 3784: 3779: 3774: 3773: 3768: 3765: 3759: 3756: 3752: 3749: 3743: 3742: 3740: 3736: 3732: 3731: 3726: 3725: 3721: 3719: 3715: 3711: 3707: 3706:WP:VAGUEWAVEs 3703: 3700: 3698: 3694: 3690: 3685: 3681: 3677: 3673: 3670: 3668: 3664: 3660: 3656: 3654: 3647: 3641: 3637: 3633: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3623: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3599: 3595: 3594: 3589: 3586: 3578: 3574: 3570: 3566: 3565: 3564: 3561: 3555: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3545: 3541: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3521: 3518: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3512: 3510: 3509: 3507: 3495: 3486: 3480: 3475: 3468: 3461: 3453: 3445: 3438: 3434: 3431: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3425: 3423: 3418: 3413: 3412: 3407: 3404: 3401: 3397: 3393: 3392: 3388: 3387: 3386: 3385: 3378: 3376: 3371: 3366: 3365: 3358: 3354: 3350: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3340: 3337: 3335: 3328: 3325: 3324: 3319: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3301: 3297: 3293: 3288: 3285: 3284: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3270: 3265: 3262: 3261: 3246: 3242: 3238: 3233: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3209: 3206: 3202: 3200: 3196: 3192: 3189: 3186: 3185: 3184: 3180: 3176: 3171: 3170: 3169: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3156:86.160.85.195 3153: 3152: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3133: 3129: 3125: 3120: 3117: 3116: 3109: 3105: 3101: 3096: 3092: 3091: 3090: 3086: 3082: 3077: 3072: 3067: 3063: 3060: 3056: 3055: 3054: 3053: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3035: 3034: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3010: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2995: 2994: 2991: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2976: 2972: 2968: 2964: 2960: 2956: 2948: 2945: 2944: 2941: 2937: 2933: 2928: 2925: 2924: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2902: 2901:"Google test" 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2891: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2868: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2839: 2838: 2833: 2829: 2828: 2824: 2821:I agree with 2820: 2817: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2802: 2798: 2793: 2789: 2786: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2769: 2768: 2757: 2753: 2749: 2748:109a152a8a146 2744: 2743: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2723: 2719: 2718: 2713: 2711: 2707: 2703: 2702:109a152a8a146 2699: 2695: 2691: 2687: 2683: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2667: 2664: 2663: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2643:. Quote from 2642: 2637: 2636: 2635: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2618: 2617: 2613: 2609: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2580: 2579: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2571: 2567: 2563: 2559: 2552: 2549: 2546: 2543: 2540: 2534: 2533:42.241.97.122 2529: 2526: 2523: 2520: 2516: 2513: 2510: 2507: 2504: 2500: 2497: 2494: 2491: 2488: 2484: 2481: 2476: 2473: 2470: 2467: 2464: 2458: 2453: 2448: 2445: 2442: 2439: 2436: 2430: 2425: 2420: 2417: 2414: 2411: 2408: 2402: 2397: 2394: 2391: 2388: 2384: 2381: 2378: 2375: 2372: 2368: 2365: 2362: 2359: 2356: 2352: 2349: 2346: 2343: 2340: 2336: 2333: 2328: 2325: 2322: 2319: 2316: 2310: 2309:79.179.42.190 2305: 2302: 2299: 2296: 2292: 2289: 2286: 2283: 2280: 2276: 2273: 2268: 2265: 2262: 2259: 2256: 2250: 2249:71.161.192.84 2245: 2240: 2237: 2234: 2231: 2228: 2222: 2217: 2214: 2211: 2208: 2204: 2201: 2198: 2195: 2192: 2188: 2185: 2182: 2179: 2176: 2172: 2169: 2166: 2163: 2160: 2156: 2153: 2150: 2147: 2144: 2140: 2139:109a152a8a146 2137: 2134: 2131: 2128: 2124: 2121: 2118: 2115: 2112: 2108: 2105: 2100: 2097: 2094: 2091: 2088: 2082: 2081:86.125.176.31 2077: 2072: 2069: 2066: 2063: 2060: 2054: 2053:69.134.164.26 2049: 2046: 2043: 2040: 2036: 2033: 2030: 2027: 2024: 2020: 2017: 2016: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1988: 1986: 1982: 1978: 1974: 1971: 1969: 1965: 1961: 1957: 1954: 1952: 1949: 1946: 1942: 1938: 1934: 1931: 1928: 1924: 1920: 1916: 1913: 1912: 1899: 1895: 1891: 1890:62.30.137.128 1887: 1886: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1871: 1865: 1864: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1849: 1845: 1837: 1836: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1821: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1809: 1805: 1801: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1795: 1792: 1786: 1782: 1777: 1774: 1773: 1770: 1766: 1762: 1758: 1753: 1750: 1749: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1725: 1722: 1721: 1718: 1714: 1710: 1709: 1703: 1700: 1699: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1682: 1675: 1674: 1661: 1657: 1653: 1650: 1647: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1618: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1562: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1546: 1542: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1501: 1497: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1444: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1400: 1397: 1393: 1390: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1350: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1335: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1318: 1315: 1314: 1309: 1308: 1305: 1301: 1297: 1294: 1291: 1288: 1287: 1284: 1281: 1280: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1267: 1263: 1259: 1256: 1252: 1245: 1236: 1231: 1224: 1217: 1209: 1201: 1194: 1190: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1184: 1181: 1179: 1174: 1169: 1168: 1163: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1146: 1142: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1132: 1130: 1125: 1120: 1119: 1116: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1098: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1057: 1056: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1046: 1042: 1038: 1031: 1022: 1013: 1008: 1001: 994: 986: 978: 971: 967: 964: 963: 962: 961: 958: 956: 951: 946: 945: 940: 937: 933: 932: 928: 927: 926: 925: 918: 916: 911: 906: 905: 896: 892: 888: 884: 882: 876: 872: 868: 867: 866: 863: 860: 855: 854: 853: 849: 845: 841: 837: 833: 831: 821: 818: 816: 812: 808: 804: 801: 797: 793: 789: 785: 782: 781: 780: 776: 772: 768: 767: 763: 759: 755: 749: 746: 744: 740: 736: 732: 729: 727: 723: 719: 714: 711: 709: 706: 703: 699: 694: 691: 690: 685: 681: 677: 673: 672:Orange (word) 668: 664: 660: 656: 652: 648: 647:74.74.150.139 644: 640: 637: 625: 621: 617: 613: 611: 605: 604: 603: 599: 595: 594: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 583: 579: 575: 571: 569: 563: 559: 558: 557: 553: 549: 548: 543: 542: 536: 532: 531: 530: 529: 528: 527: 524: 523: 519: 515: 511: 509: 503: 497: 492: 490: 486: 482: 477: 474: 472: 469: 466: 462: 456: 452: 448: 444: 442: 435: 434: 433: 429: 425: 424:74.74.150.139 421: 420: 419: 415: 411: 407: 405: 399: 394: 392: 388: 384: 380: 376: 372: 368: 364: 360: 356: 352: 348: 344: 340: 337: 333: 329: 325: 320: 316: 313: 312: 311: 308: 304: 299: 294: 290: 286: 282: 278: 274: 271: 269: 266: 265: 259: 257: 251: 247: 244: 240: 237: 233: 232: 231: 227: 223: 222: 216: 213: 212: 211: 210: 206: 202: 198: 194: 190: 179: 171: 164: 157: 149: 141: 134: 130: 127: 126: 125: 124: 121: 119: 114: 109: 108: 103: 99: 94: 89: 84: 80: 76: 75: 71: 70: 69: 68: 63: 60: 53: 48: 47:2011 November 44: 39: 31: 23: 19: 3782: 3775: 3757: 3728: 3723: 3722: 3701: 3683: 3671: 3652: 3615: 3612:every single 3611: 3607: 3591: 3587: 3519: 3505: 3503: 3500: 3421: 3414: 3389: 3374: 3367: 3333: 3326: 3286: 3263: 3231: 3218:AndyTheGrump 3205:Arthur Rubin 3187: 3175:AndyTheGrump 3142:AndyTheGrump 3118: 3094: 3081:AndyTheGrump 3036: 2996: 2977: 2953:— Preceding 2946: 2926: 2877: 2818: 2791: 2787: 2770: 2715: 2697: 2669: 2665: 2547: 2541: 2521: 2505: 2489: 2471: 2465: 2457:152.2.132.47 2443: 2437: 2429:88.112.37.71 2415: 2409: 2389: 2373: 2357: 2341: 2323: 2317: 2297: 2281: 2263: 2257: 2235: 2229: 2221:84.180.53.18 2209: 2193: 2177: 2161: 2145: 2129: 2113: 2095: 2089: 2067: 2061: 2041: 2025: 1989: 1972: 1955: 1945:Arthur Rubin 1932: 1914: 1869: 1842:— Preceding 1819: 1784: 1780: 1775: 1755: 1728: 1723: 1706: 1702:Endorse, but 1701: 1680: 1548: 1544: 1540: 1493: 1468:AndyTheGrump 1395: 1394: 1388: 1330: 1326: 1311: 1296:AndyTheGrump 1289: 1277: 1253: 1250: 1177: 1170: 1149: 1143: 1128: 1121: 1101: 1096: 1095: 1075: 1071: 1063: 1053: 1035:— Preceding 1027: 954: 947: 929: 914: 907: 880: 819: 802: 783: 771:Stuartyeates 751: 747: 730: 712: 697: 692: 609: 591: 567: 545: 540: 538: 534: 507: 501: 499: 475: 440: 403: 370: 354: 346: 338: 319:in some form 318: 314: 303:WP:ASSERTION 272: 261: 255: 245: 219: 214: 185: 117: 110: 77:– Userfy to 72: 61: 29: 3689:Herostratus 3327:Strong Keep 3191:AnnaBennett 3160:AnnaBennett 3124:AnnaBennett 2932:Star A Star 2622:cold fusion 2351:Star A Star 2275:Ewoudenberg 2187:Flintobrien 1994:cold fusion 1941:Cold fusion 1776:Endorse but 1733:cold fusion 1081:Herostratus 383:Herostratus 3672:Relist all 3653:S Marshall 3588:Relist all 3347:See above 3308:See above 2980:Sorry ! -- 2682:79.6.2.187 2608:POVbrigand 2335:Sterlingda 2123:POVbrigand 2107:NUMB3RN7NE 1977:POVbrigand 1919:Xxanthippe 1870:S Marshall 1820:S Marshall 1681:S Marshall 1329:and 4% of 1154:Eluchil404 881:S Marshall 871:dummy edit 844:Squidonius 807:NUMB3RN7NE 735:Eluchil404 718:Squidonius 610:S Marshall 568:S Marshall 508:S Marshall 441:S Marshall 404:S Marshall 375:Squidonius 351:Squidonius 343:Squidonius 324:Squidonius 201:Squidonius 193:Squidonius 3680:WP:NFCC#8 3649:outcome.— 3349:Nil Einne 3310:Nil Einne 3292:Sctechlaw 3232:keepistas 3076:WP:FRINGE 3020:Nil Einne 1781:seriously 1583:Hipocrite 1543:and four 1515:IRWolfie- 1435:Hipocrite 1363:Hipocrite 1262:Hipocrite 1102:right now 1068:The Swear 825:Exit2DOS 693:Transwiki 562:astronomy 301:the case 3710:Jclemens 3398:– v/r - 3272:Rklawton 2967:contribs 2955:unsigned 2584:Zedshort 2545:contribs 2525:contribs 2509:contribs 2493:contribs 2469:contribs 2441:contribs 2413:contribs 2393:contribs 2383:Zedshort 2377:contribs 2367:Alanf777 2361:contribs 2345:contribs 2321:contribs 2301:contribs 2291:Maryyugo 2285:contribs 2261:contribs 2233:contribs 2213:contribs 2197:contribs 2181:contribs 2165:contribs 2149:contribs 2133:contribs 2117:contribs 2093:contribs 2065:contribs 2045:contribs 2029:contribs 1960:Insilvis 1935:to null/ 1933:Overturn 1856:contribs 1844:unsigned 1553:Insilvis 1405:Insilvis 1341:Insilvis 1150:endorsed 1072:the band 1037:unsigned 663:Logology 502:incubate 437:choice.— 347:terrible 293:WP:SYNTH 20:‎ | 3616:correct 3494:restore 3479:article 3452:history 3332:Namaste 3269:WP:UNDO 3264:Comment 2982:Bmrpire 2959:Bmrpire 2947:Comment 2927:Endorse 2878:Comment 2859:Minvogt 2851:Ldussan 2847:Ldussan 2843:Mathsci 2819:Endorse 2788:Endorse 2771:Endorse 2733:Mathsci 2666:Comment 2649:Minvogt 2641:Ldussan 2626:Mathsci 2562:Mathsci 2515:Bmrpire 2035:Ldussan 1998:Mathsci 1990:Comment 1973:Endorse 1956:Endorse 1937:WP:TLDR 1915:Endorse 1724:Endorse 1652:Minvogt 1617:WP:VOTE 1290:Comment 1244:restore 1208:history 1097:Endorse 1064:Endorse 1021:restore 985:history 936:Spartaz 784:Comment 748:Endorse 500:Please 307:Spartaz 246:Endorse 236:Spartaz 215:comment 189:WP:BITE 178:restore 148:history 83:King of 3758:Relist 3724:Relist 3520:relist 3208:(talk) 2978:Oooops 2832:WP:NOR 2823:Mangoe 2775:VQuakr 2645:WP:SPA 2203:Kv1970 2019:Stengl 1948:(talk) 1761:Mangoe 1737:Mangoe 1729:Forbes 1545:delete 1496:hughey 1389:delete 1331:delete 820:Userfy 803:Userfy 788:Thibbs 758:WP:LSC 756:& 754:WP:NOT 731:Userfy 713:Userfy 705:(talk) 676:Thibbs 535:single 481:Thibbs 476:Userfy 379:WP:LSC 339:Userfy 281:WP:LSC 279:& 277:WP:NOT 3735:talk 3684:about 3632:Hobit 3608:close 3598:talk 3569:Hobit 3540:Hobit 3525:Hobit 3506:Caden 3474:watch 3467:links 3119:Keep. 3066:WP:RS 2882:Tmccc 2797:WP:DP 2792:twice 2722:talk 2551:WHOIS 2499:Jonzo 2475:WHOIS 2447:WHOIS 2419:WHOIS 2327:WHOIS 2267:WHOIS 2239:WHOIS 2171:Tmccc 2099:WHOIS 2071:WHOIS 1848:Tmccc 1804:Tmccc 1713:talk 1230:watch 1223:links 1007:watch 1000:links 766:WP:OR 762:WP:RS 701:cobra 698:Cyber 598:talk 552:talk 289:WP:OR 285:WP:RS 226:talk 170:watch 163:links 55:: --> 16:< 3714:talk 3693:talk 3636:talk 3573:talk 3544:talk 3529:talk 3460:logs 3444:edit 3437:talk 3353:talk 3314:talk 3296:talk 3287:Keep 3276:talk 3241:talk 3222:talk 3195:talk 3179:talk 3164:talk 3146:talk 3128:talk 3104:talk 3095:keep 3085:talk 3045:talk 3037:Keep 3024:talk 3005:talk 2997:Keep 2986:talk 2963:talk 2936:talk 2910:talk 2886:talk 2863:talk 2855:Tone 2810:talk 2779:talk 2752:talk 2737:talk 2706:talk 2698:keep 2686:talk 2670:keep 2653:talk 2630:talk 2612:talk 2588:talk 2566:talk 2539:talk 2519:talk 2503:talk 2487:talk 2463:talk 2435:talk 2407:talk 2387:talk 2371:talk 2355:talk 2339:talk 2315:talk 2295:talk 2279:talk 2255:talk 2227:talk 2207:talk 2191:talk 2175:talk 2159:talk 2143:talk 2127:talk 2111:talk 2087:talk 2059:talk 2039:talk 2023:talk 2002:talk 1981:talk 1964:talk 1923:talk 1894:talk 1852:talk 1808:talk 1765:talk 1741:talk 1656:talk 1587:talk 1557:talk 1549:keep 1541:keep 1519:talk 1500:talk 1472:talk 1439:talk 1409:talk 1367:talk 1345:talk 1327:keep 1313:Tone 1300:talk 1279:Tone 1266:talk 1216:logs 1200:edit 1193:talk 1158:talk 1110:talk 1085:talk 1076:very 1055:Tone 1045:talk 993:logs 977:edit 970:talk 848:talk 811:talk 792:talk 775:talk 739:talk 722:talk 680:talk 651:talk 485:talk 428:talk 387:talk 328:talk 256:Reyk 205:talk 197:talk 156:logs 140:edit 133:talk 35:< 3730:DGG 3593:DGG 3485:XfD 3477:) ( 2717:DGG 1754:: " 1708:DGG 1235:XfD 1233:) ( 1012:XfD 1010:) ( 862:fan 593:DGG 547:DGG 468:fan 355:lot 263:YO! 221:DGG 22:Log 3741:, 3737:) 3716:) 3695:) 3638:) 3600:) 3575:) 3556:. 3546:) 3531:) 3355:) 3316:) 3298:) 3278:) 3243:) 3224:) 3197:) 3181:) 3166:) 3148:) 3130:) 3106:) 3087:) 3047:) 3026:) 3007:) 2988:) 2969:) 2965:• 2938:) 2912:) 2888:) 2865:) 2812:) 2781:) 2754:) 2739:) 2724:) 2708:) 2688:) 2655:) 2632:) 2614:) 2590:) 2568:) 2004:) 1983:) 1966:) 1925:) 1896:) 1858:) 1854:• 1810:) 1785:is 1767:) 1759:" 1743:) 1715:) 1658:) 1589:) 1559:) 1521:) 1502:) 1474:) 1441:) 1411:) 1403:-- 1369:) 1347:) 1339:-- 1302:) 1276:-- 1268:) 1160:) 1112:) 1087:) 859:GB 850:) 813:) 794:) 777:) 741:) 724:) 682:) 653:) 600:) 554:) 541:Me 487:) 465:GB 430:) 389:) 365:, 361:, 330:) 322:-- 228:) 207:) 100:♠ 45:: 3733:( 3712:( 3691:( 3663:C 3661:/ 3659:T 3634:( 3596:( 3571:( 3542:( 3527:( 3497:) 3489:| 3482:| 3470:| 3464:| 3456:| 3448:| 3440:| 3435:( 3403:P 3400:T 3351:( 3334:@ 3312:( 3294:( 3274:( 3239:( 3220:( 3193:( 3177:( 3162:( 3144:( 3126:( 3102:( 3083:( 3043:( 3022:( 3003:( 2984:( 2961:( 2934:( 2908:( 2884:( 2861:( 2808:( 2777:( 2750:( 2735:( 2720:( 2704:( 2684:( 2651:( 2628:( 2610:( 2586:( 2564:( 2553:) 2548:· 2542:· 2537:( 2527:) 2522:· 2517:( 2511:) 2506:· 2501:( 2495:) 2490:· 2485:( 2477:) 2472:· 2466:· 2461:( 2449:) 2444:· 2438:· 2433:( 2421:) 2416:· 2410:· 2405:( 2390:· 2385:( 2374:· 2369:( 2363:) 2358:· 2353:( 2342:· 2337:( 2329:) 2324:· 2318:· 2313:( 2298:· 2293:( 2287:) 2282:· 2277:( 2269:) 2264:· 2258:· 2253:( 2241:) 2236:· 2230:· 2225:( 2215:) 2210:· 2205:( 2199:) 2194:· 2189:( 2183:) 2178:· 2173:( 2162:· 2157:( 2151:) 2146:· 2141:( 2135:) 2130:· 2125:( 2119:) 2114:· 2109:( 2101:) 2096:· 2090:· 2085:( 2073:) 2068:· 2062:· 2057:( 2042:· 2037:( 2031:) 2026:· 2021:( 2000:( 1979:( 1962:( 1929:. 1921:( 1892:( 1880:C 1878:/ 1876:T 1850:( 1830:C 1828:/ 1826:T 1806:( 1763:( 1739:( 1711:( 1691:C 1689:/ 1687:T 1654:( 1585:( 1555:( 1517:( 1498:( 1470:( 1437:( 1407:( 1391:: 1365:( 1343:( 1298:( 1264:( 1247:) 1239:| 1226:| 1220:| 1212:| 1204:| 1196:| 1191:( 1156:( 1108:( 1083:( 1043:( 1024:) 1016:| 1003:| 997:| 989:| 981:| 973:| 968:( 891:C 889:/ 887:T 846:( 809:( 790:( 773:( 737:( 720:( 678:( 649:( 620:C 618:/ 616:T 596:( 578:C 576:/ 574:T 550:( 518:C 516:/ 514:T 483:( 451:C 449:/ 447:T 426:( 414:C 412:/ 410:T 385:( 326:( 224:( 203:( 195:( 181:) 175:( 173:) 166:| 160:| 152:| 144:| 136:| 131:( 97:♣ 92:♦ 87:♥

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

Knowledge (XXG)

:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 7 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index