1787:
those, all survived with some more time and references added. That's the only process I'm familiar with and I don't know why it hasn't happened here. As I said, I had no idea what the previous version looked like, so I asked that the ban on its creation be lifted and I translated the page from the French Wiki (and, c'mon, she's notable enough to have pages in Viet Namese and
Finnish even! ;)) and added references and wikilinks into a new article. What else could be discussed here if I didn't do that? Only a select few had seen it before and since it was blocked from creation, even its article history was inaccessible. So while the previous deletion was voted and settled, I understand that, but I did not recreate the article, I made a new one -- it doesn't make sense that my new article should be deleted just because a previous one was deleted. Shouldn't it be discussed on its own merits?
1821:
the
References), so it has a lot more content than the French wiki and a lot of the French wiki stuff I cut out. What my main point is that the previous creations may have been poor articles - I don't know - but, in my opinion this one was not. And it does not appear that it was looked at on its own at all. Just deleted because it was deleted before. It's kinda a Catch-22. You say we're supposed to discuss it here, but who's gonna discuss something that was (maybe rightfully?) deleted a month ago? And if nobody wants to reinstate a poor article (of course not!), why can we not examine and talk about a good article? Why do they have to be tied together? Why can't the new iteration be looked at de novo and judged for what it is, not hindered because it shares a name with a previously existing poor article.
1753:- I thought the whole purpose was to recreate the article? My new version was fuller than the one deleted previously, and it had multiple outside references. Can it please be restored and put to a vote as its own stand alone topic whether its due for deletion or not, rather than a speedy delete without due process as happened here? The various top tier publications (say what you will about quality of content, but Maxim etc are certainly well known) that gave her write-ups are surely of note.
1713:- Thanks. I had a bit of a look at the recreated article and clicked on a couple of the externals and found only a front page and a another link were it didn't seem to be specifically about her , perhaps was there somewhere but I couldn't see it immediately. I am endorsing the consensus in the AfD and the admins deletion. As Causa Sui has said, he will userfy it on request, where it can be developed and consideration given to replacing it after improvement.
682:
arguing for deletion rather than accepting another solution. The nom himself proposed a merge to
Bennett and Standish families. The first person to comment accepted a redirect, the second accepted a redirect, but only the last, an editor whose comments I consider useless for the purpose of making rational decisions, because he has always !voted delete on everything with an identical cut and paste pseudo-rationale.
542:...Well, I just don't know what else to do other than DRV. I've already reverted to redirect before DRV. I did bring these articles to attention because some people think background about these characters should be known, including soap fans, such as IP editors; nevertheless, I don't know if DRV is necessary, in spite of failures to meet GNG and of potential to be learned, like a profile in Soapcentral.com. --
1487:
I did post a message with that user. I have no idea what the previous version looked like, but like I said, starting from scratch with an infobox and a couple of charts for TV and Film work, all wikilinked and referenced, should only take a couple of minutes, and her name is red-linked on quite a few
1140:
free masons are not really a secret society anymore. Policiticians and civic types regularly advertize their membership, as well as related groups such as shiners etc. While V definately applies to any particular application, and BLPCAT as well there is no justification for not having the category to
932:
Reading the CfD entry, much of the basis for deletion is that the cat is (potentially very) difficult to maintain. I don't do a lot with categories. Is maintenance a real reason to delete a category? I can see how hard maintenance could be, but I'd think the LGBT cats would be more of a problem.
1820:
I didn't -- as can be seen from a brief glance at the two (even if you don't know French). I took that only as a base, but then filled it in with a fair amount of research from those 4 or 5 outside reputable sources (not the fansites in
External Links, but all the magazine articles and interviews in
1505:
So is that admin the only one who can unlock the article? I thought this was the appropriate forum to discuss the topic about the block on the article on the whole rather than just appeal to one person's choice. I'm only asking again because it's been over 8 hours since I posted this here and left a
1379:
Endorse what? Deletion or restoration? There are plenty of sources about her. 22 roles is not non-notable. In addition look at how many pages link to what should be her article. I can't see what the original article looked like, but perhaps if someone took the time to gather the sources and make the
1883:
that someone created a new article on this person on 7 January. I've tagged it for a G4 speedy deletion—it's not an exact copy of the previous article, but it's completely unsourced and doesn't address the reason for deletion. Some admin might want to consider resalting the title until the userfied
1786:
OK, I'm confused I guess. I thought we were starting from scratch. I posted here because the article was blocked from being created. I've started quite a few articles from nothing in my time, and about 80% of them were immediately nominated for deletion once I hit 'save page' the first time, but of
565:
I restored the page histories (while retaining the redirects). So long as the redirects exist, the page history should remain accessible in case there is a question about the content of the page that was redirected. In particular, if some future argument arises as to whether new materials merit the
600:
What would there be to discuss? I didn't restore the articles, and there were no assertions of copyvio or defamation in the edit histories, which would be the only reason not to keep them if the material is merged or the title redirected to another article. Our deletion process is directed towards
681:
or at least a proper merge. I wouldn't have brought this here, because our results on this sort of article are hopelessly inconsistent, but since it is here, the close was not in accord with consensus. The close was delete, but there was not one single responsible person, including the nominator,
467:
I'm sorry, what? I don't understand what you are saying. You didn't recreate the article, they were redirected after the deletes by me. Why does this need to go to DRV? You're trying to enforce a deletion I made? I could've enforced it for you with page protection. Are you trying to get it
1427:
1679:
causa sua was quite right; that was what I intended, & I thank them for it. Any admin who sees the like should do similarly--no need to ask me. . I often restore for discussion when BLP problems or copyvio isn't in question & this almost never happens; if people think I should
1430:
she may well have a degree of wikipedia notability, but saying that imo wouldn't "overturn" the last deletion discussion decision. Just to clarify, my comments are just general and I have not investigated this specic case enough to make a judgment one way or the other. -
1801:
Its just a bit of wiki process. The article title as you were told here is protected due to repeated recreations of a poor article and has only been relaxed for this "deletion review" - If you are cut and copy pasting a page from another wiki then you may need to apply
1648:
I reverted to DGG and protected it. Per the template DGG left, the undeletion was temporary to facilitate this DRV, not to restore the article permanently or permit additional editing. I'll leave a message on DGG's talk page asking him to weigh in on that point here.
1771:
The purpose of DR is not to recreate the article, it's more of a discussion about if the deletion was correct. Why don't you just ask the admin to userfy it for you and then improve it in your userspace and ask if it's improved to a standard to replace.
155:
566:
existence of an article at one of these titles, editors generally will be able to see what was previously deemed deficient. Any additional information to be added at this time can be included in the list to which these titles have been redirected.
1835:
It just the way it is dude. I suggest you take the easy route and rather than all this typing and discussion - just ask the admin to userfy it, and get on with improving it a bit and ask him if he agrees it's been improved enough for replacement.
176:
996:
That CFD does not hold up to current standards, no matter how you look at it. The stated reasons for deletion (High maintenance, duplications of lists) are clearly invalid arguments for deletion, as was pointed out in the debate itself.
1445:
Right, that's what I'm trying to do. I'd've been done with a serviceable, notable article three hours ago if this page weren't locked from editing. A decent sourced article is easy given how many roles she's had and news results.
969:
Finally, I want to point out that although the 2007 debate was closed as "delete", that outcome wouldn't have survived DRV. I submit that there was clearly no consensus in the 2007 debate and the "delete" on that occasion was a
1731:
Yes, the externals were not of note -- mere fan sites, but did you check the references? I'm confused why this was speedily deleted and couldn't be judged on its own merits, and not those of its prior iterations which were
1468:
the previous for you and then add your content and if it is demonstrably improved/different/well referenced in comparison to the previous version I don't see anyone likely objecting to you replacing it back to main space.
415:
353:
291:
229:
167:
121:
70:
480:
I apologize. I never had page protection in my head. Nevertheless, I'll rephrase: "I just want a consensus about what to do with them." Maybe I'll ask for page protection if that's a better suggestion, according to you.
1360:- the consensus in the AfD was pretty clear, and the last version of the article only had one source (her entry on the IMDb). If you have any further sources which would be sufficient enough to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s
955:
explicitly allows and encourages categories that duplicate lists, so the nomination was mistaken and so was everyone who agreed with it on the basis of duplication. Such !votes should be disregarded in assessing the
468:
overturned? I dont understand what you are trying to do and you really should've discussed this with me on my talk page first so at least I could understand what you are trying to do before you drag me here.--v/r -
1122:
deletion. Membership of a secretive society can hardly be described as defining, the main criterion for categorisation (which is mentioned in the 2007 cfd). Relist it at cfd if consensus is thought to have changed.
1612:
958:
Yes, it's wrong to add the category to a biography where the person's freemasonry is not verifiable, but how does that make it a good idea to delete the category and which policy or guideline encourages that
1488:
articles already, so it wouldn't be an orphaned article. So I was looking for "article improvement editing", but for the ban on creation of the article to be lifted, so that it can stand on its own mettle.
1338:
1159:
If we overturn the deletion of a category, can that category be easily repopulated? I seem to recall that a bot or script of some kind has been used in the past but I'm not sure of how it's technically
436:; however, I re-created these deleted articles into redirects. Somehow, the deleted history logs were recovered are are recently prone to unnecessary reverts to former states. I wonder if anyone either
906:
issue and should be resolved through removal of the category until reference is provided, not through deletion of category. We have plenty of potentially controversial categories for people, like
885:
1380:
page look right, it should stick (like I was planning to do today when I noticed she was a red link on Kill the
Irishman, which surprised me given how many shows and movies she's been on).
902:
The nominators rationale was that many entries are categorized without a reference. I very strongly agree with one of the dissenters in that discussion who pointed out that this is a
1617:
because it has been repeatedly recreated. I will userfy it on request. My talk page would be the best place to ask for a userfy since I don't get notifications of new messages here.
1491:
Yes, the admin has now returned to editing so .. If you let the deleting admin know your intentions for article improvement they might just undelete it for you on request. -
341:
125:
48:
34:
43:
1528:
in the logs - perhaps it's just the multiple recreations - anyway - yes - my advice is to go back and talk to the admin that took the last deletion decision.
644:
would have been acceptable, but you used the undelete tool to amend the AfD outcome without consulting the closing admin. I'm not positive, but I think that
362:
966:
because the CFD outcome was contra-policy and illogical, and the only basis for ignoring rules is if that improves the encyclopaedia, which this doesn't.
873:
962:
In DRV terms the debate was closed according to the consensus so very little blame attaches to the closer, but I'd also see this as a straight
217:
1576:
1228:
911:
894:
806:
88:
747:
with history intact would have been acceptable. I haven't seen any discussion of amending the close, but that discussion can happen here.
645:
39:
1588:
1036:
seems to apply to its inclusion on a BLP - citable self declaration and that the membership of the group is a part of their notability.
279:
1606:
1594:
1295:
740:
1582:
403:
238:
1600:
1173:
983:
21:
311:
947:
Having read that discussion and the previous ones, I think the whole episode counts as an epic logic fail at CFD. We have a
300:
1310:
1087:. The close was a good reading of the discussion, but pilots raised here demonstrate that further discussion is needed. --
653:
424:
1904:
1470:
1245:
1189:
823:
767:
105:
17:
1075:
699:
649:
307:
1053:
CLN covers this eventuality. Youreallycan is correct that BLPCAT applies, but that is not a reason for deletion.
1570:
1465:
1223:
843:
801:
83:
1803:
648:
would shy away from restoring these page histories without a specific reason. There has been no merging to
1841:
1811:
1777:
1718:
1639:
1533:
1506:
message on that admin's talk page and posted on the article's talk page, would've thought it'd've reached
1496:
1478:
1436:
1399:
1071:
1041:
1893:
1875:
1845:
1830:
1815:
1796:
1781:
1762:
1741:
1722:
1691:
1658:
1643:
1626:
1537:
1519:
1500:
1482:
1455:
1440:
1417:
1403:
1389:
1370:
1347:
1328:
1234:
1177:
1150:
1132:
1114:
1096:
1079:
1062:
1045:
1023:
1006:
987:
942:
926:
812:
756:
727:(what was done by TParis). Keeping the history deleted would have prevented the reverts/restorations of
711:
693:
665:
624:
595:
581:
551:
536:
511:
490:
475:
461:
187:
94:
1394:
Endorse - is a standard comment in deletion reviews - it means - endorse the closing admins decision.
1565:
1169:
1109:
979:
907:
502:
Nevertheless, I did ask for history-only undeletion because someone else suggested it, otherwise. --
1871:
1863:
1826:
1792:
1758:
1737:
1654:
1622:
1515:
1451:
1413:
1385:
1324:
1218:
1215:
1092:
1019:
914:. In light of that, I see no reason to justify deletion of this category; it should be restored. --
839:
796:
793:
788:
547:
507:
486:
457:
78:
75:
1033:
1146:
1058:
948:
752:
707:
661:
591:
516:
There was a history only undeletion done. All that needs to be done is reverted to the redirect
497:
249:
1364:
or any specific guildeines, please feel free to begin developing an article in your userspace.
1837:
1807:
1773:
1714:
1635:
1529:
1492:
1474:
1432:
1395:
1265:
1037:
920:
1525:
1634:- the article has been recreated by User:Jesserafe - that seems a bit out of process to me.
1128:
1002:
619:
576:
533:
524:
472:
373:
183:
1361:
952:
1161:
1105:
971:
938:
1889:
1867:
1822:
1788:
1754:
1733:
1650:
1618:
1511:
1461:
1447:
1409:
1381:
1320:
1088:
1015:
543:
503:
482:
453:
1524:
Well, I am not sure about the reason it's not able to be recreated as I can't see any
1319:
Notable actress, 22 roles in well-received and well-known movies and television shows
951:, which the CFD nominator actually mentions and describes as "duplicative". However,
903:
1687:
1142:
1054:
748:
703:
689:
657:
587:
245:
1261:
1210:
916:
518:
and maybe a 2 week semi-protection to prevent that IP from removing the redirect.
1365:
1342:
1124:
610:
567:
530:
521:
469:
369:
1426:- Saying that, if someone was to write a decent article about her, judging by
934:
1408:
What decision? The only comments were mine and the person who said "Endorse".
1885:
1862:
I've userfied the article per his request on my talk page. More details at
1682:
684:
1029:
702:. I would like to discuss BD2412's restoration of the page histories.
700:
User talk:Elen of the Roads#Fictional women of
Passions, volume 1 DRV
586:
Did you discuss restoring the page histories before undeleting them?
529:
Don't even need semi-protection since it only happened once.--v/r -
444:"something". Actually, these characters are non-notable for lack of
1339:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Laura Ramsey (2nd nomination)
1014:
I have nothing to add to S Marshall's comments above. Well argued.
698:
I am reopening this DRV with permission from the previous closer,
1680:
routinely protect, I can do it, but it's rarely been necessary.
1473:
is not really for that kind of article improvement editing. -
1423:
122:
WP:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of
Passions, volume 1
71:
WP:Articles for deletion/Fictional women of
Passions, volume 1
640:
are three distinct outcomes. As I wrote below, a close as
1353:
temporarily restored for discussion at
Deletion Review
1302:
1288:
1280:
1272:
880:
866:
858:
850:
735:
729:
410:
396:
388:
380:
348:
334:
326:
318:
286:
272:
264:
256:
224:
210:
202:
194:
162:
148:
140:
132:
1028:
If it's recreated then as freemasonary is a part of
910:, and categories for similar secret group members -
1460:I would suggest you ask the last deleting admin,
8:
1884:version is made acceptable (if it ever is).
1244:The following is an archived debate of the
822:The following is an archived debate of the
452:, but I should have used it in the debate.
104:The following is an archived debate of the
1203:
781:
63:
1070:and bring it back into the right place.
1032:and is viewed negatively by some then
917:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
7:
912:Category:Members of secret societies
520:There isnt a need for a DRV.--v/r -
1907:of the page listed in the heading.
1192:of the page listed in the heading.
770:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
1214:– Deletion endorsed; userfied –
1903:The above is an archive of the
1188:The above is an archive of the
766:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1:
1362:general notability guidelines
654:Bennett and Standish families
1235:19:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
1178:12:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
1151:21:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
813:19:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
666:05:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
95:19:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
74:– Nothing to be done here –
1894:00:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
1876:00:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
1846:22:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
1831:22:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
1816:22:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
1797:22:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
1782:21:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
1763:21:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
1742:21:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
1723:17:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
1692:05:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
1659:17:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
1644:16:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
1627:00:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
1538:23:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
1520:23:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
1501:20:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
1483:20:23, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
1456:20:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
1441:20:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
1424:the last deletion decision.
1418:19:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
1404:19:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
1390:17:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
1371:17:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
1348:17:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
1329:16:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
1133:21:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
1115:04:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
1097:10:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
1080:17:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
1063:05:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
1046:17:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
1024:17:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
1007:15:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
988:12:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
943:22:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
927:17:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
757:05:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
712:05:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
694:02:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
650:List of Passions characters
625:19:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
596:05:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
582:00:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
552:00:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
537:00:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
527:00:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
512:00:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
491:00:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
476:23:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
462:23:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
1930:
736:Jessica Bennett (Passions)
646:WP:Requests for undeletion
607:edit histories of articles
308:Jessica Bennett (Passions)
1910:Please do not modify it.
1251:Please do not modify it.
1195:Please do not modify it.
829:Please do not modify it.
773:Please do not modify it.
111:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
1422:That would be, endorse
723:(closing statement) or
432:This debate resulted a
792:– Overturn to keep –
1510:attention by now...
1157:Procedural question:
1030:Category:Esotericism
908:Category:LGBT people
1864:User Talk:causa sui
1248:of the page above.
840:Category:Freemasons
826:of the page above.
789:Category:Freemasons
725:delete and redirect
634:delete and redirect
108:of the page above.
1471:WP:Deletion review
1428:her google returns
949:list of Freemasons
679:Permit restoration
1917:
1916:
1564:It was salted by
1202:
1201:
1180:
1176:
1072:Elen of the Roads
986:
780:
779:
539:
501:
1921:
1912:
1616:
1368:
1345:
1315:
1313:
1305:
1291:
1283:
1275:
1253:
1231:
1226:
1221:
1204:
1197:
1168:
1166:
1155:
1138:overturn to keep
1112:
1012:Overturn to keep
994:Allow recreation
978:
976:
964:overturn to keep
923:
897:
892:
883:
869:
861:
853:
831:
809:
804:
799:
782:
775:
738:
732:
617:
574:
528:
495:
438:endorse deletion
427:
422:
413:
399:
391:
383:
365:
360:
351:
337:
329:
321:
303:
298:
289:
275:
267:
259:
241:
236:
227:
213:
205:
197:
184:Charity Standish
179:
174:
165:
151:
143:
135:
113:
91:
86:
81:
64:
53:
33:
1929:
1928:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1908:
1905:deletion review
1568:
1566:AlexiusHoratius
1366:
1343:
1309:
1307:
1301:
1300:
1294:
1287:
1286:
1279:
1278:
1271:
1270:
1249:
1246:deletion review
1229:
1224:
1219:
1193:
1190:deletion review
1162:
1110:
972:
925:
921:
893:
891:
888:
879:
878:
872:
865:
864:
857:
856:
849:
848:
827:
824:deletion review
807:
802:
797:
771:
768:deletion review
734:
728:
656:since the AfD.
611:
568:
423:
421:
418:
409:
408:
402:
395:
394:
387:
386:
379:
378:
361:
359:
356:
347:
346:
340:
333:
332:
325:
324:
317:
316:
299:
297:
294:
285:
284:
278:
271:
270:
263:
262:
255:
254:
237:
235:
232:
223:
222:
216:
209:
208:
201:
200:
193:
192:
175:
173:
170:
161:
160:
154:
147:
146:
139:
138:
131:
130:
109:
106:deletion review
89:
84:
79:
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1927:
1925:
1915:
1914:
1899:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1878:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1804:WP:Attribution
1766:
1765:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1726:
1725:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1694:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1629:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1462:User:Causa sui
1374:
1373:
1355:
1350:
1317:
1316:
1298:
1292:
1284:
1276:
1268:
1256:
1255:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1200:
1199:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1153:
1135:
1117:
1099:
1082:
1065:
1048:
1026:
1009:
991:
945:
915:
900:
899:
889:
876:
870:
862:
854:
846:
834:
833:
818:
817:
816:
815:
778:
777:
762:
761:
760:
759:
714:
696:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
493:
430:
429:
419:
406:
400:
392:
384:
376:
367:
357:
344:
338:
330:
322:
314:
305:
295:
282:
276:
268:
260:
252:
243:
233:
220:
214:
206:
198:
190:
181:
171:
158:
152:
144:
136:
128:
116:
115:
100:
99:
98:
97:
61:
59:3 January 2012
56:
49:2012 January 4
47:
38:
35:2012 January 2
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1926:
1913:
1911:
1906:
1901:
1900:
1895:
1891:
1887:
1882:
1879:
1877:
1873:
1869:
1865:
1861:
1860:
1847:
1843:
1839:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1828:
1824:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1813:
1809:
1805:
1800:
1799:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1785:
1784:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1749:
1748:
1743:
1739:
1735:
1730:
1729:
1728:
1727:
1724:
1720:
1716:
1712:
1709:
1708:
1693:
1689:
1685:
1684:
1678:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1630:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1614:
1611:
1608:
1605:
1602:
1599:
1596:
1593:
1590:
1587:
1584:
1581:
1578:
1575:
1572:
1567:
1563:
1562:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1489:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1467:
1463:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1438:
1434:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1387:
1383:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1372:
1369:
1363:
1359:
1356:
1354:
1351:
1349:
1346:
1340:
1336:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1312:
1304:
1297:
1290:
1282:
1274:
1267:
1263:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1254:
1252:
1247:
1242:
1241:
1236:
1232:
1227:
1222:
1217:
1213:
1212:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1198:
1196:
1191:
1186:
1185:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1165:
1158:
1154:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1141:begin with.
1139:
1136:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1121:
1118:
1116:
1113:
1107:
1103:
1100:
1098:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1083:
1081:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1066:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1049:
1047:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1010:
1008:
1004:
1000:
995:
992:
990:
989:
985:
981:
977:
975:
967:
965:
960:
954:
950:
946:
944:
940:
936:
931:
930:
929:
928:
924:
918:
913:
909:
905:
896:
887:
882:
875:
868:
860:
852:
845:
841:
838:
837:
836:
835:
832:
830:
825:
820:
819:
814:
810:
805:
800:
795:
791:
790:
786:
785:
784:
783:
776:
774:
769:
764:
763:
758:
754:
750:
746:
743:. Closing as
742:
737:
731:
726:
722:
719:AfD close as
718:
715:
713:
709:
705:
701:
697:
695:
691:
687:
686:
680:
677:
676:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
628:
627:
626:
623:
622:
618:
616:
615:
608:
604:
599:
598:
597:
593:
589:
585:
584:
583:
580:
579:
575:
573:
572:
564:
561:
553:
549:
545:
541:
540:
538:
535:
532:
526:
523:
519:
515:
514:
513:
509:
505:
499:
498:edit conflict
494:
492:
488:
484:
479:
478:
477:
474:
471:
466:
465:
464:
463:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
426:
417:
412:
405:
398:
390:
382:
375:
371:
368:
364:
355:
350:
343:
336:
328:
320:
313:
309:
306:
302:
293:
288:
281:
274:
266:
258:
251:
247:
246:Grace Bennett
244:
240:
231:
226:
219:
212:
204:
196:
189:
185:
182:
178:
169:
164:
157:
150:
142:
134:
127:
123:
120:
119:
118:
117:
114:
112:
107:
102:
101:
96:
92:
87:
82:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1909:
1902:
1880:
1838:Youreallycan
1808:Youreallycan
1774:Youreallycan
1750:
1715:Youreallycan
1710:
1681:
1636:Youreallycan
1631:
1609:
1603:
1597:
1591:
1585:
1579:
1573:
1530:Youreallycan
1507:
1493:Youreallycan
1475:Youreallycan
1433:Youreallycan
1396:Youreallycan
1367:~~ Bettia ~~
1357:
1352:
1344:~~ Bettia ~~
1334:
1318:
1262:Laura_Ramsey
1250:
1243:
1211:Laura_Ramsey
1209:
1194:
1187:
1163:
1156:
1137:
1119:
1104:per above --
1101:
1084:
1067:
1050:
1038:Youreallycan
1011:
998:
993:
973:
968:
963:
961:
957:
901:
828:
821:
787:
772:
765:
744:
741:71.147.50.96
724:
720:
716:
683:
678:
641:
637:
633:
629:
620:
613:
612:
606:
602:
577:
570:
569:
562:
517:
449:
446:significance
445:
441:
437:
433:
431:
110:
103:
69:
58:
44:2012 January
1881:Just a note
1589:protections
970:supervote.—
730:Kay Bennett
442:overturn to
370:Kay Bennett
1601:page moves
1164:S Marshall
1106:Guerillero
974:S Marshall
922:talk to me
609:. Cheers!
1868:causa sui
1823:JesseRafe
1789:JesseRafe
1755:JesseRafe
1734:JesseRafe
1651:causa sui
1619:causa sui
1595:deletions
1512:JesseRafe
1508:someone's
1448:JesseRafe
1410:JesseRafe
1382:JesseRafe
1337:also see
1321:JesseRafe
1089:SmokeyJoe
1068:Overturn
1034:WP:BLPCAT
1016:causa sui
544:George Ho
504:George Ho
483:George Ho
454:George Ho
1751:Question
1732:deleted.
1577:contribs
1143:Gaijin42
1102:Overturn
1055:Jclemens
1051:Overturn
959:outcome?
749:Flatscan
745:redirect
704:Flatscan
658:Flatscan
642:redirect
638:redirect
603:articles
588:Flatscan
20: |
1711:Endorse
1526:WP:SALT
1358:Endorse
1311:restore
1281:history
1216:King of
1120:Endorse
1111:My Talk
956:debate.
895:restore
859:history
794:King of
717:Endorse
425:restore
389:history
363:restore
327:history
301:restore
265:history
239:restore
203:history
177:restore
141:history
76:King of
1607:rights
1583:blocks
1466:userfy
1160:done.—
1125:Occuli
1085:Relist
999:Yoenit
953:WP:CLN
721:delete
636:, and
630:Delete
614:bd2412
605:, not
571:bd2412
450:impact
434:delete
1688:talk
1335:Note:
1303:watch
1296:links
935:Hobit
881:watch
874:links
690:talk
563:Note:
411:watch
404:links
349:watch
342:links
287:watch
280:links
225:watch
218:links
163:watch
156:links
52:: -->
16:<
1890:talk
1886:Deor
1872:talk
1842:talk
1827:talk
1812:talk
1793:talk
1778:talk
1759:talk
1738:talk
1719:talk
1655:talk
1640:talk
1632:note
1623:talk
1571:talk
1534:talk
1516:talk
1497:talk
1479:talk
1452:talk
1437:talk
1414:talk
1400:talk
1386:talk
1325:talk
1289:logs
1273:edit
1266:talk
1147:talk
1129:talk
1093:talk
1076:talk
1059:talk
1042:talk
1020:talk
1003:talk
939:talk
904:WP:V
867:logs
851:edit
844:talk
753:talk
733:and
708:talk
662:talk
592:talk
548:talk
508:talk
487:talk
458:talk
397:logs
381:edit
374:talk
335:logs
319:edit
312:talk
273:logs
257:edit
250:talk
211:logs
195:edit
188:talk
149:logs
133:edit
126:talk
32:<
1683:DGG
1613:RfA
1464:to
886:XfD
884:) (
739:by
685:DGG
652:or
448:or
440:or
416:XfD
414:) (
354:XfD
352:) (
292:XfD
290:) (
230:XfD
228:) (
168:XfD
166:) (
22:Log
1892:)
1874:)
1866:.
1844:)
1829:)
1814:)
1806:.
1795:)
1780:)
1761:)
1740:)
1721:)
1690:)
1657:)
1642:)
1625:)
1536:)
1518:)
1499:)
1481:)
1454:)
1439:)
1416:)
1402:)
1388:)
1341:.
1327:)
1233:♠
1149:)
1131:)
1108:|
1095:)
1078:)
1061:)
1044:)
1022:)
1005:)
941:)
811:♠
755:)
710:)
692:)
664:)
632:,
594:)
550:)
510:)
489:)
481:--
460:)
93:♠
42::
1888:(
1870:(
1840:(
1825:(
1810:(
1791:(
1776:(
1757:(
1736:(
1717:(
1686:(
1653:(
1638:(
1621:(
1615:)
1610:·
1604:·
1598:·
1592:·
1586:·
1580:·
1574:·
1569:(
1532:(
1514:(
1495:(
1477:(
1450:(
1435:(
1412:(
1398:(
1384:(
1323:(
1314:)
1308:(
1306:)
1299:|
1293:|
1285:|
1277:|
1269:|
1264:(
1230:♣
1225:♦
1220:♥
1174:C
1172:/
1170:T
1145:(
1127:(
1091:(
1074:(
1057:(
1040:(
1018:(
1001:(
984:C
982:/
980:T
937:(
919:|
898:)
890:|
877:|
871:|
863:|
855:|
847:|
842:(
808:♣
803:♦
798:♥
751:(
706:(
688:(
660:(
621:T
590:(
578:T
546:(
534:P
531:T
525:P
522:T
506:(
500:)
496:(
485:(
473:P
470:T
456:(
428:)
420:|
407:|
401:|
393:|
385:|
377:|
372:(
366:)
358:|
345:|
339:|
331:|
323:|
315:|
310:(
304:)
296:|
283:|
277:|
269:|
261:|
253:|
248:(
242:)
234:|
221:|
215:|
207:|
199:|
191:|
186:(
180:)
172:|
159:|
153:|
145:|
137:|
129:|
124:(
90:♣
85:♦
80:♥
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.