1077:, restore article. The discussion clearly did not achieve consensus. The community remains divided over the application of BLP1E in situations like this. While BLP1E is policy language, it is not policy which calls for a particular result, but sets forth criteria for the community to use in evaluating individual cases. So long as the arguments on each side reflect reasonable applications/interpretations of those criteria, they should not be discounted. A closer who, as here, decides to apply one view or the other of the policy is casting a supervote, whether they intend to or not.
262:. Clear AfD demonstrating consensus that she is not sufficiently notable. As the person is not sufficiently notable for thier own biography, the section at the redirect should not host a biography, it should only contain what is immediately relevant to the article it is in. Things like "her mother could not take care of her. Her father is unknown" are going into too much personal detail in describing the contestants in a TV show.
1037:. So stuff probably should be removed from it, as well as newer stuff added. I'd be happy to let balanced people tinker with it in my userspace, and to tinker with it myself; but (i) I shan't have much time in the next couple of weeks, (ii) I'd sprotect it, (iii) I'll simply revert what I consider unwelcome edits, and not discuss them. (Hey, it's
184:
getting extremely positive reviews internationally and is on the radio 1 playlist. Half the population of the UK know who Misha is, what she looks like and what she sounds like, google her name and you will find 100's music pages taking big notice of her. If you don't restore now, I believe you will desire to do so in less than a month.
1114:
One argument that I don't understand is the statement that it took 3 1/2 months to get here. First, isn't the point that she is in the news and covered after 3 1/2 months? Second, the page instructs the user to wait for evidence. I would say national coverage after 3 1/2 months is decent evidence.
956:
Actually I did a few edits on Jinnah and poverty in India. I think I did some on a few other interests. You are right, these two articles got my interest. However, that doesn't mean I am here for a single purpose. It simply means that I am not yet as active as some. Perhaps other editors started
1041:
userspace, after all.) If anticipatory sprotection (not to mention ownership) is considered a bad thing (even in userspace), or if somebody else would like to host the article during the re-incubation process, then that somebody is welcome to host it. (Incidentally, I was not one of the main authors
644:
which makes sense, as it would appear anyone who did search for her name would be looking for the information found in that article. It took 2 1/2 months to get here at DRV, which should indicate how little controversy there is in the closing. As to the sources provided in this discussion, the CNN
639:
result as a non-participating observer to the event, after it was brought to ANI. This wasn't an easy one for many reasons, from SPAs to the sheer volume of attention it attracted. Simply counting the votes won't lead to the same conclusion, but weighing the strength and consistency of the voting
612:
The rational for delection was. "Many comments below cite the WP:BLP1E policy as a reason to delete. Some comments suggest that she was already notable before the "Lines
Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?"
509:
The discussion is about two separate questions: (a) was the March deletion correct and (b) should the article now be restored or recreated? As to (a), with one exception, nobody objects to the AfD closure, so that is endorsed. As to (b), seven editors believe that Sandra Fluke is now notable enough
1015:
If the old version of the article (deleted March 9) isn't acceptable for some reason (and the AfD didn't seem it was problematic other than BLP1E), then userfy (perhaps to Hoary?) until it has no BLP violations. Sustained coverage clearly exists, no longer a BLP1E, so original deletion reason not
818:
No it does not. It merely indicates that no established editor has brought the matter to DRV; it says nothing about the reasoning. (The particular established editor I see daily in my shaving mirror hasn't done so because he considered that he had spent more than enough energy on Fluke during the
675:
Doesn't the point that she was published by CNN indicate that she still has notability? In other words, the fact that she is a CNN "special contributor” adds to the argument that is still in the media and notable. It has been several months since this happened. A Google news search will reveal
450:
to call Erilng Ove Kruse my uncle! Who would be more qualified to write about him? Probably onely his sons and sisters. I wisited him a couple of months ago, and he told about
Svalbard and the war. How he met with Shetlands Larsen and giving support to the smallbouts getting people out of Norway.
941:
You edit history showed a 2009 purpose of editing related to
Anthony Woods and a 2012 purpose of editing related to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy. They are single separated by a lot of time. However, I didn't then look to see whether there was "editing to add promotional, advocative, or
183:
Page deleted due to lack of
Notability. Tried to discuss with responsible Editor. Request restore: Misha B it is abundantly clear that Misha Bryan has moved beyond X factor with 3 highly regarded music releases since that show, her 'F64', 'Hello World Mix Tape' and her debut single 'Home Run' is
1231:
I am well aware of what the BLP criteria is and do not need it quoted, and "I don't like it" has zero applicability here. It it in place so the project isn't cluttered with overnight media sensations. Fluke, the JetBlue guy, the big-breasted woman fired from her job, etc...are all in the same
1094:
s suggested by Hoary. The intended purpose of BLP1E is to avoid the effect of tabloid-style hyped coverage of things of no true importance--it's a recognition of the failure of the GNG to be sufficiently discriminating in this area, where the extent of coverage can be way disproportional to the
772:
heats up. The controversy has died down and Fluke continues to thrust herself into the public eye via being a CNN special contributor, etc., so I wouldn't have a problem with an established editor posting a biography article on Sandra Fluke or reviewing a user space draft article for posting to
455:
and Astrid E. Kruse
Andersen my parents. I will not speak for them here because theis lifes speak for them selves! Why is more then one entry from the same family problematic? I can't understand that this is a criteria for delition. Someone don't want to have "Kruse" at Wiki.
199:
I suggest we follow the suggestion of the appealing editor and permit restoration if some time in the future she actually does become notable by the normal standards. Personally, I consider the existing section as excessive coverage, but here's not the place to discuss it
1095:
encyclopedic value. Its application to things of encyclopedic value, such as national politics, is an error. I'm not sure whether we could get an agreed wording for it that would express the intent, so we need to rely on the case-by-case judgment of the community.
1395:
on this one. I took a look at a google news source for the last week. Still a significant amount of coverage, including national media. If this decision is endorsed, after month of coverage, I would ask for some guidance for what notability looks
1283:
per the reasoning given by
Umbralcorax. It's clear by now that Fluke has received sustained coverage for several different things (the Limbaugh incident, her Congressional testimony, her Presidential endorsement, etc.), and so is not at this point a
1373:
and make the rest on her. However, her bio is already done in the pervious article. If you added some on her events after the
Limbaugh controversy (Endorsements, CNN Special contributions, etc) , I would think you would have a decent article.
868:- Subjects notable only for one event. Thrusting herself into the public eye via being a CNN special contributor creates additional events that would attract the attention of reliable sources to write about her life, which helps overcome the
237:. I suggest listing List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8) for deletion. I don't think a lot of reliable sources are writing about The eight 2011 X Factor finalists as a group, so you might be able to get that list deleted.
745:- With numerous reliable sources rushing to write about Fluke's life in response to Rush Limbaugh's comment while Fluke testified before the U.S. Congress on national television, the biography topic Sandra Fluke obviously met
613:
panel, however the text in the
Knowledge article does not support that argument, nor is there sufficient evidence provided here in the comments." However, months after the event, she continues to be in national media. See,
985:
So non-normal is now a bad thing? I am not that interested in
Knowledge to create a user page. Nor am I interested enough at this point to really edit a ton of articles. In other words, they have to get my interest.
1184:
Not really, no. Her "fame" is just tied to the
Limbaugh event, which the interview opens with. I don't generally like articles about people when the reason we talk about the at all is a single incident in time.
1153:- A smattering of "where are they now?" and similar name-droppings is unimpressive if trying to build a case for notability. The original AfD finding was correct, and nothing has really changed since then.
286:, open and shut AFD, clearly the community is of the view that there is as yet insufficient notability for this person. This may of course change in the future, but we can deal with that when that arises.
1042:
of the article: my memory tells me that all I did was tinker with it, improve its references, and defend it in AfD -- though anyone is welcome to dig through histories and correct this memory of mine.) --
835:
This sounds like an accusation of attention-seeking (although it may not have been so intended). Let's stay polite about the subject of the article that may or may not arise from this new discussion. --
942:
non-neutral approaches, or has a personal or emotional interest in the area of focus." Editor with a niche interest/preferred focus may be more like it. I struck and edited part of my post above.--
726:
I would argue, that this is to be judged by duration and level of coverage, then she needs a page. Here endorsement of the President is still news and at this point, that is beyond one event.
1209:
Fluke's profile is moderately high, and certainly higher than that of swathes of people who seem to be systematically biographed for Knowledge. BLP1E is a page written with people such as the
1033:(sorry, admins only) is the latest version of the article. Nothing within it smells to me of "BLP violation". On the other hand it does go on a bit about Limbaugh, and the Limbaugh angle has
1296:
notability, and even if Fluke hadn't been the subject of ongoing curiosity, her notability just for the Limbaugh incident was far greater than most political "person of the day" types.
166:
1327:. The article needn't, and indeed shouldn't, be as concerned as the previous one was with what one person said about her. As evidence for her continuing salience, how about: "
1207:
We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.
1310:. Bearing in mind that admin discretion is at its maximum when a BLP is involved, I can't say that the close here is clearly erroneous. No opinion on recreation, yet.
749:
then and meets it more so now, given the significant new information that has come to light since the 9 March 2012 deletion. It took 3 1/2 months to get here at DRV
618:
895:. I have made edits on other things. I might not be as active or have been around long, but I don't think my arguments are non-rational. It seems a rather
595:
429:
222:
1370:
1034:
813:
761:
641:
345:
48:
34:
245:
of Misha B and leave a link to the AfD in the edit summary. It took me a while to figure out that there was an AfD (which I updated this DRV with). --
826:
769:
1202:
43:
1262:
My question for Tarc is what is the objective standard for duration and amount of coverage? In other words, if this doesn't get it, what does?
417:
705:
661:
583:
1213:
in mind, not Fluke. ¶ I too don't like many kinds of articles, so I have some sympathy for your dislike of this kind; but please see
1344:
1168:
39:
621:. If we are to truly judge her notablity by amount and time of media coverage, then surely this should be reviewed at this point.
713:
438:
1214:
1082:
451:
Shame on you for this delition!! Erling will be 90 this summer! Shame for deliting my mother too! I'm very proud to call late
88:
264:
The subject may yet become notable, but from looking at the google hits, she does not appear to meet the threshold given at
604:
154:
21:
1340:
987:
225:, you would have better chance in getting a stand alone article on Misha Bryan (singer). With Misha B profiled in the
1315:
1078:
304:
802:: This looks to me a lot more like an argument to restore/create an article than like one to keep it deleted. (2)
1416:
1056:
Thanks Hoary, I didn't figure there was a problem, but because I couldn't see it, I thought I'd be conservative.
850:
Above, I lazily assume that the characterization of Casprings as a SPA is a fair one. It is not. (See below.) --
533:
480:
367:
319:
104:
17:
1232:
classification. I put next to no weight on the "seeking attention" aspect as I find it rarely has any meaning.
1115:
That said, I think the easiest thing to do is restore the page. Some of the work on her bio is already done.
175:
809:
757:
234:
1328:
656:
387:
189:
649:", which reinforce why it was deleted and redirects there. Nothing much has changed since the closing.
1311:
1141:
300:
1332:
1405:
1383:
1360:
1319:
1302:
1271:
1241:
1226:
1194:
1179:
1162:
1145:
1124:
1106:
1086:
1065:
1051:
1025:
995:
980:
966:
951:
936:
922:
908:
881:
859:
845:
786:
735:
685:
666:
630:
522:
469:
356:
308:
290:
277:
254:
211:
193:
93:
1331:" (HuffPo, 8 June, wherein SF is a "woman of distinction", and one of "six amazing women"); Fluke's "
947:
877:
831:
If others created it, I'd help. I'd then keep an eye on it and help protect it from any nitwits. (4)
782:
452:
383:
340:
250:
1136:. But circumstances have changed in the following months, so an article is entirely reasonable now.
1401:
1379:
1267:
1120:
991:
976:
962:
932:
904:
731:
681:
626:
614:
273:
1297:
645:
article was written by Sandra Fluke, so is primary in nature and the LA Times article is titled "
86:
1335:" (CNN, 14 June; suggesting that CNN thinks that her opinions are of some consequence); MSNBC's
510:
for an article and two disagree, so we have consensus to allow the recreation of the article. –
833:
Fluke continues to thrust herself into the public eye via being a CNN special contributor, etc.
650:
553:
185:
864:
Uh, no. It wasn't an accusation of attention-seeking by Fluke. The article was deleted under
1137:
808:. That indicates no established editor has had an interest in stepping forward to develop a
756:. That indicates no established editor has had an interest in stepping forward to develop a
465:
1356:
1285:
1222:
1175:
1133:
1061:
1047:
1021:
943:
918:
873:
869:
865:
855:
841:
778:
640:
seems to support the conclusion of the closing admin. It ended up becoming a redirect to
246:
1336:
1397:
1375:
1263:
1237:
1190:
1158:
1116:
972:
958:
928:
900:
727:
721:
677:
622:
513:
287:
269:
79:
1289:
1102:
892:
805:
797:
752:
746:
265:
230:
207:
83:
822:
765:
549:
501:
350:
124:
697:
What follows is three national news outlets that covered her over the past week.
461:
764:
article mentioned by the AfD closer. It would be good to get a somewhat stable
1352:
1218:
1171:
1057:
1043:
1017:
914:
896:
851:
837:
1345:
Our lady of contraception: Sandra Fluke's rocky path to feminist superstardom
825:
biography article in main space now before the wave of SPAs come here as the
768:
biography article in main space now before the wave of SPAs come here as the
1233:
1186:
1154:
1210:
804:
It took 3 1/2 months to get here at DRV, and then the DRV is brough by an
619:
LA Times: Months after Limbaugh's 'slut' remark, Fluke focused on election
233:
but also need to justify a Misha Bryan (singer) stand alone article under
1097:
202:
971:
Your uncreated, redlinked userpage is typical of a non-normal editor. --
120:
70:
344:– Speedily closing since the same article is being discussed at DRV
913:
Yes, your edit history makes it clear that you are not an SPA. --
647:
Months after Limbaugh's 'slut' remark, Fluke focused on election
872:
reason for deletion and goes to support my position above. --
777:
editors with a niche interest/preferred focus here at DRV. --
1369:
I would think that you would simply have a summery of the
676:
many national outlets that still have coverage of her.
1339:
with her about this (suggesting ditto); Lifenews.com's "
221:- Actually, if the information about Misha B was not in
1030:
590:
576:
568:
560:
424:
410:
402:
394:
242:
161:
147:
139:
131:
1132:- The original was closed within admin discretion per
722:
Politico: Sandra Fluke returns favor, endorses Obama
299:. This could not have been closed in any other way.
1341:Pro-abortion activist Sandra Fluke endorses Obama
1292:to BLP1E where that "one event" has resulted in
796:the biography topic Sandra Fluke obviously met
8:
706:CNN: Fluke: Why this election is so personal
227:List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8)
223:List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 8)
812:biography article on Sandra Fluke from the
773:article space from relatively new users or
760:biography article on Sandra Fluke from the
532:The following is an archived debate of the
366:The following is an archived debate of the
103:The following is an archived debate of the
957:slow and became interested. I don't know.
821:It would be good to get a somewhat stable
494:
333:
63:
827:United States presidential election, 2012
770:United States presidential election, 2012
507:Deletion endorsed but recreation allowed.
1371:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy
1170:that calls her a feminist superstar?
891:: I don't like being refered to as a
814:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy
762:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy
642:Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy
1325:Allow an article on her to be created
1130:Endorse original but allow recreation
714:ABC News: Sandra Fluke endorses Obama
615:CNN: Why this election is so personal
7:
816:article mentioned by the AfD closer.
1419:of the page listed in the heading.
751:, and then the DRV is brough by an
483:of the page listed in the heading.
322:of the page listed in the heading.
229:article, you not only need to meet
28:
1333:Why this election is so personal
1035:its own, screenfuls-long article
1415:The above is an archive of the
1329:Becoming a woman of distinction
479:The above is an archive of the
318:The above is an archive of the
1215:Knowledge:I just don't like it
1:
800:then and meets it more so now
241:Please consider deleting the
1343:" (suggesting ditto); and "
1281:Restore or allow recreation
988:Knowledge:Assume good faith
1442:
1075:Overturn to "no consensus"
1406:23:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
1384:02:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
1361:02:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
1320:17:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
1303:01:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
1272:19:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
1242:15:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
1227:14:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
1195:14:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
1180:16:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
1163:15:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
1146:01:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
1125:20:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
1107:19:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
1087:13:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
1066:15:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
1052:12:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
1026:11:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
996:01:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
981:07:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
967:03:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
952:02:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
937:23:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
923:23:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
909:21:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
882:03:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
860:23:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
846:09:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
787:07:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
736:04:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
686:04:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
667:02:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
631:01:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
523:06:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
470:16:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
357:16:50, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
309:17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
291:03:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
278:04:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
255:02:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
212:19:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
194:18:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
94:05:48, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
1422:Please do not modify it.
1167:How about a NYT article
539:Please do not modify it.
486:Please do not modify it.
373:Please do not modify it.
325:Please do not modify it.
110:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
810:Knowledge:Summary style
758:Knowledge:Summary style
235:Knowledge:Summary style
1308:Endorse original close
1079:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz
899:attack to dismiss me.
819:last argument.) (3)
1211:bullied bus monitor
1092:Support re-creation
536:of the page above.
370:of the page above.
107:of the page above.
90:The Undertaker 20–0
1288:. We also do make
1429:
1428:
1301:
664:
659:
521:
493:
492:
453:Bjørn G. Andersen
332:
331:
219:Endorse AfD close
1433:
1424:
1393:One last comment
1337:little interview
1300:
662:
657:
607:
602:
593:
579:
571:
563:
541:
520:
518:
511:
495:
488:
441:
436:
427:
413:
405:
397:
375:
334:
327:
178:
173:
164:
150:
142:
134:
112:
76:Closure endorsed
64:
53:
33:
1441:
1440:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1420:
1417:deletion review
1351:, 22 June). --
603:
601:
598:
589:
588:
582:
575:
574:
567:
566:
559:
558:
537:
534:deletion review
514:
512:
484:
481:deletion review
437:
435:
432:
423:
422:
416:
409:
408:
401:
400:
393:
392:
384:Erling O. Kruse
371:
368:deletion review
341:Erling O. Kruse
323:
320:deletion review
174:
172:
169:
160:
159:
153:
146:
145:
138:
137:
130:
129:
108:
105:deletion review
91:
84:Armbrust, B.Ed.
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1439:
1437:
1427:
1426:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1364:
1363:
1322:
1305:
1286:one-hit wonder
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1148:
1127:
1109:
1089:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
983:
886:
885:
884:
862:
739:
738:
724:
716:
708:
699:
698:
691:
690:
689:
688:
670:
669:
610:
609:
599:
586:
580:
572:
564:
556:
544:
543:
528:
527:
526:
525:
491:
490:
475:
474:
473:
472:
444:
443:
433:
420:
414:
406:
398:
390:
378:
377:
362:
361:
360:
359:
330:
329:
314:
313:
312:
311:
294:
281:
257:
215:
214:
181:
180:
170:
157:
151:
143:
135:
127:
115:
114:
99:
98:
97:
96:
89:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1438:
1425:
1423:
1418:
1413:
1412:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1394:
1391:
1390:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1372:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1323:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1306:
1304:
1299:
1298:Seraphimblade
1295:
1291:
1287:
1282:
1279:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1205:. This says:
1204:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1192:
1188:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1149:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1128:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1113:
1110:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1099:
1093:
1090:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1073:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1014:
1011:
997:
993:
989:
984:
982:
978:
974:
970:
969:
968:
964:
960:
955:
954:
953:
949:
945:
940:
939:
938:
934:
930:
926:
925:
924:
920:
916:
912:
911:
910:
906:
902:
898:
894:
890:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
861:
857:
853:
849:
848:
847:
843:
839:
834:
830:
828:
824:
817:
815:
811:
807:
801:
799:
793:
790:
789:
788:
784:
780:
776:
771:
767:
763:
759:
755:
754:
748:
744:
741:
740:
737:
733:
729:
725:
723:
720:
717:
715:
712:
709:
707:
704:
701:
700:
696:
693:
692:
687:
683:
679:
674:
673:
672:
671:
668:
665:
660:
654:
653:
648:
643:
638:
635:
634:
633:
632:
628:
624:
620:
616:
606:
597:
592:
585:
578:
570:
562:
555:
551:
548:
547:
546:
545:
542:
540:
535:
530:
529:
524:
519:
517:
508:
504:
503:
499:
498:
497:
496:
489:
487:
482:
477:
476:
471:
467:
463:
459:
458:Shame on you!
454:
449:
446:
445:
440:
431:
426:
419:
412:
404:
396:
389:
385:
382:
381:
380:
379:
376:
374:
369:
364:
363:
358:
355:
354:
353:
347:
343:
342:
338:
337:
336:
335:
328:
326:
321:
316:
315:
310:
306:
302:
298:
295:
292:
289:
285:
282:
280:
279:
275:
271:
267:
261:
258:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
217:
216:
213:
209:
205:
204:
198:
197:
196:
195:
191:
187:
177:
168:
163:
156:
149:
141:
133:
126:
122:
119:
118:
117:
116:
113:
111:
106:
101:
100:
95:
92:
87:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1421:
1414:
1392:
1348:
1324:
1307:
1293:
1280:
1206:
1150:
1129:
1111:
1096:
1091:
1074:
1038:
1012:
888:
832:
823:Sandra Fluke
820:
803:
795:
791:
774:
766:Sandra Fluke
750:
743:Keep deleted
742:
718:
710:
702:
694:
652:Dennis Brown
651:
646:
636:
611:
550:Sandra Fluke
538:
531:
515:
506:
502:Sandra Fluke
500:
485:
478:
457:
447:
372:
365:
351:
349:
339:
324:
317:
296:
283:
263:
259:
238:
226:
218:
201:
186:Zoeblackmore
182:
109:
102:
75:
69:
59:21 June 2012
58:
49:2012 June 22
35:2012 June 20
1201:Please see
1138:Umbralcorax
927:No Worries
239:To an admin
1290:exceptions
944:Uzma Gamal
897:Ad hominem
874:Uzma Gamal
779:Uzma Gamal
516:Sandstein
247:Uzma Gamal
1398:Casprings
1376:Casprings
1312:T. Canens
1264:Casprings
1117:Casprings
973:SmokeyJoe
959:Casprings
929:Casprings
901:Casprings
829:heats up.
728:Casprings
678:Casprings
623:Casprings
448:I'm proud
301:T. Canens
288:Lankiveil
270:SmokeyJoe
44:2012 June
1203:WP:BLP1E
1134:WP:BLP1E
889:Comments
870:WP:BLP1E
866:WP:BLP1E
792:Comments
20: |
1294:extreme
1151:Endorse
1112:Comment
1016:valid.
1013:restore
695:Comment
637:Endorse
605:restore
569:history
439:restore
403:history
352:Hut 8.5
297:Endorse
284:Endorse
260:Endorse
243:history
176:restore
140:history
121:Misha B
71:Misha B
893:WP:SPA
806:WP:SPA
798:WP:GNG
794:: (1)
753:WP:SPA
747:WP:GNG
462:Knuand
460:Why??
266:WP:BIO
231:WP:GNG
1396:like.
1353:Hoary
1219:Hoary
1217:. --
1172:Hobit
1103:talk
1058:Hobit
1044:Hoary
1018:Hobit
915:Hoary
852:Hoary
838:Hoary
591:watch
584:links
425:watch
418:links
348:. –
268:. --
208:talk
162:watch
155:links
52:: -->
16:<
1402:talk
1380:talk
1357:talk
1316:talk
1268:talk
1238:talk
1234:Tarc
1223:talk
1191:talk
1187:Tarc
1176:talk
1159:talk
1155:Tarc
1142:talk
1121:talk
1083:talk
1062:talk
1048:talk
1031:This
1022:talk
992:talk
977:talk
963:talk
948:talk
933:talk
919:talk
905:talk
878:talk
856:talk
842:talk
783:talk
775:SPAs
732:talk
682:talk
627:talk
617:and
577:logs
561:edit
554:talk
466:talk
411:logs
395:edit
388:talk
346:here
305:talk
274:talk
251:talk
190:talk
148:logs
132:edit
125:talk
82:) –
32:<
1349:NYT
1347:" (
1098:DGG
990:] (
596:XfD
594:) (
430:XfD
428:) (
203:DGG
167:XfD
165:) (
80:NAC
78:. (
22:Log
1404:)
1382:)
1359:)
1318:)
1270:)
1240:)
1225:)
1193:)
1178:)
1161:)
1144:)
1123:)
1105:)
1085:)
1064:)
1050:)
1039:my
1024:)
994:)
979:)
965:)
950:)
935:)
921:)
907:)
880:)
858:)
844:)
785:)
734:)
684:)
658:2¢
655:-
629:)
505:–
468:)
307:)
276:)
253:)
210:)
192:)
74:–
42::
1400:(
1378:(
1355:(
1314:(
1266:(
1236:(
1221:(
1189:(
1174:(
1157:(
1140:(
1119:(
1101:(
1081:(
1060:(
1046:(
1020:(
975:(
961:(
946:(
931:(
917:(
903:(
876:(
854:(
840:(
781:(
730:(
719:3
711:2
703:1
680:(
663:©
625:(
608:)
600:|
587:|
581:|
573:|
565:|
557:|
552:(
464:(
442:)
434:|
421:|
415:|
407:|
399:|
391:|
386:(
303:(
293:.
272:(
249:(
206:(
188:(
179:)
171:|
158:|
152:|
144:|
136:|
128:|
123:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.