1346:
we don't make those categories because it is 95% of the time the same as their nationality, but that is not always the case. I assume most Native
American actors perform in English (or Spanish or French or Portuguese, depending on what is the dominant language in their area); the ones who perform in their own language (or conceivable even other Native American languages) would be a small minority (actually two minorities, those who perform only in their own language, and those who perform in both.) It is reasonable that people should have a way of finding the bios. This would certainly apply to the Jewish example--it matters whether someone of this group performs in English or French or Russian or German; it also matters whether they perform in Yiddish or Ladino (most but not all who have performed in those languages will also have performed in a majority language-- and there's the added possibility of Hebrew, which depending on places and time is a minority or majority language) This is
1633:-- Native Americans might be appearing in drama in two contexts (1) in native languages for the benefit of natives (2) Westerns - cowboys v Indians. When I was young, few of the Westerns fell into that category, and my mother told me it was because no one wanted to play the Indians; it was mostly good cowboys v bad ones. The lanugage of most Westerns is English. In the past, I suspect that the Indians were English-speakers who spoke gibberish; that would not be acceptable today, and we would expect a genuine language to be used. It is of course expected that French actors speak French; etc; but Scots actors are unlikely to speak Gaelic (as it is a dying language). Do those Native Americans who are not living on reserves usually speak their native language or are they being assimilated into wider society? My initial vote was on the basis that Native Americans are uniquely qualified to play Native Americans; East Asian acotrs to play Chinese parts; and so on.
1026:
easily edited, 3/ or we can keep anything we can edit into a borderline acceptable article, if it doesn't take too much work.. I follow the middle course. But even so, if it's marginal I'd be reluctant to use speedy, instead of AfD or prod. Borderline or marginal should imply a need for a community decision. (I will admit that, reluctant though I am, if it's truly borderline and needs more editing than I'd like to give it, I have recently been using speedy--like everyone else here, I'm getting pretty exasperated.) And as applied, here, this is not borderline notability: it meets at least 2 of the necessary criteria--and it does not take much editing. I'm still patient enough for this, though who knows what I may feel like in a year or two if the present trend continues.
667:, that only applies to actions "you know that another administrator opposes". I undid Graeme Bartlett's out-of-process undeletion only after he did not reply to my messages on his talk page, in which I sought to discuss the issue with him, for three days, while he was otherwise editing actively. Two days before I undid his restoration, I wrote to him: "Because you have not replied to my message, but have edited in the interim, I assume that you do not object to my re-deleting and re-salting the page". Not replying to this for two days, while otherwise editing normally, must in good faith be construed – at least – as a lack of opposition, but such opposition would be required for the reversal to constitute wheel-warring. See
1467:. I cannot see, btw, why "knowing" the language is relevant--knowing how to pronounce it well enough to be convincing is what is relevant, especially in forms such as opera. We're not classifying whether a person has a command of a language, only whether he acted speaking it. This is almost always unambiguous for any play or film with normal documentation. I remain really puzzled by the objection that some people perform in multiple languages: people can be in multiple categories--this is not the commonly difficult situation where we're trying to find a single adjective for a lede sentence. So the situation is both complicated, and interesting, and worthy of full attention in categories as well as in articles.
1020:(also, Royal Irish Academy) That meets criterion 3. As I rather expected from the titles & publishers, Worldcat shows that the books are mostly ones which he has edited, not written entirely. This of course needs to be said in the article. I think editing this group of books from Wiley, a major international publisher, helps notability under WP:PROF, though I would not accept it as showing notability as author. As Sandstein says, items in articles like this need checking, not taking at face value. But there is enough. Similarly, rather than taking the h factor at face value, I'd look at the actual record.
797:" and go on to explain why we have an article (i.e. an explanation of the chap's notability). In this case we don't even seem to have reliable third party sources for such basic biographical information as his date of birth. What we do seem to have is a laundry list of accomplishments, cobbled together from sources that aren't independent plus sources that are independent but aren't about Professor Sun. I see no hint that anyone's ever disagreed with him at all and no hint that he's ever done anything controversial.
1314:. We do not anywhere categorize actors by their language of performance in any way. Language is not a way we categorize actors at all. I think it is more than enough to categorize Native American actors. The next logical division would be by group. Anyway since Navajo, Cherokee, Lenape, Dakota and Salish are all mutually uninteligible the resulting group would not even be able to communicate with eachother in the languages mentioned, so it would hardly be a unified group.
407:
for deletion have been overcome. And I can understand that view. Michael Q's version is well-written, technically well-formatted and shows every appearance of being a worthy
Knowledge (XXG) article. But does it really overcome the well-founded consensus in that AfD? Reasonable people might disagree on that.
1355:
Whether we go further into the individual Native
American language would depend on the number of people. That's not a valid objection. (And I note the same argument will apply to writers; singers often perform in multiple languages, including often some they do not actually know, so that's a somewhat
714:
speedy deletion was valid. G11 applies to "pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten". I contend that this applies to the article at issue. It is limited to fawningly listing and highlighting the subject's accomplishments in a manner that one would expect in
1533:
in a way, and if making it a list would lead to "more work, same deletion-discussion". If the discussion here is an exercise in examining policy 5, paragraph 456, section IX and what it says about which categories are allowed, I'm not very interested in that. If the question is about notability of a
1489:
It might be unambiguous, but it is hardly defining. If you look at a lot of films made in Europe they had international casts, and lots of people have appeared in films made in France, Italy and Spain as well as a few other countries. This would just lead to overcategorization, categorizing people
1025:
as for promotionalism, yes, I too get quite concerned at bios listing who's who among the awards. We can take several approaches: 1/ we can throw out every promotional bios, even though it shows provable notability and is easily edited, 2/ we can throw out the ones with marginal notability, even if
596:
As
Orangemike's advice, I have carefully removed any promotion quotes. I believe the page is no longer promotional. However it was deleted unilaterally by Sandstein. Then Graeme Bartlett restored it, but it was deleted again by Sandstein. I believe the idea here is to improve Knowledge (XXG), not to
1345:
Why is language not a suitable way to characterize actors? Surely the language they perform in is much more closely related to their notability than their nationality? It is also something that can easily and unambiguously be determined --keeping in mind that they might perform in several. Perhaps
903:
I understand what you're trying to say, but frankly not every disagreement between administrators needs an ANI thread dedicated to it. In the event, my re-deletion remained uncontested by Graeme
Bartlett – both before and after the action, although I do find some of his comments a bit difficult to
876:
Okay, Sandstein, I take your point. The important thing I wanted to get across here is that it's undignified for administrators to keep reversing each other. One of you should have sought community input before it got this far and I feel as if you're both somewhat to blame. I don't think it's a
640:
I do not think a single case is grounds for de-sysop, bur unless
Sandstein will himself revert his improper actions, it should probably be discussed at a suitable admin board. (That the action seems to be contradicted by the plain facts makes it a little worse, but wheel-warring is never permitted
409:
Even though I do think NW's referral to DRV was reasonable and appropriate, I also think that it's well-established that DRV is not AfD round 2. In other words, we're here to supervise the process, but it's not our role to make a close inspection of the sources. That should happen at AfD. So in
406:
Regardless of whether or not this is technically within DRV's purview, I do think it was reasonable and appropriate for
Nuclear Warfare to recommend a DRV discussion. NW's message to Michael Q is clear: NW recognises the vast improvement in the draft article, but he also doesn't think the reasons
333:
Understood. I just don't think there is an actual need at this point. It clearly isn't a speedy at this point and you are clearly experienced enough to make good judgement calls here. I applaud you for taking the deleting admin's advice, but suggest that this be closed as an unneeded discussion.
101:
with the proviso that anyone can take this to AFD for a further discussion if they wish. Just a note on procedure, DRV very rarely rules on sourcing as we take the view that the place for that should be XfD. What we do is see whether G4 applies, (no) and whether process has been followed correctly
1328:
This one is an exception. We expect that French actors perform in French, do we not? We expect that
English actors perform in English, no? Therefore it of course isn't a surprising or noteworthy fact. However, for Native Americans, most people will find it (sadly) unique to see them perform in an
1276:
If there's no basis in policy or guideline for the close, then is there at least a consensus to support it? Here I think the closer is probably on firmer ground. The discussion consisted of three opinion statements. Two of them agreed. The one dissenting opinion raised some questions, but the
1042:
Notability is not relevant in a G11 speedy deletion, which is what's being reviewed here, and therefore notability merits no discussion here. If an editor deems the subject to be notable, about which I personally have no opinion, they can recreate the article in a non-spam version, possibly after
788:
Graeme
Barlett's unilateral undeletion was discourteous but it might have been better if Sandstein had brought his protest to DRV rather than unilaterally undoing the unilateral undeletion. I don't think there's any benefit in wrangling over whether there has been a technical violation of WP:WW,
437:
Let's cut the red tape and close this DRV and let it go forward. AfD can follow if it must. Michael came here on a recommendation and showed extra bonus points of good faith. I and many others would just have re-created it in this type of instance, knowing AfD was possible if we were not right
857:
I was seriously considering bringing it to DRV at that point, and
Sandstein and I were talking on our talk pages, even if we were not agreeing. However it was re-deleted soon after. I considered that G11 did not apply to this page as editing could easily remove the CV like big lists of awards.
633:
and edit further. Examining the article, at this point it is not a G11, though there remains promotional content: the lists of conference keynotes is usually so considered, and so are inclusion of minor awards, including awards given by one's own university). But these can easily be removed by
762:, that are either single-purpose accounts or accounts whose editing pattern suggests that they likely have a close affiliation with the subject. That makes the content profoundly suspect, even to the extent it may superficially appear salvageable, as we would need an editor without a possible
205:
of an article that was then not then a properly sourced BLP. It's been 3 years since deletion, and though its taken a while, I decided to improve the one-source version that was deleted in order to create a better article to serve the project. In speaking with the original nominator
1199:
979:
Actually, I agree that a discussion here serves the same purpose as AN/I. To a considerable extent, this page should be considered the most suitable place for review of admin actions dealing with article deletion. . I've stuck my suggestion above. My apologies to Sandstein.
1003:
Of course articles need checking. But the 3 key elements for notability are easily checkable, the editorships, the membership in the national academy, and the books written. I tend to be skeptical on both counts, and always check them for academic bios , to see if it's
1220:
791:
Do we need a biography of this person? My immediate sniff-test says, no. Despite the long and superficially impressive list of sources in the deleted article, we're missing basic biographical facts. Properly-written biographies begin with some variant of "<Name:
1253:. This argument seems to have persuaded the closer. The other participant in the debate, Peterkingiron, made a point about "a significant characteristic", which I found a little harder to understand and it does not seem to have persuaded the closer in any case.
933:. If an administrator agrees that the speedy delete was not appropriate it can be undeleted, but notify the deleting admin. Instead I think we need to focus on the article here rather than how many times it was deleted and restored without community discussion.
1509:
Seems there are issues that were not brought up at the CfD that might be worth actually discussing. And given the discussion didn't have a lot of participation (2 folks with different views is all we've got), I don't see problem with allowing more discussion.
634:
ordinary editing and I will do so after the article is restored. I also object to Sandstein's most recent deletion as wheel-warring. Graeme Bartlett had the right to reverse a deletion, though normally we ask first, but when an admin action is reverted,
1277:
dissenter did not return to answer them. It's not exactly a strong consensus, and in some venues the discussion would have been relisted, but CfD is poorly-attended and I think that's probably as much input from the community as we can reasonably expect.
1264:
important that categories are consistent. I can understand and sympathise with the reasoning behind Johnpacklambert's point. But there is no weight of policy or guideline to support it.) As far as I can see, the guidelines governing this content are
102:
and the close wasn't irrational or so wrong it can't be allowed to stand. For an article that clearly deserves a second look there is no procedural necessity for a DRV although that can protect the article against a subsequent G4. –
597:
delete things that one does not like. By looking at the history, for some reasons, it seems that Sandstein has a strong view against the page although the page has been edited by many experienced Wiki Editors in the past few years
1255:
Can DRV sustain this close? There's a real debate to be had about that because it's not obvious that the close is correct. We don't delete content because other parallel content doesn't exist; that's an argument in the form of
301:
but folks can obviously still bring to AfD if they wish (though I don't think such a move would be successful). I don't think there is a need for DRV here and I'd suggest this just be closed and the article moved to mainspace.
800:
Still, we can't sustain a speedy deletion in the circumstances. Speedies are for when it's clear-cut, and I see good faith disagreement. We have to send it to AfD. But I wouldn't expect it to survive AfD in its current
769:
In brief, this is an example of what we used to call vanispamcruftisement, although admittedly one of the less obvious and glaring examples, and such practices should be repressed rather than supported by administrators.
1439:
shot a few of their early sound films in Spanish, French, Italian, and/or German, speaking their lines phonetically without knowing the languages. (Dubbing dialogue into foreign languages was not yet in common use.)
1462:
it is of course necessary to distinguish dubbing, especially in those films where the various characters each speak in their native language, & this can be different in different versions; a famous example is
766:
to double-check each sentence to verify that it is true and neutrally worded – in effect, rewriting the article. For these reasons, the article also meets the requirement that it would need to be fundamentally
232:
and is thus worthy enough of note. Assertions have been sourced and through effort the new version is superior to the old and is a decent BLP that can serve the project and its readers. I request that the
715:
a CV. Such CVs and lists of accomplishments are how academics promote themselves. The article is therefore exclusively promotional. Furthermore, the content was written by accounts such as the nominator,
200:
was deleted in Fruary 2010, and I wish to make it clear that while I felt the version in 2010 might have stayed and been improved over time and through regular editing, I do not dispute the deletion by
213:
and when discussing with the closing admin, he granted that my improved version was not a CSD#G4, and that if I wished a version returned to mainspace after 3 years, I should take the question to DRV.
1582:
to weigh in on a deletion discussion regarding something they have contributed to, they are responsible for keeping track of topics and articles, that is why we have a watchlist. No Round 2's here.
959:
Article looks like spam, but A) the subject appears to meet our inclusion guidelines and B) the process we've had thus far means that AfD is almost certainly the right way to go. The article needs a
224:
version, but that is naturally due to the topic being the same.... the differences herein being that the NEW version shows and sources far better than did the old the we have someone who meets
1211:
1231:
This is a very important category w/ respect to Native American languages as it shows their continued use. It is therefore a valid category for both linguistic as well as cultural purposes.
1129:
1069:
and could easily be edited to produce a an article on a scholar who I think passes WP:Prof. Speedy deletion under G11 there seems to me wrong and editing the article a better approach. (
1378:
Language is a horrible idea because many actors have performed in many languages. Since actors just play parts performing in a language does not actually required knowong the language.
1017:
1008:
ed. in chief, not just on the ed. board, and the books are actually written, not just edited, or even just chapters, etc. etc. I've checked all 3: for the editorship, see the
1012:--note that this is an international journal from a major publisher , with a very high Impact factor for the subject, 4th out of 138 in the subject category. this meets
1169:
69:
48:
34:
1165:
1111:
1241:
At the CfD, Johnpacklambert's argument was that this category is inconsistent with the category structure elsewhere in the wiki. In other words, we don't have
371:
still be taken back to AFD (and he seems to understand that entirely). But if the sources have improved, I don't seem any harm in having a crack at recreation.
579:
497:
179:
43:
1280:
Personally I might have gone with "no consensus", but I also think that close might have been within discretion on the basis of consensus if not policy.—
925:
I agree that we don't need an ANI thread. In this case I had other things to do that I thought were more important rather than continue to support the
733:
39:
1422:
483:– Clearly the consensus is against keeping this deleted but whether or not this needs listing at AFD is left to editorial descretion. –
1246:
1250:
1242:
221:
197:
1529:
If not a category, I can easily make it a list (referencing that will be a piece of cake); I just wasn't sure if that would seem
1405:
1293:
890:
814:
567:
427:
167:
21:
1356:
different problem.) What can be more basic to any creative professional than the medium they use to practice their profession?
727:
1350:
very prominently mentioned in published work about them when its other than the expected language of the country they live in.
1490:
by having appeared in one film in some language. This will just lead to a proliferation of categories, which we do not need.
264:
238:
217:
267:. While in-depth coverage is still lacking, I do not feel that that should be an impediment to the article's re-creation. --
1556:
incorrect (e.g., wrong assessment of consensus). DRV is not XfD round 2, we're not here to reargue a XfD on the merits.
1672:
1654:
against categorizing performers by performance. If this category gets relisted, I doubt it will survive the new CfD. --
1149:
1090:
517:
458:
117:
17:
1311:
588:
188:
1307:
284:: Original close was fine (as noted), recreation 3 years later with good faith intent and better content is fine.--
1392:
I'm intrigued! Could you give us an example of an actor performing a part in a language he or she does not speak?—
877:
major issue and it shouldn't lead to any drama, but I do think it's a slight falling below the expected standards.—
1495:
1383:
1319:
938:
863:
325:
250:
77:
1418:
did perform all the ads for Remington Razor's in the native language without being a speaker of those languages
1658:
1444:
904:
parse. As far as I and apparently he was concerned, that settled the matter without needing to involve others.
836:. It would rather have been incumbent on Graeme Bartlett to bring my original deletion (or re-deletion) here.
1638:
1426:
963:
amount of clipping though. I also think feel the admins involved could have dealt with this a LOT better.
751:
692:
Mayongian did not notify the deleting admin, which he should have done; I have now notified him,and also GB.
833:
1661:
1642:
1625:
1608:
1591:
1568:
1538:
1519:
1499:
1478:
1447:
1430:
1409:
1387:
1367:
1333:
1323:
1297:
1235:
1136:
1119:
1078:
1055:
1037:
991:
972:
942:
916:
894:
867:
848:
818:
782:
705:
682:
654:
625:
606:
504:
487:
447:
431:
401:
384:
343:
328:
311:
293:
276:
253:
106:
81:
356:
739:
377:
1491:
1401:
1379:
1315:
1289:
934:
886:
859:
810:
423:
361:
318:
243:
73:
1534:
fact, I'll keep arguing my point, because it is without question a highly notable and relevant one.
716:
598:
1655:
1621:
1605:
1441:
721:
602:
202:
930:
926:
392:
DRV is not for things that don't meet G4 and don't have the same problems as the deleted version.
225:
1634:
1464:
397:
1419:
411:
410:
this case it's right that we allow re-creation but we should say explicitly that we do so with
1074:
1270:
1013:
641:
and I would say just the same were this in fact a highly and unfixable promotional article)
1535:
1436:
1330:
1232:
372:
272:
214:
1266:
1257:
763:
711:
638:
for the original admin to revert that back to their own state is unambiguous wheel-warring.
229:
1515:
1393:
1281:
968:
878:
802:
537:
415:
339:
307:
137:
1651:
1273:
and I can find nothing that would unambiguously preclude this category in either of them.
664:
1617:
1602:
1587:
1559:
1046:
907:
839:
773:
673:
207:
1474:
1363:
1133:
1033:
1016:
criterion 8. I have also confirmed the membership in the Chinese Academy of Science,
1009:
987:
929:
request by undeleting again. My opinion is that a speedy delete can be challenged at
701:
650:
621:
501:
440:
393:
286:
68:
The Jessica Dykstra discussion that was listed here as section 1.4 has been moved to
359:
on things like this, even if it seems like unnecessary bureaucracy. Yeah, obviously
1116:
1070:
484:
210:, he remarked that he would not be inclined to re-nominate if returned to mainspace
103:
1415:
789:
since I don't think this case belongs in front of Arbcom, but, trouts all round.
268:
1511:
964:
533:
479:
335:
303:
234:
133:
93:
1583:
1421:
apparently claiming to know "29 seconds worth of 15 different languages" --
1166:
Category:Native American actors who performed in a Native American language
1112:
Category:Native American actors who performed in a Native American language
1469:
1358:
1028:
982:
696:
645:
616:
1260:
and DRV does not give weight to argument in that form. (Arguably it
263:
was lacking. That has been remedied in this proposed new version:
241:
with a hist merge of the work performed that improved the article.
70:
Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review/Log/2013 February 1#Jessica Dykstra
1552:
because the nomination makes no argument why the XfD closure was
1228:(No one bothered to notify me of the discussion or nomination)
1065:: While the page has a promotional tone it does not seem to me
828:
From what I understand, I could not have brought a unilateral
663:
I object to the contention that I was wheel-warring. Per
1616:. No harm. More participation at CfD is a good thing. --
1206:
1192:
1184:
1176:
832:
to deletion review, because this case is not listed in
757:
745:
668:
574:
560:
552:
544:
211:
174:
160:
152:
144:
613:
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review
259:
I indicated at the original deletion discussion that
237:version be undeleted and then overwritten by the
1247:Category:Swedish actors who performed in Swedish
498:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Da-Wen Sun
1251:Category:Jewish actors who performed in Yiddish
1249:. Or, perhaps more relevantly, we don't have
1243:Category:French actors who performed in French
1018:from Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency
8:
316:Here on the advice from the deleting admin.
1148:The following is an archived debate of the
516:The following is an archived debate of the
116:The following is an archived debate of the
1104:
472:
86:
1435:Also not necessarily what you are after,
367:should understand that such an article
265:User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Jami Floyd
1414:Maybe not quite what you're after but
7:
1675:of the page listed in the heading.
1093:of the page listed in the heading.
461:of the page listed in the heading.
28:
1312:Category:Chinese-language actors
1671:The above is an archive of the
1308:Category:French-language actors
1089:The above is an archive of the
457:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1601:. No harm in a fuller debate.
355:- can be valuable to get some
1:
1662:05:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
1643:15:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
1626:09:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
1609:23:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
1592:16:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
1569:06:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
1539:01:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
1520:22:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
1500:19:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
1479:06:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
1448:05:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
1431:22:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
1410:20:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
1388:19:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
1368:18:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
1334:01:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
1324:16:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
1298:12:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
1236:10:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
1137:12:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
1128:The discussion can be found
1120:12:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
1079:10:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
1056:06:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
1038:03:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
992:00:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
973:22:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
943:20:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
917:20:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
895:20:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
868:20:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
849:19:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
819:19:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
783:19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
706:19:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
683:19:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
655:18:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
626:18:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
607:13:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
505:12:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
488:19:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
448:13:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
432:09:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
402:05:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
385:00:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
344:03:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
329:23:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
312:22:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
294:22:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
277:21:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
254:21:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
107:01:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
82:20:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
795:) is a <nationality: -->
496:Was nominated at AFD, see:
1698:
1650:. There is a guideline at
220:verison is similar to the
1678:Please do not modify it.
1578:- Editors do not have a
1536:Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
1331:Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
1233:Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556
1155:Please do not modify it.
1096:Please do not modify it.
523:Please do not modify it.
464:Please do not modify it.
123:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
1067:exclusively promotional
1548:per Hobit, otherwise '
793:(born on <date: -->
65:Jessica Dykstra notice
1329:indigenous language.
1001:Comment on notability
764:conflict of interest
261:substantial coverage
99:Recreation Permitted
1306:we don't even have
1152:of the page above.
796:<profession: -->
710:I maintain that my
636:rightly or wrongly,
520:of the page above.
203:User:NuclearWarfare
120:of the page above.
1550:endorse by default
1465:The Leopard (film)
198:Jami Floyd article
1685:
1684:
1567:
1527:different comment
1492:John Pack Lambert
1408:
1380:John Pack Lambert
1316:John Pack Lambert
1296:
1103:
1102:
1054:
1010:journal's website
915:
893:
847:
817:
794:in <place: -->
781:
681:
471:
470:
446:
430:
292:
1689:
1680:
1566:
1564:
1557:
1437:Laurel and Hardy
1400:
1398:
1288:
1286:
1223:
1218:
1209:
1195:
1187:
1179:
1157:
1105:
1098:
1053:
1051:
1044:
914:
912:
905:
885:
883:
846:
844:
837:
809:
807:
780:
778:
771:
761:
734:deleted contribs
680:
678:
671:
591:
586:
577:
563:
555:
547:
525:
473:
466:
445:
422:
420:
381:
364:
353:Allow recreation
321:
299:Allow recreation
291:
282:Allow recreation
246:
191:
186:
177:
163:
155:
147:
125:
87:
53:
33:
1697:
1696:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1676:
1673:deletion review
1560:
1558:
1394:
1282:
1219:
1217:
1214:
1205:
1204:
1198:
1191:
1190:
1183:
1182:
1175:
1174:
1153:
1150:deletion review
1094:
1091:deletion review
1047:
1045:
935:Graeme Bartlett
908:
906:
879:
860:Graeme Bartlett
840:
838:
803:
774:
772:
719:
674:
672:
587:
585:
582:
573:
572:
566:
559:
558:
551:
550:
543:
542:
521:
518:deletion review
462:
459:deletion review
416:
390:No jurisdiction
379:
362:
319:
244:
187:
185:
182:
173:
172:
166:
159:
158:
151:
150:
143:
142:
121:
118:deletion review
74:Unscintillating
62:
59:29 January 2013
55:
54:
51:
49:2013 January 30
46:
37:
35:2013 January 28
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1695:
1693:
1683:
1682:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1656:Metropolitan90
1645:
1628:
1611:
1595:
1594:
1572:
1571:
1542:
1541:
1523:
1522:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1442:Metropolitan90
1433:
1373:
1372:
1370:
1352:
1351:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1301:
1226:
1225:
1215:
1202:
1196:
1188:
1180:
1172:
1160:
1159:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1123:
1122:
1101:
1100:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1043:userfication.
1022:
1021:
998:
997:
996:
995:
994:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
920:
919:
898:
897:
871:
870:
852:
851:
823:
822:
786:
708:
688:
687:
686:
685:
658:
657:
628:
594:
593:
583:
570:
564:
556:
548:
540:
528:
527:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
491:
490:
469:
468:
453:
452:
451:
450:
435:
404:
387:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
296:
279:
208:User:Sandstein
194:
193:
183:
170:
164:
156:
148:
140:
128:
127:
112:
111:
110:
109:
85:
84:
72:by Armbrust.
66:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1694:
1681:
1679:
1674:
1669:
1668:
1663:
1660:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1646:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1635:Peterkingiron
1632:
1629:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1612:
1610:
1607:
1604:
1600:
1597:
1596:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1577:
1574:
1573:
1570:
1565:
1563:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1544:
1543:
1540:
1537:
1532:
1528:
1525:
1524:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1508:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1471:
1466:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1449:
1446:
1443:
1438:
1434:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1423:62.254.139.60
1420:
1417:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1397:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1371:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1360:
1354:
1353:
1349:
1344:
1341:
1340:
1335:
1332:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1321:
1317:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1302:
1300:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1285:
1278:
1274:
1272:
1268:
1263:
1259:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1234:
1229:
1222:
1213:
1208:
1201:
1194:
1186:
1178:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1158:
1156:
1151:
1146:
1145:
1138:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1121:
1118:
1115:– Relisted –
1114:
1113:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1099:
1097:
1092:
1087:
1086:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1061:
1057:
1052:
1050:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1024:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1002:
999:
993:
989:
985:
984:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
970:
966:
962:
958:
957:
944:
940:
936:
932:
928:
924:
923:
922:
921:
918:
913:
911:
902:
901:
900:
899:
896:
892:
888:
884:
882:
875:
874:
873:
872:
869:
865:
861:
856:
855:
854:
853:
850:
845:
843:
835:
834:WP:DRVPURPOSE
831:
827:
826:
825:
824:
821:
820:
816:
812:
808:
806:
798:
787:
785:
784:
779:
777:
765:
759:
756:
753:
750:
747:
744:
741:
738:
735:
732:
729:
726:
723:
718:
713:
709:
707:
703:
699:
698:
693:
690:
689:
684:
679:
677:
669:
666:
662:
661:
660:
659:
656:
652:
648:
647:
642:
637:
632:
629:
627:
623:
619:
618:
614:
611:
610:
609:
608:
604:
600:
590:
581:
576:
569:
562:
554:
546:
539:
535:
532:
531:
530:
529:
526:
524:
519:
514:
513:
506:
503:
499:
495:
494:
493:
492:
489:
486:
482:
481:
477:
476:
475:
474:
467:
465:
460:
455:
454:
449:
443:
442:
436:
434:
433:
429:
425:
421:
419:
413:
405:
403:
399:
395:
391:
388:
386:
383:
382:
376:
375:
370:
366:
365:
358:
354:
351:
345:
341:
337:
332:
331:
330:
327:
326:
323:
322:
315:
314:
313:
309:
305:
300:
297:
295:
289:
288:
283:
280:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
258:
257:
256:
255:
252:
251:
248:
247:
240:
236:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
212:
209:
204:
199:
196:The original
190:
181:
176:
169:
162:
154:
146:
139:
135:
132:
131:
130:
129:
126:
124:
119:
114:
113:
108:
105:
100:
96:
95:
91:
90:
89:
88:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
64:
63:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1677:
1670:
1647:
1630:
1613:
1598:
1579:
1575:
1561:
1554:procedurally
1553:
1549:
1545:
1530:
1526:
1506:
1468:
1395:
1357:
1347:
1342:
1303:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1261:
1254:
1230:
1227:
1154:
1147:
1110:
1095:
1088:
1066:
1062:
1048:
1027:
1005:
1000:
981:
960:
909:
880:
841:
829:
804:
799:
790:
775:
768:
754:
748:
742:
736:
730:
724:
695:
691:
675:
644:
639:
635:
630:
615:
612:
595:
522:
515:
478:
463:
456:
439:
417:
408:
389:
378:
373:
368:
360:
357:WP:CONSENSUS
352:
324:
317:
298:
285:
281:
260:
249:
242:
195:
122:
115:
98:
92:
58:
44:2013 January
1416:Victor Kiam
830:restoration
438:about it.--
1652:WP:OC#PERF
1562:Sandstein
1396:S Marshall
1284:S Marshall
1049:Sandstein
910:Sandstein
881:S Marshall
842:Sandstein
805:S Marshall
776:Sandstein
767:rewritten.
752:block user
746:filter log
712:WP:CSD#G11
676:Sandstein
534:Da-Wen Sun
480:Da-Wen Sun
418:S Marshall
134:Jami Floyd
94:Jami Floyd
1618:SmokeyJoe
1603:Mackensen
931:WP:REFUND
927:WP:REFUND
758:block log
717:Mayonglan
599:Mayonglan
226:WP:ANYBIO
1134:Armbrust
1063:Overturn
728:contribs
502:Armbrust
441:Milowent
394:Jclemens
374:Stalwart
363:Schmidt,
320:Schmidt,
287:Milowent
245:Schmidt,
20: |
1648:Comment
1631:Comment
1576:Endorse
1531:defiant
1343:comment
1304:Comment
1271:WP:OCAT
1221:restore
1185:history
1117:Spartaz
1071:Msrasnw
1014:WP:PROF
631:Restore
589:restore
553:history
485:Spartaz
189:restore
153:history
104:Spartaz
1659:(talk)
1614:Relist
1606:(talk)
1599:Relist
1546:Relist
1507:relist
1445:(talk)
1348:always
1267:WP:COP
1258:WP:OCE
1006:really
801:form.—
269:Bejnar
230:WP:ENT
1580:right
1512:Hobit
1475:talk
1364:talk
1207:watch
1200:links
1130:there
1034:talk
988:talk
965:Hobit
702:talk
665:WP:WW
651:talk
622:talk
575:watch
568:links
412:NPASR
369:could
336:Hobit
304:Hobit
175:watch
168:links
52:: -->
16:<
1639:talk
1622:talk
1588:talk
1584:Tarc
1516:talk
1496:talk
1427:talk
1384:talk
1320:talk
1269:and
1193:logs
1177:edit
1170:talk
1075:talk
969:talk
961:huge
939:talk
864:talk
740:logs
722:talk
643:. .
603:talk
561:logs
545:edit
538:talk
398:talk
340:talk
308:talk
273:talk
228:and
216:The
161:logs
145:edit
138:talk
78:talk
32:<
1470:DGG
1359:DGG
1310:or
1245:or
1212:XfD
1210:) (
1029:DGG
983:DGG
792:-->
697:DGG
646:DGG
617:DGG
580:XfD
578:) (
380:111
239:NEW
235:OLD
222:OLD
218:NEW
180:XfD
178:) (
22:Log
1641:)
1624:)
1590:)
1518:)
1498:)
1477:)
1440:--
1429:)
1386:)
1366:)
1322:)
1262:is
1132:.
1077:)
1036:)
990:)
971:)
941:)
866:)
704:)
694:.
670:.
653:)
624:)
605:)
500:.
444:•
414:.—
400:)
342:)
310:)
290:•
275:)
97:–
80:)
42::
1637:(
1620:(
1586:(
1514:(
1494:(
1473:(
1425:(
1406:C
1404:/
1402:T
1382:(
1362:(
1318:(
1294:C
1292:/
1290:T
1224:)
1216:|
1203:|
1197:|
1189:|
1181:|
1173:|
1168:(
1081:)
1073:(
1032:(
986:(
967:(
937:(
891:C
889:/
887:T
862:(
815:C
813:/
811:T
760:)
755:·
749:·
743:·
737:·
731:·
725:·
720:(
700:(
649:(
620:(
601:(
592:)
584:|
571:|
565:|
557:|
549:|
541:|
536:(
428:C
426:/
424:T
396:(
338:(
306:(
271:(
192:)
184:|
171:|
165:|
157:|
149:|
141:|
136:(
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.