584:
from the editors of wikipedia who are likely to all have different biases, interests etc. and move it more to the world at large, what do they think is "important", we try and determine that by what do "mainstream" (mainstream is really the wrong word here, it's about quality of the source, reputation for fact checking etc.) sources consider worth investing time in investigating and covering. In a deletion debate you can't prove a negative, I can't prove that mainstream sources haven't provide strong coverage of topic X, I can say I couldn't find it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Those who believe it should be included can of course easily show it has been by pointing out the coverage. As to if many articles in
Knowledge fail to meet the standards and "should" be deleted, then probably so - but then again Knowledge isn't selling it self as a directory of open source projects. I'm not sure where anyone has said as project maintainer you can't being verifiable facts to the discussion, you most certainly can - though what I've seen so far is you bringing facts which are what make you think your project is significant , rather than the things that the wikipedia policies and guidelines actually require - i.e. as above if it really is significant there will be lots of reliable third parties believing that the project is important to tell their audience about, directly and in some detail - that is the evidence that the world outside wikipedia thinks this project is important. --
1790:
to the election. Thereafter, this will be cast as a significant historical event--with election results either way shaping the national debate. Which leads to yet another problem that already with the establishment of the article about the special election, we have de facto accepted the importance of this election and therefore also the key figures involved with it. We cannot say: This special election is important enough to justify an article, but only politicians who already hold office are WP:N enough to include in the discussion. Finally, although not the best argument but also relevant and telling, Kim Ward and Jason
Ortitay also mentioned in the article both with Knowledge articles about them have virtually 0 national (or potential historical) notoriety--though they have held office--and this alone, the weakest but the most "objective" of the criteria for notoriety appears to suffice.
1733:
ble, this gives an inevitable political imbalance to our coverage. This has not gotten the attention it should have. For a local election for a national office, whether special or regular, the coverage will be mainly in the electoral district, and we should find it and use it to show the notability of both candidates. It would be reasonable to make the presumption that it would always be present. (I am not sure how afar we should carry it to the countries which have more than two major parties.)
292:
of !votes is not allowed or pointing out the correct way of dealing with such comments (striking), Codename Lisa simply reverted his edit with an unhelpful edit summary, “Reverted vandalism. Deleting other people's comment in bad faith is vandalism.” No proof of the nature of the “faith” was offered, just the opinion that it was bad. Another edit war ensued, this time with both
Codename Lisa & FleetCommand retaliating by
300:, who reverted Dsmatthews and left an informative warning on his talk page, something which both Codename Lisa and FleetCommand failed to do. Dsmatthews followed the admin’s guidance and stopped the edit war while restoring the comments that Codename Lisa and FleetCommand removed. These more experienced editors should have known better, however despite this they acted in an unhelpful, provocative manner, violating
643:
prevails. The 2nd delete tried a WP:VAGUEWAVE WP:MILL argument. WP:MILL is an essay without metrics, so when used without providing metrics is a variation of an WP:ATA IDONTLIKEIT. So there is only one delete !vote to bring evidence, and this !vote didn't consider three of the four sources provided by the keep !vote. Not a single editor has considered the
1540:. Relisting or closing as NC would have been reasonable, but so is the actual close to redirect, backed up by a reasonable explanation in the closing statement. If we ended up with the right close, it seems excessively wonkish to object to it just because the closer doesn't own a mop. I could invoke
1761:
after an election loss would not apply. In addition, precedent has shown that "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature...are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls,...or into articles detailing the specific
1032:
versus the nominator arguing that it did not. The discussion was closed after 7.5 days and 4.5 days since the last entry, there was a consensus and no recent discussion, therefore the closer closed the discussion correctly. The nominator is simply repeating the same arguments they already made in the
583:
I think this is a bigger topic than is necessarily suitable for DRV, but here's a brief outline. Knowledge has various policies and practices a common one for deletion discussions is what should be within the scope of the project and what shouldn't. The general principal is to take that decision away
351:
tag, later adding another tag to the talk page, implying that
Dsmatthews, the only other active contributor to the page, of having a “conflict of interest”, rendering him unable to improve the page to save it from deletion. Yet when questioned denied that the tag was a reference to DSMatthews without
291:
Codename Lisa, a known biased party, to the deletion discussion to support his argument that the image should be deleted. Dsmatthews then (naively) removed
Codename Lisa’s !vote, as he believed it was not valid, due to it being the result of canvassing/brigading. Instead of pointing out that deletion
1789:
National coverage of this election specifically of Lamb has increased substantially since this discussion began. Politico, New York Times, Washington Post have all published articles featuring Conor Lamb. This alone clearly demonstrates WP:N. Obviously, the coverage is only going to increase leading
1752:
for further discussion. Knowledge precedent needs to be further considered. Assuming that folks are arguing that Lamb fails the notability test outside of this election (which I disagree with, given press coverage), Knowledge has contained articles about otherwise non-notable candidates for upcoming
924:
Anyway I'm not seeing any consensus to keep at the moment and no one in the FFD could explain why text alone wasn't enough so I personally think it should be relisted for another week (and if consensus is again to keep then I'll obviously accept that but IMHO I think it was a tad too soon to close),
642:
nomination from an experienced editor disregarded the edit notice that directs attention to WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, with this disregard drawing no attention from the closing admin. Nor can I confirm that the objection of WP:COI was relevant or valid. We don't count votes so that strength of argument
564:
I must agree with
Dsmatthews that the discussion feels unbalanced, it seems requesting deletion requires almost no argumentation other than linking a few Knowledge policies, but then refuting this citing usage numbers and finding 3 references in books is not enough. I think many open source articles
517:
The account made one minor edit two and a half years ago, as far as I'm concerned that doesn't make much difference. I don't think there's any particular policy or guideline on whether people with a COI can have opinions downweighted but I suspect most people would consider it reasonable, and in any
1732:
for further argument. The principle at stake here is political NPOV. In a two party system the candidate of both parties should be considered to have sufficient notability for an article. Usually the race is between an incumbent and a challenger, and since the incumbent is always considered nota
1270:
is one which is still publicly visible). They didn't say anything other than where the station is and what railway line it's on and didn't cite any sources. The creator didn't go through the required approval processes before creating these, probably because it wouldn't have been allowed. Feel free
1324:
if someone can show a source. Unless we know that almost all of such creations do not exist, mass deletion in improper. We do not delete, let alone speedy delete, because something might not be notable or even might not exist. There has to be a high probability that it does not, which can only be
996:
Seems a bit of a tough one, I agree by the letter of the policies NFCC#8 seems a stretch, on the other hand the foundation resolution under which our EDP lies, specifically considers such to be reasonable usage "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate ... to include identifying
756:
While I can't see the evidence leading to the block (I think?) I would be highly surprised if this is justified. Still, the fact remains that as
Unscintillating stated, there has been no real argument justifying the delete. If policy is to have a discussion based on facts, the Dsmatthews block is
324:
FleetCommand failed to demonstrate why the image was outside of the scope of
Commons, stating that “Commons is not a file hosting service to show off random works of art.”, despite the fact that the image metadata proved it was a diagram that represented information relevant to a feature in K-3D.
408:
completely disregarded the significant contributions to the discussion by Bart, claiming he has a conflict of interest, implying that the multiple facts that he presented were not facts, and simply treated the discussion as a vote, deleting the article. Their closing rational was “The result was
546:
and it's included with some linux distributions. None of that meets the standards required of notability. DRV is not dispute resolution so all the other stuff seems irrelevant here. Of course none of this will stop a future article should the "product" end up meeting the notability standards
1050:
There certainly wasn't any consensus to remove the logo. It appears like a proper close to me. And I know that this isn't really the place to rediscuss the NFCC complaint but I'd have to disagree with your #8 complaint anyways. Most logos don't have actual contextual significance and could,
1586:, Just to point out, that rationale ignores the second part of the argument. Namely, things have changed and continue to change with the WP:N of Lamb. If he wasn't WP:N when this discussion closed, the amount of national coverage that occurred after the close makes him WP:N now.
471:
I'd say you were harassing them by engaging in personal attacks. The discussion here looks fine, the argument for deletion is legitimate and the only person who opposed deletion is an account with essentially no other edits (the closing admin is allowed to downweight these per
1325:
shown by a search. There have been exceptions, but those have required prior consensus at an admin board. (and in fact I think all the examples listed in WPCSD X are mistaken, because in each case a reasonable proportion o the articles were appropriate and were rescued.)
1557:
Of these two, redirect is a decent compromise between the two more extreme positions. It's also the less disruptive since it leaves the history intact and allows anybody to turn it back into an article without additional admin involvement. So, that's what I'd go
333:
After finding out the image had been deleted, Dsmatthews uploaded the image to archive.org, and fixed the-now broken-external link on the K-3D page to link to the archive.org version. This was also interfered with and needed to be re-uploaded. This constitutes
1753:
notable elections. If others in similar circumstances are the subjects of accepted articles, why would Lamb be treated differently? In addition, if Lamb were to lose, precedent has shown that it is the articles about losing candidates for elections
352:
saying who it did refer to. Basically, this states: “This article is bad quality and should be deleted, and you aren’t allowed to improve the page to stop the page from being deleted.” Doesn’t this seem unethical and a deliberate abuse of process?
445:
for a nomination that hinged entirely on notability concerns. As for the participants, we had the software's maintainer saying keep and neutral observers saying delete based on a lack of sources. I don't really see anything wrong with this close.
207:
as their primary justification for their actions and treated the discussion as a poll, closing the discussion based on the number of delete !votes instead of closing the discussion based on the strength of the evidence and arguments supplied.
325:
Codename Lisa was incorrect in removing the link from the K-3D page. There was not, and there is no basis in policy for the removal, as the link added useful information to the page that supported a noteworthy claim, of output capability.
214:
The consensus relied on the logically weak arguments of two accounts, one a suspiciously proficient, yet newly created account, of which both had already been disproved earlier by the presentation of verifiable facts presented by Bart
1628:
619:. I don't fully understand what's going on there, but something doesn't add up. If you ignore that as likely socking, there's really only two people arguing to delete, and one of them is just the nom who says not much more than
944:
I will again note here that simplicity of a logo should not be a reason for deletion; it is the only logo that represents the company in question, and as such, contextual significance is given. Also pinging other contributors
202:
The closing admin completely ignored a keep !vote (Bart’s) that demonstrated the subject of the article’s notability more comprehensively and cited than all of the other !votes put together. The closing admin cited
346:
In retaliation, on 09:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC), Codename Lisa nominated the entire article for deletion, their rational being “Non-notable computer program.” At the same time, they tagged the article with a
1501:. Non admin closure of a 'no consensus' afd. Redirect was the close that would have been made by most admins so its not actually a bad close per se - but as we're here at DRV procedure should be followed.
1307:
had been blocked two and a half months already by the time this was created. On its own merits, the only datum in the article that's not in its title is the station's province. The
Chinese version at
468:
368:‘Safe My Edit’ has shown an unusually high level of proficiency for a newbie, which is suspicious. They have also been evasive when questioned about this, stating “I have no other accounts here in the
1289:
The deletion log lacks a CSD criterion; but DRVPURPOSE has petitioners discuss with the deleting admin before coming here, and an out-of-process DRV is not the path to resolve an unclear deletion.
287:, nominated the file for deletion, with the rational being that the image was outside of the scope of Commons. When Dsmatthews defended the image, FleetCommand retaliated by violating policy by
1675:. Plus, redirect and delete yield opposing consequences; an inclusionist would "vote" for redirect, an exclusionist would "vote" for delete. I don't see a consensus in the original discussion.
1479:
1. I don't think consensus is clear in the discussion. 2. National coverage continues. These special elections are unique and seen in national context. The same for the candidates. Much as
396:, specifically the line stating “When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy.”
189:
The nominator deliberately created an unethical Catch-22 to ensure the article’s undisputed deletion, by concurrently abusing the use of the COI template to suppress edits and discussion.
918:. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
878:
1715:
IMO the redirect by itself is a good edit. Continue with a partial merge of the education and the "Assistant U.S. Attorney" section to one new section in the target article.
1169:
1757:
that are generally deleted. This election, on the other hand, is for an office in a national body that can affect national policy, so if Lamb were to lose, this precedent to
1011:
My position still stands. Keep the logo as it is the primary identification symbol for the company. Simple as it may be it still significant enough to identify the company.
905:
1544:
to re-close it the same way, but I'm not going to do that because it would send the wrong message. If I were closing this, my thought process would go something like:
978:"I will again note here that simplicity of a logo should not be a reason for deletion;" - which seems a complete strawman, no one has said it is, here or in the XFD. --
638:
I don't see that process was followed here. For starters, there is no material in the nomination to prepare the community for a deletion discussion. The three-word
1767:
1184:
409:
delete. Bart 123 has a WP:COI and everybody else advocates deletion.”, which is clearly a discussion of the number of !votes, rather than the facts of the matter.
1244:. I'd have preferred a deletion message that gave some more details, but it didn't take me long to work this back to the article creator being indef blocked for
611:. Brand new users don't typically set up talk page archiving, configure their CSS and JS, and then immediately dive into highly technical reference formatting,
896:
48:
34:
542:
the arguments for (ignoring the individuals COI which is essentially irrelevant for demonstrating basic notability) were that there are some brief mentions,
1649:
Generally waving people towards pages of search results isn't very helpful. Of those which ones address the topic of Connor Lamb directly and in detail? --
1461:
43:
240:
Dispute over whether or not an image demonstrating how LuxRender is used in conjunction with K-3D should be included in the article as an external link
1028:(Note:I took part in the original discussion.) This was the only possible close given the discussion with three editors arguing that the file passed
499:) says is, "...or accounts created solely for voting on the deletion discussion.", which this account was not, and the closer cited COI, not DGFA.
706:
1604:
The AfD closed 3 weeks ago. If you are going to argue that in the past three weeks, there has been sufficient additional coverage to establish
1251:. Anybody can recreate this from scratch if they want (with sources, etc), but it's not likely we're going to restore the deleted version. --
848:
160:
1650:
998:
979:
548:
644:
585:
39:
476:). The idea that Safe My Edit is a sockpuppet created to influence the discussion doesn't make any sense given their edit history.
267:
as allowed. An edit war promptly ensued, in which
Codename Lisa acted in a provocative, unhelpful manner, inflaming the situation.
219:
The following text is supporting material, however a decision should be able to be reached based off the five points raised above.
1449:
844:
800:
700:
1271:
to write another article about the station, if you can say anything other than "it exists" then you'll have done a better job.
393:
607:(and is excessively verbose as well), but there wasn't really much on the delete side either. There's something fishy about
1193:
Deletion reason is (Mass removal of pages added by Cnrail37592114) without checking content (this station exists for real)
21:
1139:
467:
the fact that the nominator got an image deleted on Commons doesn't make the nomination harassment, in fact judging from
648:
623:. My hunch is that this is indeed not notable (hence the weak endorse), but I'd rather see it get more discussion . --
518:
case I'm more concerned about whether the closer did the right thing than whether they cited the correct justification.
253:
1470:
1135:
1092:
260:
913:
I had asked the admin to relist however they pointed me here instead, I personally believe the logo fails NFCC #8 (
565:
can be deleted if this really is the policy. One more thing to support notability: K-3D is a member project of the
316:
claiming that the image was outside of the scope of Commons, however they did not explain why it was out of scope.
148:
1828:
1720:
1399:
1347:
1294:
1119:
1071:
828:
779:
676:
656:
504:
496:
98:
17:
1671:
In regards to tallying the various opinions in the original AfD, AfDs don't operate like a voting process. See
724:
264:
1051:
conceivably, be said with just words. Their use under fair use has had a long standing acceptance anyways. --
1795:
1654:
1002:
983:
890:
589:
552:
1309:
1817:
1813:
1799:
1779:
1744:
1724:
1707:
1684:
1658:
1640:
1615:
1595:
1570:
1528:
1510:
1492:
1388:
1336:
1316:
1298:
1281:
1258:
1236:
1202:
1108:
1060:
1042:
1020:
1006:
987:
973:
938:
817:
766:
747:
735:
has now been checkuser-blocked for sockpuppetry. In view of this I don't think I need to comment further.
712:
680:
660:
630:
593:
578:
556:
528:
508:
486:
459:
418:
389:
385:
209:
87:
83:
1519:
NOTBURO and all that - it's unnecessary to overturn NAC closures unless there's something wrong with it.
1214:
335:
293:
169:
377:
1716:
1290:
694:
672:
652:
500:
414:
183:
The nomination was in bad faith, as it was a retaliatory attack that was part of a content dispute.
1775:
1680:
1636:
1591:
1524:
1488:
1304:
758:
639:
570:
543:
196:
263:, which does not forbid this kind of external link. In fact, the guideline lists such links under
1791:
1612:
1567:
1255:
1033:
discussion, instead of arguing that the closer was incorrect in their closing of the discussion.
967:
762:
627:
574:
313:
296:
and deleting comments by Dsmatthews. It ended with Codename Lisa complaining to a Commons admin,
259:
disagreed with the inclusion of the link, and reverted Dsmatthews’s edit, incorrectly citing the
256:
569:. I disagree also that as current maintainer I can't bring verifiable facts to the discussion. —
255:, then included the image in the en.wikipedia.org article on K-3D as an external link. However,
118:
1809:
1038:
1016:
608:
381:
365:
361:
79:
1805:
1703:
1541:
1483:, he is likely notable even if he losses. I think a search clearly shows he meets WP:N now.
1198:
1056:
956:
1672:
1506:
1419:
689:
410:
249:
114:
70:
342:
Deletion of the K-3D page & unethical Catch-22 created to ensure the page’s deletion
1771:
1766:
the election, not before. For details of precedents that support these points, see the
1713:
The dicta has no standing, but retain redirect and continue to improve the encyclopedia
1676:
1632:
1587:
1520:
1484:
1379:
1230:
1099:
1029:
926:
805:
738:
612:
473:
453:
442:
441:- Yeah, that really was TLDR. And it's a bad idea to make accusations of bad faith and
405:
392:” This is untrue and disproved by the reply to their !vote by Bart. This also violates
301:
297:
199:
showing the subject of the article’s notability was valuable, and actually thanked him.
190:
184:
1266:
the author created a few hundred very short articles about railway stations in China (
1740:
1609:
1564:
1332:
1252:
1247:
961:
624:
616:
604:
348:
204:
1313:
1274:
1034:
1012:
952:
948:
521:
479:
360:
At the very end of the discussion, just before it was closed, two users showed up,
914:
1699:
1605:
1194:
1052:
1502:
1480:
1415:
1368:
566:
288:
1547:
There's about equal !votes for each of three things (keep, redirect, delete)
1376:
Because it's a contested non-admin closure and we have no consensus here. –
1224:
447:
1698:
as per Roy Smith. I could not have explained the reasoning better myself.--
283:
1735:
1327:
1808:. Declined twice for lack of notability, reliable secondary sources.
1770:
explanation, which describes common outcomes of past AfD discussions.
1608:, then you need to cite sources which have come out since then. --
277:
312:
The image was eventually deleted by an uninvolved Commons admin,
1804:
Side note: there appears to be a draft space article located at
1624:
1583:
603:. Yes, it's true that the only person arguing to keep had a
281:, a user now indefinitely blocked for blatant harassment of
1550:
Of those, two (redirect, delete) are really variations on
1246:
Mass automated creation of articles without approval from
1456:
1442:
1434:
1426:
1267:
1219:
seems in order. But if this is a real railway station,
1176:
1162:
1154:
1146:
885:
871:
863:
855:
804:– Withdrawn/Endorse- Consensus is closure was fine. – –
730:
718:
669:
329:
Uploading of the disputed image to the Internet Archive
155:
141:
133:
125:
1768:
Common Outcomes of Deletion Discussion re. Politicians
195:
The nominator admitted that the evidence provided by
1096:– Deletion endorsed, but recreation permitted. –
394:Knowledge:Articles for deletion#How to contribute
265:Knowledge:External_links#Links to be considered
235:Detailed argument (for the due diligence crowd)
1554:, so I'd lump those together and go with that.
8:
1762:race in question." But that merging happens
668:The discussion with the closing admin is at
1398:The following is an archived debate of the
1118:The following is an archived debate of the
827:The following is an archived debate of the
97:The following is an archived debate of the
1361:
1085:
793:
222:
63:
647:, and a quick check shows that we have a
1312:is a little better, but not very much. —
356:Final moments of the deletion discussion
252:uploaded an image to Wikimedia Commons,
1538:I'm an admin and I endorse this message
225:
997:protected works such as logos ...". --
1631:shows the national coverage, I think.
7:
271:Nomination of the image for deletion
1831:of the page listed in the heading.
1350:of the page listed in the heading.
1074:of the page listed in the heading.
782:of the page listed in the heading.
308:Closing of the deletion discussion
28:
372:(emphasis mine) Their !vote was “
845:File:Angel Recording Studios.png
801:File:Angel Recording Studios.png
1827:The above is an archive of the
1629:news search from 24DEC to today
1346:The above is an archive of the
1070:The above is an archive of the
778:The above is an archive of the
376:Not standing out from the rest
275:The edit war was stopped after
1136:Hefei Beicheng Railway Station
1093:Hefei Beicheng Railway Station
601:Weak endorse, but maybe relist
1:
178:Summary (For the TL;DR crowd)
1818:15:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
1800:23:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
1780:21:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
1745:20:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
1725:21:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
1708:04:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
1685:21:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
1659:17:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
1641:02:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
1616:01:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
1596:00:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
1571:16:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
1529:10:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
1511:07:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
1493:04:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
1389:12:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
1337:17:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
1317:21:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
1299:20:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
1282:19:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
1259:16:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
1237:14:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
1203:11:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
1109:12:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
1061:00:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
1043:00:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
1021:00:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
1007:00:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
988:00:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
974:00:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
939:23:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
818:01:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
767:10:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
748:08:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
681:01:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
661:00:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
649:List of 3D graphics software
631:15:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
594:14:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
579:12:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
567:Software Freedom Conservancy
557:12:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
529:18:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
509:00:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
487:11:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
460:10:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
419:10:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
390:17:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
88:16:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
645:WP:Alternatives to deletion
1854:
227:Overly verbose text hidden
400:Closure of the discussion
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
1834:Please do not modify it.
1755:below the national level
1405:Please do not modify it.
1353:Please do not modify it.
1125:Please do not modify it.
1077:Please do not modify it.
834:Please do not modify it.
785:Please do not modify it.
261:Knowledge:External links
104:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
916:Contextual significance
495:Except that what DGFA (
686:Closing admin comment:
210:Knowledge:NOTDEMOCRACY
1402:of the page above.
1305:User:Tratra22395768
1122:of the page above.
831:of the page above.
404:The closing admin,
101:of the page above.
1211:- the deletion by
757:even irrelevant. —
688:The DRV nominator
497:WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS
314:User:Pi.1415926535
257:User:Codename Lisa
1841:
1840:
1387:
1360:
1359:
1322:Permit recreation
1107:
1084:
1083:
792:
791:
746:
636:Overturn to NPASR
609:User:Safe My Edit
443:gaming the system
425:
424:
370:English Knowledge
366:User:Timtempleton
362:User:Safe My Edit
284:User:Andy Dingley
1845:
1836:
1806:Draft:Conor Lamb
1473:
1468:
1459:
1445:
1437:
1429:
1407:
1386:
1384:
1377:
1362:
1355:
1277:
1221:allow recreation
1218:
1215:Timotheus Canens
1189:
1187:
1179:
1165:
1157:
1149:
1127:
1106:
1104:
1097:
1086:
1079:
970:
964:
959:
936:
931:
919:
908:
903:
888:
874:
866:
858:
836:
815:
810:
794:
787:
745:
743:
736:
734:
707:deleted contribs
524:
482:
433:
432:
320:Closing comments
286:
280:
245:Initial conflict
223:
172:
167:
158:
144:
136:
128:
106:
64:
53:
33:
1853:
1852:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1832:
1829:deletion review
1787:Restore article
1717:Unscintillating
1469:
1467:
1464:
1455:
1454:
1448:
1441:
1440:
1433:
1432:
1425:
1424:
1403:
1400:deletion review
1380:
1378:
1351:
1348:deletion review
1303:Endorse as G5;
1291:Unscintillating
1275:
1235:
1212:
1183:
1181:
1175:
1174:
1168:
1161:
1160:
1153:
1152:
1145:
1144:
1123:
1120:deletion review
1100:
1098:
1075:
1072:deletion review
968:
962:
946:
932:
927:
904:
902:
899:
895:
884:
883:
877:
870:
869:
862:
861:
854:
853:
832:
829:deletion review
811:
806:
783:
780:deletion review
739:
737:
692:
673:Unscintillating
653:Unscintillating
522:
501:Unscintillating
480:
458:
430:
429:
426:
282:
276:
250:User:Dsmatthews
228:
168:
166:
163:
154:
153:
147:
140:
139:
132:
131:
124:
123:
102:
99:deletion review
62:
59:13 January 2018
55:
54:
51:
49:2018 January 14
46:
37:
35:2018 January 12
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1851:
1849:
1839:
1838:
1823:
1822:
1821:
1820:
1802:
1783:
1782:
1747:
1727:
1710:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1661:
1644:
1643:
1619:
1618:
1599:
1598:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1560:
1559:
1555:
1548:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1514:
1513:
1478:
1476:
1475:
1465:
1452:
1446:
1438:
1430:
1422:
1410:
1409:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1358:
1357:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1319:
1301:
1284:
1261:
1239:
1229:
1191:
1190:
1172:
1166:
1158:
1150:
1142:
1130:
1129:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1082:
1081:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1045:
1023:
1009:
993:
992:
991:
990:
921:
911:
910:
900:
893:
881:
875:
867:
859:
851:
839:
838:
823:
822:
821:
820:
790:
789:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
751:
750:
683:
663:
633:
598:
597:
596:
559:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
512:
511:
490:
489:
469:the discussion
462:
452:
423:
422:
406:User:Sandstein
336:WP:Harrassment
298:User:Ronhjones
294:WP:Tag teaming
230:
229:
226:
221:
217:
216:
212:
200:
193:
191:Knowledge:GAME
187:
185:Knowledge:BITE
175:
174:
164:
151:
145:
137:
129:
121:
109:
108:
93:
92:
91:
90:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1850:
1837:
1835:
1830:
1825:
1824:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1792:Quigley david
1788:
1785:
1784:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1765:
1760:
1756:
1751:
1748:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1737:
1731:
1728:
1726:
1722:
1718:
1714:
1711:
1709:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1694:
1693:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1669:
1660:
1656:
1652:
1651:81.108.53.238
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1620:
1617:
1614:
1611:
1607:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1597:
1593:
1589:
1585:
1582:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1572:
1569:
1566:
1562:
1561:
1556:
1553:
1549:
1546:
1545:
1543:
1539:
1536:
1535:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1518:
1517:
1516:
1515:
1512:
1508:
1504:
1500:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1472:
1463:
1458:
1451:
1444:
1436:
1428:
1421:
1417:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1408:
1406:
1401:
1396:
1395:
1390:
1385:
1383:
1375:
1371:
1370:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1356:
1354:
1349:
1344:
1343:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1329:
1323:
1320:
1318:
1315:
1311:
1306:
1302:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1285:
1283:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1269:
1265:
1262:
1260:
1257:
1254:
1250:
1249:
1243:
1240:
1238:
1234:
1233:
1228:
1227:
1222:
1216:
1210:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1195:Ywwuyi, GCCPK
1186:
1178:
1171:
1164:
1156:
1148:
1141:
1137:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1128:
1126:
1121:
1116:
1115:
1110:
1105:
1103:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1080:
1078:
1073:
1068:
1067:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1049:
1046:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1031:
1027:
1024:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1008:
1004:
1000:
999:81.108.53.238
995:
994:
989:
985:
981:
980:81.108.53.238
977:
976:
975:
971:
965:
958:
954:
950:
943:
942:
941:
940:
937:
935:
930:
922:
917:
907:
898:
892:
887:
880:
873:
865:
857:
850:
846:
843:
842:
841:
840:
837:
835:
830:
825:
824:
819:
816:
814:
809:
803:
802:
798:
797:
796:
795:
788:
786:
781:
776:
775:
768:
764:
760:
755:
754:
753:
752:
749:
744:
742:
732:
729:
726:
723:
720:
717:
714:
711:
708:
705:
702:
699:
696:
691:
687:
684:
682:
678:
674:
670:
667:
664:
662:
658:
654:
650:
646:
641:
637:
634:
632:
629:
626:
622:
618:
615:tagging, and
614:
610:
606:
602:
599:
595:
591:
587:
582:
581:
580:
576:
572:
568:
563:
560:
558:
554:
550:
549:81.108.53.238
545:
541:
538:
537:
530:
527:
526:
525:
516:
515:
514:
513:
510:
506:
502:
498:
494:
493:
492:
491:
488:
485:
484:
483:
475:
470:
466:
463:
461:
457:
456:
451:
450:
444:
440:
437:
436:
435:
434:
431:Editing break
421:
420:
416:
412:
407:
402:
401:
397:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
358:
357:
353:
350:
344:
343:
339:
337:
331:
330:
326:
322:
321:
317:
315:
310:
309:
305:
303:
299:
295:
290:
289:WP:Canvassing
285:
279:
273:
272:
268:
266:
262:
258:
254:
251:
247:
246:
242:
241:
237:
236:
232:
231:
224:
220:
213:
211:
206:
201:
198:
197:User:Bart 123
194:
192:
188:
186:
182:
181:
180:
179:
171:
162:
157:
150:
143:
135:
127:
120:
116:
113:
112:
111:
110:
107:
105:
100:
95:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1833:
1826:
1786:
1763:
1758:
1754:
1749:
1734:
1729:
1712:
1695:
1551:
1537:
1498:
1477:
1404:
1397:
1381:
1373:
1367:
1352:
1345:
1326:
1321:
1286:
1273:
1272:
1263:
1245:
1241:
1231:
1225:
1220:
1208:
1192:
1124:
1117:
1101:
1091:
1076:
1069:
1047:
1025:
933:
928:
923:
915:
912:
833:
826:
812:
807:
799:
784:
777:
740:
727:
721:
715:
709:
703:
697:
685:
665:
640:WP:VAGUEWAVE
635:
620:
600:
586:81.92.202.30
561:
544:WP:BIGNUMBER
539:
520:
519:
478:
477:
464:
454:
448:
438:
428:
427:
403:
399:
398:
382:Safe My Edit
373:
369:
359:
355:
354:
345:
341:
340:
332:
328:
327:
323:
319:
318:
311:
307:
306:
278:FleetCommand
274:
270:
269:
248:
244:
243:
239:
238:
234:
233:
218:
177:
176:
103:
96:
80:TonyBallioni
75:
69:
58:
44:2018 January
1552:do not keep
957:Killiondude
621:not notable
1481:Jon Ossoff
1416:Conor Lamb
1382:Sandstein
1369:Conor Lamb
1102:Sandstein
741:Sandstein
725:block user
719:filter log
690:Dsmatthews
411:Dsmatthews
1810:Mélencron
1772:Kekki1978
1677:Kekki1978
1633:Casprings
1588:Casprings
1542:WP:BADNAC
1525:pingó mió
1521:Galobtter
1485:Casprings
1374:Relisted.
731:block log
378:WP:COOKIE
1673:WP:AFDEQ
1625:RoySmith
1610:RoySmith
1584:RoySmith
1565:RoySmith
1310:zh:合肥北城站
1253:RoySmith
963:Lordtobi
925:Thanks –
759:Bart 123
701:contribs
625:RoySmith
571:Bart 123
76:Endorsed
20: |
1696:Endorse
1471:restore
1435:history
1314:Cryptic
1287:Endorse
1276:Hut 8.5
1264:Endorse
1242:Endorse
1209:Endorse
1185:restore
1155:history
1048:Endorse
1035:Aspects
1030:WP:NFCC
1026:Endorse
1013:Salavat
955:, and
953:Aspects
949:Salavat
906:restore
891:article
864:history
613:WP:PROD
562:Comment
540:Endorse
523:Hut 8.5
481:Hut 8.5
474:WP:DGFA
465:Endorse
439:Endorse
374:Delete:
302:WP:BITE
170:restore
134:history
1759:delete
1750:Relist
1730:Relist
1700:Rusf10
1613:(talk)
1568:(talk)
1499:Relist
1256:(talk)
1248:WP:BAG
1053:Majora
628:(talk)
617:WP:AFD
605:WP:COI
364:, and
349:WP:COI
205:WP:COI
1764:after
1741:talk
1558:with.
1503:Szzuk
1457:watch
1450:links
1333:talk
1177:watch
1170:links
929:Davey
886:watch
879:links
808:Davey
156:watch
149:links
52:: -->
16:<
1814:talk
1796:talk
1776:talk
1721:talk
1704:talk
1681:talk
1655:talk
1637:talk
1627:, a
1606:WP:N
1592:talk
1507:talk
1489:talk
1443:logs
1427:edit
1420:talk
1295:talk
1268:here
1226:Reyk
1199:talk
1163:logs
1147:edit
1140:talk
1057:talk
1039:talk
1017:talk
1003:talk
984:talk
934:2010
872:logs
856:edit
849:talk
813:2010
763:talk
713:logs
695:talk
677:talk
671:.
666:Note
657:talk
590:talk
575:talk
553:talk
505:talk
449:Reyk
415:talk
386:talk
215:123.
142:logs
126:edit
119:talk
115:K-3D
84:talk
71:K-3D
32:<
1736:DGG
1563:--
1462:XfD
1460:) (
1328:DGG
1232:YO!
897:XfD
889:) (
651:.
455:YO!
161:XfD
159:) (
22:Log
1816:)
1798:)
1778:)
1743:)
1723:)
1706:)
1683:)
1657:)
1639:)
1594:)
1527:)
1509:)
1491:)
1372:–
1335:)
1297:)
1223:.
1201:)
1059:)
1041:)
1019:)
1005:)
986:)
972:)
960:.
951:,
920:),
765:)
679:)
659:)
592:)
577:)
555:)
547:--
507:)
417:)
388:)
380:--
338:.
304:.
86:)
78:–
74:–
42::
1812:(
1794:(
1774:(
1739:(
1719:(
1702:(
1679:(
1653:(
1635:(
1590:(
1523:(
1505:(
1487:(
1474:)
1466:|
1453:|
1447:|
1439:|
1431:|
1423:|
1418:(
1331:(
1293:(
1217::
1213:@
1197:(
1188:)
1182:(
1180:)
1173:|
1167:|
1159:|
1151:|
1143:|
1138:(
1055:(
1037:(
1015:(
1001:(
982:(
969:✉
966:(
947:@
909:)
901:|
894:|
882:|
876:|
868:|
860:|
852:|
847:(
761:(
733:)
728:·
722:·
716:·
710:·
704:·
698:·
693:(
675:(
655:(
588:(
573:(
551:(
503:(
413:(
384:(
173:)
165:|
152:|
146:|
138:|
130:|
122:|
117:(
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
