2100:("without prejudice" of future deletion after cleanup) This discussion was such a mess that the way I viewed it was to check to see if the keep was supported by the arguments (it was) and then checked the article to see if the keep was supported by the article (as if I were !voting in the AfD, though without trying to figure out if I were to !vote keep or delete, looking just at whether this could be kept.) I generally agree with RoySmith's take, but want to note there was nothing wrong with the close - I believe a close of !keep was warranted by the discussion. That being said, I agree with the amount of overlap, and there's going to need to be some editing to clean up the overlap between the articles. If this article gets deleted/merged/redirected in the process after an RfC, this AfD result shouldn't preclude that. In the absence of discussion, we should not be overturning it.
2157:, which is also apparent in some of the heated comments here in the review by those who voted delete. Most, as in a fairly large percentage, (not all) delete voters were new accounts with <1000 edits, some had even <100. They were unable to understand policy due to their lack of experience at AFD and were perhaps unable to understand that deletion discussions are not majority votes and AFD is not cleanup. Their arguments also appear to confirm that they are not able to grasp policies like GNG and POVFORK. The only policy based arguments were from Lorstaking whose view was the lack of HISTRS may lead to deletion; but HISTRS are used in the article. The canvassing that is supposed to have occurred did not drive any voters to the AFD, and is therefore inconsequential in this review. The Keep should not be overturned.
768:
mean "they have at least one international client" (or even "they would be prepared to work with international clients"), which is not even slightly remarkable for a software company. I'm not seeing any good reason given by the OP to think that the A7 speedy deletion was wrong either, it really doesn't take that long to decide whether a one sentence article qualifies for A7. Yes, speedy deletion is only supposed to apply to obvious cases, but the fact one person objects to something doesn't make it non-obvious. I suppose we could draftify it but the contents are pretty useless to any potential rewrite and it shouldn't go back to mainspace without evidence that the subject meets
1669:(note: I !voted in this discussion). There was no substance to the delete arguments; the POVFORK argument is countered by the presence of sources dealing with the topic more broadly than can be covered elsewhere, the hoax argument requires that there not be any substantive coverage at all (a hoax with coverage on reliable sources would still need to be covered on Knowledge), the "no sources exist" claim has been thoroughly debunked, and the "FRINGE" argument has not been substantiated at all. AfD is not a vote-counting exercise, and the closure was appropriate.
2374:
shows all three to exist and be notable independent of each other; reliable sourcing appears in the article and was elaborated in the AfD process. Whether the title relating to issue (3) is the best title possible is certainly a reasonable question...but not for AFD. Closer made precisely the right decision in line with policy, reliable sourcing and arguments presented. (FWIW I recused myself from !voting due to arriving due to a canvass but did comment, although of late I regularly follow South Asia AfDs so I would most likely have come to this anyway). --
1754:, there's enormous overlap. I suspect all three could be condensed down into a single article. How to cover a topic between multiple articles is an editorial decision into which DRV shouldn't wade. Take thee to the talk pages and sort that out with your fellow editors. But, looking at the three, I see large amounts of unattributed copy-paste between them, and that's a problem. I don't know if it's a problem DRV should address, but it needs to get fixed one way or another. I also see some lesser levels of copy-paste from
494:. Now probably no different to the zonic primary website and sometimes gives links to other stuff. And sometimes the clues can be even more subtle than that as edits times can sometimes give a good hint as where to apply date filters to searches. Just because one person with a negative point of view can't see something it doesn't mean someone else can't ... or do you deny me the chance to look at my leisure. O mihght even wish to try and consult a revious contributor about something. Salt
1612:
citations, which nobody tried to analyse in detail. The major argument put forward for deletion was that the subject was covered by other articles, but the comments from
Necrothesp and Vanamonde93 that the subject is wider seem to me more compelling and go further than just bald assertions. Even if that was the case merging or redirection would be more logical than deletion. Possibly No Consensus might be a better fit than Keep but there was no consensus for deletion.
185:; there is to a degree onus on the deleting admin to ensure this has happened. There are three pieces of evidence due diligence was not performed by the deleting admin, while none of these are conclusive they are of concern. 1: When queried about CSD deletion of a long standing article the admin's response was "It was a one-line article with no included detail and, specifically, no claim, expression or inference of notability."
1890:, which was not true. They claimed it was full of debunked theories, which was not true. They insinuated that it was all a myth, which was clearly not true (although the story of Nangeli may well be). All in all, this was a very odd nomination and a very odd discussion and I'm convinced there was some sort of motive behind the obvious desire of some editors to delete it, although I'm honestly not sure what that was. --
736:
muggle(non admin), no view of what was their before; with possible exceptions of other copying wiki's and internet archive snapshot's. If the matter is more urgent due to a BLP or a copyvio then a very different matter; though e.g. Earwig can give false positives on long standing articles. By the nature of a DRV the result can be nothing other than an
2083:
an article should be deleted--at most it's a redirect. I'd probably have closed it as NC, and I think that's a better reading of the discussion. But I think this is within discretion--I do think the keep arguments were stronger. It's a notable topic, and while a fork, I just can't see it as a POV fork. If the article needs improvement, go for it.
2129:- Keep votes go at the bottom, not at the top. Although a no-consensus is functionally similar to a keep, the delete side was stronger and better argued than the closing statement gave credit for. AfD participants give their views with the expectation that they'll be fairly evaluated and proportionally weighted. That didn't happen here.
1733:, but I haven't really read it in enough detail to know how I would weight the various comments. Apparently there was some canvassing going on, but I can't tell from my quick perusal which side the canvasees were on. So, while I'm not going to explicitly endorse or fail to endorse the close, I do think this ended up in the wrong place.
177:
for a CSD nom. to "Use common sense when applying a speedy deletion request to a page: review the page history to make sure that all earlier revisions of the page meet the speedy deletion criterion, because a single editor can replace an article with material that appears to cause the page to meet one or more of the criteria." at
696:; 1: an assertion that the deleting admin's statement that the article was extremely short and made no assertion of notability must be false because of the article's age, which is both baseless in general and false in particular; 2: the speedying admin didn't close the afd himself - a technicality, as forbidden in
2082:
the topic is notable. It's not really a POVFORK as far as I can tell (or at least I can't find the POV in question). And I think all the articles in question should exist. But they need to be better organized and not overlap so much. Each can refer to the other. In any case, there is no way such
1934:
when so many clearly incorrect claims are being trotted out in support of deletion by multiple editors. Well, the nominator has just reinforced my point about the weirdness of this AfD with a personal attack for no reason (note that, unlike you, I have not singled out any one editor, including you as
864:
I have always assumed (and please correct me if I am wrong) that a straightforward REFUND request, without any elaboration, is a request to restore to mainspace; this is the basis on which I deleted the article. A REFUND request can include a request to userfy or to email the deleted article, and had
710:
I'm just saying I think the procedure itself was slightly invalid - if it's at AfD, don't speedy it on A7 grounds unless it gets brought up at the AfD. I want to make absolutely clear I don't agree with any of the arguments here other than being discomforted by the speedy after the AfD was initiated.
176:
it up until recently. DRV purpose is under "if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion" however I accept there is a counter argument I have not proved procedural errors here and that perhaps in any case they were not substantial. There is a requirement
2373:
There are three distinct subjects: (1) a revolt related to caste structures in
Travancore (2) a woman (possibly mythical) who undertook a significant act of resistance (3) a specific type of poll tax related to a caste structure. All three issues are related but also independent. Reliable sourcing
767:
the text of the article didn't assert significance, and neither did any of the prior revisions, whether the admin checked them or not. "They offer a range of software development and consultancy services to
Macintosh clients worldwide" is not an assertion of significance, that statement could easily
409:
Thanks for the temp-undelete. I'm on the road, not on one of my optimal devices, halfway into something, something RL distracts, and I likely should have been doing something else anyway. The article is about organisation, as written but actually I'm seeing products because its products I see more
2388:
This sounds like an excellent reading of the problem, with respect to finding a way forwards. I think the article needs editing, and likely a major restructure. The information may need to be split and merged to different articles. I think the current title is pretty poor. Verifiable historical
2064:
The result is absolutely misleading since it does not address any of the concerns shared by most of the participants. The argument about the article being POVFORK is thoroughly valid, and that is why there had to be stronger and meaningful support against deletion if Keep had to be the result. That
1836:
One other point worth mentioning is that I suspect there's some political aspect here. My understanding of the caste system is largely limited to what was taught in a 1970's
American high school social studies class, which is to say I probably don't understand it at all. But, I have noticed that
643:
the AfD was started, and the user here wants to make an argument at AfD, likely for keep. I don't agree with any of the "concerns," but I do find the procedure itself slightly problematic and it's not something I want to endorse (if something is at AfD, let the AfD run, unless the speedy is serious
190:
which demonstrated no understanding of the need or importance to check the article history.(There is likely nothing in it but equally there is often no point asking someone did you do X as they will often simple respond yes I did X. There are perhaps some reasons for believing nom. would have been
1611:
the numbers might be with the Delete side but AfDs are closed based on strength of argument rather than as a head count. The idea that this is a POVFORK was never really spelled out, as noted by the closer, and the Keep arguments definitely aren't relying on THEREMUSTBESOURCES - the article has 31
1508:
and told to get a UTC clock or alternatively (and I am happy if this is the case) I should be trouted for incorrect arithmetic. Now if there had been !votes to relist/merge; and of course they might have arisen if the discussion had been allowed to run a bit; that may be an option. There again
911:
template on several occassions recently (including on myself, and I also note from doing that there is a signing button available that I might explore). I have examined the timeline on May 17th Sunday; and my Covid 17 RL Sundays undergone a significant changes recently (though minor compared to
735:
I commend
Sporting Flyer's statement: One is encouraged at AfD to gather one's evidence; and this may take time, and sometimes this may involve a rescue; or identification of a possible merge, and one may feel disgruntled and irritated should the article be CSD'd in the interim. Then, as a were
906:
I apologise for the signing mistake - I do make mistakes signing from time to time ... in this case I think I used five rather than four tildes which accounts for the timestamps. Even the best make typos, though it may be argued I make more than most, witness "also not" rather than "also note"
626:
I'd be with you on "CSD is supposed to be uncontroversial", except for the fact that there's no controversy here. For there to be controversy, there needs to be some reasonable argument why the requirements of the CSD weren't met. The argument doesn't need to be correct, or unassailable, or
240:
and similar but I am not sure that this is considered to be a claim of importance/significance for the purpose of A7; anything with a website that is publicly accessible and where everyone can ask has by definition a "global" impact but that doesn't make YouTube channels with comment sections
1975:
By my independent eye there's no bad faith in that edit, and there were several delete !voters who claimed there were no RS/HISTRS, so that's not a misrepresentation. I understand everyone in this thread is on different sides of the discussion, but that's actually even more of a reason to
1581:
you might want to turn on "Preferences / Gadgets / Appearance / Change UTC-based times and dates, such as those used in signatures, to be relative to local time". It makes doing this kind of date math so much easier. I couldn't live without it. Also, I note that the AfD was closed with
700:
not#6; 3: evidence that the speedying admin knows how to use a tabbed browser, or perhaps can read a 24-word article, essentially unchanged since two weeks after its creation, in two minutes. Rarely have I seen so poor a DRV nomination outside of a user's first hundred edits. Endorse.
597:
The A7 itself would have been fine if the article hadn't just been AfD'd, and the A7 not opposed here. Given that speedy deletions are generally meant to be uncontroversial and there's someone who opposes it, why not let the AfD run? That being said, I also strongly doubt this gets past
288:
Huh? I didn't do anything about this speedy deletion other than commenting here, and my name does not appear in the history. I think it's a fine A7 deletion and while
Anthony's reply may not have been the ideal response I don't think it constitutes grounds for an overturn at all. As for
672:"Unspeedy so I can argue for keep at AFD" isn't a valid argument at DRV unless the putative AFD argument is valid, and without any sources presented, it's not. If Djm-leighpark were actually saying that, instead of just vaguely implying it, I'd say to bring it back to DRV when they
265:
I think I now recall you were the speedy nominator, but such information is not visible to be directly (it may or may not be elsewhere), I didn't check on this occasion (and actually I didn't put 2+2 together there because you are generally a top link AFD closer for the toughies).
1634:. The major argument presented for deletion faced no convincing rebuttal and Keep arguments read like vague handwaves, i.e. not presenting any scholarly sources which would deal significantly with the subject independent of other two subjects. Clearly more discussion is warranted.
2445:
as per
Goldsztajn. There are three distinct bu clearly related topics here, and three articles at present. Merging would be an editorial decision, and was not seriously discussed at the AfD. Close was reasonable, although "no consensus" would also have been reasonable, IMO.
740:; it is more the draftification that is the point. I also point out would we be as DRV if the closing admin had not suggested I come we but offered a draftication or userifcation instead which would have been a simple, de-escalatory and relatively non-contentious outcome ?
2389:
culture/mythology topics like this are poorly solved by AfD. The AfD may not have found a consensus for what to do about this page with roundly recognized problems, but I endorse the closer's reading that consensus is that deletion is not the answer. --
1792:
article deleted in particular was so odd. If anything it should have been the article about the folk legend that was merged and redirected here, whereas it was instead claimed that this article was a POV fork of that one. Which it is very clearly not. --
2017:
Disagree with the closure, which failed to address the core argument that the article is a POVFORK. Apparently nobody else provided rebuttal against this assertion throughout the AfD nor anyone cited any evidence that how the article is not a POVFORK.
1249:
are strongly discouraged, I don't see any consensus for "Keep". "Keep" was vouched by only 8 users. While "delete" was vouched by 13 users and 1 user vouched for a redirect. This shows that almost 2x users disagreed with the existence of this POVFORK.
2416:) who refused to pay the mulakkaram, the mythology surrounds the act of resistance, though not it seems her or the refusal to pay. The conflation of these issues has been the main part of the problem during the AfD (I want to be clear, not suggesting
219:
especially as I don't have access to libraries currently during covid-19 lockdown and I'm pretty stacked anyway or whether pragmatically to simply request a draftication so I have the option of working on it at some point convenient to me. Thankyou.
2411:
Just to expand my point; mulakkaram (breast tax on women) and the associated thalakaram (head tax on men) are not "mythological"; they're historical facts confirmed in multiple reliable sourcing. There's debate over the actions of a specific woman
1504:. Certainly no consensus to delete, nor was that likely to happen. On a technical point, and it is important and the closer should note this, as far as I can good faith the discussion was not allowed to run for 168 hours and the closer should be
235:
Well, the article was indeed old but none of the versions in its history made any claim of significance or importance, and there is no "old articles aren't eligible" rule for A7 speedy deletion. Some of the older versions contain the sentence
1696:. I also voted in the AfD and I had obviously looked into sources and searched about the subject around before agreeing that the article is a POVFORK. Ultimately there was not a single "Keep" comment which could indeed say anything more than
2184:
Notability depends on the significant amount of independent coverage, than mere passing mention mainly about a broader subject. Indeed the article is a POVFORK and fails GNG. Nitpicking the policy based arguments while ignoring the classic
457:– I don't see a claim of significance anywhere in the history. Nothing of value was lost. If someone wants to recreate it they can gather their sources and tell the reader why this subject is important, just like any other article. –
1509:
delete should be looking at redirect/merge options which they do not seem to have explored. I confess I haven't looked at whether a merge is appropriate or not, but anyone having a good faith reason for doing so should raise via
274:. Endorse but allow draftication or userification is probably a reasonable result otherwise it might look like you are attempting to block any good faith attempt at improvement, any you are far better than that. Thankyou.
912:
others impact), and that has had some impact into that mistake. Unless peoples wish to further discuss the impacting of non urgent CSD'ing of articles at AfD or beat me up further I am willing to withdraw this DRV
1586:(aside: anybody who doesn't use XFDcloser to close XfDs is doing it wrong). That provides the excellent feature of flagging with red or green highlights whether the 168 hour discussion time has passed. --
171:
There's a number of reasons for concerns about this CSD of a long standing article with a significant number of versions of history and that been viewed by many over the years who have not seen the need to
2251:. A "no consensus" result would also be defensible, but the closer made a persuasive case that many of the "delete"s relied on misapplications of policy. Saying that the content of what appears to be a
2047:
were wrong answers. This should have been No
Consensus. There is no material difference in the effect of Keep or No Consensus, but the closer could have avoided this appeal by saying No Consensus.
241:
A7-ineligible. I wouldn't necessarily consider #3 as proof of sloppiness; in the past I sometimes checked a number of speedy deletion candidates and then deleted all of them in one batch. So I'd say
1116:– General agreement is that most uninvolved editors would have closed this as no consensus but since that has no practical difference with the article uninvolved editors endorse this closing.
1533:
The discussion wasn't closed early. It opened at 07:05, 12 May 2020 and closed at 03:52, 21 May 2020. That's just under 9 days, which is more than the 7 days AfDs are supposed to last.
2315:
the XfD closer gave a reasoned and fair assessment of the AfD and then called this a keep. A "no consensus" result would also be reasonable and would result in the same outcome: keep.
2214:
per RoySmith, as better result of the AfD. It is accurate to say that there are three articles which strongly overlap with each other but this issue can be sorted outside DRV and AfD.
1016:
All things being equal, an AfD often saves time in the long run, so it would have been preferable to have stayed with that rather than the CSD. Having said that, there is no way that "
410:
as key. Probably should of removed the CSD notice perhaps in retrospect but last time I did that I got ranted at. I'd still like a userifcation or a draftication despite all the
1324:
322:
due to copyvio's and reverse copy content and I like to keep an eye on the attribution history 'cos I can sometimes spot a COI coming up a little better. But thanks anyway.
1227:
which significantly covered the allegedly historical subject. There was a lack of even recent media sources covering the subject significantly without mainly relying on
1788:
Indeed, probably only one article is necessary, but that article is this one as this is the one that deals with the basis for the other two. Which is why trying to get
1845:
as an article title may depend on your political/social/ethnic background. If that's the case, then we need to tread carefully to make sure there no implicit
307:
Apologies ... I can't see who speedy tagged the article unless there's a temp-delete and for some reason I thought I remembered the name as being yours ...
1198:
865:
such a request been made then I would have complied. No such request was made, either on this page or to my talk page before this thread was started.----
199:
which perhaps would have been at the minimum corteous for those visiting the AFD or perhaps indicates lack of due diligence inspecting the article. 3:
920:
set. If there is no draftification it would be my intention to create a userspace/draftspace article with content copied from the CC-BY-SA source at
1042:
48:
34:
838:. A valid A7, and a clear notability failure. Allow userfication or draftification, if someone wants to look for sources. The deleting admin,
385:. I've tempundeleted this (except for the first few revisions which were a totally unrelated article under the same title). This was classic
43:
192:
1755:
215:
to I need to be here to either request a relist at AFD (And I'll confess I've only had a brief scan and I'm not sure I could come up with a
1878:
and the closer was right to discount them. They claimed it had no reliable sources, which was not true. They claimed it was a POV fork of
576:. The AFD and the A7 were both reasonable. But why, once the article was already nominated for deletion, was it necessary to tag it for
2114:
1994:
1477:
725:
662:
616:
492:
39:
1268:. Could not have been closed as "delete". The discussion was erratic, typical of an uncompelling nomination. Read the advice at
1424:
1340:
1186:
826:
1814:
has been around for more than 14 years before other POVFORKs were created. POVFORK is generally the page that has been created
1704:
is on "Keep" to provide sources. There had to be argument showing the significant coverage separate from the articles such as
2452:
1387:
Just came here to note for now that the AfD was subject to canvassing by an IP hopper who was recruiting users to vote for "
347:
I'd personally probably have left the AFD run, but the deletion under CSD:A7 was not an unreasonable decision and therefore
921:
602:
unless sources are dredged, and there's an easy remedy - write a draft which clearly shows notability - so not too fussed.
289:
userfication/draftification, given how basilar the article was I'd rather recommend that you write something from scratch.
202:
shows the deletion was at 22:10, 17 May 2020 with a previous action on 22:09, 17 May 2020, the simply implication was that
1032:
916:
Zonic can be draftied. Its far far from my most priority WP article subject so it can hang arround with the set under my
878:
Agreed. You were right to refuse the request to REFUND without elaboration. I also not that the request was unsigned. —
21:
1239:
191:
honest in his answer if quizzed further but many would not). 2: When deleting the article the admin neither closed the
1935:
the nominator; it's simply the deletion voting taken as a whole that I find a bit odd). Well done. Double endorse!! --
2193:
in this entire debate but falsely claiming that "delete voters were new accounts" only reeks of your own POV pushing.
1837:
many wikipedia articles that touch on the caste system engender heated arguments. For all I know, whether you prefer
1420:
1336:
1207:
1052:
no actual claim to anythingm ore than existence. But it is usually better to simply send a challenged Speedy to afd,.
822:
147:
1930:
Distortion? Deception? I beg your pardon?! And I'm afraid that, however much one may want to, it is a little hard to
1742:
is a notable topic, and certainly deserves to be covered in the encyclopedia, and under that name. However, between
843:
2468:
2162:
2052:
1697:
1136:
1091:
585:
97:
17:
644:
like a copyvio/BLP attack page is my thought.) The fact there's not a valid keep argument made here (nom admits
1025:
2106:
1986:
1565:
1557:
1518:
1469:
1463:
To be fair, based on a quick check they all geolocate to slightly different locations, albeit within India.
991:
928:
745:
717:
654:
608:
503:
419:
327:
294:
279:
250:
225:
2198:
2023:
1962:
1823:
162:
1630:
per Djm-leighpark. Whether there was a consensus for delete or not, there was certainly no consensus for
2219:
2154:
1875:
1675:
866:
839:
685:
318:
farm today. Mind you if it was you issued the speedy I'd probably have noticed it. I'm also a bit anti
334:. Ah ... the CSD nom. was a 'Jo' as well, but not a 'Jo-Jo' ... probably where I half remembered from.
310:. And I've no clue who it was was (I've check my usual possible place) or I'd have given them the old
1700:. When argument is in front of you to verify notability independent of closely related subjects then
986:
I don't need to be checked. I wondered why the bot had stopped doing that like it used to. Thankyou.
2427:
2379:
2357:
2320:
2239:
2158:
2070:
2048:
1940:
1895:
1798:
1076:
952:
697:
677:
581:
521:
373:
2457:
2431:
2398:
2383:
2361:
2347:
2324:
2302:
2268:
2243:
2223:
2202:
2176:
2142:
2119:
2092:
2074:
2056:
2027:
1999:
1966:
1944:
1921:
1899:
1856:
1827:
1802:
1779:
1765:
1717:
1680:
1661:
1643:
1622:
1593:
1569:
1543:
1522:
1513:
creating a discussion first and expect contention; pragmatically better done that way than in a AfD.
1482:
1454:
1428:
1410:
1378:
1368:
1344:
1311:
1281:
1259:
1125:
1080:
1063:
1044:
995:
967:
932:
887:
873:
859:
830:
809:
782:
749:
730:
705:
667:
634:
621:
589:
552:
525:
507:
473:
443:
423:
400:
377:
360:
331:
298:
283:
254:
229:
86:
2394:
2263:
2232:
1583:
1510:
1437:
This one has a different location than the disruptive IP who was canvassing to rescue the article (
1307:
1298:, and thus there is no justification for a relist. Issues with the article should be discussed at
1277:
1121:
963:
883:
855:
238:
They offer a range of software development and consultancy services to
Macintosh clients worldwide.
2065:
is contrary to the current situation of the AfD where the major concerns still remain unresolved.
1560:) 12:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC) NB: That also weakens my already weak feeling for overturn and relist.
2450:
2101:
1981:
1853:
1762:
1713:
1639:
1590:
1576:
1561:
1553:
1514:
1464:
1406:
987:
941:
924:
806:
741:
712:
649:
631:
603:
499:
440:
415:
397:
323:
304:
290:
275:
262:
246:
221:
117:
1415:
But almost all of them did not vote.Further not sure he will canvassing for keep.If it is this
2194:
2186:
2019:
1958:
1819:
1246:
908:
2343:
2298:
2215:
2172:
1917:
1775:
1671:
1657:
1450:
1364:
1332:
1291:
1255:
1224:
847:
795:
356:
311:
207:
113:
70:
2423:
2375:
2353:
2333:
2316:
2235:
2088:
2066:
1936:
1891:
1794:
1549:
1505:
1299:
1269:
1156:
1072:
645:
599:
569:
517:
468:
369:
315:
216:
1020:
is a company that existed" is making any claim of significance, let alone notability, so
944:, I have found it helpful to Opt-in for autosigning when I forget, or get it wrong. See
393:: you added an unsourced statement and tagged your own addition as citation needed??? --
1223:
The delete !votes were absolutely clear with establishing that there is a clear lack of
2390:
2290:
2260:
2136:
1887:
1842:
1811:
1751:
1705:
1701:
1303:
1273:
1232:
1117:
959:
879:
851:
846:, was that because the request was read as a request to undelete into mainspace? Does
799:
769:
546:
77:
1818:
the main subject, so technically this article is still a POVFORK of other 2 articles.
1648:
I would personally have closed as no consensus, but that does not change anything. So
627:
compelling, but it does need to be coherent and plausible. We have neither here. --
2447:
2277:
You are wrong with saying that. It is said that the tax was imposed only in parts of
1977:
1931:
1850:
1846:
1759:
1709:
1635:
1587:
1402:
1295:
1059:
803:
689:
681:
628:
573:
561:
437:
394:
319:
196:
178:
173:
1615:
1536:
1375:
1328:
945:
791:
775:
702:
693:
577:
565:
386:
1496:(pragmatically prefer albeit perhaps no concensus rather than keep) or just maybe
1439:"There seems to be an attempt to delete the article by meatpupetting or by socks"
2339:
2294:
2168:
1913:
1771:
1653:
1446:
1360:
1251:
352:
516:, which is useful, based on another nonsensical, incoherent argument of yours?
2084:
1743:
1739:
1442:
1400:
1396:
1152:
1112:
458:
2130:
1438:
1398:
1392:
1374:
Folks here are perfectly capable of reading afd and history pages, thanks. —
540:
1272:. In six months, consider renominating with a much better rationale. --
1242:, as they failed to resolve any of the issues raised by "Delete" voters.
1054:
270:
is not an expected !vote at a DRV .. most people would expect it to mean
2413:
1883:
1879:
1838:
1747:
1228:
2278:
1882:, which was not true. They claimed it could be adequately covered in
1912:
is what the closer had to discount in place of casting a supervote.
850:
imply that the undeletion will not be undeletion into mainspace? --
802:, I'll be sure to mention that I was an international publisher. --
1238:
The "Keep" voters mainly relied on the lousy argument described at
978:
Thanks, no real excuse for me to not giving it a go. I assume the
513:
495:
1908:
Your distortion, deception and assumption of bad faith, which we
2418:
368:
and keep deleted. This is a pretty encyclopedic example of A7.
1729:. My first impression is I would have probably closed it as
798:. I had a couple of subscribers in Canada. When I write my
1725:. Ugh, this is a mess. I don't see how this was closed as
351:. Length of tenure does not give a free pass from deletion.
308:
200:
206:
less than 2 minutes consideration was given. Ultimately a
907:
above. The comment is also noted because I have used the
482:
Well you never quite know what gems you find. Who noticed
1323:
There was clearly no consenus to delete and please note
580:
or to A7 it? The AFD should have been allowed to run.
2190:
1909:
1416:
1394:
1358:
1355:
1216:
1193:
1179:
1171:
1163:
484:
390:
212:
187:
154:
140:
132:
124:
648:
may not be met) means it's not really a huge concern.
1770:
Yes these three articles deal with the same subject.
560:- On the one hand, the article as it was when it was
639:
The A7 is clearly valid. However, this was speedied
946:
User:SineBot#Opting back in for experienced editors
2289:. The subject is one of the many subcategories of
1220:The supervote here is far from making any sense.
1957:" you are indeed misrepresenting lots of facts.
1552:I deserved to get. At least others can add up.
8:
1290:I consider the AfD nominator to have failed
676:have sources. But their arguments were -1:
2281:by local rulers and that is far from being
1738:I'm convinced from a bit of searching that
1135:The following is an archived debate of the
96:The following is an archived debate of the
1215:The closing editor has redirected me here.
1105:
63:
1874:. The deleters' arguments boiled down to
2255:should be covered in an article about a
1327:the topic is signficantly is covered in
1955:They claimed it had no reliable sources
1954:
794:, Many, many years ago, I published a
237:
193:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Zonic
7:
2471:of the page listed in the heading.
2167:MistyGraceWhite blocked as a sock.
1953:With the non-existing claims like "
1094:of the page listed in the heading.
498:if you must of course. Thankyou.
28:
1756:this article in thenewsminute.com
1548:Thankyou for that. I'll eat the
680:- one of the less bad entries at
1357:and had participated on the AfD.
844:User_talk:Anthony_Bradbury#Zonic
2467:The above is an archive of the
2338:But why you are double voting?
1090:The above is an archive of the
574:credible claim for significance
74:– A7 speedy deletion endorsed.
772:, including actual citations.
688:- another of the non-terrible
1:
842:declined a REFUND request at
272:endorse and in no way refund
195:nor made any comment on the
2035:- This was a clear case of
1849:in what we title this. --
1708:and that never happened. --
1445:which wasn't linked above.
2494:
2165:) 17:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
566:tagged for speedy deletion
595:Overturn, let the AfD run
434:no objection to userfying
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
2474:Please do not modify it.
2458:03:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2432:08:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2399:05:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
2384:20:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
2362:19:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
2348:16:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
2325:15:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
2303:04:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
2269:20:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
2244:15:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
2224:14:32, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
2212:Overturn to No consensus
2203:00:17, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
2191:being the newest account
2177:16:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
2143:15:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
2127:Overturn to no consensus
2120:06:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
2093:03:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
2075:00:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
2057:00:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
2028:22:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
2000:06:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
1967:22:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1945:21:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1922:18:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1900:17:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1857:16:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
1828:22:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1803:22:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1780:18:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1766:15:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1718:15:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1681:14:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1662:14:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1644:13:19, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1623:12:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1594:15:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1570:15:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1544:12:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1523:10:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1483:06:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
1455:12:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1429:09:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1411:08:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1379:23:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1369:12:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1345:08:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1312:00:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
1282:06:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1260:04:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
1142:Please do not modify it.
1126:01:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
1097:Please do not modify it.
1081:15:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
1064:17:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
1045:11:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
996:03:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
982:bot thought I am now so
968:00:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
933:10:30, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
888:22:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
874:21:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
860:11:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
831:08:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
810:20:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
783:07:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
750:06:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
731:04:13, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
706:02:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
668:01:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
635:15:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
622:06:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
590:00:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
568:made neither a case for
553:18:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
526:22:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
508:21:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
474:15:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
444:15:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
424:15:02, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
401:14:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
378:14:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
361:14:01, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
332:12:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
299:10:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
284:09:32, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
255:08:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
230:08:09, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
103:Please do not modify it.
87:09:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
40:Deletion review archives
1350:Note: This user is the
389:material. I don't get
1443:instance of canvassing
1421:Pharaoh of the Wizards
1337:Pharaoh of the Wizards
1294:, and to fail to heed
823:Pharaoh of the Wizards
562:nominated for deletion
491:yields the linkrotted
1240:WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES
958:to your userpage. --
840:User:Anthony Bradbury
564:and then when it was
570:corporate notability
1441:). Here is another
1139:of the page above.
1071:It was a valid A7.
694:in this case untrue
100:of the page above.
1698:WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST
1628:Overturn to relist
1417:IP it voted Delete
1325:AFD is not a vote
512:why would we salt
314:. I'm well at the
2481:
2480:
2454:DESiegel Contribs
2266:
2253:nationwide policy
1371:
1104:
1103:
909:Template:unsigned
432:I certainly have
210:has been refused
181:; key being here
85:
2485:
2476:
2421:
2337:
2264:
2117:
2109:
1997:
1989:
1679:
1618:
1580:
1539:
1480:
1472:
1349:
1210:
1205:
1196:
1182:
1174:
1166:
1144:
1106:
1099:
1040:
1030:
1022:endorse deletion
957:
951:
871:
869:Anthony Bradbury
778:
728:
720:
665:
657:
619:
611:
490:
485:Old revision of
471:
466:
366:Endorse deletion
349:endorse deletion
312:Template:DRVNote
214:
189:
167:
165:
157:
143:
135:
127:
105:
84:
82:
75:
64:
53:
33:
2493:
2492:
2488:
2487:
2486:
2484:
2483:
2482:
2472:
2469:deletion review
2455:
2417:
2331:
2159:MistyGraceWhite
2141:
2113:
2105:
2049:Robert McClenon
1993:
1985:
1910:also saw on AfD
1670:
1616:
1574:
1537:
1476:
1468:
1335:.This is a tax.
1300:Talk:Breast Tax
1206:
1204:
1201:
1192:
1191:
1185:
1178:
1177:
1170:
1169:
1162:
1161:
1140:
1137:deletion review
1095:
1092:deletion review
1033:
1026:
955:
949:
867:
776:
724:
716:
661:
653:
615:
607:
582:Robert McClenon
551:
483:
469:
459:
211:
186:
161:
159:
153:
152:
146:
139:
138:
131:
130:
123:
122:
101:
98:deletion review
78:
76:
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
2491:
2489:
2479:
2478:
2463:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2453:
2439:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2435:
2434:
2422:doing this).--
2404:
2403:
2402:
2401:
2367:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2305:
2291:Channar revolt
2272:
2271:
2259:is a stretch.
2257:single village
2246:
2226:
2208:
2207:
2206:
2205:
2155:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
2146:
2145:
2135:
2123:
2122:
2095:
2077:
2059:
2030:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
1970:
1969:
1948:
1947:
1925:
1924:
1903:
1902:
1888:Channar revolt
1876:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1868:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1859:
1843:Channar revolt
1831:
1830:
1812:Channar revolt
1806:
1805:
1783:
1782:
1752:Channar revolt
1735:
1734:
1720:
1706:Channar revolt
1683:
1664:
1646:
1625:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1526:
1525:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1458:
1457:
1432:
1431:
1413:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1354:of the article
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1285:
1284:
1233:Channar revolt
1213:
1212:
1202:
1189:
1183:
1175:
1167:
1159:
1147:
1146:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1102:
1101:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1066:
1047:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
971:
970:
936:
935:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
833:
815:
814:
813:
812:
796:Diplomacy zine
786:
785:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
686:WP:POPULARPAGE
592:
555:
545:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
477:
476:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
427:
426:
404:
403:
380:
363:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
169:
168:
150:
144:
136:
128:
120:
108:
107:
92:
91:
90:
89:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2490:
2477:
2475:
2470:
2465:
2464:
2459:
2456:
2451:
2449:
2444:
2441:
2440:
2433:
2429:
2425:
2420:
2415:
2410:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2406:
2405:
2400:
2396:
2392:
2387:
2386:
2385:
2381:
2377:
2372:
2369:
2368:
2363:
2359:
2355:
2351:
2350:
2349:
2345:
2341:
2335:
2330:
2329:
2328:
2327:
2326:
2322:
2318:
2314:
2304:
2300:
2296:
2292:
2288:
2284:
2280:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2273:
2270:
2267:
2262:
2258:
2254:
2250:
2247:
2245:
2241:
2237:
2234:
2230:
2227:
2225:
2221:
2217:
2213:
2210:
2209:
2204:
2200:
2196:
2192:
2188:
2183:
2182:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2178:
2174:
2170:
2166:
2164:
2160:
2156:
2152:
2144:
2140:
2139:
2134:
2133:
2128:
2125:
2124:
2121:
2118:
2116:
2110:
2108:
2103:
2102:SportingFlyer
2099:
2096:
2094:
2090:
2086:
2081:
2078:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2063:
2060:
2058:
2054:
2050:
2046:
2042:
2039:, and either
2038:
2034:
2031:
2029:
2025:
2021:
2016:
2013:
2012:
2001:
1998:
1996:
1990:
1988:
1983:
1982:SportingFlyer
1979:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1968:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1946:
1942:
1938:
1933:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1923:
1919:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1901:
1897:
1893:
1889:
1885:
1881:
1877:
1873:
1870:
1869:
1858:
1855:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1840:
1835:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1804:
1800:
1796:
1791:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1784:
1781:
1777:
1773:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1764:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1721:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1691:
1687:
1684:
1682:
1677:
1673:
1668:
1665:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1629:
1626:
1624:
1621:
1620:
1619:
1610:
1607:
1606:
1595:
1592:
1589:
1585:
1578:
1577:Djm-leighpark
1573:
1572:
1571:
1567:
1563:
1562:Djm-leighpark
1559:
1555:
1554:Djm-leighpark
1551:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1524:
1520:
1516:
1515:Djm-leighpark
1512:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1495:
1492:
1491:
1484:
1481:
1479:
1473:
1471:
1466:
1465:SportingFlyer
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1401:
1399:
1397:
1395:
1393:
1390:
1386:
1380:
1377:
1373:
1372:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1359:
1356:
1353:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1326:
1322:
1319:
1318:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1248:
1243:
1241:
1236:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1221:
1218:
1217:
1209:
1200:
1195:
1188:
1181:
1173:
1165:
1158:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1145:
1143:
1138:
1133:
1132:
1127:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1114:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1100:
1098:
1093:
1088:
1087:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1056:
1051:
1048:
1046:
1043:
1041:
1039:
1037:
1031:
1029:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1014:
997:
993:
989:
988:Djm-leighpark
985:
981:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
969:
965:
961:
954:
947:
943:
942:Djm-leighpark
940:
939:
938:
937:
934:
930:
926:
925:Djm-leighpark
922:
919:
915:
910:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
889:
885:
881:
877:
876:
875:
872:
870:
863:
862:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
834:
832:
828:
824:
820:
817:
816:
811:
808:
805:
801:
800:autobiography
797:
793:
790:
789:
788:
787:
784:
781:
780:
779:
771:
766:
763:
751:
747:
743:
742:Djm-leighpark
739:
734:
733:
732:
729:
727:
721:
719:
714:
713:SportingFlyer
709:
708:
707:
704:
699:
698:WP:DRVPURPOSE
695:
691:
687:
683:
679:
678:WP:ARTICLEAGE
675:
671:
670:
669:
666:
664:
658:
656:
651:
650:SportingFlyer
647:
642:
638:
637:
636:
633:
630:
625:
624:
623:
620:
618:
612:
610:
605:
604:SportingFlyer
601:
596:
593:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
556:
554:
550:
549:
544:
543:
538:
535:
534:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
510:
509:
505:
501:
500:Djm-leighpark
497:
493:
489:
488:
481:
480:
479:
478:
475:
472:
467:
465:
464:
456:
453:
452:
445:
442:
439:
435:
431:
430:
429:
428:
425:
421:
417:
416:Djm-leighpark
413:
408:
407:
406:
405:
402:
399:
396:
392:
388:
384:
381:
379:
375:
371:
367:
364:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
345:
333:
329:
325:
324:Djm-leighpark
321:
317:
313:
309:
306:
305:Jo-Jo Eumerus
302:
301:
300:
296:
292:
291:Jo-Jo Eumerus
287:
286:
285:
281:
277:
276:Djm-leighpark
273:
269:
264:
263:Jo-Jo Eumerus
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
252:
248:
247:Jo-Jo Eumerus
244:
239:
234:
233:
232:
231:
227:
223:
222:Djm-leighpark
218:
213:
209:
205:
201:
198:
194:
188:
184:
180:
175:
164:
156:
149:
142:
134:
126:
119:
115:
112:
111:
110:
109:
106:
104:
99:
94:
93:
88:
83:
81:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
2473:
2466:
2442:
2370:
2312:
2310:
2309:
2286:
2285:, let alone
2282:
2256:
2252:
2248:
2233:WP:CONSENSUS
2231:respect the
2228:
2211:
2195:Harmanprtjhj
2150:
2148:
2147:
2137:
2131:
2126:
2112:
2104:
2097:
2080:weak endorse
2079:
2061:
2044:
2040:
2037:No Consensus
2036:
2032:
2020:Harmanprtjhj
2014:
1992:
1984:
1959:Harmanprtjhj
1871:
1820:Harmanprtjhj
1815:
1789:
1731:No Consensus
1730:
1726:
1723:Wrong result
1722:
1693:
1689:
1685:
1666:
1649:
1631:
1627:
1614:
1613:
1608:
1584:WP:XFDcloser
1535:
1534:
1511:WP:MERGEPROP
1501:
1497:
1493:
1475:
1467:
1388:
1351:
1320:
1265:
1245:Noting that
1244:
1237:
1222:
1219:
1214:
1141:
1134:
1111:
1096:
1089:
1068:
1053:
1049:
1035:
1034:
1027:
1021:
1017:
983:
979:
923:. Thankyou.
917:
913:
868:
835:
818:
774:
773:
764:
737:
723:
715:
673:
660:
652:
640:
614:
606:
594:
558:Weak Endorse
557:
547:
541:
536:
486:
462:
460:
454:
433:
414:. thankyou.
412:stay deleted
411:
382:
365:
348:
271:
268:Keep deleted
267:
243:keep deleted
242:
203:
182:
170:
102:
95:
79:
69:
58:
2216:Tessaracter
1247:WP:POVFORKs
984:experienced
953:YesAutosign
918:stewardship
539:per Bradv.
59:21 May 2020
49:2020 May 22
35:2020 May 20
2424:Goldsztajn
2376:Goldsztajn
2354:Lightburst
2334:Lightburst
2317:Lightburst
2287:nationwide
2236:Lightburst
2187:WP:ILIKEIT
2067:Azuredivay
1937:Necrothesp
1892:Necrothesp
1795:Necrothesp
1744:Breast Tax
1740:Breast Tax
1506:WP:TROUTed
1331:including
1153:Breast Tax
1113:Breast Tax
1073:Lightburst
1050:Endorse A7
836:Endorse A7
821:per Bradv.
819:Endorse A7
765:Endorse A7
537:Endorse A7
518:Praxidicae
455:Endorse A7
383:Endorse A7
370:Praxidicae
80:Sandstein
2419:SmokeyJoe
2391:SmokeyJoe
2283:statewide
2261:Sjakkalle
1672:Vanamonde
1333:WP:HISTRS
1304:SmokeyJoe
1292:WP:BEFORE
1274:SmokeyJoe
1225:WP:HISTRS
1118:Barkeep49
960:SmokeyJoe
914:providing
880:SmokeyJoe
852:SmokeyJoe
848:WP:REFUND
391:this edit
208:WP:REFUND
183:make sure
2265:(Check!)
2153:Classic
2062:Overturn
2015:Overturn
1851:RoySmith
1760:RoySmith
1710:Yoonadue
1686:Overturn
1636:Orientls
1588:RoySmith
1550:WP:TROUT
1498:Overturn
1403:Orientls
1270:WP:RENOM
804:RoySmith
646:WP:THREE
629:RoySmith
600:WP:NCORP
438:RoySmith
395:RoySmith
316:WP:TROUT
217:WP:THREE
204:probably
44:2020 May
20: |
2443:Endorse
2414:Nangeli
2371:Endorse
2313:Endorse
2249:Endorse
2229:Endorse
2151:Endorse
2098:Endorse
2033:Neutral
1884:Nangeli
1880:Nangeli
1872:Endorse
1839:Nangeli
1750:, and
1748:Nangeli
1702:WP:ONUS
1667:Endorse
1650:endorse
1617:Hut 8.5
1609:Endorse
1538:Hut 8.5
1494:Endorse
1376:Cryptic
1352:creator
1321:Endorse
1266:Endorse
1229:Nangeli
1208:restore
1172:history
1069:Endorse
948:. Add
792:Hut 8.5
777:Hut 8.5
770:WP:CORP
738:endorse
703:Cryptic
690:WP:ATAs
163:restore
133:history
2352:Opps.
2340:Wareon
2295:Wareon
2279:Kerala
2169:Wareon
2045:Delete
1978:WP:AGF
1932:WP:AGF
1914:Wareon
1854:(talk)
1847:WP:POV
1772:Wareon
1763:(talk)
1758:. --
1694:relist
1690:delete
1654:Stifle
1591:(talk)
1502:Relist
1500:&
1447:Wareon
1361:Wareon
1296:WP:ATD
1252:Wareon
980:clever
807:(talk)
692:, and
682:WP:ATA
632:(talk)
572:nor a
441:(talk)
436:. --
398:(talk)
353:Stifle
320:WP:TNT
197:WP:AFD
179:WP:CSD
174:WP:AFD
2085:Hobit
1841:, or
1816:after
1329:WP:RS
1302:. --
1194:watch
1187:links
1060:talk
1038:erial
684:; 0:
641:after
514:Sonic
496:Sonic
487:Zonic
387:WP:A7
155:watch
148:links
114:Zonic
71:Zonic
52:: -->
16:<
2428:talk
2395:talk
2380:talk
2358:talk
2344:talk
2321:talk
2299:talk
2240:talk
2220:talk
2199:talk
2189:and
2173:talk
2163:talk
2132:Reyk
2089:talk
2071:talk
2053:talk
2041:Keep
2024:talk
1963:talk
1941:talk
1918:talk
1896:talk
1886:and
1824:talk
1799:talk
1790:this
1776:talk
1727:keep
1714:talk
1688:and
1676:Talk
1658:talk
1640:talk
1632:keep
1566:talk
1558:talk
1519:talk
1451:talk
1425:talk
1407:talk
1389:keep
1365:talk
1341:talk
1308:talk
1278:talk
1256:talk
1231:and
1180:logs
1164:edit
1157:talk
1122:talk
1077:talk
992:talk
964:talk
929:talk
884:talk
856:talk
827:talk
746:talk
586:talk
542:Reyk
522:talk
504:talk
461:brad
420:talk
374:talk
357:talk
328:talk
295:talk
280:talk
251:talk
226:talk
141:logs
125:edit
118:talk
32:<
2448:DES
2138:YO!
2043:or
1692:or
1235:.
1199:XfD
1197:) (
1055:DGG
548:YO!
22:Log
2430:)
2397:)
2382:)
2360:)
2346:)
2323:)
2311:*
2301:)
2293:.
2242:)
2222:)
2201:)
2175:)
2091:)
2073:)
2055:)
2026:)
1980:.
1965:)
1943:)
1920:)
1898:)
1826:)
1801:)
1778:)
1746:,
1716:)
1660:)
1652:.
1642:)
1568:)
1521:)
1453:)
1427:)
1409:)
1391:".
1367:)
1343:)
1310:)
1280:)
1258:)
1124:)
1079:)
1062:)
1028:——
1024:.
994:)
966:)
956:}}
950:{{
931:)
886:)
858:)
829:)
748:)
674:do
588:)
578:A7
524:)
506:)
470:🍁
422:)
376:)
359:)
330:)
297:)
282:)
253:)
245:.
228:)
42::
2426:(
2412:(
2393:(
2378:(
2356:(
2342:(
2336::
2332:@
2319:(
2297:(
2238:(
2218:(
2197:(
2171:(
2161:(
2149:*
2115:C
2111:·
2107:T
2087:(
2069:(
2051:(
2022:(
1995:C
1991:·
1987:T
1961:(
1939:(
1916:(
1894:(
1822:(
1797:(
1774:(
1712:(
1678:)
1674:(
1656:(
1638:(
1579::
1575:@
1564:(
1556:(
1517:(
1478:C
1474:·
1470:T
1449:(
1423:(
1419:.
1405:(
1363:(
1339:(
1306:(
1276:(
1254:(
1211:)
1203:|
1190:|
1184:|
1176:|
1168:|
1160:|
1155:(
1120:(
1075:(
1058:(
1036:S
1018:X
990:(
962:(
927:(
882:(
854:(
825:(
744:(
726:C
722:·
718:T
701:—
663:C
659:·
655:T
617:C
613:·
609:T
584:(
520:(
502:(
463:v
418:(
372:(
355:(
326:(
303:@
293:(
278:(
261:@
249:(
224:(
166:)
160:(
158:)
151:|
145:|
137:|
129:|
121:|
116:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.