658:- That's really the only way the discussion could have ended. Commentary such as "STOP DELETING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT" and "you suck for wanting to delete this" does not actually contain a reason for keeping the article. I'm also disappointed, but unsurprised, that coddling the hurt feelings of people who wanted to keep the article is being presented as a reason to overturn consensus, when the feelings of the targets of all those personal attacks are apparently irrelevant. I say unsurprised because personal abuse of AfD nominators and delete !voters has become so routine and commonplace that hardly anyone remarks on it anymore. The closer of this AfD is one of a very, very small number of admins who does push back against it.
949:
has become much less engaging for new editors as a result. We're also considerably happier to endorse a close that disregards the !vote count.I think that this reflects two key changes. First, people writing promotional content ("spammers") have adapted to
Knowledge, and second, Knowledge has adapted to spammers. These discussions weren't about promotional content -- but they've been caught in the same net, because we've learned to pay less heed to IP editors and to overrule the !vote count. I think Lightburst might be taken aback by the extent of the changes to this place.—
702:
know that they wanted to keep. But that is not enough for the
Wikipedians. Passion gets laughter from the participants here. Hut 8.5 points out that I am nitpicking. Procedure matters, and as I stated, when I first participated I did not see that the nomination had two unrelated Indian lists added. Sandstein will continue to be snarky and dismissive and I will continue to advocate for participants who do not know how to participate well enough to please the long-time participants here. Again Marshall, thank you for your professionalism.
1011:, are reviewing the closer's emphasis on strength of arguments, or the closer's attention to a vote count, or a combination of the two. The Keep arguments were extremely weak, and disregarding them was appropriate. If the closer had been relying primarily on a vote count, the closer should still have discounted IP votes to some extent, because the shifting of IP addresses and the use of multiple devices makes it impossible to ensure that the IP votes are all from different humans. Either way, it was a good close.
893:
non-guideline argument. But here an 8-8 would be respected as a no-consensus. I know we do not purely count, but at the same time yes we do. We dismiss IP editors or those who say "per above", but maybe we shouldn't. One other question I have here is would this project have kept an article (with multiple RS, started by an admin) with Trump in the title? Forgive me for ranting and taking time away from building the encyclopedia. I will go try to be productive now.
332:
ever referencing other articles or deletion debates.'" in response to someone citing a
Knowledge policy against "OTHERSTUFF"; in response to complaints about "SYNTHESIS" I quoted from that link where routine calculations (including the calculation of ages) is wholly permissible, "In the end, those are still calculations. I don't see any rule saying there can only be a limited number of calculations included on a page?????? From
740:
professionally (if perhaps briefly, given time constraints). I welcome feedback by editors (other perhaps than the ones who are currently angry at me because I've taken admin actions they disagree with) if they want to look at my talk page and tell me if they think I come across as inappropriately "snarky or dismissive". I would like to think that I tend not to do that, but it is of course not always easy to notice by oneself.
78:. The consensus here is that the original decision by the closer is endorsed, including the deletion of the similar Indian lists - none of the endorsers here or those who said "delete" on the original AFD said they wanted to treat those separately. On the separate "philosophy" question, regarding the emotional nature of some "keep" !votes, the reason for discounting those !votes was (as noted by
626:" There was not a "rough consensus" because the strongest arguments for the keep side were ignored by the deleter in favor of accusations of personal attacks. The deleter did not respect the feelings of Knowledge participants, who did not want the page deleted, regardless of how articulate they were. Finally, because there should have been doubt, the bias should have been towards
401:. The count of six people supporting keeping includes several comments which did not advance a coherent rationale, such as "STOP DELETING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT!", and it would have been entirely legitimate for the closer to discount or downweight them. The other articles this was nominated with are all closely related and nobody in the discussion drew a distinction between them.
776:
are ignored and their work is casually obliterated. And they have a point: we as a community don't really care what they think, and we don't want this content. All we want is for it to be gone with the minimum of process and fuss. I've sometimes thought that the right solution might be for them to set up a separate gerontology wiki with their own rules.—
874:
two votes were just bare "keep ~~~~", one was a personal attack on the nominator, one a simple "keep per suchandsuch", one was some irrelevancy about Matt Gaetz. That left about three !votes, including your own, that tried to make an argument for keeping and plenty on the other side who made good arguments to merge or redirect.
331:
I did include policy arguments, for instance, "a direct quote from your link: 'If you reference such a past debate, and it is clearly a very similar case to the current debate, this can be a strong argument that should not be discounted because of a misconception that this section is a blanket ban on
873:
I would suggest that if you want to contest another deletion, start a DRV for it. Alternatively, if you think
Sandstein is making a habit of supervoting, a better venue to raise this complaint would be ANI. It's unlikely to accomplish very much here. I took a look at the impeachment AfD and saw that
775:
Sandstein did not mock
Lightburst. But in the discussion above, the "keep" !voters are given very short shrift. Nobody exactly laughs at them, but nobody above is taking them seriously at all. In context, I would understand those !votes as expressions of distress, from people who feel their views
676:
Knowledge has a longstanding and ongoing problem with gerontology-related OR. You could easily reverse the outcome of this AfD by producing independent, reliable sources about the longest-lived people who have served as US senators, but I don't think those sources exist. If they don't, then a much
638:
I went back through and only encountered like one coherent “keep” argument. The others were just variants on “don’t delete it” “it’s popular” “you suck for wanting to delete this” “it’s useful and interesting” etc. We really shouldn’t call AfD votes “votes” because they’re really competing arguments
453:
Not using acronyms isn't the issue, it's the complete lack of any coherent argument in some of those comments which is the bigger problem with them. Nor should anybody be surprised that comments which just insult people are ignored. Nobody in that discussion, including you, argued that the situation
724:
or another half-dozen admins I can think of who have been doing this for 10+ years. It's a challenge for pretty much every helping profession: after a decade of the same complaints by different people, it's challenging and time consuming to respond to every one as if it were new and fresh, as it is
82:
here) that those keep !votes did not give a valid reason, rather than that they were emotional or NPA. So the closer was not inventing a new reason to discount !votes here. It doesn't seem to me that any separate RFCs are necessary to clarify that point, but of course editors are free to start RFCs
1079:
While I agree with the sentiment, this is a volunteer deliberative body that at its best identifies conflicts in
Knowledge policies and/or practices, a process which can, at its best, highlight needs for revision and generate discussion leading to RfCs. Honestly? That's probably the more important
1064:
this is largely turning into an off-topic discussion about
Knowledge philosophy, which is all well and good but has no place at a simple debate over reassessing a deleted article that consensus already seems clear about. I’d recommend taking this somewhere more appropriate if you’d like to discuss
1027:
I think it is right to give IPs arms-length consideration at AfD. Either they are new and not well versed in
Knowledge standards, mainly Knowledge-notability, or they are very probably violating WP:SOCK by editing project space while logged out. IP editors lack long term accountability, which is
948:
We don't, but our attitude to them has changed. In days that
Lightburst and I both remember well, when an IP editor made an argument unlikely to be taken into account in the close, someone would speak to them about how to make a good argument at AfD. Nowadays we simply disregard them. Knowledge
701:
Thanks
Marshall. for your measured and articulate response. The record will show that I have appealed several of Sandstein's closes. I never expect to have their decisions overturned. I acknowledged that the participants in this AfD did not know what they were doing. We can all agree that they did
182:
I am asking for to overturn the close to a no Consensus close based on AfD participation and based on a procedurally flawed nomination. The closer discounted ivotes based on the fact that the some participants were emotional (one involved a PA) and I acknowledge that the keep participants did not
563:
I went out of my way to find sources that disputed others' contentions that this article was not encyclopedic. It does not look like you took that into consideration when the article was deleted; instead the deleter said the opposition was "personal attacks". I did complain that the rules seemed
316:
Thank you. Procedurally - as an AfD participant I was not aware that the Indian list were added. Perhaps they should be split out. We cannot know if participants all understood that there were four lists. I know how these DRVs go but we should also be concerned with the procedure of slipping in
340:
because, as the link states, "A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and 'unselective' list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information". This is clearly the latter, a
210:
and if we look at straight keep/delete opinion 8 (including nominator) favored deletion and 6 favored keeping (yes I know the policy on counting). A no-consensus close does not prohibit a renomination. An example of our consensus procedure will be seen in this DRV: If we had the same result of
1031:
I disagree that Knowledge is less engaging with genuine looking newcomers editing mainspace. If there is sense to their pattern of editing, and some kind of introduction on their Userpage, they get treated as a person. If they have a blue-linked but blank main userpage, and they edit like a
739:
Yes, and particularly after some 15 years of complaints by people who hold sincere and strong views that are at odds with community consensus, but who seem to think that complaining to or about me is going to change that. Nonetheless, I do try to treat every good-faith request courteously and
892:
Thanks Reyk. You an I know how ANI goes: It is a sh&^ show on a good day. And overturning here...As I showed in one of my links above - 11-6 in favor of overturn at DRV was closed as no-consensus by Sandstein. So to recap, 8-8 on an AfD is redirect with the closer choosing a non-policy
603:
allows the closer to discount them. The delete !votes were by and large grounded in our policies and guidelines, while the keeps by and large simply weren't. In light of that (and the fact that the deletes were numerically in the majority as well), a delete closure was clearly appropriate.
424:- It is too bad a person needs about a year of experience to learn all the ins and outs and acronyms here. I myself had many acronyms hurled at me when I started, and I pleaded for mercy which only got more acronyms. I tend to not penalize people for not understanding how the
622:, three of the four main guidelines for deletion were violated in this case. See "Whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus" (see below). Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Knowledge participants.
969:
I think you'll find that the IP editors were not ignored in this discussion. There were responses to all of the IP participants except the one who wrote STOP DELETING EVERYTHING IN SIGHT. There were even discussions amongst IP editors.
824:
165:
1044:
If Knowledge is less engaging with newcomers, I think it is because there are so few genuine newcomers. And a large part of the reason is that genuine newcomers get sucked from mainspace into AfC where they are isolated and burned.
345:, articles should be considered based on whether the sources can exist, not on whether the current article links to extant sources. Additionally, some sources have been collected above, proving that sourcing for this article's topic
486:
linked above, I explicitly called this out in a note in the discussion, so nobody who participated after that time should have been surprised that there were four pages being discussed. The editor who had already !voted
1040:
using a throwaway account. I try talking to these accounts, but they won’t reply in flowing English, because, I have decided, the don’t want to give away personal style hints that will connect them to their main
153:
564:
arbitrary and nonsensical, but I would hardly describe that as a personal attack, just an expression of frustration that a page I liked to look at was being deleted and it was not clear how I could stop it.
796:
That's not a bad idea, but I really think for it to work we need a federated setup for Knowledge. I've thought this for a long time in fiction, that we would be better off linking to specialist Wikis like
677:
weaker alternative is to claim it's a navigational list, but that's not a source-based argument and the community doesn't agree with it. I can't see how Sandstein could have closed in any other way.—
512:
where opponents of deletion of a similar page about US Presidents were able to more effectively dispute the wrong-headed arguments for deletion (specifically a cramped reading of Knowledge policies).
801:
when the level of specificity and "fancruft" exceeds a certain threshold, and point both links and interested editors to these other wikis. Without cross-wiki links, we are simply oublietting (Yes,
174:
491:), had recently participated in a number of similar discussions and I felt confident that they wouldn't object to my additions. If I was mistaken, I will apologize to Dronebogus for my presumption.
582:
527:
372:
336:'calculating a person's age is almost always permissible.'"; in response to complaints about "TRIVIA" I rebutted that with yet another quote from that link, "I don't believe this violates
349:
exist". It appears to me that these inconvenient arguments quoting and rebutting people's policies have been ignored in favor of amorphous complaints about "personal attacks". Overall,
454:
of any of those articles was any different to the others. The only argument you've put forward for the bundled nomination being invalid is that some of the articles were added after
214:
The second part of my rationale involves a flawed procedure. The nominator added other completely unrelated lists to this AfD nomination after there was a delete participant.
446:, in fact, draw a distinction between the US Senators & Representatives articles and the Indian congress articles. See this, "In the American system, the US Congress is
482:. I was the nominator, and I did add two more closely related lists to the discussion 5 hours after the original nomination, and after one editor had already commented. As
48:
34:
509:
43:
987:
757:
IMO it's fine to be succinct if the answers given contain the requested information. If others see conciseness as flippant, that's on them.
341:
selectively populated list with a narrow theme."; and I paraphrased "NPOSSIBLE" to rebut yet another commenter's complaint, "According to
123:
578:
523:
368:
298:
what it did contain was attacks. So when the portion of !votes thus referred to is discounted, what remains is a consensus to delete.
219:
215:
39:
599:– many of the keep !votes were "based on unsubstantiated personal opinion rather than fact" or were "logically fallacious", so the
119:
70:
960:
787:
688:
574:
519:
364:
211:
delete/keep ivotes here this DRV will be a no-consensus and it will result in maintaining the deletion of these four lists.
294:
some participants appeared to be emotional -- their advocacy did not include policy-based arguments (as you say yourself),
541:
The discussion could have been better, but it was sufficiently thorough. Relisting would very likely be more of the same.
21:
609:
222:
were added after debate started. You can see the nominator added the unrelated lists after the AfD began - this is the
720:
dismissive in a perfunctory way that can come across as snarky when they've been dealing with Wikidisputes as long as
823:
by Sandstein? This time the coherent Keep arguments were dismissed in favor of a "impeachment is routine" argument.
1102:
1016:
103:
17:
510:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_prime_ministers_of_the_United_Kingdom_by_age
1089:
1074:
1054:
1020:
999:
979:
964:
923:
902:
887:
836:
814:
802:
791:
770:
752:
734:
711:
692:
671:
648:
613:
605:
586:
550:
531:
500:
468:
437:
411:
376:
326:
307:
278:
260:
239:
92:
508:
A new discussion at AfD should bring a more thorough discussion, given the new information shown here. See
207:
187:
to reconsider. My experience is that the closer is flippant when editors have issues with their closures.
990:. I suggest changing lifespan to “age at death, lifespan”, to enable reader sorting by age at death. —
919:
546:
303:
1070:
1012:
956:
898:
832:
783:
707:
684:
644:
570:
515:
433:
360:
322:
274:
256:
235:
1065:
the implications of the deletion for Knowledge culture and not the validity of the deletion itself.
1050:
995:
820:
342:
184:
1085:
810:
730:
88:
975:
915:
542:
496:
337:
299:
79:
1028:
fine in mainspace where the edit is what matters, but is not ok in the back room processes.
1066:
950:
908:
894:
828:
777:
703:
678:
640:
488:
483:
429:
318:
252:
231:
203:
at DRV and this closer simply ignored the many editors who took issue with their close.
393:
which just consist of insulting people who disagree with them. Apart from the fact that
1046:
991:
912:
881:
764:
743:
721:
665:
619:
600:
333:
1081:
1037:
1033:
1008:
806:
726:
725:
to the requestor in many cases, when it absolutely old hat to the admin in question.
421:
394:
798:
461:
404:
84:
971:
492:
398:
827:. Roughly 8-8. Contesting here would be rubbish. And a redirect is a delete.
825:
Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Efforts to impeach Joe Biden (2nd nomination)
875:
758:
659:
226:
with two US related deletions. After the first delete ivote the nominator
351:
the deleter ignored strong arguments and selectively chose weak arguments
353:
as reasons to delete these pages, preferring a misrepresentation of the
425:
1080:
outcome than simply deciding whether a deletion is overturned or not.
251:
to no-consensus and relist each list unrelated article separately.
269:
I also ask to undelete these lists for the DRV participants.
270:
206:
These lists fits exactly into our guideline for lists on
390:
227:
223:
200:
196:
192:
188:
160:
146:
138:
130:
83:
if they think there's some doubt about something.  —
716:I challenge you to find a long-serving admin who's
911:; or discount per exes -- see second paragraph of
397:are strongly discouraged here, comments like this
183:make policy and guideline based arguments. I did
220:List of oldest living members of the Rajya Sabha
216:List of oldest living members of the Lok Sabha
120:List of longest-living United States senators
71:List of longest-living United States senators
8:
458:had commented, which is nitpicking at best.
986:This information is available in tables at
102:The following is an archived debate of the
63:
357:provided arguments for the "keep" side.
630:, flagrantly violated in this instance.
389:the closer discounted "arguments" like
228:added unrelated Indian Politician lists
575:2601:484:c580:3420:e02f:bf5c:b330:ddc0
520:2601:484:c580:3420:e02f:bf5c:b330:ddc0
365:2601:484:c580:3420:e02f:bf5c:b330:ddc0
988:List of former United States senators
290:The closer did not discount opinions
7:
1105:of the page listed in the heading.
907:We don't dismiss IP editors -- see
450:as important as the US president."
28:
639:and not simply “ayes” or “nays”.
1101:The above is an archive of the
753:18:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
735:17:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
712:15:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
693:13:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
672:10:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
649:00:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
614:20:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
587:20:25, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
551:20:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
532:20:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
501:19:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
469:21:38, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
438:18:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
412:18:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
377:20:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
327:18:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
308:18:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
279:18:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
261:17:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
240:17:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
1:
399:simply aren't valid arguments
249:/struck nominator self-!vote/
624:When in doubt, don't delete.
201:particularly egregious close
1090:01:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
1075:05:07, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
1055:02:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
1021:21:30, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
1000:02:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
980:14:11, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
965:14:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
924:16:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
903:13:56, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
888:10:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
837:03:23, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
815:16:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
805:) the editors and content.
792:10:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
771:08:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
566:Please reconsider deletion.
93:09:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
1128:
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
1108:Please do not modify it.
618:According to your link,
109:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
803:Verbing weirds language
1036:, they are probably a
334:Knowledge:Calculations
317:unrelated deletions.
343:Knowledge:NPOSSIBLE
106:of the page above.
606:Extraordinary Writ
185:ask the AfD closer
1115:
1114:
963:
790:
751:
691:
573:comment added by
518:comment added by
363:comment added by
250:
59:29 September 2021
49:2021 September 30
35:2021 September 28
1119:
1110:
1007:- Either we, at
955:
782:
750:
748:
741:
683:
589:
534:
464:
407:
395:personal attacks
379:
338:Knowledge:Trivia
248:
177:
172:
163:
149:
141:
133:
111:
64:
53:
33:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1106:
1103:deletion review
1013:Robert McClenon
886:
769:
744:
742:
670:
568:
513:
462:
426:sausage is made
405:
358:
208:WP:LISTCRITERIA
199:. I remember a
173:
171:
168:
159:
158:
152:
145:
144:
137:
136:
129:
128:
107:
104:deletion review
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1125:
1123:
1113:
1112:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1058:
1057:
1042:
1029:
1024:
1023:
1002:
983:
982:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
880:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
763:
696:
695:
674:
664:
652:
651:
633:
632:
631:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
556:
555:
554:
553:
536:
535:
503:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
440:
415:
414:
383:
382:
381:
380:
329:
311:
310:
284:
283:
282:
281:
264:
263:
180:
179:
169:
156:
150:
142:
134:
126:
114:
113:
98:
97:
96:
95:
61:
56:
47:
44:2021 September
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1124:
1111:
1109:
1104:
1099:
1098:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1072:
1068:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1003:
1001:
997:
993:
989:
985:
984:
981:
977:
973:
968:
967:
966:
962:
958:
954:
953:
925:
921:
917:
916:— Alalch Emis
914:
910:
906:
905:
904:
900:
896:
891:
890:
889:
885:
884:
879:
878:
872:
871:
870:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
838:
834:
830:
826:
822:
818:
817:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
795:
794:
793:
789:
785:
781:
780:
774:
773:
772:
768:
767:
762:
761:
756:
755:
754:
749:
747:
738:
737:
736:
732:
728:
723:
719:
715:
714:
713:
709:
705:
700:
699:
698:
697:
694:
690:
686:
682:
681:
675:
673:
669:
668:
663:
662:
657:
654:
653:
650:
646:
642:
637:
634:
629:
625:
621:
617:
616:
615:
611:
607:
602:
598:
595:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
567:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
552:
548:
544:
543:— Alalch Emis
540:
539:
538:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
511:
507:
504:
502:
498:
494:
490:
485:
481:
478:
477:
470:
467:
466:
465:
457:
452:
451:
449:
445:
441:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
418:
417:
416:
413:
410:
409:
408:
400:
396:
392:
388:
385:
384:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
356:
352:
348:
344:
339:
335:
330:
328:
324:
320:
315:
314:
313:
312:
309:
305:
301:
300:— Alalch Emis
297:
293:
289:
286:
285:
280:
276:
272:
268:
267:
266:
265:
262:
258:
254:
247:
244:
243:
242:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
212:
209:
204:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
176:
167:
162:
155:
148:
140:
132:
125:
121:
118:
117:
116:
115:
112:
110:
105:
100:
99:
94:
90:
86:
81:
77:
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1107:
1100:
1061:
1004:
951:
882:
876:
821:WP:Supervote
799:Memory Alpha
778:
765:
759:
745:
717:
679:
666:
660:
655:
635:
628:don't delete
627:
623:
596:
569:— Preceding
565:
514:— Preceding
505:
479:
460:
459:
455:
447:
443:
403:
402:
386:
359:— Preceding
354:
350:
346:
295:
291:
287:
245:
224:original nom
213:
205:
181:
108:
101:
75:
69:
58:
355:"strongest"
80:Alalch Emis
1067:Dronebogus
952:SÂ Marshall
895:Lightburst
829:Lightburst
779:SÂ Marshall
746:Sandstein
704:Lightburst
680:SÂ Marshall
641:Dronebogus
489:Dronebogus
484:Lightburst
456:one person
430:Lightburst
319:Lightburst
271:Lightburst
253:Lightburst
232:Lightburst
1047:SmokeyJoe
992:SmokeyJoe
722:Sandstein
1082:Jclemens
1041:account.
909:WP:IPDIS
819:Another
807:Jclemens
727:Jclemens
583:contribs
571:unsigned
528:contribs
516:unsigned
373:contribs
361:unsigned
246:Overturn
76:Endorsed
20: |
1062:Comment
1005:Endorse
913:WP:PERX
656:Endorse
636:Endorse
620:WP:DGFA
601:WP:DGFA
597:Endorse
480:Comment
463:Hut 8.5
448:equally
406:Hut 8.5
387:Endorse
292:because
288:Endorse
175:restore
139:history
85:Amakuru
1038:WP:UPE
1034:WP:SPA
972:pburka
506:Relist
493:pburka
422:WP:CIR
420:Right
161:watch
154:links
52:: -->
16:<
1086:talk
1071:talk
1051:talk
1017:talk
996:talk
976:talk
920:talk
899:talk
877:Reyk
833:talk
811:talk
760:Reyk
731:talk
708:talk
661:Reyk
645:talk
610:talk
579:talk
547:talk
524:talk
497:talk
434:talk
391:this
369:talk
347:DOES
323:talk
304:talk
275:talk
257:talk
236:talk
147:logs
131:edit
124:talk
89:talk
32:<
1009:DRV
883:YO!
766:YO!
718:not
667:YO!
444:did
296:and
166:XfD
164:) (
22:Log
1088:)
1073:)
1053:)
1019:)
998:)
978:)
922:)
901:)
835:)
813:)
733:)
710:)
647:)
612:)
585:)
581:•
549:)
530:)
526:•
499:)
442:I
436:)
428:.
375:)
371:•
325:)
306:)
277:)
259:)
238:)
230:.
218:,
195:,
91:)
74:–
42::
1084:(
1069:(
1049:(
1015:(
994:(
974:(
961:C
959:/
957:T
918:(
897:(
831:(
809:(
788:C
786:/
784:T
729:(
706:(
689:C
687:/
685:T
643:(
608:(
577:(
545:(
522:(
495:(
487:(
432:(
367:(
321:(
302:(
273:(
255:(
234:(
197:3
193:2
191:,
189:1
178:)
170:|
157:|
151:|
143:|
135:|
127:|
122:(
87:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.