2232:"Worse than these are the Jews that you have in your land, and who do great harm. . . . This is how the Jews act: every day they blaspheme and insult our Lord Jesus Christ. If this is done with our knowledge, we should not allow it. So long as we tolerate those among us who defame, blaspheme, and curse our Lord Jesus Christ, we thereby participate in their sins. . . . Therefore you rulers should not endure them but instead drive them out. If, however, they convert, give up their usury, and accept Christ, then we should gladly consider them our brothers. . . . Nothing will come of it though, for they go too far. They are our public enemies. . . . if they could kill us all they would do so gladly. And often they do, too, especially those who claim to be doctors, although they occasionally help. But it is the Devil who finishes up their work. This is what makes their practice of medicine so potent. And in foreign countries there are some who can poison someone so that he will die within the hour, a month, or a year, even in ten or twenty years. This is one of their skills. . . . So don't get involved with them. For they do nothing among you other than horribly blaspheme our dear Lord Jesus Christ and exploit our bodies, our lives, our honor, and our possessions. . . . He who will not do this , let there be no doubt, is a malicious Jew who ceaselessly blasphemes Christ, impoverishes you, and when he can, kills you. . . . I can have no fellowship or patience with these obstinate blasphemers and slanderers of this dear Savior.
2657:
some {{fact}} tags here or there. Some imbedded external links masquerading as footnotes. A few genuine inline citations, but FAR too few. Really, this article is LONG way from GA standards of referencing, and is so far off I am not sure that this is an easy fix. The following images ALL have problems as well: The
Library Logo and Newspaper Logos do NOT have adequate fair-use rationales. The Downtown Panorama was created in 1910; it is not unreasonable to believe that its creator lived until 1938 or later, meaning that the picture would NOT be in the public domain. Additionally, the current tag on that article is ONLY valid in the US, and as wikipedia is a multinational entity, a more inclusive tag is needed. The Gaumont Studios picture has the exact same problem. Those should be enough reasons to delist ASAP, wouldn't you say?--
196:- This was my review... and my mistake. I was requested to review the article by the nominator. It took me almost three days to complete it. I should have passed on the request or, at the very least, drafted the review until it was complete. When I put it on hold, I had not completed the review, which I noted in the preliminary conclusion. At that point in the review, there didn't seem to be too many issues. I thought I'd let them get started working on it and I'd finish it the following day. When I returned the following day, there had been no edits made and, as I got further into the article, I found there were more issues than I had expected when I placed it on hold. As far as the issues with the fauna section, there are suggestions in my review for part of that section to be rewritten, which should cut down on the links. I'm
2602:, per the article's current instability. That said, I find the delisting by S to be in bad faith, and a number of the comments made here about regular contributors cross the line of civility. I find it interesting that outside commentators have said that this article really needs the eye of someone with expertise in this area - yet that is exactly who has been working on it. The only person you will find in this area with more expertise in this field of study is someone who has a PhD and wrote his or her dissertation on Luther -- and by the standards being applied here, that person would have too much of a COI to edit the article as well. This is an excellent example of why people with high levels of expertise feel pushed out of the project.
1915:
anti-semitism section, and although it doesn't appear to me that anyone has taken absolute control of the article, my brief experience with this article was not amazingly productive, despite gaining a supermajority for part of one of my suggested re-writes, I was prevented from assisting, and not by CTSW or anyone on his side. My point overall is that this article's problems are certainly not being caused by just one side. On another note, the current edit war appears to be solely concerning the existance of like two fact tags at the moment. While of course it is indeed an edit war, it doesn't seem to be one which is actually making the article very unstable at all.
94:
even amount of editors taking a side, try to make a new comment rather than archiving, to see whether the dispute should continue. Make sure not to archive active discussions, a good rule is to not archive anything that has a comment less than a week old, unless a resolution has been posted to the discussion. An exception to this rule involves disputes which have a clear outcome in these ways: There is at least an 80 percent majority to do something with an article, there are at least 6 votes, and at least three days have passed since the article was nominated for review.
473:: Red links tend to detract from aesthetic qualities and frustrate readers, they are helpful to editors in small amounts, but red links do nothing to add to an article because there is no need to keep a page red linked to remember an article is needed about it. Potentially an anon user could create the page if it is red linked but I don't know how often that happens. Probably not a major reason to fail or delist a GA unless the whole article is practically red links, which could be easily addressed. Either way it seems that the review has other concerns anyway.
2284:
referencing this sermon at all, but a commentary on Psalm 101. She then does not tell us who produced the translation and then states words quoted and cited by the
Missouri Synod itself are not present in the sermon. For those who care, the portion quoted above as if it were falsified is from Siemon-Netto, Uwe, "Luther and the Jews," Lutheran Witness 123 (2004) No. 4:18. I and others have taken her at her word that her quotation is accurate, she should do the same for us. Now, if she will just stop leveling charges, I'll go away. --
2016:
section has been shortened considerably, but this section is
Summary style with two sub-articles so *perhaps* the content has been moved (and some paraphrases of Luther have been replaced by a long quote, which is arguably an improvement). The witchcraft and Catholic-related texts are gone, perhaps to shorten a long article, but gone nonetheless. In my opinion the article should not have been made GA in August, and knowing that a fair amount of content has been deleted, I would not support a GA status now without some explanation.
1952:
Clinton library; this is someone who is PAID to do it, which takes it up a level, and I don't see how it helps us that he admitted it. (He admitted it as part of a boast, in an effort to show that he knew about Luther and the rest of us didn't.) Please explain how it "helps" us. We still have to fight tooth and nail to get any criticism into the text, and bear in mind that I am talking only about one tiny area of Luther's work: there is likely to be a great deal of other material that he has left out that we don't even know about.
1701:
edit war that has only lasted maybe a few days or something concerning what appears to be a mere single sentence (If not the usage of a single fact tag )really counts as ongoing enough to mean an article should lose Good
Article status. Yes, i'm being extremely subjective, but if all articles that ever have an edit war are delisted, then almost every single controversial article ever could be a GA maybe a few weeks tops before it would have to be delisted, irregardless of whether its truly Good or not.
1041:: The GA criteria has not weakened its stance on the use of reliable sources OR on the use of inline citations in longer articles. This article fails on both counts. Every source comes from A-Phi-O directly, and there is no attention given to information generated independant of the organization. While the tone of the article is fairly good, I have serious NPOV concerns when an article ABOUT an organization is ONLY referenced to information provided BY that organization.--
1316:
with issues, and should not stand as a GA. I am of the mindset that if we delist it, there is no need to renominate it back at GAC. I have essentially left a fail-review on its talk page, and the issues have, to date, NOT been fixed. I say give it a day or so more to see if it is fixed, but when we delist it I see no need for the person who delists it to go out of their way to renominate it. Let the people working on the article do that when and if the fixes are made.--
1109:. These images must be removed or replaced with free alternatives or the GA status will be delisted. Additionally, there are referencing issues, specifically, several paragraphs have no citations to indicate where the facts they report come from. A full list of the problematic images and uncited facts are on the article's talk page. This article is quite good in places, but these problems seem to indicate that it does not meet all requirements of the
2543:. SlimVirgin's points make sense to me; specifically the GA criteria that are at issue are 3a, broadness, and 4, neutrality. It would be very difficult for an editor not familiar with the topic to review this and be sure it meets these criteria, given the concerns SV has raised. I would like to see an expert review this, and I would think there are editors who have the skills -- perhaps someone from one of the Christian WikiProjects? There's
66:
1903:
problem with having an "independent" scholar being brought in to review this article. As far as I can see CTS and others have made use of non-Lutheran scholars to reference this article. What troubles me here is the bias against certain editors that is exhibited here. As far as editors claiming that their time has been wasted ... welcome to the club! I think that such a statement betrays a feeling of superiority over other editors. --
1775:
period of months. But noooooooooo........ here we go again! Another fight over issues that I had thought had been settled. The article simply is too prone to continual and repetitious bickering to allow itself the stability required of a Good
Article. Also it needs to be pointed out that this is a flareup of a longstanding editing war. Homestarmy is not correct that this is just a minor scuffle over the past week. We are talking the
1289:) - it is a large article on a potentially controversial topic, which requires extra care when reviewing to make sure nothing sneaks past. If somebody is willing to give it a thorough review (and there is any hope an editorial team would take care of any concerns within a week), then please put it on hold after reviewing the entire article. I can't imagine Hillary getting passed without a full, proper review.
31:
2337:, the more "liberal" of the larger Lutheran churches), and I have never found CTS to be anything other than cooperative and friendly, and I have never found our personal theological differences to be a problem on wikipedia. Further, his profession - as a librarian at a Lutheran seminary - gives CTS access to a unique set of resources that would otherwise be unavailable for building the encyclopedia.
2580:. As is quite clear by now, the Martin Luther article has been steadily "cleansed" of negative information about Luther; the people responsible are still pretending that they haven't been doing this, or that their misrepresentations of Luther's words were entirely innocent. Look at what happened just today; as soon as the section on Luther's beliefs in witchcraft were restored, apologia (include
2062:
called clergyman which means that my role is 24/7/365. My role at the seminary is as a librarian charged, in general, with creating electronic resources, helping students find resources and use them. What all this means as far as
Knowledge (XXG) is concerned is I sometimes use seminary resources to work on Knowledge (XXG) articles. I suspect the same is true of many wikipedians.
1578:
statistics, or data WITHOUT any critical analysis. While primary sources have their use, articles should be referenced to SECONDARY sources, that is a source that provides critical analysis for us to cite here. Insofar as the article provides its OWN analysis without referencing such analysis to an outside source, it is also an example of original research. See
1591:
an article about Mark
Calaway, go ahead, but I would expect it to be more than a run down of Undertaker wrestling matches, which is all this article really is. The personal life section tacked on the end is also weird... Is this article about the character "The Undertaker" or about the man who plays him "Mark Calaway". I have no idea...--
1891:, and who have only ever edited in one direction. I'm next with 200 edits, most of them reverting CTSW's attempts to remove criticism. This is exactly the kind of conflict of interest we should be taking very seriously on Knowledge (XXG). We're not here to promote the propaganda of any single institution via its paid employees.
1348:, I noticed this was a highly developed article and nominated it. It seems to have minor flaws that other GAs have passed with. I have no problem with a second review. I will be uninvolved with the editing. If someone want to shepherd it they can. I also note that there were some oddities with the diffs. I saw
668:- (1) no inline citations to support statements such as "The mechanical components within the engine compartment were difficult to access and maintain, reducing its appeal among railroad shop crews." (2) lead is too short to describe article (3) preservation section would be better presented as a table.
2123:
employee of the church, and by a known fundamentalist branch of it. It means we can't trust the neutrality and we can't trust that the coverage is comprehensive. Ironically, they have made Luther must less interesting as a result. He was a fascinating figure; our article paints rather a bland picture.
2759:
This is a recently passed GA, which I feel falls short of standard. Whole patches of text are uncited, the cites have no retrieval dates etc. (they should use a cite template), it's stubby in places, and the lead is inadequate - the article falls well short of the criteria, and it's shameful this was
2112:
has nothing to do with GA status, if somebody has a conflict of interest with an article yet the article fulfills the Good
Article criteria, I really don't see what the problem is. Besides questionable stability, what specific things make this article non-neutral? In my time trying to help out, all I
1951:
Yes, it's a serious claim, and an accurate one. Look through the history of the article and the talk page archives, and you'll see the extent to which CTSW has absolutely controlled the POV, and yet has admitted that he is paid to develop this resource. This isn't just someone who is editing from the
1939:
article has largely been written from the
Clinton library at Arkansas. Nobody's whining about it above. 'Controlled' is much stronger than alleging an individual conflict of interest in a particular editor. That they have revealed their affiliation is at least helpful for the rest of us. We've no way
1816:
I am marginally troubled that the delisting was done without discussion by a person involved in the dispute, but ultimately SlimVirgin is right: The article is unstable, and thus fails a basic criteria of a good article. If a stable, neutral article can be done, it may be renominated, but for now it
1742:
has acknowledged that he is employed by the
Lutheran church to develop onlines resources about Luther, and that that includes Knowledge (XXG). He wrote in June 2006: "Please realize that your statement concerning my employment could be read as a personal attack, which I assume you did not intend. For
1590:
Mark Calaway. By starting the article with Mark Calaway's name, you imply that he is The Undertaker and we can expect to see him as such, say at the grocery store or playing at the park with his kids (for why this is patently rediculous, picture that in your head for a second). If you want to write
2681:
None of the general references at the bottom could possibly hope to cover the massive amounts of unreferenced material in this article, as by their titles, they all appear rather specific in nature. This is certainly not well-referenced. Fair Use violations would also probably constitute grounds for
2567:
were just carried out on the article As you can see, a significant distortion was corrected. The culpability for this serious error is beside the point for this discussion. Suffice to say that there is no way of knowing how many other errors there are in this article. In light of this, I think this
2065:
Does this mean that I own or control the Martin Luther article or any other? Hardly. In many places, it would sound quite different if it did. Indeed, altohugh much of the article is my work, much of it is not. Anyone who cares to check the article history will immediately see this is true. The real
1985:
CTSW himself said that he is paid to develop online resources about Luther, including at Knowledge (XXG). (I wouldn't have mentioned it in public had he not revealed it himself.) I didn't say the articles had been well-written, Homestarmy. I agree that they haven't been. I said that the POV has been
1861:
I just noticed this grotesquely unfair reference to myself. I have barely edited this article in recent months, though I did weigh in recently. To say that I "own" any part of this article just reflects on the bias and intransigence of this editor. Also I find it odd that you feel I shouldn't "vote"
1842:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Good Article status supposed to be about the quality of the article and not who an editor is? If I am wrong on this, then Jayg, SlimVirgin and Mantanmoreland all should be disqualified from voting on this, since they are the authors for a a substantial part of this
1774:
per SlimVirgin. This article is the subject of a continual Thirty Years War that has just flared up again over the issue of Luther's attitude toward Jews and his role in anti-Semitism. I had thought that some kind of consensus had been reached, after thousands of words of wearisome discussion over a
1700:
Pending legitimate explanation, all speedy delistings are supposed to be accompanied by an explanation of why an article fails the Good Article criteria. If, as I suspect, this was delisted because there was an edit war, (Whom the delister is a participant in) I personally don't feel that an ongoing
200:
on this decision. I'm not one to be put off by my determination being overruled. I see that much progress is being made to address the concerns. I do, however, request that someone else review it after all the corrections have been made to pick up on issues I may have missed. This was, admittedly, a
2518:
This is a very misleading summary, because that was not all that Luther said by a long chalk. You have seen this summary of the sermon in the article many times in the last 18 months, and yet you didn't change it, didn't alert us to its one-sidedness. It is because of issues like that that I object
2195:
I think it is obvious from above that SlimVirgin has her own point of view and agenda, thus all that she accuses me and others of doing she is now doing -- once again. I'm inclined to believe that she's determined the article will never long achieve any recognition. No matter, This conversation is
2140:
CTSW above says "I do not get paid in any sense to write Knowledge (XXG) articles." Given that, he is merely a Lutheran seminarian who edits this encyclopaedia. Judging by previous RfArbs, I think the community tolerates the presence of religious adherents as editors on the articles of the founders
1886:
not supposed to comment? There's the problem in a nutshell. As for the claim that no one has taken overall control of this article, CTSW (employed by the Lutheran church to develop online resources about Luther, including at Knowledge (XXG)) has made 878 edits; Drboisclair (employed by the Lutheran
1759:
on the talk page, wasting dozens of hours of people's time, until almost all sensible editors gave up and wandered off. As a result, he has been largely left to his own devices on this article, to its great detriment. It should never have been given good article status in the first place given this
1650:
The article is merely a rundown of the results of his wrestling matches, and since wrestling is kayfabe and fictional it should be written from an out of universe perspective. The citations just merely point to results so the citationing is inadequate, and also they need cleaning up with a citation
1248:
This article was clearly promoted incorrectly and, if the nominators concerns are right, without regard for much of the GA criteria, all the diff shows is someone changing the tag from GAnominee to GA. However, since its here now, I don't see much of a problem in passing it if the concerns given on
456:
Delist per the lack of references - but what's wrong with redlinks? Surely a lack of coverage in a field doesn't mean we can't have a good article in the field. In fact, I quite like redlinks, as they're a clear and obvious target to improve upon, and which require no updating when the article does
2122:
One example I've given on the talk page is that he was famous for his very coarse language. This has been repeatedly removed by CTSW and the others, yet it is one of the traits that was very distinctive about Luther. As for COI, it is, of course, relevant that the content has been controlled by an
1754:
a couple of years ago, and has done everything in his power to keep criticism out of it. He has edit warred, supported sockpuppets, supported one abusive editor who is now banned (another employee of the Lutheran church), used poor sources, denied the scholarship of academic sources, and generally
1577:
Reply: The number has noting to do with it. You can hang a ref tag after every word, but if the quality of the references doesn't meet expectations, they are still insufficient. To expand what I said above, the references are ALL to primary source data, which is simply a presentation of results,
1315:
Reply: The three rapid listings is what led me to check them all out. The other two (Ryan and Blackburn) actually check out despite the insuficiency in their promotion, and I could find nothing wrong with leaving them as a GA. However, this article (as I noted above and at the talk page) is rife
93:
To archive an article from the disputes page, check over the dispute, and see if any enforcement is necessary. For instance, if a discussion results in 5 editors for delisting an article and 1 against, then delist the article as you archive it. If a dispute is close, for instance, an approximately
2656:
The lead isn't extremely poorly written, really. The quality of the prose is up to GA standards. HOWEVER, the lead does NOT adequately summarize all parts of the article, and that is a problem. A bigger problem is the referencing issues. The article is almost entirely unreferenced. There are
2061:
Finally, I am open about who I am precisely because it helps folks to know where I've come from. It is at a personal risk that I do so, since one editor has used it to try to attack my public reputation in my real world life. I do not get paid in any sense to write Knowledge (XXG) articles. I'm a
1902:
Point of order here. I am not employed by the Lutheran Church to make edits here, and I am not employed by the Lutheran church period. Hey, I thought that we are all supposed to be anonymous here. I am a Luther scholar, and I have always tried to be as objective as possible in my edits. I have no
1258:
I see nothing wrong with allowing the "pass" to stand in light of the discussion here, assuming the fixes are made (as Homestarmy says, its like a "Hold" right now). If concerns are addressed and the article is clearly GA quality after going through GA/R, there is no reason then to delist it and
2015:
Comment from a different perspective. I was frankly surprised when this article became GA last August. The very same day, there was an edit war over the antisemitism and witchcraft sections, and there was an active discussion of the Catholic perspective running on the talk page. The antisemitism
1975:
If I'm reading CTSW's userpage right, his work for the Lutheran Church online appears to be limited to one particular online project that he's linked to. However, if the Lutheran Church really controls the article, they don't seem to feel like following through with the whole thing, the section
1877:
No, we are not "authors for a substantial part of this article." We've been fighting you for 18 months, maybe longer, to keep in one short section that amounts to criticism, and that's just in one area. There may be many, many other areas of criticism that you're deliberately keeping out of the
1517:
recently because of referencing issues. It was pointed out to me that the wrestlers themselves are bound by their contracts not to release information of the events. I'm also fairly certain that all events are copyrighted to the point that details can't even be published about them. There quite
1963:
I have looked through the archives as much as possible - I complained about how disorganised they were, actually. And according to the diff you listed, he says he is in a 'called position'. There is no indication that he admits to editing WP. In any case, if this is your concern, launch dipute
1914:
I myself have been involved in a limited way with this article, CTSW once asked me for help over the type of content that is now being fought over in the article, I tried to help re-write a rather large chunk of the article for the purposes of making it shorter and less of a quote block in the
1443:
Lead is far too short. Early career section covers six years in one paragraph and is unsourced, personal life section is unsourced, and there's even a citation needed in the infobox. There's POV/peacock language being used, examples "legendary "Superfly" Jimmy Snuka", "After putting on a great
2425:. Vol. IV, (New York: Russell & Russell, 1962, p. 204.) Luther wrote, "we want to practise Christian love toward them and pray that they convert," but also that they are "our public enemies ... and if they could kill us all, they would gladly do so. And so often they do." (Luther, Martin.
2283:
Once again, SlimVirgin won't let things be. She uses Missouri Synod Lutherans as a perjoritive; No one would tolerate saying "the blacks keep..."), quote a portion of a translation of Luther's last sermon and tries to pass it off as the whole sermon, gives an inverted page range that is not
991:
Too few references in article, and source of references is narrowed primarily to APO references. Expanding references to a broader variety of sources would likely increase content and improve verifiability. Background of formation is sufficient, but article needs a section of significant
2057:
Further, it is irrelevant to the GA process, other than as an active editor on this article, I should not participate in the process of deciding this. I have respected this process. SlimVirgin has not. That is why I requested the review. I would hope such a promenent editor would do the
118:
and was put on hold on 8 May, 2007. But today on 9 May, 2007 it failed.(The banner says minimum of 2 days) Though there was some issue of minor copyedit. Most of which is now done. Apart from this due to difference in time zones, the issue got further problem in addressing in time.
1297:
PS. To add to that, I now see the article was nominated by a user who nominates articles pretty, well, liberally, so the fact that Hillary was nominated does not mean that she is anywhere close to meeting the WIAGA as of now, which is one more reason to expect a full, detailed
2614:
I believe the way this article was delisted was inappropriate and agree with pastordave---the Slim's delisting of the article crossed the line in delisting an article in which slim was actively involved. Having said that, the discussion here is enough to warrant it's being
1986:
controlled by the Lutheran church, and trying to insert any criticism at all has resulted in the most frustrating experience I have had on Knowledge (XXG), which is saying something. This is exactly the opposite of what a GA or FA should be. There is no point in having our
1843:
article. Indeed, they, too, have taken ownership of the material relating to Luther and his comments on the Jews. If it is about the article, then perhaps someone can point out flaws in the article itself that disqualify it. I do not see anything about the article above. --
2069:
Finally, since the basio text of the section in question was authored by SlimVirgin, I think she protests too much. Indeed, all I've done recently is back up other editors who wished to make these changes. Again, if someone cares to check, they will see this is the case
2141:
of their church. (In the context, there, of various NRMs.) I rather think that CTSW's status as a seminarian and librarian is relatively unimportant here. In particular, I have not heard a withdrawal of the allegation "the Lutheran church has controlled this text."
1444:
match". Footnotes are often before punctuation contrary to the manual of style. Sentences are often very short and stubby, and on occasion make no sense, example "After Undertaker defeated Triple H at WrestleMania X-Seven and the right to face Triple H and Austin".
2093:
No one is attacking your religion, so please drop that straw-man argument. What is being criticized is your control over this article despite the fact that you are employed by the church to develop online resources about Luther. You are simply ignoring
1135:"Image:Hillary Clinton New Hampshire.JPG - Image link is broken, I suspect it was deleted for the reasons listed above." I suspect you are correct and that it was deleted. I don't think anyone would object if we removed the link / box for it.
2035:, and it is apparently regarded as a fundamentalist branch even by the other Lutheran churches. It has often been in conflict with other Lutheran groups because it insists on conformity to "pure doctrine." (See "Lutheran ChurchâMissouri Synod,"
2176:
No, it has become unstable again because of CTSW's attempts again to dilute the criticism, and other people's response to that. I'm now trying to restore some of the material that I see CTSW has been quietly removing over the last few months.
1105:: This article was recently promoted as a Good Article. However, there are some issues that seem to indicate that this promotion was inappropriate. Specifically, there are several problematic images which are in direct contravention of the
1676:
This article was summarily delisted by editor Slim Virgin without explanation and in spite of the fact that she has been an active editor on the page for at least a year. Request a relist and review here of its compliance with GA standards.
1144:"In the Senate, Clinton sits on five committees with nine subcommittee assignments in all:" As for this, if you visit her Senate web site, it lists the committees she is on. I will put in a citation for that so we can clear this issue.
2421:, Vanguard Press, p. 220.) James Mackinnon writes that it concluded with a "fiery summons to drive bag and baggage from their midst, unless they desisted from their calumny and their usury and became Christians." (Mackinnon, James.
1285:- now I remember the article was promoted in a very dubious way, without a proper review, with one user promoting three articles at a time (I can't recall which were the other ones, so I guess if somebody could dig in the history of
1472:
I endorse all of the above problems, and also go to note that the article is ENTRIELY referenced to "primary" sources (statistics and data), and no referencing is done to works of analysis (i.e. "secondary" sources). Additionally,
2254:
Surely they must be thinking of a different sermon? The interpretation you say is in that article now would be an outright lie otherwise. However, I don't see how that's quite Germane to the Martin Luther article specifically....
159:
until normal expiry of 7 days. It is clear that the article is being improved and the hold issues are in the process of being addressed, so I see no compelling reason to fail the article within 2 days when the hold has not yet
2332:
I'm not sure about the de-listing, I will have to think about it some more. However, using CTSWyneken's church membership and profession as a reason to de-list seem out of line. I come from the "other" lutheran denomination
2162:
which are even now being disputed on the talk page. However, knowing how these types of wars can pan out, the net effect at the end of the review may result in very little changing, so I won't vote to keep delisted just yet.
2370:
by them to create online resources about Luther, that you edit in a highly POV fashion, that you never write for the enemy, and that you actively obstruct editors who are trying to add anything you perceive as critical of
1715:
per above. I notice that slimvirgin and hornplease have made many talk page edits there today, they've been feuding elsewhere as well. This article was caught in the middle. I'll relist myself tomorrow night pending no
1518:
literally aren't any outside sources available. In the case of this article, there could possibly be something in print, but I'm not sure it's a realistic expectation that any of these articles can meet GA standards. --
1940:
of knowing who else is being paid and how; to assume that anyone who voluntarily revealed affiliation of this nature is being 'controlled' is a very problematic assumption, and I recommend you reword your criticism.
1221:
It appears that Fanra is trying to address the issues. I will not change my vote to delist until these are all fixed, but I would also be willing to change my vote to keep as a GA if all fixes ARE made in short
786:
Lack of inline citations. While there is a long list of references at the end, it is impossible to verify the miriad claims this article makes, therefore it should be delisted pending the addition of inline
2495:
Luther's final word on the Jews was: "We want to treat them with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord" (Weimar edition, Vol. 51, p. 195).
1364:. Counting typo corrections and revisions this probably is for 30-40 nominations. Counting Hillary 16 were successful. I don't actually know if this is liberal or not, but these are my stats.
968:
Does this review need any more attention, I see a 1 to 0, and although there's no rule against it, I don't really think its a good idea to act on a 1 to 0, its just one vote so to speak.....
2309:
Do not compound what you've done. No matter which translation you choose, they all give the opposite impression to the sentence you took out of context and presented as an accurate summary.
370:
per above. This article does not accurately depict the country. Please read the Special report on Brazil at the Economist and compare with this article. Then, you will understand my concern
2224:
In his final sermon shortly before his death, Luther preached 'We want to treat with Christian love and to pray for them, so that they might become converted and would receive the Lord.'
2054:
To repeat: Who I am is supposed to be irrelvant to Knowledge (XXG). What counts is the article itself, is it supported by verifiable sources and does it represent all major viewpoints.
1791:. I'm sure CTSWyneken is trying to do a good job, but the fact that he is employed by the Lutheran church to, in part, edit this article, has kept the article from becoming balanced.
1418:
1382:
593:
the Lead appears to be as big as the entire article body, I really don't see how it could possibly be avoiding introducing original content that isn't discussed in the body anywhere.
808:
Note: There has been a notice on the talk page since September, 2006 warning the custodians of the article of the lack of inline citations. No action has been taken since then. --
2568:
discussion should be brought to a close. I don't see how this article can possibly be considered for Good Article status until it is vetted by an independent, unbiased scholar.--
1308:, two other Democratic politicans. Needless to say, neither has any trace of a GA review on the their talk pages (Blackburn's talk page is essentially empty save for templates!)
1964:
resolution with this editor; in the absence of such efforts, I can't see any difference between a librarian at Concordia editing this page and "written by the Clinton museum'.
2264:
There was only one last sermon, and yes, as things stand, it doesn't look honest; that's why it's germane to the Martin Luther article. It's the same people who wrote both.
1800:
Guys, it's easy to end all this. I've been asking for a little cite for a couple points that are otherwise OR for almost a year. Just find the cite. Or remove the OR.
2216:: I'm leaving this here for future reference in case this article comes up again. One of the Missouri Synod editors added this description of Luther's final sermon to
250:
The article is extremely under referenced considering it's size and it seems to be over illustrated, there is also the concern that the user that passed it is part of
956:
1249:
the talk page are addressed, after all, if someone can fix the problems, then that's more or less like someone dealing with problems in an On Hold situation, right?
2413:, his place of birth, on February 15, 1546, three days before his death. It was "brimming over with biting condemnation and vulgarities for the Jews," according to
146:
The park is having the world's largest population of the Great Indian One-Horned Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) (1,855), Water Buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) (1,666),
228:, it can sometimes take time for editors involved in an article to find the time to start addressing concerns, not everyone can live off of Knowledge (XXG) :D .
2388:
As you don't like the primary-source material for the final sermon, here are secondary sources (the quote below from Luther is also from a secondary source):
1344:
I was the nominator. However, unlike all other prior nominations I had no involvment in the editing of this article. While taking inventory of articles at
42:
of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
76:
58:
184:- should be enough time to address comments of IvoShandor. Particulary, fauna section is MASSIVELY overlinked, especially when a main article exists.
2039:). Ideally, we need to find a completely independent scholar to review all the Lutheran articles to make sure we're not promoting idiosyncratic views.
2587:
Within hours of inserting a more accurate view of Luther's last sermon, it is deleted because it has suddenly become "irrelevant" and "out of place".
2347:
Indeed, and if he would use them in an intellectually forthright and transparent manner, regardless of POV, it would be wonderful, but he doesn't.
2159:
It appears that the article is now indeed far too unstable to be a GA at present, though it appears to mostly be due to Slimvirgin's recent edits,
1743:
your information, in any case, my position is tasked with the generation of electronic resources, which does take in projects such as wikipedia."
2237:
Martin Luther, Sermon No. 8, "Predigt ĂŒber Mat. 11:25- , Eisleben gehalten," February 15, 1546, D. Martin Luthers Werke (Weimar 1914), 51:197-96.
38:
2334:
1477:
may apply, since the article does take an "in-universe" perspective on what is essentially a fictional character (gasp... did he say that...)--
287:
There aren't enough references, many unsourced statements/claims, and the few references aren't properly cited or formatted, which bothers me.
2300:
This second translation is just as biased as the first in that it omits the first quotation, which would show a more balanced presentation.--
992:
contributions, expansion of charity events and/or community service. For having 300k members, a mention of notable alumni also would help.
1513:
per all above. I would like to note, however, that I feel for the editors of these entertainment wrestling articles. I reviewed and failed
2544:
1924:
When this is dealt with, it'll be something else. The point is that the Lutheran church has controlled this text. That is unacceptable.
2066:
question if this is a problem is whether an editor should avoid every subject for which the person has an interest and some expertise.
1582:
for more info... Also, the article takes a perpective that is almost entirely IN UNIVERSE. For example, it says that The Undertaker
1410:
1374:
1153:
Please go back to the talk page and remove any issues that I have cleared up, since I'm not posting there but here as you requested.
680:
per above. This is another article that was tagged before the current GA process was established. Never reviewed, tagged by author.
1887:
church) has made 615; Ptmccain (employed by the Lutheran church; now banned for personal attacks) has made 433. That is a total of
1878:
article. As I said above, the page needs to be reviewed by an independent scholar. You have taken ownership of the article and yet
2113:
got to see mostly was the Anti-semitism section, so I don't know if there's actually something legitimate being left out or not.
1414:
1378:
17:
2718:
2668:
2242:
This is the kind of distortion the Luther articles have seen, and it's why they can't be trusted to be accurate and neutral.
1828:
1636:
1602:
1530:
1488:
1457:
1327:
1270:
1233:
1209:
1124:
1077:
1052:
850:
819:
798:
756:
692:
616:
562:
442:
313:
213:
171:
1990:
guideline if we're not going to take it seriously, and this is exactly the kind of situation it was developed to deal with.
278:
There's a missing parenthesis end in the first sentence... poor first impression, really. Other small MOS errors in places.
1514:
2366:
I'm not using Missouri Synod Lutherans as a pejorative term; for the 1000th time, my objection is that you (CTSW) are
959:
there is considerable dispute though. In my experience in FAC's they're not well liked. Although that's an easy fix.
2461:
2217:
379:
1629:
1450:
2551:
103:
371:
2590:
It is obvious that as long as this article continues to be whitewashed it cannot become a "Good Article".
1406:
1370:
1170:
1091:
259:
1976:
concerning Islam doesn't even look like it was written by someone here, and looks compleatly unfinished.
1197:- per above. Also, I don't see that it was actually reviewed. It seems to have only had the tag updated.
458:
2626:
2752:
2682:
speedy delisting, not being well-referenced is one thing, possibly breaking the law is quite another.
2523:
2351:
2313:
2293:
2268:
2246:
2205:
2181:
2127:
2102:
2086:
2043:
1994:
1956:
1928:
1895:
1852:
1764:
1686:
1113:
and this needs fixing ASAP. If these fixes are not done in a timely manner, it should be delisted.--
359:
125:
2793:
2781:
2768:
2737:
2725:
2698:
2686:
2673:
2647:
2619:
2606:
2594:
2572:
2569:
2554:
2525:
2353:
2341:
2315:
2304:
2295:
2270:
2259:
2248:
2207:
2183:
2167:
2145:
2129:
2117:
2104:
2088:
2045:
2022:
2017:
1996:
1980:
1968:
1958:
1944:
1930:
1919:
1907:
1897:
1870:
1867:
1854:
1833:
1804:
1795:
1783:
1780:
1766:
1730:
1705:
1688:
1655:
1642:
1607:
1572:
1561:
1549:
1537:
1505:
1493:
1463:
1423:
1387:
1332:
1293:
1275:
1259:
renominate. If the article remains in the state it is in, however, and is not fixed up, well... --
1253:
1238:
1216:
1189:
1177:
1157:
1148:
1139:
1129:
1084:
1057:
1031:
1009:
996:
981:
972:
963:
943:
926:
904:
893:
881:
869:
857:
834:
per above. Tagged/listed in 2005 before GA criteria/standards put in place. No review ever done. --
824:
803:
761:
737:
725:
713:
699:
672:
659:
633:
621:
597:
585:
569:
542:
530:
517:
491:
477:
461:
449:
417:
362:
346:
334:
320:
266:
232:
220:
188:
176:
151:
131:
2031:
I just looked up the Missouri Synod, which the three key editors of this article work for, in the
30:
2765:
2715:
2662:
2548:
2519:
to this article being given GA status. We have no idea whether there other similar issues in it.
1822:
1652:
1596:
1527:
1482:
1321:
1264:
1227:
1206:
1118:
1074:
1046:
1028:
940:
866:
847:
813:
792:
750:
689:
656:
610:
579:
559:
514:
439:
310:
210:
165:
2694:- needs references, references, references. NRHP, sports, architecture, development, etc etc.
1345:
1110:
1023:, I don't think the lack of references alone is a good enough reason to delist the article from
1020:
1401:
1365:
1357:
1305:
1290:
977:
I agree, 1 to 0 is no consensus, default keep. I will look at the article if I have a chance.
923:
1474:
952:
2734:
2695:
2603:
2465:
2414:
2338:
2301:
1904:
1558:
1502:
1186:
993:
960:
878:
745:
inadequate lead, not broad enough in coverage, listy, unreferenced, what else do we need? --
710:
669:
630:
539:
414:
331:
185:
65:
2581:
2109:
2095:
1987:
1747:
1393:
1361:
1352:
and have no idea if it was a valid edit in truth. However, I assumed it was and then made
1286:
936:
406:
States in lead that a given number of snakes exist and later states estimates are difficult
355:
255:
251:
115:
44:
2778:
2683:
2616:
2520:
2348:
2310:
2285:
2265:
2256:
2243:
2197:
2178:
2164:
2142:
2124:
2114:
2099:
2078:
2040:
1991:
1977:
1965:
1953:
1941:
1925:
1916:
1892:
1844:
1761:
1739:
1702:
1678:
1546:
1396:. We are probably talking about less than 25 articles of which most have eventually made
1250:
978:
969:
911:
901:
890:
734:
722:
594:
527:
488:
474:
229:
148:
120:
1579:
1397:
1106:
1024:
354:
per above. What I find the most disturbing is that the user that "reviewed" is in direct
487:
If this article could really be speedy delisted, feel free to do that at any time Lara.
2640:: This article has almost no references, and an extremely poorly written lead section.
2456:
The first insertion of the misleading description of this sermon that I can find is in
1725:
1717:
1620:
1432:
1006:
733:
Just a history section and some lists? Needs more material divided into more sections.
144:
overlinked. And I wouldn't call the copy editing issues minor, I found this sentence:
2790:
2707:
2658:
2644:
2457:
1818:
1801:
1751:
1662:
1592:
1519:
1478:
1356:. I actually continue to favor its GA status, but could see it failing. As noted by
1317:
1260:
1223:
1198:
1114:
1066:
1042:
835:
809:
788:
746:
681:
606:
551:
427:
343:
298:
202:
161:
1936:
768:
605:
The article consists of a lead and not much else. Plus it is underreferenced. --
2744:
1569:
550:- per above. Listed as GA before current standards/review process put in place.
526:
Citation issues aside this article easily fails the broadness criteria as well.
2591:
1792:
1756:
1154:
1145:
1136:
935:
Solo-linked years is actually permissible, and recommended in most cases, per
1185:- per nominator's comments and extensive discussion of issues on talk page.
358:
with the article. Over illustration is a main issue, and the neutrality too.
409:
Needs more inline citations in range, lifecycle, taxonomy, and dna analysis
2733:
Lack of references, copyrighted images do not have fair use rationales. --
2410:
1301:
1005:
for lack of independent sources, and in general needs more references. --
140:
That seems a bit rash for an on hold, nonetheless, the Fauna section is
651:
Article is listy in places, has zero citations and an inadequate lead.
640:
1889:
1,926 edits to the article made by people paid by the Lutheran church
1779:
issues that many editors, myself included, fought over a year ago. --
1760:
situation, which I suspect those who supported it were not aware of.
498:
239:
297:
It's a nice article and has potential, but it has a ways to go. --
275:- There are some issues to be dealt with... both minor and major.
1392:
P.S. Many of the 30-40 were renominations and 5 are still active
1360:, I have been active at nominating GAs. I have made 52 edits to
1300:
PS2. The other two articles promoted in the same "bundle" are
330:
per above. Underreferenced with fact tags, but a good start.
877:
per lack of inline citations to support individual claims.
922:
Too few references, other issues such as solo linked years.
284:
It is over illustrated, and I believe in staggering images.
1750:
in relation to the Luther articles. He took ownership of
721:: Per above comments, agree completely with Nehrams2020.
2588:
2585:
2565:
2563:
2469:
2160:
1744:
1624:
1353:
1349:
1107:
Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on the use of copyright images
2429:, added to his final sermon, cited in Oberman, Heiko.
1098:
Delist 6-0. Also returning to GAC per discussion here
951:
Solo linked years is generally not recommendable, see
2196:
fruitless. I'll will no longer reply to her here. --
1568:Insuffiencent references? There's 129 references!
1935:I'm sorry, that's a much more serious claim. The
2493:
2407:
2230:
2222:
2468:, one of the editors who edits with CTSW, at
2077:the article and stop attacking my religion? --
1724:I'll look over this later, I voted in haste.--
1019:Taking into account the recent changes to the
8:
1586:Mark Calaway. Not really, he's a character
577:, and, overall, is lacking in references. --
1545:The almost non-existant lead clinches it.
25:
2419:From the Time of Christ to the Court Jews
709:Doesn't meet broad requirement either. --
400:Citation needed footnote present in lead
2433:, New York: Image Books, 1989, p. 294.)
1557:- poor lead, insufficient references.
342:per above. Needs lots of references. --
889:: per lengthy time period of warning.
2431:Luther: Man Between God and the Devil
1419:tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM
1383:tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM
7:
2073:Now, may I suggest someone actually
281:Stand-alone years randomly wikified.
413:Good start but not of GA quality.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Good article review
110:Result: Returned prior hold status
24:
2584:) were inserted into the section.
2409:His last sermon was delivered at
403:Multiple redline links throughout
1882:have initiated this review; but
1065:per everything Jayron32 stated.
64:
29:
1746:He therefore stands in a clear
629:Needs more inline citations. --
290:Fact tags are GA disqualifiers.
1:
1515:World Wrestling Entertainment
1169:-Per nominator's concerns. -
2427:Admonition against the Jews
2228:The sermon actually reads:
2810:
2462:Martin Luther and the Jews
2423:Luther and the Reformation
2218:Martin Luther and the Jews
997:16:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
982:11:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
973:23:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
964:23:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
509:Article has no citations.
386:Result: Speedy Delist 2-0
380:San Francisco garter snake
201:difficult review for me.
944:07:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
927:21:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
2794:15:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
2782:08:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
2769:08:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
2738:17:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
2726:17:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
2699:16:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
2687:14:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
2674:06:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
2648:06:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
2638:Nomination for delisting
2620:22:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
2607:16:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
2595:23:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2573:22:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2555:19:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2526:19:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2354:19:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2342:18:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2316:04:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
2305:04:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
2296:16:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2271:15:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2260:14:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2249:13:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2208:10:41, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2184:03:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2168:02:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2146:00:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2130:00:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2118:00:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2105:00:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
2089:23:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
2046:23:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
2037:Encyclopaedia Britannica
2033:Encyclopaedia Britannica
2023:20:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1997:20:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1981:19:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1969:20:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1959:20:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1945:19:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1931:19:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1920:19:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1908:21:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
1898:19:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1871:15:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
1855:12:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1834:05:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1805:16:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1796:03:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1784:03:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1767:03:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1731:04:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1722:02:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1706:00:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1689:23:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
1656:18:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1643:17:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1608:21:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1573:17:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1562:14:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1550:17:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
1538:04:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
1506:03:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
1494:03:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
1464:03:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
1424:18:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
1388:18:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
1333:21:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1294:09:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
1276:18:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
1254:15:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
1239:05:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
1103:Nomination for delisting
1085:17:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
905:23:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
762:17:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
738:16:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
634:17:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
622:17:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
598:14:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
586:00:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
492:16:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
233:15:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
2460:(it was later moved to
1217:21:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
1190:21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
1178:19:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
1158:19:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
1149:19:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
1140:19:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
1130:17:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
1058:18:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
1032:20:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
1010:14:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
894:20:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
882:12:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
870:08:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
858:06:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
825:05:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
804:05:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
726:20:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
714:07:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
700:04:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
673:02:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
660:02:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
570:22:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
543:21:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
531:20:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
518:18:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
478:20:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
462:20:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
450:03:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
418:02:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
363:18:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
347:20:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
335:17:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
321:16:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
267:14:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
254:wich may conflict with
221:20:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
189:17:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
177:17:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
152:17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
132:11:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
104:Kaziranga National Park
2497:
2435:
2240:
2226:
2214:Example of the problem
1669:Delist 8-1; status quo
1342:Delist and back to GAC
1283:Delist and back to GAC
1092:Hillary Rodham Clinton
780:Nominate for delisting
2627:Jacksonville, Florida
1111:good article criteria
1021:good article criteria
372:User:RobertoMalancini
2464:). It was added by
1748:conflict of interest
1631:One Night In Hackney
1452:One Night In Hackney
2417:. (Poliakov, LĂ©on.
782:per the following:
388:No review necessary
356:conflic of interest
98:Archived Disussions
70:Good article review
2789:: per nomination.
2545:one on Catholicism
1708:
1697:
1246:Speedy back to GAC
918:Result: Delist 3â0
775:Result: Delist 6-0
647:Result: Delist 7-0
505:Result: Delist 8-0
252:WikiProject Brazil
246:Result: Delist 6-0
114:This artcle was a
2671:
2665:
2582:original research
1831:
1825:
1817:looks hopeless.--
1814:Endorse delisting
1699:
1695:
1674:Request Relisting
1619:A rather hideous
1605:
1599:
1491:
1485:
1422:
1386:
1330:
1324:
1306:Luke P. Blackburn
1273:
1267:
1236:
1230:
1127:
1121:
1055:
1049:
822:
816:
801:
795:
759:
753:
619:
613:
174:
168:
128:
91:
90:
83:
82:
52:
51:
45:current talk page
2801:
2777:: per nom. Ugh.
2751:Delist 3-0 with
2723:
2713:
2710:
2669:
2663:
2470:12:31 Nov 3 2005
2466:User:Drboisclair
2292:
2238:
2204:
2085:
1851:
1829:
1823:
1728:
1720:
1685:
1641:
1632:
1603:
1597:
1535:
1525:
1522:
1489:
1483:
1462:
1453:
1404:
1368:
1328:
1322:
1271:
1265:
1234:
1228:
1214:
1204:
1201:
1125:
1119:
1082:
1072:
1069:
1053:
1047:
855:
845:
840:
820:
814:
799:
793:
757:
751:
697:
687:
684:
617:
611:
582:
567:
557:
554:
447:
437:
432:
318:
308:
303:
218:
208:
205:
172:
166:
129:
127:
123:
85:
84:
68:
54:
53:
47:
33:
26:
2809:
2808:
2804:
2803:
2802:
2800:
2799:
2798:
2748:
2722:
2719:
2711:
2708:
2706:per all above.
2630:
2547:, for example.
2290:
2239:
2236:
2202:
2083:
1849:
1740:User:CTSWyneken
1726:
1718:
1683:
1666:
1640:
1630:
1628:
1534:
1531:
1523:
1520:
1461:
1451:
1449:
1436:
1213:
1210:
1202:
1199:
1175:
1095:
1081:
1078:
1070:
1067:
955:; specifically
915:
912:Alpha Phi Omega
854:
851:
841:
836:
772:
696:
693:
685:
682:
644:
580:
566:
563:
555:
552:
502:
446:
443:
433:
428:
383:
360:AlexCovarrubias
317:
314:
304:
299:
264:
243:
217:
214:
206:
203:
126:
121:
107:
100:
43:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2807:
2805:
2797:
2796:
2784:
2747:
2742:
2741:
2740:
2728:
2720:
2701:
2689:
2676:
2629:
2624:
2623:
2622:
2609:
2597:
2575:
2570:Mantanmoreland
2557:
2541:Endorse delist
2537:
2536:
2535:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2531:
2530:
2529:
2528:
2507:
2506:
2505:
2504:
2503:
2502:
2501:
2500:
2499:
2498:
2482:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2477:
2476:
2475:
2474:
2473:
2445:
2444:
2443:
2442:
2441:
2440:
2439:
2438:
2437:
2436:
2396:
2395:
2394:
2393:
2392:
2391:
2390:
2389:
2379:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2372:
2357:
2356:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2323:
2322:
2321:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2276:
2275:
2274:
2273:
2234:
2211:
2210:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2171:
2170:
2153:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2149:
2148:
2138:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2134:
2133:
2132:
2071:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2055:
2049:
2048:
2026:
2025:
2012:
2011:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2007:
2006:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2002:
2001:
2000:
1999:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1961:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1868:Mantanmoreland
1862:on this while
1837:
1836:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1786:
1781:Mantanmoreland
1769:
1733:
1709:
1665:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1645:
1634:
1621:trivia section
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1565:
1564:
1552:
1540:
1532:
1508:
1496:
1455:
1435:
1433:The Undertaker
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1310:
1309:
1299:
1296:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1211:
1192:
1180:
1171:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1142:
1094:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1079:
1060:
1035:
1034:
1013:
1012:
989:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
975:
914:
909:
908:
907:
896:
884:
872:
860:
852:
829:
828:
827:
771:
766:
765:
764:
740:
728:
716:
703:
702:
694:
675:
643:
638:
637:
636:
624:
600:
588:
572:
564:
545:
538:- per above.
533:
501:
496:
495:
494:
482:
481:
480:
465:
464:
459:88.111.221.213
453:
452:
444:
411:
410:
407:
404:
401:
382:
377:
376:
375:
365:
349:
337:
324:
323:
315:
294:
293:
292:
291:
288:
285:
282:
279:
260:
242:
237:
236:
235:
223:
215:
191:
179:
154:
106:
101:
99:
96:
89:
88:
81:
80:
73:
62:
50:
49:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2806:
2795:
2792:
2788:
2785:
2783:
2780:
2776:
2773:
2772:
2771:
2770:
2767:
2766:LuciferMorgan
2763:
2757:
2756:
2754:
2746:
2743:
2739:
2736:
2732:
2729:
2727:
2724:
2716:
2714:
2705:
2702:
2700:
2697:
2693:
2690:
2688:
2685:
2680:
2677:
2675:
2672:
2666:
2660:
2655:
2652:
2651:
2650:
2649:
2646:
2643:
2639:
2635:
2634:
2628:
2625:
2621:
2618:
2613:
2610:
2608:
2605:
2601:
2598:
2596:
2593:
2589:
2586:
2583:
2579:
2576:
2574:
2571:
2566:
2564:
2561:
2558:
2556:
2553:
2550:
2549:Mike Christie
2546:
2542:
2539:
2538:
2527:
2524:
2522:
2517:
2516:
2515:
2514:
2513:
2512:
2511:
2510:
2509:
2508:
2496:
2492:
2491:
2490:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2486:
2485:
2484:
2483:
2471:
2467:
2463:
2459:
2458:Martin Luther
2455:
2454:
2453:
2452:
2451:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2447:
2446:
2434:
2432:
2428:
2424:
2420:
2416:
2415:LĂ©on Poliakov
2412:
2406:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2398:
2397:
2387:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2383:
2382:
2381:
2380:
2369:
2365:
2364:
2363:
2362:
2361:
2360:
2359:
2358:
2355:
2352:
2350:
2346:
2345:
2344:
2343:
2340:
2336:
2331:
2317:
2314:
2312:
2308:
2307:
2306:
2303:
2299:
2298:
2297:
2294:
2289:
2288:
2282:
2281:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2277:
2272:
2269:
2267:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2258:
2253:
2252:
2251:
2250:
2247:
2245:
2233:
2229:
2225:
2221:
2219:
2215:
2209:
2206:
2201:
2200:
2194:
2191:
2190:
2185:
2182:
2180:
2175:
2174:
2173:
2172:
2169:
2166:
2161:
2158:
2155:
2154:
2147:
2144:
2139:
2131:
2128:
2126:
2121:
2120:
2119:
2116:
2111:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2103:
2101:
2097:
2092:
2091:
2090:
2087:
2082:
2081:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2064:
2060:
2056:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2047:
2044:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2027:
2024:
2021:
2020:
2014:
2013:
1998:
1995:
1993:
1989:
1984:
1983:
1982:
1979:
1974:
1970:
1967:
1962:
1960:
1957:
1955:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1943:
1938:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1929:
1927:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1918:
1913:
1909:
1906:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1896:
1894:
1890:
1885:
1881:
1876:
1872:
1869:
1865:
1860:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1853:
1848:
1847:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1835:
1832:
1826:
1820:
1815:
1812:
1811:
1806:
1803:
1799:
1798:
1797:
1794:
1790:
1789:Keep delisted
1787:
1785:
1782:
1778:
1773:
1772:Keep delisted
1770:
1768:
1765:
1763:
1758:
1753:
1752:Martin Luther
1749:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1736:Keep delisted
1734:
1732:
1729:
1723:
1721:
1716:objections.--
1714:
1713:Speedy relist
1710:
1707:
1704:
1698:
1696:Speedy Relist
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1687:
1682:
1681:
1675:
1671:
1670:
1664:
1663:Martin Luther
1661:
1657:
1654:
1653:LuciferMorgan
1649:
1646:
1644:
1639:
1638:
1633:
1626:
1622:
1618:
1615:
1614:
1609:
1606:
1600:
1594:
1589:
1585:
1581:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1571:
1567:
1566:
1563:
1560:
1556:
1553:
1551:
1548:
1544:
1541:
1539:
1536:
1528:
1526:
1516:
1512:
1509:
1507:
1504:
1500:
1497:
1495:
1492:
1486:
1480:
1476:
1471:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1460:
1459:
1454:
1447:
1441:
1440:
1434:
1431:
1425:
1420:
1416:
1412:
1408:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1384:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1367:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1340:
1339:
1334:
1331:
1325:
1319:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1307:
1303:
1295:
1292:
1288:
1284:
1281:
1277:
1274:
1268:
1262:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1252:
1247:
1244:
1240:
1237:
1231:
1225:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1215:
1207:
1205:
1196:
1193:
1191:
1188:
1184:
1181:
1179:
1176:
1174:
1168:
1165:
1164:
1159:
1156:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1147:
1143:
1141:
1138:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1128:
1122:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1099:
1093:
1090:
1086:
1083:
1075:
1073:
1064:
1061:
1059:
1056:
1050:
1044:
1040:
1037:
1036:
1033:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1015:
1014:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
995:
983:
980:
976:
974:
971:
967:
966:
965:
962:
958:
954:
950:
947:
946:
945:
942:
938:
934:
931:
930:
929:
928:
925:
920:
919:
913:
910:
906:
903:
900:
899:Speedy Delist
897:
895:
892:
888:
885:
883:
880:
876:
873:
871:
868:
867:LuciferMorgan
864:
861:
859:
856:
848:
846:
844:
839:
833:
832:Speedy Delist
830:
826:
823:
817:
811:
807:
806:
805:
802:
796:
790:
785:
784:
783:
781:
777:
776:
770:
767:
763:
760:
754:
748:
744:
741:
739:
736:
732:
729:
727:
724:
720:
717:
715:
712:
708:
705:
704:
701:
698:
690:
688:
679:
676:
674:
671:
667:
664:
663:
662:
661:
658:
657:LuciferMorgan
654:
649:
648:
642:
639:
635:
632:
628:
625:
623:
620:
614:
608:
604:
601:
599:
596:
592:
589:
587:
584:
583:
576:
573:
571:
568:
560:
558:
549:
546:
544:
541:
537:
534:
532:
529:
525:
522:
521:
520:
519:
516:
515:LuciferMorgan
512:
507:
506:
500:
497:
493:
490:
486:
483:
479:
476:
472:
469:
468:
467:
466:
463:
460:
457:get written.
455:
454:
451:
448:
440:
438:
436:
431:
425:
422:
421:
420:
419:
416:
408:
405:
402:
399:
398:
397:
395:
394:Speedy Delist
391:
390:
389:
381:
378:
373:
369:
366:
364:
361:
357:
353:
350:
348:
345:
341:
338:
336:
333:
329:
326:
325:
322:
319:
311:
309:
307:
302:
296:
295:
289:
286:
283:
280:
277:
276:
274:
271:
270:
269:
268:
265:
263:
257:
253:
248:
247:
241:
238:
234:
231:
227:
224:
222:
219:
211:
209:
199:
195:
192:
190:
187:
183:
180:
178:
175:
169:
163:
158:
155:
153:
150:
147:
143:
139:
136:
135:
134:
133:
130:
124:
117:
112:
111:
105:
102:
97:
95:
87:
86:
78:
74:
71:
67:
63:
60:
56:
55:
46:
41:
40:
35:
32:
28:
27:
19:
2786:
2774:
2761:
2758:
2750:
2749:
2730:
2703:
2691:
2678:
2653:
2641:
2637:
2636:
2632:
2631:
2611:
2599:
2577:
2559:
2540:
2494:
2430:
2426:
2422:
2418:
2408:
2367:
2329:
2328:
2286:
2241:
2231:
2227:
2223:
2213:
2212:
2198:
2192:
2156:
2079:
2074:
2036:
2032:
2018:
1937:Bill Clinton
1888:
1883:
1879:
1863:
1845:
1813:
1788:
1776:
1771:
1757:filibustered
1735:
1712:
1711:
1694:
1679:
1673:
1672:
1668:
1667:
1647:
1635:
1616:
1587:
1583:
1554:
1542:
1510:
1498:
1469:
1456:
1445:
1442:
1438:
1437:
1402:TonyTheTiger
1366:TonyTheTiger
1358:PrinceGloria
1341:
1291:PrinceGloria
1282:
1245:
1194:
1182:
1172:
1166:
1102:
1101:
1097:
1096:
1062:
1038:
1016:
1002:
990:
948:
932:
924:Sumoeagle179
921:
917:
916:
898:
886:
874:
862:
842:
837:
831:
787:citations.--
779:
778:
774:
773:
769:Paul Hackett
742:
730:
718:
706:
677:
665:
652:
650:
646:
645:
626:
602:
590:
578:
574:
547:
535:
523:
510:
508:
504:
503:
484:
470:
434:
429:
423:
412:
393:
392:
387:
385:
384:
367:
351:
339:
327:
305:
300:
272:
261:
249:
245:
244:
225:
197:
193:
181:
156:
145:
141:
137:
113:
109:
108:
92:
69:
37:
2753:WP:SNOWBALL
2745:Terry Wogan
2735:Nehrams2020
2696:ChicagoPimp
2604:Pastordavid
2562:These edits
2472:. He wrote:
2339:Pastordavid
2302:Drboisclair
1905:Drboisclair
1559:ChicagoPimp
1503:Quadzilla99
1501:per above.
1187:ChicagoPimp
994:ChicagoPimp
961:Quadzilla99
879:ChicagoPimp
865:per above.
711:Nehrams2020
670:ChicagoPimp
631:Nehrams2020
540:ChicagoPimp
426:per above.
415:ChicagoPimp
374:10 May 2007
332:ChicagoPimp
226:Return hold
186:ChicagoPimp
182:Return hold
157:Return hold
36:This is an
2779:IvoShandor
2684:Homestarmy
2633:Delist 6-0
2617:Balloonman
2521:SlimVirgin
2349:SlimVirgin
2311:SlimVirgin
2266:SlimVirgin
2257:Homestarmy
2244:SlimVirgin
2179:SlimVirgin
2165:Homestarmy
2143:Hornplease
2125:SlimVirgin
2115:Homestarmy
2100:SlimVirgin
2041:SlimVirgin
1992:SlimVirgin
1978:Homestarmy
1966:Hornplease
1954:SlimVirgin
1942:Hornplease
1926:SlimVirgin
1917:Homestarmy
1893:SlimVirgin
1762:SlimVirgin
1703:Homestarmy
1651:template.
1547:Homestarmy
1439:Delist 7-0
1251:Homestarmy
979:IvoShandor
970:Homestarmy
902:LordHarris
891:IvoShandor
735:Homestarmy
723:IvoShandor
595:Homestarmy
528:IvoShandor
489:Homestarmy
475:IvoShandor
230:Homestarmy
160:expired.--
149:IvoShandor
122:Amartyabag
72:(archive)
2615:delisted.
2019:Gimmetrow
1727:Wizardman
1719:Wizardman
1627:as well.
1623:has been
1588:played by
1354:this edit
1350:this diff
1025:GA status
1007:Fang Aili
142:massively
2791:Zeus1234
2760:passed.
2721:Contribs
2670:contribs
2659:Jayron32
2645:Zeus1234
2411:Eisleben
1830:contribs
1819:Jayron32
1802:A Musing
1604:contribs
1593:Jayron32
1490:contribs
1479:Jayron32
1346:WP:WPChi
1329:contribs
1318:Jayron32
1302:Leo Ryan
1272:contribs
1261:Jayron32
1235:contribs
1224:Jayron32
1222:order.--
1212:Contribs
1126:contribs
1115:Jayron32
1080:Contribs
1054:contribs
1043:Jayron32
1029:Dr. Cash
941:Dr. Cash
853:Contribs
821:contribs
810:Jayron32
800:contribs
789:Jayron32
758:contribs
747:Jayron32
695:Contribs
618:contribs
607:Jayron32
565:Contribs
445:Contribs
344:Victor12
316:Contribs
216:Contribs
173:contribs
162:Jayron32
2755:invoked
2578:Comment
2560:Comment
2371:Luther.
2330:Comment
2291:Wyneken
2203:Wyneken
2193:Comment
2157:Comment
2084:Wyneken
1850:Wyneken
1684:Wyneken
1617:Comment
1475:WP:FICT
1394:WP:GACs
1298:review.
1017:Comment
953:WP:DATE
949:Comment
933:Comment
641:EMD BL2
581:Phoenix
485:Comment
471:Comment
198:neutral
194:Comment
138:Neutral
77:Page 17
59:Page 19
39:archive
2787:Delist
2775:Delist
2762:Delist
2731:Delist
2704:Delist
2692:Delist
2679:Delist
2654:Delist
2642:Delist
2612:DELIST
2600:Delist
2592:Jayjg
2552:(talk)
2110:WP:COI
2096:WP:COI
2075:review
1866:can.--
1793:Jayjg
1648:Delist
1570:Neldav
1555:Delist
1543:Delist
1511:Delist
1499:Delist
1470:delist
1446:Delist
1362:WP:GAC
1287:WP:GAC
1195:Delist
1183:Delist
1167:Delist
1063:Delist
1039:Delist
1003:Delist
937:WP:MOS
887:Delist
875:Delist
863:Delist
743:Delist
731:Delist
719:Delist
707:Delist
678:Delist
666:Delist
653:Delist
627:Delist
603:Delist
591:Delist
575:Delist
548:Delist
536:Delist
524:Delist
511:Delist
499:EMD F7
424:Delist
368:Delist
352:Delist
340:Delist
328:Delist
273:Delist
256:WP:COI
240:Brazil
116:WP:GAC
2070:also.
2058:same.
1884:we're
1625:added
1580:WP:RS
1398:WP:GA
1155:Fanra
1146:Fanra
1137:Fanra
396:per:
16:<
2712:Love
2709:Lara
2664:talk
2368:paid
2335:ELCA
1864:you
1824:talk
1777:same
1598:talk
1524:Love
1521:Lara
1484:talk
1411:cont
1407:talk
1375:cont
1371:talk
1323:talk
1304:and
1266:talk
1229:talk
1203:Love
1200:Lara
1120:talk
1071:Love
1068:Lara
1048:talk
957:here
843:Love
838:Lara
815:talk
794:talk
752:talk
686:Love
683:Lara
612:talk
556:Love
553:Lara
435:Love
430:Lara
306:Love
301:Lara
207:Love
204:Lara
167:talk
79:) â
2287:CTS
2199:CTS
2080:CTS
1988:COI
1880:you
1846:CTS
1680:CTS
1637:303
1458:303
1415:bio
1379:bio
57:â (
2764:.
2235:â
2220::
2098:.
1738:.
1677:--
1584:is
1448:.
1400:.
1027:.
939:.
655:.
513:.
61:)
48:.
2717:/
2667:|
2661:|
2333:(
1827:|
1821:|
1601:|
1595:|
1533:C
1529:/
1487:|
1481:|
1421:)
1417:/
1413:/
1409:/
1405:(
1385:)
1381:/
1377:/
1373:/
1369:(
1326:|
1320:|
1269:|
1263:|
1232:|
1226:|
1208:/
1173:ć¶
1123:|
1117:|
1076:/
1051:|
1045:|
849:/
818:|
812:|
797:|
791:|
755:|
749:|
691:/
615:|
609:|
561:/
441:/
312:/
262:ć¶
258:-
212:/
170:|
164:|
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
