1310:- Agree with SmokeyJoe that alternatives should be presented to Richard Arthur Norton in the spirit of collegiality and he should be give time to move stuff. The correct course of action, when finding large numbers of user pages created or uploaded by a single user is to approach them and discuss it first before carrying out a mass nomination. TreasuryTag, did you approach Richard Arthur Norton before all these mass nominations that you carried out? I've looked through your edits to his user talk page and I see no indication that you did anything other than dump a load of deletion nominations templates on his userpage, the only preceding edits I can find being the one where you two are arguing about something else. Mass nominations can be considered disruptive and in bad faith if they are not preceded by such an approach (there are precedents for this that I can dig out for you if you like). On a more general note, I have lots of old stuff in my userspace that I blank after a while with a notice saying "blank to page history". That may technically breach the spirit of not letting old stuff hang around, but page blankings take one or two edits and use less resources (I'm talking here about community time that is better spent elsewhere) than deletion debates. And to Richard Arthur Norton, the advice Gwen Gale
571:. I happened upon this issue casually and almost randomly. I don't know any of the editors involved. But it certainly looks to me that there's a wikiwar being waged here, and this set of MfD nominations is part of that war. I'd probably support deletion in another context, but I have a feeling that this would be better addressed by reprimanding all the editors involved in this ongoing skirmish individually and instituting a zero-tolerance policy for their antagonistic behavior. Then in a few weeks if someone wanted to MfD these family memorial pages in user space, I'd support that.
760:
point I am trying to make. If you take TT's nomination out of context then it may or may not be valid (and I am persuaded by the 'leeway for active contributors' Keep argument), but that's not an accurate picture of what's going on here. As far as me being disruptive, I'm a casual editor who happened upon a bad scene. I'm commenting because I think it would be unjust to consider this nomination. I think a MfD nomination from a disinterested party wouldn't be tainted. This doesn't pass my sniff test, it puts personality before principles, and that's my point. Also, please do not
679:
for keeping it. I am concerned that you are using the
Knowledge community to try to carry out a personal vendetta, and I don't think it's appropriate for the community to allow you to do this. I tell you what - if you drop this RfD nomination, I will nominate these pages for RfD within 15 days. But you have to stay entirely away from Norton's contributions in the meantime. How's that sound?
1285:. SmokeyJoe's suggestion to RAN to move it to a Wikia is a valid one, but I do not think it requires holding off on an MfD. Being his family history, one would presume he has copies (and if not, considering the current consensus here, common sense would say to start making them). In either case, it does not belong on Knowledge - this is neither a hosting service nor a memorial site. --
228:) contain full and verbatim copies of what are presumably copyrighted sources. Admittedly, it's not clear which are genuinely part of the author's family and which are pure fantasy, but they all date from about 2005-6, and none seem to be appropriately housed in the userspace at the present time. Many of the images on the pages have/had false copyright declarations etc. (and also raise
850:
to stop saying I think the articles should be deleted. I don't have a very strong opinion on that. I do have a strong opinion on the motivation behind this nomination, and your rapid-response monitoring of this page sort of reinforces that opinion. If you would like to continue to make this about why I'm wrong, go ahead. Just keep in mind that it kind of reads as petty.
1333:
work. In addition, these may all be potential articles at such time as RAN can find notability. Lastly, the nomination, while not necessarily in bad faith, comes in the context of a systematic attack on RAN's editing history that is at the very least uncharitable; I note that the problem with these pages was not discussed with RAN prior to their nomination for deletion. -
388:- having looked at about ten or fifteen of these articles it's pretty clear that they will never be mainspace articles. There's no sources in any of them (except for FindAGrave sometimes), or any assertion of notability of the subjects. I don't know what any of these subpages are for, but whatever it is it has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. Knowledge is not a webhost.
1071:. Such marginal prospects do not have to demonstrate notability because they are not in article space and notability is not, in any case, a policy. The time to challenge such stuff is when it is placed in article space. Until then, editors should be allowed some reasonable freedom to use their workspace as a scratch pad where they may tinker and doodle as they please.
1183:, we should be making more effort to not present the appearance of turning so quickly on Richard, one of our most valuable colleagues. True, this material goes beyond the standard user page, but there is a harshness and coldness to saying "delete". This is interesting, touching, and valuable information. There are, however,
1378:, for example, is arguably notable (significant coverage in two independent reliable sources) and with a little love and care could probably survive an AfD in the mainspace. I'd urge editors to not let the fact that many of us regularly disagree with Richard stop us from assessing these pages in accordance with
735:? TT can make all the points he likes: if there's not disruptive behaviour, and there isn't any here, he's not doing anything wrong. In fact, since these pages should be deleted and you admit it- but want them kept anyway just to make a statement about TreasuryTag, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that
632:- please read it. I am suggesting ignoring any administrative actions you or he initiates against the other due to your uncollegial behavior, reprimanding both of you and any other editor involved in your mudfight, and then letting someone else initiate any potential administrative actions on content.
1514:
cries out that mass deletion is appropriate. These articles haven't been worked on for years (I generalize -- I have not looked at all the histories), so there can hardly be an argument that they deserve to be kept on the grounds that they might become good articles. RAN work on them off
Knowledge if
1332:
all as relevant to presenting RAN's background and editing biases, and thus being relevant to the business of building an encyclopedia. He's an editor whose main work is in genealogy and it's therefore to be expected that he may maintain userspace relevant to his interest in and motivations for that
1164:
everything. This is not a little bit of personal stuff in user namespace, this user abuses
Wikimedia projects as his personal webspace. Not only en.wikipeda but also Commons with creating out of scope galleries of his non-notable family members in the Commons gallery(main) namespace and filling image
474:
can relate to in terms of interests, hobbies, and identify potential connections on which to edit collaboratively. But a family tree, what does that add to the project? If someone has an interest in genealogy, I'm sure there's a userbox for it, or one to be made. But we don't need to see the whole
1351:
To put it another way, if RAN had made these articles in the mainspace, had them deleted through AfD, and then requested their userfication until such time as he improved them, there would be absolutely no argument for their deletion. I'm not sure why he's worse off for having had the good sense to
907:
1) Clarity isn't the problem. 2) I reevaluated my position on the delete-worthiness of these article, please see above. 3) Again (and again) it's not because it's you nominating these pages, it's because the nomination smells like vendetta. Nothing personal. 4) I'm done playing 'who gets the last
874:
that you "would support this nomination if it weren't in the middle of a personality war" – the only logical conclusion one could draw from that statement is that you think that the pages, which you admit are inappropriate, should anyway be kept simply because I was the nominator. In fact, you made
849:
When did this become about me spiting you? I don't spite you. I question your motives, in asking the community to delete a lot of work done by someone whom you obviously don't like. Also, as I said I've been persuaded by another Keep argument (leeway for active contributors), so please feel free
759:
Reyk, to me this is all a bunch of silly politicking and deserves to be disregarded because of that. Rules should never be applied without regard to context, and the context here is a pre-existing personality conflict between the MfD nominator and the maintainer of the nominated pages. That's the
678:
My reason for keeping is that your RfD nominiation is a case of disrupting
Knowledge to make a point. I would support this nomination if it weren't in the middle of a personality war between you and the creator of the pages. The fact that YOU nominated it given your ongoing conflict is my reason
1419:
Neither am I but that's an issue going to article content rather than the notability of the article subject. If the articles are deleted, we're left open to the slightly ludicrous proposition of RAN saying, "Well, okay, can you userfy them for me so I can work on them?", which, were these in the
415:. These pages look wonderful to me, family history is meaningful and worthy, but there is no encyclopedic reason for them to be in the editor's user space. Unless en.WP's notability thresholds shift someday (which could happen but is not foreseen now), they won't grow into articles.
699:"I would support this nomination" sounds very clear. The issue of who nominated it is neither here nor there, and will doubtless be ignored by the closing admin. Thanks for clarifying your position, which is, in fact, perfectly in accord with mine: the material should be deleted.
375:
per "Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia" this is not, as far as I can see, relevant to the working of the encyclopedia - if it is, the onus should be on Mr. Norton to prove otherwise.
1636:
all excess pages as being better suited to a genealogy site than WP. This goes beyond a short c.v. for an editor, to be sure. Note that there is still no requirement for the subjects of a page in userspace to be "notable." The issue here is one of excess.
1314:
is good - these pages and most of the images are not really suitable here - I can understand you being upset with how this was handled, but you need to recognise the consensus that has formed here, no matter how heavy-handedly this was handled.
1655:
Only to say it, I think the notion of notability was only brought up because after 5 years, there was still no hint the content was headed for the article space, hence it wasn't use of userspace for encyclopedia building, which is the pith of
878:
As for your other point, in which you complain about my "rapid-response monitoring of this page" – the alternative: presumably if I made the nomination and then completely ignored this page, you'd be accusing me of drive-by deletion?
235:
The editor in question will almost certainly say that I am harassing him and pursuing a vendetta; this is not true, but is anyway irrelevant to this discussion, where I urge people to look at the issue on its merits alone.
1489:. We don't avoid taking the correct action due to our interpretation of what might be motivating some editors, and these pages are not in any way suitable for article development, and they do not contribute to Knowledge.
1678:
leeway. The point here is that this exceeds reasonable leeway. And the policies allow some "personal content" in userspace - too often the bit about being not "encyclopedic" has been used as a personal tool at MfD.
1594:
is primarily used to discourage people who don't otherwise use the encyclopedia from using the space to network, advertise, or store material. Notability is not a requirement of user space. I assume these have been
1400:
If any of the bios are notable, then it calls into question the whole mass nomination. However, I am not sure that DustFormsWords is right, and I am not comfortable at all with the section on Verma_Harrison.
1113:
Pretty stupid comparison to make Warden, not that I'm surprised. There is no linkage between a userfied deleted article and a shitpile of
Myspace pages, as this is. Don't waste my time with this sorta thing,
448:
what
Knowledge is for. These would be acceptable if they were being worked on in order to be moved into namespace, but that doesn't seem to be the case - this is just a user recording his family history.
1067:
FeydHuxtable's point seems a reasonable one. There is little functional difference between the articles in question and other draft articles which editors maintain in their userspace such as
1485:
While it's unfortunate that there is significant history behind the participants, and the deletion may not be appreciated by some people, it is inescapable that these pages do violate
1569:. I bring this up not to accuse RAN of anything improper, but only so that if this is closed as "delete all" then the closing admin will know these pages also should be deleted.
1622:
We're not a web host, and productive editors are given reasonable leeway when in user space when it work might improve the project. This is just a personal genealogy project.
650:
If you don't present a reason, grounded in
Knowledge's content policies, as to why these pages should be kept, your comment is likely to be discounted. Your choice, though.
628:
You are exactly who I am talking about re reprimanding, Mr. Third Vice
Chancellor of the Exchequer or whatever you are calling yourself this time; you and Norton1958.
1019:
active constructive editors are traditionally allowed some leeway in their user space. Also the articles are well written, and may be moved to main space if ever our
1191:, looks particularly well suited. We should ask Richard to think about move the bulk of the material there, and not threaten him with a week long deadline. --
1093:
make encyclopedia articles and don't even seem to be intended for the mainspace. Reasonable freedom, yes. Webhost used as an indiscriminate dumping ground, no.
1733:
1702:
1688:
1669:
1646:
1628:
1582:
1549:
1532:
1498:
1465:
1429:
1410:
1391:
1361:
1342:
1324:
1302:
1273:
1252:
1225:
1200:
1174:
1156:
1123:
1108:
1080:
1058:
1036:
1005:
987:
959:
923:
902:
865:
818:
783:
754:
722:
692:
673:
645:
623:
584:
563:
539:
519:
501:
484:
458:
436:
424:
403:
380:
364:
331:
296:
259:
61:
182:
527:
142:
197:
172:
162:
82:
475:
tree itself and such; we're not buddies. This is the sorta thing you share on facebook, so per "not facebook/myspace" and similar, toss it all.
167:
87:
1045:
Are you for real? "He's been around awhile", "the prose is nice", and "someday it might be article-worthy?" Most people with biases at least
202:
157:
137:
132:
127:
117:
102:
97:
77:
147:
92:
187:
112:
1566:
1562:
1528:
107:
1375:
225:
221:
192:
177:
122:
1558:
1511:
1507:
72:
1298:
152:
1456:
950:
893:
809:
713:
664:
614:
355:
322:
250:
17:
1728:
1574:
1148:
1611:
1165:
descriptions with massive bio-spamming. It is unbelievable that such voluminous spam comes from a user with ~100K edits. --
1089:
Big difference between a handful of subpages about borderline notable subjects, and dozens and dozens of subpages that will
1187:
where it might be better hosted, and of course, a link to that location would be welcome in
Richard's userpage. This one,
795:
that you think the pages should be deleted. So they should be deleted. Keeping them just to spite the nominator is absurd.
1184:
220:, specifically to present his family history. Most of the nominated pages are completely unreferenced. Some (particularly
1540:
Multiple articles in user space that are not notable, any content included about any living people has BLP issues also.
558:
1068:
1760:
36:
1742:
1524:
1425:
1387:
1357:
1338:
1260:. It matters not why TT examined the contributions of this user, the fact is he uncovered a gross violation of
1180:
1076:
515:
292:
1515:
that is the case. As for
TreasuryTag's behavior, it was perhaps not the best, but that's irrelevant here. . .
510:
Deletion doesn't actually release any bytes. That action and the related discussions just add to the space.
492:
Knowledge is not facebook or a blog. These articles are a waste of byte-space and advance the project not.
1759:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a
550:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a
1292:
1032:
983:
497:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.
1450:
1282:
944:
887:
803:
707:
658:
608:
349:
316:
244:
217:
209:
1557:
At least one of the user space page under consider has been moved since this MfD began. Specifically,
1719:
1599:
1591:
1545:
1486:
1320:
1261:
1245:
1140:
999:
916:
858:
776:
686:
639:
578:
229:
213:
49:
1698:
1665:
1657:
1520:
1421:
1406:
1383:
1353:
1334:
1196:
1170:
1072:
597:
535:
511:
420:
413:
Knowledge:Not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_blog.2C_webspace_provider.2C_social_networking.2C_or_memorial_site
301:
288:
1607:
1494:
1188:
591:
454:
433:
280:
57:
1506:
While there may be some useful material in some of these, they don't belong in User space. If
1684:
1642:
1623:
1439:
1286:
1028:
979:
493:
1445:
1221:
939:
882:
798:
702:
653:
603:
344:
311:
284:
239:
1590:: productive users should be, and generally are, given significant lee-way in user space.
1723:
1570:
1541:
1316:
1240:
1144:
994:
933:
911:
853:
771:
728:
681:
634:
629:
573:
276:
272:
269:
1049:
to pretend their !vote is couched in objectivity, but this is pretty obviously, um, not.
978:
Erielhonan , thank you for understanding and being honest and fair about this situation.
549:. Knowledge is not a genealogy site. There are plenty of those that Richard should use.
1745:
1694:
1661:
1402:
1192:
1166:
1119:
1101:
1054:
747:
531:
480:
416:
396:
208:
The user to whom all these pages belong appears to be extensively using Knowledge as a
67:
The following user-space pages are nominated for deletion here, in no particular order:
287:
should be warned, blocked or banned for escalating the matter in this unpleasant way.
1603:
1490:
1379:
1269:
1234:
1213:
1020:
929:
450:
445:
412:
305:
53:
908:
word' in this thread. But I am curious to see how long this edit goes unrebutted.
1680:
1638:
1438:
Erm—if there is a consensus to delete them from userspace as being years-untouched
1420:
mainspace, he'd be entitled to do (subject to attack/BLP issues being redacted). -
788:
304:
for keeping them? If anyone is concerned with my behaviour, feel free to open an
1217:
727:
Erielhonan, for this to be a case of TreasuryTag disrupting Knowledge to make a
52:, the usual leeway granted to userspace notwithstanding, and should be deleted.
1382:, the relevant content policies, and an analysis of each page on its merits. -
764:
pronouns that refer to someone who you disagree with, it seems to take it to a
48:. The overwhelming consensus here is that all of these pages are attempts to
1115:
1094:
1050:
740:
476:
389:
377:
279:. I stumbled across an edit war between these two editors earlier today at
1265:
1510:
wants to work on one or two of them, fine, but the main subpage title --
1024:
1442:, then they wouldn't be userfied on request. Surely that's obvious?
466:- Think about what a Knowledge userpage is for; for telling us who
1753:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
183:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Oscar Arthur Moritz Lindauer
1189:
http://familypedia.wikia.com/Family_History_and_Genealogy_Wiki
143:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Maximillian S. Freudenberg
1352:
not launch them into the mainspace until they were ready. -
198:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Thomas Patrick Norton II
173:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Louis Julius Freudenberg
163:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Margaret Mary McLaughlin
83:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Arthur Oscar Freudenberg
168:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Maria Elizabeth Winblad
88:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Anton Julius Winblad II
203:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Thomas Patrick Norton
158:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Margaret Agnes Conboy
789:
Rules should never be applied without regard to context.
598:
any reason, grounded in Knowledge policies or guidelines
138:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Olof Emanuel Näslund
133:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Herman A. Flurscheim
128:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/James Joseph Kennedy
118:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Jarvis Andrew Lattin
103:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Lars Magnus Wingblad
98:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Anton Julius Winblad
78:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Anna Augusta Kershaw
1311:
871:
792:
697:
148:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Mary Margaret Burke
93:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Andrew Havig Jensen
992:
Thanks for saying so, Feyd. Being pleasant is nice.
308:, but this is not an appropriate forum to discuss it.
188:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Otto Perry Winblad
113:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/John Hans Makeléer
1567:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/My family history
1563:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/My family History
108:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Lena Elaine Olson
232:
issues), but these are being dealt with separately.
1376:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Janice Nicolich
193:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Owen McLaughlin
178:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Sarah Jane Carr
123:
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Janice Nicolich
1559:User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Family History
1512:User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Family History
1208:the first one as reasonable personal information,
283:and it seems apparent that they can't get along.
73:User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Family History
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1763:). No further edits should be made to this page.
432:as above. *More* non-notable bios from Richard.
932:, but that's a matter for the potential future
153:User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Marion Webb
8:
731:, wouldn't there have to be some, you know,
739:are being nonconstructive to make a point?
928:You seem to have multiple problems with
528:Knowledge:Don't_worry_about_performance
1674:Precedent is to allow active editors
1023:is relaxed to be consistent with our
7:
617:Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster
1508:User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
870:Perhaps I wasn't quite clear. You
24:
44:The result of the discussion was
18:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion
1372:mass nomination is inappropriate
791:Actually, they should. You have
993:
875:that explicit in the same edit.
680:
633:
572:
341:?! What's the matter with you?
1069:User:Tarc/Ultraviolence (band)
1:
1281:as an extreme violation of
1783:
1312:left you on your talk page
530:. XfD is not about bytes.
50:use Knowledge as a webhost
1756:Please do not modify it.
1734:19:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
1703:13:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
1689:13:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
1670:12:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
1647:12:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
1629:06:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
1583:01:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
1550:00:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
1533:14:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1499:10:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1466:08:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1430:08:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1411:05:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1392:05:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1362:05:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1343:04:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1325:04:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
1303:04:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
1274:10:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1253:09:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1226:08:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1201:06:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1175:22:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
1157:22:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
1124:12:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1109:08:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1081:06:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1059:03:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
1037:20:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
1006:21:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
988:20:53, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
960:17:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
924:17:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
903:15:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
866:15:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
819:15:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
784:15:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
755:23:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
723:20:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
693:20:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
674:20:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
646:20:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
624:20:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
585:20:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
564:19:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
540:22:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
520:19:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
502:18:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
485:15:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
459:12:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
437:11:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
425:11:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
404:10:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
381:10:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
365:10:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
358:First Secretary of State
332:10:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
297:10:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
260:09:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
62:15:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1720:not a personal web page
1139:Textbook violation of
268:I'll say that this is
600:, to keep the pages?
302:Do you have a reason
1440:web-hosted material
930:assuming good faith
1555:Note closing admin
1518:
936:rather than here.
281:Percy Claude Byron
1739:Speedy Delete all
1616:
1602:comment added by
1578:
1516:
1152:
733:actual disruption
595:
444:- pretty clearly
367:
253:without portfolio
1774:
1758:
1626:
1615:
1596:
1576:
1464:
1461:
1460:
1453:
1448:
1289:
1250:
1248:
1243:
1150:
1099:
1004:
1002:
997:
958:
955:
954:
947:
942:
922:
919:
914:
901:
898:
897:
890:
885:
864:
861:
856:
817:
814:
813:
806:
801:
790:
782:
779:
774:
745:
721:
718:
717:
710:
705:
691:
689:
684:
672:
669:
668:
661:
656:
644:
642:
637:
622:
619:
618:
611:
606:
589:
583:
581:
576:
561:
557:
553:
394:
363:
360:
359:
352:
347:
336:
330:
327:
326:
319:
314:
285:User:TreasuryTag
275:contrary to our
258:
255:
254:
247:
242:
210:personal website
34:
1782:
1781:
1777:
1776:
1775:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1767:
1761:deletion review
1754:
1731:
1718:. Knowledge is
1624:
1597:
1581:
1458:
1457:
1451:
1446:
1443:
1370:Further, their
1287:
1246:
1241:
1239:
1155:
1105:
1095:
1000:
995:
952:
951:
945:
940:
937:
917:
912:
909:
895:
894:
888:
883:
880:
859:
854:
851:
811:
810:
804:
799:
796:
777:
772:
769:
751:
741:
715:
714:
708:
703:
700:
687:
682:
666:
665:
659:
654:
651:
640:
635:
616:
615:
609:
604:
601:
579:
574:
559:
555:
551:
400:
390:
357:
356:
350:
345:
342:
324:
323:
317:
312:
309:
277:civility policy
252:
251:
245:
240:
237:
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1780:
1778:
1769:
1766:
1765:
1749:
1748:
1736:
1727:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1650:
1649:
1631:
1617:
1595:__noindex__ed?
1585:
1573:
1552:
1535:
1521:Jameslwoodward
1501:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1433:
1432:
1422:DustFormsWords
1414:
1413:
1395:
1394:
1384:DustFormsWords
1365:
1364:
1354:DustFormsWords
1346:
1345:
1335:DustFormsWords
1327:
1305:
1283:WP:NOTWEBSPACE
1276:
1255:
1228:
1214:WP:NOT#WEBHOST
1203:
1181:Editors matter
1177:
1159:
1147:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1111:
1103:
1084:
1083:
1073:Colonel Warden
1062:
1061:
1040:
1039:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
905:
876:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
757:
749:
725:
566:
543:
542:
524:
523:
522:
512:Colonel Warden
505:
504:
487:
461:
439:
427:
406:
398:
383:
370:
369:
368:
334:
289:Colonel Warden
206:
205:
200:
195:
190:
185:
180:
175:
170:
165:
160:
155:
150:
145:
140:
135:
130:
125:
120:
115:
110:
105:
100:
95:
90:
85:
80:
75:
68:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1779:
1770:
1764:
1762:
1757:
1751:
1750:
1747:
1744:
1740:
1737:
1735:
1730:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1714:
1713:
1704:
1700:
1696:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1677:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1648:
1644:
1640:
1635:
1632:
1630:
1627:
1621:
1618:
1613:
1609:
1605:
1601:
1593:
1592:wp:NOTWEBHOST
1589:
1586:
1584:
1580:
1579:
1572:
1568:
1565:and then to
1564:
1561:was moved to
1560:
1556:
1553:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1536:
1534:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1502:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1487:WP:NOTWEBHOST
1484:
1481:
1480:
1467:
1462:
1454:
1449:
1441:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1412:
1408:
1404:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1344:
1340:
1336:
1331:
1328:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1313:
1309:
1306:
1304:
1300:
1297:
1294:
1290:
1284:
1280:
1277:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1263:
1262:WP:NOTWEBHOST
1259:
1256:
1254:
1251:
1249:
1244:
1236:
1232:
1229:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1204:
1202:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1163:
1160:
1158:
1154:
1153:
1146:
1142:
1141:WP:NOTWEBHOST
1138:
1135:
1134:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1112:
1110:
1107:
1106:
1100:
1098:
1092:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1060:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1041:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1015:
1014:
1007:
1003:
998:
991:
990:
989:
985:
981:
977:
961:
956:
953:constablewick
948:
943:
935:
931:
927:
926:
925:
921:
920:
915:
906:
904:
899:
891:
886:
877:
873:
869:
868:
867:
863:
862:
857:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
820:
815:
807:
802:
794:
787:
786:
785:
781:
780:
775:
767:
763:
758:
756:
753:
752:
746:
744:
738:
734:
730:
726:
724:
719:
711:
706:
698:
696:
695:
694:
690:
685:
677:
676:
675:
670:
662:
657:
649:
648:
647:
643:
638:
631:
627:
626:
625:
620:
612:
607:
599:
593:
592:edit conflict
588:
587:
586:
582:
577:
570:
567:
565:
562:
554:
548:
545:
544:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
508:
507:
506:
503:
499:
495:
491:
488:
486:
482:
478:
473:
470:are and what
469:
465:
462:
460:
456:
452:
447:
443:
440:
438:
435:
434:Jack Merridew
431:
428:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
407:
405:
402:
401:
395:
393:
387:
384:
382:
379:
374:
371:
366:
361:
353:
348:
340:
335:
333:
328:
320:
315:
307:
303:
300:
299:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
271:
267:
264:
263:
262:
261:
256:
248:
243:
233:
231:
230:WP:NOTWEBHOST
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
204:
201:
199:
196:
194:
191:
189:
186:
184:
181:
179:
176:
174:
171:
169:
166:
164:
161:
159:
156:
154:
151:
149:
146:
144:
141:
139:
136:
134:
131:
129:
126:
124:
121:
119:
116:
114:
111:
109:
106:
104:
101:
99:
96:
94:
91:
89:
86:
84:
81:
79:
76:
74:
71:
70:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1768:
1755:
1752:
1738:
1715:
1675:
1658:WP:User page
1633:
1619:
1598:— Preceding
1587:
1575:
1554:
1537:
1503:
1482:
1371:
1329:
1307:
1295:
1288:AnmaFinotera
1278:
1257:
1238:
1230:
1212:the rest as
1209:
1205:
1185:other places
1161:
1149:
1136:
1102:
1096:
1090:
1046:
1029:FeydHuxtable
1016:
980:FeydHuxtable
910:
852:
770:
765:
761:
748:
742:
736:
732:
596:Do you have
568:
546:
494:Sapporod1965
489:
471:
467:
463:
441:
429:
408:
397:
391:
385:
372:
338:
325:Lord Speaker
265:
234:
207:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1741:Per all...
1538:Delete all
1724:TorriTorri
1571:Yilloslime
1542:Off2riorob
1504:Delete All
1483:Delete all
1317:Carcharoth
1279:Delete all
1145:Yilloslime
411:following
46:delete all
1695:Gwen Gale
1662:Gwen Gale
1403:SmokeyJoe
1193:SmokeyJoe
1167:Martin H.
768:level.
762:emphasize
667:stannator
532:Gwen Gale
526:See also
417:Gwen Gale
1729:contribs
1612:contribs
1604:Buddy431
1600:unsigned
1529:contribs
1491:Johnuniq
1459:belonger
1447:Treasury
1299:contribs
941:Treasury
934:WP:RFC/U
896:Woolsack
884:Treasury
800:Treasury
766:personal
704:Treasury
655:Treasury
630:WP:POINT
605:Treasury
451:Robofish
346:Treasury
313:Treasury
273:hounding
241:Treasury
218:memorial
214:web-host
54:Tim Song
1681:Collect
1639:Collect
1625:AniMate
1308:Comment
872:did say
812:senator
716:cabinet
560:Windows
490:Delete.
337:Sorry,
1716:Delete
1634:Delete
1620:Delete
1380:WP:AGF
1258:Delete
1235:WP:NOT
1231:Delete
1218:Stifle
1210:delete
1162:Delete
1137:Delete
1025:vision
1021:WP:GNG
1001:lhonan
918:lhonan
860:lhonan
778:lhonan
688:lhonan
641:lhonan
580:lhonan
552:Fences
547:Delete
464:Delete
446:WP:NOT
442:Delete
430:Delete
409:Delete
386:Delete
373:Delete
339:banned
306:WP:RFC
270:pointy
1743:68071
1693:Yes.
1242:Aiken
1091:never
729:point
556:&
16:<
1722:. --
1699:talk
1685:talk
1676:some
1666:talk
1643:talk
1608:talk
1588:Keep
1546:talk
1525:talk
1495:talk
1426:talk
1407:talk
1388:talk
1358:talk
1339:talk
1330:Keep
1321:talk
1293:talk
1270:talk
1233:per
1222:talk
1206:Keep
1197:talk
1179:Per
1171:talk
1120:talk
1116:Tarc
1114:pls.
1097:Reyk
1077:talk
1055:talk
1051:Tarc
1033:talk
1017:Keep
996:Erie
984:talk
913:Erie
855:Erie
793:said
773:Erie
743:Reyk
683:Erie
636:Erie
575:Erie
569:Keep
536:talk
516:talk
498:talk
481:talk
477:Tarc
455:talk
421:talk
392:Reyk
378:SGGH
293:talk
266:Keep
226:this
224:and
222:this
58:talk
1746:...
1531:)
1517:Jim
1452:Tag
1374:.
1266:I42
1104:YO!
1047:try
946:Tag
889:Tag
805:Tag
750:YO!
737:you
709:Tag
660:Tag
610:Tag
468:you
399:YO!
351:Tag
318:Tag
246:Tag
1732:)
1726:(/
1701:)
1687:)
1668:)
1660:.
1645:)
1614:)
1610:•
1548:)
1527:•
1519:-
1497:)
1463:─╢
1444:╟─
1428:)
1409:)
1401:--
1390:)
1360:)
1341:)
1323:)
1301:)
1272:)
1264:.
1237:.
1224:)
1216:.
1199:)
1173:)
1143:.
1122:)
1079:)
1057:)
1035:)
1027:.
986:)
957:─╢
938:╟─
900:─╢
881:╟─
816:─╢
797:╟─
720:─╢
701:╟─
671:─╢
652:╟─
621:─╢
602:╟─
538:)
518:)
500:)
483:)
472:we
457:)
423:)
362:─╢
343:╟─
329:─╢
310:╟─
295:)
257:─╢
238:╟─
60:)
1697:(
1683:(
1664:(
1641:(
1606:(
1577:C
1544:(
1523:(
1493:(
1455:►
1424:(
1405:(
1386:(
1356:(
1337:(
1319:(
1296:·
1291:(
1268:(
1247:♫
1220:(
1195:(
1169:(
1151:C
1118:(
1075:(
1053:(
1031:(
982:(
949:►
892:►
808:►
712:►
663:►
613:►
594:)
590:(
534:(
514:(
496:(
479:(
453:(
419:(
354:►
321:►
291:(
249:►
216:/
212:/
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.