487:(whatever is backed by consensus). I don't appreciate Kim's attempt to divide everyone into two camps ("proponents of Knowledge (XXG):Straw Polls" and "proponents of PNSD"), and I don't know where he got the idea that we delete longstanding project pages (let alone former guidelines) or pages that have been the focus of editing disputes. At worst, if absolutely nothing from any version of the page is consensus-backed, it's an
248:. I'm not steeped in this debate and I don't know how this page went from a simple guideline to a complicated essay that was so disputatious that it had to be protected. I think perhaps this page is the victim of overemphasis on process over results, and of writing rules over writing an encyclopedia. If the choice is between a complicated contentious process or nothing, let it be nothing, but can we go back to simpler days?
283:, I actually thought the (current) version Netscott helped with was starting to shape up, It still needed a lot of work of course, but then people dropped the actual work and started playing nomic instead (that kind of sucks). So this MFD is sort of a last resort to make that stop. I'll keep a copy of the wikicode on my local HD, and maybe in a month or two I can salvage some of the good sections (+tidied) for PNSD. :-) --
404:. This looks like a potentially useful start on a revised guideline on the subject. It appears that until recently, a good deal of productive discussion and editing was occuring here, and i see no reason to assume that can't restart. Clearly this isn't finished yet, but why toss it out? I might add that I think Kim Bruning and perhaps some others misunderstand the nature of
408:. It was, in fact, originally created as a tool to teach consensus-based decision-makign and governance. (note that in nomic all decisions must be unanimious until there is a unanimious decision to the contrary.) That said there does appear to have been some rather poitless and unproductive edits here recently, but I would hope that could be put behind us.
1121:(e/c) Well I see progress, particularly as David Levy brings well reasoned logic to the table and "mediates" the nonsense that had been occuring prior to his deeper involvement of late. I too feel that with more eyes on this and further steps at dispute resolution passed, this prior unproductive cycle has been broken.
75:, which is the actual guideline in this case. People are trying to game wikipedia policy on this one, they've gone forum shopping, they've been to mediation, they've tried to get their opponents banned over and back. And they've been warring for over a week on silly page titles. When I tried emulating
884:
Several editors (myself included) had absolutely nothing to do with the ugly dispute that broke out. We were calmly discussing the idea of merging two longstanding project pages. There was some support and some opposition, but everyone seemed to be getting along. Then you showed up, announced that
874:
Page merge is totally uninteresting. Unfortunately it has now taken up 100% of contributor time, and is not going anywhere. It would be much handier to work on gaining consensus on an NPOV description of best practices. We can worry about trivialities like page titles and final locations again later.
443:
There is nothing wrong with taking a straw poll to determine whether there is support for something. Lately we seem to have a minority veto of proposals becoming guidelines, where shrillness and persistence count for too much. There is much to be said for lining up and counting noses, however much it
738:
As of this moment, the nastiness is not ongoing. But as I said, if I'm mistaken (and it resumes), feel free to take the appropriate measures to address the two users' problematic behavior. Again, proposing the deletion of a longstanding project page that they happened to be arguing over (and that
553:
You seem to be frantically searching for a solution to a problem that already has been resolved. The nastiness appears to have largely subsided (in favor of constructive discourse that you've continually striven to shut down because you don't realize that the bad part is over). It's as though the
387:
Assuming that I do, I doubt we agree on who has been doing the gaming or what the consequences should be. And, quite frankly, this MfD seems like part of a game as well. It strikes me as rather amusing that in the middle of this whole discussion of polling, it was you who started this page which,
1058:
The merger discussion may or may not have started in good faith. Let's assume it's in good faith for now. After seeing what a mess it's made of things, continuing the discussion much longer cannot possibly be seen as good faith anymore. People should drop it for more constructive pursuits.
368:
per
Netscott. In response to Kim Bruning, if any "gaming" has occurred here, it was making WP:PNSD a guideline even though it has never had consensus. The process of merging WP:PNSD and WP:STRAW into WP:Polling should continue, and not be disrupted by deleting one of them.
1228:
83:, my result was "delete both" from proponents of Knowledge (XXG):Straw Polls, and "Keep Both" from proponents of PNSD. If I remember my solomonology correctly, that means that someone is up to something, and Straw straw polls is the page to be deleted. O:-) --
1068:
Since when is discussing a good faith (and logical) merger not constructive? I too do not understand your thinking Kim
Bruning. Getting the merger under the belt and then continuing in that direction by incorporating the relevant content from
696:
Right, and that's over with (and you're tilting at windmills). But if I'm wrong, appropriate measures can be taken to address these users' behavior. Deleting the disputed page (which at least some editors are discussing in good faith) is
533:
You're holding all of us accountable for the actions of...what, two users? And what does that have to do with your attempt to delete a longstanding project page? Is that your new solution to every editing dispute — just delete the page?
1324:→Ok, that's innocuous enough. It did spark a major fight between two established contributors though. I'm also somewhat worried that parties might grasp the merge as an opportunity to insert limited/POV viewpoints (like happened with
719:
As I said, the nastiness appears to have largely subsided. Why you've gone out of your way to halt the subsequent discussion (in which users with no connection to the aforementioned dispute have participated) is beyond me.
355:
I've got a feeling that this one will have to go to arbitration, but I think Kim is right about the gaming. If deleting this obsolete page is enough to stop the disruption, fine. If not, then it'll go where it needs to go.
543:
The page was never descriptive of anything people were actually doing, so removing it is no big deal. No one was making any kind of effort to restrain or tell off those two users. They rather seemed to be encouraging them.
472:
Quite frankly, I don't know what the hell Kim is doing. We're simply trying to have a normal discussion, and he keeps posting bizarre messages about mandating that we wait until next month (or next year) to act, this
1234:
I perceived that request (an attempt at dispute resolution) as the point at which the ugliness died down and sanity began to take hold. With that out of the way, things seemed to be going rather smoothly.
987:
I'm quite troubled by your statements that the page contains text of value (which you're saving on your hard drive), but you want to delete it anyway (because you're annoyed at two of the editors). —
427:. I'm nominating this particular instance of the page for deletion, because further editing in this atmosphere is simply going to be unproductive. I hope to try again maybe a month from now or so. --
1154:
a dispute that centered around myself and one other editor... (of which we tried to engage you in coming to a resolution over but were dismissed). The state of affairs has progressed since then.
204:
80:
524:
If by "normal discussion" you include folks trying to get each other banned on the community sanctions noticeboard, and getting their case rejected by the mediation committee, then sure! :-/ --
889:
that I'd never even heard of, and nominated one of the pages under discussion for deletion (despite your belief that it contains useful text), again because of a dispute involving two editors.
1193:
Again, you're conflating a conflict in which most of us played little or no role with the constructive discussion that followed. As I said, the flames had just been extinguished, that
885:
the situation was hopeless (apparently based solely on the aforementioned dispute between two users), demanded that all discussion cease for at least a month, accused us of playing a
1074:
1049:
I don't know what you want me to say. If you lack my belief that the users in question (or at least most of us) are acting in good faith, I'm sorry that you've become so cynical. —
923:
480:
201:
905:
IMHO one of the pages in question was/is currently under heavy editing, and merging would be most unwise to begin with. But I'm willing to listen to reasons for merging anyway? --
1218:
I'm quite certain that I have been tracking the case up to this date. Were you not aware of the Medcom request? ^Demon left a message on my talk page less than 24 hours ago. --
317:
tagged this page for merging with "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" to make one centralized guideline page about polling, to me that made more sense than to have
922:
be merged in its current form. The idea is to slowly analyze its text (along with previous versions), determine which portions are backed by consensus, merge them into
1209:
We were calmly expressing our ideas and opinions in an organized fashion...until you appeared, insisted that all hell had broken loose, and demanded that we stop. —
178:
The reason I'm keeping a copy on my HD is to use it as a reference on what to avoid in future. :-/ At some point we're still going to want a polling guideline. --
612:
You've openly acknowledged nominating a potentially useful project page for deletion because you're annoyed about an editing dispute. What do you call that? —
1261:
A civilized discussion need not be constructive by the way. But alright... what do you hope to gain by merging these pages at this particular point in time? --
158:
below this type of page does not get deleted regardless of its designation. That and your own statements make evident the illogical nature of this MfD.
1369:
don't get to decide what other people discuss, nor do you get to delete a page because you don't like the fact that people are discussing it. —
17:
1040:
You don't need to change the subject. :-) I assume you just missed it in passing. Just rephrase the question so it's no longer loaded? --
752:
I still don't see what you're basing your conclusion on that things are not ongoing? You seem terribly convinced. <looks puzzeled: -->
563:
Actually, I'd been informed beforehand that this kind of situation might occur. I don't think the current state is at all stable. --
554:
flames have been extinguished, but you're running around shouting, "where's the fire?!" and chopping through walls with an axe. —
672:
If I'm mistaken (and the nastiness persists), the proper course of action is to address this matter with the editors involved,
1028:
1270:
The discussion was constructive because we were gaining a better understanding of each other's opinions on how to proceed.
216:
207:. This page has been around for quite some time and it was not too long ago that a previous version was designated as a
1434:
1391:
1382:
1373:
1336:
1281:
1265:
1252:
1239:
1222:
1213:
1201:
1178:
1169:
1145:
1136:
1113:
1100:
1063:
1053:
1044:
1035:
1022:
1009:
1000:
991:
973:
930:
909:
900:
879:
869:
860:
851:
838:
829:
825:
I don't believe that page (in its entirety) has been rejected, and neither do you. This is a disruptive nomination. —
820:
811:
766:
757:
747:
733:
724:
714:
705:
691:
682:
647:
638:
625:
616:
607:
598:
589:
576:
567:
558:
548:
538:
528:
515:
457:
448:
431:
414:
392:
382:
373:
360:
342:
287:
275:
252:
234:
182:
173:
149:
140:
122:
102:
87:
59:
36:
729:
It's rather early to draw that conclusion. I don't think it's been more than 24 hours since the medcom rejection. --
462:
Maybe I should stop responding before it looks like I'm responding to everyone... which I probably am <sigh: -->
453:
The page doesn't say that. In fact it says the opposite. Are you sure you're reading the right page here? ^^;;; --
1206:
I'm not convinced of the constructiveness of the disussion. Can you demonstrate how and why it is contructive?
1325:
1070:
919:
484:
300:
65:
1248:
a bit cynical :-/ Typically the next thing to happen is that the excrement strikes the ventilation device. --
1433:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a
483:(and even suggested the name), but I believe that it could be improved via a merger with some material from
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a
847:
know that prohibiting discussion and deleting the page won't bring us any closer to attaining that goal. —
444:
is asserted that this project is not a democracy. What is the alternative? Autocracy? Anarchy? Caucus race?
357:
307:
making edits that essentially thwarted them, the going was rather difficult. As far as the accusations of
249:
834:
I don't think that page will gain consensus anytime in the next one or two months at least. Do you? --
260:, I don't see why we can't go back to simpler days while the "merge to form" discussion goes forward.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below.
1078:
1378:
Um, that is entirely correct in abstract, but I don't see how it pertains to the matter at hand? --
501:
327:
proposed this same exact idea months ago I am particularly convinced that such an idea is logical.
1157:
1124:
1088:
412:
330:
263:
222:
161:
128:
424:
801:
296:
72:
1379:
1333:
1262:
1249:
1219:
1175:
1142:
1110:
1060:
1041:
1019:
997:
970:
906:
876:
857:
835:
817:
754:
730:
711:
688:
635:
622:
604:
586:
564:
545:
525:
454:
428:
379:
284:
212:
179:
146:
99:
84:
56:
926:(along with any additional polling information deemed useful) and leave the rest behind. —
856:
It's a balance. It will unblock (rather more productive) discussion occurring elsewhere. --
1388:
1370:
1278:
1236:
1210:
1198:
1050:
1032:
1015:
1006:
988:
927:
897:
866:
848:
826:
808:
763:
744:
721:
702:
679:
644:
613:
595:
573:
555:
535:
512:
323:
155:
1277:
the matter now. The goal is to eventually create a comprehensive polling guideline. —
791:
491:
313:
1162:
1129:
1093:
409:
335:
304:
268:
227:
166:
145:
Do you want me to delete the copy from my hard drive, and should we salt the page? --
133:
299:
is rather accusatory here. You must admit that both you and I made efforts to bring
211:(and had been for quite some time). Of note: this MfD is a bit puzzling considering
1106:
445:
762:
Instead of drama, we were having an ordinary discussion...until you arrived. —
687:
That ground has already been covered. Escalated to CSN and MEDCOM requests. --
787:
Even if this never actually was a legitimate guideline, it's still either an
389:
370:
1109:. I would gladly cooperate if we could move on to greener pastures? :-) --
1329:
1031:
that others (including those with whom I disagree) have acted in kind. —
1027:
I know that I've been attempting discuss the matter in good faith, and I
76:
388:
while officially labeled a "discussion", looks a lot like a poll.
1197:
when you showed up with an axe and began chopping through walls. —
1005:
How about allowing the good-faith merger discussion to continue? —
621:
I'm sorry, I don't recall saying that. Could you provide a diff? --
116:
once the dust has settled maybe we can make a tidy guideline anyway
1174:
I don't/didn't see any further discussions with
Radiant though? --
886:
474:
405:
308:
91:
1427:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
969:→ It might help to wait until Straw polls settles down then. --
1273:
I said nothing about merging the pages now. I merely want to
1105:
People have been fighting over this for days now. It's pure
603:
You are accusing me of disruption? (A blockable offence) --
1075:
Knowledge (XXG):Polling is not a substitute for discussion
924:
Knowledge (XXG):Polling is not a substitute for discussion
816:
Amending to "mark as rejected" is easy. We can do that. --
572:
And your solution for unstable pages is to delete them? —
481:
Knowledge (XXG):Polling is not a substitute for discussion
202:
Knowledge (XXG):Polling is not a substitute for discussion
50:
Nominator withdraws nomination, all other opinions are to
892:
Now, instead of discussing the potential merger, 100% of
865:
I can't even begin to wrap my mind around that claim. —
630:
245:
208:
119:
1073:(regardless of which version we're talking about) and
423:
Nomic teaches governance mostly by allowing people to
321:
seperate pages as guidelines for polling. Given that
217:
push to bring this page back to guideline designation
311:behavior and "gaming", that is just nonsense. Once
71:Basically this abandoned page was reopened to fork
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
678:to delete the page that the conflict concerns. —
1437:). No further edits should be made to this page.
739:other editors are discussing in good faith) is
896:time is being spent debating this with you. —
1141:You were one of the people fighting though --
996:I'm troubled too. I'm open to suggestions. --
594:Yes. Withdraw this disruptive nomination. —
479:For the record, I'm a long-time supporter of
8:
477:game that I've never heard of, and now this.
1158:
1125:
1089:
331:
264:
223:
162:
129:
1163:
1130:
1094:
336:
295:, I'm sorry but your language and that of
269:
228:
200:as discussion about merging this page and
167:
134:
807:proposal. We don't delete such pages. —
90:(note: Short version: People are playing
110:Kim Bruning, your saying that you are, "
18:Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion
1332:approach is to delete if uncertain. --
7:
1244:The request was denied. Ok, maybe I
634:That does not say what you claim. --
378:You agree there was gaming, then? --
24:
123:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion policy
112:keeping a copy on my hard drive
95:on this page. This must stop)
94:in the project namespace -: -->
44:The result of the debate was
1:
1326:Knowledge (XXG):Attribution
1071:Knowledge (XXG):Straw polls
920:Knowledge (XXG):Straw polls
485:Knowledge (XXG):Straw polls
301:Knowledge (XXG):Straw polls
66:Knowledge (XXG):Straw polls
1454:
1392:06:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1383:06:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1374:06:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1337:07:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1282:07:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1266:07:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1253:07:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1240:07:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1223:07:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1214:06:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1202:06:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1179:06:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1170:06:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1146:06:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1137:06:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1114:06:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1101:06:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1064:05:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1054:05:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1045:05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1036:05:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1023:04:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1010:04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1001:04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
992:04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
974:07:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
931:06:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
910:06:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
901:06:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
880:05:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
870:05:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
861:05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
852:05:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
839:04:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
830:04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
821:04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
812:04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
767:06:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
758:06:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
748:05:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
734:05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
725:05:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
715:04:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
706:04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
692:04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
683:04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
648:06:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
639:06:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
626:05:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
617:05:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
608:05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
599:05:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
590:04:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
577:04:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
568:04:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
559:04:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
549:03:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
539:03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
529:03:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
516:03:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
458:03:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
449:03:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
432:03:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
425:Stuff beans up their noses
415:03:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
393:03:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
383:03:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
374:02:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
361:02:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
343:03:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
288:02:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
276:02:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
253:02:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
235:02:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
183:04:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
174:03:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
150:03:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
141:03:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
103:07:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
88:02:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
60:07:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
1117:pun not intended, honest!
585:page. Any better idea? --
98:Withdrawing nomination --
1430:Please do not modify it.
511:a deletion candidate. —
32:Please do not modify it.
1227:You and I conversed on
1079:Knowledge (XXG):Polling
1018:. Can you rephrase? --
1014:That turns out to be a
121:does not correspond to
643:In what respect(s)? —
710:Define "over with" --
1083:from the here on out
1081:makes perfect sense
843:I don't know, but I
581:I'm trying that for
303:into shape but with
914:I don't think that
918:has proposed that
743:such a measure. —
701:such a measure. —
1118:
464:
297:User:Tony Sidaway
1445:
1432:
1165:
1160:
1132:
1127:
1116:
1096:
1091:
806:
800:
796:
790:
506:
500:
496:
490:
460:
338:
333:
271:
266:
230:
225:
213:User:Kim Bruning
169:
164:
136:
131:
34:
1453:
1452:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1435:deletion review
1428:
1016:Loaded question
804:
798:
794:
788:
504:
498:
494:
488:
324:User:David Levy
156:User:David Levy
81:this discussion
69:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1451:
1449:
1440:
1439:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1271:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1232:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
890:
875:Much later. --
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
519:
518:
478:
467:
466:
465:
437:
436:
435:
434:
418:
417:
399:
398:
397:
396:
395:
363:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
314:User:Ned Scott
238:
237:
194:
193:
192:
191:
190:
189:
188:
187:
186:
185:
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1450:
1438:
1436:
1431:
1425:
1424:
1393:
1390:
1387:Okay then. —
1386:
1385:
1384:
1381:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1372:
1368:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1280:
1276:
1272:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1264:
1260:
1254:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1238:
1233:
1230:
1229:its talk page
1226:
1225:
1224:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1212:
1208:
1207:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1180:
1177:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1168:
1166:
1161:
1153:
1150:Indeed there
1149:
1148:
1147:
1144:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1135:
1133:
1128:
1120:
1119:
1115:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1099:
1097:
1092:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1062:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1052:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1008:
1004:
1003:
1002:
999:
995:
994:
993:
990:
986:
985:
984:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
972:
934:
933:
932:
929:
925:
921:
917:
913:
912:
911:
908:
904:
903:
902:
899:
895:
891:
888:
883:
882:
881:
878:
873:
872:
871:
868:
864:
863:
862:
859:
855:
854:
853:
850:
846:
842:
841:
840:
837:
833:
832:
831:
828:
824:
823:
822:
819:
815:
814:
813:
810:
803:
793:
786:
768:
765:
761:
760:
759:
756:
751:
750:
749:
746:
742:
737:
736:
735:
732:
728:
727:
726:
723:
718:
717:
716:
713:
709:
708:
707:
704:
700:
695:
694:
693:
690:
686:
685:
684:
681:
677:
676:
671:
649:
646:
642:
641:
640:
637:
633:
632:
631:
629:
628:
627:
624:
620:
619:
618:
615:
611:
610:
609:
606:
602:
601:
600:
597:
593:
592:
591:
588:
584:
580:
579:
578:
575:
571:
570:
569:
566:
562:
561:
560:
557:
552:
551:
550:
547:
542:
541:
540:
537:
532:
531:
530:
527:
523:
522:
521:
520:
517:
514:
510:
503:
493:
486:
482:
476:
471:
468:
463:
459:
456:
452:
451:
450:
447:
442:
439:
438:
433:
430:
426:
422:
421:
420:
419:
416:
413:
411:
407:
403:
400:
394:
391:
386:
385:
384:
381:
377:
376:
375:
372:
367:
364:
362:
359:
354:
353:
344:
341:
339:
334:
326:
325:
320:
316:
315:
310:
306:
305:User:Radiant!
302:
298:
294:
291:
290:
289:
286:
282:
279:
278:
277:
274:
272:
267:
259:
256:
255:
254:
251:
247:
243:
240:
239:
236:
233:
231:
226:
218:
214:
210:
206:
203:
199:
196:
195:
184:
181:
177:
176:
175:
172:
170:
165:
157:
153:
152:
151:
148:
144:
143:
142:
139:
137:
132:
124:
120:
117:
113:
109:
108:
107:
106:
105:
104:
101:
96:
93:
89:
86:
82:
78:
74:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
54:
53:
48:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1429:
1426:
1366:
1323:
1274:
1245:
1194:
1155:
1151:
1122:
1086:
1082:
968:
915:
893:
844:
740:
698:
674:
673:
582:
508:
469:
461:
440:
401:
365:
358:Tony Sidaway
328:
322:
318:
312:
292:
280:
261:
257:
246:this version
241:
220:
205:goes forward
197:
159:
126:
115:
111:
97:
70:
55:
51:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1380:Kim Bruning
1334:Kim Bruning
1263:Kim Bruning
1250:Kim Bruning
1220:Kim Bruning
1176:Kim Bruning
1143:Kim Bruning
1111:Kim Bruning
1107:Yak shaving
1061:Kim Bruning
1042:Kim Bruning
1020:Kim Bruning
998:Kim Bruning
971:Kim Bruning
907:Kim Bruning
877:Kim Bruning
858:Kim Bruning
836:Kim Bruning
818:Kim Bruning
755:Kim Bruning
731:Kim Bruning
712:Kim Bruning
689:Kim Bruning
636:Kim Bruning
623:Kim Bruning
605:Kim Bruning
587:Kim Bruning
565:Kim Bruning
546:Kim Bruning
526:Kim Bruning
455:Kim Bruning
429:Kim Bruning
380:Kim Bruning
285:Kim Bruning
250:Thatcher131
180:Kim Bruning
147:Kim Bruning
100:Kim Bruning
85:Kim Bruning
57:Kim Bruning
1389:David Levy
1371:David Levy
1279:David Levy
1237:David Levy
1211:David Levy
1199:David Levy
1051:David Levy
1033:David Levy
1007:David Levy
989:David Levy
928:David Levy
898:David Levy
867:David Levy
849:David Levy
827:David Levy
809:David Levy
764:David Levy
745:David Levy
722:David Levy
703:David Levy
680:David Levy
645:David Levy
614:David Levy
596:David Levy
574:David Levy
556:David Levy
536:David Levy
513:David Levy
502:historical
215:'s recent
209:guideline
46:Withdrawn
1330:failsafe
1164:Netscott
1131:Netscott
1095:Netscott
1077:to make
802:rejected
507:record,
337:Netscott
270:Netscott
229:Netscott
168:Netscott
135:Netscott
1328:). The
1275:discuss
293:Comment
281:Comment
258:Comment
244:I like
242:Comment
154:As per
77:Solomon
73:WP:PNSD
1231:, Kim.
1195:that's
1029:assume
916:anyone
446:Edison
114:" so "
797:or a
792:essay
497:or a
492:essay
475:Nomic
470:Keep.
406:Nomic
309:Nomic
92:Nomic
16:<
887:game
583:this
441:Keep
402:Keep
390:6SJ7
371:6SJ7
366:Keep
198:Keep
118:" ←
52:Keep
1367:You
1152:was
741:not
699:not
675:not
509:not
410:DES
319:two
79:in
1246:am
1085:.
1059:--
894:my
845:do
805:}}
799:{{
795:}}
789:{{
753:--
544:--
505:}}
499:{{
495:}}
489:{{
356:--
219:.
125:.
1286:←
1235:—
1167:)
1159:→
1156:(
1134:)
1126:→
1123:(
1098:)
1090:→
1087:(
935:←
720:—
534:—
340:)
332:→
329:(
273:)
265:→
262:(
232:)
224:→
221:(
171:)
163:→
160:(
138:)
130:→
127:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.