1739:
the essay or not is not really a point that would change my opinion. Just the fact that it is there at all bothers me. But I will say that though I don't personally accept that a low hit count is a reason to keep the article, I understand where you are coming from. Furthermore, if someone where to argue that these humor essays are good for the creative writing process, and an outlet from the monotony of WP editing, I would (reluctantly) agree that, in some way, they do have merit. I guess I would just like essays like this to be more clearly removed from the mainspace, as well as a clearer disclaimer that editors citing this
1450:. It refers only to content. If you believe that there are good reasons to retain the article, you should perhaps include those reasons in your !vote above. That something is humorous is not a good reason for keeping an article. There are plenty of humorous things out there, I, for example, know this really funny story about a sheep, a cow and a pig who walk into a bar but I seriously doubt if you'll !vote keep if I create an essay in project space on that story. (Personally, I don't find this offensive and appreciate the sentiment behind it. It is a tad silly, perhaps,
128:. The thesis is "cease all dickery", meaning behave yourself, or else "be a giant dick" so we can ban you. The clear choice is to behave well, rather than continuing to push the envelope and see how much you can get away with. This is good advice mingled with humor. The essay goes on to highlight many types of envelope pushing (gaming the system), and implores editors to stop that behavior. If you don't like the crass word "dick", generate a consensus to change it to "pest" or another synonym. We don't delete when editing can solve a problem.
864:
how the word is meant, the picture would dispel it.) Wikimedia has a systemic bias against women, and some people are looking for strategies to address that. This silly "dick" terminology that is floating around to an extent that you can see it on ANI (almost) daily could well be one the many small things that tell women they are not particularly welcome here, and it's certainly among the things that are easiest to change.
1672:
NON-NOTE based on the number of Google hits. Quality over quantity and all that. Furthermore, WP is not a private club (is this a policy? It should be.)...anyone can see/change anything (barring protection) and keeping an essay like this (my personal opinion of it can be found above) just because only a few editors "in the know" will ever read it does not seem like a persuasive point to keep it.
1553:. This page isn't the funniest, but I enjoy its lightheartedness. The list of examples is kind of lame, but it makes a good point that the worst users in the long run are the ones that do small bits of damage here and there. I think it's valuable to illustrate that point and doesn't make us look overly "unprofessional" - just like there is a fun, human community behind the site.
1734:@Fly (Thanks for the tip BTW:) I can see how those two points you referenced can seem at odds...but in my mind they are separate. My bottom line is that I simply don't think articles/essays written in a humorous tone should be on WP at all, mainly due to POV issues. (I know POV doesn't apply to essays, but that is just my feeling) Maybe I am a bit of a
579:, I think the sticking point is the use of the word "dick", and not necessarily the theme of the essay, which most seem to agree is a humorously sarcastic representation of a phenomenon that many have experienced. If a less controversial alternative to "dick" could work just as well, then maybe such an alternative would be satisfactory to most or all.
1589:. So when a new editor comes along and wants to give Knowledge a try, and perhaps unknowingly breaks a rule or two and is directed to- or just stumbles upon- this essay...well, it might be making some good points, but I think the message is wrong, in bad faith and frankly rude (regardless of whether I find it funny, which I do).
633:"Other stuff exists" isn't his argument. This essay is a tongue-in-cheek rebuttal to the other essay. If he were arguing that there were other random, unrelated, essays with the word "dick" in the title, and the word "dick" were really the only reason why some want to delete this, then that would be "other stuff exists".
1419:
applies everywhere. While it is somewhat more limited outside of articles, it's also in force here, userspace, and everywhere else- including this essay. If you (not you specifically, just in general) don't like the reference to dicks here's a very simple way to solve that problem; don't click the
1358:
because that applies to content, not to random essays. I would also exclude all arguments that want to keep the essay because the !voter finds it humorous since there is no policy reason to keep articles merely because a subsection of editors find it funny. The focus should be on trading off whether
1079:. I was not confused by this essay, and I picked up some ideas from it that were useful. (Remember, just because it's written in the second person, doesn't mean that it can only tell the reader things about themselves.) The essay is useful (to me at least), and humorous to some. It should be kept. --
703:
I suggest "cock". The
Richards out there probably don't appreciate the current form, since they can't help being a Dick. Preferring to offend chickens rather than humans does indicate a sort of systematic bias toward our species, but we can always point out that if they don't keep quiet, we'll have
1266:
It was actually NPOV that Roux said did not apply to project space. He was correct. NOTCENSORED is also about articles and not project space, so you are right on that one. Sometimes I think people just think throwing policies and guidelines around makes their argument sound more reasonable. The
863:
looked it up in several places, and they all agree that a dick is (1) a detective, or (2) a penis. Neither meaning is at all appropriate. My conclusion is that this is sexual terminology being used for bonding in a primarily male internet subculture. I find this disgusting. (If there were any doubt
1738:
in that sense, but I also believe that unreferenced articles should be deleted (after a reasonable amount of time) if no one bothers to work on them (regardless of inherent notability.) So I guess that makes me what I've heard referred to as a "deletionist." So whether or not very few people read
756:
I personally don't have a problem with the essay and I prefer to keep it. But I do see a situation where grumblings about its existence will persist into the future. IOW if the essay is kept, this MFD would probably not be the last. Toning down some of the controversial language, while maintaining
1671:
Thank you Fly, I was honestly not aware of that functionality to view page hits (I was also not aware anyone but me was looking at my page since I haven't gotten a message in a while). But to your point, I'm not sure I agree with your example anymore than I would for someone arguing for NOTE vs
1468:
I'd probably leave that alone as well; it's your essay, your opinion, so why mess with it? I see your point; the argument I made in my vote is more what I was getting at, NOTCENSORED is just an aside (and I really only care to the extent that I'm not forced to remove my one userbox because a few
786:
I hope that this debate is not seen as an affirmation of the current version, salty language and all. Deletions of reasonable, imperfect, expression is not beneficial in the long run. Deletion debates are poor exercises in the editing process. The wiki-way is better. If there is a desire to
1285:
about an article that contained a link which linked directly to a pornographic site. There were no warnings, no age checks, nothing. One click and you were confronted with explicit, penetrative sex. I suggested that the link be removed and three or four editors all said it should stay per
1147:. We're allowed to have a sense of humor, and really, at its core it's quite accurate. Come on, loosen up; just because you don't know how to have a laugh doesn't mean we all don't. Of course, if it's because people don't like the implication of penises, I suppose we could move it to
974:- I was not previously familiar with this article, but the word "dick" is not particularly offensive to the average English-speaker, so there's no justification because of that. I don't find it very funny, but as pointed out before, humour is subjective. I'd also support moving to
1100:
such humor essays. I think it is a general principle issue; that such essays, regardless of the terms used within, have no place on
Knowledge, and are seen as just a waste of space. Also, on a somewhat separate train of thought, I wonder if a new editor registering the name
516:
I see a large notice, saying: "This page is intended as humor. It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a
Knowledge policy or guideline". The page has both a disclaimer and a valid point. The deletion rationale is, frankly, misguided. But that's just my personal opinion.
1579:
standards...but all of us as editors- being familiar with the process of article ratings, peer reviews, protections, etc.- we know that
Knowledge is a hell of a lot more credible than the general public tends to believe. Unfortunately, it is articles like this, (and yes,
1028:- Absolutely no need to censor the opinions of other editors, whether you like them or not. I find the notion that mere usage of the word 'Dick' in this context could be offensive to be absurd. There is no need to be so niggardly in our full usage of the English language.
263:- The nominator doesn't have the slightest idea what the "Knowledge stands for" if he/she thinks this essay is against it. The title is a bit provocative, but we don't practice censorship around here. The message itself is sound; "if you act like this (a
462:. The whole "dick" meme is unprofessional. Let's start here in getting rid of it. Besides, this essay is tagged as "humorous" but is not funny, which is reason enough to get rid of it, unless someone wants to adopt it into their user space.
490:
That works both ways, of course. In your "keep" comment you asserted that this essay is "humorous", so I could make the same comment back to you, just taking out the letters "un". Curiously, nobody has found it necessary to point out that
1373:
And on the flipside of that coin, I'd retain all of what you wish to throw away, while discounting any call for deletion based on a thin-skinned "I don't think it's funny" reason. It'll be closed when someone gets around to it.
771:
As this is so overwhelmingly tilted to the "keep" side at the moment, I see that as an affirmation of the current version, salty language and all. A second filing in the wake of this result is going to be viewed rather dimly.
1247:
they are rebuked because this is an essay and policy guidelines are not as strictly enforced...but then when an arguement is made that it should be deleted because inferring someone is a dick is patently offensive, suddenly
1584:
as well, I believe) that gives ammunition to
Knowledge's critics, and fuels the general public's ignorance about the project's intentions. Most people have no idea the detailed process good articles go through to become,
1426:. The one userbox I have would probably aggravate some Burmese people, but I'm not removing it just because someone doesn't like it (and also because it's quite true). Same thing applies here; I see some people who
869:
This is not about censorship of what you can say. In the past there have been attempts to make any form of "strong" language automatically blockworthy. I strongly rejected those and provided evidence that swearing is
1686:
But your last point was that it should go because it makes us look unprofessional, etc, etc. The truth is that no-one ever sees it, so it does none of the things to the public's opinion that you said it does.
1611:
last month. Notice that last month's figures are influenced by a blip between the 17th and the 20th. There must have been some discussion about the article around those dates. The figures for August were
325:" If "sarcastic" is here being used in the popular sense of "ironic" then yes, but what is the objection to that? If "sarcastic" is being used in the older sense of sneeringly cutting then no it isn't. "
1430:, but far more people (like myself) who, NOTCENSORED aside, see the humor/usefulness in it and want to keep it. And yes, I can point to at least one time where it did help me, if you want an example.
1096:
I already voted for "delete" but I wonder...and I may be going out on a limb here...but I would bet that many of the editors who voted "delete" for this essay would likewise vote for "delete" on '
1359:
the essay is useful (does it provide value) with whether its 'dick' theme is obnoxious and detrimental to the serious mission of the project. Counting votes is definitely not the way to go. --
75:
This page is against all that
Knowledge Stands for. The words used are used often as a personal attack, the topic is in a sarcastic tone, and the page would be confusing for the newcomers.
204:
158:
1290:. My reasoning was ignored in favour of policy. Since then I have tried to do everything by the book and to quote policy as much as possible. It shouldn't be like that, but it is.
1511:
1388:
That doesn't make any sense. Are you suggesting it correct to ignore the wishes of the overwhelming majority? A consensus has been reached, the majority want to keep the essay.
859:
and rewrite accordingly. As a non-native speaker of
English my reaction to surprising uses such as this ("Dick? Doesn't this mean Richard? Why Richard?") is to look things up. I
1354:
Deletion discussions are not a vote. You should look at the arguments presented, not the numbers. For example, I would remove every argument that claims that this is covered by
718:
I think the real issue here is whether
Knowledge editors care whether the encyclopedia is taken seriously by readers. Judging by most of the comments here, it appears not.
69:
1204:β It's a fun, light-hearted essay. As for it being offensive, well, Knowledge is not censored and we host some truely offensive articles that don't get deleted because of
407:
NPOV does not apply to projectspace. AGF is not a suicide pact. This would be incivil if it were attacking specific people; in fact, this page is giving examples of how
787:
reword it along the lines of "If you flagrantly flout our behavioural guidelines, it makes it easy for us to ban you", then editors may attempt it in the usual way. --
1752:
1727:
1709:
1681:
1666:
1598:
1562:
1523:
1480:
1463:
1441:
1410:
1383:
1368:
1349:
1312:
1276:
1261:
1230:
1196:
1162:
1135:
1114:
1088:
1063:
1045:
1020:
999:
987:
964:
948:
927:
907:
895:
881:
847:
824:
810:
796:
781:
766:
748:
727:
713:
698:
685:
651:
642:
628:
610:
588:
569:
555:
538:
504:
485:
471:
442:
427:
402:
383:
369:
352:
338:
304:
280:
255:
243:
216:
194:
169:
149:
132:
120:
98:
84:
63:
900:
Yes. I guess having a child (yes! I have actually had sex with a real woman!) makes me a bit exotic here in that I don't feel the need to talk about penises.
1053:- This is excellent, and the nominator has no real arguments for deletion. It is not likely to confuse newcomers and isn't a personal attack. No censorship.
1474:
1435:
1156:
1326:
I propose closing this discussion, and keeping the page. The discussion has been open for eight days and is 21-to-6 (78%) in favour of keeping the page.
874:
in a real-life workplace. What is not normal is swearing or sexualised language in internal written memos and such. It should not be done here either.
918:#3, "A person with unlikable or obnoxious qualities and behavior, typically mean, self-centered, or disagreeable, and often not very intelligent." --
203:
twice said "if you are so bothered, nominate for MfD". That said, the discussion wasn't couched in terms of "what is this page useful for?", it was "
107:. I don't think that newcomers wandering across the page is a real problem, and the message behind the page is sound and sage advice, far from being "
1510:; if not the letter, than the spirit of that link can be applicable to non-article content, or even discourse between users. I am reminded of the
1008:
1180:. However, this stupid, completely unfunny, juvenile, moronic essay adds absolutely nothing that is not already covered (and better covered) in
251:. It's not funny. It's misleading. It fails to persuade. Some of these tricks apparently work, of course, if the plotters aren't complete dicks.
360:. I am coming to the conclusion that many pages of this nature, while they have their uses, generally should not be in the Knowledge namespace.
140:. It's an essay that puts a humorous spin on a real phenomenon. Sure, the title is a bit provocative, but I think overall it is quite harmless.
186:
995:- Frankly, I'm only in favor of keeping this if the name remains unchanged. In my opinion, it's the only really humorous part of the article.
1470:
1431:
1152:
1148:
914:
Like Hans, I was surprised that I couldn't find the expected definition. I understood the term to be chiefly american, and synonymous with
1715:
1575:
unprofessional, and credibility is one of
Knowledge's biggest obstacles. By its very nature, a WP article would probably not pass its own
1504:
Reagents, I am an old man with young kids, yet I still find much humour in prurient topics, so enough with the "youth" comments, please.
17:
177:, per above. I think the nominator would have done well to discuss the page's usefulness on its talk page before sending it here.
676:
531:
459:
975:
954:
288:- I believe a lot of editors here, both new and old, need to learn the value of cheeks as the best receptacle for tongues. β
46:
Keep. Clear consensus for keep, even though this went over the discussion time, it is indeed one that could be considered a
199:
Although I am in the "keep" camp I have to defend the nominator on that point. It was discussed on the talk page and
801:
I like the word flagrant. A simpler version of SmokeyJoe's title would be "Please be flagrant, so we can ban you".
953:
So here is fair warning: If this page is kept because talking about "dicks" is acceptable, I will request a move to
252:
190:
182:
1775:
690:
Suggestions (not a vote; I already voted): (1) this page could be transwikied to Meta where it would reside with
36:
1102:
1071:- As a newcomer here, for some reason I stumbled across this essay before I saw its more serious counterparts
560:
That's a good point, actually; userfication is problematic if it's not clear to whose space one would userfy.
317:" No it isn't, and I don't see how anyone could think it was, unless they are completely blind to all irony. "
1743:
essay in the course of article discussion could face sanctions, regardless if the intent was to be humorous.
1774:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a
1545:
doesn't come into this, but this isn't something that needs censorship anyways. It's no more offensive than
374:
I don't think we should give any more weight to the idea that the WP: space is only for "official" matters.
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a
1549:(that is to say, hardly offensive at all), and I don't think the nominator would argue for the deletion of
1420:
links, and don't read the essay. NOTCENSORED has to be in force elsewhere, because people get offended at
1723:
1701:
1658:
1558:
1402:
1341:
1304:
1222:
1144:
1084:
433:
A "suicide pact"? Is anyone dying here? Is the project going to die because a silly essay was deleted?
334:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below.
1542:
1507:
1459:
1447:
1427:
1416:
1364:
1355:
1287:
1249:
1205:
891:
843:
565:
365:
178:
886:
You are right, of course. But wikipedia is full of college kids who find this sort of writing funny. --
838:
Sophomoric and a bit of a pointless inside joke. No comment on whether it should be kept or deleted. --
1748:
1677:
1604:
1594:
1257:
1110:
1061:
961:
958:
904:
901:
878:
875:
762:
681:
647:
Yup, it's called parallel structure. If one essay says "dick", the rebuttal should also say "dick".
616:
584:
526:
398:
145:
944:
923:
792:
606:
551:
1452:
but I have young children and am aware of the attraction that youth has toward prurient material.
1272:
996:
983:
806:
476:
Humor is quite subjective; just because you find something unfunny does not mean that others do.
212:
165:
90:
76:
1719:
1690:
1647:
1554:
1391:
1330:
1293:
1211:
1080:
1016:
939:
this shit, as a non-native speaker the intension is quite clear (who the fuck is
Richard?). --
744:
723:
624:
500:
467:
438:
330:
598:
1455:
1360:
1076:
887:
839:
615:
I don't think "Don't be a dick" is ok, but whether it is or isn't is not relevant here, see
561:
361:
238:
1744:
1673:
1633:
1590:
1253:
1244:
1106:
1072:
1055:
758:
691:
671:
669:
Not funny, badly written, and inconsistent with other Wikipeida policies as noted above.--
580:
521:
394:
347:
141:
546:, do not userfy. This many-authored essay has a clear, useful, educational purpose. --
1581:
1550:
1546:
1519:
1379:
1189:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1038:
940:
919:
820:
788:
777:
709:
695:
648:
638:
602:
547:
481:
419:
379:
296:
276:
264:
226:, Its a humor article, clearly marked. There is no reason to delete this, or any other
129:
59:
47:
1621:
1617:
1613:
1608:
321:" Yes, but they are not being used as a personal attack here, so that is irrelevant. "
159:
Knowledge talk:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you#Should this essay be deleted?
1629:
1282:
1268:
1240:
1193:
979:
957:. This will be entirely in the interest of plain English. No silly baby talk please.
802:
268:
208:
161:
116:
1576:
1124:
1012:
740:
719:
620:
496:
463:
434:
1469:
people wouldn't like it, even though most people wouldn't know what it's about).
1641:
1637:
231:
739:
Unless or until WP establishes a specific line in the sand about such wording.
271:
will follow". It is a humorous take on the matter and tagged as such as well.
89:
This is a personal opinion. If you don't like my opinion, fine. I don't care.--
1151:, but... let's just leave it alone; it's amusing, and it makes a good point.
1515:
1375:
1031:
816:
773:
705:
634:
477:
412:
375:
289:
272:
200:
54:
1625:
1239:
How come whenever an editor in support of "delete" brings up policies like
597:
The word is well understood and doesn't have a formal synonym. As long as
1714:
Actually, that counting tool does redirects separately. So it's more like
757:
the essence of the article could help the article gain wider acceptance.
393:
At odds with civility and AGF guidelines. Also, humor is inherently POV.
112:
815:
I hope it does just that. The less thin-skinned whining, the better.
915:
694:. (2) If people don't like "dick" they can propose an alternative.
1735:
1768:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1281:
People throw policy around because of experience. I posted on
1607:
exists. Take a look at the traffic stats. WP:PBAGDSWCBY got
1188:. I would also accept (and almost prefer) a redirect to
978:, because titles with Latin words in are always better.
1122:. Er...It's not funny, and can be seen as offensive. -
346:. "Against all that Knowledge Stands for"? Grow up.Β β
111:". Well within the range of tolerable essay material.β
1512:
Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Vulgarity
319:
The words used are used often as a personal attack.
315:
This page is against all that Knowledge Stands for.
70:
Knowledge:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you
1011:Wikipedian, that's for sure. <Sarcasm off: -->
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1778:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1267:real question is: does this essay do any good?
1149:WP:Please be a giant fuckwit, so we can ban you
704:them for dinner. That usually shuts them up.
327:The page would be confusing for the newcomers.
8:
1184:, and yes, its title is more offensive than
1192:. Redundant. Stupid. Delete or redirect. β’
976:Please be a giant penis, so we can ban you
955:Please be a giant penis, so we can ban you
1624:. Compare that to the Main Page that got
458:per Newyorkbrad and per Jimbo's comments
50:keep due to the consensus determined.
7:
1628:last month, the Help Desk that got
1603:But most people have no idea that
1571:(edit conflict) :It makes us look
1506:And let's not be so nitpicky over
24:
323:The topic is in a sarcastic tone.
44:The result of the discussion was
18:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion
1471:The Blade of the Northern Lights
1432:The Blade of the Northern Lights
1153:The Blade of the Northern Lights
1145:a play I'm all too familiar with
109:against all Knowledge Stands for
1009:it makes a fellow proud to be a
495:opinion is only your opinion.
1105:would pass a username review?
1:
1632:last month, or even your own
205:Should this essay be deleted?
1753:22:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1728:21:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1710:21:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1682:20:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1667:19:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1599:17:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1563:16:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1524:17:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1481:17:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1464:16:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1442:16:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1411:15:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1384:15:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1369:15:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1350:14:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1313:16:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1277:16:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1262:14:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1231:14:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1197:06:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1163:03:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1136:03:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1115:03:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
1089:21:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
1064:18:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
1046:13:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
1021:23:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
1000:20:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
988:17:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
965:16:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
949:16:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
928:23:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
908:21:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
896:16:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
882:15:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
848:15:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
825:14:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
811:14:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
797:13:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
782:12:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
767:04:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
749:14:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
728:23:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
714:16:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
699:14:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
686:03:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
652:14:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
643:17:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
629:15:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
611:08:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
589:06:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
505:02:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
244:12:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
64:00:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
1075:and (rather more specific)
570:01:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
556:00:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
539:00:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
486:23:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
472:22:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
443:22:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
428:20:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
403:19:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
384:17:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
370:04:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
353:21:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
339:19:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
305:19:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
281:14:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
256:14:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
217:12:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
195:12:19, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
170:11:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
150:09:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
133:08:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
121:06:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
99:18:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
85:05:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
1798:
1103:User:Don't Be a Giant Dick
1644:than WP:PBAGDSWCBY does.
1446:I think you need to read
1771:Please do not modify it.
1718:(still, not that many).
1620:and for June there were
1514:from a few months back.
32:Please do not modify it.
1636:which has more hits in
1616:, for July there were
601:is OK, so is this. --
1428:don't like this essay
1007:- Reading this page,
599:meta:Don't be a dick
1454:So, no worries.) --
157:per my comments at
1169:Delete or REDIRECT
1143:, this seems like
1131:
1044:
692:m:Don't be a dick
430:
307:
1789:
1773:
1708:
1707:
1704:
1697:
1665:
1664:
1661:
1654:
1626:168,161,702 hits
1477:
1438:
1409:
1408:
1405:
1398:
1348:
1347:
1344:
1337:
1311:
1310:
1307:
1300:
1229:
1228:
1225:
1218:
1159:
1132:
1129:
1058:
1043:
1041:
1035:
1029:
679:
674:
537:
534:
529:
524:
426:
424:
417:
350:
303:
301:
294:
253:East of Borschov
241:
236:
179:Strange Passerby
96:
93:
82:
79:
34:
1797:
1796:
1792:
1791:
1790:
1788:
1787:
1786:
1782:
1776:deletion review
1769:
1742:
1702:
1699:
1691:
1688:
1659:
1656:
1648:
1645:
1475:
1436:
1403:
1400:
1392:
1389:
1342:
1339:
1331:
1328:
1305:
1302:
1294:
1291:
1223:
1220:
1212:
1209:
1157:
1128:
1125:
1056:
1039:
1033:
1030:
677:
672:
532:
527:
522:
518:
420:
413:
348:
329:" How and why?
297:
290:
239:
232:
94:
91:
80:
77:
73:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1795:
1793:
1784:
1781:
1780:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1759:
1758:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1740:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1566:
1565:
1543:WP:NOTCENSORED
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1508:WP:NOTCENSORED
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1448:WP:NOTCENSORED
1417:WP:NOTCENSORED
1413:
1386:
1356:WP:NOTCENSORED
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1288:WP:NOTCENSORED
1250:wp:notcensored
1234:
1233:
1206:WP:NOTCENSORED
1199:
1165:
1138:
1126:
1117:
1091:
1066:
1048:
1023:
1002:
997:Chris Fjordson
990:
969:
968:
967:
933:
932:
931:
930:
912:
911:
910:
866:
865:
850:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
813:
751:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
688:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
592:
591:
574:
573:
572:
541:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
388:
387:
386:
355:
341:
308:
283:
267:), then this (
258:
246:
221:
220:
219:
172:
152:
135:
123:
72:
67:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1794:
1785:
1779:
1777:
1772:
1766:
1765:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1737:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1705:
1698:
1696:
1695:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1679:
1675:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1662:
1655:
1653:
1652:
1643:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1627:
1623:
1619:
1615:
1610:
1606:
1605:WP:PBAGDSWCBY
1602:
1601:
1600:
1596:
1592:
1588:
1583:
1578:
1574:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1541:I agree that
1540:
1537:
1536:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1493:
1482:
1478:
1472:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1449:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1439:
1433:
1429:
1425:
1424:
1418:
1414:
1412:
1406:
1399:
1397:
1396:
1387:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1357:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1345:
1338:
1336:
1335:
1327:
1324:
1323:
1314:
1308:
1301:
1299:
1298:
1289:
1284:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1232:
1226:
1219:
1217:
1216:
1207:
1203:
1200:
1198:
1195:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1170:
1166:
1164:
1160:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1139:
1137:
1134:
1133:
1121:
1118:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1099:
1095:
1092:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1067:
1065:
1062:
1060:
1059:
1052:
1049:
1047:
1042:
1037:
1036:
1027:
1024:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1003:
1001:
998:
994:
991:
989:
985:
981:
977:
973:
970:
966:
963:
960:
956:
952:
951:
950:
946:
942:
938:
935:
934:
929:
925:
921:
917:
913:
909:
906:
903:
899:
898:
897:
893:
889:
885:
884:
883:
880:
877:
873:
868:
867:
862:
858:
854:
851:
849:
845:
841:
837:
834:
826:
822:
818:
814:
812:
808:
804:
800:
799:
798:
794:
790:
785:
784:
783:
779:
775:
770:
769:
768:
764:
760:
755:
752:
750:
746:
742:
738:
735:
729:
725:
721:
717:
716:
715:
711:
707:
702:
701:
700:
697:
693:
689:
687:
684:
683:
680:
675:
668:
665:
664:
653:
650:
646:
645:
644:
640:
636:
632:
631:
630:
626:
622:
618:
617:WP:OTHERSTUFF
614:
613:
612:
608:
604:
600:
596:
595:
594:
593:
590:
586:
582:
578:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
558:
557:
553:
549:
545:
542:
540:
536:
535:
530:
525:
515:
512:
506:
502:
498:
494:
489:
488:
487:
483:
479:
475:
474:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
450:
444:
440:
436:
432:
431:
429:
425:
423:
418:
416:
411:to behave. β
410:
406:
405:
404:
400:
396:
392:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
372:
371:
367:
363:
359:
356:
354:
351:
345:
342:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
316:
312:
309:
306:
302:
300:
295:
293:
287:
284:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
259:
257:
254:
250:
247:
245:
242:
237:
235:
229:
225:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
197:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
176:
173:
171:
167:
163:
160:
156:
153:
151:
147:
143:
139:
136:
134:
131:
127:
124:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
103:
102:
101:
100:
97:
87:
86:
83:
71:
68:
66:
65:
61:
57:
56:
51:
49:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1783:
1770:
1767:
1720:Calliopejen1
1694:Fly by Night
1693:
1692:
1651:Fly by Night
1650:
1649:
1586:
1572:
1555:Calliopejen1
1538:
1503:
1451:
1422:
1421:
1395:Fly by Night
1394:
1393:
1334:Fly by Night
1333:
1332:
1325:
1297:Fly by Night
1296:
1295:
1215:Fly by Night
1214:
1213:
1201:
1168:
1167:
1140:
1123:
1119:
1097:
1093:
1081:Demiurge1000
1068:
1054:
1050:
1032:
1025:
1004:
992:
971:
936:
871:
860:
856:
852:
835:
759:Wapondaponda
753:
736:
682:(yada, yada)
670:
666:
581:Wapondaponda
576:
543:
519:
513:
492:
455:
451:
421:
414:
408:
390:
357:
343:
331:JamesBWatson
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
298:
291:
285:
260:
248:
233:
227:
223:
174:
154:
142:Wapondaponda
137:
125:
108:
104:
88:
74:
53:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1630:37,852 hits
1456:RegentsPark
1415:Sorry, but
1361:RegentsPark
888:RegentsPark
840:RegentsPark
562:Newyorkbrad
362:Newyorkbrad
1745:The Eskimo
1716:1200/month
1674:The Eskimo
1591:The Eskimo
1423:everything
1254:The Eskimo
1107:The Eskimo
1057:EdEColbert
395:The Eskimo
349:iridescent
1634:user page
1573:extremely
1252:applies?
1077:WP:PLAGUE
941:Yikrazuul
920:SmokeyJoe
916:wikt:jerk
789:SmokeyJoe
696:Jehochman
649:Jehochman
603:SmokeyJoe
548:SmokeyJoe
514:Snow keep
230:article.
201:User:Tarc
130:Jehochman
1609:170 hits
1269:Yaris678
1245:wp:civil
1194:Ling.Nut
1073:WP:CPUSH
980:Jan 1922
803:Yaris678
209:Yaris678
162:Yaris678
1622:23 hits
1618:14 hits
1614:15 hits
1585:well...
1582:wp:DICK
1551:WP:DICK
1547:WP:DICK
1190:WP:DICK
1186:WP:DICK
1182:WP:DICK
1178:WP:DGAF
1174:WP:DICK
1172:I love
1094:Comment
1013:Neutron
1005:Comment
836:Comment
754:comment
741:Collect
720:Neutron
667:Delete.
621:Neutron
577:Comment
497:Neutron
464:Neutron
435:Neutron
265:WP:DICK
249:comment
48:WP:SNOW
1741:policy
1638:August
1476:θ©±γγ¦δΈγγ
1437:θ©±γγ¦δΈγγ
1283:WP:ANI
1241:wp:agf
1158:θ©±γγ¦δΈγγ
1130:ASTILY
1120:Delete
872:normal
857:rename
853:Delete
678:crewer
456:userfy
452:Delete
391:Delete
358:Userfy
269:WP:BAN
234:Ronk01
191:status
1736:prude
1577:wp:rs
1034:Chzz
962:Adler
905:Adler
879:Adler
528:COMMS
523:ΖETCH
228:humor
16:<
1749:talk
1724:talk
1703:talk
1678:talk
1660:talk
1642:July
1640:and
1595:talk
1587:good
1559:talk
1539:Keep
1520:talk
1516:Tarc
1460:talk
1404:talk
1380:talk
1376:Tarc
1365:talk
1343:talk
1306:talk
1273:talk
1258:talk
1243:and
1224:talk
1202:Keep
1176:and
1141:Keep
1111:talk
1085:talk
1069:Keep
1051:Keep
1026:Keep
1017:talk
993:Keep
984:talk
972:Keep
959:Hans
945:talk
937:Keep
924:talk
902:Hans
892:talk
876:Hans
861:have
844:talk
821:talk
817:Tarc
807:talk
793:talk
778:talk
774:Tarc
763:talk
745:talk
737:Keep
724:talk
710:talk
706:Gigs
673:brew
639:talk
635:Gigs
625:talk
607:talk
585:talk
566:talk
552:talk
544:Keep
501:talk
493:your
482:talk
478:Tarc
468:talk
460:here
439:talk
415:ROUX
399:talk
380:talk
376:Gigs
366:talk
344:Keep
335:talk
311:Keep
292:ROUX
286:Keep
277:talk
273:Tarc
261:Keep
240:talk
224:Keep
213:talk
183:talk
175:Keep
166:talk
155:Keep
146:talk
138:keep
126:Keep
117:talk
105:Keep
95:tome
92:Talk
81:tome
78:Talk
60:talk
55:Cirt
1098:all
855:or
619:.
454:or
409:not
207:"
113:Kww
52:--
1751:)
1726:)
1689:β
1680:)
1646:β
1597:)
1561:)
1522:)
1479:)
1462:)
1440:)
1390:β
1382:)
1367:)
1329:β
1292:β
1275:)
1260:)
1210:β
1208:.
1161:)
1113:)
1087:)
1040:βΊ
1019:)
986:)
947:)
926:)
894:)
846:)
823:)
809:)
795:)
780:)
765:)
747:)
726:)
712:)
641:)
627:)
609:)
587:)
568:)
554:)
503:)
484:)
470:)
441:)
401:)
382:)
368:)
337:)
279:)
215:)
193:)
189:β’
185:β’
168:)
148:)
119:)
62:)
1747:(
1722:(
1706:)
1700:(
1676:(
1663:)
1657:(
1593:(
1557:(
1518:(
1473:(
1458:(
1434:(
1407:)
1401:(
1378:(
1363:(
1346:)
1340:(
1309:)
1303:(
1271:(
1256:(
1227:)
1221:(
1155:(
1127:F
1109:(
1083:(
1015:(
982:(
943:(
922:(
890:(
842:(
819:(
805:(
791:(
776:(
761:(
743:(
722:(
708:(
637:(
623:(
605:(
583:(
564:(
550:(
533:/
520:/
499:(
480:(
466:(
437:(
422:βͺ
397:(
378:(
364:(
333:(
313:"
299:βͺ
275:(
211:(
187:c
181:(
164:(
144:(
115:(
58:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.