852:
versed in your ways. Please do not be defensive or perceive this to be an insult, long time contributors may not remember their first edit or certainly their first edit being on such a contentious subject. Knowledge (XXG) to outsiders is billed as the online encyclopedia anyone can edit, therefore we think we have that privilege. Whoa! I'm a "meat puppet"? You know what a meat puppet is. I didn't. Sounds offensive though, so my first response is "Fuck You!". Hey, great start! Then I see the infighting, the standing-your-ground, no matter what further sources are brought forth mentality, random checks of
Wikipedians with large edit counts revealing very little actual addition of new material, just removal of material undesirable to them(for whatever reason, policy or not), and you start to realise you want no part of this nonsense, let alone financially contribute. Do you want to know what the average person thinks, regardless of layers of policy? WHY delete anything, no matter how obscure? I dont care what the answer is so dont bother answering. Thats what we think, I can only imagine the disheartened feeling someone would get pouring over an article, for hours, full of reliable facts over a band or local artist or something "less notable" to you, but important to them, gone three minutes after it was created. No thanks! I would never contribute here, financially or editorially.
503:. The AfD close was inappropriate, and our Deletion Review process quickly picked that up and overturned the decision. The net result is a better article, and people involved have learned a little more. We cannot expect people to make the right decision all the time - all we can hope is that people learn, and that we pick up and correct mistakes. Can we stop people getting passionate about topics they are interested in? No. That's life. We have policies and guidelines for conducting ourselves, and mostly we conduct ourselves in an admirable fashion. I am proud of the assume good faith and civility attitudes we have and our collaborative ethos. As a new form of society, we are doing very well. Yes, it is appropriate to question ourselves now and again, but let's not turn a success story into a negative media story tinged with inappropriate melodramatic language. Will Knowledge (XXG) attract attention from blogs and forums in future? Yes. It is the nature of the internet. Did we do anything here that suggests we need to make changes? Absolutely not. We did the right thing and for the right reasons. Let's give ourselves a pat on the back, not a mediatastic attempt to whip up a scandal where there is none.
1067:
is significant enough that this is a substantial want, and good sources of information are available for original writing and updating, and WP is a suitable technical medium for disseminating it, and NPOV editors are available &willing, there is no reason to exclude a topic. I agree with Masem that this is a point to what we call "notability",as setting a minimum level for all of these factors. Whether or not we should devote an article to the topic is another matter. As the world thinks that being in an encyclopedia is a measure of importance or significance, and as the encyclopedia they have in mind for this increasingly is ours, we need to take this into consideration. Popularity is indeed a reason for judging something worth including, & if significant popularity, notable enough for a separate article. The quality of the sources we need depends on what sources are acceptable for discussions of the subject in the real world. that we have rigid rules for them across all subjects is an error. It was well intentioned years ago, to permit the removal of rumor and nonsense, but its turned into a straight-jacket.
1140:
about internet life, particularly felt around the dotcom collapse, presents a problem for this area of
Knowledge (XXG) policy. It's something that makes articles in the area of gaming and internet culture a battleground (somewhat exacerbated if you ask me by a great many editors apparently feeling the internet deserves no respect as a source at all and policy seemingly backing them up on this often enough). Constructing a great educational edifice to weather the storms of the 'net will be a waste if everything lost outside suddenly makes much that's inside invalid, if you see what I mean. There will be these cultural blackholes created by disasters and shifts in media in future. It would be a shame if WP has nothing to say about them, or worse deleted what it had to say because some ultimately pointless officiousness held sway.
878:
within the gaming community was a belief that wikipedia was ruled by a clique of people more interested in exercising "power" and control rather than developing encyclopaedic content. Truth or fiction this is a significant problem. At best, it reflects a real communication and transparency problem in how wikipedia operates and a poor understanding of its principles by even the most "net-savvy" individuals. At worst it suggests that behaviour of longterm wikipedia contributors in general that is driving away a significant number of potential editors and undermining the structural foundations of the community. Whether this is a perceived or real problem does not really matter, because it suggests that regardless, we need to do much better if we are to continue to attract new and commited editors.
1023:
news organizations) cover them extensively AND users have provided evidence of that coverage. This is just wrong. It inherently excludes whole topics which those 'approved sources' do not typically cover... no matter how widespread their influence (as in this case). It is also applied very unequally. Elements of popular culture without extensive independent sourcing are vigorously hunted down and eliminated while other topics (e.g. lifeforms, historical battles, human settlements) are treated as having 'inherent notability' even if few sources establishing this are provided or can be found. The only way to avoid these problems in the future is to change our 'notability' standards to reflect things which are
669:
this task has been done completely. Failure to show proper thoroughness by the nominator means the article stands. Then I suspect for proper due process it's probably necessary to send the case to a second admin for assessemnt at the end of the month to see if the article still warrants deletion. Basically if you think an article that does not fit speedy deletion criteria should be deleted you are taking over responsibility for its improvement first and foremost. If you don't want to do that, don't nominate. There's a few things in there that would need defining, but that's the core of it.
1098:, to make sure they were covered adequately before branching out further. I don't think the process was meant to blossom into this grotesque management overhead of deletion reviews, reviews of reviews, polls and discussions about reviews, etc. The Knowledge (XXG) bureaucracy has grown to such Kafka-esque proportions and yet is so curiously ineffective against actual problems such as large-scale copyright infringements that are more important that having or nor having an article about an obscure topic. --
1000:. He then went on an edit spree of deleting mentions of Erik and/or Chet from other articles. MelanieN's behavior was fine, but her ideas about notability did not appear to jive with either wikipedia's or reality's. Peridon was rather nice, and I don't say that just because he logged a keep vote. A few others chimed in to dismiss everyone as meatpuppets/SPAs as well. Most of the actual reference content dredged up during the discussion came from the so-called meatpuppets like myself.
919:
articles are long since created. That is why careful thoughtful closes, that follow the development of the arguments, changing facts over time, reasoning rather than !votes is needed to evaluate consensus. And no consensus means keep. A no-consensus keep is a good result, it's not a failure on behalf of the closer to reach a decision, if it's an accurate reading. And shame on those who try to make a merge and redirect keep a back-door delete by just redirecting.
660:
obsessed by them), but this provides a good test case for what policy should be put in place so its robotic application works better. So, I propose this for consideration by the more experienced. Firstly, a mandatory nomination period of a month would be better than seven days (thus widening the field from wikiregulars somewhat. Some people just don't come by that often and they shouldn't have to). Second, some enhancement of
396:
83:
73:
1172:
AFD, seeing a discussion that had only one delete !vote (and no other comments) after two relistings, judged the discussion to be insufficient for a full close, and instead treated the discussion as an expired PROD, which was almost immediately challenged, which led to the article's restoration and a speedy renomination at AFD. This seems to be an area where policy needs to be clarified and made more explicit.
364:. As of this writing the article contains 46 sources, including one book of academic essays. Schumin notes that the deletion discussion he initiated also "led to the creation of articles on gaming-news sites that established that notability. So while the proper sourcing didn't exist before, now it does, and that seems fine to me, and actually a better result than a delete."
93:
53:
103:
1045:
are popular that also have intrinsic value to a specific field, but because of the sourcing of that area (whether at that time or due to the like), it may be difficult to show notability objectively through reliable sources. This is why notability is a guideline and common sense exceptions need to be made, and thus why it would never be policy. --
63:
800:. This kneejerk "we know better than you" disrespect in some parts of the MediaWiki community extends to some staff at Wikia. Wikia lost nearly all the admins and editors of its largest wiki (in monthly pageviews). 10% of Wikia's pageviews. Talk about stupidity and shooting yourself in the foot. I am referring to the fork of
1184:
indicated what common practice was with AFDs with only a single !vote. However, I could not find any documentation in policy for this common practice. As far as I can tell, there is no guidance on how much participation is required before an AFD can be considered "official" for purposes of a close.
1088:
anything of value, they become managers / policemen who concentrate on deleting material they do not like, sometimes under the thinnest of pretenses. This trend has not gone unnoticed by the rest of the Web and has brought some disillusionment with the project. When
Knowledge (XXG) started, the lofty
976:
I didnt say the discussion was all bad, only that the obnoxious behavior of a few can really hurt. And I think your description of the deletion argument is disingenuous. What arguments do you think were dismissed 'out of hand'? What experienced editors do you think hammered down newcomers? I hasten
877:
As a wikipedian and a reader of some of the blogs who picked up this story, one of the things I was most surprised by was the universally low esteem that long term wikipedia editors and particularly administrators are held in by the internet active community. Universally the most common comment found
638:
I find this argument to be disingenuous. Sources "that we were looking for and couldn't find"? There were enough sources to establish notability prior to the discussion; the fact that you couldn't find them is a function of you not looking very hard. The implication that there weren't good sources
1066:
What people do with the information it is their concern entirely. ("educational" is a criterion for
Commons, but they have special reasons.) If they use a particular book or video or web forum or product for whatever purpose, they will (or at least ought to) want information about it. If the subject
659:
I agree with JClemens. This isn't a case of the system working. It's a case of the system failing loudly enough that people intervened to stop it. I don't think deletionism and the general robotic application of policy is likely to go away (all rule based systems attract such behaviour and people
1139:
Little late here, but anyway...It's a problem that would have been much more easily fixed if many of the other websites and gaming news pages from the period still existed. But they don't (of course there's plenty who try to argue being talked about doesn't bestow notability in itself). This fact
1121:
We cannot deny the goal of WP is educational content, but can recognize that what educational content is can be skewed. The article under discussion here is a good example of that: to anyone outside of gaming, OMM may look like yet another default website from the early days of the web, fallen into
687:
I think Walker's comment and suggestion on the matter rings true, but not necessarily of all
Wikipedians. Some of the language used on that AfD by Wikipedians seemed to discourage rather than encourage new users to take the reins and help us fix the article (as I'm sure many would have done who are
623:
Indeed, I found that to be an interesting turn of events, and kind of a case of "life imitates art" in the sense that a deletion on here on notability grounds led to creation of the third-party coverage in reliable sources that we were looking for and couldn't find. Very strange, but now we have a
166:
Non-Wikipedians often interpret a deletion discussion as an assault on their field of interest and are offended at
Wikipedians who are ignorant of it making decisions about it, and some of them respond with uncivil comments or personal attacks. Wikipedians are dismayed when they are the subject of
1044:
work. That means that there some education value to the topic being present, and notability established a minimum baseline for that. If we were instead look to popularity, we'd basically become a site people go to for entertainment rather than education. This is not to say that some things that
1022:
As I have said many times before, Knowledge (XXG)'s 'notability' procedures are unbalanced. We define things as worthy of inclusion not by measures of how frequently our users seek information on them (e.g. page view statistics) but rather by whether certain limited information sources (e.g. major
958:
discussion entirely. When experienced editors "contribute" to a discussion by trying to hammer down newcomers with endless
Knowledge (XXG) shorthand instead of argument, while willingly disregarding guidelines that they should be aware of it does a disservice to the ideals of this project overall.
851:
As a definite outsider who was drawn here by an outside site only because of my long interest in the subject matter, but now having digested and figured out how
Knowledge (XXG) apparently functions, perhaps I could offer some insight. This is a secular, messed up place, unfriendly to newcomers not
755:
As the DRV nominator (and otherwise making sure this didn't descend into attacks against
Schumin), my biggest issue was the rationale for closing the AFD as absolute "delete". Notability, as fickle an issue as it is, should be carefully handled and favoring no consensus retention but allowing for
668:
should clarify the role of nominator and administrator such that the nominator takes it upon him or herself to demonstrate in exhaustive detail that every attempt has been made to fix the article, including sourcing outside expertise on the subject. The admin's job at this stage is to assess that
317:
site, and it seems that many people automatically equated being 'exhibited' with wanting revenge" and made those claims "rather than make arguments refuting the sourcing It was an easy argument to make, and so people did, even though it really had nothing to do with the discussion." Schumin told
1171:
in baseball) in the case of low participation after having exhausted the number of relists. My thoughts on this are worth repeating here because policy likely needs to be fleshed out in this area. The reason that the second Old Man Murray AFD occurred was because the closing admin for the first
957:
I think that is an extremely disingenuous reading of the deletion discussion. While insults were certainly flung about, many genuine cites and arguments were dismissed out of hand. Knowledge (XXG) guidelines were cited as if they were law, and other guidelines are ignored and even kept out of the
382:
related and educated about the subject would turn up to defend it. A debate like that should offer an opportunity for acculturation, rather than further building up the walls to keep out the outsiders. It's an opportunity to say, 'You know much about this subject - could you edit the article with
359:
of the difficulty of finding sources for defunct websites. "The issue starts when something was notable in an online form, but in the past. There aren't so many contemporary pieces being written about a website that ended in… oh, hang on, I can't check
Knowledge (XXG)." However, the controversy
161:
Deletion discussions can be one of the most contentious interactions Wikipedians have with those outside Knowledge (XXG), especially when it involves a subculture or fandom with vocal adherents. Perhaps the most notorious of these incidents was the long running conflict regarding the deletion of
918:
Unfortunately much gets deleted that shouldn't, with all of our deletion mechanisms. And the old old justification, whispered at best, that if something was important it would be recreated, is now moot - as the system defends itself vigorously against re-creation, and the trivially encyclopedic
587:
on this particular topic wouldn't help much ; given the general amount of effort we'd expect someone to perform, trying to see if there are sources for OMM isn't easy. They existed, but required a bit more effort. That said, before AFD there should have been talk page discussion, which may have
938:
Looking at that deletion discussion, i can see why the article got deleted. A couple of obnoxious SPA's insulting people and generally missing the point does nothing to help your case. Amazingly, Beschizza seems surprised that these snarky individuals (who have added nothing else to Knowledge
338:
that someone who doesn't wish to be the target of such public anger "should probably not initiate public debates in the world's most popular publicly-edited information resource in an attempt to delete an article about a website that just happens to be a legendary and much-loved inspiration for
377:
disputes, and who understand the importance of the articles threatened, don't seem to command much respect from established Wikipedians" whom he views as "quite insular." Walker said: "My suggestion for handling similar situations would be to move beyond this peculiar misunderstanding of the
563:
I whole heartedly agree. People nominate articles all the time without bothering to check for significant coverage. Some habitually and without any repercussion, which leads to these sorts of disasters. If there were repercussions given for repeatedly listing articles for deletion without
995:
What arguments? Schumin and HalfShadow both had Portal of Evil COIs and were both uninterested in hearing any evidence contradicting the deletion. "Given that your edits show you to be nothing more than a single-purpose account/meatpuppet, I feel no compelling urge to explain myself to you.
756:
appropriate review down the road when there is no clear answer. At worst, a redirect was completely in line to Erik Wolpaw's page. That's what made this an unusual case, and unfortunately not readily apparently under the Schumin accusations and the external input to the discussion. --
367:
Everyone seems to be pleased with the resulting restored and properly sourced article, but still up for debate is what Knowledge (XXG) can do to avoid such contentious interactions and controversial deletion discussions. Both Beschizza and Walker expressed concerns to the
350:
website itself. The non-Wikipedians participating who were not focused on Schumin seemed to be confused by the insistence of Wikipedians on sourcing something that everyone in their field already knew or provided sources which merely mentioned the website in passing. On
1122:
disuse, but the video game culture recognizes it as having an influence on game design and criticism; e.g. its educational to any student of video games. It, unfortunately, took the fact that its notability was challenged to bring out its clear value. --
498:
What can Knowledge (XXG) do "to avoid such contentious interactions and controversial deletion discussions"? The process itself and the outcome indicate to me that we have things about right. The nomination was appropriate given the state of the article
261:, was alleged by many complaining about the nomination both on and off Knowledge (XXG), including Beschizza and Walker, to have a conflict of interest because of past interactions with Chet Faliszek. Most of the complaints centered around a brief
312:
sites, or their creators for that matter." He said he nominated the articles for deletion "strictly on notability grounds" and only after examining the sources in the article and searching for more potential sources. "I was an 'exhibit' on the
605:
Also, in a sort of ironic cycle, if this AFD didn't occur, we wouldn't have the big article from Rock Paper Shotgun with quotes from industry leaders to establish the importance of OMM to the gaming community. A lovely Catch-22 situation there.
1193:
in that case, also with only one !vote (though not relisted), was "official", and the process ended there. I would like to see some discussion about what standard practice should be for low-participation AFDs, and then document it in policy.
1176:, part of the deletion process, states what to do in the absence of any !votes, but from what I can tell, policy is kind of unclear on how to handle discussions with low participation where the allowed number of relists has been exhausted. On
171:
during what should be a sober policy discussion, and see the vocal fans who are denouncing them as little better than those who vandalize articles. Needless to say, this isn't a fertile ground for productive discussion between the two groups.
1083:
I think the problem is precisely that Knowledge (XXG) has grown so much that many editors have little to contribute because every book they have ever read and every film they have ever seen is already covered. So because they cannot
568:
people would follow it. Since that's unlikely to happen we'll continue to get "Looks non-notable, guess I'll nominate it." I realize this may not be a perfect case of what I'm trying to say, but it does bring the point up.
1093:
human knowledge, with a separate article for every star, species, chemical substance, human alive or dead, and so on. Notability requirements were only meant to channel editing towards the standard encyclopedia topics
476:
372:
about how Wikipedians interact with non-Wikipedians during those discussions. Beschizza said that "the underlying problem is that Knowledge (XXG)'s editorial culture isn't very diverse. Those outside of it who notice
1118:
The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and
151:
440:
445:
435:
450:
322:
that he feels unfairly singled out in what he calls a "case of shooting the messenger." (Schumin said he's no stranger to this sort of thing and recounted how he was similarly targeted after he was
1186:
420:
39:
378:
presence of new accounts taking part in a debate. It seems fairly obvious that when someone unrelated and uneducated about a subject is attempting to have its page removed, that those who
425:
413:
1167:
One thing that I discussed when interviewed for this article that didn't make the final article was about policy matters. Specifically, about what makes an AFD "official" (like for an
297:"What the? I actually helped Ben with his site and setting up his Cafe Press store... I don't remember ever been mean to him. I don't really care about wikipedia but this is bizarre."
146:, one of the most popular and critically-acclaimed games of the last few years. So, naturally, people in the industry and gaming fans were surprised when the Knowledge (XXG) article on
1218:
407:
897:
136:. Harsh, irreverent, and satirical, many in the gaming industry look back on the website as an inspirational classic. Faliszek and Wolpaw went on to work in the industry for
688:
not often on the battlefield of AfD). Of course, this does not absolve the new users or bloggers and such of guilt for doing their own to ratchet the hostility level up. --
1027:
notable to users... rather than things which an arbitrarily selected group of sources have covered. If thousands of people read our article on something every month it is
639:
before, and that only during the deletion controversy did people start creating them, is not true and only serves to whitewash what was wrong with the initial deletion.
182:
received over 400 comments) and many fans shared their ire by posting to the Knowledge (XXG) deletion discussion. Rob Beschizza, Managing Editor of the popular website
1190:
282:
892:
142.179.120.19 wrote: "Do you want to know what the average person thinks, regardless of layers of policy? WHY delete anything, no matter how obscure?" - Supposedly
706:
here and let someone else nominate it. If there is as much back history here as the article above suggests, his nominating of the article was inappropriate at best.
1271:
896:
was the place to go for articles on all things, but Wikia is also a straitjacket. Especially in its formatting limitations, and lack of private wikis. And without
236:
invented the internet, and also invented making jokes about video games, two things which are maybe the foundation of everything I hold dear." Walker told the
155:
21:
1246:
900:
the wiki farms like Wikia are not the community that Knowledge (XXG) is with millions of editors able to edit anything and have it all on one watchlist. --
342:
Many of the Wikipedians participating in the deletion discussion were focused on sources instead of Schumin. At the time of its deletion, sources in the
1241:
1236:
977:
to note that both Peridon and MelanieN were both fairly tolerant to people who seemed eager to heap abuse on them, hardly the disservice you claim.
794:
1231:
1185:
In the case of Old Man Murray, one !vote was not enough to make an "official" AFD, but an ANI discussion about Portal of Evil's deletion (at
868:
244:
is something spoken about by people in our industry with hushed tones of reverence. I'd be fairly disappointed to learn a developer was
163:
374:
179:
1226:
707:
395:
331:
17:
1177:
1203:
1149:
1134:
1107:
1078:
1057:
1035:
1009:
986:
967:
948:
930:
911:
887:
843:
819:
780:
768:
746:
730:
715:
697:
678:
648:
633:
618:
600:
578:
558:
516:
262:
193:
545:
references once it arrived at DRV. This was a high profile black eye for Knowledge (XXG), and even more evidence that
356:
924:
360:
surrounding the deletion seems to have spurred editors to find acceptable sources to establish the notability of
1252:
864:
197:
777:
856:
711:
384:
1005:
644:
529:
justify its deletion in most cases (copyvio, promotion, and attack being notable exceptions), since if it
860:
1032:
907:
839:
815:
774:
1199:
1187:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive671#Articles for deletion / Portal of Evil
921:
629:
202:
721:
First they came for the Jews, then the communists. Watch it. They'll be going after Pokemon, next.
274:
883:
541:
fixable. I'm not a gamer and had never heard of the site, but I was quickly able to find multiple
223:
142:
1173:
661:
584:
565:
546:
522:
189:
1141:
670:
554:
513:
387:' at every new person does not give the impression of a professional body making the decisions."
219:
787:
56:
1001:
982:
944:
640:
574:
472:
86:
829:
790:. It is the immortal battle between good and evil. Inclusionists versus deleletionists. See:
665:
1181:
1145:
963:
901:
833:
809:
674:
703:
175:
This time was no exception. Gaming blogs and message boards filled with angry messages (a
168:
66:
1195:
1130:
1053:
997:
764:
625:
614:
596:
327:
252:
96:
1103:
879:
693:
137:
124:
808:. Knowledge (XXG) only hurts donations by similar rudeness and lack of cooperation. --
294:
251:
Much of the ire was focused on the Wikipedian who nominated the article for deletion,
1265:
1168:
1074:
726:
550:
506:
228:
129:
116:
232:
graphic novels which are steeped in gaming culture, wrote "As far as I'm concerned,
978:
940:
570:
76:
525:
had been followed, this would not have happened. The current state of an article
323:
106:
959:
334:
he did not participate in.) Beschizza, for one, is unsympathetic. He told the
211:
184:
133:
1123:
1046:
757:
741:
607:
589:
289:
before press time, seemed to be baffled about the situation. On the website
1099:
689:
1069:
805:
722:
176:
1113:
801:
1062:
WP is neither about education or entertainment, but the provision of
128:
was a US computer gaming review website begun in the late 1990s by
893:
998:
And here's Schumin's victory lap after the deletion went through
304:"I do not currently, nor ever did, hold a grudge on either the
624:
Knowledge (XXG) article where the notability is established.
346:
article were largely limited to gaming message boards and the
256:
394:
192:. About two dozen prominent figures in the gaming industry
830:
http://www.wowwiki.com/Forum:Should_WoWWiki_leave_Wikia%3F
34:
Deletion of article about website angers gaming community
500:
488:
481:
461:
383:
this information, correctly cited?' People screaming '
285:.) For his part, Faliszek, who did not respond to the
486:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
702:I think SchuminWeb should have avoided the whole
281:was also nominated for deletion by Schumin and
154:. The deletion was overturned the next day at
1178:User talk:SchuminWeb/Archive 28#Old Man Murray
339:legions of working journalists and bloggers."
240:that he was not surprised by this response. "
8:
162:articles on webcomics, as discussed in this
140:and were central figures in the creation of
255:. Ben Schumin, who runs a website called
1272:Knowledge (XXG) Signpost archives 2011-03
326:on the blog of conservative commentator
18:Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost
537:be fixed rather than deleted. OMM was
489:
465:
33:
7:
277:. (The Knowledge (XXG) article on
549:should be followed at every turn.
28:
471:These comments are automatically
206:to testify to the importance of
101:
91:
81:
71:
61:
51:
1089:goal was to eventually include
795:User AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD
482:add the page to your watchlist
222:of post-print journalism" and
1:
804:(World of Warcraft wiki) to
588:prevented the whole mess. --
773:Garbage in, garbage out. -
324:denounced as an "anarchist"
248:a fan of their writing."
1288:
1204:00:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
1150:22:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
1135:01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
1108:01:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
844:04:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
679:23:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
649:20:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
634:00:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
330:for merely documenting an
273:, founded by Faliszek and
1079:23:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
1058:20:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
1040:WP's purpose is to be an
1036:19:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
1010:17:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
987:00:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
968:00:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
949:23:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
931:23:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
912:00:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
888:21:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
820:18:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
781:17:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
769:17:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
747:17:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
731:17:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
716:18:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
698:16:32, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
619:00:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
601:00:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
579:17:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
559:16:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
517:15:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
501:at the time of nomination
1112:We need to remember the
939:(XXG)) arent respected.
738:Oh no. Not the Pokemon!
190:wrote about the deletion
1189:) determined that the
479:. To follow comments,
399:
164:2007 Wikinews article.
898:integrated watchlists
398:
283:deleted on February 5
200:from the gaming blog
704:conflict of interest
475:from this article's
431:Deletion controversy
353:Rock, Paper, Shotgun
210:. Valve co-founder
203:Rock, Paper, Shotgun
31:Deletion controversy
441:Features and admins
194:responded to a call
466:Discuss this story
446:Arbitration report
436:WikiProject report
400:
263:decade old comment
224:Bryan Lee O'Malley
220:Velvet Underground
152:deleted on March 2
934:
873:
859:comment added by
490:purging the cache
451:Technology report
300:Schumin told the
226:, creator of the
1279:
1255:
1182:User:Ron Ritzman
1127:
1050:
929:
872:
853:
799:
793:
761:
611:
593:
515:
509:
493:
491:
485:
464:
418:
410:
403:
169:personal attacks
119:
105:
104:
95:
94:
85:
84:
75:
74:
65:
64:
55:
54:
1287:
1286:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1251:
1249:
1244:
1239:
1234:
1229:
1222:
1210:
1209:
1125:
1048:
854:
828:For more info:
797:
791:
759:
745:
609:
591:
507:
504:
495:
487:
480:
469:
468:
462:+ Add a comment
460:
456:
455:
454:
411:
406:
404:
401:
389:
328:Michelle Malkin
269:on the website
267:The Schumin Web
258:The Schumin Web
253:User:SchuminWeb
156:Deletion Review
120:
114:
113:
112:
111:
102:
92:
82:
72:
62:
52:
46:
43:
32:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1285:
1283:
1275:
1274:
1264:
1263:
1250:
1245:
1240:
1235:
1230:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1212:
1211:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1163:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1110:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
990:
989:
971:
970:
952:
951:
936:
935:
915:
914:
890:
861:142.179.120.19
849:
848:
847:
846:
823:
822:
784:
783:
771:
752:
751:
750:
749:
739:
719:
718:
700:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
603:
470:
467:
459:
458:
457:
453:
448:
443:
438:
433:
428:
423:
421:News and notes
417:
405:
393:
392:
391:
390:
362:Old Man Murray
355:, John Walker
344:Old Man Murray
332:anti-war rally
315:Portal of Evil
310:Old Man Murray
306:Portal of Evil
279:Portal of Evil
275:K. Thor Jensen
271:Portal of Evil
234:Old Man Murray
216:Old Man Murray
208:Old Man Murray
148:Old Man Murray
138:Valve Software
125:Old Man Murray
121:
110:
109:
99:
89:
79:
69:
59:
48:
47:
44:
38:
37:
36:
35:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1284:
1273:
1270:
1269:
1267:
1254:
1248:
1243:
1238:
1233:
1228:
1220:
1216:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1192:
1188:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1170:
1169:official game
1166:
1165:
1164:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1120:
1115:
1111:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1092:
1087:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1071:
1065:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1034:
1031:'notable'. --
1030:
1026:
1021:
1020:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
994:
993:
992:
991:
988:
984:
980:
975:
974:
973:
972:
969:
965:
961:
956:
955:
954:
953:
950:
946:
942:
937:
932:
927:
926:
923:
917:
916:
913:
909:
905:
904:
899:
895:
891:
889:
885:
881:
876:
875:
874:
870:
866:
862:
858:
845:
841:
837:
836:
831:
827:
826:
825:
824:
821:
817:
813:
812:
807:
803:
796:
789:
786:
785:
782:
779:
776:
775:Burpelson AFB
772:
770:
766:
762:
754:
753:
748:
744:
743:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
728:
724:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
699:
695:
691:
686:
680:
676:
672:
667:
663:
658:
650:
646:
642:
637:
636:
635:
631:
627:
622:
621:
620:
616:
612:
604:
602:
598:
594:
586:
582:
581:
580:
576:
572:
567:
562:
561:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
536:
533:be fixed, it
532:
528:
524:
520:
519:
518:
514:
511:
510:
502:
497:
496:
492:
483:
478:
474:
463:
452:
449:
447:
444:
442:
439:
437:
434:
432:
429:
427:
424:
422:
419:
415:
409:
402:In this issue
397:
388:
386:
381:
376:
371:
365:
363:
358:
354:
349:
345:
340:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
316:
311:
307:
303:
298:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
259:
254:
249:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
230:
229:Scott Pilgrim
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
204:
199:
195:
191:
187:
186:
181:
178:
173:
170:
165:
159:
157:
153:
149:
145:
144:
139:
135:
131:
130:Chet Faliszek
127:
126:
118:
108:
100:
98:
90:
88:
80:
78:
70:
68:
60:
58:
50:
49:
41:
23:
19:
1214:
1162:
1117:
1095:
1090:
1085:
1068:
1063:
1041:
1028:
1024:
1002:Entropy Stew
996:HalfShadow"
920:
902:
855:— Preceding
850:
834:
810:
740:
720:
641:Ken Arromdee
583:To be fair,
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
505:
430:
414:all comments
408:7 March 2011
379:
369:
366:
361:
352:
347:
343:
341:
335:
319:
314:
309:
305:
301:
299:
290:
286:
278:
270:
266:
257:
250:
245:
241:
237:
233:
227:
215:
214:wrote that "
207:
201:
183:
174:
160:
147:
141:
123:
122:
1253:Suggestions
1064:information
1042:educational
903:Timeshifter
835:Timeshifter
811:Timeshifter
708:67.2.41.226
473:transcluded
426:In the news
212:Gabe Newell
198:John Walker
185:Boing Boing
134:Erik Wolpaw
1217:. You can
1213:It's your
1196:SchuminWeb
1191:discussion
925:Farmbrough
626:SchuminWeb
564:following
385:meatpuppet
45:Share this
40:Contribute
22:2011-03-07
1247:Subscribe
1174:WP:QUORUM
1119:globally.
1029:obviously
880:Ajbpearce
662:WP:BEFORE
585:WP:BEFORE
566:WP:BEFORE
547:WP:BEFORE
523:WP:BEFORE
477:talk page
218:were the
1266:Category
1242:Newsroom
1237:Archives
1215:Signpost
1025:actually
869:contribs
857:unsigned
806:Wowpedia
788:WP:BEGIN
551:Jclemens
527:does not
508:SilkTork
370:Signpost
336:Signpost
320:Signpost
302:Signpost
295:he wrote
291:POE News
287:Signpost
265:mocking
238:Signpost
177:Slashdot
117:Gamaliel
87:LinkedIn
67:Facebook
20: |
1219:help us
1114:mission
979:Bonewah
941:Bonewah
802:WoWWiki
666:WP:PROD
571:Teancum
539:clearly
180:article
77:Twitter
1142:MuJoCh
960:Gutsby
671:MuJoCh
535:should
143:Portal
97:Reddit
57:E-mail
1232:About
1096:first
1075:talk
894:Wikia
742:Blake
543:Wired
357:wrote
16:<
1227:Home
1200:Talk
1146:talk
1126:ASEM
1104:talk
1100:Morn
1049:ASEM
1006:talk
983:talk
964:talk
945:talk
922:Rich
908:talk
884:talk
865:talk
840:talk
816:talk
760:ASEM
727:talk
712:talk
694:talk
690:Izno
675:talk
664:and
645:talk
630:Talk
610:ASEM
592:ASEM
575:talk
555:talk
318:the
150:was
132:and
107:Digg
1091:all
1086:add
1070:DGG
1033:CBD
723:TCO
531:can
521:If
380:are
375:AFD
348:OMM
308:or
246:not
242:OMM
196:by
115:By
42:—
1268::
1202:)
1180:,
1148:)
1133:)
1116::
1106:)
1077:)
1056:)
1008:)
985:)
966:)
947:)
928:,
910:)
886:)
871:)
867:•
842:)
832:--
818:)
798:}}
792:{{
767:)
729:)
714:)
696:)
677:)
647:)
632:)
617:)
606:--
599:)
577:)
569:--
557:)
293:,
188:,
158:.
1221:.
1198:(
1144:(
1131:t
1129:(
1124:M
1102:(
1073:(
1054:t
1052:(
1047:M
1004:(
981:(
962:(
943:(
933:.
906:(
882:(
863:(
838:(
814:(
778:✈
765:t
763:(
758:M
725:(
710:(
692:(
673:(
643:(
628:(
615:t
613:(
608:M
597:t
595:(
590:M
573:(
553:(
512:*
494:.
484:.
416:)
412:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.