User talk:RoySmith/Archive 13

1197:

defence against the oddly unsourced argument that it was just some labourers. And perhaps this should have been done in the AFD; personally I've been working 60-70 hours weeks recently and neglecting my children, so I simply thought tossing out a couple of new references (which I did) would be enough to at least extend the debate - if not conclude it. At this point, DRV doesn't make sense, and the only real solution (if it is indeed notable) is to rewrite the article, with more references and detail. (which is not going to happen anytime soon). BTW, I don't massively disagree with your closure decision; it wasn't a keep. I simply thought further debate could be constructive. In particular I wanted to flesh out the "labourer" comments and references for that. Thanks for your time; I can probably rebuild the article from the other 15 Knowledge articles, and cached information. (Edit - just read the statement - the final reference I added was not refuted, or even read by anyone at the time afaik, in the discussion - though I appreciate the detailed closure statement - thanks again)

936:

written academic papers including one guy's thesis, quite a few news articles have been written about the companies history, literally thousands of reviews have been written about them on all sorts of reviewing sites so it seems to me to have reliable sources that give significant coverage to the topic and seem to be in agreement about what the facts are. Also the sources I mentioned above (at least) are completely independent and seem to be reliable to me. I know that the number of sources doesn't have to total a certain amount, but there is definitely enough information to include an article about this company. I'm afraid that the reason the article wasn't good enough is because this is the first major contribution I've made to wikipedia so I am definitely a newbie, and I'm sure I made an obvious newbie mistake. Reading through all of the "creating your first article" documentation again I think the problem was with my tone mainly and the article came across as

2459:

reinstated, it will also help new users by removing the possibility that someone will begin recreating the same page, which already exists in someone's user pages. Logically, looking for the number one singles page for 2017 and only finding prior years, does not indicate that the prior years' pages should be deleted; rather, it only appears to a new user that the 2017 page has yet to be created. As it stands, it is a difficult and lengthy process to find the current user page, which would be used for the final article. If more users begin to edit Knowledge with K-pop pages, only to find that they have already been created, it could discourage new users from contributing. If 2017 is not reinstated, then all other Gaon Chart pages should be removed. Please kindly consider my opinion.

1169:

But at this juncture, DRV isn't a feasible route. The case needs to be more clear. And who knows when I'll have time to do that - work has been a nightmare lately. I'm simply asking you to write a bit more detailed closing statement, so if at a later date, more information comes to light, that the closing statement can be used as a guidance, on where exactly the issue lies. This might make it easier to deal with, using a Refund process, or to appeal a sympathetic mod (assuming you are not around, which would be the first choice), rather than creating an unnecessary DRV. I don't think this is either an unreasonable, or silly, request; rather just routine housekeeping. In the meantime, can you copy to my workspace? Thanks

31: 348: 3005: 129:

sure why you weren't advised to do this in the first place, but please excuse our sometimes creaky beaurocracy. What should happen at this point is your draft is in a queue to be reviewed by an independent reviewer, who may or may not agree that it should be moved into the main article space. It looks like the queue is rather long, so I'm afraid at this point you'll just have to be patient while the reviewers work through the backlog. --

227:, leaving it in draft space now would cause less harm than restoring it in mainspace. And if we ended up rejecting that, then it would be easy enough to move into mainspace later. What I didn't realize is that when I ran the XfD tool, the discussion it generated would get listed under MfD. I was expecting it to be listed under AfD. So, yes, an accident that it's in MfD. But, no, not an accident that it's still a draft. -- 316:

probably do edits outside of deletion infrequently if I want, but I am more interested in partipiciating in deletion discussions, to prevent inappropiate material from being kept and to prevent deletion of articles that are wrongly nominated. More partipiciants interested in policy will cause less bad results. The reason I asked for a deletion review here was that I think that the closure itself looks like it ignored

1497: 941:

citations in my wikipedia page. I've always had a problem being concise in my writing, but it seemed to be in the same style as the thousands of wikipedia articles I've read so I'm afraid I assumed that too much information was better than just keeping it short. I wanted to get a few opinions on whether the article should be rewritten at all. Thanks for your input.

1536:. We generally don't provide copies of deleted articles, except to editors who have plans to use the deleted text as the start of a new article which addresses the reasons it was deleted. There are, however, a number of other sites which mirror deleted wikipedia articles. I imagine a few minutes searching will find what you're looking for on one of them. -- 2650:), for responding. I was not aware Billboard was very different. I tried looking at some of the ARIA sources and I was brought to a page which appears quite similar to the Gaon-style listings. As you can see on the category page (bolded, above) there are many such list pages on Wiki from all around the world, and I wanted to bring some attention to that. 3044:

some policy or other of which I am not yet aware that forbids this or requires extra steps of me beyond straightforward submission of the article to AfC and a full paid editing disclosure (which I have retained on my user page despite the article's removal). Please let me know if you know of any. Thanks.

3043:

of the deletion decision for the article on Stewart Levenson. I am considering recreating the article on different terms and putting it through the full articles-for-creation process. To the best of my understanding, there are no prohibitions against my doing this, but I am concerned that there may

2735:; but it was used as one reason for deletion and was claimed by others. I would personally like to see the lists remain on the site; I'm just trying to understand what exactly makes the 2017 page so different from the others. Thank you for your input (and for the archived pages of 2010 Gaon lists!!). 2672:

as I think many editors here feel just the same about English-speaking nations' number-one chart lists, but thanks for restoring that list and making it a FLC, and working on the Gaon articles. I wholeheartedly disagree with the 2017 list being deleted (or any number-ones list being deleted, for that

2580:

is the albums chart of the biggest music market in the world, and those articles linked to are not easily accessible on any kind of list. ARIA's website does not contain an archive, and several links are to other websites. I disagree with the Korean list being deleted, as I tried to find it the other

2458:

do. Lists of number one singles are not simple mirrors of content on Gaon's site, as they are more strict in the content they present. For these reasons, I move that the page be reinstated, and that all further discussions of deleting Gaon number ones pages, such as this one, be ended. If the page is

2364:

your close states, "the coverage was from local media which report on local politicians as an obligatory function, and thus this coverage does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG." The claim that "this coverage does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG" does not allow verification in WP:GNG, although

2321:

Hmm, not sure what to tell you there. I can see how one might infer from my closing statement that there was a general statement being made about the length and depth of bibliographies. That would be beyond the scope of what I had intended. That being said, please don't interpret my statement here

2085:

I have slightly modified your close note to make more clear what the result of the close was. A 'Redirect' close usually implies that the article is blanked and redirected to a different existing article. In this case your close notes, and the actions you performed indicate that the result was 'keep'

1168:

I really don't think such rudeness is appropriate. No, there isn't enough to take it to DRV. Nor do I plan to take it to DRV. It needs more research - I'd have hoped we'd have had discussion about that after I posted that new source I'd found, but you shut down the AFD before anyone else had seen it.

720:

OK, I've semi-protected that page too. Protecting a page really should be a last resort. It doesn't look like the problem is so bad there, so I was a little hesitant to pull out the big guns so soon. I gave this one 3 months. Let's see what happens before implementing something more drastic. --

459:

Thank you for your note. Looking over the discussion again, I'm satisfied my close is reasonable. The AfD had been open for a full week originally, and another three days after the DRV. It attracted comments from (if I counted correctly) eight people. That doesn't sound like something that needs

2927:

I explained this was my first time and apologize for the insertions and re-edits, and repetition and text. I was learning as I went. I easily proved that all arguments for deletion were untrue and without merit. Consensus is not determined by voting and is based on the merit of arguments which you

1680:

I've checked the revision log, and it would seem that the page is VERY susceptible to vandalism. Goku is a very popular anime character, and just way too many fans DON'T understand that their fav character's Wiki page ISN'T a place for their personal opinions. Hence, I am requesting that the page be

128:

Hi. I'm afraid our processes didn't work very well this time. I agree with you that people seem to have concentrated on the original AfD and didn't pay much attention to your new draft. I see you've already added the AFC submission template to your draft, which was the right thing to do. I'm not

109:

Can you educate me please? Do I actually need a DRV to propose a draft for AfC for this article. Where exactly am I right now with this. I contacted the deleting admin as a courtesy. And he forced me to go to DRV (which I stated I was unsure was required). And I believe no one actually read my draft

2714:

I quite like that there are people who agree with my view that the 2017 page should not have been deleted. I'm not sure how to go about opening the debate so that it can be reinstated. So, I will stop marking other pages for deletion and keep the marked marked, for now, at least until some official

2710:

but if that was fixed, and a lead added similar to the one found on the 2010 page, then 2017 would meet all of its missing featured list criteria, would it not? I understand that the 2010 page has some links to news articles which are not directly linked to the Gaon chart, but they are only used as

1136:

There are other sources too, that have been in the articles for years. And I haven't seen these sources that allegedly say that game wasn't as described. However, it's your decision. Can you though please though provide a more detailed closing statement, given the very unusual circumstance (article

940:

Also, if the article should be rewritten I definitely wouldn't use all the news articles from the company's own website. I personally found my interviews with the founder fairly interesting and since I didn't know what I was doing I assumed that the news articles and links he gave me could count as

935:

Since you were the one to delete it after two votes do you think the problem with the article was too much information, especially from the site's own history, or lack of sources, or just the tone wasn't neutral enough, or what? A book has been written discussing this company, several students have

141:

This was my plan from the beginning. I was just being acquiescent and extra empathetic because of my COI. Which is why I did not argue with the deleting admin's request or make my case loudly. I have learned to be very patient after a few pitfalls. Who cares even if it takes months. Thanks for your

2607:

on the Gaon-related articles. For the 2010 article specifically, I restored that page in May after it was originally deleted via prod in April to build it and make it a featured list (which is going along nicely). I did so in order to make a case to prove that this chart has been notable since its

1183:

I have provided a more detailed closing statement, as you requested. Given that it appears this team never even existed, I'm at a loss what purpose would be served by undeleting the existing article into userspace, so I'm going to decline to do that. You may, of course, find another admin who is

905:

I understand that in intervening based on this perspective I have appeared argumentative, and that I need to step out of it either indefinitely or until I am much better informed and acculturated to Knowledge culture. My wife will also appreciate my staying away from MfD etc. ;) But I really don't

315:

No, I am not a brand-new editor. I have edited under IP, and I have obviously read alot of guidelines and policies because you need that if you are interested in deletion discussions. Creating an account is not forbidden, and this account is not a sockpuppet, it's the account I want to use. I will

210:

Hi. Thanks for your note, and I agree that these are legitimate points. It was accidental that this ended up at MfD instead of AfD, but at this point I'll just let the discussion run its course where it is. It's not ideal, but I think the benefits of moving it would not justify the disruption.

2380:

Comment Here are the first two sentences of the essay WP:Independent sources, "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the

2117:

in red letters. At the very least, do it as a note, not above my signature, so it's clear who wrote what. But, really, it would have been better if you just asked me first.. Also, It really helps me if people include a link to the AfD or whatever. I close a lot of AfDs. I had to go rummaging

1281:

Thanks. It might be contrary to consensus, but not as much as keep. I don't think anyone actually argued against redirect, and I think had the discussion continued, consensus might have moved toward redirect - I certainly might have endorsed it, given time - and I didn't. Thanks again, if you are

1238:

I don't really need the article undeleted into user space. I just want the final text as a starting point for research, and a possible rewrite (because there's no point without first doing the research). I can't find a cached version under 18-months old. Can I just a copy of the wikitext somehow?

879:

also clearly does not apply to me. I have almost 500 unreverted userspace edits, and the "confrontations" you're talking about have only occurred in the last couple of days, which was a dipping my toes into MfD after a period of lurking there. I understand that I have to go back to lurking, but a

3257:

First of all sorry for not spotting the notice and thanks for the reply. But it is not still clear why the page is deleted. If there was any objectionable content you could delete that part or if references were missing put up that the article is unverified. I mentioned that the company has been

1196:

Thank you. There are numerous references indicating that the team existed, from that FIFA one that I found, to the rec.sports.soccer references, some of the references in the 15 other Knowledge articles, and contemporary media reports. What's missing is a cohesive properly sourced article, and a

2334:

The choice of five articles (which has been reduced to three in the edit summary for Rippon), seems just arbitrary to me. Also, I don't actually see the problem with Knowledge becoming an alternative resource for students for academics bibliography. When I was a student I didn't always find the

1242:

I just noticed that someone has restored the article as a redirect. I didn't opine on this in the AFD because it makes interwiki linking difficult, etc. But it's not the worst solution - particularly as I see the redirected article doesn't have any foreign versions. Redirect was relatively-well

3204:

Moreover, In the page delete discussion I saw a comment, Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NCORP. Plenty of "awards", but none are notable. Created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2017 (UTC) Below link is of Gartner which should qualify as

180:

may lead to confusion about what the community is being asked. Are editors being asked whether the draft should be retained in draftspace? Are editors being asked whether the draft should be moved to mainspace? An MfD participant thinks it is the former ("I fear that if a BLP is deleted, it is

2396:

If you think there is consensus that local sources shouldn't count toward the GNG, start an RfC. But I don't believe there is anything near consensus on that point, yet you are arguing we are all clearly in the wrong here. OK, ignoring that, could you explain why deleting this is good for the

2234:

to me? Just noticed the AfD. I typically do some research to ensure my past students' articles are notable first, but it's been a long time. Granted, my knowledge of tennis was and is very, very limited so I may have just been wrong, but I'd like to take a look. Participants of the discussion

2196:

Can you userfiy it for me so i can work on it as i want to fix it up that was why i added it to deletion review i did not know that i could not do that so i have sources i want to use for it but i cannot recreate article but it would be easier if it was on my userpage or on a draft namespace

1897:

crazy because I can't make heads or tails of SwisterTwister's contributions at AfD -- the one on display at DRV right now is entirely typical. There's almost an "emperor's new clothes" effect with him, where his contributions are treated as perfectly acceptable by the vast majority of AfD

2090:(with a redirect left behind). I hope that this action of mine was ok, I certainly don't want to step on your toes at all but i thought it was worth making the result of the close a bit more clear for those reviewing the AfD in the future (and also to fix it in the AfD Stats tool). — 1151:

At this point, you're being silly. I don't see any controversy, other than your continued insistence on pushing this issue. The AfD was about as clear as it gets, and there's nothing new that you present here. If you truly think I made a mistake here, you'll need to take this to

2112:

Hmmm. I'm OK with the clarification, but it's really not cool to edit something that somebody else wrote and signed. That makes it look like I wrote it. In this case, your change is reasonable, but you really should have asked me first. Especially when the page starts off with

2608:

infancy, when it didn't receive regular coverage and wasn't so widespread like it is today. Once the 2010 article is promoted, it would be pretty much impossible to argue 2017 isn't notable, and of course improvements will be introduced to further prove that. These lists are

1032:

Re-reading the AfD, I see an overwhelming consensus to delete, with a large number of people participating in the debate. And, I'm not just counting noses. Many of the delete arguments directly refute the (few) arguments put forth to keep, and cite basic principles such as

1599: 278:

You closed this discussion prematurely, without any regard to the complaint as frivolous or such. The other editor who commented did not do so- they rather found the issue questionable as well. Please explain your behaviour in detail or revert the close(or

1093:

That's a 40-page document. I'm willing to consider your request, but please don't make me play 20 questions. Is there something specific in there which is apropos to this AfD? A search for "nauru" finds only a single mention, in the box on page 28,

871:

before participating in any more XfD discussions. I have already stopped participating in all related discussions, including the Deletion Review I initiated. If I ever become involved in those again, it will only be once I am much better-informed.

620:

my apologies for not noticing your request earlier. I took a quick look and the good news is that neither of these articles show any further problems since the date of your request. Please feel free to ping me if the problem comes up again. --

187:

Another confusing point at the MfD is: What happens if the MfD is closed as "no consensus"? Is the article kept in draftspace or moved to mainspace? If the article were already in mainspace, that would be "no consensus, default to keep" (or

1898:

participants. Engagement is impossible: he blanks talk page messages without responding. I brought up his behavior at ANI last year and got nowhere with it. I think he's a net negative to AfD but I have no idea what to do about it.

577: 2532:

I went ahead and marked several pages for deletion on the Billboard and ARIA top singles lists. They are also mirrors of their respective sites, and have no place on Knowledge. Of course, those deletion discussions will be swift.

433: 3232:. I also note this has been deleted about five times. Once at the AfD we're talking about here. Another time at a previous AfD (which, to be fair, didn't see any significant discussion), and also three different times via 2572:

Please don't do things like this out of spite. Just because your article was deleted, does not mean you have to try and go after other users' articles/similar lists. One list's deletion does not mean others will succeed. The

460:

relisting. Given the number of people who contributed to the discussion, and the quality of the arguments (on both sides), the only other possible close I could see is No Consensus, which comes down to the same result. --

2433: 2699:. It meets the criteria of 1) prose, which is covered by the lead's style of professional writing, 2) lead, because it has a lead which could be copied to other years, 3) comprehensiveness, which a list would have trouble 3081:, I suspect you will have an uphill battle convincing people that a new version from you addresses the concerns of the AfD. It's not my place to give or deny you permission to try; this is just my personal opinion. -- 2418:, "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." 1601: 780:"If this person/thing/etc., wasn't a #1 hit in Korea, would it reduce their fame or significance?" Well yes of course it would, and now we have sources that show that. So at least please let it be taken back to WP:AFD. 1006: 880:

good faith conviction that Legacypac was inappropriately nominating for CSD, as he has done in the past, as well as submitting articles to AfD in order to have them rejected to promote their deletion, is not at all a

434: 173:. You closed the DRV as "Overturn G4, list at Afd". Does the "Overturn G4" part of your close mean that the page should be restored to mainspace for an AfD discussion? Did you leave the page in draftspace on purpose? 162: 1509:

Hello, I just saw that you deleted the page "Poker Probability (Texas Hold'em)" on 13th June. For me that article was very helpful and informative, so I'm asking you if it'd be possible to get a copy of it. Thanks!

564:

I haven't felt personally insulted by a close in a long time. I can't fathom why you thought it was appropriate to write that. I too have many years of experience with academic journals, not that it should matter.

2824:

I know you couldn't do anything different from what you did for the above. However may I take the liberty to share my feelings here that majority may not be always right for a country, humanity or even Knowledge.

523:. Just counting votes is not how an AfD is supposed to be closed. !Votes that are not policy based should be ignored. In your close you claim that the contents of the article can be verified. Well, they can, but 2410:

the editor who re-created the Sumter mall article after the DRV. The block cited edit warring even though the article in question had been stable for a week, and you did not issue a warning before the block.

956:

My role in closing the deletion discussion was not to evaluate the article per-se, but the summarize the comments of the editors who contributed to the AfD. I think the most significant comment there was from

2235:

primarily talked about how it's not "inherently notable" but I don't really see any evaluation of sources... (though obviously there were policy-based reasons given -- I'm not contesting the close). Thanks. —

1040:

Not one refutes the source I provided, towards the end of the debate. The only person to comment afterwards, said they hadn't noticed that reference. I don't see what's gained by closing instead of relisting.

239:

This is utterly ridiculous. An overturn at DRV leaves no grounds for keeping the article in the Draft namespace. You are apparently "supervoting" to override the consensus you yourself have identified at DRV.

2479: 2251: 2454:. Keeping this list of number ones is a good idea, rather than deleting it, because Gaon's website doesn't give a list of only weekly number ones all on a single page the way this article does and the way 181:

generally not likely to survive as a draft either") but my reading of your close is that it is neither. I think the question the community is being asked is: "Should this biographical article be retained?"

2025:? I remember I wrote an old comment there giving a bit of sourced (directly to Tolkien) trivia on his use of Old English names for them; I'd like to have it recorded somewhere in my userspace. Thanks! 1007: 2706:

Should I assume that the 2017 article does not meet these standards simply because it does not have an engaging lead? Sure, the captions could be more succinct, which would be a point against 2017's

1622:

Overall, I don't see any reason to think consensus (or notability) would have changed in the past couple of weeks, but if you really want to take it to DRV, I have no issue with your doing so. --

3031: 1557: 177: 607: 3094: 453: 1529: 1017:

did vote delete afterwards, but I'm not sure what he thought was wrong with that source I referenced on the FIFA website - and no one else has edited since I brought that source to light).

572: 1616: 3201:

However, I believe that significant new information has come to light since the article was deleted and I am contacting you, the administrator who closed the discussion, user RoySmith.

3077:

Hmmmmm. Not sure what to tell you. The AfD and DRV were both unanimous. While I don't know of any policy which would forbid you from creating a new version and trying to get it past

1533: 753:

I may try to find some more citations to dated material in the article. Ok if I post to the talk page there and ping you? I work at Flickr, so don't want to edit the article directly.

1282:

okay with it staying, then there's a couple of things I can do in that framework, that reduce my concerns about eliminating the article - and it's certainly a reasonable search term.

1243:

supported in the AFD, but you appear to have rejected it. Before I try and work within that framework, I wanted to check to see where you stood on that, whether that will be deleted.

3324:, is that the company has to do something which makes it notable. Based on what I've seen, that hasn't happened yet, and until it does, this page is not going to get restored. -- 3116: 1999: 1988: 1265:. I also noticed the redirect. It seems to me that it's contrary to consensus. I didn't take any action, partly because it's not my job to play wiki-enforcer, and partly because 539:. I find your characterization of us us as "people whose arguments to delete consist largely of finding the correct chapter and verse of wiki-policy to cite" to be mildly insulting 223:

Hmmm. I should clarify that further. Yes, I was aware this was a draft, and made a conscious decision to leave it in draft space. My logic there was if we ended up accepting the

204: 2002:. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. .-- 1026: 795:

My role in a DRV is to distill what other people said, and I just don't see the strength of argument needed to overturn the AfD close. So, I'm afraid this will have to stand. --

2841: 1742:

Hi there, I'm a bit confused by the way in which The Wise Way AfD was closed. You seem to have taken down the page for Zarb-e-Sukhan as well, though this has it's own, seperate

3100: 2285: 211:

Whoever comes along can figure out what to do. You might want to raise these points right in the MfD discussion so other discussants can provide more focused comments. --

1474:

I was replying to the thread in general. No, I wasn't thinking socks, just somebody who seems to be more interested in creating drama than in writing an encyclopedia. --

444:. I would appreciate if you could re-visit your closure. Also, given the still ongoing discussion, a relist would not have been out of its place, either, I think. Thanks. -- 3346: 3259: 3196: 1068: 3048: 2432: 2389: 2361: 2057: 535:

by looking at their websites, which claim that they are peer-reviewed scientific journals. As an aside, I have many years of experience with academic journals and so does

1110:

Yes - much of the discussion centred about whether there was a good source for that game, with unsourced comments about it being an unofficial game with migrant workers.

1920: 170: 163: 1426: 854: 1318: 2060:(these deleted pages listed subsets of this extant list) to make its sourcing a little less terrible when I do get it all back; hopefully that counts as a plan. ^_^ 3107:

and now it's too late from my end. I was supposed save it to wait our the result of the AfD and then utilize some of the content at the mentioned existing article.

3320:. The IndiaTimes article you mention above is a routine funding announcement; these don't count for much either. To be more clear, the answer to your question, 3221: 3182: 3123: 2106: 1515: 923: 1362:, whatever the reason. Somebody will come to Knowledge, find a blank page and wonder what on earth is going on. If an article is a duplicate of another, then 2976:

Johnvr4's userspace pages – Endorse. Ignoring the WP:WALLOFTEXT from the nom, there's strong consensus here to endorse the deletion of these state user drafts.

2844:, or for it to become undeleted so that I may edit it appropriately. Any other information is found on Yamla's talk page linked above. The AfD is linked here: 2171: 1583: 767: 3350: 3104: 2468: 2304: 1456: 325: 296: 280: 301:

You really need to address the fact that you're obviously not a brand-new editor, it's going to taint pretty much everything you do on Knowledge otherwise.

3151: 3133: 2125: 2078: 1963: 1951: 288: 1721:

The Sailor Moon page has received quite a bit of vandalized damage as well, as there's multiple IP users that keep persisting in pasting irrelevant tags.

1690: 195:

I recommend closing the MfD, moving the draft to mainspace, and then opening an AfD so it is clear that editors know what they are being asked to decide.

2514: 2344: 2329: 1784: 1671: 1511: 789: 110:

and you closed the review without forcing the issue. Wouldn't it have been better to get people to state clearly that the draft was also not acceptable.

3033: 2786: 1762: 1549: 1981: 1576: 3159: 2077: 1986: 1772: 333: 310: 270: 3317: 2164: 2011: 1137:

has been around a very long time, also exists in 15 (I think) foreign-language Wikis, some with better sourcing. Kept at previous AFD, etc. Thanks,

1013:

I'm surprised that this was a delete, rather than a relist, given controversy, and that no one has refuted the source I found the other day (though

989:

Thanks for the feedback! You're one of the only people who have actually responded to me on wikipedia. It seems to be a rather unfriendly place :-/

3176: 2275: 2261: 2185: 1652: 1410: 678: 2034: 1730: 260: 3220:

notice and provide me a link to the discussion? It took me a while to figure out what you were talking about. But, the nominating statement at

2882: 2069: 2051: 1945: 1543: 1055:

Make things simple for me. What, exactly, was this souce? It's not obvious from looking at the AfD what in particular you feel was missed. --

1878: 1858: 1828: 1705: 1665: 728: 715: 690: 653: 628: 2815: 2692: 2455: 2283: 552: 467: 3165: 2865: 1629: 1481: 1347: 3331: 3026: 1743: 1593: 1440: 1420: 762: 515: 503: 234: 196: 154: 136: 3088: 2987: 2958: 1607:

I was thinking to taking it to deletion review based on; 1. It is clearly WP:N, 2. WP:TOOSOON is no longer a convincing argument. Thoughts?

842: 828: 816: 802: 366: 2675: 2643: 2587: 2560: 2542: 2527: 2507: 2493: 2404:

The closing of the 2nd Sumter AfD stated, "Hobit's argument regarding local sources appeared to me to be better based on the text of GNG."

2097: 1959: 1952: 1736: 1635: 1076: 998: 984: 527:

if you accept sources provided by the journal itself. Given your close, I guess we now should keep every article on journals published by

218: 3357:

largest Digital-CRM implementation in banking in Asia at HDFC Bank with 45,000+ users, across 3,000+ branches and 1,500+ cities and towns

2637: 1291: 1276: 1206: 1191: 1178: 1163: 1146: 1131: 1119: 1105: 1088: 1072: 1062: 425: 411: 3347:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/software/crmnext-launches-indias-first-cloud-bsaed-digital-crm-platform/articleshow/50866242.cms

3260:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/money/pe-giants-locked-in-a-race-to-invest-in-saas-startup-crmnext/articleshow/60402050.cms

3197:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/money/pe-giants-locked-in-a-race-to-invest-in-saas-startup-crmnext/articleshow/60402050.cms

2744: 1713: 1400: 3016: 2724: 2686: 2659: 2598: 2427: 1755: 973:

to get a better feel for what we're looking for. There might be other wiki projects which are better suited for your article. Perhaps

3293: 3251: 2998: 2691:

I feel the same, as you can tell by my reaction. Perhaps there will be further discussion about the 2017 page. As I understand it, the

2131: 2016: 1550: 1252: 1050: 378: 103: 3354: 2244: 2040:

I'm not a big fan of userfying deleted articles, unless there's some specific plan to work on them and return them to mainspace. See

3237: 2373: 929: 1746:

AfD entry which has not yet finished. I'm actually fine with the result, but just wanted to query the process behind this? Thanks.

3358: 2941: 2617: 2440: 744: 397: 341: 1815: 1330: 641: 1560: 906:

see how the behaviour Legacypac, DGG, and Nyttend are displaying with userspace drafts and the discussion thereof contributes to

2703:

meeting, 4) structure, which is covered by the easy-to-read tables, and 5) style, because it has images with relevant captions.

3009: 2831: 2216: 2041: 352: 184:

If editors are being asked whether the draft should be moved to mainspace, then MfD is not the proper forum for that. DRV was.

3138:

Thank you. Most of the text wasn't useful, but I remembered there being something of value and that there was: the mention of

1262: 2910: 3351:

http://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/crmnext-to-help-icici-group-revamp-consumer-strategy-113091600230_1.html

1995: 1643:

Requesting immediate protection as the page has been vandalized at least two times with the bombardment of unsourced info.

587: 937: 3181: 1909: 970: 666: 440:

There are strong, policy-based "delete" !votes here. As has been shown repeatedly, none of the "keep" !votes goes beyond

256: 3308:. Please go read those pages to understand what we're looking for. Gartner reports are generally not considered to be 3099:

So, my question is: is it possible for sysops to see deleted article's history or how it stood as? I forgot to save the

122: 1406: 416:

It should have been closed as "no consensus", which means the article is not deleted. Are you new to your admin job?

2845: 1658:

I gave it six months semi-protection. Although, I see we've gone that route already, but let's see what happens. --

1519: 400:. I recognize that the decision didn't go the way you wanted, but I don't see any way this could have been closed as 1821:

Did you read my closing statement? Closes are not about vote counting. They're about evaluating the arguments. --

2802: 3147: 3112: 2915: 2798: 2711:

references. Most of the information used in the lead could still have been found from the chart itself. Confusing.

2696: 2357:

As per WP:Administrator, admins "must never use to gain an advantage in a dispute in which they were involved."

2202: 2100: 1932: 1459:

a few times, and I don't understand. Are you replying to me? Are you saying that that Jax is a sockpuppeteer? --

950: 579: 1468: 1370:. If it indeed meets the criteria for deletion in your judgement, then nominate it as appropriate. Thank you. — 2498:

Well, until the other annual lists finish their deletion debates, it isn't pertinent to consider improving them.

706:

as well, and it has also been suffering from persistent vandalism as of late. Could you protect that page too? --

390: 2837: 3289: 3206: 2340: 2300: 490: 977:(although, I'll admit, I'm not very familiar with wikia, so I can't guarantee that's a good place either. -- 892:

is a good thing, and overzealous "spam warriors" trying to roll back the clock on last year's discussions <

2366: 2352: 1305: 317: 94: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 3266: 3263: 1379: 772:

I think you mis-analysed the debate, the argument is that the list is notable because being a #1 Gaon song

590:

unsourced info three times, but it would seem that they have no intention of actually abiding by the rules (

3072: 2582: 2476:

if somebody can write a new article which addresses the concerns raised in the AfD, they are free to do so.

2460: 2222: 1735: 703: 595: 3269: 3143: 3108: 2894: 2191: 2152: 2094: 1778: 938:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion

777: 2322:

as passing judgement one way or another on any particular edits made subsequently by other editors. --

2906: 1803:

votes were made before the article was significantly expanded. Any clarification would be appreciated.

1751: 38: 1336:

Thanks for the pointer, but my knowledge in that area is limited, so I'll leave the discussion to the

2423: 2336: 2312: 2296: 1367: 3355:

https://www.realwire.com/releases/CRMNEXTs-CRM-Banking-Edition-Tops-the-IBS-Sales-League-Table-2017

2397:

encyclopedia? I've not seen anyone address that, and if it's not, we really shouldn't be doing it.

2160: 1385:

I didn't blank it. I redirected it to a better target. I'm curious why you redirected it back to

329: 284: 2408: 2451: 1715: 252: 3359:

https://theceo.in/2015/11/crmnext-runs-largest-digital-crm-implementations-asian-banking-sector/

2925: 2857: 2148: 2140: 2133: 2065: 2030: 1928: 1888: 1037:. I'm afraid I can't see any reason this should have been relisted. 21:40, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 919: 528: 272: 2022: 2902: 1966:, where it can be improved and submitted for restoration to mainspace in the future. Cheers! 1854: 1811: 1747: 1726: 1686: 1648: 1337: 711: 674: 649: 603: 2967:

policy did not apply to the Draft. However, you closed it for that reason while ignoring my

1787:). There certainly wasn't a consensus in favor of delete (by my count, it was 5 in favor of 3285: 3277: 2794: 2419: 2231: 1637: 548: 449: 306: 102: 2176:

I'm not going to include it in the consensus. Feel free to create it on your own, however.

1698:

I gave it six months semi-protection. If that's not enough, we can revisit it later. --

967:

It's a nice research proejct on a small enterprise, but it doesn't belong in ((wikipedia))

860: 8: 3305: 3229: 2732: 2613: 2518:

a featured list candidate? To my eyes, it is a simple mirror just like the rest of them.

2268: 2237: 2156: 1842: 1612: 1464: 1326: 1014: 885: 683:

I have semi-protected the page for 6 months. Hopefully that will solve the problem. --

569: 321: 224: 189: 3365: 3328: 3248: 3130: 3085: 2955: 2879: 2812: 2632: 2490: 2415: 2326: 2258: 2213: 2182: 2122: 2048: 1942: 1875: 1825: 1799:

side made some pretty decent arguments about worthiness for inclusion. And some of the

1769: 1702: 1662: 1626: 1590: 1572: 1540: 1478: 1437: 1417: 1397: 1344: 1273: 1188: 1160: 1128: 1102: 1059: 981: 825: 799: 750: 725: 687: 625: 520: 512: 486: 464: 408: 363: 243: 231: 215: 149: 133: 117: 47: 17: 2975: 2450:

the official chart of South Korea, it is also used to help give awards for the annual

2143:. In the meanwhile, a corresponding bluelink has been created in combination with the 3056: 3022: 2983: 2948: 2937: 2848: 2407:

The 2nd Sumter AfD closed on 12 June 2014, and 31 July 2014 was the date you blocked

2291:

Did you mean for this to stand as a precedent? Would you look at the edit history of

2144: 2061: 2026: 2007: 1924: 1871:

You mentioned those things in the AfD, but didn't seem to convince other people. --

1838: 928: 915: 876: 838: 812: 785: 477: 441: 3040: 1602:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Obstruction of justice investigation of Donald Trump

3172: 2898: 2888: 2826: 2740: 2720: 2655: 2556: 2538: 2523: 2503: 2464: 1976: 1850: 1846: 1807: 1722: 1682: 1644: 994: 946: 707: 670: 645: 615: 599: 498: 435:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Journal on European History of Law (2nd nomination)

372: 200: 1582:

I was unaware of that discussion, thank you for bringing it to my attention. See

359:

I am unable to locate the discussion. Could you provide a direct link to it? --

3060: 2964: 2921: 2872: 2790: 2680: 2592: 2581:

week and saw it had been deleted, but this is not a right or justified reaction.

2316: 1287: 1248: 1202: 1174: 1142: 1115: 1084: 1046: 1022: 889: 821:

I'm not sure what to tell you. DRV is usually pretty much where things end. --

544: 445: 421: 386: 302: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3068: 3064: 2780: 2624:

against non-English subjects, a problem I have been actively trying to combat.

2621: 1608: 1487: 1460: 1375: 1366:

it. If you feel that an article doesn't belong on Knowledge, then look at the

1322: 1314: 1306: 911: 907: 881: 868: 757: 566: 494: 2480:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017

2381:

source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic, for example."

1075:

for that French article - however after you closed the AFD, I found a copy in

3361: 3325: 3281: 3245: 3233: 3127: 3082: 3078: 2952: 2929: 2876: 2809: 2789:'s edit, where he redirected his talk page to the article namespace? Thanks. 2667: 2647: 2625: 2574: 2487: 2323: 2255: 2210: 2179: 2119: 2045: 1939: 1872: 1822: 1766: 1699: 1659: 1623: 1587: 1568: 1537: 1475: 1450: 1434: 1414: 1394: 1363: 1341: 1270: 1266: 1185: 1157: 1153: 1125: 1099: 1056: 978: 822: 796: 722: 697: 684: 660: 635: 622: 536: 509: 482: 473: 461: 405: 360: 228: 212: 145: 130: 113: 3207:

https://www.gartner.com/reviews/market/sales-force-automation/vendor/crmnext

2893:

You might like to know I have issued a civility warning, in accordance with

2044:. But, you may be able to find another admin who's willing to do this. -- 1124:

I'm afraid that's not going to convince me, not by a long shot. Sorry. --

3309: 3301: 3241: 3225: 3045: 3018: 2979: 2933: 2840:. I was wondering if you would grant permission for me to restart the page 2836:

Hi Roy, was just directed here via a conversation I had with User:Yamla on

2003: 1899: 1390: 1353: 1008:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Nauru national soccer team (2nd nomination)

864: 834: 808: 781: 591: 171:

Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 14#Michael Cole (public relations)

164:

Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 14#Michael Cole (public relations)

3313: 3267:

https://www.gartner.com/doc/3760163/magic-quadrant-sales-force-automation

3264:

https://www.gartner.com/doc/reprints?id=1-3ZQSL68&ct=170508&st=sb

3240:. Your Gartner link is essentially a blog post, so doesn't qualify as a 3168: 2736: 2716: 2651: 2604: 2567: 2552: 2551:

and the other years. Maybe it would actually be best to start with 2017.

2534: 2519: 2499: 2483: 2292: 1967: 1914: 1034: 990: 942: 898: 893: 532: 2205:. Please note, this would have been easier if you followed the big red 1567:

endorsed by no consensus, unlike XfDs, which remain unchanged. Cheers,

2087: 1283: 1244: 1198: 1170: 1156:, but honestly, I think that would be a waste of everybody's time. -- 1138: 1111: 1080: 1042: 1018: 417: 382: 178:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Michael Cole (public relations)

3270:

https://www.gartner.com/doc/3787766/magic-quadrant-crm-lead-management

2920:

I noticed you ignored my views and closed the discussion at DRV under

751:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Flickr#Pro_accounts_no_longer_offered.3F

355:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

3012:

regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

1371: 1096:

The low point came in 1994, when they lost to non-FIFA members Nauru.

2547:

If you'd like to help, you can start by marking all of the pages in

3139: 2478:

But, keep in mind that you'll need to address the issues raised at

960: 169:

Hi RoySmith. Thank you for writing a detailed closing statement at

2147:

first round. I would like to motivate you to create a redirect of

1563:

change to the DRV instructions. G11 or other speedy deletions are

1534:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Poker probability (Texas hold 'em)

702:

Thank you! By the way, the same problem has been occurring on the

1319:

Knowledge:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 7#Template:Dated

1233:

I don't really want to beat the dead horse here, but two things:

594:). Apparently, they have also been doing the same thing with the 598:. I kindly request that you take action regarding the matter. -- 2770: 640:

It would seem that said IP user has been causing trouble again

776:

things notable (by causing them to be discussed in RS's). See

2118:

through your edit history to find the link to this page. --

1893:

Thanks for your comments over at DRV. I sometimes think that

1386: 2390:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Sumter Mall (2nd nomination)

2362:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Barbara Brenner (politician)

3341:

The below articles should enough notability to CRMNEXT, no?

3192: 3095:

Is it possible for sysops to see deleted article's history?

2932:

and ask that you restore the deleted material on your own.

1921:

Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Renamed user jC6jAXNBCg

1673: 1359: 3195:

It was recently cited in leading financial paper in india

3103:

article as it is, for something to be added from there to

2963:

I responded. The entire community consensus was that the

2365:

I am aware of your previous interest to pull in the essay

2388:

You returned to your "all in a local paper" argument at

2295:

for me? I would be interested in you comments. Thanks. --

1496: 1427:

M'Vengue El Hadj Omar Bongo Ondimba International Airport

3353:

largest provider of CRM in financial services globally

3124:

User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker/Power Shortage in Japan 2012

974: 899:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:PermanentLink/721040983

894:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:PermanentLink/721038836

859:

Hi, there, RoySmith. It seems that you have read my ANI

749:

Hi Roy, I responded to your note on the talk page here:

1837:

Ah, missed that. Though I still think his history with

833:

So if your analysis is incorrect, nothing can be done.

3300:

The reason it was deleted was because it did not meet

2139:

On 4 August, you were responsible for the deletion of

2042:

Knowledge:Userfication#Userfication_of_deleted_content

1584:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Lely (Company)

884:

attitude but quite the opposite. From my perspective,

3274:

Can you state what is needed to un-delete the page?

381:? It is a no consensus, so the article should stay! 2978:– -- RoySmith (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)" 2695:

is a featured list candidate because it meets every

2434:

Draft:List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017

2335:

resources that were available all that intuitive. --

1919:

Per your comments at DRV you might be interested in

3105:

Aftermath of the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami

1785:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Kamil Ekim Alptekin

1783:Just wondering what the rationale was (discussion: 192:). But it is unclear what the procedure is at MfD. 2808:Done, thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- 1763:Knowledge talk:Articles for deletion/Zarb-e-Sukhan 855:Speedy Deletions of User- and Draft-space articles 3244:. Sorry, I don't see this getting restored. -- 3222:WP:Articles for deletion/CRMNEXT (2nd nomination) 3216:First, why did you not read and obey the big red 3032:Endorsement of deletion decision for article on 1393:for the use of Foon as a synonym for Spork? -- 2383:Unscintillating (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC) 1556:You might want to amend your close in light of 3349:One of the largest CRM solutions with 40,000 2693:List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2010 2482:, and meet all our other requirements such as 1425:Ug, let's try this again. It should point to 1269:argues that its a reasonable thing to do. -- 768:List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017 888:on Draft and Userspace deletion expressed in 578:IP user repeatedly posting unsourced info on 3039:Hi, Roy, I am contacting you regarding your 1960:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/NaagaKannike 1953:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/NaagaKannike 2928:ignored. I have restored my sandbox under 2620:is proof of this. It is simply a matter of 902:are endangering that productive consensus. 508:You are certainly entitled to do that. -- 1551:Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 21 476:then. The keep side has no arguments save 3262:Below are the offical links to gartner: 3160:Quick note on a user you blocked recently 2374:Knowledge:Deletion review/Log/2014 May 19 1761:Thanks for your note. I've responded on 1413:. I don't know what happened there. -- 1358:Please do not blank pages, as you did to 807:No further appeal is available, correct? 531:, too. After all, their existence can be 2618:Category:FL-Class Record Charts articles 2441:Knowledge:Deletion_review/Log/2017_May_2 2252:User:Rhododendrites:Murray–Nadal rivalry 2079:Alderaan (astronomy) deletion discussion 1409:. My intent was to redirect Foon -: --> 3345:First Indian Cloud based CRM solution 3224:is pretty clear; nobody could find the 2474:Well, like the closing statement said, 867:'s resolution that I should go through 586:I've taken the liberty of removing the 14: 3258:cited in multiple news articles e.g. 2486:and the guidelines it references. -- 2209:instructions and included a link. -- 1744:WP:Articles for deletion/Zarb-e-Sukhan 320:, which is a valid complaint, and not 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 3322:what is needed to un-delete the page? 3010:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard 2715:discussion can be had on the matter. 2399:Hobit (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC) 1405:Oh, I see what you're talking about: 1263:User:Nfitz/nauru national soccer team 353:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard 25: 3008:There is currently a discussion at 2664:I don't know about that last claim 2021:Would you mind giving me a copy of 1239:Mail, sandbox, userspace, whatever? 971:Knowledge:Contributing to Knowledge 351:There is currently a discussion at 23: 3312:, at least as far as establishing 2286:AfD:Stanley Aronowitz bibliography 2230:Would you mind emailing a copy of 2153:1._FC_Schweinfurt_05#Current_squad 2017:just a little userfication request 1530:Poker probability (Texas hold 'em) 1528:Hi. I think you're talking about 1321:at least one week ago. Join in. -- 910:. From my angle it looks like all 24: 3377: 2971:reasoning (however disorganized). 1600:Thinking of taking your close to 969:. It might help for you to read 669:has been causing more trouble. -- 665:Could you please intervene? This 190:"no consensus, default to delete" 3191:CRMNEXT has a Company website: 3003: 2999:Notice of noticeboard discussion 2203:User:Flow234/City National Arena 1495: 745:Flickr Pro question on talk page 580:List of Oh My Goddess characters 396:I explained my reasoning in the 346: 342:Notice of noticeboard discussion 29: 1958:I have split the difference at 377:Why did you delete the article 3332:11:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC) 3294:04:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC) 3252:12:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC) 3177:01:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC) 3152:06:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC) 3134:11:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC) 3117:05:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC) 3089:01:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC) 3049:00:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC) 2842:Life West Chiropractic College 2832:Life West Chiropractic College 2764: 2392:, where it was stated to you, 1317:is relisted for discussion at 13: 1: 3212:So why was the page deleted? 3027:23:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC) 2988:13:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC) 2959:13:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC) 2942:13:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC) 2911:08:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC) 2883:23:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC) 2866:23:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC) 2612:a problem and do not violate 2603:I've contested every prod by 2369:, which is linked in WP:GNG. 3101:Power Shortage in Japan 2012 2847:Thanks for your assistance! 2771:http://www.kpopawards.co.kr/ 2731:I agree it does not violate 1067:The one I added in my final 7: 3183:Deletion review for CRMNEXT 2895:Knowledge:Civility warnings 2816:13:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC) 2803:13:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC) 2745:03:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC) 2725:03:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC) 2687:23:52, 30 August 2017 (UTC) 2660:03:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC) 2638:23:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC) 2599:22:37, 30 August 2017 (UTC) 2561:22:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC) 2549:Category:2010 record charts 2543:22:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC) 2528:22:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC) 2508:22:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC) 2494:21:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC) 2469:21:32, 29 August 2017 (UTC) 2439:Continuing discussion from 2428:23:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC) 2345:14:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC) 2330:13:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC) 2305:13:35, 21 August 2017 (UTC) 2276:20:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC) 2262:19:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC) 2245:20:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC) 2217:19:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC) 2186:23:45, 15 August 2017 (UTC) 2165:22:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC) 1457:your apparently reply to me 778:Knowledge:Stand-alone lists 176:That the page is at MfD at 10: 3382: 2126:11:22, 7 August 2017 (UTC) 2107:06:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC) 2070:23:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC) 2058:List of Middle-earth Elves 2052:16:17, 6 August 2017 (UTC) 2035:14:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC) 2012:22:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC) 1994:An editor has asked for a 1982:17:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC) 1946:16:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC) 1933:14:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC) 1910:16:56, 1 August 2017 (UTC) 1429:, which has the ICAO code 729:08:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC) 716:01:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC) 691:11:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC) 679:03:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC) 629:23:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC) 608:03:24, 13 March 2017 (UTC) 573:15:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC) 553:07:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC) 516:01:51, 17 April 2017 (UTC) 504:01:44, 17 April 2017 (UTC) 468:20:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC) 454:17:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC) 334:20:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC) 311:20:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC) 289:19:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC) 261:12:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC) 235:11:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC) 219:11:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC) 205:04:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC) 155:14:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC) 137:14:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC) 123:13:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC) 3041:September 8th endorsement 1962:and moved the article to 1879:20:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC) 1859:15:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC) 1849:would tip the other way. 1829:15:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC) 1816:15:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC) 1773:12:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC) 1756:08:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC) 1731:16:08, 15 July 2017 (UTC) 1706:01:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC) 1691:00:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC) 1666:15:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC) 1653:15:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC) 1544:20:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 1520:18:07, 27 June 2017 (UTC) 1494: 1482:02:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC) 1469:01:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC) 1441:14:42, 16 June 2017 (UTC) 1421:14:41, 16 June 2017 (UTC) 1401:14:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC) 1380:14:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC) 1348:11:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC) 1331:01:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC) 863:, and I quite agree with 654:02:10, 5 April 2017 (UTC) 426:16:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC) 412:14:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC) 391:13:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC) 367:14:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC) 3193:https://www.crmnext.com/ 2916:Ignoring of views at DRV 2822:Chandigarh stalking case 2585:is not a good argument. 2456:previous annual articles 2372:As stated to you at the 1714:Persistent vandalism on 1672:Persistent vandalism on 1636:Persistent vandalism on 1630:20:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 1617:20:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC) 1594:14:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC) 1577:07:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC) 1292:23:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC) 1277:17:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC) 1253:16:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC) 1207:15:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC) 1192:01:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC) 1179:13:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC) 1164:11:00, 2 June 2017 (UTC) 1147:10:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC) 1132:22:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 1120:21:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 1106:20:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 1089:20:25, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 1071:to the AFD. Here is the 1063:13:49, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 1051:06:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC) 1027:21:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 999:04:45, 29 May 2017 (UTC) 985:12:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC) 951:11:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC) 924:13:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC) 843:20:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC) 829:20:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC) 817:20:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC) 803:20:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC) 790:20:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC) 704:Ojarumaru character list 596:Ojarumaru character list 3073:Winged Blades of Godric 2452:Gaon Chart Music Awards 2115:Please do not modify it 2056:I do plan to put it in 763:20:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC) 2697:Featured list criteria 2402: 2386: 2367:WP:Independent sources 2149:Steffen Krautschneider 2141:Steffen Krautschneider 2134:Steffen Krautschneider 1338:Subject-matter experts 642:with the article above 529:OMICS Publishing Group 318:WP:Closing discussions 273:Timeline of Amazon.com 3316:. See, for example, 2394: 2378: 2353:Barbara Brenner close 2170:Well, like I said in 2000:Fróði Fríðason Jensen 1989:Fróði Fríðason Jensen 1795:), and I believe the 1455:Hi Roy. I have read 398:AfD closing statement 42:of past discussions. 3368:) 23 September 2017 2337:The Vintage Feminist 2313:The Vintage Feminist 2297:The Vintage Feminist 2232:Murray-Nadal rivalry 2223:Murray-Nadal rivalry 2172:my closing statement 1987:Deletion review for 1737:The Wise Way closing 1559:, which resulted in 2192:City National Arena 2023:Talk:House of Finwë 1843:Leviathan gas field 1779:Kamil Ekim Alptekin 1389:. Do you have any 1015:User:Deathlibrarian 271:Deletion review of 3228:needed to satisfy 2947:I have replied at 2871:I've responded on 2616:as Satou4 claims, 2583:Other things exist 1964:Draft:NaagaKannike 1791:and 3 in favor of 18:User talk:RoySmith 3296: 3280:comment added by 3218:Attention editors 2949:User talk:Johnvr4 2861: 2853: 2827:User: Arunbandana 2785:Could you revert 2400: 2384: 2266:Great. Thanks. — 2207:Attention editors 2145:2017-18 DFB-Pokal 2103: 1839:Eclipse Aerospace 1525: 1524: 521:AfD is not a vote 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 3373: 3275: 3236:under the title 3076: 3034:Stewart Levenson 3007: 3006: 2903:Roberttherambler 2899:User talk:Jytdog 2859: 2851: 2787:User:Annonymous4 2773: 2768: 2683: 2678: 2671: 2635: 2630: 2595: 2590: 2571: 2398: 2382: 2320: 2273: 2271: 2242: 2240: 2093: 1974: 1907: 1903: 1847:Michael T. Flynn 1748:Landscape repton 1499: 1492: 1491: 964: 760: 701: 664: 639: 619: 502: 472:I'll take it to 350: 349: 300: 259: 250: 246: 153: 121: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 3381: 3380: 3376: 3375: 3374: 3372: 3371: 3370: 3318:this discussion 3186: 3162: 3097: 3054: 3037: 3004: 3001: 2918: 2891: 2873:User talk:Yamla 2834: 2783: 2778: 2777: 2776: 2769: 2765: 2681: 2676: 2665: 2633: 2626: 2622:systematic bias 2593: 2588: 2565: 2437: 2420:Unscintillating 2355: 2310: 2289: 2269: 2267: 2238: 2236: 2225: 2194: 2137: 2086:with a move to 2083: 2019: 1996:deletion review 1992: 1968: 1956: 1917: 1905: 1901: 1891: 1781: 1740: 1719: 1678: 1641: 1605: 1554: 1490: 1453: 1368:deletion policy 1356: 1311: 1098:Is that it? -- 1011: 958: 933: 914:, pretty much. 865:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง 857: 770: 758: 747: 695: 658: 633: 613: 584: 481: 438: 375: 347: 344: 294: 276: 248: 242: 241: 167: 143: 111: 107: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3379: 3343: 3342: 3337: 3335: 3334: 3255: 3254: 3211: 3185: 3180: 3161: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3096: 3093: 3092: 3091: 3036: 3030: 3000: 2997: 2995: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2990: 2972: 2917: 2914: 2890: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2833: 2830: 2819: 2818: 2782: 2779: 2775: 2774: 2762: 2761: 2757: 2756: 2755: 2754: 2753: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2749: 2748: 2747: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2713: 2712: 2705: 2704: 2640: 2545: 2530: 2510: 2436: 2431: 2354: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2288: 2282: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2270:Rhododendrites 2239:Rhododendrites 2224: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2193: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2157:Sekundogenitur 2155:. Thank you!-- 2136: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2082: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2072: 2018: 2015: 1991: 1985: 1955: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1916: 1913: 1890: 1889:SwisterTwister 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1832: 1831: 1780: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1739: 1734: 1718: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1677: 1676:(popular page) 1670: 1669: 1668: 1640: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1604: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1553: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1523: 1522: 1506: 1505: 1500: 1489: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1452: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1446: 1445: 1444: 1443: 1411:ICAO code FOON 1355: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1315:Template:Dated 1310: 1307:Template:Dated 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1256: 1255: 1240: 1231: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1010: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 932: 927: 856: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 769: 766: 746: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 733: 732: 731: 583: 576: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 556: 555: 437: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 374: 371: 370: 369: 343: 340: 339: 338: 337: 336: 326:Burning Pillar 297:Burning Pillar 281:Burning Pillar 275: 269: 268: 267: 266: 265: 264: 263: 166: 161: 160: 159: 158: 157: 106: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3378: 3369: 3367: 3363: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3333: 3330: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3315: 3311: 3307: 3303: 3299: 3298: 3297: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3279: 3272: 3271: 3268: 3265: 3261: 3253: 3250: 3247: 3243: 3239: 3235: 3231: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3209: 3208: 3202: 3199: 3198: 3194: 3189: 3184: 3179: 3178: 3174: 3170: 3166: 3164:Just as info 3153: 3149: 3145: 3141: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3132: 3129: 3125: 3121: 3120: 3119: 3118: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3090: 3087: 3084: 3080: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3058: 3053: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3047: 3042: 3035: 3029: 3028: 3024: 3020: 3017: 3013: 3011: 2996: 2989: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2973: 2970: 2966: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2957: 2954: 2950: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2939: 2935: 2931: 2926: 2923: 2913: 2912: 2908: 2904: 2900: 2896: 2884: 2881: 2878: 2874: 2870: 2869: 2868: 2867: 2863: 2862: 2855: 2854: 2846: 2843: 2839: 2838:her talk page 2829: 2828: 2823: 2817: 2814: 2811: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2772: 2767: 2763: 2760: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2709: 2702: 2698: 2694: 2690: 2689: 2688: 2685: 2684: 2679: 2669: 2663: 2662: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2639: 2636: 2631: 2629: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2611: 2606: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2597: 2596: 2591: 2584: 2579: 2577: 2569: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2550: 2546: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2531: 2529: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2516: 2511: 2509: 2505: 2501: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2492: 2489: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2466: 2462: 2457: 2453: 2449: 2444: 2442: 2435: 2430: 2429: 2425: 2421: 2417: 2414:Returning to 2412: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2393: 2391: 2385: 2377: 2375: 2370: 2368: 2363: 2358: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2333: 2332: 2331: 2328: 2325: 2318: 2314: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2302: 2298: 2294: 2287: 2277: 2272: 2265: 2264: 2263: 2260: 2257: 2253: 2249: 2248: 2247: 2246: 2241: 2233: 2228: 2218: 2215: 2212: 2208: 2204: 2200: 2199: 2198: 2187: 2184: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2135: 2127: 2124: 2121: 2116: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2105: 2104: 2102: 2099: 2096: 2089: 2080: 2071: 2067: 2063: 2059: 2055: 2054: 2053: 2050: 2047: 2043: 2039: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2014: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1997: 1990: 1984: 1983: 1980: 1979: 1975: 1973: 1972: 1965: 1961: 1954: 1947: 1944: 1941: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1912: 1911: 1908: 1904: 1896: 1880: 1877: 1874: 1870: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1866: 1865: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1830: 1827: 1824: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1813: 1809: 1804: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1790: 1786: 1774: 1771: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1759: 1758: 1757: 1753: 1749: 1745: 1738: 1733: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1717: 1707: 1704: 1701: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1675: 1667: 1664: 1661: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1650: 1646: 1639: 1631: 1628: 1625: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1614: 1610: 1603: 1595: 1592: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1574: 1570: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1552: 1545: 1542: 1539: 1535: 1531: 1527: 1526: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1508: 1507: 1504: 1501: 1498: 1493: 1483: 1480: 1477: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1442: 1439: 1436: 1432: 1428: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1419: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1399: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1377: 1373: 1369: 1365: 1361: 1349: 1346: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1308: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1275: 1272: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1241: 1237: 1236: 1235: 1234: 1232: 1208: 1204: 1200: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1190: 1187: 1184:willing. -- 1182: 1181: 1180: 1176: 1172: 1167: 1166: 1165: 1162: 1159: 1155: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1144: 1140: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1130: 1127: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1104: 1101: 1097: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1074: 1070: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1061: 1058: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1039: 1038: 1036: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1009: 1000: 996: 992: 988: 987: 986: 983: 980: 976: 972: 968: 962: 955: 954: 953: 952: 948: 944: 939: 931: 926: 925: 921: 917: 913: 909: 903: 900: 895: 891: 887: 883: 878: 873: 870: 866: 862: 844: 840: 836: 832: 831: 830: 827: 824: 820: 819: 818: 814: 810: 806: 805: 804: 801: 798: 794: 793: 792: 791: 787: 783: 779: 775: 765: 764: 761: 754: 752: 730: 727: 724: 719: 718: 717: 713: 709: 705: 699: 694: 693: 692: 689: 686: 682: 681: 680: 676: 672: 668: 662: 657: 656: 655: 651: 647: 643: 637: 632: 631: 630: 627: 624: 617: 612: 611: 610: 609: 605: 601: 597: 593: 589: 581: 575: 574: 571: 568: 554: 550: 546: 542: 538: 534: 530: 526: 522: 519: 518: 517: 514: 511: 507: 506: 505: 500: 496: 492: 488: 484: 479: 475: 471: 470: 469: 466: 463: 458: 457: 456: 455: 451: 447: 443: 436: 427: 423: 419: 415: 414: 413: 410: 407: 403: 399: 395: 394: 393: 392: 388: 384: 380: 368: 365: 362: 358: 357: 356: 354: 335: 331: 327: 323: 322:forumshopping 319: 314: 313: 312: 308: 304: 298: 293: 292: 291: 290: 286: 282: 274: 262: 258: 254: 249:Pigsonthewing 245: 238: 237: 236: 233: 230: 226: 222: 221: 220: 217: 214: 209: 208: 207: 206: 202: 198: 193: 191: 185: 182: 179: 174: 172: 165: 156: 151: 147: 140: 139: 138: 135: 132: 127: 126: 125: 124: 119: 115: 105: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 3344: 3336: 3321: 3306:WP:CORPDEPTH 3276:— Preceding 3273: 3256: 3230:WP:CORPDEPTH 3217: 3210: 3203: 3200: 3190: 3187: 3163: 3122:Restored to 3098: 3057:TonyBallioni 3038: 3015:Direct Link: 3014: 3002: 2994: 2968: 2919: 2892: 2858: 2849: 2835: 2821: 2820: 2784: 2766: 2758: 2733:WP:NOTMIRROR 2707: 2700: 2674: 2627: 2614:WP:NOTMIRROR 2609: 2586: 2575: 2548: 2513: 2475: 2447: 2446:Not only is 2445: 2438: 2413: 2406: 2403: 2395: 2387: 2379: 2371: 2359: 2356: 2290: 2250:Restored to 2229: 2226: 2206: 2195: 2175: 2138: 2132:Deletion of 2114: 2098:CleverPhrase 2092: 2091: 2084: 2062:Double sharp 2027:Double sharp 2020: 1993: 1977: 1970: 1969: 1957: 1938:Thanks. -- 1925:TonyBallioni 1918: 1900: 1894: 1892: 1805: 1800: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1782: 1741: 1720: 1679: 1642: 1638:Oliver Wyman 1606: 1564: 1555: 1512:SelfishGhost 1502: 1454: 1430: 1357: 1312: 1095: 1012: 966: 934: 916:Newimpartial 904: 886:WP:CONSENSUS 874: 858: 773: 771: 755: 748: 585: 563: 540: 524: 439: 401: 376: 345: 277: 257:Andy's edits 253:Talk to Andy 244:Andy Mabbett 225:WP:BLPDELETE 194: 186: 183: 175: 168: 108: 104:David Gailen 75: 43: 37: 2969:Super Valid 2852:EMMENDINGER 2642:Thank you @ 2416:WP:INVOLVED 2293:Gina Rippon 1851:PvOberstein 1808:PvOberstein 1723:Sk8erPrince 1716:Sailor Moon 1683:Sk8erPrince 1681:protected. 1645:Sk8erPrince 1313:Hello. The 708:Sk8erPrince 671:Sk8erPrince 646:Sk8erPrince 616:Sk8erPrince 600:Sk8erPrince 36:This is an 3314:notability 3061:S Marshall 2791:Zhangj1079 2759:References 2317:Randykitty 2227:Hi there, 965:who said, 882:disruptive 877:WP:NOTHERE 545:Randykitty 478:WP:ILIKEIT 446:Randykitty 442:WP:ILIKEIT 303:Exemplo347 146:(Janweh64) 114:(Janweh64) 95:Archive 20 87:Archive 15 82:Archive 14 76:Archive 13 70:Archive 12 65:Archive 11 60:Archive 10 3205:reliable 3144:Mr. Magoo 3109:Mr. Magoo 3069:SmokeyJoe 3065:Starblind 2673:matter). 2576:Billboard 2515:this page 2201:Moved to 2088:Al-Dhira' 1609:Casprings 1461:SmokeyJoe 1407:this edit 1323:George Ho 930:HelioHost 759:Almonroth 588:IP user's 567:Mackensen 3362:Nik-Hill 3326:RoySmith 3290:contribs 3282:Nik-Hill 3278:unsigned 3246:RoySmith 3140:Setsuden 3128:RoySmith 3083:RoySmith 2965:WP:STALE 2953:RoySmith 2922:WP:STALE 2889:Civility 2877:RoySmith 2810:RoySmith 2668:Explicit 2648:Explicit 2488:RoySmith 2324:RoySmith 2256:RoySmith 2211:RoySmith 2180:RoySmith 2120:RoySmith 2046:RoySmith 1940:RoySmith 1873:RoySmith 1823:RoySmith 1806:Cheers. 1767:RoySmith 1700:RoySmith 1660:RoySmith 1624:RoySmith 1588:RoySmith 1569:Jclemens 1538:RoySmith 1476:RoySmith 1435:RoySmith 1415:RoySmith 1395:RoySmith 1364:redirect 1342:RoySmith 1271:RoySmith 1186:RoySmith 1158:RoySmith 1126:RoySmith 1100:RoySmith 1057:RoySmith 979:RoySmith 897:and < 890:WP:STALE 823:RoySmith 797:RoySmith 756:thanks, 723:RoySmith 698:RoySmith 685:RoySmith 661:RoySmith 636:RoySmith 623:RoySmith 537:Headbomb 533:verified 510:RoySmith 483:Headbomb 462:RoySmith 406:RoySmith 379:Andscacs 373:Andscacs 361:RoySmith 229:RoySmith 213:RoySmith 144:—አቤል ዳዊት 131:RoySmith 112:—አቤል ዳዊት 3238:Crmnext 3071:, and 3046:KDS4444 3019:Johnvr4 2980:Johnvr4 2934:Johnvr4 2924:. Link: 2634:xplicit 2512:Why is 2004:Snaevar 1261:Sigh. 1077:English 912:WP:BITE 908:WP:HERE 869:WP:CVUA 835:Siuenti 809:Siuenti 782:Siuenti 667:IP user 582:article 541:at best 142:time!!! 39:archive 3329:(talk) 3249:(talk) 3234:WP:CSD 3169:ferret 3131:(talk) 3086:(talk) 3079:WP:AfC 2956:(talk) 2951:. -- 2930:WP:IAR 2880:(talk) 2813:(talk) 2781:Revert 2737:Satou4 2717:Satou4 2708:style, 2652:Satou4 2646:(and @ 2605:Satou4 2568:Satou4 2553:Satou4 2535:Satou4 2520:Satou4 2500:Satou4 2491:(talk) 2461:Satou4 2327:(talk) 2259:(talk) 2214:(talk) 2183:(talk) 2123:(talk) 2095:Insert 2049:(talk) 1971:bd2412 1943:(talk) 1876:(talk) 1845:, and 1841:, the 1826:(talk) 1801:Delete 1793:Delete 1770:(talk) 1703:(talk) 1663:(talk) 1627:(talk) 1591:(talk) 1541:(talk) 1503:Hello! 1488:Hello! 1479:(talk) 1438:(talk) 1433:. -- 1418:(talk) 1398:(talk) 1345:(talk) 1309:at TfD 1274:(talk) 1267:WP:ATD 1189:(talk) 1161:(talk) 1154:WP:DRV 1129:(talk) 1103:(talk) 1060:(talk) 991:Krydos 982:(talk) 943:Krydos 826:(talk) 800:(talk) 726:(talk) 688:(talk) 626:(talk) 570:(talk) 513:(talk) 474:WP:DRV 465:(talk) 409:(talk) 404:. -- 364:(talk) 279:both). 232:(talk) 216:(talk) 197:Cunard 134:(talk) 3310:WP:RS 3302:WP:RS 3242:WP:RS 3226:WP:RS 3167:. -- 2897:, at 2644:Ss112 1906:Train 1765:. -- 1451:Duck? 1391:WP:RS 1387:Spork 1340:. -- 1284:Nfitz 1245:Nfitz 1199:Nfitz 1171:Nfitz 1139:Nfitz 1112:Nfitz 1081:Nfitz 1043:Nfitz 1019:Nfitz 975:wikia 901:: --> 896:: --> 774:makes 592:WP:RS 418:IQ125 383:IQ125 16:< 3366:talk 3304:and 3286:talk 3173:talk 3148:talk 3113:talk 3023:talk 2984:talk 2938:talk 2907:talk 2860:talk 2741:talk 2721:talk 2656:talk 2557:talk 2539:talk 2524:talk 2504:talk 2484:WP:N 2465:talk 2448:Gaon 2424:talk 2341:talk 2315:and 2301:talk 2284:Re: 2161:talk 2101:Here 2066:talk 2031:talk 2008:talk 1929:talk 1855:talk 1812:talk 1797:Keep 1789:Keep 1752:talk 1727:talk 1687:talk 1674:Goku 1649:talk 1613:talk 1573:talk 1561:this 1532:and 1516:talk 1465:talk 1431:FOON 1376:talk 1372:Smjg 1360:Foon 1354:Foon 1327:talk 1288:talk 1249:talk 1203:talk 1175:talk 1143:talk 1116:talk 1085:talk 1073:link 1069:edit 1047:talk 1035:WP:V 1023:talk 995:talk 947:talk 920:talk 875:But 861:here 839:씨유엔티 813:씨유엔티 786:씨유엔티 712:talk 675:talk 650:talk 644:. -- 604:talk 549:talk 543:. -- 525:only 450:talk 422:talk 402:keep 387:talk 330:talk 307:talk 285:talk 201:talk 150:talk 118:talk 3188:Hi 3126:-- 2875:-- 2701:not 2682:112 2610:not 2594:112 2578:200 2360:At 2274:\\ 2254:-- 2243:\\ 2178:-- 2151:to 1998:of 1915:FYI 1895:I'm 1586:-- 1565:not 961:DGG 251:); 3292:) 3288:• 3175:) 3150:) 3142:. 3115:) 3067:, 3063:, 3059:, 3025:) 2986:) 2940:) 2909:) 2901:. 2864:) 2801:) 2743:) 2723:) 2677:Ss 2658:) 2589:Ss 2559:) 2541:) 2526:) 2506:) 2467:) 2443:. 2426:) 2376:, 2343:) 2303:) 2174:, 2163:) 2068:) 2033:) 2010:) 1931:) 1923:. 1857:) 1814:) 1754:) 1729:) 1689:) 1651:) 1615:) 1575:) 1518:) 1467:) 1378:) 1329:) 1290:) 1251:) 1205:) 1177:) 1145:) 1118:) 1087:) 1079:. 1049:) 1025:) 997:) 949:) 922:) 841:) 815:) 788:) 714:) 677:) 652:) 606:) 551:) 497:· 493:· 489:· 480:. 452:) 424:) 389:) 332:) 309:) 287:) 255:; 203:) 91:→ 3364:( 3284:( 3171:( 3146:( 3111:( 3075:: 3055:@ 3021:( 2982:( 2974:" 2936:( 2905:( 2856:( 2850:S 2799:C 2797:| 2795:T 2793:( 2739:( 2719:( 2670:: 2666:@ 2654:( 2628:ℯ 2570:: 2566:@ 2555:( 2537:( 2522:( 2502:( 2463:( 2422:( 2339:( 2319:: 2311:@ 2299:( 2159:( 2081:. 2064:( 2029:( 2006:( 1978:T 1927:( 1902:A 1853:( 1810:( 1750:( 1725:( 1685:( 1647:( 1611:( 1571:( 1514:( 1463:( 1374:( 1325:( 1286:( 1247:( 1201:( 1173:( 1141:( 1114:( 1083:( 1045:( 1021:( 993:( 963:: 959:@ 945:( 918:( 837:( 811:( 784:( 710:( 700:: 696:@ 673:( 663:: 659:@ 648:( 638:: 634:@ 618:: 614:@ 602:( 547:( 501:} 499:b 495:p 491:c 487:t 485:{ 448:( 420:( 385:( 328:( 324:. 305:( 299:: 295:@ 283:( 247:( 199:( 152:) 148:( 120:) 116:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index