1609:
probably should not be listed. (On a related note, the link to
Jennifer Greene is to a Michigan-based romance novel writer; I don't think she is the person who spoke at the convention.) Explain why the infobox lists both San Jose and Santa Clara as sites for the con, when the article itself mentions only Santa Clara. Use some of the weaker links as "Additional Info" links at the end of the piece, rather than trying to use them to substantiate the narrative portion of the article. Your suggestion of arranging authors and topics by convention year is a good idea; it would certainly help expand the article. If any of the conventions had a specific focus or concentration, that could be noted. If anyone has public domain/free use photos of one of the conventions, they could be added to the article. These are just a few ideas; there are undoubtedly more and better ones out there. And yes, I
1154:: Con-Con has been referenced repeatedly on Coast to Coast AM, particularly in regard to notable people who either are or have spoken there (their presence lends it notability, just like a science symposium would be if it was attended by Einsteins etc). This clearly demonstrates the notability of the event, and the fact that it has become notable in popular culture. As for reliable sources, it's a convention about conspiracies held by people who believe in conspiracies so it is only natural that it will be primarily be referenced in conspiracy sources. This is perfectly OK as all we are doing is referencing the existence of the conference, about which there is absolutely nothing redflag. More reliable sources would only be required if, for example, we were trying to prove that it was the world's biggest, or that it was being targeted by the CIA or something similarly extraordinary. -
1046:
non-conspiracy forums like Salon.com, Metro
Newspaper, and other sources makes the con more notable than many others--especially 90% of the ones on Knowledge that have no sources or only primary sources! I've spent HOURS sourcing Conspiracy Con--it IS notable and if you people aren't going to do the research yourself (at least visit the freakin' links and actually READ the articles fully), you aren't qualified to comment on the subject's notability--PERIOD! Put up or shut up. I tire of having articles I've spent hours/days on be mindlessly nominated for deletion just because someone doesn't feel it's notable after they're piddly attempt to research the article. -
1656:- The Salon mention would be a good source, though I looked through it and Conspiracy Con only gets mentioned briefly on page five. The Mother Jones article doesn't really argue much for any sort of notability. Most of the other alleged sources on the page are quite unreliable by Knowledge standards and should be deleted... but then the fact that the current article needs cleaning up doesn't mean that it needs deleting. Some notable nuts speak there, it's gotten enough independent mainstream coverage to meet Knowledge's notability standards, so the argument to delete just isn't there, in my opinion.
1760:, which I will also be creating an article for eventually. These conventions have far more notoriety, notability, and credibility, than 90% of the other conventions listed on Knowledge (which have NO references--not even original sources). ConspiracyCon has been featured enough to make it notable--especially since it's not even that old of a convention. Unless you can cite specific examples of how this convention doesn't meet notability, I do not think all of these deletion votes are warranted--especially when there are SO many other conventions without sources at all. ∞
1238:. From what I've been reading, the Metro and the Salon.com references can be counted as reliable sources. Coast to Coast AM definitly fails NPOV, and it portraits a lot of original research. Also, even though Mother Jones is a reliable source, the article of the reference is written by a comedian who took part in the convention, so that specific article cannot count as a reliable source. I vote for a keep because it has two strong reliable sources and because the fact that an article has few sources doesnt mean that it should be deleted.
1113:, the Studio 360 link is the only one that is possibly notable, as the first 2:40 of an 11 minute audio file deals directly with the con (the rest is an interview with an author who appeared at one of its iterations). The MoJo article does not convey notability; in fact, the tone is rather denigrating and dismissive, and the three Coast to Coast refs simply mention that three authors had been at Conspiracy Cons; they are
517:(and subcats). Yes, it's about conspiracy, but there have been MANY UFO cons that also deal with conspiracies since the mid-20th century too. Why aren't you people targeting the cons with even less notability/references than this con? You claim there's no conspiracy yet I see a consistent pattern of AfDs on conspiracy-related material occurring recently; see
1405:
I would appreciate if people would stop AfDing articles I've created and/or spent hours researching, which I consider to be QUITE rude, thank you very much. Take a look into the mirror, hypocrite. Why pick a convention that has FAR more credibility than most others on
Knowledge COMBINED (which have
1035:
calls for "significant coverage" in sources, where that "means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive." I think it is a bit disingenuous to use sources that do
1735:
has not been directly addressed by our current guidelines, I would be surprised if, when developed, this particular convention warranted an entire article. Since it functions at the direction of one particular individual, any useful content can be relegated to his article (if he meets the criteria
1121:
the con, which is needed to use it as a reference. And I really don't think you want to use the(perfunctory) ADF link as a ref, since that brings in all sorts of possible ways to expand the article in ways you probably don't want. However, many of the links you have dug up might be useful to flesh
994:
This article barely mentions the Con, only to say that an author (also barely mentioned) was speaking there. How exactly does this article confer notability? You have been very critical of others' reasoning in this debate, but have offered little of your own besides posting links, and declaring
720:
This one is easy to answer: Mother Jones does not assert notability, because it is nonsentient. It does not assert anything. However, the article in question ought not be referenced to "assert notability" because in it the author simply talks about having attended the Con. He doesn't give any
575:
restored after it was deemed "nonnotable bollocks" by the deleter and numerous "contributors" (lynch mob, more like it) who put in their quite biased 2 cents on the deletion nomination. I don't appreciate it when hours of work gets casually nominated for deletion so I give articles a chance--I'm
129:
Completely and utterly non-notable. A google search returned fewer than 1000 results (many of which had absolutely nothing to do with the convention), and several Lexis Nexis searches returned results in the single digits, and none of those were actually about the convention. The google search
348:
You are also biased, as you are the creator and primary contributor to the article under discussion. I withdraw my comment about "cranks" and the three sarcastic topics, as I didn't mean to insult any of the editors personally (note change to above comment.) However, I stand by the rest of my
1608:
Perhaps losing some of the less-credible sources entirely (the number of sources is not the issue, it is the quality of some of those sources.) Reorganizing the information into separate, discrete sections. Dropping the red-linked speakers; if they aren't notable enough to have articles, they
1481:
deserved to be AfDed--that's just it; and I tire of overbearing
Wikipedians (psst, that's you) who think an article doesn't deserve to be in Knowledge just because it hasn't made mainstream media attention. Sorry, but there IS an underground out there, you know--or perhaps you don't...wake up
1540:- per numerous independent sources conferring some notability. Though many of the sources have trivial mentions, or barely more than that, I think the number of mentions in reliable sources, taken with those that have more than trivial coverage, are enough to justify keeping this article.
1045:
The problem is, Charlie, that even with the more notable sources that DO go into much more detail about the con and the writer's experience there, apparently they're not valid--even if written by a Comedy
Central comedian who also did a show in HBO. Go figure. Sorry, but I feel mention in
950:
It's up to the
Knowledge community to determine a consensus about the notability of this article Eep, not for you to simply assert it and ignore the opinion of almost everyone else. I think you mean 'too' rather than 'to' in your last sentence by the way. It's hard to be sure though.
1266:
The Coast to Coast AM refs are only to show notability in the field of conspiracy-related forums, in this case a radio show. Simply the amount of conspiracy-related people who talk at
Conspiracy Con makes the con notable enough, without even having to reference it in secondary sources.
540:
I was not the nominator, I do not know the nominator, and I have never interacted with the nominator prior to this AfD. If you feel the others are non-notable, submit your own AfD requests. This is not a discussion of the other cons, it is about
Conspiracy Con.
721:
reason why the Con is notable. In fact, he spends about as much time talking about
Madonna as the Con in the article. If someone wrote an article in Mother Jones about their childhood lemonade stand, would that make the lemonade stand notable?
814:
That reference is from the
Conspiracy Con website itself Eep. The quote I put into the article adds some more information but doesn't establish notability for the article as a whole - that has to come from independent third party sources.
55:. The arguments are all here below; I don't really have anything to add. There's sufficient verification that the entity exists. Is it notable? I don't know, but enough editors seem to think so to prevent its deletion. No cookie for
1094:
Eep, I am a little tired of your immediately assuming bad faith on my part (and obviously that of others, considering your rather intolerant and intemperate responses to those who disagree with you). I think there are some serious
700:
How don't Mother Jones and Studio 360 assert notability? I often find people on these deletion nomination pages throw these terms around but fail to provide specifics/details as to what they really mean--if they even know...
1030:
I haven't said I'm not convinced of the Con's notability. What I was objecting to was your continued propping up of sources, and the anti-defamtion league source is no exception, that only mention the con in passing. The
1640:
A place where notable speakers go to have an audience can be notable on that grounds alone. I'd suggest that the red links may be more useful in identifying people who might need articles--except of course for
302:
is not a valid justification to keep. Since this convention has occurred six times (as alleged in the article) there should be a LOT more reliable media coverage if this were truly noteworthy. A bunch of
1008:
Look, I've already established notability of this con more than, oh, just about every other con in Knowledge (which tend to not have ANY references, let alone the amount I have). Want another one? OK:
1285:
as nominated. I did my own Google search to be sure and it appears that the subject has very little following. I did a Google search for the founder Brian William Hall and came up basically empty.
1099:
issues on your part in reference to this article. The links you have provided are not sufficient to justify using them as references. Simple mention of the con does not convey notability, and of
571:
The thing is, Horologium, I at least give a chance for people to ADD references before mindlessly nominating a page for deletion. I actually DO research--and know how to use search engines. I got
1559:
sources to establish the existence of the Convention. I tend to be deletionist, but in this case, I can support either position, although if kept it is going to need a lot of work to wikify it.
337:. Alleged technology is indeed a notable topic of inclusion in Knowledge--especially considering all the alleged tech already present on Knowledge; forums that discuss it are just as notable. --
935:
Neither do your biased comments help your case, Nick. I've already established notability with 3rd-party/secondary sources. If you people can't see this, you're freakin' blind and oblvious to
134:(since there were so few results I had the ability to look through the results and look for reliable sources). Because there are no reliable sources covering this event, the convention fails
1516:, among others (see Tim Smith's source list further up on this section for more info). Furthermore, this non-notability argument seems to be used inconsistently across Knowledge. If
1036:
not contain significant coverage, and then claim your opponents in the debate are ignoring the sources you've provided, or that they do not understand the notability guidelines.
691:
876:
173:
1673:
an article is nominated in order to give time (at least a week) for the article to be better sourced and "fleshed out"--especially if newly created, as this one was/is. ∞
730:
Um, the article describes the author's comparison of his "front row bitches" feeling at a Madonna concert and then again at Conspiracy Con (where he was asked to speak).
779:
46:
395:
707:
216:
1325:
891:
1770:
1744:
457:
254:
185:
1732:
1572:
1492:
1452:
1135:
1076:
283:, a magic con since the early 1900s with only 3 references can be on Knowledge, Conspiracy Con with *8* refs... And there are also numerous other conventions in
266:
242:
204:
1544:
1307:
122:
1660:
1434:
1058:
139:
955:
945:
930:
819:
809:
794:
659:
632:
586:
554:
1532:
1626:
1595:
1513:
1321:
1009:
527:
492:
362:
343:
324:
1412:
1388:
1356:
1273:
1089:
1052:
1040:
1025:
999:
759:
725:
279:(about a circa 2002 convention about some 1980s TV show) can be on Knowledge, Conspiracy Con can, which is about things FAR older than the 1980s... And if
1715:
1696:
1647:
1433:
Stop creating articles that deserve to be AfD'd. I'm not sure why you keep bringing up other conventions, the other conventions aren't up for AfD here.
830:
293:
572:
157:
735:
1158:
1761:
1706:
1674:
1586:
1483:
1407:
1351:
1268:
1047:
1020:
977:
940:
910:
886:
825:
804:
789:
754:
702:
654:
581:
522:
487:
338:
288:
237:
56:
1229:
513:
Again, it HAS been covered by more mainstream press, as indicated above. Yes, it's relatively new, but older than several cons listed in
263:
1683:
982:
915:
276:
1170:
1512:: This convention is comparatively small, but it's notable within it's target circle, and has received attention from group such as
824:
Um, I've already given at least 3 notable 3rd-party/secondary sources (without the alleged non-notable Mother Jones source), Nick. -
65:
909:; hardly "completely and utterly non-notable"--learn how to search websites that are notable within the field of conspiracy. -
649:
Regardless, that's 2 more marginally valid/notable sources than most of the other conventions on Knowledge. I must've applied
1446:
1122:
out the articles on the various authors cited in the articles, since they are the focus of most of the writing, not the con.
1070:
741:
151:
1081:
Look, Eep, why are you lumping me in with this "you people" group that doesn't want to follow your links or do research? I
1528:
are notable enough (and I think they all are), then surely Con Convention is too, despite it's apparent crack-pottery. --
95:
90:
1517:
1286:
99:
1337:
1085:
read all of the articles you have linked to, and all I have said is that some of them only briefly mention the Con.
1622:
1568:
1131:
628:
550:
518:
453:
391:
358:
320:
1382:
1301:
1254:
82:
17:
906:
1786:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
849:
800:
688:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1555:. I don't think the refs are worth the photons with which they are displayed, but there are enough of them in
1203:
1117:
discussions of the Con. The Salon link mentions talking to two people at the con, but does not say anything
104:
1210:
974:
311:
MK Ultra, The New World Order, and reptilians is not something that needs to be documented in Knowledge.
250:... emerging conspiracy convention; as notable as DEF CON was in cracker/hacker circles when it began ...
1345:
866:
1369:
You have been consistently rude to others throughout this AfD. I would appreciate it if you would stop.
607:
new, and should have more coverage from real sources. The only sources that are (marginally) valid are
299:
193:
If trashcity.org is the best source available for this article, then it doesn't belong on Knowledge. --
166:. Yeah, it's sourced, but not reliably. There are tons of cons out there; not all of them are notable.
116:
747:
1787:
1440:
1333:
1064:
145:
36:
1194:
1198:
1101:
233:
486:
I'm sorry but I nominate that comment for deletion on the grounds of no reliable sources... :) -
1015:
859:
280:
69:
885:
It is neither spamcruftwhatever (an essay) or a soapbox. Try again, oh vague and biased one. -
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1741:
731:
650:
112:
1618:
1564:
1521:
1242:
1189:
1127:
624:
546:
514:
449:
387:
354:
316:
284:
8:
1757:
it. There is another con in the SF Bay Area that Hall is a part of, the Bay Area UFO Expo
1376:
1295:
1250:
926:
This habit of calling anyone who disagrees with you 'biased' doesn't help your case Eep.
167:
108:
86:
1155:
381:. There is no media conspiracy to hide the existence of this totally non-notable event.
1669:
Thanks for the suggestions, everyone. It's this kind of discussion I wish would occur
1613:
realize that the article is a stub, but you asked what work needed to be done on it.
1329:
1316:
Um, do you even know how to do a proper Google search? First of all, learn how to use
1223:
1221:
1219:
1214:
1110:
952:
927:
903:
853:
816:
776:
262:
DefCon had a lot more press coverage even in the early years, this isn't there yet.
229:
62:
1614:
1560:
1123:
620:
542:
445:
383:
350:
334:
312:
1185:
1541:
1370:
1317:
1289:
1246:
1226:
1086:
1037:
996:
744:
739:
722:
330:
213:
199:
78:
70:
1758:
1350:, (Silicon Valley / San Jose Business Journal, Danek S. Kaus, May 17, 2002). -
1737:
1693:
1657:
1096:
845:
609:
131:
1728:
1529:
1525:
1032:
936:
135:
1057:
You need to stop with the assumptions of bad faith. It's getting old.
1180:
1106:
995:
editors with views different than yours "freakin' blind and oblvious".
750:
615:
411:
251:
225:
182:
1206:
971:
194:
1754:
1643:
1167:
603:
My point about media coverage is that if it's six years old, it's
410:
Do you even know what Mother Jones magazine is? It is notable ...
236:
at least. The convention IS notable in the world of conspiracy. -
1780:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
788:
How is it not sourced? I have given a few secondary sources. -
224:- Um, Trash City is not the best source; it's been covered by
1018:). Are you convinced yet? Didn't think so... <eyeroll: -->
1347:
Conspiracy buffs don't let 'them' get in way of convention
45:
775:
Not notable, not sourced and not worthy of a place here.
753:... But, hey, keep trying to redefine "notability", eh? -
309:
ZOG, Orbital Mind Control Lasers, and the Mena Airport
307:
conspiracy theorists gathering once a year to discuss
1705:
Vague, as usual. Be specific. Research the subject. ∞
1753:Um, Brian Hall doesn't run the entire con; he just
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1790:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1581:What kind of work--Who spoke and the topics of
1522:a town in North Dakota with a population of 139
653:to about 30 convention articles so far... :) -
1328:(which brings up even more notable sources:
1011:Archive of Extremist Events by State: 2002
803:if you don't think it's notable/sourced? -
287:that don't have ANY references at all... -
1330:Interviews with Jerry Pippin: Brian Hall
44:
14:
1477:Um, I'm not; the articles I create
61:for going a bit over the top here.
23:
24:
1802:
1340:Conspiracy Con: Whys and Why Nots
1338:UFO Magazine Volume 22, Issue 4:
1526:small Canadian Anime conventions
1334:ZoomInfo Web Profile: Brian Hall
580:(benevolent) like that, see... -
519:Knowledge:WikiProject Paranormal
1324:. Second, you also need to try
1288:It doesn't warrant an article.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
734:would help... You DO know who
13:
1:
976:--notability noted. Next... -
687:. No notability, no article.
1168:Torturous Devastating Cudgel
7:
1326:brian hall "conspiracy con"
970:: And now a reference from
10:
1807:
1514:the Anti-Defamation League
854:Knowledge is not a soapbox
683:cites are valid, but they
799:Oh and why would you add
1783:Please do not modify it.
1771:03:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
1745:16:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
1716:03:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
1697:15:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
1684:06:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
1661:06:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
1648:04:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
1627:02:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
1596:00:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
1573:21:02, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
1545:20:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
1533:15:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
1493:18:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
1453:18:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
1413:18:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
1389:17:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
1357:11:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
1308:04:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
1274:11:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
1230:19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
1171:15:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
1159:12:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
1136:02:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
1090:22:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
1077:22:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
1053:20:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
1041:10:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
1026:09:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
1000:09:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
983:09:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
956:10:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
946:08:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
931:08:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
916:07:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
892:07:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
877:06:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
831:08:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
820:08:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
810:07:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
795:06:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
780:05:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
760:08:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
726:08:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
708:06:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
692:05:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
660:05:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
633:04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
587:05:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
555:04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
528:03:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
493:05:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
458:04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
396:03:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
363:04:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
344:03:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
329:You're biased. Remember
325:03:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
294:23:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
267:18:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
255:22:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
243:21:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
217:20:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
205:19:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
186:19:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
174:18:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
158:18:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
66:16:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
743:--you know, the one on
738:(the author) is, right?
685:don't assert notability
234:Mother Jones (magazine)
1178:per media coverage by
1016:Anti-Defamation League
53:NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE
50:
1551:Changing position to
1518:obscure British peers
1342:by Brian William Hall
1196:), plus treatment in
732:Reading comprehension
651:Template:Unreferenced
281:Abbott's Get Together
48:
1322:"brian william hall"
1033:Notability Guideline
850:Vanispamcruftisement
515:Category:Conventions
285:category:conventions
1641:misidentifications.
436:Why yes, yes I do.
300:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
49:BAD BOY! NO COOKIE!
444:for NPOV balance.
440:is about equal to
51:
1625:
1571:
1451:
1406:NO references)? -
1387:
1306:
1259:
1245:comment added by
1215:Coast to Coast AM
1205:) and mention by
1134:
1111:Coast to Coast AM
1075:
904:Coast to Coast AM
872:
862:MortonDevonshire
631:
553:
456:
394:
361:
323:
212:- NN, per nom. -
203:
156:
1798:
1785:
1742:ScienceApologist
1617:
1563:
1449:
1443:
1439:
1437:
1385:
1379:
1375:
1373:
1304:
1298:
1294:
1292:
1258:
1239:
1126:
1073:
1067:
1063:
1061:
875:
871:
869:
863:
857:
623:
545:
448:
386:
353:
315:
230:Metro Newspapers
197:
170:
169:Ten Pound Hammer
154:
148:
144:
142:
132:reliable sources
120:
102:
34:
1806:
1805:
1801:
1800:
1799:
1797:
1796:
1795:
1794:
1788:deletion review
1781:
1766:
1711:
1679:
1591:
1488:
1447:
1441:
1435:
1383:
1377:
1371:
1318:quotation marks
1302:
1296:
1290:
1240:
1071:
1065:
1059:
873:
867:
861:
858:
573:The Photon Belt
438:World Net Daily
382:
310:
306:
168:
152:
146:
140:
93:
77:
74:
43:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1804:
1793:
1792:
1776:
1775:
1774:
1773:
1764:
1748:
1747:
1721:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1709:
1700:
1699:
1677:
1664:
1663:
1651:
1634:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1589:
1576:
1575:
1548:
1547:
1535:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1486:
1482:already, eh? ∞
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1311:
1310:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1261:
1260:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1079:
1003:
1002:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
897:
896:
895:
894:
880:
879:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
822:
797:
783:
782:
769:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
762:
745:Comedy Central
713:
712:
711:
710:
695:
694:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
640:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
533:
532:
531:
530:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
399:
398:
377:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
308:
304:
270:
269:
257:
245:
219:
207:
188:
176:
127:
126:
79:Conspiracy Con
73:
71:Conspiracy Con
68:
42:
41:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1803:
1791:
1789:
1784:
1778:
1777:
1772:
1769:
1768:
1759:
1756:
1752:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1746:
1743:
1739:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1723:
1722:
1717:
1714:
1713:
1704:
1703:
1702:
1701:
1698:
1695:
1691:
1688:
1687:
1686:
1685:
1682:
1681:
1672:
1668:
1662:
1659:
1655:
1652:
1649:
1646:
1645:
1639:
1636:
1635:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1597:
1594:
1593:
1584:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1549:
1546:
1543:
1539:
1536:
1534:
1531:
1527:
1523:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1508:
1507:
1494:
1491:
1490:
1480:
1476:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1454:
1450:
1448:Contributions
1444:
1438:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1414:
1411:
1410:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1390:
1386:
1380:
1374:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1358:
1355:
1354:
1349:
1348:
1343:
1341:
1335:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1309:
1305:
1299:
1293:
1287:
1284:
1281:
1280:
1275:
1272:
1271:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1237:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1228:
1224:
1222:
1220:
1217:
1216:
1211:
1208:
1204:
1201:
1200:
1195:
1192:
1191:
1186:
1183:
1182:
1177:
1173:
1172:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1160:
1157:
1153:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1103:
1098:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1078:
1074:
1072:Contributions
1068:
1062:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1051:
1050:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1039:
1034:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1024:
1023:
1017:
1013:
1012:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1001:
998:
993:
990:
987:
986:
985:
984:
981:
980:
975:
973:
969:
957:
954:
949:
948:
947:
944:
943:
938:
934:
933:
932:
929:
925:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
914:
913:
908:
905:
901:
893:
890:
889:
884:
883:
882:
881:
878:
870:
865:
864:
855:
851:
847:
843:
840:
839:
832:
829:
828:
823:
821:
818:
813:
812:
811:
808:
807:
802:
798:
796:
793:
792:
787:
786:
785:
784:
781:
778:
774:
771:
770:
761:
758:
757:
752:
748:
746:
742:
740:
737:
736:Bill Santiago
733:
729:
728:
727:
724:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
709:
706:
705:
699:
698:
697:
696:
693:
690:
686:
682:
678:
674:
671:
670:
661:
658:
657:
652:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
642:
641:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
617:
612:
611:
606:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
588:
585:
584:
579:
574:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
556:
552:
548:
544:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
534:
529:
526:
525:
521:for a list. -
520:
516:
512:
511:
510:
509:
494:
491:
490:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
413:
412:J. D. Redding
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
397:
393:
389:
385:
380:
376:
375:
364:
360:
356:
352:
347:
346:
345:
342:
341:
336:
332:
328:
327:
326:
322:
318:
314:
301:
297:
296:
295:
292:
291:
286:
282:
278:
274:
273:
272:
271:
268:
265:
261:
258:
256:
253:
252:J. D. Redding
249:
246:
244:
241:
240:
235:
231:
227:
223:
220:
218:
215:
211:
208:
206:
201:
196:
192:
189:
187:
184:
180:
177:
175:
171:
165:
162:
161:
160:
159:
155:
153:Contributions
149:
143:
137:
133:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
67:
64:
60:
59:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1782:
1779:
1762:
1727:. While the
1724:
1707:
1689:
1675:
1670:
1666:
1665:
1653:
1642:
1637:
1610:
1587:
1582:
1556:
1552:
1537:
1509:
1484:
1478:
1408:
1352:
1346:
1339:
1282:
1269:
1241:— Preceding
1235:
1213:
1199:Mother Jones
1197:
1188:
1179:
1175:
1174:
1166:As per nom.
1163:
1162:
1151:
1150:
1118:
1114:
1102:Mother Jones
1100:
1082:
1048:
1021:
1010:
991:
988:
978:
967:
966:
953:Nick mallory
941:
928:Nick mallory
923:
911:
899:
898:
887:
860:
841:
826:
817:Nick mallory
805:
790:
777:Nick mallory
772:
755:
749:and his own
703:
684:
680:
677:Mother Jones
676:
672:
655:
614:
610:Mother Jones
608:
604:
582:
577:
523:
488:
442:Mother Jones
441:
437:
378:
339:
289:
259:
247:
238:
221:
209:
190:
178:
163:
130:returned no
128:
57:
52:
31:
28:
1733:conventions
1156:perfectblue
1152:Strong Keep
846:non-notable
63:Herostratus
1729:notability
1615:Horologium
1561:Horologium
1181:Studio 360
1124:Horologium
1107:Studio 360
907:references
848:nutburger
844:per nom.
751:IMDB entry
681:Studio 360
621:Horologium
616:Studio 360
543:Horologium
446:Horologium
384:Horologium
351:Horologium
349:comments.
313:Horologium
226:Studio 360
1692:per nom.
1654:Weak Keep
1372:JungleCat
1291:JungleCat
1247:Legion fi
1227:Tim Smith
1207:Salon.com
972:Salon.com
214:Crockspot
1755:produces
1694:Arbustoo
1667:Comment:
1658:DreamGuy
1557:reliable
1255:contribs
1243:unsigned
335:WP:CIVIL
298:Comment
277:SlimeCon
123:View log
1623:contrib
1569:contrib
1553:Neutral
1542:Charlie
1132:contrib
1087:Charlie
1038:Charlie
997:Charlie
989:Comment
968:Comment
924:Comment
900:Comment
723:Charlie
629:contrib
551:contrib
454:contrib
392:contrib
359:contrib
331:WP:NPOV
321:contrib
181:NN...--
96:protect
91:history
1738:WP:BIO
1725:Delete
1690:Delete
1671:before
1585:con? ∞
1530:Careax
1524:, and
1384:Oohhh!
1378:Shiny!
1320:: try
1303:Oohhh!
1297:Shiny!
1283:Delete
1212:) and
1187:) and
1164:Delete
1109:, and
1097:WP:OWN
842:Delete
773:Delete
673:Delete
379:Delete
305:cranks
260:Delete
232:, and
210:Delete
191:Delete
179:Delete
164:Delete
100:delete
1740:). --
1479:don't
1436:Pablo
1190:Metro
1119:about
1060:Pablo
992:Sigh.
183:MONGO
141:Pablo
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
1736:for
1638:Keep
1619:talk
1583:each
1565:talk
1538:Keep
1510:Keep
1442:Talk
1409:Єερ²
1353:Єερ²
1270:Єερ²
1251:talk
1236:Keep
1176:Keep
1128:talk
1083:have
1066:Talk
1049:Єερ²
1022:Єερ²
979:Єερ²
942:Єερ²
937:WP:N
912:Єερ²
888:Єερ²
827:Єερ²
806:Єερ²
801:this
791:Єερ²
756:Єερ²
704:Єερ²
679:and
675:The
656:Eερ²
625:talk
613:and
583:Eερ²
578:bold
547:talk
524:Eερ²
489:Eερ²
450:talk
388:talk
355:talk
340:Eερ²
333:and
317:talk
290:Eερ²
264:awgh
248:Keep
239:Eερ²
222:Keep
200:talk
195:Aude
147:Talk
136:WP:N
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
58:Eερ²
1731:of
1644:DGG
1225:).
1115:not
1014:, (
939:. -
868:Yo
856:.
852:.
689:CWC
605:not
275:If
172:•
121:– (
1763:Σɛ
1708:Σɛ
1676:Σɛ
1621:-
1611:do
1588:Σɛ
1567:-
1520:,
1485:Σɛ
1445:|
1344:,
1336:,
1332:,
1257:)
1253:•
1130:-
1105:,
1069:|
902::
874:·
627:-
619:.
549:-
452:-
390:-
357:-
319:-
228:,
150:|
138:.
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
1767:²
1765:Þ
1712:²
1710:Þ
1680:²
1678:Þ
1650:.
1592:²
1590:Þ
1489:²
1487:Þ
1381:/
1300:/
1267:-
1249:(
1218:(
1209:(
1202:(
1193:(
1184:(
1019:-
701:-
202:)
198:(
125:)
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
