Knowledge talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 9

986:) original research. We could create hundreds of thousands of this sort of article per genre, I'm sure, but they have no encyclopedic value, even as redirects (since no one is going to be looking for that name). Next: to the point of hyperbole. I do not "want to speedy delete everything, like it's the end of the world if it exists as a redirect or takes five days to get rid of." Please lay off the hyperbole and evaluate suggestions on their own merits and the contributions of their suggestors. Thanks. As for the question of why speedy vs. AFD/prod? I like to think that we involve the community for articles where their value is in dispute (or could be), not just to serve as a distraction. How many users respond to the average 2896:

description page which creates ugly redundancy if both places are using image descriptions. Having a full local copy ensures that only the local image description is used. I'm not worrying about the image appearance being vandalized, but rather the image description being vandalized, which is much more common in my area of work (global warming/climate change). Moving an image to Commons makes it much more difficult for me to monitor changes to the image descriptions. I also disagree that it is substantially less likely to be vandalized, since it is just one extra click to get to the Commons page after finding the image used on an article in EN.

563:. Any page that was moved from one WikiMedia project to another was not considered "deleted" because it could easily be recovered (by transwiki in reverse) with no loss of content or history and without the use of any special administrator powers. The leftover page in the source project was immediately deleted by default unless there was a compelling reason not to. In fact, that was the origin of speedy-deletion case A2. It standardized what had already been the existing practice. (The case is worded specifically to the foreign language projects but remember that at that time the only other WikiMedia projects 3796:- the wikiproject to make sure we have articles on topics that other encyclopedias have. As part of this I create a butt-load of redirects from A.N.OTHER naming conventions to our naming conventions. This is all good and helps the reader find the information they are looking for when they come to Knowledge. However sometimes an article title comes up that in a sense needs to be "redirected to two places". Consider for example the topic "Flemings and Walloons" that describes the similarities and differences between the two major groups of Belgians. Now our articles are at 2859:

check, rather than just seeing that it was on IfD for 5 days and just deleting it. For the second part, we can still have our own image description if we want, and why can't we monitor it for vandalism? If we see that the image isn't what it's supposed to be, we can just go to the commons page and revert it. If anything, it would make it less likely to be vandalized for long because there are less vandals on Commons AND there would be any countervandals on both Commons and other projects that may be using the pic watching. --

2614:, prodded as a nn-bio for a musician, when in fact the article simply needed expansion and sourcing. Instead of speedying these, and given we have a policy in place now that would keep the majority of them from going to AfD (which was the point of the A7 expansion in the beginning), does anyone else think it might be a good idea to at least attempt in practice? A3 could also qualify here, as we could have more eyes looking at articles that may not have immediate context, but could use more eyes looking at it. -- 543:. Basically, a page in articlespace that is not an article. This could cover Resumes (most of these can be speedied under A7 anyway, but for the resume of a notable person we need something), source texts, instruction manuals, et cetera. Interestingly enough, perhaps many of these should be "speedy transwikied", as many of these types may not be useful on Knowledge, but may be interesting on Wikibooks, WikiSource, et cetera. An interesting proposition, but one that needs to be objectively defined. 31: 1556:

template exists. Moreover, the CSD criteria currently doesn't include anything on notability, despite the fact that the various A7 templates (db-bio, db-group, db-band and db-club) all argue for speedy deletion on notability grounds. This seems like a minor oversight more than anything else, but it also seems that there's room for an additional consensus to speedy delete articles that are clearly non-notable but non-human subjects under A7 as well. --

2845:(e.g. links to en.wikipedia material are broken, file histories and dates are deleted, attribution is messed up, etc., etc.). Also, I am opposed to the idea that having an image on Commons inherently makes an image on EN redundant, since EN can have an English description and be watched for vandalism here while Commons ought to have multiple language descriptions and can't be watched for vandalism. 1567:

assertion of anything which anyone might regard as notable, and other decision must be reached via prod and AfD. The following are often given as reasons for speedy, but do not qualify: 'advert' 'spam' 'not-notable' 'essay' 'rant' 'neologism' 'not on google'. Having said that, there are some obvious cases where deletion is not in doubt and admins will use common sense. --

6166:). I do think common sense can properly dispose of 99 per cent of entries to which a speedy tag is appended; it's not difficult, IMHO, to differentiate between an article without an assertion of notability and an article with such assertion, even where the achievement/characteristic adduced to demonstrate notability does not fit within one's own defintion of 6170:; in the other 1 per cent of situations, inasmuch as one isn't certain whether an assertion is really made, speedy is likely inappropriate (in those cases, I think the admin removing the speedy tag might do well to refer the article straightaway to AfD—with no recommednation if one wants—although surely the initial tagger ought also to watch the article). 3436:. At present we can {prod} them or take them to AfD, and we can revert the spamminess, but we can't just remove them. And unfortunately many editors forget to undo the spam links and remove the flummery. Sometimes they are a straight copy and paste from the company website, but that is not a CSD copyvio since these are not sites which sell the content. 4864:

term, whereas a dab is a collection of links disambiguating between (semi)unrelated topics with similar names. Additionally, I'm under the impression that a signpost article is intended to be an article, albeit perhaps a short one. Seems like somewhat of a difference. Also, next time you have a problem with a page, could you talk it over

3143:, but it is one that can (and often has) mustered its members in an attempt to overwhelm Knowledge's defences. While these attempts rarely (if ever) succeed, they can waste a tremendous amount of our time and effort. We could save ourselves an awful lot of hassle if we could deal with these cases swiftly and decisively, where appropriate. 3292:, and that in turn is probably why bands and clubs are the only groups of people that tend to be speedy deleted nowadays. I am not proposing any kind of expansion. I would just like the wording to accurately and clearly reflect our existing policy: policy that has already been properly proposed, voted on and unequivically approved. 978:. Ok, now that clearly meets the above criteria for redirecting. It's just not terribly notable within the genre nor impacting on the plot of the show (though there are specific colonies that are notable and have pages, as they should), but it's something that people might link to or otherwise reference. On the other hand, 2180:

you just read about, then there's not enough context, not enough grounding the article in such a way that it can be understood by people who aren't already familiar with the topic. The underlining is to express the important difference in changing that one little letter, from content to context. I hope that helps,

2610:...does anyone think it might be worth moving some of the less offensive speedy candidates to a PROD system. What I have in mind is A7, which could be better served (and, in fact, often has been in spite of its speedy candidacy) having multiple eyes look at it via prod? I've had a couple articles, most notably 4006:" (my emphasis). You may also care to look up "ambiguous" in the dictionary. It makes no sense to add further meaning to the category that would take it outside its natural meaning in English, as the category is already extremely large. To have a sister category that actually says what its makes a lot of sense. 5588:"legally" speedied under either CSD G1 - patent nonsense (specifically excludes hoaxes) or CSD A7 - non-notable biography / vanity about a person or persons that does not assert the notability of the subject (it does assert notability, although false). Do we have a loophole here, or am I missing something? 6324:

A very simple method, {{subst:DRVU note|section heading}} ~~~~ is already available for userbox deletion review, how much harder would it be to integrate a method of this type into the current process for speedy deletion. I cannot really accept the fact that it will slow the process down as a factor,

6061:

How low an assertion is "no notability", considering that the tag can be used after the first edit to a page while it is still in a stub stage? Why are their tags called nn-bio if they are not really referencing the notability criteria, only the lack of any part of it? If the criteria are not used at

5623:

You also run into the problem of people speedy deleting established and verifiable pseudoscience articles as hoaxes, and also probably other repercussions. Ultimately being a hoax isn't truly why we delete something, being unverifiable is. And I like to reduce the margin for error when deciding that.

4909:

I think that the intention of a signpost article, as differenciated from a dab, is that a signpost article is a page pointing a person to articles that, though they wouldn't be confused, are commonly grouped together enough that someone might enter them as a search term, whereas a dab is a collection

3852:

However it isn't, conceptually, the right tag to add. The dab template says "This is a disambiguation page: a list of articles associated with the same title". The two-or-more things I want to point to people don't have the "same title". There is no ambiguity between "Flems" and "Walloons". Given how

3576:

I think you can safely have a speedy for spam if you limit it to newly created articles (say under 48 hours) with major edits by only one user. We need to try to toast the stuff before it gets to Google (and mirrors), as that's the "gold prize" for the spammer. Once a company's page has been around

3189:

The policy page has had current wording for a while. So, it will take a consensus to change it. So, what you're asking for now, is in fact, an expansion, and change in policy. It would be different, if you tried for that wording earler. But, any new wording now, requires a clear new consensus for

3163:

there's no need for further expansion. PROD has now avoided past reasons for repeated CSD-expansion. PROD gives an easy way avoiding AFDs, for straight-forward matters, unikely to be contested. If a deletion is contested, it should go to AFD. Basically, the only reason for expanding a7 yet again,

3019:

That clause has always been interpreted as only applying to significant edits. So, for example, (5) correcting spelling or grammar and (6) minor wikification of headers or links also do not count as "edits" for the purposes of this clause. The list of possible exceptions is large. We trusted the user

2667:

Well, actually, A3 (no content) is probably the CSD I most frequently use...did you mean A1 (no context)? Probably worth prodding it if it's no context, although usually I'd just give it a {{context}} tag if it looked like it might have potential...I usually go for maintenance tags first and put the

2543:

If you can't be bothered to check the speedy criteria, don't use speedy. If you're not sure of the names of the templates or want to be more clear about your concern, use db-reason. If the article looks bad but you lack the knowledge in the relevant subject area to tell, notify the article creator,

2391:

This really needs to happen. Our current system means that any user who knows that those tags exist can upload any copyright-infringing media that they want, tag it with one of those tags, and thereby avoid all of our otherwise automated copyright problem systems. Images with any kind of reasonable

2179:

Basically, it's ok for an article to be short, i.e., to have little content. It'd be nice if it could be expanded, of course, but shouldn't be deleted just because it's small. However, and article that doesn't explain what it's about isn't very useful. If you read the article and have no idea what

1321:

Having read it, I believe that you should not have started that article in Knowledge. It is an entry about a word, not a real company or a broad social concept. What you have is a definition that belongs in our sister project, Wiktionary. I mention it not to criticize your motives but because that

1189:

Thank you for your feedback. There's a balance between not biting newcomers and maintaining an orderly community. If the priority was *always* to avoid displeasing newcomers, we wouldn't speedily delete anything at all. Your arguments work against every speedy deletion criterion, but the existence of

798:

I've just been told that an article dealing with obscure elements of popular fiction which have no notability on their own are not speediable. I've re-read the criteria, and shockingly, I have to agree. To address this terrible loophole that allows for torrents of non-notable cruft, and yet allow for

751:

That image looks like a probable copyvio anyway. While I'm not opposed to a more general criterion such as suggested by JDoorjam above, simply waiving the seven-day requirement of I4 and I5 for "images uploaded for use in a deleted article" would probably suffice in most cases like this. Generally,

6455:

I do find it interesting that the first edit after unprotection was vandalism. Looking at the history of the page, this is one of the more aggressively and continuously vandalized pages in the project. The vandalism was immediately reverted but perhaps some level of protection would be appropriate

5696:

made me wonder whether we should add to C1 a permission to speedy delete categories which have become empty as a result of an AfD debate — or, more generally, the deletion (rather than recategorisation) of all articles under the deletion policy. Perhaps with a grace period of four days of emptiness?

5521:, but the article it's attached to is a disambig page also including the Canadian coin. Clearly the redirect is inappropriate, and deleting such a redirect should not be controversial in the slightest, especially since there is no edit history to worry about, because that was moved at the same time. 2699:

Sometimes context is easily fixed. Frequently articles lacking context have incoming links which give context and such can be added to the article. If there aren't any incoming links, usually the author could easily provide context. I've speedied articles under A1, but with prod there's five days

2476:

or similar. It places the page either the CSD category or a subcategory called "Suspected CSD's" or similar. The idea is that you are bringing the page to the larger attention of the admins at CSD, because you suspect that it's a CSD, but you dont have the expertise to say exactly why or you require

880:

works of fiction that would have individual articles for characters, major and minor, would at the very least have a page for its source material to redirect to. The smaller ones can be redirected to that article or to a list of characters, the larger ones kept. Speedies just tend to create ill will

816:

Unremarkable fictional subjects. The determining factor between remarkable and unremarkable fictional subjects is the question of notability relative to the genre or work from which they arise. Non-notable subjects would include characters or places in a story which have no impact on its plot or the

231:

After giving this some thought, page blanking would be much preferred over speedy deletion of a talk page. Some of our best vandal fighters are anonymous editors, and if we delete these pages outright, they and other non-administrators will have no way of to telling if there is any relevant history

6570:

are harmful, but I see nothing wrong with long-term semiprotection of a Knowledge policy page. The only legitimate reason I can think of for an anon or brand-new user to edit a policy page would be to correct a typo; for that, a note on the talk page asking someone else to correct it is sufficient.

6288:

I disagree with Ansell. This would be exceptionally time-consuming procedure. When I go on new pages patrol, I can speedy up to five pages a minute. Requiring me to come up with a notification for each and every one of the authors of those pages would cut this by 80% or more. The articles shouldn't

6269:

on the article while you type the comment. However, if the article meets the criteria, it can still be speedied by an admin. If the article does not meet the criteria, or is improved after being tagged, the tag can be removed by anyone except authors of the page. In any case, if the tag is removed,

6097:

stub state until the notability is explained. Without information about why to care, the arctile fails to fulfill even a stub's function. You are wrong in assuming that the criterion calls for anyone to determine notability itself; it just says to look whether there is any claim in the article that

5200:

a ground for speedy deletion? I find it really annoying that a user can create an article about himself, claiming (say) that he invented time travel and is the king of the universe, and there is no official justification for tagging this for speedy deletion (after all, these claims, if true, would

4868:

you go and delete it? That's not very polite, especially when you then go and say "you know better than to force your viewpoint upon the community" to another fellow. Pcb21 made a poor choice in unilaterally undeleting it, but then you didn't do the wisest thing either by deleting it when there was

3108:

But I would like us to use our existing policy to its full extent. Why? Because it's doing an incredible job, but it could do more. About 90% of deleted articles are deleted via speedy deletion. But AFD is still overflowing with 120-150 articles per day, and many of those are obvious deletions with

973:

First off, I think someone very much missed the point. I know that there's a lot of the same coversations over and over here, so I imagine it's easy to assume that you can categorize any request and give a standard answer. However, you've missed the mark here. We're not talking about deletions that

335:

Why were we deleting in the first place? Blanking makes so much more sense. In fact, we could probably add a header that says something like "This IP Talk page has been/is periodically recycled by blanking. To see older comments, please view the (link to history page)history(/link)." We'd need some

3481:

I don't really support this idea, though I understand it. It's just too subjective what is spam, and differentiating between cleanupable spam and unredeemable spam. I'd hatchet it down (Joe Corp is a bubble gum company based in Florida, USA) and stick a notability tag on it and go from there. I

3464:

Yes, I saw. But I am not being very clear today. I need to think about it more I guess. There is a difference ebtween spam and non-notable companies, and that's best handled by a separate critrion (in my view), which is very tightly worded to exclude being used for neutrally worded articles on

1586:

is a good alternative to a technically invalid speedy. Most times people try to speedy delete for something not in CSD, you see where they're coming from... but those aren't speedy delete criteria for a reason. PROD gives everyone 5 days to improve the article, so there's less chance of deleting a

1393:

That particular image is a special case: it has never been uploaded to enwiki. The image is only present on Commons and the page here is redundant entirely. I have deleted it since having, effectively, a fork locally means that any updates to licensing/soucing/wording will not appear here. That is

1349:

I'm be a little hesistant about adding this because, based on various AFDs, even experienced editors don't fully grasp Knowledge's policy on neologisms. I'm not against a CSD for it, but it should be very, very explicit. I'd say at the minimum it should have no Google hits outside of Knowledge and

6401:

I second Tony's request that Geni unprotect this page. Yeah, it's tweaked a couple times a day, but I don't remember this leading to any crises recently. I'd rather have this page stay nice and Wiki. If ridiculous changes are being made to it, they'd get reverted. Let's not set a precedent of

5587:

Why, o why aren't "patent hoaxes" a speedy criterium (or at least included under patent nonsense)? I have come across quite a few articles where the claims made about a person were clearly nonsense (e.g. Joe Bloggs invented penicillin, was made king of the world, etc), but the article couldn't be

5469:

The CSD:T2 speedy rule would be good. Admins should toast these on site. Otherwise, innocent, well meaning users, will see the tag, and assume it is ok. They would think that the only reason the tag exists, is because it is ok to use. Better to delete the template early, then the image later.

5255:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't think anyone's going to argue with deleting articles where the claims to notability are obviously false. If nothing else they can be deleted as vandalism (G3). Of course, this requires being a bit of discretion... absurd claims like you

5060:

But of course no-one is paying me to improve Knowledge so I see little point in butting heads with David who must have his own reasons to maintain the status quo (though he has kept them to himself so far). I will find another way to contribute which involves draining less time on obscure project

4863:

Moving back over to the left... I think that the intention of a signpost article, as differenciated from a dab, is that a signpost article is a page pointing a person to articles that, though they wouldn't be confused, are commonly grouped together enough that someone might enter them as a search

3377:

As the originator of the original expansion, I believe that consensus has dictated that companies and web sites are specifically exempted from this. I really tried to find a wording that would indicate that this is to be applied only to informal groups, because really, you could broadly interpret

2858:

As for the first part, I can't make you trust anyone to do things, but right now, it rarely even gets checked at all; it's moved to Commons, well or sloppily, then listed on IfD and almost invariably deleted in a few days. Making it a CSD would help bring an admin's attention to it and hopefully

2844:

I strongly object to the proposal. Until such day as we have a tool to automatically migrate history and information to Commons, I don't trust people to reliably migrate information or the admins to check that it was migrated correctly, which in my experience with my own work, it almost never is

2452:

are infringing a policy, but due to not being an admin and having not read the policies thoroughly I can't pick the right CSD template. Furthermore, there are often pages which, due to your unfamiliarity with the subject matter, you cannot tell whether they should be deleted or not. For instance,

2320:

Right. I only just found this section. No, I do not think that the stuff above belongs on the policy page. They aren't part of the policy, which is a 'straightforward' sentence or so. Adding "there is no consensus..." is strange because that then becomes part of the policy, requiring consensus to

1240:

The problem is that I disagree with the premise outright. Certainly, CSD is useful in SOME cases, but it should never be used for things that may be notable or may not have proper sourcing and could be better served by a larger community review. Save CSD for nonsense, for libel/slander issues.

6124:

An article on a person (or group, band, club, etc.) can only be speedied under A7 if it does not contain an assertion of notability. "Katie won the spelling bee in 1993" is such an assertion, and an article with that line could not be speedied under A7. (It might be possible under A1, but that's

5434:

No. They shouldn't be speedied as much as giving the uploader a chance, if possible, to find the correct copyright or replace it with a proper-license image. Few things chap my behind more than seeing images go bye-bye without an opportunity to rectify the problem. --13:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

3813:

content, but the page is undeniably useful, because it helps direct the reader to the information they are searching for. It certainly wasn't the intention to delete such articles when we invented A3. Does anyone have any objection if I re-word A3 to make it clear that we don't have this sort of

1376:

I think that we should add a criteria for speedy image deletion that would allow administrators to delete such images (presuming that they would look through the history and ensure that there hadn't been any vandalism, removing categories and such) since I can't really think of any reason not to

481:

I agree with this CSD 9. It seems to imply one thing that I like: topic's merits=/=article's merits. One problem is that a BS article on a worthy topic is kept as a "potentially good article" and then nobody does anything (fixes it). Either fix it now, get a taskforce, or delete it and put it on

170:

In reference to your second point, I've always thought that CSD criteria U2 was odd for the same reason, i.e. old IP talk pages should simply be blanked. That fulfils the stated purpose of avoiding confusion for new users of that IP address, whilst also keeping the history of the page if needed.

1566:

Notability is contnetious, and will never command general consensus as a deletion criterion nevermind a speedy one. What is notable? Is a school, a company, a church, or a verse of the Bible? Actually A7 does not allow the speeding of non-notable bios, it only allows a speedy where there is no

1555:

I've seen a couple of pages that I've tagged as 'db|non-notable subject' (or something more specific under subject, ie website or comic) that were rather plainly non-notable moved over to prod recently on the grounds that there is no CSD criteria. Besides the fact that I think that the basic db

698:

Huh. I'm surprised this isn't already a CSD. It seems relatively non-controversial an idea (though I've always been surprised at what turns out to be controversial). What's the proposed language? Something like "Pictures which were used or explicitly intended for use on pages that have been

3253:

No. The idea of including website and companies in speedies has been often suggested and uniformly rejected. It was rejected again in December, as evidenced by the fact that it did not manage to remain in the policy as it came to be rewritten. I see no case for not taking such things to AfD at

3120:, but it is also an entity that stands to gain financially from using and abusing Knowledge. As Knowledge grows in prominence, it is increasingly becoming a target for blatant (and not so blatant) self-promotion. Currently the most egregious examples are being dealt with by the (mis)use of the 3501:

I deleted these, technically it doesn't meet a criteria, but come on. Perhaps there's some way to codify the difference between outright spam and someone posting a flowery article praising their company (which should probably be prod'd/afd'd). Perhaps "Article exists only to attempt to sell a

3315:

be interpreted this way. I would support getting rid of A7 entirely; I certainly do not support expanding it. As Rob said, with the existence of prod, this serves no purpose except to delete articles people want kept, and there are better ways to handle that than zapping without discussion.

1872:

Needing to poll/discuss the deletion is a cost, yes. But adding a new CSD criterion is a cost too, in form of instruction creep (as then every admin patrolling the SD category would have an item more to remember). All I'm saying is that these two costs ought to be weighted against each other.

1307:

Handling it by PROD should be good enough. Also, it is difficult to say a priori as to what a notable neologism is. For example, I have seen the word "titsup.com" used many times on en-wiki mailing list. Had I not been on the mailing list, I would not have come across that word and would have

5619:

false, which most aren't. I personally don't feel comfortable speedy deleting an article just because I, the ignorant American, have never heard of it. CSD, if interpreted strictly, tends to avoid those kind of judgement calls... and I think that's a good thing. Deal with hoaxes via PROD and

1590:

Articles that genuinely assert notability generally shouldn't be speedied. The exception is obviously false claims, like "Joe Blogs was just elected King of England", etc. But something like "Joe Blogs is a famous professor" should probably not be speedied, PROD, then AfD, is a better choice

2895:

Going through IFD gives the image uploader time to see the tag and make corrections/protest/etc. Secondly, the way the software currently works, if an image is on Commons but not here, it will display the Commons' image, the local image description page (if any) and then the Commons' image

3617:. Actually on reflection I think we should apply the 48 hour limit to all criteria - speedy is designed as a counter-vandalism measure, an article which has been around for a couple of days can probably survive another week, unless it's a blatant attack, in which case it should be stubbed. 1172:

And I'm saying that speedying tends to bite newcomers that may not be aware of our notability standards, as well as doesn't allow for the possible expansion of articles that don't initially look notable. prod is for uncontroversial deletions, not controversial ones, and if a word is truly

3020:

enough to make him/her an admin. Unless there is evidence to the contrary, we should continue to trust them to exercise common sense and discretion. I'll reconsider if you can show evidence that the current wording is creating real problems but in general, cluttering up the page with more

1983:

One and two look good, but I don't quite like number three; simply because something hasn't been worked on shouldn't automatically qualify it as something that should be deleted. Perhaps take off number three as a speedy criterion and instead ask that such portals be taken to MfD? Thanks!

2700:

for the author to explain what in the world they meant. I've noticed, however, that what I consider context (as far as CSD is concerned) is less stringent than some. I just want the field of study or profession of the person or whatever. A useful predicate for the introductory sentence.

2682:

Actually, I kinda meant both, although A1 is harder for even someone like me to justify moving to prod initially, but thanks for pointing that out. I just feel as if the more eyes looking at articles that aren't blatant nonsense or attack pages there are, the better the result could be.

1602:

The points above are valid, but it still remains confusing why a human subject on which there is no assertion of anything regarded as notable can be speedied but a non-human subject on which there is no assertion of anything regarded as non-notable cannot. For pages that clearly violate

6380:~2 edits a day is far to high when they continue at that rate for day after day week after week. People should not be comeing along and casualy changeing this page. If you want to change it disscuss and debate. Get a reasonable level of support and page protection isn't going to matter. 6325:

as I consider this to be the most vulnerable of all processes to be possibly abused and should be totally transparent. It is the transparency that would be increased by mandatory notification, as this could possibly be the only non-log record for the deletion in any part of wikipedia.

3723:

If the problem is with the content rather than the subject - for example an excessively florid description of a company, or a highly critical biography of a public figure - consider fixing the problem, perhaps by reducing the article to a verifiable stub, rather than nominating it for

3431:

A7 is sometimes (wrongly) attributed to companies (see above). This is a Bad Thing (it is far more ambiguous in these cases) however the reason is clear and has a serious point: many articles are created which are blatant spam for companies which are not even in the same time zone as

2959:

Any page for which deletion is requested by the original author, provided the page was edited only by its author and was mistakenly created. If the author blanks the page, this can be taken as a deletion request. Note: Please check the page history to make sure there is only a single

3350:

You're unilateral edit to a7 was undone by me. I see no consensus here for a new wording. So, please wait till that happens before editing it again please. Incidently, there were two other edits after yours, I didn't undo them. So, everybody should look over the recent changes.

5349:

Now that OrphanBot's assisting with tagging of recently-uploaded images, I'm seeing a bunch of image copyright tags that simply assert "all rights reserved" go by. It would be nice if I could simply tag the template for speedy deletion, rather than having to run it through TFD.

3673:

in general speedy deletion is only appropriate for articles which are the work of a single editor, or which have been created very recently - within the last 48 hours or so. For articles which have been around for longer or which have input from several editors, consider using

3130:

template, but strictly speaking it is not "blatant copyright infringement from the website of a commercial content provider"—it's advertising material being copied with the full permission of the copyright owner. In A7 we have the appropriate tool to deal with this. Let's use

5377:

license. My only reservation is whether this problem is really big enough to justify yet another CSD criterion. Couldn't we just do a one-time clean-up and be done with it? How many different templates are there with these invalid licenses? How often are new ones created?

5004:

a discussion leads to such a consensus. Keep in mind that this isn't merely a category; it's a significant alteration to the encyclopedia's structure. At no point has Pcb21 formally proposed such a setup. Instead, he introduced it (without any discussion) as part of our

1194:

in the first place is a nod to the needlessly laborious nature of some elements of deletion process. Since you've evidently put some thought into this, I'd be interested in your take on why plainly nn people or organizations have speedy deletion criterion, but words don't.

5046:

The deletion debate took place on the assumption that it was a duplicate of the disambiguation category, which as you point out it is clearly not. So the deletion debate had no particular value. Deletion pages are not somehow a "greater authority" whose mistakes cannot be

3761:

Interestingly, an early title of what became AfD was "Article names for deletion". I think there should be more awareness that you can do more with a "bad" article than just delete it. If there's anything salvagable, by all means, people should salvage it. My suggest for

4818:

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. The purpose of a disambiguation page is to direct readers to various articles that they might seek by typing (or clicking on, but such links should be repaired) the title of the disambiguation page. The titles of the individual articles

1368:

project, I've come across a number of images that were uploaded to the Commons, and then had their description page here modified. In some cases, this is warranted, such as adding the image to a category on Knowledge. However, occasionally there are images (for example,

3525:

Well, I'm aware of that... but I also think the optimal system is one where you don't have to break rules to deal with daily occurances. Also... I think people do want to speedy anything deemed spam, even if it's about a notable company, and really the issue is about

3176:

this is not a policy proposal, and there is no need to vote. Voting for this finished in December. This is not an expansion of A7: this is policy that has already been voted on and approved. The discussion now is about how it could best be expressed, and explained.

6139:"Katie won the spelling bee" could (and should) most certainly be speedied. We also speedy things that contain assertions of notability like "Bob is the Ruler of the Entire World", and this is hardly controversial. We just need to use a bit of common sense here. 1854:

be deleted. CSD not only makes it possible to speedy these things, it also determines that there is no need for discussion or debate. (As we wouldn't, for example, debate whether or not a page created with only the word "penis" on it should be deleted or not).

6592:

If vandalism of this policy page were to become a serious problem, I wouldn't object to semiprotection. However it's a very closely watched page and most of the edits are serious attempts to improve Knowledge, so it shouldn't be semi'd as a matter of course.

2912:, for one thing CSD is already backed up most times without having to go through a time-consuming check on whether the history has properly been migrated, for another it isn't really necessary since most images under this category can go through IFD normally. 3728:

Jimbo says: "Mostly, if we (any of us! for any reason!) stub a controversial article and demand careful sourcing for rebuilding it, that's fine, EVEN IF THE ARTICLE SUCKS FOR A FEW DAYS." - it didn't apply to this instance, but I think it has relevance here.

5793:

been populated? (This is not a rhetorical question. I'm not a Knowledge expert, but I don't know where to look in the logs for that information.) I think there should be a CSD for categories; but G1 should take care of most of the cases I've run across. —

5591:

Please note that I do not neccessarily include all hoaxes under this category - some may indeed be complex enought that they have to go on proposed deletions or AfD, but some hoaxes are so glaringly obvious that one should be able to "legally" speedy them.

731:

which removes the requirement to guess at the uploader's motives. Meanwhile, I'll speedily delete the image in question per Johnleemk! If this gets approval I'll add it as a criterion some time next week (unless someone else gets there first). Thanks.

1503:

I think admins have to be alerted that while deleting under G7 one has to make sure no other editor has edited the page, and while deleting under A3 one has to make sure that earlier versions of the article also satisfy some CSD criteria. As explained in

5140:

You are both experienced Wikipedians and know that to suggest Deletion Review as an appropriate place to make a structural alteration to Knowledge (however minor) really is not a flyer. The debate is always about counting the number of votes and nothing

5056:

825:

Without this additional criteria, the door is left wide open to waste the time and effort of those debating truly controversial notability of other articles in the AFDs. It also wastes the time of those who, like myself, attempt to patrol new articles.

6289:

be there, my deletion summary gives a clear and concise reason why I deleted the article, and people can put a message on my talk page at any stage if they need another explanation. This proposal has come up a few times; I regret that it appears to be

6221:

at the bottom of every edit page, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." The original contributors have no more rights to the article than every other reader/editor in the project. See

5745:

CSD category criteria, isn't it? My point is that if a category that's empty and never been populated can be deleted under C1, a category which has only had as content articles/templates which were deleted could potentially be considered as analogous.

3333:

Nor is it an expansion of A7, nor indeed is it any kind of policy proposal. You don't have to like A7, but you are always free to put forward a proposal to revoke it. Until then our policy is the policy that was voted on and approved in December 2005:

5899:

Generally support, although I believe it should be up to someone else (perhaps even the prodder) to take it to AfD. Removal of PROD doesn't automatically mean AfD, and articles shouldn't just be AfD'd just because they were prodded once upon a time.

3555:

I find some articles tagged as "spam") without writing a special set of rules. Most of the time removing the spam links and {prod} ing is the right thing, but there are a significant number which simply shouldn't be allowed to sit around for a week.

3164:

is if you want to speedy more things that some wish kept. That wouldn't make much sense to me. If we get expanding a7, we might as well hand over the keys to admins, and quit pretending the community approves content by discussion and consensus. --

3808:

I write a short stub that is more-or-less a pointer to those two articles with the bulk of our content. Now occasionally some well-meaning editor doing about 50 edits a minute slaps an A3 on it - saying "no content". Now I agree that it doesn't have

5291:

You seem to understand what to do quite well. Don't be afraid to tag common sense speedies, whether they exactly fit a category or not. We don't have an official policy for this stuff but the deletions of obvious junk are fairly uncontroversial.

3511:

If it's working, why fix it? It seems to me that trying to fix the problem would only worsen things. You can never make a hard and fast rule without striking out the fast part of the equation; right now admins seem to be doing the right thing, IMO.

588:

I just reverted this addition. I did not think this discussion ended in a consensus to use this, otherwise I'd've expressed my opposition while it was current. I just don't see having so many speedy criteria that I can't memorize them. Use prod.

5724:

Shouldn't categories be deleted on their own merits, not whether they're being used? Who's to say they wouldn't be used again? And if they're redundant for whatever reason, why does it hurt to send it to CfD and make sure the consensus is there?

3378:"collections of individuals" to mean cities, for example, which would certainly be beyond the scope of A7. Perhaps it would help if we listed examples of what does and does not qualify for speedy deletion under this criterion in the instructions. 2740:

This is a proposal that seeks to change our approach to the deletion process by removing content of a page as a criterion for deletion, only the topic can be judged in deletion debates. Please discuss the proposal at the talk page. Thanks a lot.

2413:

I agree. No need to make this retrospective for now, but we need to stem the tide of new images that have the potential to get us in hot soup. Right now it is damn freaking easy to game the copyvio system by claiming any copyvio to be fair use.

2277:

There is no consensus on userbox policy. Other speedy criteria are intended to cover cases in which all reasonable editors would agree there should be a deletion; that's why they are narrowly phrased. Speedying userboxes has caused division and

6240:

Is it policy or simply practice that a contested CSD tag should become an XfD nomination instead? If the former, it would certainly be polite to give major contributors notification. (And either way, this page should say something about it.)

2713:

Lacking content, on the other hand, annoys me enough that I'm probably biased. (Who writes an encyclopedia article that doesn't tell anything about the subject?) If it's not even a dicdef, we're not helping anybody by keeping the article.

2003:

For articles I would agree with you completely, but portals are supposed to appeal to a community of interest. If no one cares enough to work on them, they should disappear... however, I see your point. How about putting portals under #3 in

809:

Unremarkable real people or groups. An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD

368:

Users blanking their own talk page (when it contains warnings) is generally considered vandalism anyway, I don't see why this should change. Talk pages should only be blanked by RC patrollers and include a good edit summary for reference.

5827:

be speedied under G4, but rather taken to AFD, as the re-creation of a PRODded article amounts to the same thing as contesting the PROD. I think this is common sense, but it doesn't seem to be explicitly stated anywhere. Any objections?

3237:

This is very sensible rewording of the A7 policy. I couldn't agree more. Especially companies abusing Knowledge for self-promotion are becoming a nuisance. And it is not always so easy to find out if they fall under the guidelines of

3288:

clubs and bands are considered to be "groups of people"—which is a far cry from the broad "any other collections of individuals" that had received 80% approval. That's probably why the only templates to be created were for bands and

921:

I have to agree that it's sily to speedy them. Just redirect. I don't see what the deal is with people wanting to speedy delete everything, like it's the end of the world if it exists as a redirect or takes five days to get rid of.

4987:

Pcb21 made a poor choice in unilaterally undeleting it, but then you didn't do the wisest thing either by deleting it when there was obviously discussion about the issue, which is exactly what would've happened had he taken it to

3787: 2795:

This should allay any fears of messing up the license. PD images don't need anything at all, and GFDL just need to show who created what when. By copying the file history, it does meet the requirements. This only applies to

875:

What makes you think it holds no value? Genuinely curious. I dunno, I just feel like we're looking for excuses to speedy stuff, as opposed to fixing these things. Fictional information only exists via a fictional universe, and

819:

However, if the article title refers to a discrete character, event or setting, it may be of value as a redirect. If this is the case, the article should be merged and redirected to the appropriate work of fiction rather than

4926:

One might be led to believe that (because Pcb21 didn't select the term "signpost pages"), but the ten "signpost articles" that I eliminated (all of which were created by Pcb21) were nothing more than pointers to the existing

3530:... cleanup is often more in order than deletion. I think a rule clarifying what should be speedied and what shouldn't would help there. But I'm mostly thinking aloud... I want to avoid instruction creep as much as anyone. -- 604:

I was trying to revert this addition, but NickelShoe beat me to it. I think the criteria is to vague. Also, now that we got PROD, we have an effecient way of eleminating obvious cases, that don't fit a speedy criteria.

4930:

If one wishes to create an actual article (assuming that a reasonable amount of original content can be written), there's no need to apply a special designation. Simply include links to the individual subjects' articles.

1512:

was deleted after the page was blanked but other people (including me) had edited the page and hence it didn't fall under G7, and its earlier versions didn't satisfy A3 and are actually important to preserve the history of

5603:

After writing this I did notice the "db-absurd" section above, but that just suggests workarounds ... I would rather prefer to have a seperate category (for example G9:Patent hoax) or have the definition of G1 broadened.

5772:

I'm not sure there is any sort of reason to speedy delete categories outside of attack categories (i.e., "Category: People who think badlydrawnjeff is a moron") or nonsense cats. But maybe I'm missing something here.

3112:

Two of the new examples—families and organizations—are copied directly from the proposal. The other two—companies and online communities—are also included in this policy, but it is useful to mention them specifically:

257:

Likewise here, blanking is better, and asked a few other admins as well, there's no need of deletign the talk page (and thus hiding its history). I'm removing U2 since consensus seems to be that blanking is better. --

5674: 838:

Or, you could see if it has no chance of becoming more than a worthless stub and merge with the article for the work of fiction, or you could use {{prod}} to see if anyone's capable of expanding. Why rush to speedy?

2321:

establish that there is no consensus and consensus to establish a new consensus. It's the sort of material that belongs on a userboxes page somewhere, being essentially an editorial opinion on the policy rather than

4880: 2503:

weren't having technical difficulties, that would be a good time to use prod. Also, you could simply use db-reason. No one should be deleting it if it doesn't qualify for speedy even if it's improperly tagged.

5998: 1015:

If it borders on OR, then start hunting people down who can give sources? The more we use prod, the more people will respond and the more useful it becomes. No need to speedy most stuff whe it can be prodded.

280:

Yep. Mainly because I think it's impossible to determine when an IP talk page message has become "irrelevant"; I've often seen IPs repeat the exact same kind of vandalism after gaps of several months or more.

5614:

Well, you note the above discussion, I don't think it's exactly a work around. Posting obviously false claims is vandalism... be it in an existing article or to a new one. The problem is with a hoax that isn't

3630:

I don't think there's need of putting a 48-hour limit on speedying. It's annoying to make everything so technical. It's a good idea not to speedy old articles, but let's not make it a rule unless we have to.

1413:

Exactly. I would think that admins would know enough that it qualifies for speedy deletion, but it might help non-admins to have a specific item addressing this issue when determining whether or not to add the

4009:

I am very sorry that the purpose of the category was not made clear during that deletion debate. But now that it has been (I hope!) please do not hinder the improvement of the encyclopedia by process-fiddling.

3971: 3821: 3009:

the page was ...", with the understanding that cleanup tags, stub markers, categories and so forth, are not part of the text. But I'd really prefer that such common sense could be left to the deleting admin.

3944: 5173:

4914:

A disambiguation page may be used for all of the above. The titles of the individual articles need not be similar or remotely interconnected. They need only relate to the title of the disambiguation page.

3853:

big the disambig category is already, it seems wrong to overload it even further. Hence my alternative characterization of "signpost article". Better names very welcome and thanks Blackcap for your input.

3771:

of the article isn't acceptable, but a good article could be written on the topic, considering fixing the problem, even if it means reducing the article to a verifiable stub, rather than nominating it for

516:

Absolutely not. Again, the more we speedy, the less chance encyclopedic topics can be reviewed by other authors and fixed, even if they're being used incorrectly to start. {{prod}} is perfect for this.

1394:

bad for obvious reasons. Perhaps this very particular case needs a CSD to make it clear, or perhaps it's just occasional enough that (what I hope is) common-sense is enough. Note that what I just did is

115: 392:

tagged my college's talk page (which only contained a notice identifying the IP address as a shared entity and advising users to register accounts) on 3 March (the day on which this discussion began).

140:

Adding the category sends them a "new messages" box, doesn't it? If this is to avoid confusion, then any list of to-be-deleted pages should be managed externally, not through category edits to the talk

3577:

for a while, its best to give it a PROD or AFD (if anybody wishes it deleted), as there's little harm in taking the time for one. As for the definition of spam, I'm not sure of what wording to use. --

5177:

What do you mean?! I've repeatedly explained my reasoning (which is shared by others). You, conversely, decided to simply ignore consensus and once again create your setup without any discussion. —

3221:

I see no reason to expand A7 further. Again, I'll reiterate that I'd much rather see A7 thrown into a PROD situation to allow more eyes to look at such articles rather than deleting them quickly. --

1611:, but my concern about it is that it allows someone to come back and remove the tag a couple of days later before deletion, and unless someone is watching things very closely, it may slip through. -- 3940: 2976:

a speedy deletion that is requested by the author. Also editors who add {{hoax}} or {{importance}} would probably be happy to see the page go, if the original author him/herself suggests that. --

1751:

Sounds good in principle. We already have an "I-know-it-when-I-see-it" criterion in A7, so perhaps this wouldn't be too bad. I think there are many edits which are borderline on this rule though. (

1841:

it. (Yes, this should be obvious, but never underestimate the stupidity of human beings). On a more general note, is this really a sufficiently widespread problem that prod/*fd cannot handle it?

3417:

Hi, I rewrote the opening paragraphs, because I found them a bit disorganized and unclear. I was careful not to make content changes; I hope it's an improvement, and my apologies if it is not.

5104:

The deletion debate took place on the assumption that it was a duplicate of the disambiguation category, which as you point out it is clearly not. So the deletion debate had no particular value.

3265:

It's interesting. When I looked through the page's history for the days after the "groups of people" policy was implemented, I see only one person removing criteria from A7. That person removed

671: 654: 6195:

tagging it should be an enforceable policy, not simply an optional nicety. This would ensure that people thought clearly about what they were doing when placing such a powerful tag on a page.

5459:

is the real reason to speedy-delete these. Two people voted that the template should be kept because some images really are all-rights-reserved, and so the vote was closed as no consensus. --

5693: 3074:

I would like to add some more examples to A7's description because I do not feel that the current wording encompasses the full scope of the policy change that was approved in December 2005:

2522:

Clarifying, this is more of an "I'm not an expert on this subject, but someone more knowledgable would certainly know whether this was CSD, so I'm bringing it to their attention"-template.--

2325:

of the policy itself. It is tempting to add these things to policy pages; the usual result is an ever-expanding wrapping of cotton wool on the actual policy for little executional benefit. -

663:

which was only placed on a non-notable vanity page, now deleted. Do we speedy these images too? And should we consider adding this as an explicit speedy deletion criterion for images? --

2453:

sometimes you come across a brand new stub, and it may not be obvious whether this is a stub on a notable, encyclopedia-worthy subject, or whether its just plain vanity or something else.

1088:

about clearly unremarkable and unused new words, of the type that are caused by words made up on Internet forums, and defended solely (but extensively) by forum denizens. Policy shouldn't

5148:"considers appeals to restore pages that have been deleted. It also considers disputed decisions made in deletion-related fora." Why do you insist upon bypassing the appropriate process? 1901: 1535:

meanto to do everything contained in the new notes. If they aren't then telling them to do so again when it's written everywhere else (templates, admin how-to, etc) isn't going to help.

3967: 3497:

I've seen some laughably blatent spam - just off the top of my head, a "Free iPods click here THIS REALLY WORKS" kind of article, and people with links to cheap vi@gra. In the spirit of

439: 2285:

If a userbox is creating an emergency, other administrative action should be considered, as well as speedying. If it is not, the situation may be resolvable more quickly and calmly by

5552: 5278:

By the way, I am talking only about claims that any sane person could immediately recognize as obviously false. I agree that prod/AfD is the right course of action for other cases.

567:

the alternate language encyclopedias. We hadn't yet created Wiktionary, WikiSource, etc.) Over time, that meaning got lost and people began to believe that we had to both transwiki

3254:

present, or through PROD or copyvio as appropriate. I do not agree with the assertion that the expansion proposed has support already, or it would already be present in the policy. -

1850:

Oh I'm certain that this is uncommon enough that *FD/PROD could handle it, the idea is that people shouldn't have to wait a week (or have it put to a "poll") whether or not the page

6211: 3371: 699:

speedily deleted, and which have no reasonable use on undeleted pages"? (Obviously, tweak as you will...) Of course, Johnleemk is right: common sense typically does prevail here.

598: 3203:

I know that you don't like this policy because you originally voted against it, but if you want to overturn it then you'll first have to obtain unequivical consensus for doing so.

5108:

That's your opinion. I disagree, and I don't appreciate having my input (and that of others) dismissed by someone who believes that he's entitled to overrule community consensus.

2783:

Note: It could be I2 if the other are bumped down, but that would probably annoy people who have to rememorize the numbers, so in my opinion I1a is best, since it's very similar.

2201: 1509: 3232: 528: 509: 5456: 3970:

that he deemed "bogus." (I've re-deleted it.) The corresponding "guideline" page (which Pcb21 introduced without discussion) also was unanimously rejected by participants in

2057: 1252: 1207: 1184: 1167: 1132: 935:

I agree with Jeff as well; redlinks encourage recreation of crufty stubs (how's that for a medical condition?), whereas redirects encourage people to find the main article. --

5802: 3279:. These were all criteria that had been specifically mentioned in the proposal. It is simply disingenious to claim that their current absence is due to some kind of consensus. 1518: 1514: 1308:

probably speedied the article, if the rules ncluded that. Thanks to the exposure I got to the word on the mailing list and to my subsequent secondary research, I have started

1235: 496: 5847:

Seems logical; incidentally, G4 already covers the case for articles that were speedy deleted (saying that the administrator have to check whether the article actually meets

5124:

Of course not, nor are you somehow a "greater authority" whose wisdom allows him to unilaterally decide when mistakes have been made. Again, feel free to raise the issue at

3199:

I am not proposing any changes. I just want to improve the current wording so that it fully express the policy proposal that was approved in December. You said yourself that

2241:

All the other speedy criteria are intended for cases where all reasonable admins are likely to agree that something should be deleted; that's why they're so narrowly phrased.

1877: 1867: 1845: 6364:

Moreover Geni has inserted a bespoke notice which says "This page is protected since it is a key policy page so changes should not be made without considerable discussion."

5878: 3345: 3325: 2723: 2694: 2677: 2660: 2644: 1492: 1040: 975: 5510:

CSD R4: Redirects in any talk namespace caused by a move, where the associated article (project page, template, whatever) was changed from a redirect into a distinct page.

3014: 830: 554: 5856: 3963: 3924: 3600: 3355: 3210: 3194: 3184: 3168: 1279: 916: 314: 6134: 6119: 6106: 5561: 2900: 2882: 2849: 2195: 763: 452: 6186: 6018:

It is my impression that CSD criteria should be sufficiently clear and follow consensus opinions enough to have one person able to objectively decide on an issue. Since

5860: 5576: 3649: 3299: 3260: 3038:

I agree that listing situations is not necessary, but perhaps rewording to something like the only "contributor of content" instead of only editor, which is just wrong.

2745: 1777: 1544: 1027: 892: 870: 850: 785: 5784: 5767: 5736: 3246: 2400:, but all of this media belonging to to someone else that no one here has taken responsibility for need to be treated exactly the same as incompatibly-licensed images. 195: 6111:

And the bar for potential notability should be quite low. If someone thinks an article has an assertion of notability that they think wouldn't save it from AfD, that

5933: 5911: 5406: 5029: 5017: 3993: 2934:. One has to notify the uploader, format a template so it has both the uploader and the reason in it, then enter it onto the page, for EVERY image. There's a reason 2689: 2655: 2620: 2070: 2062:

I too support the first two, but would not include the third in its present form as a CSD. Sure, most portals it describes ought to be deleted, but most =/= all; let

1680: 1667: 1247: 1179: 1127: 1022: 926: 887: 845: 609: 523: 373: 236: 6597: 6374: 6245: 5628: 5181: 3754: 3625: 3506: 3502:

product, service, or get people to click a referral link"? But this might be so uncommon that we can just go on with the status quo... "rouge deletes" and whatnot. --

3047: 2591: 2574: 2553: 2538: 2513: 1575: 1341: 1216:, per your userpage. If you have thoughts on this that aren't raised there, I'd still like to hear them, but I'd be more interested in your feelings on the question: 714: 336:

good constraints on what constitutes a talk page that needs to be recycled though, to avoid unscrupulous vandals blanking their talk pages to hide previous warnings.

6537: 6384: 6279: 6254: 5718: 5463: 5416: 3954: 3534: 3520: 2331: 2086: 1718: 1629: 689: 627: 580: 6393: 6217:

I politely disagree. We are not required or expected to notify anyone about any other kind of edit (including a complete rewrite). As it says very clearly and in

4830: 4630: 4449: 4019: 3154: 3033: 2996: 2422: 2221: 1756: 740: 347: 252: 214: 6445: 6436: 6361:

There had been 13 edits on this page in the previous seven days. I don't think this qualifies as "far too high" even by the strongest stretch of the imagination.

6174: 5499: 5446: 5368: 3708: 3336:"This would apply to bands, clubs, organizations, couples, families, and any other collections of individuals that do not assert their importance or significance." 3063: 2625: 2404: 1729:

Any objection to a G9 criteria for legal threats (where the only page history is legal threats). In the case where the history contains other page history that is

1316: 1010: 967: 946: 175: 6561: 6417: 6341: 6319: 6235: 5947: 5474: 5387: 5354: 5248: 5068: 3934: 3900: 3884: 3872: 3860: 3844: 3640: 2942: 2921: 2340: 1595: 1434: 1408: 1115: 649: 474: 285: 6465: 6427: 6302: 6146: 6078: 6056: 5852: 5544:

because its capitalisation was wrong, but someone later created a distinct page on the old name. At that point the page you got when clicking on "discussion" on

5273: 5260: 3805: 2470: 2460: 1615: 402: 5894: 5325: 5312: 5299: 3690: 3284:

was the only clarification to survive, perhaps because it may even help to narrow the criteria further. With it in place the wording actually implies that that

2493: 275: 6584: 5997:, that contacts the ISP of an IP address that is a repeated abuser. The page went live about ten minutes ago, and we're itching to try it out. Please read the 5680: 5286: 5223: 4261:

It makes no sense to add further meaning to the category that would take it outside its natural meaning in English, as the category is already extremely large.

3877:

I am in favour of that. And maybe if necessary, we can add "This does not include disambiguation pages or signpost articles" to A3, but that could come later.

3781: 3564: 1909: 1905: 660: 97: 89: 84: 3473: 3459: 3407: 1387: 1326:(or sometimes phrases). They cause controversy in Knowledge but would have been perfectly acceptable in Wiktionary. I believe the right answer should be to 6493: 5901: 5774: 5726: 3744: 3590: 3222: 2684: 2650: 2615: 1354: 1242: 1174: 1122: 1121:

I still think this would be better handled by prod. There's enough quibbling on some words that might be notable where I think speedying is a poor idea. --

1017: 898: 882: 840: 518: 72: 67: 59: 6008: 5256:

mention can be safely declared obviously false... but seeking out verification, or using Prod/AfD is more appropriate for claims that are merely dubious. --

2980: 6042: 2173: 2091:

I'm inclined at this point to say definitely post the first two, and seek greater community input on handling apparently abandoned portal skeletons/stubs.

1762: 3737: 1928:, kept). In light of the much higher standard imposed on Portals as opposed to articles, I propose the following criteria for speedy deletion of Portals: 1620:

Well that's what watchlists are for, yes? If you prod an article, put it on your watchlist if you're concerned about the idea of it not getting deleted.

5201:

certainly make the person notable). Thus we have to go through the prod (and probably) AFD process, wasting everyone's time. It makes no sense to me.

4397:

You believe that this would be an improvement, but others disagree. As a veteran sysop, you know better than to force your viewpoint upon the community.

2076: 1913: 1301: 130:. User talk pages of non-logged in users where the message is no longer relevant. This is to avoid confusing new users who happen to edit with that same 2385: 1102:: Articles clearly created for the sole purpose of injecting a new word into circulation, that do not assert the importance or common usage of the word. 855:

Actually, you bring up a valid point, and I'll modify the above inline to reflect it. However, as an example of an article which explains my point, see

2314: 2267: 1455:

that that is the case in their text? I have seen a few of these lately and they seem like common sense speedys to me. Has this been discussed before?

793: 681:

and just speedy them. Unless they are definitely free images. Those *might* some day be of conceivable use, so it's probably best to leave them alone.

5013:

believes that it's appropriate to reintroduce his "signpost articles" without any discussion. (He began doing so long before this thread existed.) —

3491: 2438: 1560: 1468: 901:

on this one. I find that crufty stubs (which sounds like a skin condition) are better as redirs if the articles don't warrant standing on their own.

482:

Request for Creation, but please lets not just leave blogs here. And when he said blog, I think that he meant the article IS a blog, not about a blog.

3100:

that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead.

1856: 1816: 1766: 1734: 3581: 2804:}} would require that all uses be replaced (though we could add something where "if all uses are replaced then it can be speedied" or something). -- 1708: 6531: 6485: 6475: 6002: 5985:

If you have a IP address that has been warned, blocked, blocked again, and still keeps coming back, list him at the page mentioned in this header:

5941: 5608: 5598: 2968:

not counting edits which call for (1) deletion or (2) speedy deletion of the page, or which question the (3) importance or (4) veracity of the page

2668:

article on my watchlist to watch out for removal, but go for deletion (speedy or otherwise) in cases where it's more obvious that there's no hope.

1525: 571:

go through a formal deletion process to get rid of the leftover. I would like to return to the original interpretation of the transwiki process.

397: 144:

Is deleting the pages going to be at all necessary in the first place? I think the history of an IP may present useful information. After all, the

6307:

I agree with Stifle. However, you COULD encourage it by adding a template for the user's talks to the bottom of the CSD notice (similar to how {{

1285:

Personally I'm in favor of a general increase in ease of deletion; obvious neo/protologisms should easily fit the bill. In the mean time though,

501:

Yeah, by "blog" I meant some guy writing a blog on Knowledge; basically almost everything that has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. --

3421: 2733: 2631:

I would agree strongly, but you might want to wait a few days and see what happens with prod now that we're not able to use the toolserver...see

1925: 4975:

That's not very polite, especially when you then go and say "you know better than to force your viewpoint upon the community" to another fellow.

2838: 2827: 5625: 5396: 5345:

5257: 5050:

That the deletion debate took that direction is partly my fault. I did not document the new category well enough and so it began to be misused.

3778: 3531: 3503: 3447: 2833: 1921: 1592: 1332:

Note: Wiktionary does not keep protologisms but they are better equipped to make the determination when a word is reaching wider acceptance.

6151:

Friday and Stifle are entirely correct. We do, I think, set the bar for assertions fairly low, and I suppose that's altogether appropriate.

5966: 5841: 5151:

You are, however, correct in stating that you never took the necessary steps to "make a structural alteration to Knowledge." You should have

1793:. In cases where legal threats are intermixed with good content, the page can be deleted, and then only the non-offensive revisions undeleted. 162: 6026:

to delete without discussion in an objective way. I propose that the guideline be scrapped as it does not fit the consensus model currently.

4826:

You believe that your "signpost articles" serve a unique purpose, but this is because you misunderstand the scope of disambiguation pages. —

3613:

Perhaps: Articles created within the last 48 hours which serve to promote a commercial subject and which make no assertion of notability per

3076:"In short, my proposal is to expand CSD A7 to include non-notable groups of people as well as individuals. This would apply to bands, clubs, 1998: 1033: 979: 856: 659:

What we do for orphan images which were obviously uploaded solely for an article which has now been speedily deleted? In particular I mean

5687: 5505: 5209: 3645:

I think 48-hours makes a good anti-spam rule. In general, I would prefer not to speedy unless we have to, or the deletion is a no-brainer.

1309: 5643: 2773: 1917: 1827: 1745: 1676:

is useful too: If you're still the top edit 5 days after the PROD, it hasn't been fixed or removed; if you're not, go see what happened.

1607:, for instance, and have no assertion to anything resembling notability, it seems reasonable to speedy them to me. I realize the uses of 1370: 727:

Yes, I thought it was common sense, and I'm pleased to see others agree. If no-one objects, I propose tweaking JDoorjam's wording thus:

633: 47: 17: 388:

I can only echo the sentiments expressed above. It makes no sense to delete (rather than blank) IP talk pages, and I just noticed that

3837:

tag on it alleviate that problem? It sounds like that's what it is, and no one expects a dab page to be full of enriching information.

3054:

Common sense should prevail, but often doesn't. I've edited to "provided the page's only substantial content was added by its author".

2353:

In an effort to reduce the number of copyvio images on Knowledge, I'd like to suggest the following new criterion for speedy deletion:

866:

But aside from my distaste for the article, it is clearly about a topic which, even as a redirect, would have no value for Knowledge. -

6423:

Fine. However I stand by my position that we need to reduce the edit rate on policies to give the admins half a chance of keeping up.

3890: 1887: 1488:, and apologize when they find out. The trolls who post OR should probably see the consensus of AfD anyway, so they don't come back. 3082: 642: 2766: 5373:

That template says that there was no license. The problem Carnildo describes is one where the user has created a template for an

5567:

Or you could just blank the redirect. That seems like a complicated rule when it's not like you need to get rid of the history.

4967:

participate in such a discussion. Pcb21 unilaterally deemed it "bogus" and restored the category without discussion of any kind.

3290: 3281: 3276: 3269: 2734: 1137:

I have to disagree. The description calls only for the speedy deletion of words that are unambiguously non-notable or contrived.

210:

I have no objections to blanking, it probally is easier on the admins too (those 2500 pages are less than 1% of the bots run) --

3364:

Expanding CSD seems pretty silly at the moment as PROD, which has virtually the same overhead, seems to be working pretty well.

6351: 5339: 1960:

Any Portal created as a skeleton, a stub, or a simple collection of links for which no other work has been done in over 60 days

1697:

G5 is for banned users. But what about proven sockpuppets of permblocked users? Shouldn't they be speedied as well? (example:

1078:

on the various "this is a word we made up last Friday" or "we're trying to get this word into common parlance" type articles.

6549: 2310:

I have not done a exhaustive study on the last point, but I am watching the page. The rest of this I believe to be consensus.

772:}} to deal with them. If they're free use, then they should probably go to IFD, but I don't see any real objections to people 2443: 1900:, which are likely to attract large numbers of interested readers and portal maintainers." However, we currently have on MfD 1151:

would remain the venues of choice for controversial deletions, as is right and proper. This wouldn't make speedy deletion of

4012:

In addition I notice you have been creating inappropriate redirects to try hide the fact that we need these signpost pages!

4437:

In addition I notice you have been creating inappropriate redirects to try hide the fact that we need these signpost pages!

4309:

You're welcome to formally propose your setup (a step that you've repeatedly bypassed), but please stop ignoring consensus.

2649:

Well, I'm assuming a good prod outcome here, I did notice that note, but we're not 36 hours officially down yet, either. --

1464: 3005:

guard against overly literal readings, I think a better choice would be to change "provided the page was..." to "provided

5525: 5022:

You're right, you're right, no two ways about it. I should've thought this over more, thanks for pointing out my errors.

3714: 2579: 1673: 1359: 4922:

Additionally, I'm under the impression that a signpost article is intended to be an article, albeit perhaps a short one.

2791:}} that is public domain, or any image that is GFDL with the description and file history of the page copied to Commons. 3338:

The question for us should rather be: what is the most thorough and effective way to describe and explain this policy?

3069: 2152:(e.g., "He is a funny man that has created Factory and the Hacienda. And, by the way, his wife is great."). Limited con 1896:, although the policy page for these states that "Portals are not appropriate for every topic. Only create portals for 6357:

22:03, 7 May 2006 Geni protected Knowledge:Criteria for speedy deletion (Edit rate is far to high for a policy page. )

2431: 6013: 2605: 2123: 2101: 2018: 1974: 1942: 1058: 5422:; sooner or later, someone's going to get the idea of actually creating it. I expect to see more as time goes by.-- 3865:

Maybe we should have a "signpost article" cat and template, as a subcat of the dab cat, thus avoiding that problem.

5265:

Thanks for the input. I think db-vandalism works for the situation I've described, so I'll use that from now on.

3551:

Yes, you put your finger on it: it's handling a pretty routine ocurrence (pretty much every time I do a session at

2950: 2393: 2047: 1931: 1864: 1824: 1774: 1742: 729:"Images used on speedily deleted pages may themselves be speedily deleted if they are of little encyclopedic value" 6471:

Agreed; I don't think semi-protection would be out-of-order for a page that so often gets attention from vandals.

2972:

I think that at least (1) and (2) are uncontroversial -- an edit that adds {{afd}} or {{db}} obviously should not

2028:

I support the first two proposed criteria. I would hesitate on the third one. Most portals in such a state should

6499: 5971: 1733:

riddled with legal threats, it may be possible to do a full deletion/partial restore without the legal threats. —

549: 342: 6089:, there ought to be an advice to article creators that if they create an article in multiple edits, they should 4393:

But now that it has been (I hope!) please do not hinder the improvement of the encyclopedia by process-fiddling.

2348: 4002:

bogus. To repeat, the dab template says "This is a disambiguation page: a list of articles associated with the

1957:

non-stub articles detailing subject matter that would be appropriate to discuss under the title of that Portal.

3201:"if anybody wishes to change policy, please seek changes to the WP:CSD page, and try to gain consensus first." 3084:(my highlighting) Specifically, I would like to add the following words (in bold) to the current description: 1036:, is a perfectly valuable and valid Knowledge and I personally have no problem with it remaining on the site. 148:

of those IPs are preserved in the edit history. The related warning messages should be too, even if years old.

6259:

To contest a CSD tag you need to make a comment on the talk page of the relevant article, optionally placing

6158: 2993: 2371: 2336:

Agreed. These statements belong here on the Talk page (or perhaps a guideline page), not on the policy page.

1431: 1384: 752:

if an image is free and properly sourced, we might as well let it be and see if anyone finds a use for it. —

3666:

including articles which are blatant advertising for a commercial organisation, created in the last 48 hours

1761:

k, I'll wait a bit more for comments before adding it. For those curious, this was suggested as a result of

1081:

I don't know if this needs a brand-new section, it could easily be a subsection of CSD/A7, a la CSD/A7(1).

6402:

hardening policy pages. I agree with the sentiment, Geni, but don't think locking the page is the answer.

5906: 5779: 5731: 3749: 3595: 3368: 3227: 2114: 2092: 2009: 1965: 1550: 470: 5442:

be deleted, it's only a question of if it will be as soon as they are discovered, or seven days later. --

2052: 2042: 2005: 1542: 5982:, I'm posting it here again so that all of you notorious vandalfighting lads are sure to hear about it. 4163:

To repeat, the dab template says "This is a disambiguation page: a list of articles associated with the

861:

so many separate violations of Knowledge policy that cleanup would present a serious mental health risk.

6580: 5962: 5929: 5837: 3439:

Is there any support for proposing a CSD "blatant spam" criterion? I am in two minds about it myself.

3190:

support. And yah, it is an expansion. If it wasn't, you wouldn't have any reason to propose it. --

2136: 1807: 1789: 1498: 881:

and warring, when a redirect with merging worthwhile info keeps the info and discourages recreation. --

678: 38: 6093:

by writing the part that explains why the topic is notable. But in any case, an article does not even

1635: 1373:) whose description page replicates the Commons description, or does not include any new information. 6530:

seriously vandalised. If vandalism steps up, then we'll protect. Otherwise, it should stay as it is.

5238: 5125: 5006: 4558: 4265:

It's merely a project category. It isn't used for article navigation, so size isn't a major concern.

4120: 2263:.) If these are in fact consensus, they should be added, with a suggestion to consider alternatives. 2229: 1908:(both leaning heavily towards deletion as inappropriate for a Portal), and we have recently deleted 1837:

legal threats can be speedied, not that an article can be speedief if somebody makes a legal threat

6062:

all then how is notability able to be determined by an isolated individual, as in the CSD process?

3426: 3343: 3297: 3208: 3182: 3152: 1692: 1460: 758: 506: 436: 307: 2477:

a CSD peer review. In short the proposal is a template that "brings a page to CSD's attention". --

6406: 6022:

has not been decided on how can someone justify using criteria pre-emptively developed using the

5972: 5518: 4869:

obviously discussion about the issue, which is exactly what would've happened had he taken it to

3365: 2797: 2788: 2184: 1964:

This is more or less a seed, and I seek the consensus of the community in this proposal. Cheers!

1330:

any neologism article to Wiktionary and immediately delete (or redirect) the Knowledge version.

1231: 1203: 1163: 1111: 956: 905: 703: 4349:

I am very sorry that the purpose of the category was not made clear during that deletion debate.

6594: 6371: 6052:

of notability. If there is any reason to suspect someone might disagree, it can't be used. --

5814: 5799: 3743:

I like it. It might not be bad to mention prod there, too, as an alternative in some cases. --

3589:

Is there a basic timing thing for how long it takes for Google to grab an article from here? --

2037: 1587:

potentially good article. It's a good choice when there's a chance the article can be improved.

1322:

has been true in essentially every neologism case that I've reviewed. They are articles about

6250:

Articles go to AfD if someone nominates them. I don't know of any policy other than that. --

5000:

a discussion (which Pcb21 decided to ignore) had concluded. It should not be recreated until

3117:

A company is "an organization of individuals conducting a commercial or industrial enterprise"

2558:

Is there anywhere I can get a list of maintenance tags? Please reply on my talk page if so. --

6367:

I don't consider that an adequate reason to protect this important policy page from editing.

6331: 6201: 6068: 6032: 5582: 5392:

I've seen two of them go by in the nine days that OrphanBot's been doing new-upload tagging:

2877: 2822: 2778: 1571: 105: 6432:

This talk page is edited half-a-dozen times a day; I don't have trouble keeping up with it.

6290: 3021: 1953:

Any Portal based on a topic for which there are not a non-stub header article, and at least

1798: 1084:

Basically, without causing instruction creep, I'd like to avoid having prolonged debates on

6312: 6103: 5750: 5701: 5572: 5553:

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Multiple_pages_with_differently_capitalised_names

5529: 5412:, created on December 10, 2004. I've also seen a number of invocations of the nonexistant 3636: 3487: 3321: 3043: 3011: 2832:

I agree with the proposal, many admins already speedy images that are already in commons --

2719: 2673: 2640: 2587: 2549: 2509: 2357:

CSD I6: Missing fair-use claim. Any image uploaded after April 13, 2006, tagged only with

1990: 1874: 1860: 1842: 1820: 1770: 1738: 1625: 1537: 1505: 1442: 594: 311: 152:

Shouldn't irrelevant old messages simply be removed by blanking the page (thus essentially

8: 6534: 6480: 6308: 6005: 5944: 5867: 5634: 3517: 3465:

companies of no or doubtful notability. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the arguments above.

3386: 3339: 3293: 3204: 3178: 3148: 3124: 2897: 2866: 2846: 2811: 2801: 2419: 1646: 1484:, with a note as to why? I've seen some of these, and the authors often don't know about 1456: 1271: 1267:

Good idea. I don't see why we can speedy NN people and not equally-obviously NN words. --

941: 753: 686: 536: 502: 432: 306:

Also, tawkerbot has been adding this to user pages with useful templates on them such as

247: 6125:

another discussion.) Once an assertion of notability exists, it must go to prod or AFD.

5694:

Knowledge:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 27#Category:Online Soccer Project Alpha

5120:

Deletion pages are not somehow a "greater authority" whose mistakes cannot be corrected.

1924:, the Portal was deleted for being a stub which had not been touched in months (compare 974:

would cause redlinks here. Let's throw out some examples. I might create a page called,

6414: 5876: 5533: 5514: 5484: 5245: 5191: 5026: 4877: 3951: 3931: 3897: 3869: 3841: 3418: 3401: 2430:

I've suggested an alternate way to bring these images back into our cleanup process at

2260: 2192: 2169: 1705: 1661: 1227: 1199: 1159: 1107: 964: 913: 711: 5639:

Privacy vio should be on the list, e.g. personal details, private correspondence etc.

1833:

It would be well if the language made it explicit that the intention is that articles

799:"valid fancruft" which is notable in its own way, I propose the following ammendment: 6461: 6231: 5795: 5667: 5383: 5231: 5155: 3029: 2990: 2871: 2836: 2816: 2567: 2531: 2486: 2217: 1428: 1381: 1337: 1063:

I see that this has been discussed before, but without apparent result / consensus.

737: 668: 576: 484: 449: 233: 153: 4979:

I'm not forcing my viewpoint. I'm following policy by honoring community consensus.

1006:

are added on a typical day? Could a user reasonably visit and read them all? half? -

6557: 6548:; semi-protection might not be out of order but it would have to be permanent, and 6390: 6336: 6298: 6275: 6206: 6143: 6130: 6073: 6037: 5495: 5296: 3704: 3412: 3137: 3059: 2917: 2361: 2167:

is there a reason for the underlining? An explanation would be appreciated... : -->

2083: 1938: 1893: 1568: 781: 623: 614:

This is too subject to interpretation to be of any use. And indeed, as Rob says, {{

466: 3788:

A3 used in a way that hampers my ability to create something useful for the reader

6433: 6263: 6242: 5986: 5762: 5713: 5605: 5595: 5568: 5558: 5323: 5310: 5284: 5271: 5221: 5207: 5178: 5089: 5065: 5014: 4898: 4827: 4695: 4627: 4500: 4446: 4068: 4016: 3990: 3881: 3857: 3818: 3646: 3632: 3483: 3317: 3039: 2759: 2715: 2669: 2636: 2583: 2545: 2505: 2311: 2264: 1985: 1677: 1621: 1489: 1313: 1037: 923: 590: 394: 266: 192: 3088:

7. Unremarkable people or groups / vanity pages. An article about a real person

541:"Articles that are blatantly and unredeemably not suitable for an encyclopaedia" 119: 46:

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

6576: 6157:

Katie won the 2006 Kansas state spelling bee and represented her region at the

5994: 5958: 5953:

There having been some support and no opposition, I'm making the addition now.

5925: 5833: 5820: 5043:

Perhaps it was a mistake to undelete the category. To-reiterate why I did that:

4932: 3797: 3675: 3614: 3527: 3513: 3433: 3242:, especially if they are situated in countries such as India, Pakistan etc... 3239: 2750: 2632: 2500: 2415: 2110: 1698: 1608: 1583: 1276: 1268: 936: 769: 682: 544: 445:

The term "unencyclopedic" is too vague. Also, some blogs are clearly notable. —

389: 370: 337: 242: 172: 111: 2377:, with no fair use rationale, may be deleted seven days after it was uploaded. 2212:. Until we added the underlines, it was a source of considerable confusion. 2109:

I have posted the first two criteria. The third I've raised for discussion at

1815:

And leave it up to the acting sysop to decide how to handle it/deal with it. —

6545: 6411: 6403: 6315:}} at the bottom). It shouldn't be mandatory, but it would make it easier. -- 6223: 6171: 6167: 6163: 6086: 5990: 5872: 5848: 5662: 5545: 5541: 5537: 5471: 5460: 5443: 5423: 5351: 5242: 5145: 5023: 4989: 4892: 4874: 4870: 3948: 3928: 3894: 3866: 3838: 3793: 3730: 3696: 3683: 3618: 3578: 3557: 3498: 3466: 3440: 3393: 3381: 3352: 3191: 3173: 3165: 2977: 2770: 2397: 2382: 2300: 2296: 2256: 2248: 2189: 2181: 2067: 2063: 1715: 1702: 1653: 1641: 1604: 1485: 1478: 1351: 1289: 1219: 1213: 1191: 1148: 1141: 1085: 1000: 990: 961: 953: 910: 902: 773: 708: 700: 615: 606: 6162:

seems to assert notability, even as I'd surely support "delete" at AfD (per

2964:

I suggest to add, after "edited only by its author", the following phrase:

1327: 560: 6457: 6316: 6227: 5979: 5890: 5652: 5379: 5361: 4305:

To have a sister category that actually says what its makes a lot of sense.

3831: 3311:

This is an expansion, because A7 is not currently used this way even if it

3025: 2987: 2939: 2861: 2806: 2559: 2523: 2478: 2337: 2213: 1425: 1378: 1365: 1333: 733: 664: 572: 457:

I suspect (correct me if I'm wrong) that King of Hearts means a page being

446: 282: 4910:

of links disambiguating between (semi)unrelated topics with similar names.

3719:

Before the last para of the intro I suggest something along the lines of:

3078:

organizations, couples, families, and any other collections of individuals

2986:

This is common sense... do we really need to explicitly add that clause? ~

6553: 6326: 6294: 6271: 6251: 6196: 6140: 6126: 6116: 6063: 6053: 6027: 6019: 5491: 5365: 5293: 4111:

It was a great shame that I was away when that debate occured because it

3998:

It was a great shame that I was away when that debate occured because it

3700: 3454: 3255: 3055: 2913: 2742: 2611: 2435: 2401: 2326: 2080: 1724: 1612: 1557: 1418: 1403: 1007: 867: 827: 777: 619: 462: 422:

An obvious hoax, including facts that are impossible to happen in reality

211: 2926:

While true that images can go through IfD (though I'm not so sure about

2299:. TfD consensuses are rarely brought up, and very rarely overturned, on 641:

Please see this proposal to add the A3 reasons to the db-empty template

5757: 5747: 5708: 5698: 5318: 5305: 5279: 5266: 5216: 5202: 5083: 5062: 4955:

Also, next time you have a problem with a page, could you talk it over

4944: 4689: 4624: 4506: 4062: 4013: 3959: 3878: 3854: 3815: 3243: 3147:

Please comment, and share your thoughts and opinions below. Thank you.

3118: 2079:

hidden away for ages that was a no-brainer that couldn't be no-brained.

1752: 1522: 261: 188: 159: 131: 6102:, even though unreferenced and unlikely, would constitute notability. 5819:

I would like to add a clause to G4 to say that articles deleted under

5649:

Private correspondence needs a very limited scope to prevent abuse. --

1402:: I am not able to do that, since it is not present on this project. - 6572: 6544:

I tend to agree. Pre-emptive protection is reserved for the likes of

6442: 6424: 6381: 5954: 5921: 5829: 3849:

If it stops others making mistakes then I will use that if necessary.

2251:; and if they are, deletion tends to be quietly and quickly endorsed. 2234:

The following statements on userboxes are all, I believe, consensus:

1638:. It's easy enough to use to keep track of previously prodded pages. 1296: 4441:

No. I replaced some of your inappropriate "signpost articles" with

2931: 1902:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Malaysian expressway system

6509: 6001:

and the main page before posting, that's all we ask. Thanks, lads.

5640: 5215:

There's {{db-nonsense}} and {{db-bio}} for situations like that. --

4943:

individually), their respective pages should serve as redirects. (

3801: 1531:

This is in the order of "stop or I'll say stop again." Admins are

646: 3267:"This includes bands, clubs, organizations, couples and families." 2290:

Discussing one's concerns with the makers and users of the box; or

982:

is not referenced external to Knowledge. It borders on (but isn't

461:

a blog, rather than an encyclopedia article about a blog. Right?

6370:

I am notifying Geni and I am asking him to remove protection. --

3552: 3106:

this is not intended to change the agreed-upon policy in any way.

2935: 2927: 1950:

Any topic that would be subject to speedy deletion as an Article.

5916:

You're right of course. By "taken to AFD" I meant "taken to AFD

1212:

Ah. I note now your generalized opposition to multiple parts of

1074:

include new words with very limited usage. I'd like it to focus

191:'s propositions and resolution seem perfect. Any objections?? -- 6513: 3671:

Or possibly, add the 48 hours to the header along the lines of

2244:

Speedying userbozes can, and has, caused division and ill-will.

655:

Speedy deletion of image uploaded for speedily-deleted article?

4613:

Yes, and that's referring to the disambiguation page's title,

4221:

Perhaps we should change the name. Why don't you propose that?

4171:

Yes, and that's referring to the disambiguation page's title,

3977:

Disambiguation pages are used to list topics that might share

2204:

for the need to emphasize the difference between a lack of con

5438:

I'm talking about templates here, not images. The templates

6516: 6155:

surely qualifies for {{db-empty}} or {{db-bio}} , while

4217:

You may also care to look up "ambiguous" in the dictionary.

3141: 2156:

is not in itself a reason to delete if there is enough con

952:

Tooootally already made that joke three postings ago. ;-)

6520: 5657: 559:

Speedy-transwiki used to be the normal interpretation of

4353:

It was clear. The participants rejected your reasoning.

3777:

I dunno, probably not much better but it's a thought. --

3098:

family, online community, company or other organization—

1173:

non-notable and worthless, it'll get deleted as such. --

2255:(There's just been another example of this ill-will on 1910:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Arlington, MA

1906:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Famous Slaves

1714:

Yes. It's the user that's banned, not the account. --

1451:

original research, and by that I mean they explicitly

1066:

I'd like to add a CSD criteria to make articles about

3943:. Whaddya think? (Oh, and further converse should go 3080:

that do not assert their importance or significance."

2544:

add maintenance tags, and/or submit to AfD or prod.

1763:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/User:Daniel Brandt

425:

An attempt to start up a website on a Knowledge page

6187:

Notifying contributors should be enforceable policy

4935:is a random example.) If the subjects are notable 2582:. Putting on your talk page too, at your request. 1914:

Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Family Guy

817:establishment of the setting or tone of the story. 232:associated with a recurring vandal. Best regards, 6191:Notifying the original contributors to an article 5865:It sounds like a good idea. No objections here. -- 3274:"This includes bands, clubs, couples and families" 2448:I often come across newly created pages which I'm 2141:Maybe I'm missing something, but in the guideline 410:9. A page that is blatantly unencyclopedic, i.e.: 310:, which has an informational sharedip template. -- 5920:". Leaving it alone is of course also an option. 5009:. This addition was unanimously removed, but he 2635:, and help us solve this problem satisfactorily. 1032:I have to say that the page given as an example, 6526:We don't protect pre-emptively. This page isn't 3482:don't think speedying is necessary, personally. 2767:Knowledge:Templates for deletion#Template:Db-web 1095:The language I'd like to add is something like: 859:. I'm almost tempted to request a new criteria: 1926:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Uganda 1222:, what would be the least harmful way to do it? 1155:notable / legit words a discretionary function. 403:Proposal for blantantly unencyclopedic articles 2955:The current policy allows speedy deletion for 2148:Very short articles providing little or no con 1922:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Kenya 5548:no longer bore any relation to that article. 1941:that are not speedy deletion candidates, use 1034:Typical Earth Alliance Permanent Space Colony 980:Typical Earth Alliance Permanent Space Colony 857:Typical Earth Alliance Permanent Space Colony 1797:Though I suppose, if we want to cut down on 1371:Image:Platform Sandal wood Buffalo brown.jpg 768:If they're fair use, then there's already {{ 2432:Template_talk:No_license#Extending_template 1918:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Oz 1070:protologisms / neologisms speedyable. This 18:Knowledge talk:Criteria for speedy deletion 4823:be similar, but this is not a requirement. 4758:Your thought appears to have been cut off. 2200:See the various discussion starting about 1783:Here's a rough stab the language I'd use: 794:Porposal for expansion of Articles item #7 241:I agree; blanking makes a lot more sense. 116:Category:IP talk pages for speedy deletion 6270:the page can optionally be taken to ?FD. 5053:I should've have spent more effort on it. 2036:isn't good enough for speedy deletion. -- 2247:TfD'd userboxes tend not to be taken to 5360:How about redirecting the templates to 4445:redirects as I emptied the category. — 2735:Knowledge:Ammendment to deletion policy 2238:There is no consensus on userbox policy 2075:I'll support all three. We had a crude 419:A discussion of what happened in school 407:I want to propose CSD A9, which states 14: 6550:protected pages are considered harmful 5490:or the like. No need to speedy these. 4939:as elements of a broader subject (and 2765:(a newly made speedy deletion tag) at 1892:The CSD currently has no criteria for 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 6441:we have rather a lot of policy pages. 5851:), so this is a natural extension. - 5741:I think that's a case for not having 5526:Talk:Lingua Franca was boldly deleted 5524:There is already precedent for this: 3927:. I'll go and make the template now. 3453:Try a couple sections up from here. - 2755:Please discuss the TFD nomination of 2272:I propose, therefore, the following: 2008:(presuming they have no sub-pages)? 539:on this one, except I'd reword it as 6389:Perhaps this page is controversial? 5789:How can we tell if the category has 5688:Categories relating to AfD deletions 5506:New criterion proposal for redirects 4754:DR is for reviewing any mistakes the 4565:DR is for reviewing any mistakes the 3893:. I'm about to go and make the cat. 25: 4619:to the individual articles' titles. 4177:to the individual articles' titles. 2930:being backed up much), it's a real 2580:Knowledge:Template messages/Cleanup 2295:Nominating the box for deletion on 1350:its mirrors before being speedied. 1295:should be more than sufficient. -- 23: 6456:just to keep that under control. 5317:Thanks for the good advice. :-) 4996:The category wasn't deleted until 24: 6608: 5161:your setup (and you still could). 1943:Knowledge:Miscellany for deletion 1888:Proposed CSD criteria for Portals 1218:If words *had* to be included in 5989:. This is a process, similar to 3767:If the problem is just that the 488: 29: 5668: 5663: 5658: 5653: 5480:Just redirect the templates to 2568: 2560: 2532: 2524: 2487: 2479: 1765:(which was closed as delete). — 1538: 6352:Protection of this policy page 5532:- it used to be a redirect to 5340:New template deletion criteria 3792:I am an active participant in 3664:So a possible addition to A7: 1510:List of environment topics:F-G 114:add a Talk:IP that I watch to 13: 1: 6407: 6159:Scripps National Spelling Bee 5978:Although I've posted this on 5752: 5703: 3676:the proposed deletion process 2444:Proposal for new CSD template 2185: 1364:Hi all. While working on the 1272: 957: 906: 704: 491: 6115:mean it can be speedied. -- 4557:Then take your grievance to 4119:Then take your grievance to 2787:a. Any image tagged with {{ 1636:list of previous nominations 1519:List of environment topics:G 1515:List of environment topics:F 1447:How about articles that are 1398:different from deleting the 485: 7: 6048:A7 is for articles with no 5823:and then re-created should 5402:, created on the 22nd, and 3715:Suggested addition to intro 3140:is also a "group of people" 1360:New image criteria proposal 976:Earth Alliance Space Colony 634:Propose to change template 10: 6613: 6153:Katie won the spelling bee 5785:18:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 5768:17:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 5737:15:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 5719:15:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 5681:05:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 5644:01:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC) 5629:14:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 5609:12:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 5599:12:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 5577:18:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 5562:15:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 5475:01:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 5464:01:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC) 5447:01:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 5388:02:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC) 5369:22:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 5355:22:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 5326:19:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 5313:19:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 5300:19:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 5287:19:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 5274:19:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 5261:19:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 5249:19:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 5224:19:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 5210:19:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 5182:16:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 5069:12:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 5030:17:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 5018:16:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 4881:07:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 4831:16:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 4631:12:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 4450:02:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 4020:01:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 3994:00:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 3966:, which was deleted per a 3964:Category:Signpost articles 3955:21:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 3935:18:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 3901:18:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 3885:18:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 3873:18:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 3861:17:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 3845:17:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 3822:17:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC) 3782:02:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 3755:21:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3738:21:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3691:13:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC) 3650:02:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 3641:00:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 3626:21:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3601:17:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3582:17:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3565:17:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3535:17:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3521:17:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3507:17:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3492:16:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3474:16:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3460:15:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3448:15:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3422:14:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3408:23:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC) 3372:05:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 3356:05:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC) 3346:09:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 3326:14:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3300:09:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC) 3261:13:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3247:12:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3233:12:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3211:11:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3195:10:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3185:10:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3169:10:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3155:09:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3109:no opposing "keep" votes. 3070:Adding more examples to A7 3048:04:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 3034:22:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 3015:22:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 2997:22:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 2981:22:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 2901:23:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 2883:23:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 2850:21:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 2839:21:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 2828:21:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 2774:05:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 2746:19:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 2724:17:53, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 2695:16:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 2678:16:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 2661:16:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 2645:16:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 2626:16:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 2592:16:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 2575:15:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 2554:17:46, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 2539:17:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 2514:16:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 2494:16:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 2456:The proposed template is: 2439:16:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC) 2423:08:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC) 2405:01:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 2386:01:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC) 2341:02:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC) 2332:22:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 2315:15:32, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 2268:21:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 2128:20:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 2106:18:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 1979:15:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 1681:15:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 1493:15:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 1469:00:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC) 1435:23:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1409:22:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1388:22:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC) 1355:04:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC) 1342:14:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC) 1317:10:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC) 1302:21:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC) 1280:20:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC) 1253:14:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC) 1236:02:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC) 1208:02:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC) 1185:01:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC) 1168:01:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC) 1133:00:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC) 1116:23:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC) 1041:13:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 1028:23:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC) 1011:21:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC) 628:10:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC) 610:06:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 599:05:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 398:14:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC) 6014:A7 too subjective for CSD 5517:, which is a redirect to 5126:Knowledge:Deletion review 4559:Knowledge:Deletion review 4121:Knowledge:Deletion review 3979:the disambiguation page's 3104:I want to emphasise that 2606:With WP:PROD as policy... 2222:12:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 2196:00:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 2174:00:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 2087:17:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 2071:11:49, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 2058:21:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 2023:23:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 1999:20:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 1878:00:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 1868:00:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 1846:14:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC) 1828:21:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC) 1778:20:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC) 1757:11:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC) 1746:09:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC) 1719:02:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC) 1709:20:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 1668:06:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 1630:22:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC) 1616:22:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC) 1596:16:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC) 1582:I echo Doc, but add that 1576:15:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC) 1561:15:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC) 1545:01:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC) 1526:09:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC) 1059:neologisms / protologisms 968:23:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 947:23:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 927:21:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 917:20:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 893:20:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 871:20:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 851:19:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 831:19:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 764:17:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 741:17:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 715:17:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 690:17:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 672:17:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 650:06:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 581:20:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC) 555:08:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC) 529:03:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC) 510:01:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC) 497:20:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC) 475:08:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC) 453:20:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC) 440:19:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC) 374:11:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC) 348:08:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC) 315:22:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC) 286:20:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC) 276:20:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC) 253:19:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC) 237:19:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC) 215:19:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC) 196:13:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC) 176:13:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC) 163:12:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC) 6598:15:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 6585:14:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 6562:11:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 6538:05:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC) 6466:13:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 6446:06:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 6437:05:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 6342:07:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC) 6320:06:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 6175:06:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 5675: 4561:. That's what it's for. 4123:. That's what it's for. 2951:author requests deletion 2943:05:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC) 1674:Special:my contributions 1377:delete them. Thoughts? ~ 786:09:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 308:User talk:213.84.230.131 6428:23:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 6418:22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 6394:21:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 6385:18:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 6375:17:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 6303:17:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 6280:17:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 6255:17:49, 7 May 2006 (UTC) 6246:16:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC) 6236:14:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC) 6212:07:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC) 6147:17:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 6135:17:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 6120:17:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC) 6107:11:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC) 6079:10:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC) 6057:08:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC) 6043:07:14, 7 May 2006 (UTC) 6009:23:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 5973:Knowledge:Abuse reports 5967:19:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 5948:15:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 5934:16:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 5912:15:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 5895:15:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 5879:14:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 5861:10:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 5842:09:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC) 5803:16:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC) 5519:Talk:Nickel (U.S. coin) 5500:14:26, 6 May 2006 (UTC) 5081:The following reply to 4890:The following reply to 4687:The following reply to 4498:The following reply to 4060:The following reply to 3962:unilaterally recreated 3709:14:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC) 3695:It's too subjective. {{ 3064:14:29, 6 May 2006 (UTC) 2922:14:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC) 2170:\\/\//esleyPinkha//\/\\ 1916:as too narrow (compare 6085:Somewhere, perhaps on 5918:if you want it deleted 4623:This is simply untrue 3923:Hey, whaddya know? It 3774: 3726: 2800:}}, though, because {{ 463:Matthew Brown (Morven) 5241:, which that is not. 4959:you go and delete it? 4947:is a random example.) 4814:This is simply untrue 3806:Flemings and Walloons 3765: 3721: 1801:, we could just use: 996:these days? How many 42:of past discussions. 2372:Non-free fair use in 2349:Let's try this again 1551:Non-notable articles 1506:User talk:Wavelength 5513:A case in point is 3972:its deletion debate 3827:Wouldn't putting a 3331:This is not a vote. 2160:to allow expansion. 1898:broad subject areas 1092:a week of that :) 5692:The CfD debate at 5534:Talk:Lingua franca 5515:Talk:Nickel (coin) 3366:Christopher Parham 2396:would still go to 2394:fair use rationale 2137:Random underlines? 1499:Handling G7 and A3 128:Recycling IP pages 6464: 6291:instruction creep 6234: 5910: 5783: 5766: 5735: 5717: 5386: 5198:blatant absurdity 3753: 3599: 3458: 3405: 3259: 3231: 3032: 3022:instruction creep 2938:is backlogged. -- 2693: 2659: 2624: 2330: 2230:A modest proposal 2220: 2208:and a lack of con 2077:Portal:South Park 1997: 1799:instruction creep 1665: 1634:Don't forget the 1573: 1407: 1340: 1251: 1183: 1131: 1106:What say you? — 1026: 970: 891: 849: 762: 579: 527: 274: 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 6604: 6523: 6506: 6505: 6502: 6496: 6488: 6483: 6478: 6460: 6409: 6339: 6334: 6329: 6268: 6262: 6230: 6209: 6204: 6199: 6076: 6071: 6066: 6040: 6035: 6030: 5904: 5875: 5870: 5777: 5760: 5755: 5754: 5729: 5711: 5706: 5705: 5677: 5670: 5665: 5660: 5655: 5489: 5483: 5421: 5415: 5411: 5405: 5401: 5395: 5382: 5321: 5282: 5269: 5236: 5230: 5205: 5174: 5160: 5154: 5142: 5121: 5105: 5092: 5086: 4993: 4976: 4960: 4923: 4911: 4901: 4895: 4815: 4755: 4698: 4692: 4620: 4562: 4509: 4503: 4438: 4394: 4350: 4306: 4262: 4218: 4168: 4167:" (my emphasis). 4116: 4071: 4065: 3836: 3830: 3747: 3734: 3687: 3622: 3593: 3561: 3470: 3457: 3444: 3427:A7 and companies 3406: 3399: 3396: 3391: 3384: 3258: 3225: 3138:online community 3129: 3123: 3028: 3024:is a bad thing. 2869: 2814: 2764: 2758: 2687: 2653: 2618: 2572: 2564: 2536: 2528: 2491: 2483: 2475: 2469: 2465: 2459: 2376: 2370: 2366: 2360: 2329: 2216: 2187: 2164: 2121: 2099: 2066:handle them. -- 2055: 2050: 2045: 2040: 2032:be deleted, but 2016: 1994: 1988: 1972: 1693:G5 clarification 1666: 1659: 1656: 1651: 1644: 1572: 1540: 1483: 1477: 1423: 1417: 1406: 1336: 1294: 1288: 1274: 1245: 1177: 1146: 1140: 1125: 1020: 1005: 999: 995: 989: 959: 951: 908: 885: 865: 843: 756: 706: 679:use common sense 575: 521: 493: 490: 487: 270: 264: 259: 250: 245: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 6612: 6611: 6607: 6606: 6605: 6603: 6602: 6601: 6507: 6500: 6494: 6491: 6486: 6481: 6476: 6472: 6434:Septentrionalis 6354: 6337: 6332: 6327: 6266: 6260: 6243:Septentrionalis 6207: 6202: 6197: 6189: 6104:Henning Makholm 6100:if assumed true 6074: 6069: 6064: 6038: 6033: 6028: 6016: 5976: 5868: 5866: 5817: 5751: 5702: 5690: 5683: 5637: 5585: 5530:Commander Keane 5508: 5487: 5481: 5419: 5413: 5409: 5407:Indiancopyright 5403: 5399: 5393: 5342: 5319: 5280: 5267: 5239:patent nonsense 5234: 5228: 5203: 5194: 5172: 5158: 5152: 5139: 5119: 5103: 5088: 5087:was written by 5082: 5007:Manual of Style 4986: 4974: 4954: 4921: 4908: 4897: 4896:was written by 4891: 4813: 4753: 4694: 4693:was written by 4688: 4612: 4556: 4505: 4504:was written by 4499: 4436: 4392: 4348: 4304: 4260: 4216: 4162: 4110: 4067: 4066:was written by 4061: 3834: 3828: 3814:thing in mind? 3790: 3769:current version 3732: 3717: 3685: 3647:Septentrionalis 3620: 3559: 3468: 3442: 3429: 3415: 3394: 3387: 3382: 3379: 3127: 3121: 3094:—for example, a 3092:group of people 3072: 3012:Henning Makholm 2953: 2880: 2867: 2825: 2812: 2781: 2762: 2756: 2753: 2738: 2608: 2473: 2467: 2463: 2457: 2446: 2374: 2368: 2364: 2358: 2351: 2312:Septentrionalis 2265:Septentrionalis 2232: 2163: 2147: 2144: 2139: 2115: 2093: 2053: 2048: 2043: 2038: 2010: 1992: 1966: 1934: 1890: 1875:Henning Makholm 1843:Henning Makholm 1727: 1695: 1678:Septentrionalis 1654: 1647: 1642: 1639: 1553: 1501: 1490:Septentrionalis 1481: 1475: 1445: 1421: 1415: 1366:untagged images 1362: 1292: 1286: 1144: 1138: 1061: 1003: 997: 993: 987: 944: 863: 796: 657: 639: 618:}} is perfect. 552: 405: 345: 271: 268: 262: 248: 243: 118:. It refers to 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 6610: 6590: 6589: 6588: 6587: 6542: 6541: 6540: 6453: 6452: 6451: 6450: 6449: 6448: 6399: 6398: 6397: 6396: 6359: 6358: 6353: 6350: 6349: 6348: 6347: 6346: 6345: 6344: 6286: 6285: 6284: 6283: 6282: 6257: 6188: 6185: 6184: 6183: 6182: 6181: 6180: 6179: 6178: 6177: 6122: 6083: 6082: 6081: 6015: 6012: 5975: 5970: 5951: 5950: 5938: 5937: 5936: 5902:badlydrawnjeff 5897: 5883: 5882: 5881: 5816: 5815:Addition to G4 5813: 5812: 5811: 5810: 5809: 5808: 5807: 5806: 5805: 5775:badlydrawnjeff 5727:badlydrawnjeff 5689: 5686: 5685: 5684: 5650: 5636: 5633: 5632: 5631: 5621: 5584: 5581: 5580: 5579: 5507: 5504: 5503: 5502: 5467: 5466: 5452: 5451: 5450: 5449: 5431: 5430: 5429: 5428: 5427: 5426: 5417:RightsReserved 5347: 5346: 5341: 5338: 5337: 5336: 5335: 5334: 5333: 5332: 5331: 5330: 5329: 5328: 5315: 5253: 5252: 5251: 5193: 5190: 5189: 5188: 5187: 5186: 5185: 5184: 5167: 5166: 5165: 5164: 5163: 5162: 5149: 5134: 5133: 5132: 5131: 5130: 5129: 5114: 5113: 5112: 5111: 5110: 5109: 5098: 5097: 5096: 5095: 5074: 5072: 5071: 5058: 5054: 5051: 5048: 5044: 5039: 5037: 5036: 5035: 5034: 5033: 5032: 4983: 4982: 4981: 4980: 4971: 4970: 4969: 4968: 4951: 4950: 4949: 4948: 4933:Sonny and Cher 4928: 4918: 4917: 4916: 4915: 4905: 4904: 4885: 4862: 4860: 4859: 4858: 4857: 4856: 4855: 4854: 4853: 4852: 4851: 4850: 4849: 4848: 4847: 4846: 4845: 4844: 4843: 4842: 4841: 4840: 4839: 4838: 4837: 4836: 4835: 4834: 4833: 4824: 4786: 4785: 4784: 4783: 4782: 4781: 4780: 4779: 4778: 4777: 4776: 4775: 4774: 4773: 4772: 4771: 4770: 4769: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4765: 4764: 4763: 4762: 4761: 4760: 4759: 4726: 4725: 4724: 4723: 4722: 4721: 4720: 4719: 4718: 4717: 4716: 4715: 4714: 4713: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4707: 4706: 4705: 4704: 4703: 4702: 4701: 4658: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4653: 4652: 4651: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4636: 4635: 4634: 4633: 4589: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4585: 4584: 4583: 4582: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4525: 4524: 4523: 4522: 4521: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4473: 4471: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4459: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4410: 4409: 4408: 4407: 4406: 4405: 4404: 4403: 4402: 4401: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4373: 4372: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4368: 4367: 4366: 4365: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4355: 4354: 4329: 4328: 4327: 4326: 4325: 4324: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4313: 4312: 4311: 4310: 4285: 4284: 4283: 4282: 4281: 4280: 4279: 4278: 4277: 4276: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4271: 4270: 4269: 4268: 4267: 4266: 4241: 4240: 4239: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4234: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4228: 4227: 4226: 4225: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4197: 4196: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4190: 4189: 4188: 4187: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4143: 4142: 4141: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4130: 4129: 4128: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4077: 4076: 4075: 4074: 4039: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4030: 4029: 4028: 4027: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4023: 4022: 4010: 4007: 3975: 3941:here's a start 3925:already exists 3912: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3907: 3906: 3905: 3904: 3903: 3889:Added into A3 3850: 3798:Flemish people 3789: 3786: 3785: 3784: 3764: 3763: 3758: 3757: 3745:badlydrawnjeff 3716: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3693: 3680: 3669: 3661: 3660: 3659: 3658: 3657: 3656: 3655: 3654: 3653: 3652: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3603: 3591:badlydrawnjeff 3574: 3573: 3572: 3571: 3570: 3569: 3568: 3567: 3542: 3541: 3540: 3539: 3538: 3537: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3428: 3425: 3414: 3411: 3375: 3374: 3362: 3361: 3360: 3359: 3358: 3340:GeorgeStepanek 3305: 3304: 3303: 3302: 3294:GeorgeStepanek 3280: 3250: 3249: 3235: 3223:badlydrawnjeff 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3205:GeorgeStepanek 3179:GeorgeStepanek 3149:GeorgeStepanek 3145: 3144: 3133: 3132: 3102: 3101: 3071: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3052: 3051: 3050: 3017: 2999: 2970: 2969: 2962: 2961: 2952: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2907: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2903: 2898:Dragons flight 2888: 2887: 2886: 2885: 2878: 2853: 2852: 2847:Dragons flight 2823: 2798:NowCommonsThis 2793: 2792: 2789:NowCommonsThis 2780: 2777: 2752: 2749: 2737: 2732: 2731: 2730: 2729: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2702: 2701: 2685:badlydrawnjeff 2665: 2664: 2663: 2651:badlydrawnjeff 2616:badlydrawnjeff 2607: 2604: 2603: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2594: 2517: 2516: 2445: 2442: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2425: 2408: 2407: 2379: 2378: 2350: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2343: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2292: 2281: 2280: 2253: 2252: 2245: 2242: 2239: 2231: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2161: 2145: 2138: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2129: 2073: 2060: 2026: 2025: 2024: 1962: 1961: 1958: 1951: 1933: 1930: 1889: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1881: 1880: 1813: 1812: 1795: 1794: 1781: 1780: 1759: 1726: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1699:User:Doe, John 1694: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1599: 1598: 1591:ultimately. -- 1588: 1579: 1578: 1552: 1549: 1548: 1547: 1536: 1500: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1457:Ramanpotential 1444: 1441: 1440: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1361: 1358: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1331: 1283: 1282: 1265: 1264: 1263: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1243:badlydrawnjeff 1224: 1196: 1175:badlydrawnjeff 1156: 1123:badlydrawnjeff 1104: 1103: 1060: 1057: 1056: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1018:badlydrawnjeff 949: 940: 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 883:badlydrawnjeff 841:badlydrawnjeff 823: 822: 814: 811: 807: 804: 795: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 754:Ilmari Karonen 748: 747: 746: 745: 744: 743: 720: 719: 718: 717: 693: 692: 656: 653: 638: 632: 631: 630: 612: 586: 585: 584: 583: 548: 537:King of Hearts 532: 531: 519:badlydrawnjeff 513: 512: 503:King of Hearts 499: 479: 478: 477: 433:King of Hearts 429: 428: 427: 426: 423: 420: 417: 416:Clearly a blog 404: 401: 387: 385: 384: 383: 382: 381: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 357: 356: 355: 354: 353: 352: 351: 350: 341: 326: 325: 324: 323: 322: 321: 320: 319: 318: 317: 295: 294: 293: 292: 291: 290: 289: 288: 278: 267: 255: 239: 222: 221: 220: 219: 218: 217: 203: 202: 201: 200: 199: 198: 181: 180: 179: 178: 150: 149: 142: 137: 136: 122:on this page: 112:User:Tawkerbot 107: 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 6609: 6600: 6599: 6596: 6586: 6582: 6578: 6574: 6569: 6565: 6564: 6563: 6559: 6555: 6551: 6547: 6543: 6539: 6536: 6533: 6529: 6525: 6524: 6522: 6518: 6515: 6511: 6503: 6497: 6490: 6489: 6484: 6479: 6470: 6469: 6468: 6467: 6463: 6459: 6447: 6444: 6440: 6439: 6438: 6435: 6431: 6430: 6429: 6426: 6422: 6421: 6420: 6419: 6416: 6413: 6410: 6405: 6395: 6392: 6388: 6387: 6386: 6383: 6379: 6378: 6377: 6376: 6373: 6368: 6365: 6362: 6356: 6355: 6343: 6340: 6335: 6330: 6323: 6322: 6321: 6318: 6314: 6310: 6306: 6305: 6304: 6300: 6296: 6292: 6287: 6281: 6277: 6273: 6265: 6258: 6256: 6253: 6249: 6248: 6247: 6244: 6239: 6238: 6237: 6233: 6229: 6225: 6220: 6216: 6215: 6214: 6213: 6210: 6205: 6200: 6194: 6176: 6173: 6169: 6165: 6161: 6160: 6154: 6150: 6149: 6148: 6145: 6142: 6138: 6137: 6136: 6132: 6128: 6123: 6121: 6118: 6114: 6110: 6109: 6108: 6105: 6101: 6096: 6092: 6088: 6084: 6080: 6077: 6072: 6067: 6060: 6059: 6058: 6055: 6051: 6047: 6046: 6045: 6044: 6041: 6036: 6031: 6025: 6021: 6011: 6010: 6007: 6004: 6000: 5996: 5992: 5988: 5983: 5981: 5974: 5969: 5968: 5964: 5960: 5956: 5949: 5946: 5943: 5939: 5935: 5931: 5927: 5923: 5919: 5915: 5914: 5913: 5908: 5903: 5898: 5896: 5893: 5892: 5887: 5884: 5880: 5877: 5874: 5871: 5864: 5863: 5862: 5858: 5854: 5850: 5846: 5845: 5844: 5843: 5839: 5835: 5831: 5826: 5822: 5804: 5801: 5797: 5792: 5788: 5787: 5786: 5781: 5776: 5771: 5770: 5769: 5764: 5759: 5756: 5749: 5744: 5740: 5739: 5738: 5733: 5728: 5723: 5722: 5721: 5720: 5715: 5710: 5707: 5700: 5695: 5682: 5678: 5672: 5671: 5666: 5661: 5656: 5648: 5647: 5646: 5645: 5642: 5630: 5627: 5622: 5618: 5613: 5612: 5611: 5610: 5607: 5601: 5600: 5597: 5593: 5589: 5583:Patent hoaxes 5578: 5574: 5570: 5566: 5565: 5564: 5563: 5560: 5556: 5554: 5549: 5547: 5546:Lingua Franca 5543: 5542:Lingua franca 5540:was moved to 5539: 5538:Lingua Franca 5535: 5531: 5527: 5522: 5520: 5516: 5511: 5501: 5497: 5493: 5486: 5479: 5478: 5477: 5476: 5473: 5465: 5462: 5458: 5457:this travesty 5454: 5453: 5448: 5445: 5441: 5437: 5436: 5433: 5432: 5425: 5418: 5408: 5398: 5391: 5390: 5389: 5385: 5381: 5376: 5372: 5371: 5370: 5367: 5363: 5359: 5358: 5357: 5356: 5353: 5344: 5343: 5327: 5324: 5322: 5316: 5314: 5311: 5309: 5308: 5303: 5302: 5301: 5298: 5295: 5290: 5289: 5288: 5285: 5283: 5277: 5276: 5275: 5272: 5270: 5264: 5263: 5262: 5259: 5254: 5250: 5247: 5244: 5240: 5233: 5227: 5226: 5225: 5222: 5220: 5219: 5214: 5213: 5212: 5211: 5208: 5206: 5199: 5183: 5180: 5176: 5175: 5171: 5170: 5169: 5168: 5157: 5150: 5147: 5144: 5143: 5138: 5137: 5136: 5135: 5127: 5123: 5122: 5118: 5117: 5116: 5115: 5107: 5106: 5102: 5101: 5100: 5099: 5094: 5091: 5085: 5079: 5078: 5077: 5076: 5075: 5070: 5067: 5064: 5059: 5055: 5052: 5049: 5045: 5042: 5041: 5040: 5031: 5028: 5025: 5021: 5020: 5019: 5016: 5012: 5008: 5003: 4999: 4995: 4994: 4991: 4985: 4984: 4978: 4977: 4973: 4972: 4966: 4962: 4961: 4958: 4953: 4952: 4946: 4942: 4938: 4934: 4929: 4925: 4924: 4920: 4919: 4913: 4912: 4907: 4906: 4903: 4900: 4894: 4888: 4887: 4886: 4883: 4882: 4879: 4876: 4872: 4867: 4832: 4829: 4825: 4822: 4817: 4816: 4812: 4811: 4810: 4809: 4808: 4807: 4806: 4805: 4804: 4803: 4802: 4801: 4800: 4799: 4798: 4797: 4796: 4795: 4794: 4793: 4792: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4788: 4787: 4757: 4756: 4752: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4748: 4747: 4746: 4745: 4744: 4743: 4742: 4741: 4740: 4739: 4738: 4737: 4736: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4727: 4700: 4697: 4691: 4685: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4664: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4660: 4659: 4632: 4629: 4626: 4622: 4621: 4618: 4617: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4604: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4564: 4563: 4560: 4555: 4554: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4550: 4549: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4535: 4534: 4511: 4508: 4502: 4496: 4495: 4494: 4493: 4492: 4491: 4490: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4486: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4451: 4448: 4444: 4440: 4439: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4432: 4431: 4430: 4429: 4428: 4427: 4426: 4425: 4424: 4423: 4422: 4421: 4420: 4419: 4418: 4396: 4395: 4391: 4390: 4389: 4388: 4387: 4386: 4385: 4384: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4380: 4379: 4378: 4377: 4376: 4375: 4374: 4352: 4351: 4347: 4346: 4345: 4344: 4343: 4342: 4341: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4337: 4336: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4332: 4331: 4330: 4308: 4307: 4303: 4302: 4301: 4300: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4264: 4263: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4250: 4249: 4248: 4247: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4220: 4219: 4215: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4176: 4175: 4170: 4169: 4166: 4161: 4160: 4159: 4158: 4157: 4156: 4155: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4148: 4147: 4146: 4145: 4144: 4122: 4118: 4117: 4114: 4109: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4099: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4073: 4070: 4064: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4054: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4047: 4046: 4045: 4044: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4040: 4021: 4018: 4015: 4011: 4008: 4005: 4001: 3997: 3996: 3995: 3992: 3988: 3984: 3980: 3976: 3973: 3969: 3965: 3961: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3953: 3950: 3946: 3942: 3938: 3937: 3936: 3933: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3913: 3902: 3899: 3896: 3892: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3883: 3880: 3876: 3875: 3874: 3871: 3868: 3864: 3863: 3862: 3859: 3856: 3851: 3848: 3847: 3846: 3843: 3840: 3833: 3826: 3825: 3824: 3823: 3820: 3817: 3812: 3807: 3803: 3799: 3795: 3783: 3780: 3776: 3775: 3773: 3770: 3760: 3759: 3756: 3751: 3746: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3739: 3736: 3725: 3720: 3710: 3706: 3702: 3698: 3694: 3692: 3689: 3681: 3679: 3677: 3670: 3667: 3663: 3662: 3651: 3648: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3638: 3634: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3624: 3616: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3602: 3597: 3592: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3585: 3584: 3583: 3580: 3566: 3563: 3554: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3547: 3546: 3545: 3544: 3543: 3536: 3533: 3529: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3519: 3515: 3510: 3509: 3508: 3505: 3500: 3496: 3495: 3494: 3493: 3489: 3485: 3475: 3472: 3463: 3462: 3461: 3456: 3452: 3451: 3450: 3449: 3446: 3437: 3435: 3424: 3423: 3420: 3419:Kaisershatner 3410: 3409: 3403: 3398: 3397: 3392: 3390: 3385: 3373: 3370: 3367: 3363: 3357: 3354: 3349: 3348: 3347: 3344: 3341: 3337: 3332: 3329: 3328: 3327: 3323: 3319: 3314: 3310: 3307: 3306: 3301: 3298: 3295: 3291: 3287: 3283: 3278: 3275: 3271: 3268: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3257: 3252: 3251: 3248: 3245: 3241: 3236: 3234: 3229: 3224: 3220: 3212: 3209: 3206: 3202: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3193: 3188: 3187: 3186: 3183: 3180: 3175: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3167: 3162: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3153: 3150: 3142: 3139: 3135: 3134: 3126: 3119: 3116: 3115: 3114: 3110: 3107: 3099: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3083: 3081: 3079: 3065: 3061: 3057: 3053: 3049: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3036: 3035: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3018: 3016: 3013: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2998: 2995: 2992: 2989: 2985: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2979: 2975: 2967: 2966: 2965: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2944: 2941: 2937: 2933: 2929: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2908: 2902: 2899: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2889: 2884: 2881: 2876: 2875: 2874: 2870: 2865: 2864: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2854: 2851: 2848: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2840: 2837: 2835: 2830: 2829: 2826: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2815: 2810: 2809: 2803: 2799: 2790: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2779:Proposal: I1a 2776: 2775: 2772: 2768: 2761: 2748: 2747: 2744: 2736: 2725: 2721: 2717: 2712: 2711: 2710: 2709: 2708: 2707: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2691: 2686: 2681: 2680: 2679: 2675: 2671: 2666: 2662: 2657: 2652: 2648: 2647: 2646: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2622: 2617: 2613: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2573: 2571: 2565: 2563: 2557: 2556: 2555: 2551: 2547: 2542: 2541: 2540: 2537: 2535: 2529: 2527: 2521: 2520: 2519: 2518: 2515: 2511: 2507: 2502: 2498: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2492: 2490: 2484: 2482: 2472: 2462: 2454: 2451: 2441: 2440: 2437: 2433: 2424: 2421: 2417: 2412: 2411: 2410: 2409: 2406: 2403: 2399: 2395: 2390: 2389: 2388: 2387: 2384: 2373: 2363: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2342: 2339: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2328: 2324: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2313: 2304: 2302: 2298: 2293: 2291: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2283: 2282: 2279: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2270: 2269: 2266: 2262: 2258: 2250: 2246: 2243: 2240: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2223: 2219: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2194: 2191: 2188: 2183: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2171: 2165: 2159: 2155: 2151: 2142: 2127: 2126: 2122: 2120: 2119: 2112: 2108: 2107: 2105: 2104: 2100: 2098: 2097: 2090: 2089: 2088: 2085: 2082: 2078: 2074: 2072: 2069: 2065: 2061: 2059: 2056: 2051: 2046: 2041: 2035: 2031: 2027: 2022: 2021: 2017: 2015: 2014: 2007: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1995: 1987: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1978: 1977: 1973: 1971: 1970: 1959: 1956: 1952: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1944: 1940: 1929: 1927: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1911: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1879: 1876: 1871: 1870: 1869: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1853: 1849: 1848: 1847: 1844: 1840: 1836: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1810: 1809: 1808:Legal threats 1804: 1803: 1802: 1800: 1792: 1791: 1790:Legal threats 1786: 1785: 1784: 1779: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1758: 1754: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1732: 1720: 1717: 1713: 1712: 1711: 1710: 1707: 1704: 1700: 1682: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1663: 1658: 1657: 1652: 1650: 1645: 1637: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1614: 1610: 1606: 1601: 1600: 1597: 1594: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1580: 1577: 1574: 1570: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1559: 1546: 1543: 1541: 1534: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1511: 1507: 1494: 1491: 1487: 1480: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1436: 1433: 1430: 1427: 1420: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1405: 1401: 1397: 1392: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1386: 1383: 1380: 1374: 1372: 1367: 1357: 1356: 1353: 1343: 1339: 1335: 1329: 1325: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1315: 1311: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1300: 1299: 1291: 1281: 1278: 1275: 1270: 1266: 1254: 1249: 1244: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1228:Adrian~enwiki 1225: 1223: 1221: 1215: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1200:Adrian~enwiki 1197: 1193: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1181: 1176: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1160:Adrian~enwiki 1157: 1154: 1150: 1143: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1129: 1124: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1113: 1109: 1108:Adrian~enwiki 1101: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1093: 1091: 1087: 1082: 1079: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1064: 1042: 1039: 1035: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1024: 1019: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1009: 1002: 992: 985: 981: 977: 972: 971: 969: 966: 963: 960: 955: 950: 948: 945: 943: 938: 934: 928: 925: 920: 919: 918: 915: 912: 909: 904: 900: 896: 895: 894: 889: 884: 879: 874: 873: 872: 869: 862: 858: 854: 853: 852: 847: 842: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 829: 821: 815: 812: 808: 805: 802: 801: 800: 787: 783: 779: 775: 771: 767: 766: 765: 760: 755: 750: 749: 742: 739: 735: 730: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 716: 713: 710: 707: 702: 697: 696: 695: 694: 691: 688: 684: 680: 676: 675: 674: 673: 670: 666: 662: 652: 651: 648: 644: 637: 629: 625: 621: 617: 613: 611: 608: 603: 602: 601: 600: 596: 592: 582: 578: 574: 570: 566: 562: 558: 557: 556: 551: 546: 542: 538: 534: 533: 530: 525: 520: 515: 514: 511: 508: 504: 500: 498: 495: 494: 480: 476: 472: 468: 464: 460: 456: 455: 454: 451: 448: 444: 443: 442: 441: 438: 434: 424: 421: 418: 415: 414: 413: 412: 411: 408: 400: 399: 396: 391: 375: 372: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 362: 361: 360: 359: 358: 349: 344: 339: 334: 333: 332: 331: 330: 329: 328: 327: 316: 313: 309: 305: 304: 303: 302: 301: 300: 299: 298: 297: 296: 287: 284: 279: 277: 272: 265: 256: 254: 251: 246: 240: 238: 235: 230: 229: 228: 227: 226: 225: 224: 223: 216: 213: 209: 208: 207: 206: 205: 204: 197: 194: 190: 187: 186: 185: 184: 183: 182: 177: 174: 169: 168: 167: 166: 165: 164: 161: 157: 155: 147: 143: 139: 138: 135: 133: 129: 125: 124: 123: 121: 117: 113: 106:IP talk pages 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 6595:Tony Sidaway 6591: 6567: 6527: 6474: 6454: 6400: 6372:Tony Sidaway 6369: 6366: 6363: 6360: 6218: 6192: 6190: 6156: 6152: 6112: 6099: 6094: 6090: 6049: 6023: 6017: 5984: 5977: 5952: 5917: 5889: 5885: 5824: 5818: 5796:Arthur Rubin 5790: 5742: 5691: 5651: 5638: 5616: 5602: 5594: 5590: 5586: 5557: 5550: 5523: 5512: 5509: 5468: 5439: 5374: 5362:Template:Nld 5348: 5306: 5217: 5197: 5195: 5080: 5073: 5061:talk pages. 5038: 5010: 5001: 4997: 4964: 4956: 4940: 4936: 4889: 4884: 4865: 4861: 4820: 4686: 4657: 4615: 4614: 4497: 4472: 4442: 4173: 4172: 4164: 4112: 4059: 4038: 4003: 3999: 3987:each other's 3986: 3982: 3978: 3810: 3791: 3768: 3766: 3727: 3722: 3718: 3699:}} is fine. 3672: 3665: 3575: 3480: 3438: 3430: 3416: 3388: 3380: 3376: 3335: 3330: 3312: 3308: 3285: 3273: 3266: 3200: 3160: 3146: 3111: 3105: 3103: 3097: 3096:band, club, 3093: 3089: 3077: 3075: 3073: 3006: 3002: 2973: 2971: 2963: 2954: 2909: 2872: 2862: 2860: 2831: 2817: 2807: 2805: 2794: 2782: 2754: 2739: 2609: 2569: 2561: 2533: 2525: 2488: 2480: 2471:db-suspected 2461:db-attention 2455: 2449: 2447: 2429: 2380: 2352: 2322: 2309: 2294: 2289: 2284: 2276: 2271: 2254: 2233: 2209: 2205: 2166: 2157: 2153: 2149: 2143: 2140: 2124: 2117: 2116: 2102: 2095: 2094: 2033: 2029: 2019: 2012: 2011: 1975: 1968: 1967: 1963: 1954: 1936: 1935: 1920:, kept). In 1897: 1891: 1851: 1838: 1834: 1814: 1806: 1796: 1788: 1782: 1730: 1728: 1696: 1648: 1640: 1554: 1532: 1502: 1474:Why not use 1452: 1448: 1446: 1443:Proposed CSD 1399: 1395: 1375: 1363: 1348: 1323: 1297: 1284: 1217: 1153:questionably 1152: 1105: 1099: 1094: 1089: 1083: 1080: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1065: 1062: 983: 939: 877: 860: 824: 818: 797: 728: 677:I generally 658: 640: 635: 587: 568: 564: 540: 483: 458: 430: 409: 406: 386: 263:drini's page 234:Hall Monitor 158: 151: 145: 127: 126: 109: 78: 43: 37: 6391:Kim Bruning 6313:nothanks-sd 6226:for more. 5635:Privacy vio 5455:Of course, 4443:appropriate 3939:All right, 3007:the text of 2612:Mark Eitzel 1312:instead. -- 1068:unambiguous 770:subst:orfud 110:I just saw 36:This is an 6566:Protected 6309:db-copyvio 6020:Notability 5853:Liberatore 5676:RfC vs CVU 5606:Elf-friend 5596:Elf-friend 5569:NickelShoe 5559:Hairy Dude 5304:Agreed. -- 5196:Why isn't 5192:db-absurd? 5179:David Levy 5090:David Levy 5047:corrected. 5015:David Levy 4945:Zac Hanson 4899:David Levy 4828:David Levy 4696:David Levy 4501:David Levy 4447:David Levy 4165:same title 4069:David Levy 4004:same title 3991:David Levy 3697:subst:prod 3682:Thoughts? 3633:NickelShoe 3484:NickelShoe 3318:NickelShoe 3125:db-copyvio 3040:NickelShoe 2802:NowCommons 2716:NickelShoe 2670:NickelShoe 2637:NickelShoe 2584:NickelShoe 2546:NickelShoe 2506:NickelShoe 2113:. Cheers! 1986:Flcelloguy 1857:Locke Cole 1835:containing 1817:Locke Cole 1767:Locke Cole 1735:Locke Cole 1622:NickelShoe 1314:Gurubrahma 1226:Thanks! — 1195:Cheers! :) 1100:Neologisms 1038:John Coxon 924:NickelShoe 616:subst:prod 591:NickelShoe 459:treated as 395:David Levy 193:Gurubrahma 132:IP address 98:Archive 15 90:Archive 11 85:Archive 10 6532:Snoutwood 6311:}} has {{ 6050:assertion 6003:Snoutwood 5942:Snoutwood 5940:Support. 5907:WP:MEMES? 5780:WP:MEMES? 5732:WP:MEMES? 5617:obviously 5551:See also 5485:db-noncom 4927:articles. 4873:anyways. 3989:title. — 3772:deletion. 3750:WP:MEMES? 3735:you know? 3731:Just zis 3724:deletion. 3688:you know? 3684:Just zis 3623:you know? 3619:Just zis 3596:WP:MEMES? 3562:you know? 3558:Just zis 3514:Johnleemk 3471:you know? 3467:Just zis 3445:you know? 3441:Just zis 3282:This edit 3228:WP:MEMES? 2416:Johnleemk 2278:ill-will. 2261:talk page 1539:brenneman 1328:transwiki 1298:Cyde Weys 1072:would not 897:I'm with 774:WP:IARing 683:Johnleemk 561:transwiki 545:Werdna648 535:I'm with 390:Tawkerbot 371:Petros471 338:Werdna648 173:Petros471 154:archiving 120:WP:CSD#U2 79:Archive 9 73:Archive 8 68:Archive 7 60:Archive 5 6568:articles 6519:@ 02:54 6510:Thursday 6501:contribs 6113:does not 5987:WP:ABUSE 5963:contribs 5930:contribs 5886:Support. 5838:contribs 5461:Carnildo 5444:Carnildo 5424:Carnildo 5352:Carnildo 5243:Blackcap 5232:nonsense 5156:proposed 5024:Blackcap 4992:anyways. 4893:Blackcap 4875:Blackcap 3949:Blackcap 3929:Blackcap 3895:Blackcap 3867:Blackcap 3839:Blackcap 3804:, so at 3802:Walloons 3762:wording: 3678:instead. 3413:Copyedit 2978:Austrian 2690:WP:MEME? 2656:WP:MEME? 2621:WP:MEME? 2562:Alfakim 2526:Alfakim 2481:Alfakim 2383:Carnildo 2259:and its 2068:CComMack 2039:Tantalum 2034:probably 2030:probably 1937:For any 1716:Carnildo 1465:contribs 1449:patently 1352:Turnstep 1248:WP:MEME? 1180:WP:MEME? 1128:WP:MEME? 1023:WP:MEME? 937:nae'blis 888:WP:MEME? 846:WP:MEME? 820:deleted. 810:instead. 661:this one 636:db-empty 524:WP:MEME? 6546:WP:HRTs 6458:Rossami 6317:Rory096 6228:Rossami 5995:WP:RFCU 5873:iva1979 5821:WP:PROD 5626:W.marsh 5380:Rossami 5375:invalid 5258:W.marsh 5237:covers 3985:merely 3981:title, 3779:W.marsh 3615:WP:CORP 3553:CAT:CSD 3532:W.marsh 3528:WP:NPOV 3504:W.marsh 3434:WP:CORP 3240:WP:CORP 3026:Rossami 2974:prevent 2960:author. 2940:Rory096 2936:CAT:NCT 2928:CAT:CSD 2879:(block) 2834:Jaranda 2824:(block) 2633:WP:PROD 2362:fairuse 2338:Kaldari 2214:Rossami 2111:WP:PROD 2054:lluride 1939:Portals 1932:Portals 1894:Portals 1609:WP:PROD 1593:W.marsh 1584:WP:PROD 1533:already 1334:Rossami 1277:ng Aili 1090:require 734:RobertG 665:RobertG 573:Rossami 283:Postdlf 244:android 39:archive 6554:Stifle 6535:(talk) 6514:11 May 6462:(talk) 6404:JDoorj 6295:Stifle 6272:Stifle 6264:hangon 6252:SCZenz 6232:(talk) 6224:WP:OWN 6193:before 6168:WP:NOT 6164:WP:BIO 6144:(talk) 6141:Friday 6127:Stifle 6117:SCZenz 6087:WP:YFA 6054:SCZenz 5991:WP:AIV 5849:WP:CSD 5800:(talk) 5492:Stifle 5384:(talk) 5366:Jkelly 5297:(talk) 5294:Friday 5246:(talk) 5146:WP:DRV 5027:(talk) 4990:WP:DRV 4957:before 4878:(talk) 4871:WP:DRV 4866:before 4115:bogus. 3968:debate 3952:(talk) 3932:(talk) 3898:(talk) 3870:(talk) 3842:(talk) 3794:WP:HOT 3701:Stifle 3499:WP:IAR 3455:Splash 3369:(talk) 3309:Oppose 3256:Splash 3161:Oppose 3056:Stifle 3030:(talk) 3001:If we 2914:Stifle 2910:Object 2760:db-web 2751:db-web 2743:Loom91 2436:Jkelly 2402:Jkelly 2398:WP:IFD 2327:Splash 2301:WP:UBD 2297:WP:TfD 2257:WP:UBD 2249:WP:UBD 2218:(talk) 2182:JDoorj 2118:BD2412 2096:BD2412 2081:Hiding 2064:WP:MFD 2013:BD2412 1969:BD2412 1852:should 1613:DMG413 1605:WP:WEB 1558:DMG413 1486:WP:NOR 1424:tag. ~ 1404:Splash 1338:(talk) 1220:WP:CSD 1214:WP:CSD 1192:WP:CSD 1149:WP:AFD 1086:WP:AFD 1008:Harmil 954:JDoorj 942:(talk) 903:JDoorj 868:Harmil 828:Harmil 778:Stifle 701:JDoorj 620:Stifle 577:(talk) 507:(talk) 437:(talk) 212:Tawker 141:pages. 6477:Cuivi 6095:reach 6091:start 6024:essay 6006:(tóg) 5999:guide 5945:(tóg) 5320:dbtfz 5307:Zsinj 5281:dbtfz 5268:dbtfz 5218:Zsinj 5204:dbtfz 5141:else! 5084:Pcb21 5063:Pcb21 5057:else! 5011:still 5002:after 4998:after 4690:Pcb21 4625:Pcb21 4507:Pcb21 4063:Pcb21 4014:Pcb21 3960:Pcb21 3879:Pcb21 3855:Pcb21 3816:Pcb21 3383:howch 3313:could 3289:clubs 3244:JoJan 2769:. -- 2570:talk 2534:talk 2489:talk 2168:: --> 1993:note? 1955:three 1839:about 1753:ESkog 1703:mikka 1643:howch 1523:Paddu 1521:. -- 1453:state 1400:image 1324:words 984:quite 486:Voice 189:Femto 160:Femto 156:it)? 146:edits 16:< 6573:Angr 6558:talk 6528:that 6517:2006 6495:talk 6443:Geni 6425:Geni 6415:Talk 6382:Geni 6299:talk 6276:talk 6219:bold 6131:talk 5993:and 5959:talk 5955:Angr 5926:talk 5922:Angr 5891:Ruud 5834:talk 5830:Angr 5791:ever 5763:talk 5714:talk 5620:AfD. 5573:Talk 5496:talk 5440:will 5066:Pete 4937:only 4628:Pete 4017:Pete 3945:here 3891:here 3882:Pete 3858:Pete 3819:Pete 3811:much 3800:and 3705:talk 3637:Talk 3518:Talk 3488:Talk 3402:chat 3322:Talk 3286:only 3277:here 3272:and 3270:here 3060:talk 3044:Talk 3003:must 2932:PITA 2918:talk 2863:Rory 2808:Rory 2720:Talk 2674:Talk 2641:Talk 2588:Talk 2550:Talk 2510:Talk 2501:prod 2450:sure 2420:Talk 2323:part 2210:text 2206:tent 2202:here 2193:Talk 2158:text 2154:tent 2150:text 2084:talk 2006:prod 1912:and 1904:and 1701:) `' 1672:And 1662:chat 1626:Talk 1517:and 1479:prod 1461:talk 1396:very 1290:prod 1232:talk 1204:talk 1164:talk 1147:and 1142:prod 1112:talk 1076:only 1001:prod 991:prod 965:Talk 914:Talk 878:most 782:talk 759:talk 738:talk 712:Talk 687:Talk 669:talk 643:here 624:talk 595:Talk 565:were 489:-of- 447:Guan 6521:UTC 6487:nen 6328:Ans 6198:Ans 6172:Joe 6065:Ans 6029:Ans 5825:not 5798:| 5743:any 5641:Phr 5528:by 5472:Rob 5397:SKT 5364:? 4965:did 4941:not 4821:may 4616:not 4174:not 4113:was 4000:was 3983:not 3947:.) 3832:dab 3733:Guy 3686:Guy 3621:Guy 3579:Rob 3560:Guy 3469:Guy 3443:Guy 3353:Rob 3192:Rob 3174:Rob 3166:Rob 3136:An 3131:it. 2988:MDD 2771:Rob 2566:-- 2530:-- 2499:If 2485:-- 2434:. 2367:or 1805:9. 1787:9. 1731:not 1725:G9? 1706:(t) 1569:Doc 1426:MDD 1379:MDD 899:BDJ 647:cmh 607:Rob 569:and 492:All 450:aco 431:-- 312:DDG 6593:-- 6583:) 6579:• 6560:) 6552:. 6512:, 6508:, 6338:ll 6301:) 6293:. 6278:) 6267:}} 6261:{{ 6208:ll 6133:) 6075:ll 6039:ll 5980:AN 5965:) 5961:• 5932:) 5928:• 5900:-- 5859:) 5840:) 5836:• 5773:-- 5758:uk 5748:Wh 5725:-- 5709:uk 5699:Wh 5679:) 5669:ia 5664:ll 5654:Av 5624:-- 5575:) 5555:. 5536:. 5498:) 5488:}} 5482:{{ 5470:-- 5420:}} 5414:{{ 5410:}} 5404:{{ 5400:}} 5394:{{ 5350:-- 5235:}} 5229:{{ 5159:}} 5153:{{ 4963:I 3835:}} 3829:{{ 3707:) 3639:) 3516:| 3490:) 3395:ng 3351:-- 3324:) 3128:}} 3122:{{ 3090:or 3062:) 3046:) 2994:96 2991:46 2920:) 2873:96 2818:96 2796:{{ 2763:}} 2757:{{ 2722:) 2683:-- 2676:) 2643:) 2590:) 2552:) 2512:) 2474:}} 2468:{{ 2464:}} 2458:{{ 2418:| 2381:-- 2375:}} 2369:{{ 2365:}} 2359:{{ 2172:| 1991:A 1863:• 1859:• 1823:• 1819:• 1773:• 1769:• 1755:) 1741:• 1737:• 1655:ng 1628:) 1508:, 1482:}} 1476:{{ 1467:) 1463:| 1432:96 1429:46 1422:}} 1419:db 1416:{{ 1385:96 1382:46 1310:it 1293:}} 1287:{{ 1241:-- 1234:) 1206:) 1198:— 1166:) 1158:— 1145:}} 1139:{{ 1114:) 1016:-- 1004:}} 998:{{ 994:}} 988:{{ 864:;) 839:-- 813:b. 806:a. 803:7. 784:) 776:. 736:♬ 732:-- 685:| 667:♬ 645:. 626:) 597:) 553:\ 517:-- 505:| 473:) 435:| 346:\ 260:( 249:79 94:→ 64:← 6581:c 6577:t 6575:( 6556:( 6504:) 6498:• 6492:( 6482:é 6473:— 6412:m 6408:a 6333:e 6297:( 6274:( 6203:e 6129:( 6070:e 6034:e 5957:( 5924:( 5909:) 5905:( 5888:— 5869:S 5857:T 5855:( 5832:( 5782:) 5778:( 5765:) 5761:( 5753:o 5746:— 5734:) 5730:( 5716:) 5712:( 5704:o 5697:— 5673:( 5659:i 5571:( 5494:( 5128:. 5093:: 4931:( 4902:: 4699:: 4510:: 4072:: 3974:. 3752:) 3748:( 3703:( 3668:. 3635:( 3598:) 3594:( 3486:( 3404:} 3400:{ 3389:e 3342:\ 3320:( 3296:\ 3230:) 3226:( 3207:\ 3181:\ 3151:\ 3058:( 3042:( 2916:( 2868:0 2813:0 2718:( 2692:) 2688:( 2672:( 2658:) 2654:( 2639:( 2623:) 2619:( 2586:( 2548:( 2508:( 2466:/ 2303:. 2190:m 2186:a 2162:" 2146:" 2125:T 2103:T 2049:e 2044:T 2020:T 1996:) 1989:( 1976:T 1945:. 1865:c 1861:t 1855:— 1825:c 1821:t 1811:. 1775:c 1771:t 1743:c 1739:t 1664:} 1660:{ 1649:e 1624:( 1459:( 1273:a 1269:F 1250:) 1246:( 1230:( 1202:( 1182:) 1178:( 1162:( 1130:) 1126:( 1110:( 1025:) 1021:( 962:m 958:a 911:m 907:a 890:) 886:( 848:) 844:( 826:- 780:( 761:) 757:( 709:m 705:a 622:( 605:- 593:( 550:C 547:/ 526:) 522:( 471:C 469:: 467:T 465:( 393:— 343:C 340:/ 273:) 269:☎ 134:. 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 9 - Knowledge

Index