978:) and doesn't find a 3rd party who is willing to speak to Avala, but then, when he presents the case, it's presented in personal terms, with charged language, rather than in a dispassionate way. As for your narrative, I don't know. I think in the Avala Evidence we come in in the middle. I don't think Snowspinner was baiting him, but he wasn't trying to figure out the words, either. This could be because of bad experiences, or he could have not figured it out. In either case, I don't think it was quite on the level of the redneck. (We had a Chinese guy in our lab who was pretty good with English, but people would play language jokes on him. "Alex, where are the filters?" he asked. "Oh, they're right by the dickfor," Alex would say. The difference was that Bo would laugh and swear revenge and knew the game that was being played. I saw that exchange and said to Alex, "You just got an extra five years in Purgatory, you know?") Anyway, the only general advice is advice you're already following: emphasize that you haven't any involvement with the trolls that you "defend." I could tell what you've been doing when you defend them, but others are mistaking pain-in-the-ass goading for support. I've got to think about the new user page format before I can comment on it.
864:
and lots of things, and I'm delighted when we get to do so. It's just that some of these are cases where what's at test is not the article, but our own abilities. Too often others (not you that I've ever seen) say "keep" and then lift not a finger to help an article. You put in the work. Other people, though, say, "Well, this could be an excellent article about the grand history of the world," and then I look back and it still says, "Rashes are skin abrasions." Sorry for going so long. I'll paste this to your page, too, so the reply can be accessible to you. Thanks, Rossami. I hope we can continue the dialogue and start getting some other voices in here. (Maybe the dangerously sane
Andrewa and the open minded Siroxo?)
846:
us, as moderates, good choices for opening a civil discourse with open minds before going to the policy pages and the heat that those always generate. I do agree, though, that we might consider a page on meta or something to do a kind of invite-only talk before a wide community. I don't mean to fear the wider community, but I'd just like to work out some principles before then with people who will listen to each other before the more ideological show up and thunderously say that more things should be on CSD or none should be. As for "harm the site," we can't be too absolute, here. In a sense, none of the things that are deleted by CSD hurt the site worse (and many much less) than the things that go to VfD. After all, a
282:
their starter kits, whether we're talking about rocketry or blogging or fetishes, then we've been diverted from our purpose. I think we need to have a frank and dispassionate, if possible, discussion about how we organize massive subjects like BDSM or the TG/TS world or the fictional mythologies. Subpages don't work, but a consistent way of determining when and, more importantly, how we divide would really help. Right now, though, it seems like people are entrenched into "None" and "All" positions. I really hope we can get past that, eventually. One way or another, something will have to be done -- either a hundred mini-wikis or a logical taxonomy.
1755:(You reply fast sometimes. Did you notice my message under heading 21 above, day before yesterday?) Sorry about the slough. Easiest research I've ever done. Elin's got an identical twin sister! She's a level-headed person! She gets on really well with Tiger's mother! We have a lot of professional swimsuit shots of her! (She's a model.) You know, with being a Swede who's engaged to a world celebrity, she's totally Swedish-tabloid-worthy, because, uh, I think it's something we can all be fucking proud of, or something. It's a little like we
239:
spreaders, one article for rubber suits, one article for masks, etc. It's a kind of Occam's razor position I take: Do not multiply article names unnecessarily. I feel the very same way about fictional characters, mythological breakouts from games, etc. It's not about the information, but the way we cover it. I want us to cover all of this information, but not where it is actually more difficult to find, and not where the entries will cover up or force disambiguation from other topics.
59:
it's unverifiable and nondisprovable. It ends up, as I've said elsewhere, saying, "Whatever is, is right." One can look at any behavior or fact of the present and construct an evolutionary biological scenario that would explain it. In that way, it can be like
Freudianism: once you possess the approach, you can make everything fit. For example, if male standards of beauty are for thin, then we can say that thin represents wealth, and if they're for fat, we can say that
758:"notability and breakouts." I'm trying to offer a view of my own criteria, here, and not presuming to tell anyone else, much less the community as a whole, what they should adopt. I'm more exclusive than many, but I'm a raving fan of information. I just think that we've reached a tipping point. Our first efforts were to grow. We've grown. Now, we need to preserve our democracy and try to integrate coherence. I'm afraid that we're becoming a spilled glass of words.
1728:(I don't mean you personally want, but if you think the info has a right to not be lost), you might want to change "recently" to 2002. Not that recently, is it? Shouldn't they either be married or have split up by now? Engaged, bah. Sorry. Reading bland Swedish tabloid features about how Tiger fell for Elin and how Elin fell for Tiger and how Mama Woods who has rejected so many girlfriends for Tiger has accepted Elin into the family was a depressing experience.
476:
speak as if they are the Lord above. Some mechanical issues with WP need to be solved so that policies are made in the light of day and a quorum is required before anything is binding. Only then can the project act in a consensual and logical manner, IMO. Otherwise, we're at the mercy of the most motivated and the most nosey. I will try to drop you an e-mail, though. There have been some disgraceful behaviors recently.
1424:(Oh, PS. You seem to use "*" bullets rather than ":" indents, or I could say, I keep using ":" indents rather than "*" bullets. Actually, I'm not sure which works better, but I think "*" bullets get a bit haywire when they have line breaks between them. Not that I plan to RfC you or anything over it. ;) PPS although the bullets do set off the start of comments better. I think this might be a wiki syntax discrepancy.
1631:
charming children out of the picture, and a medium sized photo looks quite natural (children replaced by foliage!) If you could do this or tell me (in words of one sylable) how to do this I would be very grateful, I've quite a few other photos from Italy and Europe I want to treat in the same way, if I can work out how, I think they could enhance, or at least liven up, a few other articles. --- I was re-reading 'our
107:" (with that last word lasting about 8 syllables). The emphasis was academically conservative (fact fact fact history history fact, interpretation on your own time, Buster), where all innovations were subjected to intense scrutiny -- not because of the "culture wars," but because of the old, European, positivistic emphasis on "rigor." Detractors said "rigor mortis."
1433:
offered a statement or two to indicate such. If the latter, then that, too, would be fine, but it would indicate that
Guanaco was right: this is an endorsement of substance, not a certification. Anyway, I'm sure it's more complex than that, but, frankly, I'm for cutting the knot. Fennec: speak your peace. That's all. It's not worth getting too intricate, IMO.
545:
did these groups ever float (sorry) the anti-Swedish idea, then? Well, Scania once did use to be not-Swedish, i. e. when it was Danish. The feeling that "we'd rather be Danish" does exist, far outside the small extremist groupings. Turns out it's perfectly possible to preserve, nourish and revive feeling on such a basis, even though Danish rule is 350 years back.
1081:
got bashed here. I told
Bypumpen that in case they do, David and I have a couple more IP's and the phone number of medieval philospher/oldest beaver known to science Niklas Modigh up our sleeve. You know what, also? I'm gonna check German wiki. But what I really came to tell you is that it's a coincidence that I just now saw your comment on VfD
711:. Maybe I talked about too many different things? There's been no decision on Skåne, the VfD template is still on the page, and the VfD debate is still pretty active. And Rossami hasn't been back to comment on the info added to his synopsis, so I think it would be premature to make any decision yet, even though it was listed on 18 August.
425:
should have is nomination removed early? That's a sad comment on how much heat and how little light there is. It ought to be enough just to vote "oppose" without all that. I plan to take off the mask, now, and reveal a serious milquetoast under that guise of being a nebbish! Cross me, and I'll argue logically, bucko. :-)
617:
arguments about database activity or storage space. I am talking only about encyclopedias and
Knowledge. In the case of this Sailor Moon thing, the answers are a) No, b) Somewhat, c) No. Therefore, the answer is to still move one level up from listing every critter and go to a type article. Type of fictional entity =
855:, the content of which was "cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt") is safe as milk. Harm is relative. However, I'm thinking of patent lies, patent fantasies, and even michaelisms. I admit that part of my motivation is that there are some things that are just plain going to lose on VfD by any estimation, and these
1832:
So, you are confirming that you will continue this in the future, that my attempts to achieve peace are being turned away? The three VfD entries were, as you will see now, an attempt at unearthing a
Knowledge vandal, and if you could not understand the language of my nominations, that is sad, but not
1650:
If I weren't having such a mess of a time with uploading and downloading attachments, I'd just grab the picture and do the edit for you. It's pretty easy for me, as I have some PShop experience, but getting rid of the big L of whitespace seems like the first priority. The image size is the second.
938:
ahead of the
Gundarm, Pokemon, and Sailor Moon stuff. Even I, enemy of break-outs, can see arguments in favor of leaving the kings alone. At any rate, it's an apples and oranges debate between them and the county elections. I prefer reality to fiction, but the county level is simply too narrow for
929:
Well, if there is a failure there, it may well be the failure of any forum where votes take place. See, however, my main page for what I think makes for "notability." In the case of all those kings, I'm probably going to vote for merging. I'm not in favor of them, and you'll find others saying the
266:
My position is similar to yours, that BDSM activities are a form of human sexual activity that nearly everyone has hear of ('S&M'). This makes BDSM in itself a noteworthy topic for
Knowledge. I would agree with you wholeheartedly that only noteable topics should have their own articles, so within
70:
Third: I mean no disrespect with my skepticism, nor do I mean to suggest that it came without foundation. All along, I've wanted there to be a good discussion of human fertility and the
Anthropology and evolutionary biology explanations of it. I didn't like the implicit hide and seek of "concealed"
1837:
I promise that if any nomination is placed on that page in error, I will correct it by moving the request to the more appropriate location and remove it from VfD. Stop being so high and mighty. As for your attempt to clear out a
Knowledge vandal -- VfD is still not the correct forum for that. You're
1736:
Thanks. I fixed it now. Did you actually research thins? Wow. That's some hard durance. As for why I did it, I was on NP patrol, saw the misnamed one come in, thought the same as you, and readied to pounce. I saw what it was and then was handcuffed. If it's not nonsense, I can't speedy delete
1247:
At 23:48, 1 Sep 2004, Guanaco moves Fennec's signature from on the RfC itself from the "certification" section to the "endorsement" section, apparently in agreement with David Vasquez's dispute, or my assertion of invalidity. in the edit summary, Guanaco writes, "(Statement of the dispute - Fennec's
475:
You know, you need to take a break from this pursuit itself. I just got another lecture/sermon on IRC about how every stub is sacred, every stub is great, if ever stub is wasted, IRC gets quite irate. I think these people are rather like puffer fish. They're few in number, but they always, always
281:
Oh, yes, absolutely. I'm sure the people who put those links in mean well (or I want to think that, anyway), but we have to keep the project from becoming a service project. We're an information project. When our external links stop being information and become instead places where people can get
229:
Sure. My position is not that fetishes not be covered, nor that the information in any way be suppressed. Rather, what I seek is that the minor aspects of them, and especially individual acts involved in fetishes, exist within the master article on the fetish. This is all about the granularity of
1827:
Geogre - You submitted three articles (Eckvic Culture, Demish, Eckvic), not for deletion but as a request for cleanup. I am correcting your poor choice. If I see any more misplaced "nominations", I will remove them and place them on the more appropriate cleanup listing. That is not "vandalism", but
1819:
I have tried to be nice, and I will try again. DO NOT remove VfD nominations. It is neither your place nor your ability to decide for others whether the nominations are valid. You removed three nominations that I made tonight, perhaps out of pique. That is absolutely out of bounds. Consider this an
1776:
feel proud of Elin. We were all cheering for her. :-) I did see the reply, way up, but that was at the time when every second that I was online was getting diverted. There's so much bullcrap going on that matters so little that it's frustrating. I keep reminding myself that these are young
1668:
Cool. It looks properly proportioned. It could be at about 350 pix, but it looks good at 300. I keep bashing my head against my own upload/download problems, here. It's bugging me no end. What's the use of being an intermediate Photoshop user, if I can't get images back and forth? (Photoshop,
1322:
So is the RfC on? Is it off? That really depends of whether you buy David Vasquez's';s argument or my argument. And they are subtly different: his hinges more on Snowspinner tainting the evidence by mentioning IRC, mine on Fennec not having a dispute with me and Snowspinner and Fennec not sharing a
1102:
were very unnecessarily rude about it. People like Andrewa and Ambi threw around words like "lunatic" and "tripe", which made me have some sympathy with the Doug/Infradig party. Until, that is, Doug's and Infradig's debating styles made me realize what the delete faction has had to put up with over
1007:
Great! That's fantastic! How really cool that they were (a)bashed. :-) I love the fact that David Remahl was just going to call them up and give them a good talking-to, too. "May I speak to your parents, please?" :-) I'm glad to see anything work out, especially something like this.
906:
Yeah, it doesn't take getting an A in Reading in school to decode it. There is a kind of IRC cultus growing on Knowledge, and some of the stodgier and non-IRC-ish need to lay down some heavy boots on how tangential it is to the procedings of the project. I'm surprised a little but pleased that my
863:
so much as not sufficient here). So there: I've admitted my ulterior motives. :-) One last thing, though: I don't mean to sound like a jerk when I say that you're staring at an entry too hard. I know you're doing the right thing, and so do you. I, too, can think of reasons for saving lots
832:
My second thought is, as always, the devil's advocate's position. By definition, all VfD nominations are deleted only because at some level they are harmful to Knowledge. Can we really come up with a list of examples which are so bad that they should not be allowed to suffer the normal discussion
424:
Thanks all. I'm waiting for those cheerleader invites. They swore it would happen! Emma and Debbie and Heather and Heather and Ashley and Ashlee and Ashleigh will now fall in love with me. It's only sad to see what's happening with Lucky. People are really saying that someone with 60% approval
58:
much the verb of the title that I can hardly say. I do know that there is anthropological research on the matter. I believe that it's there, but I'm personally getting more and more suspicious (and possibly polemical) about evolutionary biology. It's not because I think it's wrong, but more that
1432:
Ok, well, I looked over the note again, and it summarized as concisely as I could the issues as I understood them. The big thing is just that he clarify his position. Is he complaining about orthogonal too, or does he agree that Snowspinner has a complaint? If the former, it would be nice if he
1145:
Michael, I agree with you. I was just saying that I had thought that there must be another page (and there are too many of them) because of how rarely I had seen such appear. I also think that we're in a weird position with name space. The deletion guidelines don't really apply to name space --
1080:
The IP's are kind of known on sv.wiki, but not banned. They haven't been creating articles there so much, more adding sentences about Niklas Modigh etc. in various existing articles. I got a lot of response to my info, and checked for myself that the kids have not "contributed" anything since they
845:
Oh, heck, I hardly need any credit. I don't think I'm a galvanizing user, but I thought that I'm probably, on a continuum of deletionism with Everyking on one end and RickK on the other, about 70% over on the RickK side, and you're probably about 65-70% on the Everyking side. I thought this made
561:
Yeah, I guess ... except that it's hardly what people want to read about on VfD. I tried hard to condense my replies, but I really worry about boring people beyond what's bearable there. (But I don't worry about it with the Dead Porn Stars series. Let 'em be bored, just as long as we get it done,
544:
Great input on the Skåne issue, thanks, Geogre! The Scotland point was wonderfully well taken. If Scania was ever politically independent, it must have been before all written records. (Hang on ... I think it must have been under water in those days. Maybe Kevin Kostner was involved. :-)) How
453:
BTW, re e-mail, I've tried to argue the case. I think we've got some nefarious stuff going on just recently. A wildly rabid Bush website told all its readers to go to Knowledge to "learn the truth about John Kerry." They linked to a vandal-change to the Kerry article. And now, out of the blue,
1067:
I'm glad you mentioned the kids there. I'll bet that you find someone on Bypumpen saying that the kids are well known to them. Their English was not strong enough for the en to have been their first thought, I'm sure. Bet they're already well banned there at .se. I wasn't going to talk to you
1025:
Gee, and after they told us all their names in their prank articles, it must be a work of staggering detective work to figure out who they are. They must have been real kids, too. I hope David was scary enough and yet pointed them to some other playground, like Everything2 or Slashdot. :-)
200:
admins. People who answer the call, rather than ring their own bell, and I hope it all succeeds. As for those who say that there is no power in the position but who feel that they have to vote against giving the power that they think is not there to one who feels differently from them about the
1669:
in the US, costs $ 600. I don't have that. On the other hand, Photoshop Elements costs $ 100, and it has all the same power and features of full PShop except the ability to create printer-ready (as in professional printing presses, not as in computer printer) output.) BTW, I agree with you on
1630:
and make the image bigger, I have uploaded it, and the original is gigantic, I've followed all the instructions (this is a first attempt! - Quelle suprise) I can't make the original smaller, or the image on the article page larger. Problem is the very large image shows that I have airbrushed my
1136:
Part of the reason for the infrequency is that people very rarely run across these pages. The best candidates for deletion are found not by perusing newly created pages (as with articles), but by discovering relics with no real links to them and no activity. New ones deal with some "issue of the
1132:
that we should have fewer such pages, I was mildly surprised that you raised that as an issue, though there's certainly nothing wrong with making sure things get done the right way. I'll grant that these pages don't show up on VfD very often unless somebody is being disruptive (like the original
757:
I've been meaning to sketch out my feelings on VfD for some time now. I'll take a look at the discussion you've got going, of course, but I wanted to work out, in a non-interlined form, my positions before going into anything discursive. You can see, below the "advice for voters," a section on
185:. Please reply there to accept. You've always shown good judgement, so I think you'll be a great administrator. You don't have to give up being an ordinary editor, but I hope that if the situation demands it (or perhaps merely asks nicely) you'll be able to weigh in. Regards & happy editing,
165:
Thank you, Wile E. Had anyone else proposed it, I would have said no, but, time and again, I've seen that your judgment has earned respect. If you believe that I can help the project as an admin., then I accept the nomination and hope, if others agree, to find ways of aiding in the strength of
901:
Oh, you might look at the discussion of IRC evidence that David Vasquez ("DV") has brought up on the rfc page and my talk page, and his, ambi's, and my thoughts on it on the rfc talk page. He advises me not to go forward, I explain why I think I must on the rfc talk page, and Snowspinner adds a
1798:, if you want to see. :-)) It was futile to start with him, I know. He'll inevitably have the last word, because I'm embarrassed to be swelling the VfD page with pointless bickering, and he's not. No big deal if he doesn't know what "ambiguity" means, anyway; more people don't than do. As
1048:
scary, you know, you distinguished personage, you. I wish I knew when you were around (as you must be now and shouldn't be), because I'd call you over to IRC (where I have not been going for days). I thought I had the last outstanding e-mail to you, but I saw one today that seemed to suggest
553:
The other thing is that the underpinnings are the pre-modern idea of ethnicity. It's one of the phenomena that I don't mind being belligerant about: nationality is not ethnicity. Ethnicity is racism or at least the undergirding of genocide. Forcing these folks to address, explicitly, their
238:
gets a separate article. I'm on record as wanting the coverage to be in a single named article. Now, if BDSM is too large (and it is) to cover all of them, a "BDSM play" or "SM play" article could do the job better than one article for ball gags, one article for spread-eagle, one article for
1262:
Now I've got the RfC on my watchlist, because I've edited it. My watchlist shows me that Guanaco's edited the RfC, and curious to see hoe he's voted, I go look, only to find no vote but that he has moved Fennec's signature. I feel that it's very bad practice to move another user's signature,
616:
that people will have heard the term and need an encyclopedia to explain it? b) Is the master subject covered in such length that it would be unreadable to add this detail? c) Whether the thing is famous or not, has it affected the world as an independent entity or meme? I will not get into
811:
Re: your comment on my Talk page: I think your idea has some merit and would be happy to work with you on it. I can think of a number of situations where that would improve our controls. Here are a couple of thoughts off the cuff. I'll keep chewing on the idea over the next few days.
466:
Once again, stress has darkened my usually sunny disposition. I'm not quitting, but I am going to take a few days off. Thank you for all of your support, and feel free to drop me a line on my e-mail. I've started a new job today and I might not have as much downtime as I did before. -
1194:
Possibly so, but I wanted to address what I thought was the underlying problem: what is a personal attack. I wanted to lay in, somewhere, that I thought that characterization of actions is fair, of people not. Besides, though, the RfC is over, so there's no need to keep up the matter.
1781:
doesn't hurt as much. I think the same is true of these towering passions of ego. I can't believe you engaged Anthony, though. That's a futile experience. I needed to take a deep breath and count to ten a couple of times with him on VfD anyway. He really is behaving like a troll.
1385:
Well, that's certainly a mess. Fennec could do us all a favor by clarifying his position. I might go to his user talk page and simply ask nicely if he could offer a few words so that we know. I take no position whatever on whether he has grounds to endorse or not. It doesn't
1016:
No, I think David did talk with them, actually, and that the glory is all his — see message from "Martin" on David's Talk page. Whoops, forgot you don't have the lingo, or rather, I forgot that Martin used it. He was asking David how we got hold of their phone numbers. :-)
1146:
the pages just serve a different purpose, and that also means that a lot of people hide squirrely stuff in name space. (There is a lot of "policy" going on there that isn't worth the electrons it's made of.) Anyway, I was more offering an impression, but I can see how this
1137:
moment" and nobody thinks about getting rid of them until they've forgotten about the issue (and the page), so it becomes one of the relics. I've gotten rid of the most obviously useless ones, but usually by redirecting them to a more suitable location, not by deleting. --
1533:," and then some enthused kid sees the article, wishes he'd written it, and decides to write about a redlink. Blug. People ought to think before they wikilink what obviously doesn't need an article (e.g. "The Filligreed Potatoes are a band formed a month ago. They are
368:
before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the
973:
The user page...I don't know. I'm thinking it over. The response to Ambi.... Well, see, I get the impression that Avala is a very troublesome user when it comes to Yugoslav questions. Thing is, Snowspinner correctly identifies someone who has repeatedly offended
1232:
At 20:45, 31 Aug 2004, David Vasquez left it there, but added and signed a note immediate under the listing, "The certification of this Request for Comment is under dispute." Also appropriate, as it 'was' certified, but David Vasquez believed the certification was
676:
1162:
I agree that you can't really apply normal deletion criteria, I just wonder whether we'd get enough activity (and whether enough people would participate) to justify having a separate page. Anyway, if you want to get a picture of the tangle, I started
121:
Good evening. I think your suggestions for an opposition section would be good for this article. I tried to incorporate your thoughts and realized I was doing a bad job so I took them back out. I'll keep trying to research it though. Thanks again.
562:
already. I can't believe how ineffectually that's been handled.) Still, I hope you liked those banner slogans I created as a free gift to Skånepartiet. The sock posse is probably leafing through dictionaries as we speak, brows furrowed. :-)
611:
Kim, you can see the same argument that I would make on this topic voiced on other subjects. You can see it all over VfD. I am very consistent about this. When it comes to break outs, I ask the following things: a) Is the thing so well known
1715:
It only caught my eye because Elin Nordegren is yet another Swedish name, and I was afraid she might be Niklas Modigh's girlfriend. A little research shows she's bona fide, but how I hate such celebritycruft in Knowledge. :-( The rest of
1150:
deserves a different deletion page because it's a different domain of Knowledge with different purposes and functions. That said, I absolutely agree that we need to get this tangle tamed, and we especially need more light on the processes.
1596:
I can't tell whether I'll be on or not. This is my short wiki session before trying to be productive (doing 2 job apps and calling unemployment). If I get those things on or go into full despair, I'll be on IRC later...around dinner time.
791:
Glad to have written it. It still feels a bit rough, though - feel free to clean it up. I've been reading Ellmann, and thought to write an article on Joyce the Elder, who was a fascinating character. (I already wrote the article on
836:
If we don't immediately move this discussion to an existing policy's talk page, we should open a dedicated thread to keep track of our thoughts. Perhaps a user sub-page? I'd volunteer but it's your idea and you deserve the credit.
1097:
has taken all the spunk out of me. I do believe, as I say in that discussion, that we need to deal on the policy level with the fact that some articles are impossible to maintain. You know, I thought at first that the people listing
1845:
You are not allowed to remove nominations from the VFD page as you see fit. That is vandalism, and grounds for temporary blocking, even without action from the Arbitration Committee. Please follow the rules. Ambi 10:05, 6 Sep 2004
1737:
it (although, if I had known we already had it with the capital letter, I'd have redirected there and passed the problem), so I had to do the merge. I did the redirect because, well, I couldn't delete it. It was a substub, so I
1072:
bedtime, and I've got another 6 hours in a day than you. Anyway, I really haven't gone to IRC in ages. Every time I do, I seem to either be completely bored or over-stimulated. Things are either very dull or not dull enough.
1222:
At 02:42, 31 Aug 2004, when Snowspinner initially created the RfC, he listed it under the "Candidate pages - still need to meet the two person threshold" header, which was appropriate because he was the only one yet to certify
907:
comments have drawn agreement. They're not so flattering to you, or Snowspinner, but they're pretty pissy when it comes to whether or not there should be an RfC. :-) It was kind of interesting to see Avala's comment.
850:
page would take 5 days to go away, and Bushcountry.com could tell all its readers go to to Knowledge and "learn the truth about John Kerry" during that time, and we'd be screwed. Compared to that, my favorite speedy delete
1658:
Done it - downloaded it back to my own computer, edited it in simple picture edit - and then reloaded, unfortunatly lost some of the picture quality, but as it was hardly of professional quality in the first place! Regards
816:
The definition of those situations where the article harms the site by remaining even during the normal 5 day discussion period should be fairly tightly defined. The list can always be changed as new situations arise.
92:
As I've indicated on that Discussion page, now, I didn't think you were implying Intelligent Design, but I was and am concerned that coincidental mutation that serves an adaptive goal must never be confused with being
679:
is the link to where the guy told someone to keep his opinions to himself, if you want to go Dr. Johnson on him. (Only if you want to as a diversion, it's not necessary to leap in to defend me or anything, I'm good.)
1635:' the other day -when one comes back a reads it 'cold' it really is rather good (can one say that of one's own writing?) Oh, and when one tries to edit your page a warning thing tells one it is too long! Regards
74:
If no one takes offense, I think that a sort of skeptical (and that's how it's intended, just as skepticism) line on the discussion page is more than enough. The POV of the page is not in dispute. Nor are the
920:
I did nominate the kings of Numenor pages for deletion and it seems that they're too popular. Apparently my factual pages on election results are far less notable than lists of names out of a Tolkein appendix.
713:
But if you want to see the Keep decision I was talking about on the phone — made by SimonP on the basis of 15 Keep votes and 35 Delete votes, plus a number of sockpuppets/new users — check out the link to
820:
An "other" category might be appropriate as long as it comes with a disclaimer that any new situation must also be nominated as a new item on the list so we don't get into the same arguments every time.
1712:
ordegren". The N spelling substub is still there. I was going to fix it — make the N spelling a redirect instead — but only an admin can delete the n redirect, right? So I've left it all as it was.
1777:
folks to whom everything matters more. They say that we're all literally ennervated as we age, that we feel pain less in our bodies, so a skinned knee that made us cry now doesn't hurt because it
1332:
No one was endorsed Snowspinner's view on the RfC page, but is that because they don't buy his procedural or his substantive arguments (or both)? We don't know, because no is asked to sign if they
715:
708:
79:
I apologize again if I've given offense. In political and social matters, you'll be hard pressed to find someone farther left, but on academic matters I tend to be more conservative than most.
1608:
Good luck! Do not despair. As Churchill said, "Deserve Victory!" And have broiled fish for dinner; I did it four days runing and it was yummy (and so easy to make, and makes you feel so good).
1362:
The one person who might shed some light on this is Fennec, but I don't feel I can ask him, what with us both being party to the RfC, not to mention the appearance that I'd be "hounding" him.
513:, and I came up with that one. Needs the next verse, though. "Let the deletionists drop theirs/ On the dusty plain/ We know IRC will get them/ With a big Arb-Com?" Doesn't scan properly.
1251:
At 23:49, 1 Sep 2004 Guanaco moves the listing on the RFC list page from "Approved to "Candidate" with the edit summary "(Comment about individual users - /orthogonal is a candidate page)"
1060:
tomorrow, I can't believe it. Btw, good thinking there about Swedish wiki. They don't seem to have any "Vandalism in progress" page, but I left a message on their Village Pump (Bypumpen).
1448:
his signature was not certification, but endorsement, then this is an RfC upon which the clock restarts (after clarification) for waiting for certification. That's if I understand it.
1741:
have done it under that banner, but some folks get very vexed about that. That meant that I had to do the TW edit. I guess I'm now going back to add the bit about its being in 2002.
51:
First: yipes, orthoganal. I didn't check authorship to see that it was yours. My apologies. I got the nickname "ge-ogre" for a certain pugilism that I can adopt in academic matters.
687:
Footnote: wow, Wodan scored another bull's-eye a little while ago (19:08). Some people sure ought to count ten before they speak. (I'm one of 'em, I know, but I don't say stuff like
499:
Sorry, I don't even remember why I happened to be looking at your talk page, but I found that quite hilarious and felt an urge to reformat it to make the wikipoetry more obvious. --
217:
You state "I'm on record as opposing all those tiny fetish activities getting primacy of namespace on their specialist articles". Would you care to elaborate on this please ?
1833:
germane. If you remove other nominations and demonstrate lack of willingness to abide with community standards, we will have to proceed from there. Geogre 14:31, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1183:
1093:
for deletion. Like a coward I decided not to, because who can stand the resulting mudbath? I merely made a nasty remark on the Feminazi Talk page and left. The VfD discussion of
1828:
an attempt to keep silliness out of VfD. Rather than threaten me with silly actions, why don't you reevaluate your misuse of the VfD page? -- Netoholic @ 14:09, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
859:
speedy deleted, when they shouldn't be, by the rules. The question is whether the admins are wrong (absolutely, they are, in many cases!) or the rules (and I think they're not
97:
the goal. The closer evolutionary theory gets to behavior, the more uncomfortable I get with it, because humans keep demonstrating a mutability that defies all categorization.
1099:
1094:
991:
Hey! I left admonitory messages with both honey and vinegar on the talk pages of 164.4.31.79 and 81.227.148.223, a couple of the Famous Vandal Kids of Sandviken, and maybe
532:
without completely breaking the columns, making them look terrible. Good job I always preview. Maybe you know how to remove the offending material without leaving a mess?
1795:
875:
I agree with most of what you say above, both what it says and the tone of the suggestion. Good stuff, let's try to get an acceptable (in both senses) proposal out of it.
852:
141:
Uh...ah... I'm never sure how much of that lot to chop off for the internal link, so I've just left the whole thing in there, I know you'll know what to do with it.--
618:
584:
454:
we've got two anti-Moore articles and people who know how to cast sock votes? I've had a migraine all day, a class 4 one, so I've been useless. Really wiped out.
1803:
622:
396:
Congratulations, Geogre, now you get to show your true ogrish nature untrammelled at last. ;-). Did you see the 34th vote, from Uther:SRG? Way cool. :-)
1167:
a while ago, although I haven't given it a thorough update recently, to include all the blasted new weeds (uh, I mean pages) that keep springing up everywhere. --
1459:
Alright, so we have a clarification. The RfC is uncertified. That at least sets the record straight. I believe that means 48 hours waiting for certification.
1129:
1125:
996:
1485:
more useful to anyone interested in the subject to put it together, but perhaps a subject feels "more important" if it's thinly spread over 80 pages. But it's
1107:
manners (that doesn't take much, you'll say), while the histories of the article itself and its Talk page stretch back through untold voluminous archives for
833:
period? I thought I had an initial list of suggestions of articles that would qualify and I've argued myself out of them. What examples are you thinking of?
1820:
official warning that I consider your actions to be vandalism, and not boldness. If you repeat it, I will seek ArbCom action. Geogre 03:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
405:
I'll be proud to say I knew you when you were a humble editor, before your elevation to cabal-hood. P.S. Have the cheerleaders invited you to the homecoming
111:
said, "Soon, all English Departments will be obsolete, except for that museum over in Chapel Hill." The CH response was, "We ought to make that our motto."
1371:
It's this sort of stuff that makes me harp so much on due process and procedural rules, because otherwise things get bogged down in a very murky grey area.
1056::-) Thank you. Sometimes I do pomposity well. I just checked IRC, but you weren't there, and, you know, I really really need to not be around. Uppsala yet
847:
1823:
I second this. Please do not remove unilaterally remove nominations, nor redirect the article and call the discussion over. Ambi 07:12, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1229:
One minute later, at 02:44, 31 Aug 2004, Snowspinner moved the listing under "Approved pages - have met the two person threshold". This was also correct.
267:
BDSM I would say that (to use one of your examples from above) 'Gags' should be one article covering all types. I also think that BDSM articles should
666:
598:
So what are you going to do, *reduce* the level of granularity? Why? The effort to reach this granularity has already been expended, after all!
437:
You know, there's still no way I can think of that Heb 13:8 joke without laughing aloud. It may be the funniest thing I've ever heard. :-D --
796:...). But, as I said, still feels a bit rough. Especially for the later part of his life, since I'm only up to about 1900 in the Ellmann book.
67:
s, we can say that the cell phone waggling in bars is a lek, or that the drug use is a lek, or that the car is a lek, or, well, whatever we wish.
1689:
1534:
272:
220:
999:
too, and just look what I just got on my Talk page! :-) I feel brilliant, but I guess that'll pass if it turns out they don't mean it.
100:
I hope the Slashdotters got it. If it doesn't have a Groklaw reference in it, I'm not sure... :-) (Yeah, I'm a reader of /., usually.)
1794:
be proud if you saw her in a swimsuit, Geogre. I'm fine with Anthony, getting on like a house on fire. Well, sort of. (Take a look at his
1082:
573:
774:
in that comment. I am e-mailing you the full comment so you can see it in context. I will await your reply before posting. Thank you.
1508:
1537:
767:
735:
889:
370:
365:
601:
I don't quite understand your reasoning, and would like to find out. If you have some time for me, could you maybe explain? Thanks!
872:
I think you should explain that last comment... Although I'm not exactly sure that I want to hear the explanation... (;-> !
1309:
So the listing is still at "Candidate", but it's unclear whether or not it should be, largely because I haven't been able to find
1210:
RfC page, I saw it under the heading "Approved pages - have met the two person threshold". That was yesterday, sometime, I think.
201:
general philosophy of Knowledge, I'm not sure what to say, so I'll say nothing. I wish them no ill, but it is an odd argument.
1643:
In answer to your final question - No! But I will try, first initiative test is to try and find image workshop! Thanks anyway
1049:
otherwise. I'm...well, we'll see. I updated my CV. That was my accomplishment today, but I'm running scared of everything.
950:
takes you right to my own attempt at defining "notability." I'm harsher than most folks, but there are people harsher than I.
621:. It allows all the information to be preserved, but it also makes some taxonomical and logical sense. Again: Look above on
959:
509:
Thanks. I was pretty ticked at a long sermon from IRC on how all one sentence stubs are good things and, more to the point,
157:, but I think you should. I'll nominate you for adminship if you like. You can reply here or on my talk page. Happy editing,
1548:
on drums. They are hoping to release a record any day now." Blug. So this is another reason I hate "List of..." article.
825:
My first thought is that this should be a variant of the Speedy delete nomination process and that we should discuss it at
345:, but I've got the info. Pretty minor plots, really, and a bit before my period, but I got good stuff with some patience.
271:
contain links to BDSM vendors, for instance one article currently has a link to "The Stockroom" (a vendor in Los Angeles).
1838:
misuse of that page is more damaging than any cleanup I could be trying to perform. -- Netoholic @ 14:35, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1274:
At 00:03, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC), I put a note on Guanaco's talk page, asking him to revert the moving of Fennec's signature.
1720:
is fine, I think, but this fiancée business ... Is Knowledge the gossip pages? Who the +{}\}≠\≠{¿\ gets
1692:, who is a 60 year old man with little skill when it comes to computers. Anyways, I believe it is reasonable now.--
731:
154:
1748:
I've been back in the slough, it seems. No sooner do I climb out than I teeter on the edge and fall back. (sigh)
1478:
826:
1103:
the years: they've been exhausted, bludgeoned, worn to a frazzle. Heck, 24 hours of that VfD debate did for
1263:
especially in a case like this where it changes that user's intent, and I note this on Guanaco's talk page.
1128:- Actually I don't think there's any policy that prohibits listing such pages on VfD. Since it looks like
1033:
Actually, David tells me they scuttled first and he never got to phone them, so it seems it was my scary
1759:
got engaged to TW. That's how it was really easy to find. Knowledge is not a Swedish tabloid, though.
250:. above (on the Entertainment Unit). I always want us to multiply entry titles only where necessary.
1444:
I understand it, then if Fennec's original signature was certification, then 48 hours of RfC is up.
641:) as I am this guy, even though both of those probably get an answer of "yes" to criterion c) above.
334:
1277:
At 00:29, 2 Sep 2004, Guanaco does the revert with the edit summary "(rv per request of orthogonal)"
965:
Please check out my revised user page and the above, and tell me if I've gone over the top. Thanks.
771:
1034:
529:
361:
313:
1651:
I really think the definition of the image size (300 pix) is fine, if that big white L goes away.
1353:
grounds, in which doesn't throw the RfC out, it argues for an adverse finding, which is different.
595:
Hmm, this is a valid argument maybe. But I'm curious I must say (sorry to bother you :-) ).
1164:
186:
158:
1481:
is pretty much a list of stubs in dire need of being consolidated. I mean, my god, it would be
1133:
Sysop Accountability Policy), but there isn't any other forum to discuss deleting those pages.
800:
1693:
1498:
902:
comment there too re: IRC "context". Your thoughts? -- orthogonal 15:41, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
704:
662:
587:. It's not that I'm against the information, but I am against this level of granularity.
707: ? Oh, hey. You know, on the phone I was talking about the infamous Keep decision on
8:
337:
is the article, because "Lord Cobham" changes families and titles. I added a bit to the
44:
1688:
Please check the page for new info. I didn't create the page orginally and neither did
1660:
1644:
1636:
1401:
Judging by the message Snowspinner just left on my talk page, he thinks it's still on.
1349:
argument, which says there are no grounds, but your argument is more that there are no
1219:
But what actually has happened is more convoluted; please bear with me, all times UTC:
554:
similarities with the genocidal maniacs of Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and Germany is helpful.
528:
Sheesh, Geogre, it turns out I don't know how to remove "Scania" and the song from the
418:
103:
Also, though, I went to a Ph.D. program where the official line was, "We make American
1168:
1138:
779:
500:
417:
Congratulazioni! - your elevation away from us mere mortals is thoroughly deserved
1226:
At 02:43, 31 Aug 2004, Fennec certified it, and it had the two certifiers required.
797:
626:
602:
388:
377:
1184:
Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/orthogonal#Policy_concerns_vs_personal_attacks
829:
or one of the speedy process pages. I'm not exactly sure which one would be best.
1627:
1609:
1586:
1573:
1490:
1425:
1415:
1402:
1378:
1206:
Well, it's unclear whether or not the RfC is over. The last time I looked at the
1187:
1068:
tonight, though. You need to have been asleep a while back. Shoot, it's nearly
966:
895:
625:
or throughout VfD's discussion on Dartmouth College. I would be just as against
410:
324:
298:
341:(I think the 2nd word is supposed to be miniscule). I haven't gotten around to
468:
230:
coverage, and not the content. For example, BDSM is particularly offensive in
196:
Absolutely. Thank you again. I don't know quite how to say this, but I'm for
1807:
1760:
1729:
1112:
1061:
1038:
1018:
1000:
992:
922:
793:
719:
692:
681:
657:
563:
546:
533:
438:
397:
247:
182:
142:
137:
37:
876:
838:
775:
749:
739:
364:. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the
123:
108:
1563:
it filled in. Perhaps this something we need to write up for Village Pump.
958:
947:
1783:
1768:
I'm on the project, and I get a nice message telling me I have a message.
1749:
1742:
1725:
1717:
1674:
1652:
1598:
1549:
1460:
1449:
1434:
1391:
1196:
1152:
1074:
1050:
1027:
1009:
979:
951:
940:
908:
865:
759:
716:
Knowledge:Votes for deletion/European Union Olympic medals count for 2004
709:
Knowledge:Votes for deletion/European Union Olympic medals count for 2004
642:
588:
555:
514:
477:
455:
426:
374:
346:
317:
283:
251:
240:
202:
197:
171:
112:
80:
17:
1799:
1523:
1414:
Geogre, would you mind looking over your note to Fennec again? Thanks.
1708:
ordegren" to "Tiger Woods", and put a link in "Tiger Woods" to "Elin
1545:
1182:
Geogre, with all respect, I think you may have gotten suckered here:
338:
309:
447:
I agree. All day, I've thought about it, and it still cracks me up.
1313:
that says who is supposed to determine if a certification is valid.
1090:
342:
305:
1559:
Or assumes -- and why should he not -- that the red link means we
297:
Geogre, can you create an article for the Stuart Age one, please?
234:
regard: The master article covers the general practice, but then
63:
represents wealth, and if female selection appears to be based on
1514:
634:
930:
same thing. That said, you picked a tough example. Stuff from
1541:
1511:
718:. Plus, if you want, my latest message on Rossami's Talk page.
572:
1670:
1632:
1526:
1520:
1517:
1505:
1502:
26:
1814:
1530:
1440:
As for whether it's still on or not, it kind of can't be.
248:
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Geogre#Entertainment_Unit
1572:
PS I figured out what "picturesw" is all about. See VfD.
1497:
What a lot of these things come from is some bum writing
750:
http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Geogre#Advice_for_VfD_Voters
1806:, we can't all be besserwissers like Bishonen. :-D
1296:
back to "Candidate pages", so I don't ask him to revert
948:
http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Geogre#Notability_Nota_Bene
1126:
Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Wikipedia:Popular articles
960:
User_talk:Orthogonal#ambi.27s_second_comment_.28ambi.29
730:
Good afternoon, Geogre. In light of the discussion at
703:
Huh? What what? Who said there was a Keep decision for
1626:
Hi Geogre - Could you do me a huge favour, and go to
768:
Knowledge talk:Deletion policy#Dictionary Definitions
736:
Knowledge talk:Deletion policy#Dictionary Definitions
1119:
986:
132:
738:. I'd be interested in your thoughts. Thanks.
748:Rossami, check out my thoughts on the matter at
671:
36:I'm curious as to how to pronounce your name. -
1804:Votes for deletion/Reciprocal System of Theory
1585:PPS: you planing to be on IRC this afternoon?
1390:like it, but it could very well be the case.
894:I'd appreciate seeing your comments as well.
316:; can you correct my misconceptions, and add
263:Thanks for explaining your position on this.
1699:
1037:that did it after all. :-) They're 17.
574:Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Professor Tomoe
1477:I just found something worse that Pokemon.
181:Terrific! I have posted your nomination at
148:
1704:Geogre? Title typo — you redirected "Elin
770:and would like your permission to link to
42:
1724:, anyway? However. If you do want her in
890:Knowledge:Requests for comment/orthogonal
725:
511:anyone who deletes them is a problem user
27:Messages from 10 July to 4 September 2004
1815:VfD Vandalism from Netoholic's Talk page
1292:page, I never see Guanaco has moved the
651:
461:
734:, I have opened a discussion thread at
153:Hi Geogre, you don't seem to be on the
14:
1288:But because I've never edited the RfC
915:
806:
766:Geogre, I have composed a comment for
637:(major character in book I of Swift's
698:
583:Merge and redirect with the proposed
1008:(I bet the .se knows of them, too.)
987:Swedish vandalism good news :-)
246:By the way, to see what I mean, see
1085:, while a couple of days ago I was
23:
523:
209:
24:
1858:
1469:
1248:certification is an endorsement)"
883:
432:
1501:and saying, "The characters are
1177:
1120:Knowledge namespace pages on VfD
732:Knowledge:Votes for deletion/Sty
360:Congratulations! You are now an
155:Knowledge:List of administrators
31:
133:How to create userpage subpages
1683:
1479:List of Super Mario characters
1244:Now it gets more interesting.
1089:close to listing the infamous
827:Knowledge talk:Speedy deletion
387:Congrats from me too :-)
292:
13:
1:
786:
672:And another link, if you want
614:outside of its master fiction
1489:my idea of an encyclopedia.
772:User:Geogre#My_"Deletionism"
371:administrators' how-to guide
366:administrators' reading list
333:Ok, I've done Lord Cobham:
7:
1673:: we did good work there.
1621:
1100:Reciprocal System of Theory
1095:Reciprocal System of Theory
10:
1863:
1124:Regarding your comment on
380:14:10, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
1700:Title typo Elin Nordegren
1696:09:22, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
1428:15:36, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC))
1345:Six people have endorsed
1130:you support my contention
925:16:20, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
898:06:01, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
868:19:03, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
803:00:21, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
762:22:06, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
742:20:27, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
722:23:19, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
695:20:04, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
684:19:53, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
605:07:22, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
558:15:12, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
549:14:46, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
539:
536:21:56, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
503:00:02, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
471:20:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
458:23:20, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
441:23:06, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
429:17:08, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
421:17:19, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
335:Henry Brooke, Lord Cobham
170:, as well as its growth.
145:20:07, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
126:23:04, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
83:00:38, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
1786:19:11, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1752:18:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1732:18:21, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1655:01:44, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1647:20:04, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1639:22:17, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1493:12:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1381:14:32, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1190:07:30, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1141:18:25, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1021:18:44, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1003:18:02, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
969:12:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
943:19:10, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
853:Tokyo Street Motocross 3
841:18:49, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
782:07:44, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
656:Links brought to you by
645:12:31, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
591:01:13, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
566:16:04, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
530:List of national anthems
517:15:18, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
480:20:37, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
413:16:17, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
400:15:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
391:15:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
355:
327:10:26, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
314:Hampton Court Conference
301:10:22, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
275:19:13, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
223:13:16, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
161:01:08, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
149:Administrator nomination
115:03:26, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
54:Second: my objection is
1810:19:51, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1763:19:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1745:18:42, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1677:12:36, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1663:05:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1612:18:14, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1601:17:53, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1589:16:01, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1576:13:26, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1552:13:05, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1463:20:02, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1452:17:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1437:17:51, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1418:16:02, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1405:15:36, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1394:14:38, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1199:13:30, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1171:19:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1165:Knowledge:Topical index
1155:18:32, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1115:20:43, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1077:01:06, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1064:01:00, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1053:00:38, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1041:00:36, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1030:18:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
1012:18:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
982:13:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
954:03:58, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
911:03:33, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
888:Snowspinner has opened
879:20:49, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
619:Sailor Moon antagonists
585:Sailor Moon antagonists
492:If ever stub is wasted,
349:19:15, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
286:04:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
254:14:21, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
243:13:25, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
205:04:09, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
189:14:25, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
174:12:53, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
726:VfD policy for dicdefs
623:The Entertainment Unit
997:Vandalism in progress
995:and I scared them on
939:an isolated article.
667:Scania VfD discussion
652:Sång till Skåne links
495:IRC gets quite irate.
486:Every stub is sacred,
462:B-Movie Bandit blooey
236:every single practice
1499:Super Mario Brothers
629:(hero in Fielding's
489:Every stub is great,
373:helpful. Good luck.
916:What is notability?
807:re: managed deletes
658:your Scanian friend
45:Concealed ovulation
848:John Kerry: Coward
699:What what? (Skåne)
639:Gulliver's Travels
187:Wile E. Heresiarch
159:Wile E. Heresiarch
1854:
627:Squire Allworthy
1862:
1861:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1817:
1802:pointed out on
1702:
1694:Che y Marijuana
1686:
1628:Montacute House
1624:
1618:
1475:
1180:
1122:
989:
976:on these topics
963:
918:
886:
809:
789:
728:
712:
705:Sång till Skåne
701:
674:
665:
661:
654:
577:
542:
526:
524:Sång till Skåne
483:
464:
435:
383:
358:
295:
212:
210:Fetish articles
151:
135:
129:
86:
48:
34:
29:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1860:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1840:
1839:
1830:
1829:
1816:
1813:
1812:
1811:
1770:
1769:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1746:
1701:
1698:
1685:
1682:
1681:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1623:
1620:
1616:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1603:
1602:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1554:
1553:
1474:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1454:
1453:
1438:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1396:
1395:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1275:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1249:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1230:
1227:
1224:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1201:
1200:
1179:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1157:
1156:
1121:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1078:
1065:
1054:
1042:
1031:
1014:
1013:
988:
985:
984:
983:
962:
957:
956:
955:
944:
917:
914:
913:
912:
885:
884:orthogonal RfC
882:
881:
880:
873:
843:
842:
834:
830:
823:
822:
821:
808:
805:
788:
785:
784:
783:
755:
754:
753:
752:
727:
724:
700:
697:
673:
670:
663:Scania article
653:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
593:
592:
576:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
541:
538:
525:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
497:
496:
493:
490:
487:
482:
481:
463:
460:
451:
450:
449:
448:
434:
433:Still the same
431:
415:
414:
402:
401:
393:
392:
357:
354:
353:
352:
351:
350:
304:Also, I added
294:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
258:
257:
256:
255:
244:
211:
208:
207:
206:
193:
192:
191:
190:
176:
175:
150:
147:
134:
131:
119:
118:
117:
116:
101:
98:
77:
76:
72:
68:
52:
47:
41:
33:
30:
28:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1859:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1821:
1809:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1789:
1788:
1787:
1785:
1780:
1775:
1767:
1762:
1758:
1754:
1753:
1751:
1747:
1744:
1740:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1713:
1711:
1707:
1697:
1695:
1691:
1676:
1672:
1667:
1662:
1657:
1656:
1654:
1649:
1648:
1646:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1638:
1634:
1629:
1619:
1611:
1610:-- orthogonal
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1600:
1595:
1594:
1588:
1587:-- orthogonal
1584:
1583:
1582:
1581:
1575:
1574:-- orthogonal
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1562:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1551:
1547:
1543:
1539:
1536:
1532:
1528:
1525:
1522:
1519:
1516:
1513:
1510:
1507:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1492:
1491:-- orthogonal
1488:
1484:
1480:
1473:
1462:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1436:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1427:
1426:-- orthogonal
1417:
1416:-- orthogonal
1413:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1404:
1403:-- orthogonal
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1393:
1389:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1380:
1379:-- orthogonal
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1335:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1318:
1312:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1276:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1250:
1246:
1245:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1231:
1228:
1225:
1221:
1220:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1209:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1198:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1189:
1188:-- orthogonal
1185:
1178:Crossed wires
1170:
1166:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1154:
1149:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1140:
1134:
1131:
1127:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1101:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1079:
1076:
1071:
1066:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1052:
1047:
1043:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1029:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1020:
1011:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1002:
998:
994:
981:
977:
972:
971:
970:
968:
967:-- orthogonal
961:
953:
949:
945:
942:
937:
933:
928:
927:
926:
924:
910:
905:
904:
903:
899:
897:
896:-- orthogonal
892:
891:
878:
874:
871:
870:
869:
867:
862:
858:
854:
849:
840:
835:
831:
828:
824:
819:
818:
815:
814:
813:
804:
802:
799:
795:
794:Simon Dedalus
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
764:
763:
761:
751:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
741:
737:
733:
723:
721:
717:
710:
706:
696:
694:
690:
685:
683:
678:
669:
668:
664:
659:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
620:
615:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
604:
599:
596:
590:
586:
582:
581:
580:
575:
565:
560:
559:
557:
552:
551:
550:
548:
537:
535:
531:
516:
512:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
502:
494:
491:
488:
485:
484:
479:
474:
473:
472:
470:
459:
457:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
440:
430:
428:
422:
420:
412:
411:-- orthogonal
408:
404:
403:
399:
395:
394:
390:
386:
385:
384:
381:
379:
376:
372:
367:
363:
362:administrator
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
326:
325:-- orthogonal
321:
319:
315:
311:
307:
302:
300:
299:-- orthogonal
285:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
274:
270:
264:
261:
253:
249:
245:
242:
237:
233:
228:
227:
226:
225:
224:
222:
218:
215:
204:
199:
195:
194:
188:
184:
180:
179:
178:
177:
173:
169:
164:
163:
162:
160:
156:
146:
144:
139:
138:
130:
127:
125:
114:
110:
106:
102:
99:
96:
91:
90:
89:
88:
87:
84:
82:
73:
69:
66:
62:
57:
53:
50:
49:
46:
40:
39:
32:Pronunciation
19:
1831:
1822:
1818:
1791:
1778:
1773:
1771:
1756:
1738:
1721:
1714:
1709:
1705:
1703:
1687:
1625:
1617:
1560:
1486:
1482:
1476:
1471:
1445:
1441:
1423:
1387:
1376:
1350:
1346:
1333:
1310:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1207:
1181:
1169:Michael Snow
1147:
1139:Michael Snow
1135:
1123:
1108:
1104:
1086:
1069:
1057:
1045:
1015:
993:David Remahl
990:
975:
964:
935:
931:
919:
900:
893:
887:
860:
856:
844:
810:
790:
756:
729:
702:
688:
686:
675:
655:
638:
630:
613:
600:
597:
594:
579:You stated:
578:
543:
527:
510:
501:Michael Snow
498:
465:
452:
436:
423:
416:
406:
382:
359:
322:
303:
296:
268:
265:
262:
259:
235:
231:
219:
216:
213:
167:
152:
140:
136:
128:
120:
109:Stanley Fish
104:
94:
85:
78:
64:
60:
55:
35:
1726:Tiger Woods
1718:Tiger Woods
1690:redstar2000
1684:redstar2000
1535:My neighbor
1351:substantive
1111:. :-(
1109:three years
946:By the way
857:are getting
603:Kim Bruning
409:dance yet?
389:Kim Bruning
318:clericalism
293:Lord Cobham
214:Hi George,
198:Cincinnatus
18:User:Geogre
1800:User:danmc
1083:Islamonazi
932:Simarilion
787:John Joyce
95:because of
71:fertility.
1796:Talk page
1779:literally
1546:Some dude
1509:Metal box
631:Tom Jones
469:Lucky 6.9
339:Main Plot
310:Main Plot
168:Knowledge
1808:Bishonen
1761:Bishonen
1730:Bishonen
1622:Help me!
1538:My buddy
1336:endorse.
1323:dispute.
1311:anything
1233:invalid.
1113:Bishonen
1091:Feminazi
1062:Bishonen
1039:Bishonen
1019:Bishonen
1001:Bishonen
923:Acsenray
720:Bishonen
693:Bishonen
682:Bishonen
564:Bishonen
547:Bishonen
534:Bishonen
439:Bishonen
398:Bishonen
343:Bye plot
306:Bye Plot
143:Bishonen
105:scholars
1772:I know
1722:engaged
1515:Gallant
1472:et alia
1470:Mario,
1377:Yours,
1294:listing
1290:listing
1035:message
877:Andrewa
839:Rossami
776:SWAdair
740:Rossami
635:Flimnap
323:Thanks!
124:Rossami
1784:Geogre
1750:Geogre
1743:Geogre
1675:Geogre
1653:Geogre
1599:Geogre
1550:Geogre
1542:guitar
1512:Goofus
1461:Geogre
1450:Geogre
1435:Geogre
1392:Geogre
1197:Geogre
1153:Geogre
1075:Geogre
1051:Geogre
1028:Geogre
1010:Geogre
980:Geogre
952:Geogre
941:Geogre
909:Geogre
866:Geogre
760:Geogre
643:Geogre
633:) and
589:Geogre
556:Geogre
540:Thanks
515:Geogre
478:Geogre
456:Geogre
427:Geogre
375:Angela
347:Geogre
312:, and
284:Geogre
273:Dlloyd
252:Geogre
241:Geogre
221:Dlloyd
203:Geogre
183:WP:RFA
172:Geogre
113:Geogre
81:Geogre
75:facts.
1846:(UTC)
1792:would
1739:might
1671:Spire
1661:Giano
1645:Giano
1637:Giano
1633:Spire
1527:Manny
1521:Curly
1518:Larry
1506:Luigi
1503:Mario
1334:don't
1148:space
1058:again
861:wrong
780:Talk
419:Giano
356:Sysop
16:<
1790:You
1561:want
1544:and
1531:Jack
1529:and
1388:seem
1347:your
1298:that
1208:main
1087:this
1044:You
798:john
689:this
677:This
407:game
260:Hi,
232:this
61:that
43:re:
38:Paul
1757:all
1540:on
1524:Moe
1487:not
1483:far
1223:it.
1046:are
936:way
934:is
691:.)
269:not
65:lek
1446:If
1442:If
1186:.
1105:my
1070:my
778:|
660::
320:?
308:,
56:so
1774:I
1710:N
1706:n
1300:.
974:(
851:(
801:k
378:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.