1212:- I think this is the closest that the AFD came to consensus and would be a superior alternative to deletion. As the AFD discussion seemed to point towards, there is nothing in here that is encyclopedic content. The Freeman stuff either needs elucidation or needs to be removed. That leaves us with the quote itself, plus the context (it's a parody of the laws of thermodynamics). That's it - two facts, one of which is a direct quote, one of which gives the content of the quote. For those people who are worried about "snotty deletionists" (which seems unnecessarily invective) can I suggest attempting to take a "wikimedianist" perspective instead? (Indeed, if I was in invective mood I'd criticize those who don't as "small-minded 'pedia-nists". There's no monopoly on invective, which is why it's such an ineffective argumentative technique!) Now, there is a place in the Wikimedia collection of free-content projects, for interesting, notable factual content that consists of a quote plus the context of the quote. It's called Wikiquote. That's where this content belongs (for instance, because that project has more consistent rules for the formatting, curation and categorization of such content) , but people who try looking it up in Knowledge (XXG) ought to be offered a soft redirect to the correct place.
112:
1267:
you can't reach absolute zero. Real thermodynamicists tend to get itchy about the accuracy of such pronouncements, but I consider that the quips are of didactic (possibly even philosophical, and to the suitably diseased mind, of entertainment) interest. I take the point that as it stands the article is a bit light, though no lighter than some others on topics of modern folklore. However, I suggest that instead of the proposed deletion, some of the interested parties might consider incorporating it into a larger, more coherent article on related concepts. I would be willing to help, but cannot at the moment undertake it all myself.
243:
240:
1301:
those suitably equipped get together and consider producing an article that, if not a definitive guide, at least offers a perspective on the various aspects of ramifications of thermodynamics and related material, including in particular Wiki articles dealing with the various aspects, including info theory and cultural (mis)conceptions etc. At the moment it is a jungle out there, even just in WP! Any naive reader of just one article will be lost without even knowing he is lost. I don't offhand see anything of the kind mentioned in
102:
81:
50:
1058:, as the original suggester. The only substance in the article is a quotation and examples of it being quoted. That isn't enough to sustain an encyclopedia article, but it fits well as a redirect to a wikiquote. Simply repeating "it's fine the way it is" does not in any way address this. Also, deleting and redirecting are very clearly different. Redirecting preserves all the useful content.
21:
1231:. It's already been discussed at Afd, the discussion didn't give the answer that some people wanted, so it's being raised again in a different forum. I don't see new information or new arguments not already presented in the Afd discussion. I suggest that some time should be allowed to see if anyone improves the article, before reopening this discussion.
1300:
Hmmm... My apologies. I hadn't visited WQ:Thermodynamics. I still haven't been properly through all the material on thermo (surprised?) but I suspect that I am not the only one. I suggest that instead of what I said before, any non-redundant material in this article be moved to WQ for now, and that
908:
That's not "working". You just moved it up to the top where it goes when the anchoring fails. If the anchor worked with the text at the bottom of the page it would scroll down and show the anchor at the bottom of the page. I wonder if it would work if we created a redirect in wikiquote and used that.
597:
The AfD was closed as no consensus, meaning that other attempts to attain consensus regarding this article are not barred. The other participants in the AfD neither objected nor supported redirection to
Wikiquote. Therefore, I am inviting them to comment here and starting an RfC to solicit uninvolved
462:
Four of us said keep before his final comment which he said to redirect it, and no one posted after him. Lack of a response doesn't mean people agree with you, they just see no reason to repeat what they already said before. One delete other than the nominator, and one merge, with four saying keep,
1266:
I think the topic is too big for the article. I am familiar with both the quote (though I did not know , or may have forgotten, that it is called anyone's theorem) and a couple of similar quips, such as that: you cannot do better than breaking even -- you can only break even at absolute zero -- and
1152:
The second half of the article is a copy of a non-notable remark by a non-notable individual. So far as I can tell, H. Freeman's qualification to comment is that he used to be a sysadmin at NASA. In addition, the remark is itself rubbish. In what universe is capitalism described as a philosophy that
748:
the redirect if it really took the reader to the theorem at wikiquotes. The current version a) is not transparent (you have to select the link on the redirect page), b) doesn't take you to the theorem but to a page of
Ginsberg quotes (without headers that the redirect link could anchor to) where you
445:
By my reading, most people said to keep it but merge it or turn it into a redirect and I didn't see anyone objecting to Dingo's proposed action in that discussion. If you disagree, please provide a summary of the positions of those participating. (I'm not taking a position on Dingo's bold move yet.)
1382:
I noticed there was a recent, relatively large change made all at once a few weeks ago that seems to have a lot of the writing traits of ChatGPT or some other LLM. Specifically, the writing is very formulaic and template-like, and the article is broken up into a list with paragraphs for each entry,
551:
Does anyone see anything other than a quotation here? I don't see any analysis or commentary in the references. Just a quotation. I don't really see how anything much more can be said about it. That's why I put the suggestion here and then waited for a few days before actually making the redirect.
236:
1002:"Its fine the way it is" and I stated there was no consensus to delete the article, and of course replacing an article with a redirect is virtually the same thing is deleting it. Also pointed out there was no reason to repeat what I and others already said in the AFD.
1327:
redirect. Yes, it is true that a failed AfD does not proscribe redirecting but that is just wikilawyering. It happens far too often that those that did not get their way at AfD try to circumvent the result with a redirect. "No consensus" defaults to
1153:
attempts to make life meaningful? Just try reading the remark before defending it. The only reason I haven't deleted it yet is that deletion would be moot if we redirect. Encyclopedic?? It's this kind of random garbage that gives wikipedia a bad name.
1246:
Well, no, the proposal to redirect was made at the AfD, but there was no discussion of it. I don't know whether you checked the history of the article, but there has been no substantial improvement since it was created two years ago. And, as
336:, which says to capitalize proper names, and this is clearly a proper name). Also, I changed the link to google books because I had forgotten to close a quote, you ca3DDiscovery, innovation,*ll books use capitalization. --
535:
I think that the ability to make a redirect which goes immediately to another wiki (a hard redirect in wiki-speak) has been disabled and we can only use one which displays the redirect page first (a soft redirect).
1282:
Without sources this idea is DOA. Could you offer some? Also some idea of a new title would provide focus. Are you thinking of broadening the topic to something like "Laws of
Thermodynamics (generalizations)"?
775:
Your concern C has also been addressed. Now indented below the
Ginsberg's theorem entry is the sentence: "These statements are known collectively as "Ginsberg's theorem", a restatement of the three Laws of
357:– if the usage was consistently upper case, I'd consider it, but it's not. The guideline on what's a proper noun doesn't have any good criterion for concluding that this is one; other theorems are not.
1111:
The content is encyclopedic. No reason for it to be expanded. It is notable because of how often it is quoted and referenced. You don't need any additional information, it fine the way it is.
1032:
How is the article fine, considering that the theorem itself and its attribution to Allen
Ginsberg are the only verifiable facts in the article? These two nicely fit into the scope of Wikiquote.
1416:
399:. There really seems to be nothing to be said more than the ""theorem"" itself. I'm planning on redirecting this article there. Nothing else here seems worth saving. Any objections?
680:
31:
1167:
This is the type of article that people formerly came here to read and still do. If you don't like it, then you won't be likely to find it anyway. We're not here to impress any
518:
If we decide to use this redirect is there a way to get it to act like a proper redirect and transparently go to the wikiquoite page instead of hanging up on the redirect page?
1383:
the format which ChatGPT almost always answers in. I'm going to revert this edit since it doesn't add anything of note to the article and lacks any sourcing as well.
1302:
826:
The anchoring does work because it goes as far down the page as it can. If the
Wikiquote page were longer, the page would display with Ginsberg's theorem at the top.
168:
286:
925:
Oops. I just figured out that I needed to allow scripting (using NoScript) for
Wikiquotes to get the anchor to work. My apologies for extra time spent on this.
749:
have to look around for the theorem and even then c) there's just a sentence that says that one of the quotes is the theorem. If that's how it has to be then I
1095:
There is little encyclopedic content in this article. As Dingo1729 states, "The only substance in the article is a quotation and examples of it being quoted."
806:
I worked at this also and added headers on the quote page to make it easier to locate the theorem. I'm not seeing the anchoring working using your link or
1411:
1332:. I am especially opposed to a redirect going off-wiki. Having said that, I agree that it is not much of an article and would not be opposed to a
701:, stating that "There really seems to be nothing to be said more than the ""theorem"" itself.... Nothing else here seems worth saving". One editor (
158:
111:
1406:
134:
656:
Redirecting would be a less useful outcome for our readers. Supporters stated that
Wikiquote is a better place to host this material.
712:
1306:
125:
86:
694:
61:
310:—the capital T would make it look awkward; and the relationship between our house style and external sources is not simple.
567:
The article is fine, as already explained in the AFD. I don't see as how it needs anything else. Its fine the way it is.
1097:
And there is no possibility for the article to be "expanded". No substantial information is available about this theorem.
1077:- Doing so would significantly reduce the encyclopedic content of the article within the Wikiquote formatting and style.
384:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
203:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
27:
1340:
for example. A good beginning for such an article could be moving all the junk that accumulates at the bottom of the
782:
272:
1171:
anyway. Mindless destruction of valid content is the only thing I see giving
Knowledge (XXG) a bad name these days.
1086:
415:
789:
1337:
770:
662:
644:
865:
67:
49:
1388:
1351:
1314:
1272:
1251:
said "You can't have a page of text talking about three sentences either, and they are self explanatory."
1081:
the information to
Wikiquote would be functional. Leave the article in place to be expanded and improved.
807:
1228:
333:
1384:
1217:
1082:
706:
341:
294:
250:
133:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
495:, making it three deletes and four keeps, plus a merge and Dingo's redirect, total nine participants.
658:
640:
20:
1289:
1256:
1158:
1063:
1030:
No consensus at AfD does not mean that redirection is prohibited. RfC and AfD are different venues.
931:
915:
846:
816:
759:
688:
557:
541:
524:
501:
452:
404:
223:
1346:
1236:
988:
What reasons? All I see is a vote count of the AfD. This RfC has nothing to do with the AfD now.
362:
1310:
1268:
1102:
1037:
993:
873:
831:
797:
735:
720:
603:
491:
Thanks, that's pretty much what I see except Grappler concludes with "delete" at the end of
1248:
1213:
1172:
1168:
1112:
1003:
961:
702:
698:
568:
464:
418:
396:
337:
290:
246:
621:
861:
715:)) has objected, so I am starting this RfC to gain other editors' opinions on this issue.
683:
for this article resulted in a "no consensus" closure. Towards the end of the discussion,
318:
289:, proper names are capitalized following common usage. The common usage is capitalized. --
268:
840:
With the headers I added there's enough length to the page you can see it's not working.
375:
332:
Uh, do you have any actual policy-based or guideline-based reason? (Myself, I am arguing
194:
1284:
1252:
1154:
1059:
926:
910:
841:
811:
754:
684:
553:
537:
519:
496:
447:
400:
213:
117:
1400:
1341:
1232:
358:
1098:
1033:
989:
869:
827:
793:
731:
716:
599:
101:
80:
1392:
1357:
1318:
1294:
1276:
1260:
1240:
1221:
1194:
1162:
1134:
1106:
1090:
1067:
1041:
1025:
997:
983:
936:
920:
877:
851:
835:
821:
801:
764:
739:
724:
666:
648:
607:
590:
561:
545:
529:
506:
486:
457:
440:
408:
366:
345:
323:
298:
276:
254:
216:
1336:
which kept all the existing information on Knowledge (XXG). There could be a
311:
264:
107:
778:
Hard redirecting the page to another wiki is not technically possible. The
417:, not eliminate it by a delete or a redirect. Its fine the way it is.
130:
287:
Knowledge (XXG):Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)#General_principles
463:
and he then saying keep but redirect. It closed as no consensus.
263:
In Knowledge (XXG) style the term "theorem" is not capitalized —
1365:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
43:
15:
864:
the Ginsberg's theorem section higher up on the page. Now
1227:
In response to the RFC: this looks to me like a case of
193:
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
492:
228:
860:
Ginsberg's theorem, the anchor would work. I have now
245:, which means that they treat it as a proper noun. --
630:
No further edits should be made to this discussion.
374:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
1371:
No further edits should be made to this discussion.
1344:article and periodical gets thinned out as trivia.
620:
The following discussion is an archived record of a
613:
RfC: Should this article be redirected to Wikiquote?
414:
Yes, I object. Most people said to keep the article
129:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1303:
Knowledge (XXG):Requested articles/Natural sciences
697:) suggested that this article be redirected to the
238:. In google books almost all sources capitalize it
960:for reasons I mentioned in the previous section.
1417:Start-Class physics articles of Low-importance
771:wikiquote:Allen_Ginsberg#Ginsberg.27s_theorem
699:Wikiquote entry of the author of this theorem
632:A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
8:
47:
773:now links to the Ginsberg's theorem quote.
395:I have added the quotation to Wikiquotes,
75:
30:on 19 September 2011 (UTC). The result of
235:It was originally coined as a proper name
856:I meant that if there were more content
77:
7:
208:The result of the move request was:
123:This article is within the scope of
1307:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Physics
143:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Physics
66:It is of interest to the following
285:According to our manual of style,
14:
810:. So C is well satisfied anyway.
110:
100:
79:
48:
19:
1412:Low-importance physics articles
163:This article has been rated as
26:This article was nominated for
1:
667:08:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
649:08:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
367:05:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
217:01:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
137:and see a list of open tasks.
1407:Start-Class physics articles
1358:16:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
1319:15:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
1295:13:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
1277:06:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
1261:01:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
1241:23:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
146:Template:WikiProject Physics
1338:List of technician's adages
1222:10:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
1195:19:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
1163:15:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
1135:04:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
1107:22:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
1091:12:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
1068:03:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
1042:02:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
1026:01:22, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
998:01:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
984:01:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
937:02:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
921:02:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
878:22:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
852:02:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
836:02:08, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
822:01:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
802:01:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
765:00:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
740:00:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
725:23:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
608:23:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
591:06:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
562:04:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
546:04:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
530:02:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
507:03:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
487:02:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
458:02:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
441:02:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
409:05:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
346:16:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
324:12:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
299:22:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
277:12:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
255:16:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
1433:
1393:19:57, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
1378:Potential ChatGPT writing?
169:project's importance scale
162:
95:
74:
1368:Please do not modify it.
638:no consensus to redirect
627:Please do not modify it.
397:wikiquote:Allen_Ginsberg
381:Please do not modify it.
200:Please do not modify it.
909:I'll give it a try...
56:This article is rated
60:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
730:I would not object.
769:I have addressed B—
622:request for comment
598:editors' opinions.
126:WikiProject Physics
788:provides a way to
783:Wikiquote redirect
229:Ginsberg's Theorem
224:Ginsberg's theorem
212:per discussion. -
62:content assessment
183:
182:
179:
178:
175:
174:
42:
41:
1424:
1370:
1354:
1349:
1292:
1287:
1249:User:Dream Focus
1191:
1188:
1185:
1182:
1179:
1176:
1131:
1128:
1125:
1122:
1119:
1116:
1083:Northamerica1000
1022:
1019:
1016:
1013:
1010:
1007:
980:
977:
974:
971:
968:
965:
934:
929:
918:
913:
849:
844:
819:
814:
787:
781:
776:Thermodynamics."
762:
757:
629:
587:
584:
581:
578:
575:
572:
527:
522:
504:
499:
483:
480:
477:
474:
471:
468:
455:
450:
437:
434:
431:
428:
425:
422:
383:
321:
316:
231:
202:
151:
150:
149:physics articles
147:
144:
141:
120:
115:
114:
104:
97:
96:
91:
83:
76:
59:
53:
52:
44:
23:
16:
1432:
1431:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1397:
1396:
1380:
1375:
1366:
1352:
1347:
1290:
1285:
1189:
1186:
1183:
1180:
1177:
1174:
1139:
1129:
1126:
1123:
1120:
1117:
1114:
1044:
1020:
1017:
1014:
1011:
1008:
1005:
978:
975:
972:
969:
966:
963:
932:
927:
916:
911:
889:
888:
847:
842:
817:
812:
785:
779:
760:
755:
659:Graeme Bartlett
641:Graeme Bartlett
625:
615:
585:
582:
579:
576:
573:
570:
525:
520:
502:
497:
481:
478:
475:
472:
469:
466:
453:
448:
435:
432:
429:
426:
423:
420:
393:
388:
379:
319:
312:
227:
198:
188:
148:
145:
142:
139:
138:
116:
109:
89:
57:
12:
11:
5:
1430:
1428:
1420:
1419:
1414:
1409:
1399:
1398:
1379:
1376:
1374:
1373:
1361:
1360:
1298:
1297:
1264:
1263:
1229:forum shopping
1225:
1224:
1210:Strong support
1206:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1169:snotty elitist
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1138:
1137:
1096:
1071:
1070:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1031:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
893:
892:
891:
890:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
777:
774:
742:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
669:
616:
614:
611:
596:
594:
593:
549:
548:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
392:
389:
387:
386:
376:requested move
370:
369:
351:
350:
349:
348:
327:
326:
304:
303:
302:
301:
280:
279:
222:
220:
210:page not moved
206:
205:
195:requested move
189:
187:
184:
181:
180:
177:
176:
173:
172:
165:Low-importance
161:
155:
154:
152:
135:the discussion
122:
121:
118:Physics portal
105:
93:
92:
90:Low‑importance
84:
72:
71:
65:
54:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1429:
1418:
1415:
1413:
1410:
1408:
1405:
1404:
1402:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1385:Chemistmenace
1377:
1372:
1369:
1363:
1362:
1359:
1356:
1355:
1350:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1331:
1326:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1296:
1293:
1288:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1274:
1270:
1262:
1258:
1254:
1250:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1208:
1207:
1196:
1193:
1192:
1170:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1160:
1156:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1136:
1133:
1132:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1073:
1072:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1054:
1053:
1043:
1039:
1035:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1024:
1023:
1001:
1000:
999:
995:
991:
987:
986:
985:
982:
981:
959:
956:
955:
938:
935:
930:
924:
923:
922:
919:
914:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
855:
854:
853:
850:
845:
839:
838:
837:
833:
829:
825:
824:
823:
820:
815:
809:
805:
804:
803:
799:
795:
791:
790:soft-redirect
784:
772:
768:
767:
766:
763:
758:
752:
747:
743:
741:
737:
733:
729:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
714:
711:
708:
704:
700:
696:
693:
690:
686:
682:
668:
664:
660:
657:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
646:
642:
639:
636:
635:
634:
631:
628:
623:
618:
617:
612:
610:
609:
605:
601:
592:
589:
588:
566:
565:
564:
563:
559:
555:
547:
543:
539:
534:
533:
532:
531:
528:
523:
508:
505:
500:
494:
490:
489:
488:
485:
484:
461:
460:
459:
456:
451:
444:
443:
442:
439:
438:
416:
413:
412:
411:
410:
406:
402:
398:
390:
385:
382:
377:
372:
371:
368:
364:
360:
356:
353:
352:
347:
343:
339:
335:
331:
330:
329:
328:
325:
322:
317:
315:
309:
306:
305:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
283:
282:
281:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
259:
258:
257:
256:
252:
248:
244:
242:
241:
237:
233:
230:
225:
219:
218:
215:
211:
204:
201:
196:
191:
190:
185:
170:
166:
160:
157:
156:
153:
136:
132:
128:
127:
119:
113:
108:
106:
103:
99:
98:
94:
88:
85:
82:
78:
73:
69:
63:
55:
51:
46:
45:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1381:
1367:
1364:
1345:
1342:Murphy's law
1333:
1329:
1324:
1311:JonRichfield
1299:
1269:JonRichfield
1265:
1226:
1209:
1173:
1113:
1078:
1074:
1055:
1004:
962:
957:
857:
750:
745:
709:
691:
678:
655:
637:
633:
626:
619:
595:
569:
550:
517:
465:
419:
394:
380:
373:
354:
334:WP:LOWERCASE
313:
307:
260:
239:
234:
221:
209:
207:
199:
192:
186:move request
164:
124:
68:WikiProjects
36:no consensus
35:
1214:TheGrappler
868:will work.
703:Dream Focus
338:Enric Naval
291:Enric Naval
247:Enric Naval
58:Start-class
1401:Categories
792:the page.
681:recent AfD
391:Wikiquotes
1253:Dingo1729
1155:Dingo1729
1060:Dingo1729
866:this link
685:Dingo1729
554:Dingo1729
538:Dingo1729
401:Dingo1729
214:GTBacchus
1348:Spinning
1233:Jowa fan
744:I would
713:contribs
695:contribs
493:his post
359:Dicklyon
273:contribs
28:deletion
1099:Goodvac
1056:Support
1034:Goodvac
990:Goodvac
870:Goodvac
828:Goodvac
794:Goodvac
746:support
732:Bearian
717:Goodvac
600:Goodvac
167:on the
140:Physics
131:Physics
87:Physics
1325:Oppose
1079:Adding
1075:Oppose
958:Oppose
751:oppose
355:Oppose
320:(talk)
308:Oppose
261:Oppose
64:scale.
1353:Spark
1334:merge
1291:lozzo
1190:Focus
1130:Focus
1021:Focus
979:Focus
933:lozzo
917:lozzo
862:moved
858:after
848:lozzo
818:lozzo
761:lozzo
586:Focus
526:lozzo
503:lozzo
482:Focus
454:lozzo
436:Focus
265:FoxCE
1389:talk
1330:keep
1315:talk
1286:Joja
1273:talk
1257:talk
1237:talk
1218:talk
1159:talk
1103:talk
1087:talk
1064:talk
1038:talk
994:talk
928:Joja
912:Joja
874:talk
843:Joja
832:talk
813:Joja
808:mine
798:talk
756:Joja
753:it.
736:talk
721:talk
707:talk
689:talk
679:The
663:talk
645:talk
604:talk
558:talk
542:talk
521:Joja
498:Joja
449:Joja
405:talk
363:talk
342:talk
314:Tony
295:talk
269:talk
251:talk
34:was
1305:or
378:.
159:Low
1403::
1391:)
1317:)
1309:.
1275:)
1259:)
1239:)
1220:)
1161:)
1105:)
1089:)
1066:)
1040:)
996:)
876:)
834:)
800:)
786:}}
780:{{
738:)
723:)
665:)
647:)
624:.
606:)
560:)
544:)
407:)
365:)
344:)
297:)
275:)
271:|
253:)
232:–
226:→
197:.
1387:(
1313:(
1271:(
1255:(
1235:(
1216:(
1187:m
1184:a
1181:e
1178:r
1175:D
1157:(
1127:m
1124:a
1121:e
1118:r
1115:D
1101:(
1085:(
1062:(
1036:(
1018:m
1015:a
1012:e
1009:r
1006:D
992:(
976:m
973:a
970:e
967:r
964:D
872:(
830:(
796:(
734:(
719:(
710:·
705:(
692:·
687:(
661:(
643:(
602:(
583:m
580:a
577:e
574:r
571:D
556:(
540:(
479:m
476:a
473:e
470:r
467:D
433:m
430:a
427:e
424:r
421:D
403:(
361:(
340:(
293:(
267:(
249:(
171:.
70::
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
