222:
repeat the same thing, frequently incorrectly, or one should be able to come to
Knowledge (XXG) - for exactly the same reasons - it's got nothing to do with the latest news, it's about being a complete encyclopaedia, not just ignoring something notable until it's a bit dusty. All of this is consistent with being a tertiary source - all of this is consistent with being an encyclopaedia. The only reasons it's not 'traditional' for an encyclopaedia to attempt to be current, have to do with paper, printing, logistics and cost (in terms of paying writers). --Jaymax (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
655:
danger of the Amazon forest all going up in flames and leaving savannah. (I'd call these changes urgent). Elsewhere there is almost no mention of the
Antarctic - these are the kind of things that people will expect and be extremely disappointed not to find. I don't wish to point at the one article in the whole suite where I was finally allowed to make major changes (to the lede, this was a week ago) but it came about after an entirely unnecessary fight. I believe I have a good record for writing in an NPOV fashion, I successfully(?) made major
25:
1142:
706:
need to be critically assessed by the authors and copies will have to be made available to reviewers who request them. Disparate views for which there is significant scientific or technical support should be clearly identified in IPCC reports, together with relevant arguments. Expert meetings and workshops may be used to support the preparation of a report.
956:
can't see what possible benefit delete offers over merge where there is content that MIGHT be valuable. (Also, after stumbling across a couple of things off-WP, I'm starting to form a strong opinion that if an article is to be deleted for non-notability, that is a very STRONG driver for MERGE, over DELETE in almost all cases.) ‒
643:, I've simply pointed out that WMC already knew about the latest GW scandal (the Himalayan glaciers are not going to largely all melt by 2035 as claimed in the latest IPCC 2007 report), because he's already entered it into one of the sub-articles. The misprint refers to the wrongful entry in the WWF report repeated by the IPCC.
681:
Context is everything I guess. I've struck the comment, because in retrospect, as you say, you were not alleging anything. I have major concerns with the POV in WMCs contributions on this. And I'm philosophically on the same side of the fence as him. I appreciate your efforts - GW is always going
245:
that I recognize that you are putting in a seriously good faith effort to come to a resolution that actually addresses the core concerns, and for that I do thank you. I believe that if it were just you and myself trying to work through this we would have been done by now, but unfortunately it should
1159:
Hello Jaymax. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the
English Knowledge (XXG), in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The
1067:
With hindsight, maybe I should have agreed to the move you suggested. It's tricky. As a general note, I always find RfCs with alternatives better if each alternative is listed separately, with supports and other opinion going directly beneath the option, because it allows for additional options to
770:
I've removed your PA. I think your decision to take a break and calm down is a sensible one. Please ponder this, though: you have got the substance of all this wrong, and don't seem able to cope with being corrected. Had you not reverted on the crit page, we could have discussed this all politely on
716:
There is no way that this glacier prediction (said to have panicked 2 billion people?) should have got in, let alone lain uninvestigated for 3 years. The
Chinese blocked agreement at Copenhagen, I wonder if they realised there was such bad science in the case. It would be interesting to ask WMC when
183:
Unfortunately, about ^^ then - I couldn't stay involved. I've yet to go through the guideline, but I note the big tick at the top. Well Done! I'm sorry it felt like 'worn down' to make the point - and I'm amused by your "unprecedented" ... "except for" - as I hope you were when you wrote it. Let
158:
OK, you've worn me down. I think we do need some brainstorming on what characteristics make an event likely to be notable vs. run-of-the-mill, although it might not make it into the proposal. We've already got some mention of this issue, like events setting a precedent. Perhaps "unprecedented" could
221:
For a notable event a year ago, one can either trawl through hundreds of online news articles, most of which repeat the same thing, frequently incorrectly, or one can come to
Knowledge (XXG). For a notable event a day ago, one can either trawl through hundreds of online news articles, most of which
705:
The authors will work on the basis of peer reviewed and internationally available literature, including manuscripts that can be made available for IPCC review and selected non-peer reviewed literature. Source, quality and validity of non-peer reviewed literature, such as private sector information
307:
1RR normally works well. Under 1RR, a majority 'tag team' (when such a thing exists) gets to define the contentious page content while it's being talked out. There's nothing wrong with that. But where it doesn't work, is for things like POV tags, where logically being in the majority should not
955:
Which is why merge - article content is not required to be notable - the content presumably comes from somewhere, why ditch it? If the HTF article crowd don't want it - let them delete it. The benefit of merge over delete seems obvious (content retained for evaluation by interested parties) - I
218:
Encyclopaedic applicability or purpose wrt a notable breaking news event is no different to applicability wrt any other notable event. In the case of
Balloon Boy it was dragging together in one place encyclopaedic facts that provided background, context, understanding. I totally agree that people
1053:
It can't be exactly added to the original straw poll, because voting on that is basically complete - folk might not come back to recast their votes, giving a misleading outcome. So since I'm not clear on exactly what you're suggesting, I'm going to say no for now. If you've a suggestion to work
391:
rather than splitting it between POoCC and SOoCC, correct? And you would consider the consensus section of GWC to be the place to hold public POV related to the scientific consensus, correct? I have sort of come down on the side of having POoCC be the counterpart to SOoCC and homing the public
654:
I believe I could help turn the articles around and I'm waiting for the go-ahead to, for instance, re-write the "Feedback" section of the GW article (which doesn't even differentiate between positive feedback and negative feedback!). That same section needs mention of desertification and/or the
80:
Hi. I saw you said you were backing out of this discussion, so thought I should take a look myself. I find myself in full agreement with you and was hoping that you could propose a rewrite to address some of your concerns and/or back my proposal for a rewrite that I think addresses your other
365:
I definitely do not want it. I believe it's right that SOoCC should be a scientific article, and that there needs to be a good article on the not-scientific debate about scientific consensus. I'd rather see the whole article merged into the 'consensus' section at
646:
But WMC's fine work is being completely wasted because over and over, I'm finding that either information is missing or buried so deeply it's impossible to find. All over the world people are using
Knowledge (XXG) to inform themselves and answer questions. The
975:
where there appears to be consensus. I wanted to invite a small number of people to look at it before figuring out a next step (whether that's to invite more people, to work on another RFC, or to scrap what I've written altogether). Take a look at
246:
be plainly obvious that not all editors share your willingness to find the common ground necessary to achieve that end. As a result I find that I cannot be as accommodating as I might otherwise be. Hopefully you understand this. Cheers. --
261:
Thanks, and ditto right back at you on your first two sentences. I hope you can support
Proposal #6, or if not, whatever 7,8, or 9 turn out to be. On being accomodating, pulling people into the middle can be very tiring, but conscious
694:
specify reliance on peer-reviewed material, with basically one exemption (private sector information). Such material must be "critically assessed" - strange that WP articles on GW get so much stricter over-site than the IPCC report
477:
I think the actual number 97% is probably better than the subjective term "overwhelming majority", but I wouldn't sweat the details much because the editor who took out the word "overwhelming" turns out to be a persistent sock.
1160:
survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
1224:. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
219:
should not be turning to WP to get their news - but if you want to look up some background that has long (relatively) dropped out of the current news, or research the topic - having an article is no bad thing.
1010:
892:
Looks fine to me in the technical aspects, but I'm no expert on these. What I really want to say is that your AfD nomination was truly great work! Great catch, really thought-provoking. Well done indeed.
85:
If you want to back out fully after doing that, I understand, but I'd really appreciate this last bit of assistance to show that there are multiple people supporting the proposed text of the article.
1005:
972:
1114:
To the contrary, I'd say that "mainstream opinion on global warming" means "mainstream scientific opinion" (and the page was about scientific opinion, too). Feel free to nominate the redirect at
606:
666:
I would appreciate it if you removed your challenge to me, there was no NPA involved and it does nothing to assist my concern to improve all the articles concerned.
785:
When I was concerned about something Jay had said about me I posted to this page (it's the very next section above) and asked him very politely to scrub it himself.
1093:. Please note that you gave an answer to this user on alternative wording to the introduction before the issue of Knowledge (XXG)'s neutrality which was raised at
1176:
You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated
682:
to be tricky to balance between what's socially relevant and what's scientifically relevant. FWIW I concur that, at the least, the lead needs reworking. ‒
874:
500:
587:
Truth is nuanced: Life in general, and
Knowledge (XXG) in particular, would be easier if people acknowledged this simple (yet, itself nuanced) truth. ‒
793:
Changing Jay' s words for him look likes an extremely high-handed action to take and can hardly be commensurate with a cooperative editing environment.
318:
I believe that your analysis is correct. I also believe that this is why WMC is promoting 1RR on SOoCC. It's just basic gamesmanship on his part. --
350:, but since this division tends to align strongly with the dominant POV on climate change it just seems problematic to use that split. Thoughts? --
426:. Did I write something somewhere other than just above that made it sound like I support a merge or split, 'cos if so, I need to go edit it. ‒
1177:
1249:
1108:
945:
859:
494:
347:
717:
he knew of this discovery, and whether it was deliberately kept secret until after
Copenhagen, where it would have been a real bombshell.
1101:
and and give an answer to the neutrality question. It is my opinion that the neutrality issue needs to be resolved first. Kind regards
383:
For some reason this reply is confusing me so let me repeat what I understood and you tell me if this is correct. You favor deleting
343:
1245:
851:
839:
160:
82:
62:
214:
Reposting this here because I like what I wrote, and I'm vain, and I might want to refer to it again without searching for it.
812:
776:
744:
614:
1165:
1034:
Hey Jaymax. Would you mind if I incorporated your "Option D" into the main body of the RfC to keep things organized on
518:
459:
172:
1236:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
1241:
691:
Well spotted on the peer-review business. The 4 page documention on procedures for "The Preparation of IPCC Reports"
506:
388:
367:
1068:
be added without disrupting the flow, or requiring close examination of vote dates to untangle support levels. ‒
980:. Note the point of the summary I wrote isn't to re-open the discussion, but to ask "does this describe the RFC"?
808:
798:
772:
740:
722:
671:
610:
488:
393:
384:
339:
977:
863:
1019:
985:
164:
128:
1094:
1187:
342:? I am actually waffling back and forth. Part of me likes the obvious parallel that could exist between
70:
1237:
1123:
1015:
981:
936:
Why merge? There's nothing to merge; the comics are so non-notable that I don't even know where they're
914:
855:
843:
788:
Jay was entirely happy to comply and he did it in a way that made it clear how much he took it all back.
602:
794:
718:
667:
143:
90:
1213:
1204:
537:
483:
286:
37:
1233:
1217:
922:
124:
760:
692:
392:
parts there with cross linking to ensure a NPOV for each. With that as the general framework,
1182:
1102:
899:
660:
401:
355:
323:
251:
66:
1229:
1221:
1098:
1119:
1043:
651:
article/s laughably fail to do this and in the process give off a strong impression of POV.
454:
1232:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
1225:
1115:
1097:
has been resolved. If you have not done so already, please read the issues as presented at
570:
301:
263:
139:
86:
553:
648:
533:
282:
47:
29:
918:
557:
895:
397:
351:
319:
247:
99:
Hi - no prob to have a peek at your re-write. Will pop over in a couple of days.--
566:
Never suggested it was RS. Just useful context for the debate. For passers-by:
1090:
1086:
1039:
1035:
227:
199:
185:
100:
1038:? I like to ask permission before rearranging the comments of other editors.
117:
42:
567:
281:
They are to the point. Good work. {Trying my best to stay away for now.)
24:
641:"WMC's already been there ... and written it up to say ... misprint ...."
308:
determine the article 'holding pattern' as being the absence the tag. ‒
1220:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)
1141:
159:
be a good sign of notability? 9/11 was unprecedented, excepting the
1253:
1193:
1127:
1072:
1058:
1047:
1023:
999:
989:
960:
949:
926:
903:
867:
825:
816:
802:
780:
748:
726:
686:
675:
628:
618:
591:
577:
560:
541:
464:
430:
405:
374:
359:
327:
312:
290:
270:
255:
235:
207:
193:
177:
147:
132:
108:
94:
74:
51:
23:
854:, i.e. "Sociopath", would be a related link in the psychology of
842:, i.e. "Sociopath", would be a related link in the psychology of
18:
739:
You know where my talk page is if you want to ask me questions
65:, at the RFC section? And maybe some other editors as well? --
1140:
61:
Can you help settle the dispute between me & axfield on
971:
I put together a short summary of the principles from the
607:
Knowledge (XXG):General sanctions/Climate change probation
888:
So this is my first AfD - hope I got the process right.
771:
the article talk page and this need never have happened
1171:
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
789:
656:
640:
524:
512:
475:
450:
1085:
This message is for you because you passed comment at
1004:
So you know, I've started the process of closing the
83:
Talk:Parents_Television_Council#WWE_and_Janet_Jackson
370:
than splitting it, but it should stay. I think. ‒
1212:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
821:TTFY (take that you fiend)? FF (form feed)? ‒
556:? It's looking very much like a blog to me... •
940:and they're not mentioned in the main article.
875:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Passarola
420:the article to be removed via a merge or split
568:Article "The Problem of Psychological Denial"
8:
552:Got a reason why we should think sandman is
913:Thank you for taking the time to look at
396:can remain, or not, as seems prudent. --
1054:around that issue, then let me know. ‒
909:NPOV Noticeboard – Manila hostage crisis
639:There are no allegations involved at
470:Your edit at Climate change consensus
7:
1109:Mainstream opinion on global warming
418:Apologies, I definitely do not want
348:Scientific opinion on climate change
198:Update - read it - O for awesome! --
138:Voice of reason much appreciated.--
14:
1238:review the candidates' statements
1116:redirects for deletion/discussion
1014:. Thanks for your participation!
932:List of Happy Tree Friends comics
659:of another high-profile article,
387:but you prefer merging that into
266:does actually work sometimes. ‒
1136:
1089:in response to an RfC raised by
422:. I want the article to stay.
344:Public opinion on climate change
852:Antisocial personality disorder
840:Antisocial personality disorder
334:So where do you actually stand?
161:1993 World Trade Center bombing
63:talk:Parents Television Council
1244:. For the Election committee,
1214:Arbitration Committee election
1205:ArbCom elections are now open!
961:09:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
950:06:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
826:09:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
277:Like your new titles for SOoCC
1:
1254:13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
927:11:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
868:20:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
542:00:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
465:08:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
431:23:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
406:23:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
375:22:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
360:18:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
328:18:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
313:03:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
291:02:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
271:05:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
256:05:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
184:me know you got the reply. --
1128:08:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
1073:06:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
1059:01:31, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
1048:13:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
1024:16:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
1000:21:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
990:15:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
817:12:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
803:12:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
781:08:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
749:12:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
727:10:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
687:06:01, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
676:10:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
629:09:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
619:09:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
592:11:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
578:07:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
236:08:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
208:08:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
194:06:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
178:22:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
52:03:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
1240:and submit your choices on
904:12:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
561:08:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
123:Thank you... and sorry. :)
1269:
1246:MediaWiki message delivery
597:Article probabtion warning
389:Global warming controversy
368:Global warming controversy
304:and contentious POV tags.
1194:23:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
1133:Dispute resolution survey
1030:Can I move your comments?
609:; avoid disruptive edits
601:Please be aware that the
300:I've been thinking about
154:Characteristics of events
148:21:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
133:09:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
109:20:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
95:09:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
978:User:Shooterwalker/Lists
635:No allegations involved.
394:Climate change consensus
385:Climate change consensus
340:Climate change consensus
231:
203:
189:
104:
75:21:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
338:On the splitting up of
1145:
890:
766:On 72 hr wikibreak...
603:Criticism of IPCC AR4
241:I just want to say ...
33:
1218:Arbitration Committee
1150:Dispute Resolution –
1144:
915:Manila hostage crisis
886:
856:Climate change denial
844:Climate change denial
532:Just FYI. Cheers, -
27:
1081:NPOV issue at Park51
995:Thanks for this. ‒
809:William M. Connolley
773:William M. Connolley
741:William M. Connolley
611:William M. Connolley
1222:arbitration process
657:changes to the lede
474:Regarding this edit
1234:arbitration policy
1146:
967:consensus on lists
948:and a clue-bat •
571:Author SourceWatch
34:
1201:
1200:
1196:
1103:User:Hauskalainen
663:only last night.
661:Motorcycle engine
463:
38:enable your email
1260:
1192:
1190:
1185:
1175:
1137:
943:
942:Ten Pound Hammer
528:
501:deleted contribs
457:
296:1RR and POV tags
175:
171:
167:
1268:
1267:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1242:the voting page
1208:
1188:
1183:
1181:
1168:to participate.
1155:
1135:
1112:
1083:
1032:
969:
941:
934:
911:
878:
848:
795:MalcolmMcDonald
764:
719:MalcolmMcDonald
668:MalcolmMcDonald
637:
599:
585:
549:
486:
472:
443:
336:
298:
279:
243:
224:
173:
169:
165:
156:
121:
59:
22:
12:
11:
5:
1266:
1264:
1211:
1207:
1202:
1199:
1198:
1173:
1170:
1157:
1148:
1134:
1131:
1111:
1106:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1062:
1061:
1031:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1002:
968:
965:
964:
963:
933:
930:
910:
907:
893:
881:
877:
871:
860:99.155.155.225
847:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
791:
786:
763:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
732:
731:
730:
729:
711:
710:
709:
708:
699:
698:
697:
696:
649:Global Warming
636:
633:
632:
631:
598:
595:
584:
581:
564:
563:
548:
545:
530:
529:
484:Jon Drinkwater
471:
468:
442:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
434:
433:
411:
410:
409:
408:
378:
377:
335:
332:
331:
330:
297:
294:
278:
275:
274:
273:
242:
239:
217:
216:
215:
211:
210:
196:
155:
152:
151:
150:
120:
115:
114:
113:
112:
111:
81:concerns. See
58:
55:
30:chocolate cake
21:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1265:
1256:
1255:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1206:
1203:
1197:
1195:
1191:
1186:
1179:
1178:research page
1172:
1169:
1167:
1164:Please click
1161:
1156:
1154:
1153:
1152:Survey Invite
1143:
1139:
1138:
1132:
1130:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1110:
1107:
1105:
1104:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1080:
1074:
1071:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1060:
1057:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1016:Shooterwalker
1013:
1012:
1007:
1003:
1001:
998:
994:
993:
992:
991:
987:
983:
982:Shooterwalker
979:
974:
966:
962:
959:
954:
953:
952:
951:
947:
939:
931:
929:
928:
924:
920:
916:
908:
906:
905:
901:
897:
889:
885:
882:
876:
872:
870:
869:
865:
861:
857:
853:
850:Do you think
845:
841:
838:Do you think
837:
827:
824:
820:
819:
818:
814:
810:
806:
805:
804:
800:
796:
792:
790:
787:
784:
783:
782:
778:
774:
769:
768:
767:
762:
758:
750:
746:
742:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
728:
724:
720:
715:
714:
713:
712:
707:
703:
702:
701:
700:
693:
690:
689:
688:
685:
680:
679:
678:
677:
673:
669:
664:
662:
658:
652:
650:
644:
642:
634:
630:
627:
623:
622:
621:
620:
616:
612:
608:
605:is under the
604:
596:
594:
593:
590:
582:
580:
579:
576:
572:
569:
562:
559:
555:
551:
550:
547:Sandman = RS?
546:
544:
543:
539:
535:
526:
523:
520:
517:
514:
511:
508:
505:
502:
499:
496:
493:
490:
485:
481:
480:
479:
476:
469:
467:
466:
461:
456:
452:
448:
440:
432:
429:
425:
421:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
407:
403:
399:
395:
390:
386:
382:
381:
380:
379:
376:
373:
369:
364:
363:
362:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
316:
315:
314:
311:
305:
303:
295:
293:
292:
288:
284:
283:Zulu Papa 5 ☆
276:
272:
269:
265:
260:
259:
258:
257:
253:
249:
240:
238:
237:
233:
229:
223:
213:
212:
209:
205:
201:
197:
195:
191:
187:
182:
181:
180:
179:
176:
168:
162:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
136:
135:
134:
130:
126:
125:Wildhartlivie
119:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
97:
96:
92:
88:
84:
79:
78:
77:
76:
72:
68:
64:
56:
54:
53:
49:
45:
44:
39:
31:
26:
20:
16:
1209:
1174:
1163:
1162:
1158:
1151:
1149:
1147:
1113:
1084:
1069:
1055:
1033:
1011:this section
1009:
996:
970:
957:
937:
935:
917:. Cheers!
912:
891:
887:
883:
879:
849:
822:
765:
704:
683:
665:
653:
645:
638:
625:
600:
588:
586:
574:
565:
531:
521:
515:
509:
503:
497:
491:
473:
446:
444:
427:
423:
419:
371:
337:
309:
306:
299:
280:
267:
244:
225:
220:
157:
122:
67:Andrewlp1991
60:
41:
35:
1120:Mike Rosoft
1091:User:NickCT
1087:Talk:Park51
1036:Talk:Park51
1230:topic bans
946:his otters
880:Hi Jaymax,
624:Funny. ‒
519:block user
513:filter log
140:Yachtsman1
87:GDallimore
28:Have some
17:Have some
1226:site bans
884:You wrote
534:Wikidemon
525:block log
447:thank you
118:Jonestown
1095:WP:NPONV
1006:list RFC
973:list RFC
919:Lambanog
807:TTFY,FF
761:WP:CIVIL
558:Ling.Nut
495:contribs
424:Strongly
36:Care to
1099:WP:NPOV
1070:Jaymax✍
1056:Jaymax✍
997:Jaymax✍
958:Jaymax✍
896:Shirt58
823:Jaymax✍
759:Failed
684:Jaymax✍
626:Jaymax✍
589:Jaymax✍
575:Jaymax✍
445:A warm
428:Jaymax✍
398:GoRight
372:Jaymax✍
352:GoRight
320:GoRight
310:Jaymax✍
268:Jaymax✍
248:GoRight
174:Windows
1216:. The
1184:Steven
1040:NickCT
873:About
583:Nuance
302:WP:1RR
264:WP:AGF
228:Jaymax
200:Jaymax
186:Jaymax
166:Fences
101:Jaymax
1189:Zhang
695:gets!
554:WP:RS
460:cont.
441:SOoCC
170:&
1250:talk
1166:HERE
1124:talk
1118:. -
1044:talk
1020:talk
986:talk
938:from
923:talk
900:talk
864:talk
813:talk
799:talk
777:talk
745:talk
723:talk
672:talk
615:talk
538:talk
507:logs
489:talk
482:See
453:. -
451:this
449:for
402:talk
356:talk
346:and
324:talk
287:talk
252:talk
232:talk
204:talk
190:talk
144:talk
129:talk
105:talk
91:Talk
71:talk
48:talk
43:Cirt
19:cake
1210:Hi,
1008:at
858:?
455:2/0
57:PTC
1252:)
1228:,
1180:.
1126:)
1046:)
1022:)
988:)
944:,
925:)
902:)
894:--
866:)
815:)
801:)
779:)
747:)
725:)
674:)
617:)
573:‒
540:)
404:)
358:)
326:)
289:)
254:)
234:)
226:--
206:)
192:)
163:.
146:)
131:)
107:)
93:)
73:)
50:)
40:?
1248:(
1122:(
1042:(
1018:(
984:(
921:(
898:(
862:(
846:?
811:(
797:(
775:(
743:(
721:(
670:(
613:(
536:(
527:)
522:·
516:·
510:·
504:·
498:·
492:·
487:(
462:)
458:(
400:(
354:(
322:(
285:(
250:(
230:(
202:(
188:(
142:(
127:(
103:(
89:(
69:(
46:(
32:!
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
