1707:
and relevant wikipedia policies (e.g. my removing or protesting unattributed insertions, which appears to you as "whitewashing"), and with the differences between what is acceptable in articles vs. on talk pages. If you review those subjects and you still have constructive criticism for me, then I would definitely take that seriously. In some cases, I'm not sure which edits you are referring to since it's been so long, but if you want to dig them up and show them to me, then I'll either defend them or renounce them. Furthermore, if you want the criticism to be constructive, then you will have to be more careful in how you quote me (rather than misquoting my words or taking them out of context), refrain from potentially inflammatory characterizations of my edits (such as where you pronounced some of them "fuckups") or inflammatory accusation (e.g. "bullying"). I know you intended your comments as constructive, and that is the spirit in which I have taken them, but I wanted to make sure you saw how they could be taken non-constructively.
67:
that men who have strategic brains and women have social brains. This is not some BS theory this is fact to do with the index finger ratio theory. This why there are more nerdy men than nerdy women. The geekiness is analytical skill that intelligent men are born with. It is why tend tend to dominate IT and engineering. It is a superior brain for strategic planning. Women are better at socialising than men, they are more socially assertive. So is this entire seduction industry based on a deliberate con. The idea that it prooves you are man to better at chatting people up is the total opposite of reality. The better you are at chatting people up with your social tricks, the better you are at having a female brain. I am certain men with womens brains are better at social manipulation and chatting people up and bullying. Simply as they have the social skills to do such. Yet those very men with the superior male strategic brain will be biologically poorer at the social side.
1968:"Many men in the seduction community perceive a disparity between women's stated preferences and behaviors". I worry that this is sailing too close to thinking "women say no when they mean yes", as a statement. I see what you mean about men being like it too though, but I would say that people are like that maybe due to manners, social conventions or a lack of assertiveness to answer back if they don't like something. It's easy for all of us to live like robots, in that we find it hard to say no to anything, so do what everyone else wants. Well that's my thought of the week.:) I think most women would prefer compliments to 'neg-ing'. Also, not making social blunders like 'nice hair- is it real?' or whatever would make a man seem to have better social skills and so to be more eligible.
1997:
That is the point of wikipedia. Secondly it would be a good idea to not get too tied up over the word "neg", ironically enough it has got a lot of negative press which has completely skewed up the view on how it used. Besides, it is not even a term that is used across the board anyway. On the topic of
Hanssen, I would suspect that he is very very new to the seduction concept and has thus picked up a lot of enthusiasm for it but has yet to internalize it (as you would except the community attracts a lot of young men who are not good at interacting with women, thus while with time they do greatly improve, at the start they are still useless with women and make many mistakes. For that I appologise, they are just human too after all).
1826:
subjects but it seems not worth the effort if it can all be destroyed via deletion at the whim of whoever shows up to AfD. I think there is a systemic bias going on here, and the system has created the means by which people can forcibly influence, based on their own personal opinions, what
Knowledge (XXG) covers and what it doesn't. If we got rid of the notability requirement and just allowed all verifiable content to stay here, then it would create a much more objective system and we wouldn't have all these problems. Having said that, I'm well-aware of the unlikelihood of that happening and am basically waving the white flag at this point.
1807:. It seems like I've seen all of those concepts before in various literature but I've been having trouble tracking them down. Geez, isn't a lot of that stuff just common sense whose veracity should be self-evident? I don't see what the big deal is, but evidently people are really uptight about seduction community-related stuff. They give a lot more tolerance to the various other subcultures on Knowledge (XXG), e.g. the various sci-fi communities creating articles for all the nuances of their fictional universes. I think they have just been more successful at organizing resistance to AfDs. After all, they have
1541:. My actual sentence was "It's true that Strauss appears effeminate, but since, as you say, everyone can tell that from his photo, why do we need to mention it in the article?" First, I'm not implying that we can tell Strauss' sexual orientation from his photo, but rather whether he is effeminate or not. Second, you say that this kind of opinion "isn't encyclopedic." No shit. But I said it in a talk page, which isn't an encyclopedia article. Talk pages are different from articles, and are not under the same rules, so it's perfectly fair for me to note some of my opinions on them.
338:
only means for each product in question. As to refute the claim by the other person that Speed
Seduction is a cult. As so the next reader will not be misled by the claims of the former, that Speed seduction is a cult, for determining what is factual and encyclopedic in nature for entry in to the main article itself. The standards above only apply to the main article for editing. Everything listed in the talk page is more for expressing question, comments or opinions for discussion as to determine what should be edited into the article, or side notes about the article.
1747:
flaming". It's when someone goes on a blog or
Knowledge (XXG) and posts edit after edit aimlessly, working to exercise as much of their influence as possible. When you stated that you "single-handedly wrote or re-vamped entire articles on the Seduction Community," and mentioned your status as an Ivy League student, a big red flag went up in my mind. After reading into your contributions, I found that you certainly are not guilty of any negative traits, and I won't pursue any more criticism or "inflammatory characterizations."
1677:. Personally, I'm pretty sure that Strauss did address his social robot post to many practitioners of the Mystery Method, but I wasn't comfortable including such claims in the article even I personally agreed with them, until it was pinned down exactly where Strauss said this, and that he was intending it to be directed towards the Mystery Method. If you think I was being nitpicky, then fine (nowadays, I might not have bothered making the first of those edits), but my edits were in line with Knowledge (XXG) policy.
539:; that he is so impassioned about neutrality in just these two articles, well, smells. It appears that they figured out that being blatant doesn't work and that people are actually watching these articles, so they have to try to scare us off. I don't see much point in compromising and discussing article content because any time spent with criticisms of RSD removed or links to the Mystery Method website delinked is possibly thousands of Google impressions that aren't giving readers the information they need. --
876:
bullying, huh??? I am a victim of childhood bullying myself. This bullying caused me to become very shy around people, and it really sucked. I don't think shy men are "terrible people," though I do think that if they are unhappy being shy like I was, then society should help them become more social (however, there are plenty of people who are perfectly happy being shy). The people who are truly against victims of bullying are those who pretend that bullying isn't a problem.
105:
pragmatic standpoint, I think it's best to wait before talking about anything that could be construed as spamming. I don't want to give people an excuse to attempt to delete the current seduction community article, because that's what happened to the old version of the article, and I only just got the article up. Eventually, I will write up a section on the gurus in the seduction community, which will have to prominently include the
342:
The two opinions must balance correctly with facts being presented by both sides until we come to an agreement as to what facts should or should not be added to the article in question. I obvious disagree about adding the above to the article and am refuting the formers arguements by proveing product by product what each product is with a brief description, and obviously noting highlighting the no religious connections.
2007:
tend to say a term like "improve coverage" so it doesn't sound like they're making articles about a subject for the sake of having articles. I'm talking about negs only because it was part of the message I was replying to, that SecondSight left on my talk page.:) Your impression of
Hansson is exactly mine (we are probably both talking euphemistically when we speak of lack of experience.) But he also has an interest in
2606:
2495:
484:"There was a lesson here, perhaps the last one this community would teach me. And that was always to follow my instincts and first impressions. I hadn't trusted either Papa or Tyler Durden when I'd first met them. I found Papa spoiled and robotic, and Tyler Durden soulless and manipulative. And though they'd made great leaps forward when it came to fashion and game... The scorpion can't deny its nature."
1976:, there's plenty of criticism to add. Wikiproject seduction says it has as one of its aims to 'make more articles' about the subject. This isn't necessarily always a good thing as we don't always need more articles, but better coverage in existing articles. If there's a proliferation of articles on non-notable subjects, I don't think editors who aren't in the seduction community will be impressed.
2392:
1859:
harrassment. If I were in a subculture which had been alleged to have a dubious attitude towards women, rather than exhibiting every criticism of the subculture by making numerous misogynistic remarks, I would try to conduct myself in an exemplary way. SecondSight, I've not seen many of your edits, but you could be an asset to the reputation of the 'seduction community' in this regard, IMHO.
894:
thing or not. I really chuckled at your idea of the "seduction community cartel." You make me feel like I am some kind of evil mastermind. I almost wish there was such a cartel, because then I would have more help instead of having to do so much writing by myself. Instead of cooperating, I actual end up arguing a lot with other people familiar with the seduction community on wikipedia.
2045:"make more articles" = "improve coverage", just the later is worded nicer as they both have the same intention. I went to replace the phrase, but I see it is not there anymore so we are really now discussing something that doesn't matter at all. I can see your concern over his other edits, but I'm a bit of a soft touch and so regardless I'd want to help a person out through this. :)
2316:
2029:
wikipedia. It could lead to the rest of us being tarred with the same brush, a brush our religion's already been tarred with, and blocked where wiki is concerned. Of course I would try and guide people if they were being a bit rude and try and help them, but not to that extent if you're in a subculture that's already sometimes accused of misogyny etc.
1515:? Someone had edited the article saying that C&F was "obviously" unsuitable for beginners, which was an unencyclopedic opinion. I reverted the edit, and said that "C&F is not for beginners? I don't think that's true; it can be a great beginner technique" in my edit summary; I did not post that view in the article. Note that I said it
1925:
1611:; are you saying that I should include unattributed claims, lowering the quality of the article and perhaps making it vulnerable to deletion? I've had to become very familiar with these bureaucratic policies to even be able to get anything up about the seduction community onto Knowledge (XXG); I think if you familiarize yourself with
493:(XXG)'s best practices policy and will not be used. Whether the controversy is fair or not, they exist. And the prevailing company ethos from these unofficial sources does seem to be echoed in Strauss' statement. Again, should a critique of the company even have a place here? And if so, how should it be presented?
328:
considerated as advertising only as an opinion due to the lack of information concerning pricing, or means of obtaining such material. Please do stop vandalising my opinion pieces and deleting my writings, as it is only supporting the other parties negative views unjustly. This is your first vandalism warning. --
2006:
The goal of 'make more articles' on things which don't necessarily need an article is not part of wikipedia's remit- in fact if we decide something isn't noteworthy the article gets deleted. I don't think I've seen many wikiprojects before that says "make more articles" as part of their remit. They
1840:
Perhaps the source of the systemic bias is that our opponents here are mostly either chicks (who have a tendency to say "Those techniques would never work on me!" when in fact they probably would) and guys who have not tried these techniques and realized that they work; if they had, they would be out
1746:
Regarding my criticisms, I can only tell you that I have seen clear bias here on wikipedia before and when I saw your talk page and your special interest in
Seduction, I wanted to make sure I was looking at a competent, well-rounded individual. One major concern of mine is the phenomenon of "Internet
1706:
pages and edit summaries. Sorry, but I don't find any of these criticisms particularly compelling. I think the reason that some of my edits seem so problematic to you is due to lack of familiarity with some of subject matter (e.g. that social anxiety is indeed an important component of love-shyness),
1519:
be, I didn't say that "C&F is a great technique for beginners," the statement that you attribute to me below, so you are making it sound like I said something a lot more unreasonable. Actually, I think that C&F is good for some people starting off, and bad for others; it really depends on the
1423:
Hi
PolskanPUA, I'm flattered that you appreciate some of my contributions to wikipedia, and that my edits have been so interesting to you. As for your reviews of edits, it's been a while since I made them, so in some cases you have to show me my exact offending edit in the history. A lot of the stuff
80:
After a little mistake, I have moved your article from your userpage to the article page, keeping its history with it. I've left only the original "I am" edit on your userpage and in its history. The deletion log makes this look worse that it is: I deleted it one time too many! Anyway, it's done now.
30:
wow, you've done a lot in not a lot of time. perhaps you can help me out: i'm reading 'the game', and i'd like some background info, such as a copy of the original 'layguide' and also descriptions of some to the techniques that are mentioned but not described in the book (such as october man). any
1598:
because I hadn't met many people who held it, but also because it is unencyclopedic without a reliable source (e.g. a PUA saying it in some sort of news story or TV program). Since then, I have talked to more people who think that
Strauss is a traitor, but any change in my opinion still doesn't make
1532:
It just isn't encyclopedic. Your meeting with him was very valuable to you, but unless something you saw could be shared with the rest of
Knowledge (XXG), its hard to fight or dispel rumors. That's why I think a little statement should be put there, because his PUA image is not immediately congruent
1461:
I hope that part's clear; love-shyness was a word from the book and the study, which you transposed ideas of social anxiety onto. In reality, I think the emphasis on love-shy people was self-worth. They studied people who were poor, socially-inept, and weak physically. Therefore, their major problem
856:
lol, the comments of "wow, you've done a lot in not a lot of time." applies too iyouyou too! meh, I will assume good faith that secondsight is indeed 20! Why not? After all I'm 22 myself, there you go iyouyou. Take that info in your pipe and smoke it. :-p
Personally I'm flattered that he listed me
457:
There will be a reinstatement of the Criticism that was removed yesterday. Whether in whole, part, or slightly modified. I am opening up a discussion prior to making any changes to minimize possible edit wars (which is what some of you actually seem to want). Knowledge (XXG)'s spirit of inclusion
337:
Product listings for the purposes of discussion their existance, and what effect they have is not about having a soapbox, or advertising. It is the product by product reflect the facts in question that must be brought up as evidence that each product in question only reflect a non religious, dating
289:
I'm not suggesting that his page should read like an advertisement, but I just want to make sure the scales don't tip to far the OTHER way either and I am unsure how to proceed. You seem to really know your stuff and have helped clean up a lot of seduction articles around here on Knowledge (XXG), so
184:
There is some history with Formhandle+mASF and the Seduction Community article: when the article was marked for deletion, there was an announcement made on mASF to see if people would be interested in contributing and saving the article. I think Formhandle was negative about WP at that time, and it
2265:
Hey SecondSight, I am afraid the COI section has been permanently removed by an Oversighter as WoodenBuddha violated the Knowledge (XXG) rules by posting a bunch of pictures of some guy. I am also afraid that I am not one of Adam Lyons' business partners, as cool as that might be, so but feel free
1750:
I still would like to know one thing. You stated several times that you are a member of the Community and that you have met Style. Let me know, what do you do in the Community? Is it like that movie School for Scoundrels? Are you in a Lair? Since you're in college, is there a big college following?
1585:
Finally, Neil may or may not have been viewed as a traitor. Some people probably did think so, and some debate will loom about that. I'm sure your personal experience in the Community hasn't revealed much of that, but it is def worthy of discussion. I think that is a great topic for discussion, and
803:
I just find the stuff you do offensive, You seem to have anti victim of bullying agenda. You write offensive drivel suggesting that shy quiet men are dangerous usingt spurius rubbish. You wrote a load of pro bad pro bully stuff. You claim you are 20. I cannot believe that. You seem to fancy abisve
341:
The article itself is about Ross Jeffries, and as you will note about I give an opinion of what I think is Ross Jeffries products are. The later gave the opinion of against that they would not buy Ross Jeffries products. I give the opinion of for that I probably would buy Ross Jeffries products.
2028:
by calling christians something involving the word 'ho', if they were blocked I would not be trying to get them unblocked. Instead I would distance myself from them as it is detrimental to people's perceptions of us and to getting followers of our religion, and the subject itself, treated o.k. on
1996:
I wouldn't attack the general concept "make more articles", after all that is the goal of wikipedia itself! While you are right in that often it would be better to focus on improving current ones, yet at the same time it would be wrong to not write further articles on topics that deserve coverage.
1858:
I can completely understand how those who don't know how to approach women could latch onto something like this to give them confidence, I know how difficult it is, particularly for young men who are still virgins. Incidentally, Aldritch was blocked yesterday for 72 hours for personal attacks and
1739:
Ok, first and foremost, thank you for responding. I feel privileged to be talking to a real pioneer here on Knowledge (XXG), and for that reason, I took special attention to the inner motives and thoughts that go through your mind as you edit the Seduction articles here. Remember, whenever someone
1148:
Because the article was deleted for sourcing issues, I have restored the article after you and others have now found more sources that were not talked about or on the article during the AFD. I hope this has settled the issue. Please incorporate the newfound sources into the article so that it will
903:
You are right, I am not 20. I am actually 21 now; I just haven't updated my userpage yet. You say that you oppose bullying, but then you turn around and threaten that you are going to find out who I am. That's bullying. I despise bullying. I looked on your website, and I completely agree with
893:
In my opinion, some of the tactics advocated by the community are unethical, and arguably abusive (though I can't just slap my opinion right on the articles, because wikipedia doesn't work that way). My hope is that after reading the articles, people can decide for themselves whether it is a good
476:
RSD is criticized in Neil Strauss's book 'The Game'. Strauss, who goes under the pseudonym 'Style', lived among pickup artists in his two-year odyssey to document the inner workings of the seduction community. Together with Erik von Markovik (Mystery), Stephen Nash (PlayboyLA), Herbal T, and Papa,
435:
SecondSight, I posted the following to the RSD talk pages but would appreciate your feedback since any alteration to the RSD page results in instant edit wars these days. The RSD article has become more of a focus for commercial ends than an information source serving the community. And frankly,
381:
Well, I think that all three are neologisms, regardless of the amount of content on them. I hope you don't take offense to this but I nominated them all for AFD already. However if you can persuade AFD that the page should be kept, I'll not object. Also, if any of the pages do get deleted, I'll be
285:
That's why the recent edits on Neil Strauss's page under the Stylelife section have begun to alarm me. I have voiced my concern on the talk page over there...but I am unsure what to do next. It seems to me like this one guys opinion is being sourced to much (it is on their twice. Even one sentence
1451:
You tied that in with AFC definition, changing it to the new term, "social anxiety". This is bad precedent. When some new pickup guru shows up, calls the whole thing "Zero Scoring Technique" some user will decide that the latest buzzword for "unconscious lack of Game Products" is suitable, so the
1437:
The problem is, you have used products and read about self-help technique, and now that you have a label for something, like "involuntary celibacy" caused by "love-shyness" or "average-frustrated chumpness" or the newest "nice guy syndrome" you seem to want to learn more about it, but at the same
1131:
The article was in a sense a combined personal and company article, in that it was about the company and the person Tyler Durden with many "Tyler Durden" links going to it. Perhaps it could have been renamed to Tyler Durden once again, because I doubt you would have liked the other alternative of
281:
First of all...to lay my bias on the table, I am a fan of the Stylelife Academy. It has worked for me, and many of my friends, and so of course I am a huge supporter. That said, I understand Knowledge (XXG) isn't a place to spout your own PERSONAL opinions but rather pages should convey a neutral
66:
It is biological fact that men have poorer social skills than women. So surely the men good at seduction are the men with women's brains. Men did not evolve to chat up women in pubs or think up witty chat up lines. They evolved to hunt and plan and have a strategic vision. It is a biological fact
2110:
Hi - I just wanted to let you I went to replace some of the language on the Savoy page. I had originally cut and pasted some of the material from the Love Systems website, but I think it looks better now. I'm not done and will keep working on it, but please let me know any more suggestions for
1672:
referred to some of Mystery's students as "social robots" who became overly reliant on memorized stories and tricks," and said, "removed unsourced material: which of Mystery's students was Strauss supposedly referring to?" I had no objection to putting that comment back in as long as it was more
327:
Thank you for your concern about the page in question. However these are published material made by Ross Jeffries that are sold and used by Speed Seduction users, and is relevant toward understanding Ross Jeffries and his materials toward the understanding that it is not a cult. Thus cannot be
194:
Formhandle was angry about a comment made next to one of my edits where I suggested advertisers were asked to pay $ 30,000 for an ad. I can imagine why he wouldn't want people to publicize information about his ad rates, although I didn't realize it at the time. The comment is not part of any
104:
You are absolutely correct on all of these points, Mooff. Unfortunately, many people on wikipedia are ignorant of the seduction community and its history, so they will see your links to Mystery Method stuff as an attempt to spam. This may be unfair and unreasonable, but my point is that from a
1825:
I see what you're saying about the sources and all, but it still seems like it's somewhat arbitrary what they will consider to be "enough" reliable sources. All in all, the mass nominations have kinda taken the wind out of my sails; I was hoping to create a slew of articles on seduction-related
1649:
I know I've had exchanges with Quintin, but I can't find many offhand. You will have to show me, and this better be good to warrant your accusation of "bullying." If he wrote that pickup is about "sexual success" with women, then I wouldn't be surprised if I disagreed, because that is really an
492:
What, if any, changes to the above would you like to see? More importantly, how should criticism be presented? In researching the RSD article, I found quite a bit of criticism directed at the company from weblogs, forums, and various online sites. Of course, these do not conform to Knowledge
1442:
I have my own personal motivations making the edits that I do, and I've made many of them explicit. However, motives are irrelevant; what is important is the quality of my edits. You are going to have to show me exactly where those bad edits were (I'll respond to some of your specific examples
1550:
where produced for these rumors. If you can find sources claiming that "Strauss is noted for a metropolitan fashion sense, a lispy voice, and other effeminate characteristics stereotyped with homosexuals", then we can include it in the article; if not, then we can't. Whether his PUA image is
2169:
Hmmm... just saw this on your talk page. Well, the page is now up for deletion. Unfortunate, as it is notable (game and deangelo interviews etc at least plus more I'm sure). Anyway, just letting you know the most recent person to add him back was me. And I'm neither him or any friend of his.
875:
Hi, Iyouyou, I'm sorry you don't like my work. I think you are taking what I write completely the wrong way! I don't think shy quiet men are dangerous. Where have I said anything like that? I was once a very shy guy myself, and I am still relatively quiet. As for being against victims of
2019:
I think those interested in the subject could ask themselves whether someone who calls women "sticky hobags" amongst other things is really someone you want to have associated with it on wikipedia. For instance as a Satanist, if someone was on the talk page and said something that adds to
1321:
Hi Edgarde, you are welcome to use any parts of the misandry article I was working on. I haven't done any more work on it myself, because dealing with the editors on the misandry page because too frustrating (what's the point of doing a rewrite if other editors can see why it would be an
561:. Some time ago, I offered to mediate in the case. Anyways, I wasn't sure if you hadn't noticed my offer, or if you were still deciding whether to accept or reject me. In any case, watchlisting the page might help expedite matters. Please don't feel rushed to make a decision. Thanks! : )
934:
After the debacle of a "seduction cartel" it made me feel perhaps a project page could be a handy way for the "cartel" (and any other new members to strengthen the "cartel"! lol) to organise themselves and assist each other in improving as a whole the related articles here on wikipedia.
1415:
Now I must say, I appreciate what your teamwork with Wooden Buddha and Dutch Seduction has done for the attempted Seduction Project here on wikipedia. However, I'd like to brush by you some ideas because of a little pattern I've noticed. This is stuff I've seen in your contributions.
174:
What's the story with Formhandle? What is he angry about? I noticed someone has added an external link to FS.com's own "Seduction Wiki". Does he see Knowledge (XXG) as competition, or a way to attract more traffic? It's not clear to me what his objection really is. Do you know?
48:
Just saying the same as some of the others, good work! Recently had looked around to see if there was anything related seduction here and found nothing much worth reading. Looking better now, and I'm going to take a look at it all and read (and edit too perhaps...) it all.... cheers.
458:
would be violated if facts which are available from published sources are prevented from finding their way into an article. Just because they do not present facets of an article in a good light is NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON to exclude them. The issue is relevance and verifiability.
1520:
person. Anyway, regardless of whether you agreed with the text of the edit summary, I don't think you've shown an actual problem with the edit that I made, which removed some uncited generalization that C&F is not good for beginners and only good for those with social skills.
1971:
As for the articles, on your userpage it says that as long as there's one or two sources an article can be made- it can but I think it needs to be more notable than just a handful of mentions in the press really to survive an AfD. At the very least, the articles should be made
122:"The Game doesn't exist separately from MM" ?!!! And you agree with him, SecondSight? Wow, where did you get this idea? Can we see a reference or two? What about BB, Juggler or Pickup101? There are many more examples and references completely separate from MM!
1424:
you attribute to me is stuff that I wrote on talk pages, not in articles. Some of the stuff, I'm not sure I wrote at all. You seem to be confused between the rules for articles and the rules for talk pages. I'm going to respond to your specific points on this page.
1470:)? Social anxiety is a main focus of the book, contrary to what you assert. When I searched the pdf, I found that he mentions anxiety 391 times. Considering that the book is 369 pages long, anxiety is mentioned more than once a page. If you even just read the
512:
but this is just too obvious. It seems that the Real Social Dynamics people have figured out that it doesn't work to blatantly skew articles and that they have to register and act like editors (gasp) if they want to get anything done. Check out this diff:
2156:
issue. Someone keeps adding this back to the list of notable members (likely David X himself or a friend of his). It has gone on long enough. The article itself doesn't meet the quality bar either. Thanks for any help you can provide on this matter
138:
2. Objections to the material itself. Sex and seduction are controversial subjects with various points of view. This situation leads to argument and conflict. As a result it becomes difficult to maintain NPOV. Watch for the spammers and meatpuppets.
306:
Just wanted to say thank you very much for cleaning that whole thing up. I knew the citing of blogs seemed strange...glad I turned to someone wiser in the ways of Knowledge (XXG) than I. Also, thanks for all your work on Community articles in general.
1888:
2632:
until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
2521:
until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
1654:
part way down the page, and I'll let others judge for themselves. I think that in fact it was he who was being insulting by comparing the the seduction community to anti-Semitism, and referring to "people like us" as having "supremely inflated
1132:
splitting the one article up into two. Either way you must remember that generally always whenever an article is discussing Tyler Durden that is the same as discussing what the company does (being that it typically always about his teachings).
1717:
P.S. it looks like you tried to sign your post with four dashes; try four tildas instead. One more thing; if you respond on this page, could you do it below, rather than next to each point (which will just become very hard to read?).
2342:
1635:
I've seen the comments you made to Quintin3265. That was not right. You have to understand the school of thought he is coming from. He is skeptical, but, shouldn't everyone be? He was very honest in clarifying that pickup is about
1582:. I would avoid the terms beginner and advanced when explaining seduction, just because the heirarchy is not a good idea, and demonstrates, at least to the mainstream, just how pathetic a Community where people imitate others is..
2125:
Hi - Some administrator is trying to delete the "Nick Savoy" page for personal reasons. The page is going through deletion review right now, and I can use the help to get it back up. Could you show some support for it at this URL
804:
vuiolent men. The stuff you write is just offensive chepa trash. It is not a high form of literature. or of any academic merit. Every article you wrote is supportive of abusive men. If you stop this Who are you really. Iyouyou
134:
1. Competition / commercialism which makes these pages a hot spam target for the internet marketeers and their boy fans. See the change history on DeAngelo page, which various meatpuppets have been sanitizing for example.
1179:
1098:
That quote from the Times is a trivial in passing about a person, nothing mentioning RSD by name. The second one appears to be about the company. The third one is another trivial mention in passing. One souce doesn't meet
19:
SecondSight: i see you have previously taken up the task of lobbying for a Seduction Community page. I have just added it in the requests for undeletion page. any assistance/thoughts/comments/advice greatly appreciated.
904:
you that it is ridiculous how some people support abusiveness in men, or see "nice guys" as a waste of space. Now that I have clarified my motives, I hope you will realize that I am not the evil person you think I am. --
1456:
Without showing me the specific edit in the history, I can't remember whether I have made any such edits relating to the beliefs of love-shy men about women having crushes on them. Where did I "tie this in" with the AFC
1438:
time, you are putting yourself in that mold of "hey, these characteristics fit me". That emphasis on yourself and what you identify as, combined with the ability to model its definition, is what makes for bad editing.
1640:
with women. You played with MysteryMethod too and erased his criticisms of fraud and social robot theory, which are crucial to understanding seduction companies. You even went far enough as to say, in your own words,
2525:
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
1673:
specific about where Strauss said this and about who. In the second edit, I removed a claim that Strauss' original social robots post was a "thinly veiled assault" on the Mystery Method, because it didn't follow a
2636:
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
1902:
Thank you for your quick and skillful work on those two articles I put up for AfD. I really appreciate your positive attitude and willingness to work with the process without being antagonistic. Quality editing!
185:
appears as if he still is. I was surprised to see that he now has his own seduction wiki on his site. I personally don't have any political issue with him at all, and can't understand what is making him angry.
2561:. 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
970:
Hi there, noticed you voted delete. Was thinking perhaps if the article was renamed as something more general (such as "forbidden patterns", or perhaps "NLP patterns"?) then you would change your vote to keep?
100:
Neil's success and entire skillset at pickup is simply Mystery Method and he would be the first to admit that... The Game doesn't exist seperately from MM. The tactical pickup portions ARE all MM. - Mooff
1954:"Great minds think alike". ;) I added a new section to Alison's talk page only to find after it had been saved you had just written yourself almost exactly the same! lol, a funny coincidence indeed. :)
1433:
Mentioning your age, Stanford education, and position as a Community member is valuable, but don't let it get to your head. You had a few edit fuckups in love-shyness, which you seem to identify with--
2518:
96:
I agree Ross and David should be included in any decent definition as well, but you can't talk about the Game and Neil without recognizing that Mystery Method was the throughline of the entire book.
1594:
Sure, the topic of Strauss being viewed as a traitor is worth discussion, but it isn't worth inclusion into his article unless there is a source for it. I didn't remove that view from the article
679:
wwwhhhaaaattt?!?! Why did it get deleted? Surely not because it is a "neologism", because as you ought to know that is not in itself anywhere near enough of a reason for an article to be deleted.
165:
PLEASE ADD THEM. The reason the P&C reference requires free registration was to prevent spam attacks, which the site has experienced, primarily from Nightlife/Shark, but also from DeAngelo.
2330:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also
1043:. Corporations must have multiple non-trivial independent sources, and the one in the Times looked trivial at best. Basically, the arguments for deletion outweighed those against deletion. -
1386:
and I can see you've expereinced some of their nastier disruptive behavior. A report has been lodged with admins. Please drop me a line if you have any further trouble from this user.
1537:
I don't think you are being deliberately dishonest, but the above is potentially misleading because it takes my words out of context, and fails to acknowledge that they were placed on a
1495:
Don't do it. You settled lots of debates with your own opinions, in favor of the Community. You mention, in a debate over Strauss's rumored homosexuality, that he you met him and didn't
2244:
Hey man, seem to remember you were involved in the Community pages... Anyway, found one of Adam Lyons' business partners going through and methodically spamming and vandalizing pages:
450:'The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources.'
2341:
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to
954:
913:
drat, shouldn't have been such an innocent little pure white flower that I am (*cough*, *cough*..) in believing you to be 20. Liar, you are 21! omg, the world is going to collapse.
2629:
631:, which is where the discussion will be carried out unless you all decide you want private mediation. Please feel free to ask questions about the mediation process at any time.
1246:
1486:
threshold and unusually strong fear of anxiety"). I really don't know what to say in response to this criticism, when you clearly aren't familiar with the subject matter.
477:
they founded the Project Hollywood mansion where key seduction concepts were field-tested and disseminated. Strauss writes of the founding members of RSD, Tyler and Papa:
1250:
1474:, it should be obvious that Gilmartin is talking about social anxiety (e.g. "Accordingly this book views shyness as: A state of behavioral inaction or avoidance in
1808:
1379:
362:
that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at
1035:), one to a blog or personal page or something, which is also against the policy, and one which seemed to have nothing to do with the article. Blogs don't meet
743:
516:. I don't know if you've been following these articles but before this sudden string of newly registered users stared editing seduction community articles, the
2618:
2507:
1443:
below). I don't think I've conflated the topics you mention (e.g. involuntary celibacy, love-shyness, etc...), and the burden is on you to show that I have.
1212:
Surprised to see you vote that way, mind explaining why? Consider for a moment if both are deleted, then what you said isn't good grounds for deletion.
157:
I appreciate your efforts to improve the information and to make it as objective as possible. However, you seem to be involved in efforts to whitewash
2459:
1979:
As to Hanssen, I have my own ideas but don't like to say. Maybe I'll just say I suspect he's a young man who's not all that experienced with women.
628:
551:
363:
142:
In any case, good job. Let's see if we can keep neutral information available on this subject without too many commercial slants in it! ;^)
2586:
1031:
a vote. It is a discussion to help establish consensus. From what I saw from sources, one links to amazon.com (which is a violation of the
242:
article as well. In my opinion it's not frequent enough to justify protecting either of these articles though. I'm watchlisting them both.
527:
I think these users should be dealt with fairly but there is no reason to suppose that their views should apply to "community consensus".
416:
We'd like to thank you for your help with setting up and defending the seduction community on Knowledge (XXG).org. Please contact me at
644:
603:
574:
1686:
I actually have a lot of questions for you. I respect all that you have done here, especially with RSD vandalism. Just leave me a msg.
1650:
overgeneralization; many people in the community see it as about a lot more than that. The only response to him by me I can find is in
861:, thought there are other more worthy people who would be ahead of me. At least it put me in stitches laughing for ages, still am....
1928:
I'm sorry if this concept has brought out the worst in me on the 'neg' AfD. Well done for your edits to the articles and in the AfD.
1068:
Regarding your message on my talk page; if you feel the deletion was out of process, what you'll want to do is list your arguments at
2463:
2305:
1478:
situations that is out of harmony with a person’s conscious wants, needs and values, and which is precipitated by a real or imagined
998:. It was especially decent of you, considering the backlash it could have produced. If at some point you feel a need to mention that
928:
1526:
Strauss is noted for a metropolitan fashion sense, a lispy voice, and other effeminate characteristics stereotyped with homosexuals.
382:
happy to use my administrator power to copy the article content out of the deletion history so you can copy it elsewhere. Cheers --
1607:
So far, all your examples of my "white-washing" really are where I didn't want to include claims on Knowledge (XXG) that were not
698:) efforts to keep these seduction community articles lucid and accurate. It's much harder than it looks. Keep up the good work!
613:
Oh, I am fine with you mediating. This is just my first time in mediation and the process is new to me. Thanks for offering. --
113:
that mentioning the gurus is an important aspect of the history of the seduction community, and not just an attempt to spam. --
2582:
1712:
You are welcome to ask me any questions you have; I am on Knowledge (XXG) to write good articles, not to engage in ego battles.
640:
599:
570:
1462:
was becoming independent, confident men in society and in social situations. Social anxiety is a slightly different concept.
1383:
2451:
2403:
2381:
1103:, which requires multiple non-trivial sources. You seem to get mixed up between "mentioned" and "about". Sources need to be
770:, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the
2070:
2215:
Hey SecondSight, I hope all is well. I'm planning to keep improving the seduction community articles and I've re-done the
847:
820:
16:
Hey buddy, started a new thread on 'External Links' on Seduction Community talk page - would love to know your thoughts!
2455:
2323:
1307:
I'm also hoping my not following through with the Harvard style footnoting didn't stop progress on the Misandry draft. /
1027:
Well, someone forgot to inform you or you didn't do your homework before you came into the discussion. AFD is explicitly
1740:
has a hefty influence on Knowledge (XXG), much of their inner beliefs and perspective becomes intermeshed with the work.
345:
Would you like to enter mediation to determine a coarse of action for the talk page to better clarify this position? --
2622:
2573:
describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
2511:
1293:
2578:
2074:
1192:
1163:
1117:
1053:
786:
2067:
What does it take to get a seduction company page up on Knowledge (XXG)? I had a look at the following guidelines:
771:
1360:
One mistake: I left in a lot of junk history from the user page sandbox. I hope this doesn't void the article. /
148:
Thanks, DutchSeduction. And I am no stranger to controversy over the community, from both outside and inside. --
60:
1948:
1846:
1831:
1816:
1785:
1301:
995:
161:. Like I've said many times, if you can find more objective -- and non-commercial criticial references -- for
2327:
2309:
657:
636:
595:
586:
566:
366:, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to
2035:
1985:
1934:
1865:
699:
671:
543:
401:
386:
266:
2415:. Furthermore, the company is in the pickup industry, which is notorious for making unsubstantiated claims.
2331:
1300:
article, where N&Y stuff is going tumorous. Would it bug you terribly if I included material from your
835:
808:
520:
article was repeatedly replaced with an advertizing copy bio of the company, and other bogus criticisms of
2295:
2255:
2138:
2116:
2101:
2084:
2012:
1188:
1159:
1113:
1049:
1020:
742:
532:
517:
312:
295:
231:
2574:
2467:
2412:
1780:
article for deletion. Do you have any sources that would make helpful additions to this article? Thanks,
1354:
1346:
367:
2220:
1546:
The context was that some people wanted to include rumors that Strauss was gay into his article, yet no
758:
632:
591:
562:
2366:. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --
2127:
1449:...they would believe everyone was as reluctant as them, refusing to believe women had crushes on them.
1447:
For instance, the Love-shy article was going somewhere on the mental processes of love-shy men, saying
668:
540:
398:
383:
308:
291:
263:
210:
2531:
2438:
2371:
1842:
1827:
1812:
1804:
1781:
1760:
1254:
1196:
1167:
1121:
1057:
2550:
2541:
1332:
That would be pretty helpful. I'll probably just do a quick cut & paste from the existing stuff.
536:
521:
422:
239:
162:
158:
106:
2613:
2597:
2016:
886:
196:
186:
176:
166:
143:
123:
74:
2570:
2554:
2216:
2189:
2093:
On another note, I saw your message on the Savoy page. Could you help me with rewriting the page?
839:
812:
494:
217:
the article. For future reference the place to request protection or unprotection of a page is at
2287:
2230:
2201:
2030:
1980:
1929:
1860:
1651:
1567:
clearly states that "The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, not truth."
1082:
961:
558:
528:
2502:
2486:
2399:
2385:
1471:
509:
2221:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_6#User:Coaster7.2FNick_Savoy
1089:. If you don't feel confident about listing it properly I'm willing to help, just let me know.
286:
that references a single bloggers opinion seems excessive, but two just seems outright wrong).
2475:
2434:
2291:
2251:
2196:, wants someone else to get the page up by putting it through DRV. Could you do that? Thanks.
2134:
2112:
2097:
2080:
2021:
1908:
1268:
1183:
1154:
1108:
1073:
1044:
843:
816:
42:
2566:
2558:
1973:
1100:
1002:
has had no hand in the content of the article, please go ahead — I'm hoping my reputation in
218:
214:
2352:
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the
2271:
2162:
1723:
1375:
1323:
905:
885:
I write a lot of pro bad pro bully stuff? Like what? Just because I write articles on the
614:
346:
329:
149:
114:
2569:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
2562:
2421:
2363:
2353:
2346:
2335:
2025:
1674:
463:
Some of you found the following too disparaging to RSD, while others favored its inclusion:
355:
256:
2527:
2367:
2008:
1756:
1503:, and you contend that criticisms against Neil as a traitor are not held by the Community
32:
21:
2079:
Are those guidelines enough for a seduction company to get a page up on Knowledge (XXG)?
1620:
1547:
1267:
Hey - can you set a real email address in your preferences? I'd love to drop you a line.
1086:
1069:
1036:
1032:
359:
2420:
While all contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, content or articles may be
828:
222:
2322:
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for
1660:
As for Mystery Method, I'm not sure which edits you are talking about, but I did find
1616:
1612:
1608:
1600:
1564:
1278:
The David DeAngelo article is up for deletion. Your unbiased views are appreciated. --
1150:
1040:
950:
2645:
2639:
2356:
template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
2226:
2197:
1003:
991:
958:
953:
and the seduction community, I think you might be able to contribute some insight to
725:
721:
372:
There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.
249:
2219:
page already. I just completely rewrote the Nick Savoy page and put it back on DRV:
290:
I was hoping to turn your eye to this issue and see if you can lend a helping hand.
41:
Hey dude - just want to say, appreciate your efforts in getting this all sorted :-)
2471:
2193:
1904:
1669:
1574:
This is the last thing that should be put on Knowledge (XXG). The whole concept of
1394:
are making some good progress, if you have anything to add to that page please do--
1361:
1336:
1308:
1279:
1010:
999:
858:
2071:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Companies,_corporations_and_economic_information
1222:
On an almost totaly unrelated point... send me an email sometime, my address is (
131:
Keep up the good work. You'll see a lot of controversy coming from two sources:
2267:
2171:
2158:
2046:
1998:
1955:
1578:
implies a cult-like society with initiation and entrance exams and worse still,
1395:
1231:
1223:
1213:
1133:
1090:
972:
936:
914:
862:
749:
680:
417:
82:
50:
2343:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Average frustrated chump (4th nomination)
2315:
1887:
2075:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Retailing/Company_page_structure
781:
2444:
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing
2111:
establishing what you'd consider an npov. I am very grateful for your help!
1645:. What you're doing is censoring opposition and healthy discussion of ideas.
1467:
2411:
Non-notable company which seems to have been created for promotion, failing
1777:
1770:
1466:
I have to ask you, have you actually read Gilmartin's book on love-shyness (
664:
255:
messages on the vandal's userpage. More information on how to do this is at
213:'s user talk page regarding this article. Having looked at the history I've
1601:
the threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, not truth.
1524:
In truth, some mention of the rumor could be placed, worded something like
1180:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination)
2650:
2590:
2535:
2479:
2375:
2299:
2275:
2259:
2234:
2225:
Could you have a look at it and endorse the recreation? Thanks in advance.
2205:
2174:
2142:
2120:
2105:
2088:
2049:
2040:
2001:
1990:
1958:
1939:
1912:
1870:
1850:
1835:
1820:
1789:
1764:
1731:
1402:
1364:
1339:
1326:
1311:
1282:
1257:
1234:
1216:
1201:
1172:
1136:
1126:
1093:
1076:
1062:
1013:
975:
964:
939:
917:
908:
865:
792:
728:
702:
683:
673:
648:
617:
607:
578:
545:
497:
425:
403:
388:
349:
332:
316:
299:
268:
225:
199:
189:
179:
169:
152:
126:
117:
87:
53:
35:
24:
1587:
1391:
1357:. Thanks for all your help. Time to sit back and watch the edit warring.
1297:
831:
Argument for "The seduction community cartel" to be chucked of wikipedia
765:
717:
713:
695:
1586:
its fun to think about. I'm going to put a little inclusion about it in
557:
Some time ago, you and a few other users placed a mediation request for
419:
from your stanford address and we'll talk further. Look forward to it.
397:
rules on neologisms. Maybe we could put these definitions over there. --
2557:
is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Knowledge (XXG)
2153:
1841:
banging chicks rather than trying to delete Knowledge (XXG) articles.
1499:
he was gay. You also mention that cocky and funny is a good technique
1322:
improvement?). I might stop by and help with the N&Y article. --
627:
Thanks for your confidence in me! : ) I noted your acceptance on the
1924:
1390:
they haven't been active on that page in a while and the editors at
889:, it doesn't mean that I agree with everything the community says.
2247:
2128:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Savoy,_Nick
1253:). The intention is that it is placed at the bottom of the page. —
663:
It looks like this article has now been deleted, and since it is a
2152:
Hi SecondSight - I was wondering if you could help me out on this
1227:
720:- your article now makes me uncertain), I placed some comments at
2519:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/PickUp 101 (2nd nomination)
753:
2133:
Your input is much appreciated SecondSight. Thanks in advance.
238:
Unfortunately this vandal (whoever he is) has been hitting the
1249:, I've began work on a new, broader template in my namespace (
694:
I really appreciate your informed, conscientious (and largely
1694:
Polskan, it looks like you are criticizing me for stuff like
2390:
2314:
195:
article, and hopefully my reply to him will calm him down.
2617:
is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to
2506:
is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) according to
1751:
Just let me know, because I honestly find it intriguing.
1643:
Jeffries' position as a fraud is irrelevant to a talk page
1085:, I was about to mention to you too that you ought to use
1072:
instead of on the talk page of the afd. Hope that helps!
2630:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Seduction community
2192:
is another one and has abruptly been deleted. The admin,
1795:
Edits by chick who lacks affinity for seduction community
364:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for mediation/Talk:Ross Jeffries
2188:
It seems like all the community pages are under attack.
2611:
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
2500:
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
2462:
process can result in deletion without discussion, and
1800:
1665:
1661:
1512:
987:
514:
109:, and I will attempt to do this in a way that makes it
2427:
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the
1776:
Hey, I see that some – individuals have nominated the
1563:
that there these rumors exist about Strauss, but the
667:, that is probably the best fate for this article. --
829:
http://www.geocities.com/xaacacacacacacacac/Abbc.htm
1452:definition of love-shyness will be open to change.
1247:
Template:Notable Members of The Seduction Community
2549:You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
1811:. Well, I guess we're on our way there as well.
1702:material from pages, and posting my opinions in
1623:, some of my edits might make more sense to you.
1511:Let's start with C&F. Are you talking about
1551:congruent with his personality in your opinion
1388:BTW they have been inactive for a few weeks and
1009:And thanks again for your work on the draft. /
1530:anyone looking at his picture would know that.
1412:Hey there. I'm PolskanPUA. Nice to meet you.
1419:Consider it a little constructive criticism.
1304:? I'd certainly credit you on the Talk page.
8:
2266:to check my contribs and see for yourself.
2248:http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DRosin#COI
1572:C&F is a great technique for beginners?
1288:including Misandry draft in N&Y article
531:, for example, has never edited outside of
1482:situation clashing with that person’s low
737:
585:The following (in italic) was copied from
394:
2619:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines
2508:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines
1885:
949:SecondSight, given your interest in both
762:was updated with a fact from the article
2064:Thank you for your message SecondSight.
1668:. In the first, I removed the sentence "
1378:, just thought I'd let you know about a
2433:notice, but please explain why in your
2362:This is an automatic notification by a
2015:. When it comes to something like the
1698:summarizing Gilmartin's work, removing
1565:Knowledge (XXG) policy on verifiability
277:Stylelife Academy Debate over criticism
1382:I recently wrote. I just came across
1182:, and not an old archive. Thank you. -
945:An AfD you might be able to comment on
1335:I'll msg you when the task is done./
1245:In light of the recent nomination of
7:
799:Offensive (comment moved from above)
2422:deleted for any of several reasons
2406:because of the following concern:
14:
2628:The article will be discussed at
2575:review the candidates' statements
2517:The article will be discussed at
2286:Hallo, could you weigh in on the
1292:I'm hoping sometime this week to
1006:won't be held against your work.
724:that you may want to look at. --
443:Per Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines:
2604:
2493:
2024:, or in some other way breached
1923:
1886:
1241:New seduction community template
741:
1599:that view encyclopedic. Again,
1107:, not just mention a company. -
245:If he comes back, please leave
2581:. For the Election committee,
2551:Arbitration Committee election
2542:ArbCom elections are now open!
2121:00:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
2106:21:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
2089:20:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
2020:stereotypes/negative views of
1809:a freakin' lot of participants
674:16:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
587:User_talk:Armedblowfish#MedCom
504:Seduction community neutrality
431:Reinstatement of RSD Criticism
1:
2591:13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
2376:01:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
2300:04:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
2206:20:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
2165:) 14:1, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
1296:Nathanson and Young from the
1258:16:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
1235:07:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
1217:07:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
1178:Please put new discussion at
940:07:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
918:10:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
909:09:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
866:06:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
793:21:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
729:20:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
684:10:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
2276:22:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
2260:03:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
2175:02:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
2143:18:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
1799:A bunch of "fact" templates
1202:00:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
1173:22:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
1137:01:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
1127:00:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
1094:07:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
1077:05:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
1063:00:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
976:09:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
965:23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
703:01:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
61:Critic of seduction industry
31:direction would be welcome.
2577:and submit your choices on
2466:allows discussion to reach
2447:{{proposed deletion/dated}}
2430:{{proposed deletion/dated}}
2336:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
2326:. The nominated article is
2235:22:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
2050:01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
2041:23:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
2002:13:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
1991:12:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
1959:10:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
1940:02:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
1871:14:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
1014:03:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
994:my paltry contributions to
929:Project seduction community
2666:
2651:22:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
2583:MediaWiki message delivery
2458:exist. In particular, the
2332:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
1913:15:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
1851:17:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
1836:01:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
1821:20:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
1790:00:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
1732:05:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
1559:encyclopedic. I know it's
1403:19:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
1365:03:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
1340:18:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
1327:00:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
1312:14:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
716:(or hopefully not being a
209:I spotted your message on
118:07:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
88:00:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
36:13:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
2536:18:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
2480:14:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
2452:proposed deletion process
2349:with four tildes (~~~~).
1949:User talk:Aldrich Hanssen
1892:
1283:02:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
850:) 22:43, 27 November 2006
823:) 22:02, 27 November 2006
772:"Did you know?" talk page
649:00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
618:00:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
608:00:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
579:23:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
546:22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
498:22:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
393:I'm taking a look at the
368:Knowledge (XXG):Mediation
170:07:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
153:22:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
127:09:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
25:16:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
2621:or whether it should be
2510:or whether it should be
2328:Average frustrated chump
2310:Average frustrated chump
1765:12:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
1727:
1384:your rewrite of Misandry
1380:complex vandalism report
658:Average Frustrated Chump
426:23:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
404:01:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
389:00:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
358:has been filed with the
350:05:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
333:03:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
317:03:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
269:15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
226:15:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
54:19:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
2439:the article's talk page
323:Ross Jeffries Talk Page
300:05:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
200:10:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
190:10:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
180:00:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
2395:
2319:
2013:State-assisted suicide
1964:seduction, the neg etc
1533:with his personality.
524:were added by anons.
2555:Arbitration Committee
2464:articles for deletion
2404:proposed for deletion
2394:
2354:articles for deletion
2318:
1896:The Editor's Barnstar
1675:neutral point of view
1505:from what you've seen
1484:interpersonal anxiety
1033:external links policy
508:In general I like to
356:request for mediation
2345:. Please be sure to
1370:A report of interest
1153:. Have a good day. -
1021:Real Social Dynamics
533:Real Social Dynamics
518:Real Social Dynamics
409:Thanks for your help
232:Real Social Dynamics
205:Real Social Dynamics
2614:Seduction community
2598:Seduction community
2559:arbitration process
2250:- just a heads up!
2096:Thanks in advance.
2017:seduction community
1528:You can't say that
1347:Nathanson and Young
887:seduction community
690:Thanks, SecondSight
360:Mediation Committee
75:Seduction Community
2571:arbitration policy
2456:deletion processes
2396:
2347:sign your comments
2320:
2022:Theistic Satanists
1652:Talk:Ross Jeffries
1274:David DeAngelo AfD
996:the Misandry draft
559:Talk:Ross Jeffries
529:User:Keepitneutral
436:that kinda sucks.
2649:
2382:Proposed deletion
1918:
1917:
1468:downloadable here
1200:
1171:
1125:
1061:
852:
838:comment added by
825:
811:comment added by
795:
778:
777:
700:AlisonPlunderland
552:Mediation request
510:assume good faith
211:user:Ryan Delaney
86:
2657:
2643:
2608:
2607:
2497:
2496:
2449:
2448:
2432:
2431:
2393:
2185:Hi SecondSight,
1927:
1890:
1883:
1882:
1548:reliable sources
1400:
1224:my username here
1186:
1157:
1111:
1047:
891:No way in hell!!
851:
832:
824:
805:
790:
745:
738:
413:Hi SecondSight.
254:
248:
85:
2665:
2664:
2660:
2659:
2658:
2656:
2655:
2654:
2609:
2605:
2602:
2579:the voting page
2545:
2498:
2494:
2491:
2460:speedy deletion
2446:
2445:
2429:
2428:
2391:
2389:
2313:
2284:
2242:
2213:
2183:
2150:
2062:
2009:Timothy McVeigh
1966:
1952:
1881:
1843:Aldrich Hanssen
1828:Aldrich Hanssen
1813:Aldrich Hanssen
1805:neg (seduction)
1797:
1782:Aldrich Hanssen
1774:
1684:
1633:
1501:in your opinion
1493:
1431:
1410:
1396:
1372:
1351:
1349:article created
1319:
1290:
1276:
1265:
1255:Sasuke Sarutobi
1243:
1210:
1208:Recent AfD vote
1087:deletion review
1070:deletion review
1025:
1019:RE:Why was the
984:
947:
932:
857:second in the
833:
806:
801:
789:
736:
710:
692:
661:
555:
506:
433:
411:
379:
325:
282:point of view.
279:
252:
246:
236:
207:
78:
64:
12:
11:
5:
2663:
2661:
2603:
2601:
2596:Nomination of
2594:
2548:
2544:
2539:
2492:
2490:
2485:Nomination of
2483:
2470:for deletion.
2450:will stop the
2418:
2417:
2388:
2379:
2312:
2308:nomination of
2303:
2283:
2280:
2279:
2278:
2241:
2238:
2212:
2209:
2182:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2149:
2146:
2061:
2058:
2057:
2056:
2055:
2054:
2053:
2052:
1965:
1962:
1951:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1916:
1915:
1899:
1898:
1893:
1891:
1880:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1796:
1793:
1773:
1768:
1754:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1720:
1719:
1714:
1713:
1709:
1708:
1691:
1683:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1657:
1656:
1638:sexual success
1632:
1629:
1627:
1625:
1624:
1604:
1603:
1580:ideals of Game
1569:
1568:
1543:
1542:
1522:
1521:
1492:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1459:
1458:
1445:
1444:
1430:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1409:
1406:
1371:
1368:
1350:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1333:
1318:
1315:
1302:Misandry draft
1289:
1286:
1275:
1272:
1264:
1261:
1242:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1209:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1024:
1017:
983:
982:Misandry draft
980:
979:
978:
946:
943:
931:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
898:
897:
896:
895:
880:
879:
878:
877:
870:
869:
800:
797:
785:
776:
775:
746:
735:
732:
709:
706:
691:
688:
687:
686:
660:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
629:Mediation page
622:
621:
610:
554:
549:
537:Mystery Method
522:Mystery Method
505:
502:
501:
500:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
479:
478:
473:
472:
471:
465:
464:
460:
459:
454:
453:
452:
451:
445:
444:
439:
432:
429:
410:
407:
378:
375:
324:
321:
305:
278:
275:
273:
240:Mystery Method
235:
229:
215:semi-protected
206:
203:
197:DutchSeduction
187:DutchSeduction
177:DutchSeduction
167:DutchSeduction
163:David Deangelo
159:David Deangelo
144:DutchSeduction
124:DutchSeduction
107:Mystery Method
98:
97:
92:
77:
72:
70:
63:
58:
57:
56:
39:
38:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2662:
2653:
2652:
2647:
2642:
2641:
2634:
2631:
2626:
2624:
2620:
2616:
2615:
2599:
2595:
2593:
2592:
2588:
2584:
2580:
2576:
2572:
2568:
2564:
2560:
2556:
2552:
2543:
2540:
2538:
2537:
2533:
2529:
2523:
2520:
2515:
2513:
2509:
2505:
2504:
2488:
2484:
2482:
2481:
2477:
2473:
2469:
2465:
2461:
2457:
2453:
2442:
2440:
2436:
2425:
2423:
2416:
2414:
2409:
2408:
2407:
2405:
2401:
2387:
2383:
2380:
2378:
2377:
2373:
2369:
2365:
2361:
2357:
2355:
2350:
2348:
2344:
2339:
2337:
2333:
2329:
2325:
2317:
2311:
2307:
2304:
2302:
2301:
2297:
2293:
2289:
2281:
2277:
2273:
2269:
2264:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2257:
2253:
2249:
2245:
2239:
2237:
2236:
2232:
2228:
2223:
2222:
2218:
2210:
2208:
2207:
2203:
2199:
2195:
2191:
2186:
2180:
2176:
2173:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2164:
2160:
2155:
2147:
2145:
2144:
2140:
2136:
2131:
2129:
2123:
2122:
2118:
2114:
2108:
2107:
2103:
2099:
2094:
2091:
2090:
2086:
2082:
2077:
2076:
2072:
2068:
2065:
2060:Company pages
2059:
2051:
2048:
2044:
2043:
2042:
2039:
2038:
2034:
2033:
2027:
2023:
2018:
2014:
2010:
2005:
2004:
2003:
2000:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1989:
1988:
1984:
1983:
1977:
1975:
1969:
1963:
1961:
1960:
1957:
1950:
1947:
1941:
1938:
1937:
1933:
1932:
1926:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1914:
1910:
1906:
1901:
1900:
1897:
1894:
1889:
1884:
1879:Barnstar time
1878:
1872:
1869:
1868:
1864:
1863:
1857:
1856:
1855:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1838:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1823:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1806:
1802:
1794:
1792:
1791:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1772:
1769:
1767:
1766:
1762:
1758:
1755:Sincerely, --
1752:
1748:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1729:
1725:
1716:
1715:
1711:
1710:
1705:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1692:
1690:
1687:
1681:
1676:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1658:
1653:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1644:
1639:
1630:
1628:
1622:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1606:
1605:
1602:
1597:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1589:
1583:
1581:
1577:
1573:
1566:
1562:
1558:
1554:
1549:
1545:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1531:
1527:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1490:
1485:
1481:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1450:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1436:
1428:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1417:
1413:
1407:
1405:
1404:
1401:
1399:
1393:
1389:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1369:
1367:
1366:
1363:
1358:
1356:
1353:This deed is
1348:
1345:
1341:
1338:
1334:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1325:
1316:
1314:
1313:
1310:
1305:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1287:
1285:
1284:
1281:
1273:
1271:
1270:
1262:
1260:
1259:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1240:
1236:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1215:
1207:
1203:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1156:
1152:
1138:
1135:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1023:page deleted?
1022:
1018:
1016:
1015:
1012:
1007:
1005:
1004:Talk:Misandry
1001:
997:
993:
992:Talk:Misandry
989:
988:acknowledging
981:
977:
974:
969:
968:
967:
966:
963:
960:
956:
952:
944:
942:
941:
938:
930:
927:
919:
916:
912:
911:
910:
907:
902:
901:
900:
899:
892:
888:
884:
883:
882:
881:
874:
873:
872:
871:
867:
864:
860:
855:
854:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
810:
798:
796:
794:
788:
783:
773:
769:
768:
767:
761:
760:
759:Did you know?
755:
751:
747:
744:
740:
739:
733:
731:
730:
727:
723:
722:Talk:Nice_guy
719:
715:
708:Talk:Nice_guy
707:
705:
704:
701:
697:
689:
685:
682:
678:
677:
676:
675:
672:
670:
666:
659:
656:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
633:Armedblowfish
630:
626:
625:
624:
623:
620:
619:
616:
611:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
592:Armedblowfish
590:
588:
583:
582:
581:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
563:Armedblowfish
560:
553:
550:
548:
547:
544:
542:
538:
534:
530:
525:
523:
519:
515:
511:
503:
499:
496:
491:
490:
483:
482:
481:
480:
475:
474:
470:
467:
466:
462:
461:
456:
455:
449:
448:
447:
446:
442:
441:
440:
437:
430:
428:
427:
424:
420:
418:
414:
408:
406:
405:
402:
400:
396:
391:
390:
387:
385:
377:MM neologisms
376:
374:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
352:
351:
348:
343:
339:
335:
334:
331:
322:
320:
319:GeorgeJorgel
318:
314:
310:
303:
302:GeorgeJorgel
301:
297:
293:
287:
283:
276:
274:
271:
270:
267:
265:
260:
258:
251:
243:
241:
233:
230:
228:
227:
224:
220:
216:
212:
204:
202:
201:
198:
192:
191:
188:
182:
181:
178:
172:
171:
168:
164:
160:
155:
154:
151:
146:
145:
140:
136:
132:
129:
128:
125:
120:
119:
116:
112:
108:
102:
95:
94:
93:
90:
89:
84:
76:
73:
71:
68:
62:
59:
55:
52:
47:
46:
45:
44:
37:
34:
29:
28:
27:
26:
23:
17:
2638:
2635:
2627:
2612:
2610:
2600:for deletion
2546:
2524:
2516:
2501:
2499:
2489:for deletion
2454:, but other
2443:
2435:edit summary
2426:
2419:
2413:WP:PROMOTION
2410:
2398:The article
2397:
2360:Please note:
2359:
2358:
2351:
2340:
2321:
2292:WoodenBuddha
2290:AfD? Cheers
2285:
2252:WoodenBuddha
2246:
2243:
2224:
2217:Love_Systems
2214:
2194:User:Spartaz
2190:Love Systems
2187:
2184:
2181:Love Systems
2151:
2135:Camera123456
2132:
2124:
2113:Camera123456
2109:
2098:Camera123456
2095:
2092:
2081:Camera123456
2078:
2069:
2066:
2063:
2036:
2031:
1986:
1981:
1978:
1970:
1967:
1953:
1935:
1930:
1895:
1866:
1861:
1839:
1824:
1798:
1775:
1753:
1749:
1745:
1721:
1703:
1700:unattributed
1699:
1695:
1688:
1685:
1670:Neil Strauss
1642:
1637:
1634:
1626:
1595:
1584:
1579:
1575:
1571:
1570:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1538:
1529:
1525:
1523:
1516:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1494:
1491:Whitewashing
1483:
1479:
1475:
1472:introduction
1460:
1448:
1446:
1434:
1432:
1418:
1414:
1411:
1397:
1387:
1373:
1359:
1352:
1320:
1306:
1291:
1277:
1269:WoodenBuddha
1266:
1244:
1211:
1184:Royalguard11
1155:Royalguard11
1147:
1109:Royalguard11
1104:
1045:Royalguard11
1028:
1026:
1008:
985:
948:
933:
890:
859:axis of evil
827:
802:
779:
764:
763:
757:
734:Did you know
711:
693:
669:Ryan Delaney
662:
612:
584:
556:
541:Ryan Delaney
526:
507:
468:
438:
434:
421:
415:
412:
399:Ryan Delaney
392:
384:Ryan Delaney
380:
371:
353:
344:
340:
336:
326:
309:GeorgeJorgel
304:
292:GeorgeJorgel
288:
284:
280:
272:
264:Ryan Delaney
261:
244:
237:
208:
193:
183:
173:
156:
147:
141:
137:
133:
130:
121:
110:
103:
99:
91:
79:
69:
65:
43:WoodenBuddha
40:
18:
15:
2288:Jeremy Soul
2282:Jeremy Soul
1724:SecondSight
1689:Sincerely,
1457:definition?
1429:Perspective
1408:Your Record
1376:SecondSight
1324:SecondSight
1083:SecondSight
986:Thanks for
957:. Cheers!--
906:SecondSight
834:—Preceding
807:—Preceding
750:27 November
615:SecondSight
347:Masssiveego
330:Masssiveego
259:, I think.
150:SecondSight
115:SecondSight
2567:topic bans
2528:Black Kite
2503:PickUp 101
2487:PickUp 101
2400:PickUp 101
2386:PickUp 101
2368:Erwin85Bot
2211:Nick Savoy
1905:Rob Banzai
1801:were added
1757:PolskanPUA
1682:Final Note
1609:attributed
1197:Review Me!
1168:Review Me!
1122:Review Me!
1058:Review Me!
395:Wiktionary
262:Thanks. --
33:Streamless
22:Streamless
2563:site bans
2468:consensus
2402:has been
1778:cockblock
1771:Cockblock
1696:correctly
1590:article.
1539:talk page
1513:this edit
1317:N & Y
696:Sisyphean
665:neologism
469:Criticism
423:STONEDMIT
223:Thryduulf
2324:deletion
2227:Coaster7
2198:Coaster7
1666:this one
1662:this one
1631:Bullying
1588:The Game
1576:beginner
1555:mine is
1392:Misandry
1298:Misandry
955:this AfD
848:contribs
836:unsigned
821:contribs
809:unsigned
766:nice guy
726:Jreferee
718:nice guy
714:nice guy
712:Being a
645:contribs
604:contribs
575:contribs
2623:deleted
2512:deleted
2472:Autarch
2154:David X
2148:David X
1974:WP:NPOV
1718:Thanks.
1362:edgarde
1337:edgarde
1309:edgarde
1294:spinout
1101:WP:CORP
1011:edgarde
1000:edgarde
840:Iyouyou
813:Iyouyou
495:Wikifly
219:WP:RFPP
2553:. The
2437:or on
2268:DRosin
2240:DRosin
2172:Mathmo
2159:Sedcom
2047:Mathmo
2037:Parkin
2032:Sticky
2026:WP:NPA
1999:Mathmo
1987:Parkin
1982:Sticky
1956:Mathmo
1936:Parkin
1931:Sticky
1867:Parkin
1862:Sticky
1655:egos."
1619:, and
1480:social
1476:social
1398:Cailil
1232:Mathmo
1214:Mathmo
1134:Mathmo
1091:Mathmo
973:Mathmo
959:Kchase
937:Mathmo
915:Mathmo
863:Mathmo
681:Mathmo
257:WP:RCP
234:vandal
83:Splash
51:Mathmo
2646:Help!
2334:and "
1621:WP:RS
1497:think
1435:A LOT
1263:Email
1228:gmail
1226:) at
1149:pass
1105:about
1074:Shell
1037:WP:RS
782:GeeJo
111:clear
2587:talk
2532:talk
2476:talk
2372:talk
2338:").
2296:talk
2272:talk
2256:talk
2231:talk
2202:talk
2163:talk
2139:talk
2117:talk
2102:talk
2085:talk
2073:and
2011:and
1909:talk
1847:talk
1832:talk
1817:talk
1786:talk
1761:talk
1728:talk
1704:talk
1664:and
1617:WP:V
1613:WP:A
1596:just
1561:true
1355:done
1280:Amit
1251:here
1193:Desk
1189:Talk
1164:Desk
1160:Talk
1151:WP:V
1118:Desk
1114:Talk
1054:Desk
1050:Talk
1041:WP:V
951:WP:V
844:talk
817:talk
754:2006
641:mail
637:talk
600:mail
596:talk
571:mail
567:talk
535:and
313:talk
296:talk
250:test
2640:Guy
2547:Hi,
2384:of
2364:bot
2306:AfD
1803:to
1557:not
1517:can
1507:.
1374:Hi
1081:Hi
1039:or
1029:not
990:in
787:(c)
748:On
2625:.
2589:)
2565:,
2534:)
2514:.
2478:)
2441:.
2424:.
2374:)
2298:)
2274:)
2258:)
2233:)
2204:)
2141:)
2130:?
2119:)
2104:)
2087:)
1911:)
1849:)
1834:)
1819:)
1788:)
1763:)
1730:)
1722:--
1615:,
1553:or
1230:.
846:•
819:•
791:•
780:--
774:.
756:,
752:,
647:)
606:)
577:)
370:.
354:A
315:)
298:)
253:}}
247:{{
221:.
2648:)
2644:(
2585:(
2530:(
2474:(
2370:(
2294:(
2270:(
2254:(
2229:(
2200:(
2161:(
2137:(
2115:(
2100:(
2083:(
1907:(
1845:(
1830:(
1815:(
1784:(
1759:(
1726:(
1199:)
1195:·
1191:·
1187:(
1170:)
1166:·
1162:·
1158:(
1124:)
1120:·
1116:·
1112:(
1060:)
1056:·
1052:·
1048:(
962:T
868:.
842:(
815:(
784:⁄
643:|
639:|
635:(
602:|
598:|
594:(
589:.
573:|
569:|
565:(
311:(
294:(
81:-
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.