848:. 'Cuckservative' survived the previous articles for deletion nomination, and this second renomination within the course of two months seems pointless and political. In contrast to several predictions made in the previous discussion, dozens of new articles have been published in reliable independent sources on the subject. The most significant new mentions include articles published in the Washington Post, The Atlantic, and National Review Online. I'm not the best at formatting, so this list will be a bit messy, but here are the mind-boggling 68 reliable independent sources on 'cuckservative':
593:, but no indication of lasting significance. That argument could still be made, but when I search for sources with the start date set to 8/14 (end of the last AfD), I see the coverage continued, although it has tapered significantly. Hence the downgrade from delete to weak delete. There are the high-profile conservative and far-right sources, yes (for example, and
445:, undue weight given to a minor and current neologism. Also, this article seems fundamentally unbalanced: it has a lot of detail about the right-wing originator's rationale for the term and little about its general impact. Mainstream new sources have reported its existence and usage among a distinct group, but this doesn't give it mainstream significance.
734:
This probably isn't going to reach consensus, as it's a politically-charged issue, but I don't think an encyclopedia filled with
American political epithets is something anyone wants. While the top-tier media coverage might suggest some sort of notability, we must take the long view that notability
1679:
This is self-evidently notable (the list of sources above, helps to illustrate that fact). It really does seem like the intensity of the opposition to this article, stems in part, from some people's personal discomfort with it, based on their own socio-political perspectives, and obviously, such
1684:
that there would have already been multiple nominations for deletion of this article, if everything else about it were to remain the same, but with the sole difference that it was instead a slur used against White nationalists and their sympathizers, rather than one used by them? I know we're
459:
Unless intractable, article quality issues do not necessarily favor deletion since articles can always be improved. Also, the article is clearly more notable than other very comparable articles that have survived deletion (like the DINO article mentioned above), with more than sixty sources to
753:
The subject has received coverage outside of
America and indeed outside of the Anglosphere, with articles in the Spanish language "Gaceta" source and the Hebrew "Haaretz" newspaper. In addition, the term's serious writeups in papers like the New York Times and The Washington Post were not
294:
It's been more than two months since the terms peak usage in late July/early August, and the subject is still receiving media coverage, such as recent articles in
National Review and The Washington Post. That clearly establishes the term's longevity and independence from news cycles.
633:). RINO is still the better known term, so it makes more sense for that to exist than this one, but maybe the best approach would be to fold them into something like "Criticism between conservatives/Republicans" (which I didn't bother to wikilink because my wording is abysmal). —
361:
section for a start. If this accusation becomes significant in any political figure's career or campaign, it might well be included as a narrative, but the
Knowledge bullet list (however well-sourced, and I haven't checked) serves only as force-multiplier for smear campaigns. /
1779:- I'm convinced by the sources provided that this term is notable enough to merit an article. However, I would say the 'list of politicians accused of being cuckservatives' should be removed, as it doesn't add much to the article, and is basically a BLP disaster.
822:
Agreed on the "persons accused" section. If the term were being used primarily to describe one or two people, that could be appropriate to mention in prose, but this term seems to be used pretty indiscriminately. We don't have a similar section at the more stable
658:
re notability, and recommendations by same user as to how to improve the article quality. Significant secondary source coverage among multiple sources -- even if we limit research to those references to only those sources cited that use the term
245:
stated "Just another neologism thrown around on a couple of websites and buzzed around a bit, just in time for election season. Not a notable term, not a deeply discussed one, not one that needs to have an article in an online encyclopedia"
52:. Bordering on keep, but a few "keep" opinions appear dubious in terms of sockiness. Anyway, the majority thinks that this is a silly but notable term, but that the "list of people accused ..." should be removed as a BLP problem.
606:
410:
400:
Recent consensus on
Knowledge has been fairly liberal with neologisms when they have been demonstrated as notable in independent secondary sources. I'm not personably enthusiastic about this development. Forgive the
198:
1461:
96:
91:
86:
1472:
549:. I !voted delete at the previous AfD. There was a flurry of coverage about the word (indeed not just using the word). The list leading up to the 8/14 AfD close included, among others,
922:
570:
339:
1538:
598:
1494:
586:
1641:
You appear to have two bold text !votes above. This is likely due to my collapsing the list, which separated two lines of text. Could you remove/strike one of them? Thanks. —
1087:
574:
478:
1428:
566:
1329:
151:
1417:
192:
1197:
518:
498:
258:
614:
238:
81:
1285:
276:, still. Let's not say, please, that being mentioned or even discussed in a couple of newspaper articles means that a neologism from the political cycle gains
1010:
933:
602:
158:
900:
1527:
582:
315:
1439:
988:
562:
1483:
550:
319:
388:
234:
1571:
1406:
1043:
1362:
878:
554:
1450:
740:
1505:
1745:
1021:
626:
1516:
1219:
1131:
1241:
124:
119:
1142:
558:
327:
1307:
346:). Even if the term falls out of fashion quickly, the level of discussion makes it notable at least as a 2015 historical interest.
1749:
911:
128:
1788:
1769:
1732:
1713:
1694:
1664:
1650:
1626:
1351:
944:
836:
813:
763:
748:
726:
697:
674:
642:
530:
510:
490:
469:
454:
433:
395:
374:
304:
289:
265:
250:
64:
17:
1296:
590:
335:
1120:
111:
1230:
213:
889:
1076:
1032:
429:
370:
180:
1318:
1109:
323:
1704:
As stated by others, this term has been discussed by countless mainstream publications. Don't see how it isn't notable
999:
578:
331:
1164:
955:
867:
1549:
1175:
797:
1807:
966:
40:
651:
174:
1263:
1054:
1723:
Myriad of sources to support its notability, relevant to current political climate of
American conservatism.
1373:
739:(which isn't the best article to link to here) for genuine coverage. This is an entry for Urban Dictionary.--
1274:
1186:
824:
744:
710:
629:. So this is a notable neologism, yes. But being notable does not mean it merits a stand-alone article (see
594:
546:
1741:
1728:
1690:
714:
170:
1560:
1803:
36:
1737:
1724:
1340:
1252:
1582:
1098:
220:
1065:
1709:
1656:
1643:
1636:
1618:
755:
635:
523:
503:
483:
461:
402:
296:
206:
1593:
1784:
1766:
1660:
1622:
759:
465:
392:
300:
262:
247:
115:
618:
1604:
1384:
977:
610:
1686:
809:
426:
367:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1802:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1617:
How anyone could possibly claim that this subject fails notability guidelines is beyond me.
786:
713:
might not be so bad either. And it would deserve a merge rather than just redirecting—and I
622:
352:
285:
1761:
Closing admin, please take into account the likelihood of socking taking place on this AfD
343:
186:
450:
1153:
1705:
693:
670:
421:, which had similar problems in its early years, is now a decent (if minor) article. /
55:
1780:
832:
801:
790:
722:
414:
357:
230:
107:
70:
1655:
Thanks for pointing that out and for collapsing the list. I've removed one of them.
805:
775:
736:
655:
422:
363:
145:
1208:
630:
281:
242:
1685:
supposed to assume good faith, but that doesn't require me to get a lobotomy.
446:
779:
688:
665:
828:
718:
683:
314:. New as the term is, it seems to have established political importance (
1680:
personal considerations should play no role in these matters. Does
682:
Also agree with Keep rationale comments from the last AFD, by admin
237:
which shouldn't be on
Knowledge. Article has not improved since the
1395:
384:
1796:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
418:
406:
800:. In this case, it's well-sourced, although I'd take out the
379:
I have to strongly disagree, silly political neologisms are
141:
137:
133:
709:
a very similar concept to RINO, though, so a merge to
205:
97:
Articles for deletion/Cuckservative (4th nomination)
92:
Articles for deletion/Cuckservative (3rd nomination)
87:
Articles for deletion/Cuckservative (2nd nomination)
782:. For those who suggest we are sullying ourselves
705:Again, this seems like a clear GNG pass to me. It
793:? No, really, take a look at some of the really
479:list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1810:). No further edits should be made to this page.
233:did not gain consensus. Subject is just another
383:encyclopedic. They are, however, okay over at
358:Notable people accused of being cuckservatives
519:list of Language-related deletion discussions
499:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
417:problems, and it appears to be here to stay.
259:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
219:
8:
804:disasters in the "persons accused" section.
517:Note: This debate has been included in the
497:Note: This debate has been included in the
477:Note: This debate has been included in the
257:Note: This debate has been included in the
340:Breitbart article advocating the term's use
852:
516:
496:
476:
256:
735:guidelines suggest and not mistake media
411:nominated for its 5th deletion discussion
855:
654:. Also strongly agree with comments by
79:
770:Silly and deeply offensive as it is,
711:Republican In Name Only#Cuckservative
547:Republican In Name Only#Cuckservative
7:
661:in the title headline of the article
650:, a nice notable contribution from
82:Articles for deletion/Cuckservative
77:
24:
355:problems. I suggest removing the
601:opinion page), but there's also
344:Red State writer against its use
1495:The Southern Poverty Law Center
798:political stuff we have already
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
754:entertaining or low quality.
597:-- which also made it to the
389:Knowledge is not a dictionary
1789:20:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
1665:01:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
764:01:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
470:01:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
305:01:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
65:20:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
1770:20:29, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
1733:23:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
1714:03:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
1695:07:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
1651:13:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
1627:01:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
837:14:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
814:23:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
749:22:34, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
727:20:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
698:19:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
675:19:42, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
643:14:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
531:13:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
511:13:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
491:13:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
455:19:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
434:19:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
396:18:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
375:18:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
290:18:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
266:18:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
251:17:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
1827:
978:Columbia Journalism Review
715:don't suggest that lightly
611:Columbia Journalism Review
351:However, the article has
1799:Please do not modify it.
1220:The Libertarian Republic
280:relevance. NOTNEWS etc.
32:Please do not modify it.
825:Republican In Name Only
1264:National Review Online
868:Anti-Defamation League
460:establish notability.
76:AfDs for this article:
1750:few or no other edits
1682:anyone really believe
789:, have you ever read
1752:outside this topic.
1539:The Washington Post
1528:The Washington Post
1154:Haaretz (in Hebrew)
652:The Almightey Drill
599:The Washington Post
1517:Washington Monthly
1319:The New York Times
591:The New York Times
1753:
1614:
1613:
533:
513:
493:
432:
409:article, which I
373:
268:
63:
1818:
1801:
1735:
1648:
1646:
1640:
1297:The New Republic
1132:Gaceta (Spanish)
989:The Daily Banter
890:America Magazine
853:
787:Urban Dictionary
640:
638:
545:) - redirect to
528:
526:
508:
506:
488:
486:
425:
366:
224:
223:
209:
161:
149:
131:
62:
60:
53:
34:
1826:
1825:
1821:
1820:
1819:
1817:
1816:
1815:
1814:
1808:deletion review
1797:
1644:
1642:
1634:
1615:
1286:National Review
1275:National Review
1198:Huffington Post
1044:The Daily Beast
1033:The Daily Beast
1022:The Daily Beast
1011:The Daily Beast
1000:The Daily Beast
858:
857:List of sources
636:
634:
595:National Review
583:Washington Post
524:
522:
504:
502:
484:
482:
316:Washington Post
166:
157:
122:
106:
103:
101:
74:
56:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1824:
1822:
1813:
1812:
1792:
1791:
1773:
1772:
1755:
1754:
1717:
1716:
1698:
1697:
1673:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1645:Rhododendrites
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1577:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1555:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1544:
1543:
1542:
1541:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1508:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1456:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1321:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1145:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1099:The Federalist
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
994:
993:
992:
991:
983:
982:
981:
980:
972:
971:
970:
969:
967:Cato Institute
961:
960:
959:
958:
950:
949:
948:
947:
939:
938:
937:
936:
928:
927:
926:
925:
917:
916:
915:
914:
906:
905:
904:
903:
895:
894:
893:
892:
884:
883:
882:
881:
873:
872:
871:
870:
860:
859:
856:
851:
850:
849:
842:
841:
840:
839:
817:
816:
768:
767:
766:
729:
700:
677:
645:
637:Rhododendrites
535:
534:
525:Rhododendrites
514:
505:Rhododendrites
494:
485:Rhododendrites
474:
473:
472:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
413:, has serious
348:
347:
309:
308:
307:
270:
269:
227:
226:
163:
102:
100:
99:
94:
89:
84:
78:
75:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1823:
1811:
1809:
1805:
1800:
1794:
1793:
1790:
1786:
1782:
1778:
1775:
1774:
1771:
1768:
1764:
1760:
1757:
1756:
1751:
1747:
1743:
1739:
1734:
1730:
1726:
1722:
1719:
1718:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1700:
1699:
1696:
1692:
1688:
1683:
1678:
1675:
1674:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1654:
1653:
1652:
1647:
1638:
1633:
1632:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1624:
1620:
1606:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1595:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1584:
1581:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1573:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1562:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1551:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1540:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1529:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1518:
1515:
1514:
1513:
1512:
1507:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1501:
1496:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1485:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1474:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1463:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1452:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1441:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1430:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1419:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1413:
1408:
1407:Rolling Stone
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1397:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1386:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1380:
1375:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1364:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1353:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1342:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1331:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1320:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1309:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1298:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1292:
1287:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1276:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1265:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1254:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1243:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1232:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1221:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1210:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1199:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1188:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1177:
1176:Heeb Magazine
1174:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1166:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1155:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1144:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1133:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1122:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1100:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1089:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1078:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1067:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1056:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1045:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1034:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1023:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1012:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1001:
998:
997:
996:
995:
990:
987:
986:
985:
984:
979:
976:
975:
974:
973:
968:
965:
964:
963:
962:
957:
956:Carbonated.tv
954:
953:
952:
951:
946:
945:Buzzfeed News
943:
942:
941:
940:
935:
932:
931:
930:
929:
924:
921:
920:
919:
918:
913:
910:
909:
908:
907:
902:
899:
898:
897:
896:
891:
888:
887:
886:
885:
880:
877:
876:
875:
874:
869:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
854:
847:
844:
843:
838:
834:
830:
826:
821:
820:
819:
818:
815:
811:
807:
803:
799:
796:
792:
788:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
757:
752:
751:
750:
746:
742:
741:69.204.153.39
738:
733:
730:
728:
724:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
701:
699:
695:
691:
690:
685:
681:
678:
676:
672:
668:
667:
662:
657:
653:
649:
646:
644:
639:
632:
628:
624:
620:
619:Radix Journal
616:
612:
608:
607:National Post
604:
600:
596:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
544:
540:
537:
536:
532:
527:
520:
515:
512:
507:
500:
495:
492:
487:
480:
475:
471:
467:
463:
458:
457:
456:
452:
448:
444:
441:
435:
431:
428:
424:
420:
416:
412:
408:
404:
399:
398:
397:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
377:
376:
372:
369:
365:
360:
359:
354:
350:
349:
345:
341:
337:
333:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
310:
306:
302:
298:
293:
292:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
272:
271:
267:
264:
260:
255:
254:
253:
252:
249:
244:
240:
236:
232:
222:
218:
215:
212:
208:
204:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
182:
179:
176:
172:
169:
168:Find sources:
164:
160:
156:
153:
147:
143:
139:
135:
130:
126:
121:
117:
113:
109:
108:Cuckservative
105:
104:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
72:
71:Cuckservative
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1798:
1795:
1776:
1762:
1758:
1738:BigGoyForYou
1725:BigGoyForYou
1720:
1701:
1687:KevinOKeeffe
1681:
1676:
1616:
1506:The Stranger
1209:Language Log
1143:The Guardian
1077:Daily Caller
1066:Daily Caller
1055:Daily Caller
901:The Atlantic
845:
794:
783:
771:
737:infotainment
731:
706:
702:
687:
686:. Cheers, —
679:
664:
663:, itself. —
660:
647:
559:The Guardian
542:
538:
442:
403:WP:OTHERCRAP
391:sums it up.
380:
356:
336:New Republic
328:The Guardian
311:
278:encyclopedic
277:
273:
239:previous AfD
228:
216:
210:
202:
195:
189:
183:
177:
167:
154:
57:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1748:) has made
1702:Strong Keep
1677:Strong Keep
1165:The Hayride
1110:The Forward
579:Daily Beast
567:Salon twice
543:Weak Delete
332:Daily Beast
193:free images
1121:The Frisky
623:NPR (WNPR)
405:, but the
387:. I think
385:Wiktionary
58:Sandstein
1804:talk page
1706:Rossbawse
1396:Richochet
1385:Red State
1374:Red State
1363:Red State
1088:Daily Kos
923:Breitbart
912:The Blaze
615:Telegraph
575:Daily Kos
571:Breitbart
353:WP:ATTACK
235:Neologism
37:talk page
1806:or in a
1781:Robofish
1746:contribs
1657:Denarivs
1637:Denarivs
1619:Denarivs
1572:The Week
1561:The Week
1550:The Week
1352:Politico
1341:PJ Media
1231:Mediaite
879:Alternet
756:Denarivs
680:Comment:
555:Buzzfeed
539:Redirect
462:Denarivs
324:NY Times
297:Denarivs
241:, where
152:View log
39:or in a
1759:Comment
1330:Patheos
1242:Mediate
1187:Hot Air
806:Bearian
776:Edgarde
656:Edgarde
199:WP refs
187:scholar
125:protect
120:history
1767:samtar
1308:NY Mag
934:Bustle
802:WP:BLP
795:freaky
791:WP:ODD
732:Delete
625:, and
603:Bustle
589:, and
443:Delete
415:WP:NEO
393:samtar
282:Drmies
274:Delete
263:samtar
248:samtar
243:Drmies
171:Google
129:delete
1763:again
1484:Slate
1473:Salon
1462:Salon
1451:Salon
1440:Salon
1429:Salon
1418:Salon
1253:MSNBC
627:NewsR
563:Salon
551:Slate
541:(and
447:Cyrej
320:Slate
229:Last
214:JSTOR
175:books
159:Stats
146:views
138:watch
134:links
16:<
1785:talk
1777:Keep
1742:talk
1729:talk
1721:Keep
1710:talk
1691:talk
1661:talk
1623:talk
1583:WNPR
846:Keep
833:talk
827:. --
810:talk
784:a la
780:Cirt
778:and
774:per
772:keep
760:talk
745:talk
723:talk
717:. --
703:Keep
694:talk
689:Cirt
671:talk
666:Cirt
648:Keep
631:WP:N
587:SPLC
521:. —
501:. —
481:. —
466:talk
451:talk
419:RINO
407:DINO
312:Keep
301:talk
286:talk
207:FENS
181:news
142:logs
116:talk
112:edit
1649:\\
1605:Vox
1594:Vox
829:BDD
719:BDD
684:BDD
641:\\
529:\\
509:\\
489:\\
423:edg
381:not
364:edg
231:AfD
221:TWL
150:– (
1787:)
1765:.
1744:•
1736:—
1731:)
1712:)
1693:)
1663:)
1625:)
835:)
812:)
762:)
747:)
725:)
707:is
696:)
673:)
621:,
617:,
613:,
609:,
605:,
585:,
581:,
577:,
573:,
569:,
565:,
561:,
557:,
553:,
468:)
453:)
342:,
338:,
334:,
330:,
326:,
322:,
318:,
303:)
288:)
261:.
201:)
144:|
140:|
136:|
132:|
127:|
123:|
118:|
114:|
1783:(
1740:(
1727:(
1708:(
1689:(
1667:1
1659:(
1639::
1635:@
1621:(
831:(
808:(
758:(
743:(
721:(
692:(
669:(
464:(
449:(
430:☭
427:☺
371:☭
368:☺
299:(
284:(
225:)
217:·
211:·
203:·
196:·
190:·
184:·
178:·
173:(
165:(
162:)
155:·
148:)
110:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.