1230:. I have never contributed to a delete discussion before but this one is so fascinating I felt compelled to say something. It goes to the very heart of what Knowledge is, isn't, should and shouldn't be. The fact that anyone can update Knowledge is why it's so wonderful and also why it can be so dangerous. The editors do a fantastic job of protecting the site from vandals and spammers and maintaining the integrity of the site. Here I can honestly see both sides of the coin - I can get why one would say delete and I can also see the keep side. So why am I voting keep? Because a lawyer
438:
with the
Oklahoma Supreme Court, which surely are reliable, non-trivial sources. That is how legal commentary on cases works most of the time: commentators talk about and comment on the case and the law, not the person who argued, briefed, and won the case. They care about the law, not the person who changed it. Its academic. Moreover, the "articles written by the subject" are exactly what establishes the notability. How many "non-notable subject" lawyers have their opinions and their commentary cited by, and explained in, the
1149:- The subject easily exceeds the notability criteria. My bigger concern from all this is behavior of the nominating editor. Claims to have no interest per say in whether this page stays or goes but every single time there is a comment in favor of it staying, he has the need to retort it. It is clear that no matter what people say in favor, he will reject. This is a clear indication of bias on this editors part against the subject and seems to verge on online bullying.
1370:
896:- The problem here is not the quantity of sources, but the quality. What I was able to find - and what is cited previously in this discussion - are not focused on him. They mention him along with a case he is defending or he is quoted as part of a story on something related to law. The coverage needs to be more focused on him in order to establish notability. Because there are merely mentions and quotes he would fail
718:- I have changed nothing in my reasoning for removal and your rebuttal lacks substance per Knowledge criteria. I have no interest in the deletion or inclusion of the article - my only interest is the applcation of Knowledge criteria. Regardless of what you think, you have failed to provide adequate support for inclusion. Feel free to continue to review the Knowledge criteria and improve the article.
1379:
873:- I have seen very few, if any articles nominated for deletion with this many citations and sources. That itself does not guarantee a place here on Knowledge but I was swayed by what the editor wrote here. He found additional high quality sources. The editor clearly put a lot of time into the research and the writing of it. While aspects of it may need to be cleaned up, it should stay.
1242:. The author asked the editor who wanted to delete if they could work together to make the article acceptable to him. This was basically rebuffed. Since then, he has repeated his opinion to delete not once but many times. He's a great editor who is responsible for cleaning up a lot of junk pages on Knowledge so isn't a bad guy. He stumbled across this page and slapped a
1182:. You state, "every single time there is a comment in favor of it staying, he has the need to retort it." What specifically is the issue with providing an opinion that is contrary to an editor's comment. Are you saying you do not welcome an opinion contrary to the statements? This is hardly bullying. Please be specific in outlining any bullying I have engaged in.
1511:
in the local press. Works by him can not be used for this. He might also pass the notability for academics. However there is no show that his work has been looked to and cited sufficiently for him to meet academic point 1, and no way he could meet any other. He does not pass any notability criteria and the article should be deleted.
921:- In the legal industry, entertainment/sports agent business, people are notable based on who/what they represent. A lawyer can be a nobody but they represent a celebrity and by association they're notable. Thus it would flow-on that the citations are not focused on the lawyer themself but more so, the client/case.
1510:
The coverage is not enough to show he is a notable lawyer. We would want either indepth coverage in the local press, preferrably articles that meet clear standards of reliability and neutralness, or some coverage in non-local publications. What we seem to get is passing mention in relations to cases
1191:
You state the article meets notability criteria, but that is all you state, you do not state how. One can say anything they wish, but without support is is just a statement lacking facts. The fact still remains the references "...are single line mentions; do not mention the article subject; or are
619:
does not equal "real-world" notability. The fact still remains the references "...are single line mentions; do not mention the article subject; or are articles written by the subject." Your comment that the application of
Knowledge criteria "showcases a basic lack of knowledge when it comes to the
455:
and discussed on notable sites, he has been cited and discussed in a 2016 published book on domestic abuse. He has sued the state of
Oklahoma 9 time for injunctions! If being cited in government databases (OSCN/ODCR) , published legal opinions, major law journals, national and local news coverage, a
437:
For as viewed above, a single line mention doesn't mean that it is any less notable if it is from a respected legal journal, newspaper, website, or published book. The only "reference" cited that doesn't mention "the article subject" are discussing published cases that has the subject’s name on them
989:
per arguments citing the quality of the sources. There's every chance that the subject of this article will become
Knowledge-notable down the line (he's still reasonably young, after all), but right at the moment he's just not there as yet. While I'm sympathetic to the claim that time and effort
546:
The subject has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field - the Luster case is a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record: in the field of
666:- You claim one thing and when that is rebutted, you move the goalposts of the discussion because you are clearly skewed towards the page being deleted and want that to happen via any argument which will achieve this. Based on Knowledge's own
383:
377:
1078:
where the content is next to minimal and apart from the web profile there is a single citation which is barely to do with him, but the case he was working on. He is definitely notable because of the clients he represented but is he
1277:- In spite of all the superciliously comments, not one has addressed the fact that still remains, the references "...are single line mentions; do not mention the article subject; or are articles written by the subject."
529:
According to WP:ANYBIO, People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several
170:
674:
Knowledge notability than real life notability. If you are truly impartial about this discussion and the future of this page, why not work with me on the language and the various citations to have this page
427:
The claim that the
Article "references" are single line mentions; do not mention the article subject; or are articles written by the subject showcases a basic lack of knowledge when it comes to the legal
201:
Non-notable lawyer lacking non-trivial support. Article "references" are single line mentions; do not mention the article subject; or are articles written by the subject. Advertisement for
308:
Notability is a nuanced thing. Knowledge shouldn’t be defined by the lowest common denominator but by the same token there has to be a baseline and I would like to thank
123:
164:
820:
780:
1386:
1327:
1264:
1097:
1029:
935:
887:
770:
689:
596:
1009:
While on their own, these sources are not focused on him, together, they account for enough influence and notability to justify this article's existance.
800:
620:
legal field," does nothing to show how the subject meets the
Knowledge criteria. You keep pointing to the subject's work as if it creates Knowledge
516:
534:
486:
1418:
556:
329:
He lists all the references where one could expect to find a notable person and lo and behold, there the subject is, not just once but many times:
511:
1042:- If the reference is not focused on him, then it cannot support notability of the article subject. Simply put notability is mot inherited.
496:
465:
In terms of a legal commentator, the subject has been asked to comment on the news for his opinion not once, not twice but many many times
130:
491:
61:
1462:"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content."
506:
96:
91:
17:
439:
400:
100:
1464:. Some of the content can only be understood by someone privy to information not supplied in the references. The policy on
185:
452:
476:
152:
83:
501:
842:
517:
http://kfor.com/2015/08/18/pardon-and-parole-board-plan-would-allow-non-violent-offenders-chance-for-early-release/
1539:
1516:
487:
http://kfor.com/2014/10/29/residents-upset-attorney-accused-of-child-sex-trafficking-works-in-their-neighborhood/
40:
1484:
548:
1118:
If you feel the article does not meet
Knowledge criteria for inclusion, feel free to nominate for deletion.
512:
http://kfor.com/2015/05/28/technicality-could-force-drug-charges-to-be-dropped-in-multiple-oklahoma-counties/
146:
1465:
497:
http://kfor.com/2015/01/27/rep-sally-kern-defends-bills-aimed-at-gay-community-despite-widespread-criticism/
57:
1154:
860:
761:
680:
587:
396:
1535:
1426:
142:
36:
1520:
1500:
1398:
1355:
1322:
1294:
1259:
1246:
on it and was on his way. This got reverted but he hasn't been able to let it go. For someone who said
1209:
1158:
1135:
1092:
1059:
1024:
998:
975:
930:
909:
882:
862:
832:
812:
792:
765:
735:
684:
641:
591:
280:
254:
222:
65:
87:
1512:
1422:
1115:
1017:
250:
1438:
1415:
1351:
1290:
1239:
1205:
1131:
1055:
971:
731:
637:
492:
http://kfor.com/2015/01/06/district-attorney-seeks-death-penalty-in-stillwater-near-beheading-case/
481:
218:
192:
178:
373:
1488:
905:
79:
71:
53:
552:
342:
415:
1469:
1453:
1430:
1179:
1150:
1088:
926:
878:
853:
828:
808:
788:
757:
676:
583:
244:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1534:
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
1496:
1442:
995:
950:- Unfortunately, in the Knowledge world, "real-world" notability has little or no bearing.
507:
http://kfor.com/2015/03/17/secretary-of-finance-pleads-not-guilty-to-alcohol-related-charge/
276:
1434:
451:
The subject has been cited and discussed in two different Law Review
Journals, he has been
1449:
1394:
1369:
1235:
1010:
990:
expended should influence an article's fate, that's just not how things work around here.
358:
158:
1339:
1318:
1278:
1255:
1193:
1119:
1043:
959:
719:
625:
309:
206:
1411:
1407:
1227:
1223:
1175:
1171:
1075:
901:
897:
477:
http://okcfox.com/archive/apartment-complex-debuts-program-to-crack-down-on-dog-feces
296:
292:
268:
264:
236:
232:
1457:
1243:
1084:
922:
874:
824:
804:
784:
502:
http://kfor.com/2015/03/10/legal-experts-weigh-in-on-sae-students-expelled-from-ou/
240:
574:
Could a better job of displaying this notability been done in the first place? Yes
456:
published book written by someone else, etc aren’t reliable sources, than what is?
117:
1492:
991:
955:
951:
667:
621:
616:
272:
202:
1421:
about a local lawyer that lacks references, among the many supplied, advancing
1390:
1174:
to report my specific actions. Your comments do not take into consideration
756:
For what it's worth, deleted what could be construed as promotional language.
1314:
1251:
582:
Based on the evidence above, does the subject deserve a place here - Yes
239:. Promotional article for a lawyer lacking notable citations/references.
1083:? That page would appear to be more of an advertisement than this one.
1311:
1238:
wrote but it's more than that. It actually reminds me a bit of the
1250:
his non-stop commenting make this statement difficult to believe.
1528:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1234:
different to people in other industries. I also agree with what
1114:- Haven't looked at it. It has no bearing in this discussion -
670:
criteria, notability was showcased and the subject actually has
482:
http://okcfox.com/archive/chesapeake-vs-american-energy-partners
1475:
presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made"
1248:
I have no interest in the deletion or inclusion of the article
1170:- I suggest if you feel my actions are inappropriate, you use
845:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
1433:
court cases as an attorney, that I could not even find
113:
109:
105:
177:
851:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
1441:, and local commentaries and opinion pieces as an
615:- What the above fails to recognize is Knowledge
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1542:). No further edits should be made to this page.
821:list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions
191:
8:
819:Note: This debate has been included in the
799:Note: This debate has been included in the
779:Note: This debate has been included in the
1387:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97
1328:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97
1265:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97
1098:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97
1030:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97
936:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97
888:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97
781:list of People-related deletion discussions
771:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97
690:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97
597:Knowledge:Sockpuppet investigations/Kelly97
1487:and vague references this article screams
818:
798:
778:
248:
376:from Washburn law and also cited in this
1326:Removed comment from blocked user - See
1263:Removed comment from blocked user - See
1096:Removed comment from blocked user - See
1028:Removed comment from blocked user - See
934:Removed comment from blocked user - See
886:Removed comment from blocked user - See
801:list of Law-related deletion discussions
769:Removed comment from blocked user - See
688:Removed comment from blocked user - See
595:Removed comment from blocked user - See
1485:collection of none-encyclopedia content
1376:Billsimmons7, FlagFlayer, and TC99 are
533:The subject has been named one of the
1445:, does not establish notability. The
7:
537:for 5 years running now (2013-2017).
1074:What do you make of a page such as
577:Could the language be improved? Yes
1192:articles written by the subject."
24:
954:is a function of the criteria in
535:top 100 trial lawyers in Oklahoma
1377:
1368:
1338:- Thank you, Mr. Shipman. 8-)
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
553:sex offender registration laws
382:Also cited in this book about
1:
1473:directly support the material
1385:sock puppets of Kelly97. See
1559:
1521:14:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
1501:19:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
1399:18:32, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
1356:14:51, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
1323:14:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
1295:14:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
1260:08:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
1210:19:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
1159:18:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
1136:16:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
1093:14:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
1060:13:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
1025:11:37, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
999:07:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
976:16:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
931:14:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
910:01:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
883:00:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
863:00:27, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
833:06:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
813:06:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
793:06:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
766:20:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
736:19:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
685:19:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
642:18:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
592:17:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
281:02:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
255:01:41, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
223:21:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
66:22:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
399:while also Reference 146
1531:Please do not modify it.
395:Cited on page 1 of this
32:Please do not modify it.
1178:could be assumed to be
624:, but it does not.
320:for clarifying that.
1439:top 50 of his field
1414:, and others, as a
1240:Judgment_of_Solomon
1116:other stuff exists.
384:reproductive ethics
1471:"Use sources that
1452:of "greatness" is
1513:John Pack Lambert
1458:original research
1435:nationally listed
1081:Knowledge notable
900:in my opinion. --
865:
835:
815:
795:
257:
1550:
1533:
1381:
1380:
1372:
1342:
1281:
1196:
1122:
1046:
1021:
1014:
962:
856:
850:
848:
846:
722:
628:
549:criminal defense
312:
209:
196:
195:
181:
133:
121:
103:
34:
1558:
1557:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1549:
1548:
1547:
1546:
1540:deletion review
1529:
1483:Along with the
1378:
1374:Checkuser note:
1340:
1279:
1236:User:FlagFlayer
1194:
1120:
1044:
1019:
1012:
996:Schreit mich an
960:
866:
854:
841:
839:
720:
626:
440:Washington Post
310:
207:
138:
129:
94:
78:
75:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1556:
1554:
1545:
1544:
1524:
1523:
1504:
1503:
1480:
1479:
1401:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1269:
1268:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1162:
1161:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1101:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1034:
1033:
1002:
1001:
983:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
940:
939:
913:
912:
891:
849:
838:
837:
836:
816:
796:
775:
774:
749:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
738:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
603:
602:
601:
600:
578:
575:
563:
562:
561:
560:
541:
540:
539:
538:
531:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
514:
509:
504:
499:
494:
489:
484:
479:
469:
468:
467:
466:
460:
459:
458:
457:
446:
445:
444:
443:
432:
431:
430:
429:
422:
421:
420:
419:
406:
405:
404:
403:
390:
389:
388:
387:
380:
368:
367:
366:
365:
349:
348:
347:
346:
333:
332:
331:
330:
324:
323:
322:
321:
302:
301:
284:
283:
258:
253:comment added
199:
198:
135:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1555:
1543:
1541:
1537:
1532:
1526:
1525:
1522:
1518:
1514:
1509:
1506:
1505:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1481:
1477:
1476:
1474:
1467:
1466:Verifiability
1463:
1460:. GNG states
1459:
1456:, as well as
1455:
1451:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1417:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1404:Strong delete
1402:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1366:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1348:
1345:
1337:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1331:
1329:
1325:
1324:
1320:
1316:
1313:
1309:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1287:
1284:
1276:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1266:
1262:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1233:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1216:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1202:
1199:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1166:
1165:
1164:
1163:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1145:
1144:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1128:
1125:
1117:
1113:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1099:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1077:
1076:Mark_M._Baker
1073:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1049:
1041:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1023:
1022:
1016:
1015:
1008:
1004:
1003:
1000:
997:
993:
988:
985:
984:
977:
973:
969:
968:
965:
957:
953:
949:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
937:
933:
932:
928:
924:
920:
915:
914:
911:
907:
903:
899:
895:
892:
889:
885:
884:
880:
876:
872:
868:
867:
864:
861:
858:
857:
847:
844:
834:
830:
826:
822:
817:
814:
810:
806:
802:
797:
794:
790:
786:
782:
777:
776:
772:
768:
767:
763:
759:
755:
751:
750:
737:
733:
729:
728:
725:
717:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
691:
687:
686:
682:
678:
673:
669:
665:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
643:
639:
635:
634:
631:
623:
618:
614:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
598:
594:
593:
589:
585:
580:
579:
576:
573:
571:
570:
568:
567:
565:
564:
558:
554:
550:
545:
544:
543:
542:
536:
532:
528:
527:
526:
525:
518:
515:
513:
510:
508:
505:
503:
500:
498:
495:
493:
490:
488:
485:
483:
480:
478:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
464:
463:
462:
461:
454:
450:
449:
448:
447:
441:
436:
435:
434:
433:
426:
425:
424:
423:
417:
413:
410:
409:
408:
407:
402:
398:
394:
393:
392:
391:
385:
381:
379:
375:
372:
371:
370:
369:
364:
360:
356:
353:
352:
351:
350:
344:
340:
337:
336:
335:
334:
328:
327:
326:
325:
319:
318:
315:
307:
306:
305:
304:
300:
298:
294:
290:
286:
285:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
259:
256:
252:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
227:
226:
225:
224:
220:
216:
215:
212:
204:
194:
190:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
144:
141:
140:Find sources:
136:
132:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
62:contributions
59:
55:
54:Jo-Jo Eumerus
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1530:
1527:
1507:
1472:
1470:
1461:
1450:loaded words
1446:
1403:
1382:
1373:
1346:
1343:
1335:
1307:
1305:
1285:
1282:
1274:
1247:
1231:
1219:
1218:
1200:
1197:
1167:
1151:Cpenderbrook
1146:
1126:
1123:
1111:
1080:
1071:
1070:
1050:
1047:
1039:
1018:
1011:
1006:
1005:
986:
966:
963:
947:
918:
916:
893:
870:
869:
855:Juliancolton
852:
840:
758:Billsimmons7
753:
752:
726:
723:
715:
677:Billsimmons7
671:
663:
662:
632:
629:
612:
584:Billsimmons7
581:
572:
569:
566:
411:
374:reference 56
362:
354:
338:
316:
313:
303:
288:
287:
260:
228:
213:
210:
200:
188:
182:
174:
167:
161:
155:
149:
139:
126:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1416:promotional
249:—Preceding
203:non-notable
165:free images
80:Adam Banner
72:Adam Banner
1489:"fancruft"
1427:Refbombing
1423:notability
1180:WP:UNCIVIL
952:Notability
668:notability
622:notability
617:notability
359:26 results
343:93 results
273:Dean Esmay
1536:talk page
1383:Confirmed
1176:WP:AGFand
825:• Gene93k
805:• Gene93k
785:• Gene93k
416:3 results
205:subject.
37:talk page
1538:or in a
902:CNMall41
843:Relisted
412:Highbeam
124:View log
39:or in a
1468:states
1454:puffery
1437:in the
1431:trivial
1336:Comment
1308:Comment
1275:Comment
1222:Due to
1168:Comment
1112:Comment
1085:Kelly97
1072:Comment
1040:Comment
948:Comment
923:Kelly97
919:Comment
875:Kelly97
754:Comment
716:Comment
664:Comment
613:Comment
397:article
355:Scholar
263:. Per
251:undated
241:Knox490
171:WP refs
159:scholar
97:protect
92:history
1508:Delete
1493:Otr500
1443:author
1429:local
1412:WP:GNG
1408:WP:BIO
1406:: Per
1312:Q.E.D.
1228:WP:GNG
1224:WP:BIO
1172:WP:ANI
1020:Flayer
992:BigHaz
987:Delete
898:WP:GNG
894:Delete
557:reform
530:times.
428:field.
297:WP:GNG
293:WP:BIO
269:WP:GNG
265:WP:BIO
261:Delete
237:WP:GNG
233:WP:BIO
229:Delete
143:Google
101:delete
50:delete
1391:Bbb23
1244:WP:A7
453:cited
363:Books
186:JSTOR
147:books
131:Stats
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
1517:talk
1497:talk
1447:many
1395:talk
1352:talk
1319:talk
1315:TC99
1291:talk
1256:talk
1252:TC99
1226:and
1220:Keep
1206:talk
1155:talk
1147:Keep
1132:talk
1089:talk
1056:talk
1013:Flag
1007:Keep
972:talk
956:WP:N
927:talk
906:talk
879:talk
871:Keep
829:talk
809:talk
789:talk
762:talk
732:talk
681:talk
672:more
638:talk
588:talk
555:and
551:and
401:here
378:book
361:and
339:News
295:and
291:Per
289:Keep
277:talk
267:and
245:talk
235:and
231:Per
219:talk
179:FENS
153:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
58:talk
1419:BLP
1389:.--
1347:six
1344:dog
1341:red
1286:six
1283:dog
1280:red
1201:six
1198:dog
1195:red
1127:six
1124:dog
1121:red
1051:six
1048:dog
1045:red
967:six
964:dog
961:red
727:six
724:dog
721:red
675:up?
633:six
630:dog
627:red
317:six
314:dog
311:red
247:)
214:six
211:dog
208:red
193:TWL
122:– (
52:.
1519:)
1499:)
1491:.
1425:.
1410:,
1397:)
1354:)
1330:.
1321:)
1310:-
1293:)
1258:)
1232:is
1208:)
1157:)
1134:)
1091:)
1058:)
994:-
974:)
958:.
929:)
908:)
881:)
859:|
831:)
823:.
811:)
803:.
791:)
783:.
764:)
734:)
683:)
640:)
590:)
414:-
357:-
341:-
279:)
271:.
221:)
173:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
64:)
60:,
1515:(
1495:(
1478:.
1393:(
1350:(
1317:(
1306:*
1289:(
1267:.
1254:(
1204:(
1153:(
1130:(
1100:.
1087:(
1054:(
1032:.
970:(
938:.
925:(
917:*
904:(
890:.
877:(
827:(
807:(
787:(
773:.
760:(
730:(
692:.
679:(
636:(
599:.
586:(
559:.
442:?
418:-
386:.
345:-
299:.
275:(
243:(
217:(
197:)
189:·
183:·
175:·
168:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
145:(
137:(
134:)
127:·
120:)
82:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.