596:. People seem to have done serious work that deserves to be preserved in some form. There doesn't seem to be serious OR in the making of this list of those perhaps not on the official list, only perhaps in the (implicit) claim. The explanatory statements in the article could be rephrased. Some kinds of "OR" are allowable - e.g. simple arithmetic, this "claim" is close to that. The issue is confused by other factors, but if there were say two clear lists, a USGov list of 50 and an ICRC list of 80, it wouldn't be serious OR to have a "list of people on the ICRC list, not on the USG list" although it might not be too sensible. But sometimes it could be sensible -
681:, if it's going to be merged, I'd like to see BWH do the work of ensuring no information is lost, and simply transferred over to the main article. For the past six months he has been consistently nominating one of Geo_Swan's articles for deletion every week, as soon as the last AfD ends (sometimes keep, sometimes NC, sometimes delete)...looking at Geo_Swan's talk page it's difficult to not see some form of user harrassment going on with the constant "I've nominated X, Y and Z for deletion". Nominator has a very long history of trying to have all Guantanamo-related articles deleted, even those ones that are
608:? A sensible way to keep this data and be a stickler could be to have a USG list in the main article and a section with (possible) additional names. Another way would be to have a big list with notations. The "possible" - much of the confusion comes from translation problems, translation being another kind of allowable "OR." Aside from such unavoidable, translational "is this name/person the same as that name/person?" problems, it's just a question in how to best present data, not really policy violation, although perhaps we should try to avoid even the appearance of violating policy.
715:"twenty hours to create". GeoSwan and BWH are both entitled to their opinions concerning creating or nominating for deletion, articles about the Gitmo detainees. One could say, I suppose, that both of them have an "agenda". I think it's more likely that both of them have strong feelings about the articles. Certainly, I don't think that either Geo or BWH is waging a "personal vendetta"
913:. They weren't totally missing from official lists. The summary of evidence memos published in 2006 had merely named them using names that couldn't be reconciled with the names on the official lists. When the DoD released nine more official lists last September, which less obfuscated than the first two lists, it became possible to figure out who they were.
750:. I don't see a POV problem with the title, as many details surrounding Guantanamo are not released to the public, and instead come out in dribs and drubs in the press. As far as "original research", the names are either on the official list or they're not. I don't see any new facts being derived. That said, the main article,
1205:
It's a long list, and can appropriately be divided. The sources are reliable for the purpose. The concept of those not on the official list is relevant as a special aspect of the situation. Those who do not like some of the individual GB articles should like this way of doing it instead. I hope this
733:
players", and another user has "an agenda to delete all articles about World Cup players", I'm going to view those two "agendas' differently. If you have "strong feelings" about
Guantanamo detainees, go make sure their articles are neutral and don't give any sympathetic bias...don't try to remove all
689:
of their own, an attempt to purge as much collected information about the US prison camp from the internet as possible, with a minimum of effort (an article that requires twenty hours of work to create, can be deleted with thirty seconds of BWH's effort, so simple numbers mean he can effectively keep
185:
What the nominator is concerned is "original research" are merely collation and correlation, it is no different than looking up any information available on a reliable, authoritative source, and quoting it. It is no different than looking up census data from the census bureau, or baseball statistics
170:
The deletion policies are quite clear on this -- a perception that the current version of an article contains bias is not grounds for deletion. The deletion policies are quite clear on this. Wikipedians who are concerned because they perceive a bias in an article are supposed to state their concern
1145:
And again, why is this WP:OR? The importance lent to this subject is the WP:SYN. Saying that this is important based upon a court order again is OR and SYN. The importance given to this subject only appears on
Knowledge (XXG). I think that the baseball box scores are not an accurate comparison -
1104:
I'm inclined to agree with the author that this doesn't fall under the definition of synthesis work. I would compare it to box scores in baseball in an article about notable baseball records. An external source is necessary to make some sort of superlative claim ("This was the first time any team
1036:
The wikipedia is not a hagiography. I suggest it is not the role of wikipedia contributors to clean up the record of their favourite cause, favourite band, favourite politician, favourite nation, by suppressing information they regard as embarrassing, when that material is well referenced, written
714:
Let's try to stay civil here. BWH is under no obligation to "do the work of ensuring no information is lost", particularly since he/she nominated the article for deletion. There are several hundred of the
Guantanamo Bay detainee articles, and there's nothing to suggest that each one required
223:
the DoD published its first two official lists of captive's names. Ideally this article should have incorporate the information in those two lists. Doing so would represent significant work. I didn't do it. I was working on other articles. And no one else has done it either. The reason I am
893:
Finally I wrote to the DoD, asking for clarification on these three guys. A public affairs officer explained that all three really had been held in
Guantanamo. He offered me their official ID numbers. I explained that the wikipedia's policies did not allow me to cite his private email as a
889:
were former
Guantanamo captives, among the first captives to be released, who lied and tricked their way out of Guantanamo. They weren't named on the official lists. These three men were described as Taliban leaders of company, battalion, or brigade sized units. If they were really held at
894:
reference. I asked him to put their ID numbers up on the DoD website. Maybe he didn't get approval, because their ID numbers have not been made public. I didn't feel I could make corrections based solely on private email, no matter how authoritative the source would be, if it were public.
960:
No sources cover this subject. The only source that lends any weight to the fact that some detainees were left off of this list is
Knowledge (XXG) itself. There are no other sources that lend this subject any weight or importance. I've tried to find even one reference; so far, no such
152:- by using this original research as the basis of the page, the implication is that the process is flawed, illegal, or something else. It may or may not be,　but Knowledge (XXG) is not the forum for making these claims based upon original research.
1109:
However, the lack of outside sources that reference the article topic in its entirety is disturbing. I'm not suggesting that such an absence is a sign that the article need to be deleted on face. but it is a sign that caution should be used.
186:
from the baseball musuem at
Cooperstown. The names are either present on one or more of the official lists, or they are not. I do not see how this constitutes "original research" as defined in the wikipedia's original research policy.
834:
96:
91:
100:
690:
nominating every new article created) - so it would actually do quite a bit to sway my opinion if the nominator says he is willing to take the time necessary to merge these two articles himself, perhaps showcasing a
1250:
The fact that the detainees are being held at
Guantanamo is the thing of relevance/importance. The listed/unlisted classification simply indicates the source. And this classification needn't be notable itself per
83:
224:
bringing this up is to suggest that this merge would not be trivial, as has been suggested. I predict it would require at least twenty hours to do even a half-assed job. Here are the two lists from 2006:
1229:
If this is in fact relevant, why are there no sources that claim this relevance/importance? There are no sources (and nothing referenced in the article) that make this claim. The article makes the
923:
Approximately one fifth of the captives were named inconsistently. I think this should be the list the article should be merged with -- the list of captives who have been named inconsistently.
600:
is a similar convenient way of presenting clearly encyclopedic data. Does NOR dictate that is necessary to append it to a bigger article most of which is taken up by fascinating facts like
1173:. This is merely a subset of that list; perhaps the unofficial detainees could be listed in colored cells. There should also be a single section added to the article to discuss this issue.
1027:
to publish all the captive's names. The article clearly stated this. I suggest that a consistent pattern of failure to comply with this court order is notable, without regard to its cause.
87:
129:
79:
71:
209:(LoGBd). Several people have suggested merging this article into (LoGBd) I did the lion's share of the initial work maintaining (LoGBd), up until about two years ago. On
947:- The WP:OR upon which this article is based is used to push a point, be it implicitly or explicitly. The inclusion of the article itself on Knowledge (XXG) is a
1264:
1242:
1217:
1195:
1159:
1119:
1096:
1046:
1002:
935:
849:
824:
797:
780:
763:
738:
724:
706:
673:
656:
635:
617:
580:
556:
195:
180:
161:
65:
966:
Giving importance to this subject with an encyclopedic article without any sources making the claim that this is important is WP:OR (specifically WP:SYN).
877:
There are some passages in the article I wrote in good faith, but which I now think should be toned down. The DoD claimed that three individuals, "
1186:- the sources about the detainees establish their detention, and the official DoD source establishes that they are not listed. Michael
1256:
1187:
1170:
984:
Also, out of curiosity, have we done away with the guideline of writing comments underneath the previous entries in chronological order?
751:
589:
512:
486:
460:
434:
408:
382:
356:
330:
304:
264:
239:
17:
631:
576:
479:
401:
1086:
917:
427:
206:
49:
597:
375:
1016:
The only source that lends any weight to the fact that some detainees were left off of this list is
Knowledge (XXG) itself.
258:"List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006"
647:
per above. As a stand-alone article, it's not sourced to any published source that identifies these as missing names.
1286:
349:
297:
36:
1233:
that this is relevant - which is WP:SYN since there are no references establishing this as being something important.
1140:
on how this list was released - not about the detainees. The only information about the detainees is the bullet list.
505:
1150:
happen in a baseball game (without any references) would be much more similar - and similarly an OR and POV issue.
902:
323:
1128:- I re-read what I've written in this discussion and realized that I may not have clearly explained why this is a
815:
1285:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
759:
691:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1260:
1191:
898:
453:
526:
906:
1063:
776:
686:
148:. There are no sources that focus on this claim. The inclusion of this article in Knowledge (XXG) is
1182:- we have a source for the official list and we have a source for these other detainees. Nor is this
1206:
is not a situation where people feel more comfortable with as few articles as possible on the topic.
1091:
882:
754:, already draws on multiple sources and this article could be merged there without too much trouble.
669:
910:
990:
755:
720:
652:
61:
772:
1042:
931:
845:
551:
191:
176:
1115:
1105:
did X") but not ANY claim ("More runs were scored in the last 5 innings than the first four").
897:
When I looked at the article yesterday I realized I could take four other names off the list:
793:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1129:
976:
972:
948:
568:
145:
627:
613:
572:
1183:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1059:
952:
149:
1238:
1155:
1081:
998:
886:
878:
665:
232:
157:
1179:
1137:
868:
564:
141:
53:
735:
716:
703:
648:
257:
57:
1252:
1213:
1038:
927:
841:
541:
187:
172:
56:, the introductory prose needs heavy sourcing if it is to be included in the merger.
506:"Index of Transfer and Release Decision for Guantanamo Detainees from ARB Round Two"
1111:
890:
Guantanamo it would be highly significant. But they weren't on the official lists.
789:
117:
1023:
867:
I believe the perceptions of "original research" are based on misreading of the
771:. POV fork, and OR concerns per BWH76, although I do believe it should be kept.
609:
454:"Transcripts and Certain Documents from Administrative Review Boards Round Two"
1234:
1151:
994:
153:
730:
298:"Index for Combatant Status Review Board unclassified summaries of evidence"
1208:
1037:
from a neutral point of view, and otherwise complies with all policies.
806:
605:
210:
171:
on the article's talk page; or make good faith changes to the articles.
601:
626:
I'd certainly have no problem if this was merged and made less soapy.
501:
475:
449:
423:
397:
371:
345:
319:
293:
253:
228:
217:
350:"Index for CSRT Records Publicly Files in Guantanamo Detainee Cases"
874:
As I noted above perceptions of bias are not grounds for deletion.
835:
list of
Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions
480:"Index of Summaries of Detention-Release Factors for ARB Round Two"
402:"Index to Summaries of Detention-Release Factors for ARB Round One"
702:
simply to stymie what seems to be a personal vendetta and agenda.
428:"Index to Transfer and Release Decision for Guantanamo Detainees"
1279:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
220:
213:
376:"Index of Transcripts and Certain Documents from ARB Round One"
729:
Yes, but if one user "has an agenda to create articles about
993:
of the ridiculous accusations made against me in this AfD.
979:) and is the basis of my nomination of this article for AfD.
971:
The inclusion of this article itself is the example of the
788:. Yes, may be alot of work but worth it for the project.
1136:
the detainees that are not on this list. The article is
233:"List of detainee who went through complete CSRT process"
168:"that the process is flawed, illegal, or something else."
52:. Even though the list may be acceptable with regard to
166:
Regarding nominator's concern that the article implies
124:
113:
109:
105:
283:
The DoD released nine further lists in September 2007:
80:
Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list
72:
Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list
685:notable - I would suggest that these AfDs form a
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1289:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1014:
1132:. The content of the article is not actually
8:
920:as a poor target to merge this article with.
1146:creating an article based solely upon what
833:: This debate has been included in the
862:-- disclaimer, I started this article.
694:attempt? If I'm shown that, I'll vote
1062:if there ever was one. And to boot -
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
513:United States Department of Defense
487:United States Department of Defense
461:United States Department of Defense
435:United States Department of Defense
409:United States Department of Defense
383:United States Department of Defense
357:United States Department of Defense
331:United States Department of Defense
305:United States Department of Defense
265:United States Department of Defense
240:United States Department of Defense
24:
916:I explained, above, why I regard
1171:List of Guantánamo Bay detainees
918:List of Guantanamo Bay detainees
752:List of Guantánamo Bay detainees
590:List of Guantánamo Bay detainees
207:List of Guantanamo Bay detainees
50:List of Guantanamo Bay detainees
903:Musa Ali Said Al Said Al Umari
598:List of unrecognized countries
1:
140:- This is a clear example of
989:Lastly, I responded on the
571:thrown in for good measure.
529:comment added by ] (] • ])
1306:
1265:06:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1243:04:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
1218:22:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
1196:18:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
1160:07:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
1120:07:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
1097:21:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
1047:17:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
1003:16:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
936:15:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
850:21:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
825:16:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
798:11:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
781:07:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
764:18:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
739:05:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
725:01:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
707:17:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
698:, but otherwise I'll vote
674:14:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
657:13:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
636:10:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
618:09:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
581:09:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
557:08:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
196:14:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
181:13:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
162:08:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
66:06:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
692:User:BWH76/gitmoDetainees
1282:Please do not modify it.
679:Keep or Merge, Depending
205:-- Regarding merging to
32:Please do not modify it.
1060:WP:NOT#ORIGINALRESEARCH
899:Murtada Ali Said Maqram
871:, as I explained above.
869:original resarch policy
664:Per JohnZ's comments.
1018:
588:into the main article
324:"Index for testimony"
322:(September 4, 2007).
1178:This clearly is not
1021:The DoD was under a
883:Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar
1076:WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND
504:(August 10, 2007).
1011:Challenger writes:
991:editor's talk page
907:Sofiane Haderbache
809:XCharltonTilliDieX
400:(August 9, 2007).
374:(August 9, 2007).
348:(August 8, 2007).
231:(April 20, 2006).
852:
838:
820:
734:mention of them.
634:
579:
565:original research
554:
531:
478:(July 17, 2007).
452:(July 17, 2007).
426:(July 17, 2007).
296:(July 17, 2007).
142:original research
1297:
1284:
1089:
1084:
839:
829:
821:
818:
811:
630:
575:
567:, with a bit of
555:
550:
544:George D. Watson
530:
523:
522:
520:
519:
510:
496:
494:
493:
484:
470:
468:
467:
458:
444:
442:
441:
432:
418:
416:
415:
406:
392:
390:
389:
380:
366:
364:
363:
354:
340:
338:
337:
328:
314:
312:
311:
302:
274:
272:
271:
262:
256:(May 15, 2006).
249:
247:
246:
237:
127:
121:
103:
44:The result was
34:
1305:
1304:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1287:deletion review
1280:
1087:
1082:
1068:WP:NOT#MEMORIAL
975:error (and the
887:Abdullah Mehsud
879:Mullah Shahzada
823:
816:
807:
540:
524:
517:
515:
508:
500:
491:
489:
482:
474:
465:
463:
456:
448:
439:
437:
430:
422:
413:
411:
404:
396:
387:
385:
378:
370:
361:
359:
352:
344:
335:
333:
326:
318:
309:
307:
300:
292:
269:
267:
260:
252:
244:
242:
235:
227:
123:
94:
78:
75:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1303:
1301:
1292:
1291:
1274:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1221:
1220:
1199:
1198:
1175:
1174:
1163:
1162:
1142:
1141:
1107:
1106:
1102:Very Weak Keep
1099:
1072:WP:NOT#SOAPBOX
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1019:
1012:
1006:
1005:
986:
985:
981:
980:
968:
967:
963:
962:
957:
956:
941:
940:
939:
938:
924:
921:
914:
911:Ghallab Bashir
895:
891:
872:
864:
863:
853:
827:
814:
800:
783:
766:
756:Squidfryerchef
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
676:
659:
641:
640:
639:
638:
621:
620:
583:
559:
545:
534:
533:
532:
498:
472:
446:
420:
394:
368:
342:
316:
287:
286:
285:
284:
278:
277:
276:
275:
250:
200:
199:
198:
183:
134:
133:
74:
69:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1302:
1290:
1288:
1283:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1257:134.84.96.142
1254:
1253:WP:N#NCONTENT
1249:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1210:
1204:
1201:
1200:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1188:134.84.96.142
1185:
1181:
1177:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1165:
1164:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1144:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1127:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1103:
1100:
1098:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1090:
1085:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1057:
1054:
1053:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1026:
1025:
1020:
1017:
1013:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
987:
983:
982:
978:
974:
970:
969:
965:
964:
959:
958:
954:
950:
946:
943:
942:
937:
933:
929:
925:
922:
919:
915:
912:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
884:
880:
876:
875:
873:
870:
866:
865:
861:
857:
854:
851:
847:
843:
836:
832:
828:
826:
822:
812:
810:
804:
801:
799:
795:
791:
787:
784:
782:
778:
774:
770:
767:
765:
761:
757:
753:
749:
748:Keep or Merge
746:
740:
737:
732:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
713:
710:
709:
708:
705:
701:
697:
693:
688:
684:
680:
677:
675:
671:
667:
663:
660:
658:
654:
650:
646:
643:
642:
637:
633:
629:
625:
624:
623:
622:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
595:
591:
587:
584:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
563:
560:
558:
553:
548:
546:
543:
538:
535:
528:
514:
507:
503:
499:
497:</ref: -->
488:
481:
477:
473:
471:</ref: -->
462:
455:
451:
447:
445:</ref: -->
436:
429:
425:
421:
419:</ref: -->
410:
403:
399:
395:
393:</ref: -->
384:
377:
373:
369:
367:</ref: -->
358:
351:
347:
343:
341:</ref: -->
332:
325:
321:
317:
315:</ref: -->
306:
299:
295:
291:
290:
289:
288:
282:
281:
280:
279:
266:
259:
255:
251:
241:
234:
230:
226:
225:
222:
219:
215:
212:
208:
204:
201:
197:
193:
189:
184:
182:
178:
174:
169:
165:
164:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
136:
135:
131:
126:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1281:
1278:
1273:
1247:
1230:
1226:
1207:
1202:
1166:
1147:
1133:
1125:
1108:
1101:
1092:(yada, yada)
1080:
1079:
1055:
1022:
1015:
944:
859:
855:
830:
808:
802:
785:
769:Delete/merge
768:
747:
711:
699:
695:
682:
678:
661:
644:
593:
585:
561:
542:
536:
525:— Preceding
516:. Retrieved
490:. Retrieved
464:. Retrieved
438:. Retrieved
412:. Retrieved
386:. Retrieved
360:. Retrieved
334:. Retrieved
308:. Retrieved
268:. Retrieved
243:. Retrieved
202:
167:
144:and perhaps
137:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1255:. Michael
1064:WP:COATRACK
1024:court order
687:WP:COATRACK
628:Doc Strange
604:recognizes
573:Doc Strange
539:As above.
1231:assumption
547:(Dendodge)
518:2007-09-29
492:2007-09-29
466:2007-09-29
440:2007-09-29
414:2007-09-29
388:2007-09-29
362:2007-09-29
336:2007-09-29
310:2007-09-29
270:2007-09-29
245:2007-09-29
955:of facts.
953:synthesis
926:Cheers!
805:as above
736:Sherurcij
731:World Cup
717:Mandsford
704:Sherurcij
649:Mandsford
58:Sandstein
1039:Geo Swan
928:Geo Swan
842:Geo Swan
606:Mongolia
527:unsigned
211:April 20
188:Geo Swan
173:Geo Swan
146:POV fork
130:View log
1248:Comment
1227:Comment
1130:WP:FORK
1126:Comment
1112:Protonk
977:WP:FORK
973:WP:NPOV
949:WP:FORK
945:Comment
819:ontribs
790:Mikebar
773:MrPrada
712:Comment
683:clearly
632:Logbook
602:Uruguay
577:Logbook
569:WP:SOAP
203:Comment
97:protect
92:history
1184:WP:SYN
1148:didn't
1088:crewer
1074:, and
1056:Delete
885:" and
662:Merge.
610:John Z
562:Delete
537:Delete
502:OARDEC
476:OARDEC
450:OARDEC
424:OARDEC
398:OARDEC
372:OARDEC
346:OARDEC
320:OARDEC
294:OARDEC
254:OARDEC
229:OARDEC
218:May 15
150:WP:SYN
138:Delete
125:delete
101:delete
1235:BWH76
1180:WP:OR
1169:with
1167:Merge
1152:BWH76
1138:WP:OR
1134:about
995:BWH76
961:luck.
856:Merge
803:Merge
786:Merge
696:Merge
666:Renee
645:Merge
586:Merge
509:(PDF)
483:(PDF)
457:(PDF)
431:(PDF)
405:(PDF)
379:(PDF)
353:(PDF)
327:(PDF)
301:(PDF)
261:(PDF)
236:(PDF)
154:BWH76
128:) – (
118:views
110:watch
106:links
54:WP:OR
46:merge
16:<
1261:talk
1239:talk
1214:talk
1203:Keep
1192:talk
1156:talk
1116:talk
1083:brew
1078:. --
1058:. A
1043:talk
999:talk
951:and
932:talk
881:", "
860:Keep
846:talk
831:Note
794:talk
777:talk
760:talk
721:talk
700:Keep
670:talk
653:talk
614:talk
594:Keep
552:Talk
221:2006
216:and
214:2006
192:talk
177:talk
158:talk
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
62:talk
1209:DGG
858:or
837:.
592:or
48:to
1263:)
1241:)
1216:)
1194:)
1158:)
1118:)
1070:,
1066:,
1045:)
1001:)
934:)
909:,
905:,
901:,
848:)
796:)
779:)
762:)
723:)
672:)
655:)
616:)
511:.
485:.
459:.
433:.
407:.
381:.
355:.
329:.
303:.
263:.
238:.
194:)
179:)
160:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
64:)
1259:(
1237:(
1212:(
1190:(
1154:(
1114:(
1041:(
997:(
930:(
844:(
840:—
817:C
813:/
792:(
775:(
758:(
719:(
668:(
651:(
612:(
549:.
521:.
495:.
469:.
443:.
417:.
391:.
365:.
339:.
313:.
273:.
248:.
190:(
175:(
156:(
132:)
122:(
120:)
82:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.