900:: While I think your edits are definitely a step in the right direction in some sense, I respectfully disagree with your opinion that this discussion should not be about whether Jonathan Christian Webster is notable or not. It is my opinion that this discussion should very much center on whether the subject of this article is notable, and thus appropriate for an encyclopedia. Also, while your edits to the article's length are beneficial, the few sources listed within the article remain very worrisome. The first link is the website of the radio station that J.C. Webster apparently calls. The second link is a AOL home page with an extensive log of the calls made by J.C. Webster to the aforementioned radio station, which may be the source of this article's now-removed girth. The third link is for the "official" forum of the aforementioned radio station. I would posit that none of these links help to establish that J.C. Webster, nor his calls, nor his organization passes
875:: I did miss the last AfD, and from what was described, I'm glad I did. I don't think this debate should be whether or not J.C, is "notable" enough. I don't want to get into that kind of debate because that will beg every imbicile with a pulse to come in here and clutter our serious discussion with nonsense "votes," peppered with insults. So far this discussion has had some intelligent thought, and I hope not to become flamed by others, but I have reverted my position somewhat. J.C. is
1208:=To Scienter, I apologize for not responding earlier, I'm pretty busy this week. I personally believe that the fact that he called into a radio show that is widely listened to, making such controversial claims, makes him notable enough for Knowledge, even though he has not been written about by outside sources. I understand that my position is not popular at this point, and I understand that the article is likely to be deleted.
77:
498:, Knowledge is not a web host. If you want to go into obsessive detail about some caller to a radio show, do it on your own site. That's what people did before Knowledge in what I call "the good old days." It would have a tiled animated gif of a burning cross or something as a background and bright yellow Times New Roman text and maybe some clipart of an under construction sign.
269:,I don't see anything wrong or against the 5 pillars of Knowledge in this article. As an avid Coast to Coast listener, I've actually learned quite a bit more in depth about JC beyond what I've learned on the show by reading the entry. I believe Knowledge is about furthering people's knowledge? Besides what harm does it do by being here? Please keep.
702:. In a preview, I stripped the call-log... This resulted in flaws with the article being more obvious - such as the CLAMP orginization having it's individual words wikilinked rather than having an organization page. There's also what's considered to be contact information. Finally, I think the content may be borderline
1165:
article has a place here. Notable sources have written about him. Otherwise, the "truth" boils down to that he was just an anonymous person who wrote a few posts claiming to be a time-traveler. That is what we have here at this point. J.C. is simply an anonymous caller into Coast to Coast AM, and
631:
to the Coast to Coast article. While this is interesting (and certainly amusing), and it looks like someone has put a lot of work into this, it doesn't belong on
Knowledge in this form. It merely gives credence to someone who amounts to a radio troll looking to legitimize his extremist point of view.
1088:
are evidence to me that some people are familiar with the subject of this article. But is there an argument in favor of keeping this article that is objectively strong? No disrespect intended, but you state that you strongly feel the article should be kept without giving a reason why that should be
734:
most, this article should be no longer than two or three paragraphs! But really, that would be two or three more than we need or want. The article is full of weasel words (e.g., "Some have believed that....", "If the personality of J.C. could be described in one phrase, that phrase might be...").
430:
Explain to me why this page is constantly up for deletion. There has been a LOT of work done on this page and it seems silly to constantly go after it when
Knowledge can be improved by eliminating so many other articles which are sub-standard. I agree this page needs work, but it HAS had a lot of
792:
J.C. is every bit a staple of Coast to Coast AM as, for example, Richard
Hoagland. When the three clips played highlighting Art's career at his award ceremony, one was the Area 51 flier, the second was J.C., and the third was Red Elk. J.C. Is much more than "just a caller." People do searches on
1083:
I think the issue really being discussed was whether or not this individual is notable. Your comment carries the implication that because you feel J.C. Webster is notable, he must be so. The problem with this line of reasoning is that none of this individual's actions are verifiable via outside
883:
merit a mention just to give people a quick idea of "who this J.C. is." I have posted a radically shortened page that I think better demonstrates what I mean. I've stripped it down about as bare minimum as I feel is appropriate. Unfortunately, neither extreme "side" here will probably be happy.
469:
per nom. This type of page is the type that scares me most on
Knowledge. The amount of effort spent by the editors is apparent, but the subject itself is not encyclopedic. A frequent caller to a radio show? Is this what Knowledge has degenerated into? I sincerely hope not. Peer editing is the
908:
sources that can cited to build a case that this person, J.C. Webster, is indeed notable. A great example would be some newspaper articles or some links to a local news broadcast discussing the individual. Of course, these types of traditional media are be no means the only way to demonstrate
285:
I believe it is considered bad form to insert a later comment into earlier discussion to make it appear at the top of the discussion section. It perhaps could be considered bad faith action because you are attempting to attract undue attention to your arguments in an artificial manner. It is
1027:
be evidence like that scattered out there; especially in
California. It might take some digging, but that's what it's going to have to take. J.C. doesn't deserve any notation here by Knowledge's own important rules. One final note. I also couldn't help but notice that even the
858:
AfD discussion of this article. Anonymous, first-time, 1-issue posters strongly advocating a blatantly non-encyclopedic article tend to seem suspicious. If you wish to support this article, please add new sources that support the notion that the article's subject is notable.
973:. I do not say this lightly, nor hastily. I apologize to everyone who solicited my help in keeping this article. I think the "keep" argument was more emotionally based, because this page had become a sort of "hub" for J.C. fans. But here's the problem. There is nothing
1166:
until any "notable" things are said or written about him, or are found from archives somewhere, that is exactly what J.C. will remain. No one is trying to pretend that "J.C." doesn't exist, or hasn't made an impact of sorts on Coast to Coast AM. The
1156:
doesn't make it notable. However, if I were also a reporter and wrote a piece for The
Sacramento Post, or somewhere "notable" like that, saying exactly the same things, then those words have then become attributable to a "notable source,"
1010:
be met in order to be able to be used as a reliable and respected source of information. Thus, until any of this "information" can be substantiated, there is no way this article can be kept and yet still remain within the bounds of
444:
I'm sure you've done a great deal of work on the page. However, you need to argue for it based on
Knowledge policy, not how much effort has gone into it. I suspect that the primary critera that need to be met is
981:
a number of times, and they want him back on for a possible "debate." Everything else about him is based solely on what J.C. has said himself. And while many things he's said may be the truth, we can't possibly
1136:: I think you confused definitions like I did. There are two definitions of "notable." One being fame, i.e. "A notable caller." The "notable" we are refering to here means the ability to cite in a notation.
934:
does not equal "famous," meaning one may be notable for the purposes of
Knowledge without being a "famous person." However, even in that light, neither J.C. Webster nor his calling deserve a Knowledge treatment.
1067:
It doesn't matter if what J.C. says is actually true. The fact that he says it makes it notable, and
Knowledge does not claim that it's actually true, only that he said it, which is provable.
253:
793:
J.C. all the time, just to find out *anything* they can about this man. I would think the unique hit rate on this page alone would be of some merit. No matter, its important that there be
1084:
sources. I don't have a grudge against the fellow, but I've been doing some digging in my free time and I can't find anything about him. The (very helpful & courteous) comments of
418:, but figure out some other weird Wiki to put this information. Stupid or not, that's a lot of text to just throw away. Might want to protect it too so it doesn't get reformed.--
84:
776:
as per LaMenta3 above. I don't think it's notable enough for its own article, but if well-known to listeners of Coast to Coast AM, would merit a much-reduced section there. --
1058:, and the call log should be put back in. Knowledge is a great place to have information about notable people who have only scattered information about them in other places.
235:
555:
557:, most of them from Wiki mirrors and Myspace pages. There are certainly websites that would host this obsessive twaddle, but this doesn't need to be one of them.
208:
203:
470:
greatest strength of
Knowledge and anyone who takes it upon themselves to create articles should be informed that it may be deleted before beginning an article.
212:
1161:
So understandably, establishing notability is very important not only for terms of credibility, but also for legal reasons. That would be the only reason the
1148:
be attributable to "notable source." Just the "truth" that he's called and said things doesn't make it notable. And ironically, something entirely false
195:
431:
work done on it in recent months, and the constant attacking of this page feels like a personal affront to me and the time I have spent on this page. --
1212:
1202:
1174:
1118:
1093:
1071:
1062:
1048:
1036:
1023:
sources will work; court records and newspaper articles on CLAMP demonstrations, etc. If there is any truth to what J.C. has claimed, then there
990:
Therefore, how can we assume this "CLAMP" and "compound" business isn't also just more of his dreamed-up illusion? There's simply nothing that we
959:
939:
888:
863:
838:
801:
780:
764:
748:
710:
690:
681:
668:
652:
636:
611:
599:
587:
561:
514:
502:
490:
474:
457:
435:
422:
410:
396:
380:
365:
343:
331:
316:
290:
273:
260:
59:
286:
difficult to take anonymous, first-time, 1-issue posters seriously when the appear to flaunt form and good manners to promote their opinion.
926:
or it should be removed. If an article is nominated for deletion based on a legitimate reason (such as the subject of the article failing
1089:
the case. It would be very helpful if you could explain your position and how it conforms to Knowledge's content policies. Thank you,
358:
335:
93:
510:
Despite the considerable amount of work that has gone into this article, I see no assertion of notability backed up by any source.
818:
123:
814:
17:
252:. Every call is logged in detail with audioclip, his viewpoints are discussed, but nothing in terms of secondary sources. The
1152:
be notable. For example, the article stub I've trimmed down is "basic information," and while it all may be true, just my
726:, and even if it didn't, most of the insane detail about every call falls well short of any notability guidelines we might
879:
notable enough for an article of such magnitude. However, the sheer number of times J.C. is mentioned on Coast to Coast
797:
where this information is compiled. A new page has been posted, hopefully resolving some legitimate problems. Peace.
392:
109:
199:
648:
for a regular caller on a radio talk show? I don't care if it is a national show. This is just pure horse hockey.
82:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
1226:
36:
191:
65:
1225:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1209:
1133:
1068:
1059:
407:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
339:
155:
270:
1032:
website doesn't devote a page to J.C. Anyway, I've said my piece. Thanks for the discussion, everyone!
1194:. Sources provided are woefully inadequate to verify article content and sufficiency of notability. --
830:
If it's important that this fellow have his own webpage, great, I'm sure Myspace can accommodate him.
574:
1196:
678:
257:
139:
113:
1171:
1085:
1033:
956:
885:
847:
806:
798:
432:
810:
98:
53:
632:
I suggest that anyone who would like to preserve the whole of this article move it to userspace.
539:
145:
76:
607:. This looks more like exhibit A in a case of telephone stalking than an encyclopedia article.
897:
1167:
736:
624:
248:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
918:
My understanding of Knowledge policy is that any article, be it a stub or a featured article
453:. Even if the page gets kept, however, it looks like it needs to be pruned back quite a bit.
674:
511:
454:
1170:
page here does make a mention of him, which for now is all that is appropriate. Regards,
744:
687:
665:
649:
419:
388:
546:
time (in a "debate" overwhelmingly dominated by first-time anon IPs) I have no idea, but
739:
I've ever seen. This is simply out-of-control and needs to be reigned in immediately!
835:
777:
661:
608:
596:
558:
313:
50:
1187:
1137:
1113:
1108:
1090:
1045:
948:
936:
930:) then it must either be improved by editors or be deleted. I fully understand that
872:
860:
831:
723:
703:
633:
569:
547:
535:
531:
527:
523:
471:
450:
362:
287:
256:
ended in Keep based on blatant meatpuppeteering, so we might get more of it here. ~
707:
487:
173:
161:
129:
229:
108:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
1191:
1141:
1020:
1016:
1012:
952:
931:
927:
923:
901:
499:
446:
1162:
740:
384:
761:
1015:. However, that doesn't mean this article is dead forever. Any notable
850:: Please keep in mind that many of the Knowledge participants discussing
482:, move it to a Coast to Coast wiki if you want to, but a biography on a
595:
nonsense article; we don't need articles about radio station callers.
735:
The Call Details section is the among the most egregious examples of
986:
that it's the truth. For example, he claims to be "God's general,"
361:, have been confined to vandalism, aside from the commentary above.
788:
Good heavens! J.C. is more well-known than most Coast to Coast AM
1219:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
909:
notability, but they sure are more convincing than a phone log.
904:. What this article needs in order to be viable is some other
71:
377:- amen - an i break his ten commandments on a regular basis.
854:
AfD are aware of the sock-puppeting that went on during the
246:
nsive, bio for a frequent caller to a radio talk show named
102:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
357:
It should be noted that the contributions of this editor,
977:
about J.C. other than the fact he's anonymously been on
225:
221:
217:
1140:
was kind enough to point me in the right direction:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1229:). No further edits should be made to this page.
328:Knowledge while doing a Google search on J.C.
955:. I've put some thought into this. Thank you.
542:- How in the hell this article passed AfD the
122:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
92:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has
8:
48:based on consensus of established users. --
96:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
664:- and that's not necessarily notable. --
116:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
486:isn't beneficial to have on Knowledge.
570:Knowledge is not (yet) Something Awful
548:Knowledge still isn't a freaking blog.
1144:. For a subject to be "notable," it
7:
623:relevant, encyclopedic portions to
406:as unreferenced original research.
660:. This guy strikes me as being a
24:
1159:even if my information was wrong.
994:about him in any substantial and
75:
951:: Yes. I was just reading the
722:. Falls well short of meeting
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1006:Knowledge has a standard that
1:
760:the links to the soundbytes.
112:on the part of others and to
988:and he probably believes it.
686:Never hurts to try. =^_^= --
644:You've got to be kidding! A
832:Knowledge is not a web host
1246:
1213:01:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
1203:16:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
1175:12:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
1119:17:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
1094:02:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
1072:21:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
1063:21:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
1049:21:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
1037:15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
960:15:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
940:20:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
889:11:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
864:17:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
839:16:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
802:16:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
781:15:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
765:15:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
756:or at least trim it down,
749:09:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
711:02:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
691:02:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
682:02:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
669:22:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
653:21:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
637:21:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
612:19:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
600:18:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
588:17:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
562:16:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
515:16:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
503:16:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
491:15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
475:15:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
458:16:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
436:14:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
423:12:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
411:11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
397:10:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
366:15:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
344:08:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
317:05:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
291:13:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
274:16:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
261:04:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
192:Jonathan Christian Webster
66:Jonathan Christian Webster
60:02:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
1000:(We can't even prove his
306:-star delete, recognize,
242:Extensive, and I mean ext
1222:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1107:(Forgot my signature —
677:would welcome him... ~
550:This fellow has all of
154:; accounts blocked for
124:single-purpose accounts
94:policies and guidelines
627:article. Perhaps also
484:caller to a radio show
1056:Extremely strong keep
819:few or no other edits
737:laundry list problems
383:comment was added by
334:comment was added by
821:outside this topic.
567:Delete Delete Delete
312:-star delete", out.
1210:Academic Challenger
1134:Academic Challenger
1069:Academic Challenger
1060:Academic Challenger
520:20-Mule-Team Delete
408:Resurgent insurgent
302:, or should I say "
106:by counting votes.
85:not a majority vote
730:imagine! At the
1168:Coast to Coast AM
1122:
1030:Coast to Coast AM
979:Coast to Coast AM
822:
625:Coast to Coast AM
400:
347:
249:Coast to Coast AM
187:
186:
183:
110:assume good faith
1237:
1224:
1201:
1116:
1111:
1106:
804:
586:
584:
579:
378:
329:
233:
215:
181:
169:
153:
137:
118:
88:, but instead a
79:
72:
68:(2nd nomination)
56:
34:
1245:
1244:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1227:deletion review
1220:
1195:
1114:
1109:
1019:and verifiable
747:
679:trialsanderrors
580:
575:
573:
379:—The preceding
330:—The preceding
258:trialsanderrors
206:
190:
171:
159:
143:
127:
114:sign your posts
70:
54:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1243:
1241:
1232:
1231:
1206:
1205:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1124:
1123:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1075:
1074:
1065:
1052:
1051:
1039:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
913:
912:
911:
910:
866:
841:
824:
823:
783:
767:
751:
743:
713:
697:
696:
695:
694:
693:
655:
639:
614:
602:
590:
564:
517:
505:
493:
477:
463:
462:
461:
460:
439:
438:
425:
413:
401:
371:
370:
369:
368:
349:
348:
319:
296:
295:
294:
293:
277:
276:
271:206.169.45.183
240:
239:
185:
184:
80:
69:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1242:
1230:
1228:
1223:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1211:
1204:
1200:
1199:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1182:
1181:
1176:
1173:
1169:
1164:
1160:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1131:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1120:
1117:
1112:
1104:
1101:
1100:
1095:
1092:
1087:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1073:
1070:
1066:
1064:
1061:
1057:
1054:
1053:
1050:
1047:
1043:
1040:
1038:
1035:
1031:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1014:
1009:
1005:
1003:
997:
993:
989:
985:
980:
976:
972:
969:
968:
961:
958:
954:
950:
946:
943:
942:
941:
938:
933:
929:
925:
921:
917:
916:
915:
914:
907:
903:
899:
895:
892:
891:
890:
887:
882:
878:
874:
870:
867:
865:
862:
857:
853:
849:
845:
842:
840:
837:
833:
829:
826:
825:
820:
816:
812:
808:
803:
800:
796:
791:
787:
784:
782:
779:
775:
771:
768:
766:
763:
759:
755:
752:
750:
746:
742:
738:
733:
729:
725:
721:
717:
714:
712:
709:
705:
701:
698:
692:
689:
685:
684:
683:
680:
676:
672:
671:
670:
667:
663:
659:
656:
654:
651:
647:
643:
640:
638:
635:
630:
626:
622:
618:
615:
613:
610:
606:
603:
601:
598:
594:
593:Strong Delete
591:
589:
585:
583:
578:
571:
568:
565:
563:
560:
556:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
518:
516:
513:
509:
506:
504:
501:
497:
494:
492:
489:
485:
481:
478:
476:
473:
468:
465:
464:
459:
456:
452:
448:
443:
442:
441:
440:
437:
434:
429:
426:
424:
421:
417:
414:
412:
409:
405:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
376:
373:
372:
367:
364:
360:
356:
353:
352:
351:
350:
345:
341:
337:
333:
327:
323:
320:
318:
315:
311:
310:
305:
301:
298:
297:
292:
289:
284:
281:
280:
279:
278:
275:
272:
268:
265:
264:
263:
262:
259:
255:
251:
250:
245:
237:
231:
227:
223:
219:
214:
210:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
188:
179:
175:
167:
163:
157:
151:
147:
141:
135:
131:
125:
121:
117:
115:
111:
105:
101:
100:
95:
91:
87:
86:
81:
78:
74:
73:
67:
64:
62:
61:
58:
57:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1221:
1218:
1207:
1197:
1183:
1158:
1153:
1149:
1145:
1129:
1102:
1080:
1055:
1041:
1029:
1024:
1007:
1001:
999:
995:
991:
987:
983:
978:
974:
970:
944:
919:
905:
893:
880:
876:
868:
855:
851:
843:
827:
794:
789:
785:
773:
769:
757:
753:
731:
727:
720:trim to stub
719:
715:
699:
673:I wonder if
657:
645:
641:
628:
620:
616:
604:
592:
581:
576:
566:
554:Google hits
552:twenty-three
551:
543:
519:
507:
495:
483:
479:
466:
427:
415:
403:
374:
359:63.215.29.98
354:
336:63.215.29.98
325:
321:
308:
307:
303:
299:
282:
266:
247:
243:
241:
177:
165:
156:sockpuppetry
149:
138:; suspected
133:
119:
107:
103:
97:
89:
83:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
817:) has made
540:WP:BULLSHIT
530:, possible
512:Chunky Rice
455:Chunky Rice
324:I actually
1198:Satori Son
1163:John Titor
688:Dennisthe2
666:Dennisthe2
650:Realkyhick
420:SeizureDog
326:discovered
90:discussion
1172:Deepspire
1154:saying so
1105:per nom.
1086:Deepspire
1044:per nom.
1034:Deepspire
957:Deepspire
898:Deepspire
886:Deepspire
848:Deepspire
836:RGTraynor
807:Deepspire
799:Deepspire
795:someplace
778:Lou.weird
675:WP:BJAODN
609:SkipSmith
597:Acalamari
559:RGTraynor
433:Dr. Floyd
314:Pete.Hurd
254:first AfD
146:canvassed
140:canvassed
99:consensus
1138:Scienter
1130:Comment:
1091:Scienter
1081:Comment:
1046:Artaxiad
996:provable
975:provable
949:Scienter
937:Scienter
873:Scienter
861:Scienter
815:contribs
728:possibly
646:call log
634:LaMenta3
629:redirect
522:, fails
472:Scienter
393:contribs
381:unsigned
363:Scienter
332:unsigned
288:Scienter
236:View log
178:username
172:{{subst:
166:username
160:{{subst:
150:username
144:{{subst:
134:username
128:{{subst:
1110:Lovelac
945:Comment
906:outside
894:Comment
869:Comment
844:Comment
828:Comment
790:guests!
708:Sigma 7
642:Delete!
488:Voretus
355:Comment
283:Comment
209:protect
204:history
142:users:
1188:WP:BIO
1184:Delete
1103:Delete
1042:Delete
998:way.
971:Delete
770:Delete
724:WP:BIO
716:Delete
704:WP:BLP
700:Delete
658:Delete
617:Delete
605:Delete
577:Irides
536:WP:BIO
532:WP:COI
528:WP:NOR
524:WP:ATT
508:Delete
500:Recury
496:Delete
480:Delete
467:Delete
451:WP:BIO
416:Delete
404:Delete
375:Delete
300:delete
244:eeeeee
213:delete
46:delete
1002:name!
922:pass
774:Merge
758:minus
741:Xtifr
662:crank
621:Merge
582:centi
544:first
385:Zedco
230:views
222:watch
218:links
120:Note:
55:desat
16:<
1192:WP:V
1190:and
1186:per
1146:must
1142:WP:N
1025:WILL
1021:WP:V
1017:WP:N
1013:WP:N
1008:must
992:know
984:know
953:WP:N
932:WP:N
928:WP:N
924:WP:N
920:must
902:WP:N
881:does
852:this
811:talk
786:Keep
772:and
762:fhb3
754:Keep
745:tälk
732:very
706:. --
619:and
538:and
449:and
447:WP:N
428:KEEP
389:talk
340:talk
322:KEEP
267:Keep
226:logs
200:talk
196:edit
51:Core
1150:can
877:not
856:1st
834:.
718:or
309:ten
304:ten
234:– (
174:csp
170:or
162:csm
130:spa
104:not
813:•
805:—
572:.
534:,
526:,
395:)
391:•
342:)
228:|
224:|
220:|
216:|
211:|
207:|
202:|
198:|
180:}}
168:}}
158::
152:}}
136:}}
126::
1132:@
1121:)
1115:7
1004:)
947:@
896:@
871:@
846:@
809:(
399:.
387:(
346:.
338:(
238:)
232:)
194:(
182:.
176:|
164:|
148:|
132:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
