1096:- While he is known for only one event, it is not simply a "news event", but rather a historically significant event due to the severity of his actions. Debating the existence of this article feels more like debating the nuances of Knowledge (XXG)'s rules - incorrectly, at that, since this article only meets one of three criteria for deletion via the BLP1E reference listed by the original challenger - when this article is clearly of great significance to the many individuals who are visiting this page every day, checking for updates to it. I would say that even if Knowledge (XXG)'s rules, for whatever reason, did permit the deletion of this article, that the bold and proper thing to do would be to change the rules, not delete this page. All of that aside, this article does not meet the criteria of deletion via BLP1E. Keep. Pritchard 00:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
569:- I already posted in the talk section of the shooting page and I also posted in the talk page of this article and asked why he has his page but it's not allowed for any victim to have a sole page for them so why he? oh yes right he is the Alleged "perpetrator" so let's get him a Knowledge (XXG) article with flying colors and get the others an ass kick I.m.h.o no criminal should get a wikipedia page no matter if he killed 12 unknown people or just shoot John Lennon like mentioned above it doesn't matter and i don't care if this deletion request Fails or not at least i can say "I tried it"
626:
trying to evaluate the notability of anything, so you could as well have asked why is there an article about Hitler (certainly notable), but not the (mostly not notable) victims of his folly. It is a totally meaningless question in this regard. But ok, you say that Holmes is not notable, nor is any other criminal, but that is your point of view and in the big picture it does not matter, because notability is not a dependent of a single person, but those of many, though not necessarily of the majority.
630:
nuclear bomb in a major city should be the subject of his own article, even if he was notable for nothing else. And if you agree to that, you may excuse if I ask the question how many people has somebody to kill in your eyes to warrant his own article? If a million is enough, is 100,000 also? What about 1000, 100, or 10? Though, in the end the number doesn't really matter, as even a single murder can make you notable – certainly this is the case with
596:
later, and getting killed by someone isn't either (at least most of the time). On the other hand, if you do something just horrible enough you will gain enough notoriety and notability to be the subject of books, movies, documentaries and, yes, Knowledge (XXG) articles. That's the way it is, and has been for thousands of years. You better deal with it, because neither you, nor anyone else on this planet can change it. (
1246:
This article clearly does not meet criteria for deletion. Even though Holmes is just a suspect, the shooting is a noteworthy incident that made national, if not international headlines. There are plenty of other persons who had articles on them while suspects in high-profile criminal cases as well as
1224:
Yes thats right I started a Stub on "Jessica Ghawi" (see the talk page) and Raised Vailid points (sources) that she is like you say "stands apart from the crowd" but the stub has been reverted due to WP:BLP1E so i came to the conclusion that an article about the suspect falls into to the same "BLP1E"
785:
currently this article is needless trivia about Holme's past (heres what his high-school summer internship mentor thought of him!), and a content fork of the main shooting article. Certainly over time sufficient true encyclopedic matierial may be available to deserve a full article, but that time is
695:
I can only speak on behalf of myself, of course, but yes, I would say that it is necessary to show what he did prior to the shooting, especially the most basic information, like where he went to school etc., should be present even in a remotely complete biography. And a lot of psychologists would be
664:
Just to make sure I understand you correctly, you think the social background of somebody who killed a million people would be irrelevant and not of interest and shouldn't be covered in detail? Then how do you think should we understand the motivation of anybody, if we disregard his life previous to
649:
No, my point is that it doesn't matter how many you killed if there is an article about the crime one has
Commited it's fine when the perpetrator is mentioned there but why has there a full article of the perpetrator including what he did before and what his background are? is that Really Necessary?
629:
Anyway, don't you think that saying no criminal should get an article on
Knowledge (XXG), even if he was or is the subject of continuous media coverage like Mark Chapman, is a little bit absolutist? I mean, certainly you would agree that a criminal who killed a million people by, say, detonationg a
625:
I did not compare Holmes with Hitler. I know very well that Hitler's pesence permeates history quite a bit stronger than Holmes', but that's totally besides the point I was trying to make. What I wanted to say was that argumenting from an emotional point of view like you did is totally useless when
809:
should be applied only to low-profile individuals, and after about a month of continuous worldwide news coverage about his person, I'd say it would be quite a stretch of the term to call Holmes still low-profile. Furthermore, you don't need a crystal ball to know with quite a bit of certainty that
680:
sorry for my late reply was kinda busy.. I agree with what you said above but currently there is nothing about Holmes that would meet that criteria you stated above since not much is known about him what i wanted to say was is it really necessary to know what his childhood was or what he did years
595:
You could as well ask why is there an article about Hitler, but not about the millions of people that died in the concentration camps. It's an emotional question that has no place when assessing the notability of something. After all, dying itself is not a notable act, since we all do it sooner or
508:
Can we get the template put up that says this is not a flat vote? I'm sure there'll be plenty of new contributors here. Can we try to be active in inviting them to continue editing as well? FWIW I'll be !voting Keep sooner or later if this isn't snowed, it'll just take some time to write up a
1216:
I just noticed that the original challenger of this article's existence also stated that if a victim can't have a
Knowledge (XXG) article, neither should the suspect. Victims of crimes do have their own articles. Unfortunately, victims are often tossed to the wayside by media and other news
957:. The merge result ended in no consensus but as an editor pointed out showed the arguements for each issue brought forward. So that leaves Keep which in my opinion is the right thing to do here, Holmes is a high profile person with enough coverage to warrent a seperate article, See also:
1050:- BLP1E lists three conditions for *not* having an article, and says that all three should be met in order for it to apply and the article to thus be improper. Holmes easily does not meet the second and the third criteria. Thus BLP1E does not apply, and this should be kept. -
1217:
sources. Unless a particular victim stands apart from the crowd, it is unlikely that they will receive special attention. However, if there is sufficient information available to create a quality article, go forth and create one. Pritchard 00:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
533:
Unfortunately, this particular issue is presented that way. Obviously, people are working on this article. Rather than posting commentary in the TALK section, this individual marked the article for deletion. It's RUDE, but I'll just vote to KEEP the article.
949:*Sigh* I just knew that an AfD would pop up sooner or later for this article, my opinion is though that this article is not likely going to be deleted at the very least a redirect would be in place as the suspect goes without dispute with the
696:
wasting their time trying to uncover the childhood of serial and mass murderers, if it weren't important in the context of their crimes. Knowning what a person went through in his life may help to understand why things went the way they did.(
930:
and just like any user who created an account in good faith started with something I will commit myself to an project once i find one I am interested to create or edit! if you have an issue with me you know where my talk page is ok?
867:
Just because one has a different view and opinion on an
Article doesn't make one a "no brainer" any user on wikipedia has the right nominate an article for something (f.e. Deletion) this is why we have this discussion here!
1302:, it must be all three criteria, though only one could be met, and that is the first one. The second one doesn't work because he's still awaiting trial; the third one doesn't apply because the event itself is significant.
181:
82:
375:
This has been discussed, and you (Fox2k11) have failed to read the discussions. Mark David
Chapman has an article, and he is only known for killing John Lennon and reading the Catcher in the Rye. Why haven't you,
665:
his crime? Isn't it the purpose of a biography to get a fuller understanding of a person, to maybe find a hint somewhere in his personal history that might explain why he acted how he acted, did what he did? (
810:
intermittent reporting about him will continue at least as long as his trial is ongoing, which will in all probability be for another year or two, as similar cases have shown repeatedly. And you may call
848:
This should be a "no brainer" and I cannot understand for a moment why anyone on policy grounds would suggest this article be deleted. Improve it by all means but there is no valid reason to delete it.
491:. For all the aforementioned reasons. This was already discussed on talk pages for the article, and I think Fox2k11 has overstepped all reason in nominating this article for deletion.
1155:
It gives the impression that he is guilty, and he hasn't been convicted. Maybe if there was more information explaining why he is a suspect, it would be a more appropriate article.
136:
77:
288:
to be the most misunderstood policy on
Knowledge (XXG). Suffice to say, this article does not violate that policy, and this nomination has zero chance of being successful. --
175:
467:
in that "the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy". He is allegedly responsible for one of the "worst shootings in U.S. history"
325:
306:
814:
all you want, but there are articles about Jared
Loughner, Nidal Hasan, Robert Bales and numerous other mass shooters, and as the aforementioned guideline states:
548:
If I start seeing people just throwing out Delete and Keep votes with "per the others" or are just simple Vote type comments I will place the template up top. -
958:
896:
Yes, "any user on wikipedia has the right nominate an article", even when they only have a two-week editing history and only edit articles related to the
141:
1085:
822:
When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.
230:-- As Submitter of this AFD I don't know if possible but I like to declare that i Revoke the Submitting of this AFD and the article should stay!
109:
104:
1034:
113:
220:
is equal to anybody alife or death! To my understanding and logic if a victim is not eligible for an article then the suspect is neither!
766:. For aforementioned reasons. The subject's accused crime is a "well-documented historic event" and will likely become even more of one.
1180:
1162:
96:
1188:
261:
1225:
Rule but it Seems i either understand WP:BLP1E wrong or my sources are not enough (not valid) to notably lift her up from the crowd!
17:
954:
471:
1330:- Meets notability requirements no matter how you cut it. Should be a speedy keep, but may as well let process run its course. --
1310:
196:
354:
1263:
163:
1081:
257:
918:
And you started your
Account with an fully Bloomed editing History? Yes My editing history is only about related articles
1358:
828:
So, may I ask, why should we treat Holmes any different than all those other mass murderers and mass murder suspects? (
212:
Holmes has no notability outside the shooting, the article on him needs to be deleted! The article is in
Violation of
40:
978:- article subject part of a significant event. And are as a person still notable himself individually. end of story.--
744:. For no other reason then there was already a merge discussion and the merge proposal failed. Why discuss it again.
157:
882:
Maybe so, but in this case it should be an obvious "no brainer". The arguments for deletion are clearly erroneous.
749:
216:
the fact that he is the Sole
Suspect of the Aurora 2012 Shooting makes him not eligible for a stand-alone article
1030:
1339:
1322:
1286:
1267:
1234:
1206:
This sounds more like a reason to modify the article rather than delete it.Pritchard 00:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
1201:
1170:
1143:
1115:
1088:
1059:
1038:
1008:
987:
970:
940:
913:
891:
877:
858:
837:
795:
775:
753:
720:
705:
690:
674:
659:
643:
620:
605:
586:
557:
543:
524:
500:
483:
455:
444:
423:
409:
389:
365:
336:
317:
297:
274:
241:
61:
966:
553:
414:
I am asking anyone who wishes to mark this for deletion to be thorough in the exercise of what they are doing.
153:
574:
464:
1184:
1166:
100:
1251:
1158:
1022:
996:
1335:
1055:
887:
854:
203:
1354:
1111:
745:
450:
331:
312:
293:
57:
36:
833:
701:
670:
639:
601:
345:- This person is only known for the shooting in aurora nothing more nothing less a clear Violation of
1315:
1136:
1103:
1026:
1004:
950:
897:
539:
517:
496:
419:
402:
394:
Let's avoid the other stuff exists arguments, they weaken your keep argument rather than support it.
385:
1259:
962:
549:
189:
791:
468:
92:
67:
1299:
806:
570:
440:
346:
217:
213:
169:
1331:
1230:
1077:
1051:
936:
883:
873:
850:
771:
716:
686:
655:
616:
582:
361:
253:
237:
225:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1353:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1295:
1068:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1107:
983:
953:
event per the sources. After redirect comes the option of a merge which was discussed here:
829:
697:
666:
635:
597:
289:
53:
811:
350:
1305:
1282:
1129:
1000:
631:
535:
510:
492:
415:
395:
381:
611:
Comparing Holmes with Hitler is just stupid Hitler is indeed Notably but Holmes is not!
1255:
1197:
1125:
909:
479:
270:
787:
1226:
1128:
is obviously notable, but probably has zero notability outside of the Netherlands.
1072:
932:
869:
767:
712:
682:
651:
612:
578:
377:
357:
249:
233:
221:
130:
979:
1278:
1247:
somewhat less noteworthy cases than this. I recommend this article be kept.
1193:
1106:
and apart from the initial news item is zero notability outside of the USA.
905:
475:
266:
1071:, The crime and suspect are unusual and subject to continuing coverage.
995:
This article about Holmes obviously qualifies under the guidelines of
355:
Knowledge (XXG):Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event
447:. This person is only known for their alleged crimes, nothing else.
1298:, the crime/motive could be considered unusual, and according to
1347:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
573:
says nope no article for non-notable persons but then there is
83:
Articles for deletion/James Eagan Holmes (2nd nomination)
126:
122:
118:
188:
1018:Both the person and the event are world infamous.
202:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1361:). No further edits should be made to this page.
959:Knowledge (XXG):Who is a low profile individual
8:
634:(ok, double murder), or Lee Harvey Oswald. (
324:Note: This debate has been included in the
305:Note: This debate has been included in the
1124:We don't require international notability,
577:to Annul this Great...just great... *sigh*
326:list of People-related deletion discussions
323:
307:list of Crime-related deletion discussions
304:
463:. The subject satisfies the criteria at
78:Articles for deletion/James Eagan Holmes
955:Talk:James Eagan Holmes/Archive 1#Merge
472:Talk:James Eagan Holmes/Archive 1#Merge
75:
1277:for reasons already stated by others.
509:rationale so I'll take a day or two.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
74:
24:
380:, marked that for deletion, too?
228:) 02:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
1:
470:. The arguments presented at
1340:10:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
1323:21:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
1287:20:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
1268:04:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
1235:02:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
1202:01:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
1171:23:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
1144:18:20, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
1116:17:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
1089:16:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
1060:03:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
1039:23:21, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
1009:04:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
988:22:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
971:21:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
941:13:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
914:05:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
892:19:01, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
878:18:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
859:14:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
838:14:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
796:14:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
776:11:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
754:05:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
721:16:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
706:12:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
691:03:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
675:22:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
660:18:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
644:15:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
621:14:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
606:14:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
587:11:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
558:00:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
544:05:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
525:05:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
501:05:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
484:03:21, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
456:02:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
424:05:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
410:05:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
390:05:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
366:02:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
337:02:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
318:02:42, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
298:02:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
275:03:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
242:23:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
62:04:54, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
1378:
1350:Please do not modify it.
474:are also relevant here.
351:Knowledge (XXG):NOT#NEWS
32:Please do not modify it.
1102:not notable outside of
73:AfDs for this article:
1189:few or no other edits
681:before the shooting?
262:few or no other edits
1191:outside this topic.
1104:2012 Aurora shooting
951:2012 Aurora shooting
898:2012 Aurora shooting
264:outside this topic.
93:James_Eagan_Holmes
68:James Eagan Holmes
48:The result was
1271:
1254:comment added by
1192:
1161:comment added by
1042:
1025:comment added by
454:
339:
335:
320:
316:
265:
1369:
1352:
1320:
1318:
1313:
1308:
1270:
1248:
1178:
1173:
1041:
1019:
746:Richard-of-Earth
453:
451:Northamerica1000
448:
334:
332:Northamerica1000
329:
315:
313:Northamerica1000
310:
247:
207:
206:
192:
144:
134:
116:
34:
1377:
1376:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1359:deletion review
1348:
1316:
1311:
1306:
1304:
1249:
1156:
1027:Thetalkingheads
1020:
904:democratic ...
711:Point Taken =)
632:Gavrilo Princip
449:
445:WP:NOTNEWSPAPER
330:
311:
149:
140:
107:
91:
88:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1375:
1373:
1364:
1363:
1343:
1342:
1325:
1289:
1272:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1219:
1218:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1175:
1174:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1146:
1126:Sjoerd Winkens
1119:
1118:
1097:
1091:
1062:
1044:
1043:
1012:
1011:
990:
973:
963:Knowledgekid87
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
862:
861:
842:
841:
826:
825:
824:
816:
815:
805:. As it says,
799:
798:
783:delete for now
779:
778:
759:
757:
756:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
627:
609:
590:
589:
575:WP:PERPETRATOR
563:
562:
561:
560:
550:Knowledgekid87
546:
528:
527:
503:
486:
465:WP:PERPETRATOR
458:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
369:
368:
321:
301:
300:
278:
277:
210:
209:
146:
87:
86:
85:
80:
72:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1374:
1362:
1360:
1356:
1351:
1345:
1344:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1326:
1324:
1321:
1319:
1314:
1309:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1290:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1257:
1253:
1245:
1242:
1241:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1215:
1212:
1211:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1181:71.229.18.139
1177:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1163:71.229.18.139
1160:
1154:
1151:
1150:
1145:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1127:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1098:
1095:
1092:
1090:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1076:
1075:
1070:
1066:
1063:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1046:
1045:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1017:
1014:
1013:
1010:
1006:
1002:
998:
997:WP:Notability
994:
991:
989:
985:
981:
977:
974:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
945:
944:
943:
942:
938:
934:
917:
916:
915:
911:
907:
903:
899:
895:
894:
893:
889:
885:
881:
880:
879:
875:
871:
866:
865:
864:
863:
860:
856:
852:
847:
844:
843:
839:
835:
831:
827:
823:
820:
819:
818:
817:
813:
808:
804:
801:
800:
797:
793:
789:
784:
781:
780:
777:
773:
769:
765:
762:
761:
760:
755:
751:
747:
743:
740:
739:
722:
718:
714:
710:
709:
707:
703:
699:
694:
693:
692:
688:
684:
679:
678:
676:
672:
668:
663:
662:
661:
657:
653:
648:
647:
645:
641:
637:
633:
628:
624:
623:
622:
618:
614:
610:
607:
603:
599:
594:
593:
592:
591:
588:
584:
580:
576:
572:
568:
565:
564:
559:
555:
551:
547:
545:
541:
537:
532:
531:
530:
529:
526:
523:
522:
521:
516:
515:
514:
507:
504:
502:
498:
494:
490:
487:
485:
481:
477:
473:
469:
466:
462:
459:
457:
452:
446:
442:
438:
435:
434:
425:
421:
417:
413:
412:
411:
408:
407:
406:
401:
400:
399:
393:
392:
391:
387:
383:
379:
374:
371:
370:
367:
363:
359:
356:
352:
348:
344:
341:
340:
338:
333:
327:
322:
319:
314:
308:
303:
302:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
280:
279:
276:
272:
268:
263:
259:
255:
251:
246:
245:
244:
243:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
219:
215:
205:
201:
198:
195:
191:
187:
183:
180:
177:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
155:
152:
151:Find sources:
147:
143:
138:
132:
128:
124:
120:
115:
111:
106:
102:
98:
94:
90:
89:
84:
81:
79:
76:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1349:
1346:
1332:CrunchySkies
1327:
1303:
1291:
1274:
1250:— Preceding
1243:
1213:
1157:— Preceding
1152:
1138:
1137:
1131:
1130:
1099:
1093:
1073:
1064:
1052:TexasAndroid
1047:
1021:— Preceding
1015:
992:
975:
946:
929:
901:
884:Afterwriting
851:Afterwriting
845:
821:
802:
782:
763:
758:
741:
566:
519:
518:
512:
511:
505:
488:
460:
436:
404:
403:
397:
396:
372:
342:
285:
282:Obvious keep
281:
229:
211:
199:
193:
185:
178:
172:
166:
160:
150:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1187:) has made
1108:MilborneOne
1094:Strong Keep
290:Bongwarrior
260:) has made
176:free images
54:Mark Arsten
1001:Franz Brod
536:Thelema418
493:Thelema418
416:Thelema418
382:Thelema418
1355:talk page
1256:Austin023
900:. We are
786:not now.
50:Snow Keep
37:talk page
1357:or in a
1300:WP:BLP1E
1264:contribs
1252:unsigned
1159:unsigned
1086:Join WER
1035:contribs
1023:unsigned
830:Lord Gøn
807:WP:BLP1E
788:Gaijin42
698:Lord Gøn
667:Lord Gøn
636:Lord Gøn
598:Lord Gøn
571:WP:BLP1E
441:WP:BLP1E
347:WP:BLP1E
284:- BLP1E
258:contribs
218:WP:BLP1E
214:WP:BLP1E
137:View log
39:or in a
1296:WP:PERP
1227:Fox2k11
1214:Comment
1074:DocTree
1069:WP:PERP
933:Fox2k11
931:thanks!
870:Fox2k11
768:Jenrzzz
713:Fox2k11
683:Fox2k11
652:Fox2k11
613:Fox2k11
579:Fox2k11
567:Comment
506:Comment
378:Fox2k11
373:Comment
358:Fox2k11
343:Comment
250:Fox2k11
234:Fox2k11
222:Fox2k11
182:WP refs
170:scholar
110:protect
105:history
1294:- per
1153:Delete
1100:Delete
1078:(ʞlɐʇ)
980:BabbaQ
812:WP:OSE
437:Delete
154:Google
114:delete
1307:Zappa
1279:Wikfr
1139:Vesey
846:Keep:
520:Vesey
405:Vesey
349:also
197:JSTOR
158:books
142:Stats
131:views
123:watch
119:links
16:<
1336:talk
1328:Keep
1317:Mati
1292:Keep
1283:talk
1275:Keep
1260:talk
1244:Keep
1231:talk
1198:talk
1194:WWGB
1185:talk
1167:talk
1132:Ryan
1112:talk
1082:cont
1067:Per
1065:Keep
1056:talk
1048:Keep
1031:talk
1016:Keep
1005:talk
993:Keep
984:talk
976:Keep
967:talk
961:. -
947:Keep
937:talk
910:talk
906:WWGB
902:sooo
888:talk
874:talk
855:talk
834:talk
803:Keep
792:talk
772:talk
764:Keep
750:talk
742:Keep
717:talk
702:talk
687:talk
671:talk
656:talk
640:talk
617:talk
602:talk
583:talk
554:talk
540:talk
513:Ryan
497:talk
489:Keep
480:talk
476:WWGB
461:Keep
443:and
439:per
420:talk
398:Ryan
386:talk
362:talk
353:and
294:talk
271:talk
267:WWGB
254:talk
238:talk
226:talk
190:FENS
164:news
127:logs
101:talk
97:edit
58:talk
999:.--
286:has
204:TWL
139:•
135:– (
1338:)
1285:)
1266:)
1262:•
1233:)
1200:)
1179:—
1169:)
1114:)
1084:)
1058:)
1037:)
1033:•
1007:)
986:)
969:)
939:)
912:)
890:)
876:)
857:)
836:)
794:)
774:)
752:)
719:)
708:)
704:)
689:)
677:)
673:)
658:)
646:)
642:)
619:)
604:)
585:)
556:)
542:)
499:)
482:)
422:)
388:)
364:)
328:.
309:.
296:)
273:)
256:•
248:—
240:)
232:--
184:)
129:|
125:|
121:|
117:|
112:|
108:|
103:|
99:|
60:)
52:.
1334:(
1312:O
1281:(
1258:(
1229:(
1196:(
1183:(
1165:(
1110:(
1080:(
1054:(
1029:(
1003:(
982:(
965:(
935:(
908:(
886:(
872:(
853:(
840:)
832:(
790:(
770:(
748:(
715:(
700:(
685:(
669:(
654:(
638:(
615:(
608:)
600:(
581:(
552:(
538:(
495:(
478:(
418:(
384:(
360:(
292:(
269:(
252:(
236:(
224:(
208:)
200:·
194:·
186:·
179:·
173:·
167:·
161:·
156:(
148:(
145:)
133:)
95:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.