1313:--I think the question should be asked whether Lauren Grandcolas would be regarded as notable apart from 9/11. I think we would say that she was just a NN journalist, who decided to write a book (as many journalists do). 9/11 was a notable event, and so were the events on the flight UA93, but we cannot have an article on all the victims of 9/11
1338:
was meant to address. The subject did not lead a notable life, did not materially participate in the single incident with which she was connected and was more along the lines of an involved bystander, and the resulting article is not a meaningful biography but is instead, essentially, an obituary.
1247:
The people here don't make the final decision. The sysop reviews the discussion at the end and determines the outcome. Call it what you want—actually it seems you like to argue over pithiness—but, a discussion is a discussion. Now I'm done blathering on about the meaning of this discussion. If you
680:
I don't see anything particularly interesting about her. I say (once again) this isn't a democracy; Knowledge (XXG) works on consensus and there obviously is none here. And the argument that "she is interesting so she meets the criteria" is so flimsy it underscores why we have clear guidelines and
421:
argument should not be allowed to stand. And if readers want to know about Honor
Elizabeth Wainio and an argument of properly sourced assertions canbe assembled about Honor Elizabeth Wainio, then there should be an article about Honor Elizabeth Wainio. Knowledge (XXG) is, first-and-foremost, an
301:
The crew and passengers, Grandcolas included, stopped the attack. Exact roles will never be known. Nobody knows which terrorists were in the cockpit and which were beaten to a pulp in the cabin before the crash. But all Flight 93 hijackers have wiki pages. Do you think that it is more notable to
153:
Lauren
Grandcolas is notable only for making a call from United Airlines Flight 93, which is something many passengers did. Her actions are documented on that article. That she contributed to charities and roller-bladed around the neighborhood does not add to the fact that that was
258:
Stopping a terrorist attack is obviously a “widely-recognized contribution to the historical record”. Jarrah will only be remembered for botching a hijacking. That’s less significant than
Grandcolas’s contribution, but Jarrah has a wikipedia page. As for awards, what
48:(default keep). Valid arguments and concerns on both sides. No clear consensus could be determined fro m the discussion, and there was no indication that a relist period would resolve this. Defaulting to keep per guidance in the deletion policy.
1227:(effectual or otherwise), nor for anything but a simple expression of one's opinion. The reason that you are responding is because you have a hope of converting someone (not me, as I suspect, but certainly in the audience) to your view. —
398:
My main argument isn't that other people don't have articles, it's that
Grandcolas does not meet the proper requirements seen in WP:BIO. Readers may want to know about Honor Elizabeth Wainio too, but Knowledge (XXG) is not
354:
in response to the hijacking. And it is perverse to argue that this article should be deleted because other passengers do not have articles, in-so-far as it is demonstrable that some of those articles (such as that for
86:
1036:
I have no idea what "the priorities of interest of the reader" means. What I am saying is, the assertion that an article should be kept because a reader may find it interesting on its own is a weak argument. --
870:, where individuals like her who played only a minor part have become widely known and are described in many secondary sources. If Lauren Grandcolas had made a telephone call from, say, the 1997 hijacked
236:
award or honor or made any widely-recognized contribution to the historical record. Jarrah, Sirhan, and the
Columbine shooters have all made their mark in history—albeit in a cruel and murderous way. --
864:. Notability guidelines are intended to prevent Knowledge (XXG) becoming awash with articles which are of no interest to anyone. 9/11 was one of those really exceptional events, like the sinking of the
676:
determining factor? You decided that on your own. And how is she a subject of interest? We've all heard of Beamer, Glick, and
Burnett, but I've never heard of this woman. The three I mentioned have
211:. All of those people are not notable outside one event. But wikipedia will always have biography pages for them. I don't think WP:ONEEVENT applies because wikipedia will never follow that policy.
281:
There is nothing in the record that suggests that she stopped anything. She made a phone call where she said goodbye to her family, like all the other twelve passengers and crew who got through.
199:
It’s obvious that she’s notable in the real world by the number of references on her page. Knowledge (XXG) will never follow its WP:ONEEVENT policy. There are separate biographies for
323:
about her role. And obviously it's more notable to commit a terrorist act, because, without the commission, there can't be any counteractions. Congratulations on reading a book. --
899:
Notability is not inherited. There were 37 calls made from Flight 93. Does each caller need an article? No. Her contributions are sufficiently covered in the Flight 93 article. --
731:
is a policy about weighing the opinions of editors, not a perverse policy of rejecting the interests of the readers. I suggest that you take a breath, look back, and see how far
305:
And I prefer reliable references to things that appear to be written by teenagers off their meds, so I read Among the Heroes instead of the wiki article you mentioned. Cheers!
81:
920:
It isn't a question of what she did, it is about how interested people are in her. If people are interested in a subject, then
Knowledge (XXG) should have an article on it.
146:
976:
I think "interesting" here means that many people are interested in the person. Whether the person has done sufficient to "deserve" this interest is irrelevent.
974:
The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."
1008:
trump the priorities of interest of the reader. They are founded in an approximation of thoss priorities. (If resources were unbounded, then
Knowledge (XXG)
494:— a policy about editorial decisions not being decided by a democratic vote amongst editors — is to-the-point here. I was speaking about serving
113:
108:
456:. People don't determine what is acceptable by vote or popularity, the policies and guidelines in place do. And you especially need to read
117:
1499:
1478:
1456:
1428:
1408:
1352:
1326:
1293:
1257:
1238:
1210:
1188:
1156:
1120:
1092:
1070:
1046:
1023:
985:
956:
929:
908:
887:
832:
796:
774:
746:
690:
663:
589:
571:
531:
513:
473:
441:
412:
386:
332:
314:
294:
272:
246:
220:
191:
174:
164:
If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted.
158:
she was notable for. Her book was published posthumously by her sisters and does not have its own article of notability. As quoted in
100:
65:
783:
I was referring to the comment above that one, asserting that "interest was the deciding factor", not about the deletion discussion.
17:
364:
875:
727:
their names, as opposed to the names of other persons selected at random from comprehensive lists. I've already noted that
208:
1516:
1385:
1367:
1051:
I'm not sure how I should respond to your admission that you can't understand that simple descriptive term. Meanwhile
760:
400:
36:
1379:
1270:
lies. But, even still (misunderstanding protocol or hoping for the closer to violate it), you would be attempting to
1419:"A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability." And notability is what we're discussing here. --
556:
if it refers to each specific policy taken in turn, because some of those policies conflict one with another; hence
319:
There is no evidence
Grandcolas participated in the revolt. None. There is evidence for others, but not her. You're
1373:
1515:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1340:
943:
1322:
1169:, just discounting an argument as unintelligible. Well, your choir will perhaps cheer, but you'll not make
871:
1109:
an answer. Instead, you made an assertion, whose purpose was to discount an argument as unintelligible. —
310:
268:
232:
That Wiki will not enforce its own policy is not an acceptable rebuttal. This person has not received any
216:
104:
1282:, but you're using methods that please only those who already agree with you, and not even all of them. —
728:
491:
453:
1495:
1424:
1314:
1253:
1206:
1152:
1088:
1042:
952:
904:
874:, then I would agree that she would not be sufficiently notable to deserve an article. In analogy, the
792:
686:
611:
585:
527:
469:
408:
328:
290:
242:
170:
159:
350:
Readers want to know about these people, especially those who, like
Grandcolas, were more discernibly
461:
1451:
1403:
1288:
1233:
1201:
This isn't a political race. I'm not trying to "convert" anyone. This is a page for discussion. --
1183:
1115:
1065:
1018:
827:
769:
741:
658:
566:
508:
436:
381:
1491:
1420:
1414:
1249:
1202:
1148:
1084:
1038:
948:
900:
788:
682:
636:
against an article about someone who was involved in ”a larger subject, but essentially remains a
581:
557:
545:
523:
465:
404:
324:
286:
238:
166:
1318:
188:
1335:
878:
category contains dozens of people whose sole claim to notability is that survived the sinking.
422:
information resource in service of its readers, not some sort of guide as to what editors think
809:. Are we now to believe that you think that Knowledge (XXG) is in the habit of testing simple
306:
264:
212:
96:
71:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1001:
621:
427:
61:
969:
457:
1475:
57:
320:
610:). Worse, in this case, you patently misinterpret the policy that you wish to invoke.
1446:
1398:
1283:
1228:
1178:
1110:
1060:
1013:
822:
764:
736:
653:
561:
503:
431:
376:
356:
540:
Depending upon what you mean by “policy”, that claim is either empty or false. It is
1348:
981:
925:
883:
204:
184:
1490:
Writing a book does not make one notable... even if it's published posthumously. --
1389:
1343:.) The comments above citing wide public "interest" in her life are unsupported. --
134:
866:
200:
1471:
753:
the nominator has explicitly declared “Knowledge (XXG) works on consensus and
50:
1083:
You can start by actually explaining it instead of making a snide remark. --
498:. And I wasn't speaking about popular belief determining content, but about
365:
Felt's article was deleted, on its second nomination, with the pretense that
183:, no indication of notability outside of a minor role in a major tragedy. --
1344:
1266:
Well, actually, the closer is supposed to do no more than ascertain were
977:
921:
879:
1173:
that way. As I've already noted, the descriptive term in question was
719:, the people who placed phone calls from Flight 93 have attracted more
263:
award or honor” did Jarrah, Sirhan, or the Columbine shooters receive?
761:
In the absence of consensus, policy is that the article is retained.
723:
than the ~3K other victims of the 9/11 attacks; we can see that by
1509:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1248:
have anything to say about Lauren Grandcolas, I'm all ears. --
805:
The point that interest determines how high a profile were is
821:
things because you disregard or misrepresent actual policy. —
817:
plausible interpretation we place on things, we are still
87:
Articles for deletion/Lauren Grandcolas (2nd nomination)
1382:(one of the hijackers of Flight 175) — about 2,760 hits
1376:(one of the hijackers of Flight 175) — about 2,920 hits
141:
130:
126:
122:
1012:
be about everything. As it is, it must prioritize.) —
617:
say that being associated with only one notable event
699:
No, I didn't decide that on my own; it's basically a
302:
commit a terrorist attack than to stop one? I don’t.
285:so I don't have to explain these things to you. --
580:Read the intro for what I mean about "policy". --
544:if it refers to policy as a whole, which includes
1274:the closer. I'm simply going to call it what it
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1519:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1105:, because the function of your remark wasn't to
502:being sufficient to justify having an article. —
417:Whether it is your main argument or not, that
8:
1059:reader would be interested in the article. —
430:guidelines are informed by that principle. —
941:That is exactly what article notability is
490:wrong, is your willingness to pretend that
522:Popular interest doesn't trump policy. --
1223:anyone, then there would be no need for
82:Articles for deletion/Lauren Grandcolas
79:
1334:. This is exactly the type of article
1386:‘"Douglas E. Oelschlager" -wikipedia’
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
968:I disagree — the second sentence of
715:that he or she manages to attract.
78:
426:interest readers. Any reasonabl e
24:
1341:Knowledge (XXG) is not a memorial
1470:- notable because of her book --
1368:‘"Lauren Grandcolas" -wikipedia’
632:policy in any case. The policy
1380:‘"Fayez Banihammad" -wikipedia’
1374:‘"Mohand al-Shehri" -wikipedia’
1147:argument. I've rebutted it. --
1103:ask a question for me to answer
785:That's why we're discussing it!
548:; response to popular interest
1165:that you weren't presenting a
602:policy then, and the claim is
1:
1388:(victim drawn at random from
876:Titanic's crew and passengers
711:profile is a function of the
1390:a large list of 9/11 victims
1278:. Again: You are trying to
1219:If there were no attempt to
755:there obviously is none here
813:with consensus? No matter
703:: Whether an individual is
1536:
735:you have managed to run. —
717:Whether you like it or not
452:Wrong. Knowledge (XXG) is
283:Read the Flight 93 article
1500:18:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
1479:14:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
1457:19:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
1429:12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
1409:08:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
1353:07:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
1327:22:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
1294:03:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
1258:02:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
1239:02:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
1211:02:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
1189:02:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
1157:02:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
1121:02:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
1093:01:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
1071:01:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
1055:one merely asserted that
1047:00:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
1024:22:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
986:18:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
957:17:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
930:17:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
909:17:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
888:17:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
833:17:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
797:17:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
775:17:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
747:20:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
691:18:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
664:21:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
590:20:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
572:20:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
532:19:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
514:17:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
474:16:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
442:22:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
413:14:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
387:10:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
333:17:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
315:16:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
295:18:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
273:01:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
247:14:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
221:09:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
192:01:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
175:19:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
66:01:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
1512:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1445:of relative interest. —
1002:“Notability” guidelines
872:Air Malta flight KM 830
678:won significant awards.
552:policy. Your claim is
1437:, it wasn't offered a
751:I would also add that
640:individual”; however,
77:AfDs for this article:
624:, so nothing is even
1360:Some Google results:
1161:Ah, but now you've
1101:Ah, but you didn't
759:(Underscore mine.)
648:the determinant of
1370:— about 3,640 hits
1392:) — about 39 hits
97:Lauren Grandcolas
72:Lauren Grandcolas
64:
44:The result was
1527:
1514:
1454:
1406:
1291:
1236:
1186:
1118:
1068:
1021:
830:
772:
744:
672:How is interest
661:
569:
511:
500:popular interest
439:
401:about everything
384:
144:
138:
120:
56:
53:
34:
1535:
1534:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1517:deletion review
1510:
1455:
1450:
1407:
1402:
1292:
1287:
1237:
1232:
1187:
1182:
1143:(unindent)It's
1119:
1114:
1069:
1064:
1022:
1017:
996:You are almost
831:
826:
773:
768:
745:
740:
662:
657:
570:
565:
512:
507:
454:not a democracy
440:
435:
385:
380:
209:school shooters
140:
111:
95:
92:
75:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1533:
1531:
1522:
1521:
1505:
1504:
1503:
1502:
1482:
1481:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1449:
1401:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1383:
1377:
1371:
1362:
1361:
1355:
1329:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1286:
1261:
1260:
1242:
1241:
1231:
1214:
1213:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1181:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1113:
1096:
1095:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1063:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1016:
991:
990:
989:
988:
960:
959:
933:
932:
912:
911:
891:
890:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
825:
807:ex definitione
800:
799:
778:
777:
767:
749:
739:
694:
693:
667:
666:
656:
608:true but empty
593:
592:
575:
574:
564:
535:
534:
517:
516:
506:
477:
476:
447:
446:
445:
444:
434:
390:
389:
379:
369:constituted a
361:the bum's rush
357:Edward P. Felt
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
303:
298:
297:
276:
275:
250:
249:
224:
223:
194:
151:
150:
91:
90:
89:
84:
76:
74:
69:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1532:
1520:
1518:
1513:
1507:
1506:
1501:
1497:
1493:
1489:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1480:
1477:
1473:
1469:
1466:
1465:
1458:
1453:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1436:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1416:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1405:
1400:
1396:
1391:
1387:
1384:
1381:
1378:
1375:
1372:
1369:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1359:
1356:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1337:
1333:
1330:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1319:Peterkingiron
1316:
1312:
1309:
1308:
1295:
1290:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1240:
1235:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1190:
1185:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1164:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1141:
1122:
1117:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1081:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1072:
1067:
1062:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1025:
1020:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
994:
993:
992:
987:
983:
979:
975:
971:
967:
964:
963:
962:
961:
958:
954:
950:
947:based on. --
946:
945:
940:
937:
936:
935:
934:
931:
927:
923:
919:
916:
915:
914:
913:
910:
906:
902:
898:
895:
894:
893:
892:
889:
885:
881:
877:
873:
869:
868:
863:
860:
859:
834:
829:
824:
820:
816:
812:
808:
804:
803:
802:
801:
798:
794:
790:
786:
782:
781:
780:
779:
776:
771:
766:
762:
758:
756:
750:
748:
743:
738:
734:
733:off the rails
730:
726:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
697:
696:
695:
692:
688:
684:
681:policies. --
679:
675:
671:
670:
669:
668:
665:
660:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
628:to trump the
627:
623:
620:
616:
613:
609:
606:(rather than
605:
601:
597:
596:
595:
594:
591:
587:
583:
579:
578:
577:
576:
573:
568:
563:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
538:
537:
536:
533:
529:
525:
521:
520:
519:
518:
515:
510:
505:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
481:
480:
479:
478:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
450:
449:
448:
443:
438:
433:
429:
425:
420:
416:
415:
414:
410:
406:
402:
397:
394:
393:
392:
391:
388:
383:
378:
374:
372:
368:
362:
359:) were given
358:
353:
349:
346:
345:
334:
330:
326:
322:
318:
317:
316:
312:
308:
304:
300:
299:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
279:
278:
277:
274:
270:
266:
262:
257:
254:
253:
252:
251:
248:
244:
240:
235:
231:
228:
227:
226:
225:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
195:
193:
190:
186:
182:
179:
178:
177:
176:
172:
168:
165:
161:
157:
148:
143:
136:
132:
128:
124:
119:
115:
110:
106:
102:
98:
94:
93:
88:
85:
83:
80:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1511:
1508:
1487:
1467:
1443:illustration
1442:
1441:, but as an
1438:
1434:
1413:
1357:
1331:
1310:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1224:
1220:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1144:
1106:
1102:
1056:
1052:
1009:
1005:
997:
973:
965:
942:
938:
917:
896:
865:
861:
818:
814:
810:
806:
784:
754:
752:
732:
729:WP:DEMOCRACY
724:
720:
716:
712:
708:
704:
700:
677:
673:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
622:“notability”
618:
614:
607:
603:
599:
553:
549:
541:
499:
495:
492:WP:DEMOCRACY
487:
483:
428:“notability”
423:
418:
395:
370:
366:
360:
351:
347:
307:Steve8675309
282:
265:Steve8675309
260:
255:
233:
229:
213:Steve8675309
196:
180:
163:
155:
152:
49:
46:No consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1315:WP:MEMORIAL
707:profile or
638:low-profile
612:WP:ONEEVENT
598:Okay, so a
367:three votes
321:speculating
160:WP:ONEEVENT
819:discussing
626:attempting
462:WP:ONEVENT
201:terrorists
62:count/logs
1447:SlamDiego
1435:of course
1415:WP:GOOGLE
1399:SlamDiego
1284:SlamDiego
1268:consensus
1229:SlamDiego
1225:rebuttals
1179:SlamDiego
1111:SlamDiego
1061:SlamDiego
1014:SlamDiego
998:perfectly
823:SlamDiego
765:SlamDiego
737:SlamDiego
701:tautology
654:SlamDiego
619:precludes
562:SlamDiego
558:WP:IGNORE
546:WP:IGNORE
504:SlamDiego
432:SlamDiego
377:SlamDiego
371:consensus
205:assassins
1488:Comment:
1358:Comment:
1336:WP:BLP1E
1171:converts
1163:admitted
1000:wrong.
725:googling
721:interest
713:interest
642:interest
634:cautions
600:specific
396:Comment:
230:Comment:
185:Dhartung
147:View log
1492:VegitaU
1421:VegitaU
1280:convert
1272:convert
1250:VegitaU
1203:VegitaU
1149:VegitaU
1085:VegitaU
1039:VegitaU
966:Comment
949:VegitaU
939:Comment
918:Comment
901:VegitaU
897:Comment
867:Titanic
789:VegitaU
683:VegitaU
650:profile
646:exactly
615:doesn't
582:VegitaU
550:informs
524:VegitaU
496:readers
482:What's
466:VegitaU
405:VegitaU
325:VegitaU
287:VegitaU
261:notable
239:VegitaU
234:notable
167:VegitaU
114:protect
109:history
1332:Delete
1311:Delete
1221:covert
1175:simple
970:WP:BIO
630:actual
486:here,
458:WP:BIO
424:should
352:active
207:, and
181:Delete
142:delete
118:delete
1439:proof
1433:And,
1167:query
1010:would
811:logic
604:false
554:false
542:empty
484:wrong
419:awful
403:. --
348:Keep.
256:Reply
145:) – (
135:views
127:watch
123:links
52:Jerry
16:<
1496:talk
1468:Keep
1425:talk
1349:talk
1323:talk
1254:talk
1207:talk
1153:talk
1145:your
1107:seek
1089:talk
1043:talk
982:talk
972:has
953:talk
926:talk
905:talk
884:talk
862:Keep
815:what
793:talk
705:high
687:talk
586:talk
528:talk
488:very
470:talk
460:and
409:talk
329:talk
311:talk
291:talk
269:talk
243:talk
217:talk
197:Keep
189:Talk
171:talk
131:logs
105:talk
101:edit
58:talk
1476:rex
1345:MCB
1317:.
1177:. —
1006:not
1004:do
978:Jll
944:not
922:Jll
880:Jll
787:--
709:low
674:the
652:. —
644:is
560:. —
464:--
375:) —
363:. (
156:all
1498:)
1452:←T
1427:)
1404:←T
1351:)
1325:)
1289:←T
1276:is
1256:)
1234:←T
1209:)
1184:←T
1155:)
1116:←T
1091:)
1066:←T
1053:no
1045:)
1019:←T
984:)
955:)
928:)
907:)
886:)
828:←T
795:)
770:←T
757:.”
742:←T
689:)
659:←T
588:)
567:←T
530:)
509:←T
472:)
437:←T
411:)
382:←T
331:)
313:)
293:)
271:)
245:)
219:)
203:,
187:|
173:)
162::
133:|
129:|
125:|
121:|
116:|
112:|
107:|
103:|
60:¤
1494:(
1474:-
1472:T
1423:(
1417::
1397:—
1347:(
1339:(
1321:(
1252:(
1205:(
1151:(
1087:(
1057:a
1041:(
980:(
951:(
924:(
903:(
882:(
791:(
763:—
685:(
584:(
526:(
468:(
407:(
373:.
327:(
309:(
289:(
267:(
259:“
241:(
215:(
169:(
149:)
139:(
137:)
99:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.