642:. Isn't one unsuccessful VfD enough? The arguments put forth for deleting this article don't really justify such action. We should delete it because it's a troll magnet? But so are a lot of articles. The main page would be a troll magnet if it weren't protected. As for "what value this article adds to the Knowledge (XXG) community," "the value it adds" is that it's a source for research into this subject. The ideal situation would be that we wouldn't have this conversation because there were no ethnic slurs. But, in the real world, ethnic slurs are a reprehensible part of life. Not all Knowledge (XXG) articles have to be morally uplifting. Some subjects are unpleasant and even offensive, but if Knowledge (XXG) is going to be a good, NPOV source of information, it must deal with them. BTW: the last VfD failed by a pretty wide margin; right now, that seems to be happening again. --
851:
burn all history books that mention the word "holoucost"? No. Do you know why? Because to not chronicle them is to deny there existance. And
Jewbacca, I think we can both agree that listening to people who deny the holoucost happened is a million times worse than learning about it. Furthermore this is not in the least bit racist, and the author takes a much mature attitude towards the whole thing than you appear to be doing. If this were racist I would want it taken down. It's not. What is offensive however is your suggestions of censorship. Thats just my opinion.
518:: Knowledge (XXG) policy requires that statements be referenced, yet not a single one of these entries lists a source. This means that racist editors could add a list of slurs they had invented, or had heard a few friends use. It is unencylopedic to have an article explaining that "gorilla" is a big, fat black person; "goatfucker" is a word for Muslims; and "German candle" and "German mitt" are terms for Jews. The publication of material like this encourages racial hatred and debases Knowledge (XXG).
953:. Certainly useful information, especially if it includes information on origins of words, etc, that aren't long enough for their own articles. Just because something offends someone doesn't mean it shouldn't be included. I think our society needs a slightly higher tolerance for being offended. Besides, the only way to deal with things like this is to walk headlong into them, not hide, censor,
201:
Afros" and use it once to insult a friend, and then enter it on the list as an ethnic slur. Is someone going to go and check out every entry on this list for its actual usage? Is someone going to make sure that the definitions themselves are not ethnic slurs? I'm sure not going to, and unless some person or persons wishes to take on this task, I suggest
534:. There are whole dictionaries on this subject; Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, Oxford Dictionary of Slang, The Color of Words: An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Ethnic Bias, Dictionary of Contemporary Slang, Dictionary of Euphemisms, American Thesaurus of Slang, etc. To claim that this subject is not encyclopedic is absurd. --
837:"delete" Although this page gives information, there is no use, or need for it. what is the point of having it? If anything, it simply arms racists with more ammunition. It also humiliates jus about every race there is. This page serves as a reminder of racism in the world. We would be better off without it.
97:
Already explained: the page is informative and lists are a firmly-established part of
Knowledge (XXG). A side benefit is that this page (and the numerous redirects to it) help prevent the constant creation and recreation of miniscule articles devoted to individual slurs—as the page's sheer size (over
880:
I've already voted, but I spent another few minutes looking at the page, and at
Jewbacca's user page, and it would seem that we're dealing with a right-wing zealot whose most avid contribution to Knowledge (XXG) is in policing articles for content he doesn't agree with. My own work here is mainly in
850:
the arguments against this little page are hilarious. Scary but hilarious. Actually, as a kike myself I am more offended by your arguments against this page then by any of the words on here! Since when is a mature non-condoning presentation of knowledge offensive? Are you suggesting
Jewbacca that we
723:
This page has no encyclopedic value. Kids aren't out there doing research projects on ethnic slurs. The internet is already filled with racist websites and if people are that desperate for a list of ethnic slurs they can find them there. Anyone buying into this garbage about
Knowledge (XXG) being an
541:
If none of the entries have sources, then why can't we just go through them and validate the ones in current use and delete the others, then make it clear that new entries are to be provided with sources? It may be a lot of work, but it doesn't make sense to discard all of them and the very idea of
169:
Periodically, you and your friends try to get something deleted that you don't approve of. Unfortunately for you, "I don't like it" is not a reason for deleting a page. I don't like it either but I'll fight for what I don't like as hard as what I do. We call that the NPOV way, dude. Why not try it
145:
Assuming the list is accurate, the reader would learn that someone has already used the slur in question. Slurs contribute to the forces that cause genocides. I am afraid that some terms on the list may have been made up. Personaly, I find it unbelievable that anyone in the US would put together a
52:
This page is unencyclopedic and has become a lightning rod for bigoted editors to have a playground to list as many dubious terms as they can. I can't see any value this page adds to the
Knowledge (XXG) community and could only be hurtful and offensive. There was a previous vote on this page in
200:
to get a sense of what he's trying to do. At any rate, I agree: this list has no value unless it is carefully vetted to make sure that what is listed is actual ethnic slurs in common enough usage to warrant encyclopedic treatment. I mean, I could make up something like "Kinkajews: jews that wear
184:
this, it is highly informative. Naturally it is offensive, it is a list of racial slurs, but as it does nothing to condone their use (only lists them) it is nothing more than a useful reference document. You wouldn't want to delete the page on Neo-Nazism either, even though that offends a lot of
215:
I can't necessarily audit the entire list (being non-American and non-British, my knowledge of racial slurs is not complete, and Google isn't the most useful thing ever for slang that rarely goes to print) but I'll be doing my bit to monitor this - I suggest others do the same - add it to your
864:
I would understand a movement for deletion if the terms listed here were used derisively on the page itself. However, the terms are listed in an objective way: the contributors have not written that they agree with them, or that they encourage their use. It's current form is informative, not
384:. Perfectly good page which has already survived a vote once. The apparent allegation that anyone who adds anything to it must be racist themselves is insulting and bigoted in the extreme. It is not racist to record a fact, and the sad fact is that people use these terms. --
74:, highly informative and as encyclopedic as almost any of our gajillion other lists. The page is a jerk magnet and the content is (inevitably) offensive, but these are not reasons to delete it: shall we get rid of every page with offensive content and/or antisocial editors?
984:
If someone thinks it should be deleted, they should instead rework the article up to encyclopedic standards. There is no reason we can't have a list of ethnic slurs. They exist, people use them, they have a history, and we are neutral. --Alterego 04:53, 2004 Dec 30
110:
So the benefit of having a list of ethnic slurs is that it consolidates all ethnic slurs in one place, people like to write about these things, and after all it's informative and lists are part of
Knowledge (XXG)? Solid justification for having this trash among us.
943:. Although the subject matter is offensive to some like Asciident has mentioned, it provides sources for the slurs mentioned and what they mean. Knowledge (XXG) articles are here for a reason (vandalism included, but most vandalism is reverted within 5 minutes.)
542:
having a list like this just because there's a possibility some racist could add made-up words. Ethnic slurs are a reality, like it or not, and I don't see a reason not to have an article showing what slurs in actual widespread use and to whom they refer.
632:. It's an encyclopedic topic. Acknowledging their existence and explaining them does not imply condoning their use. (Where else are you going to go to look up information of this nature without getting your butt kicked just for asking, anyway?)
793:. When browsing the internet/wikipedia you sometimes stumble upon seedy webpages with ethnic slurs in them. Not everyone knows those slurs, so for understanding the text you're reading it is useful to have a reference list with ethnic slurs.
731:
When I was in middle school, I wrote a paper on race relations where I discussed the issue of racial slurs. I asked my dad if he knew any I didn't IIRC. But I digress. Again, not every article on
Knowledge (XXG) has to be morally uplifting.
1012:
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages.
622:, Unfortunately Knowledge (XXG) attracts a few people who want to write offensive but valid articles. Putting them all together in a list is the best way to defuse the issues they give rise to; it makes them all look stupid.
47:
692:. Another danger with this kind of list is that editors will make up slurs to add, so having additional citations should an expectation for editors. Overall, the list right now needs work but is about as good as can be expected. -
480:
have a "List of" article, we'd just have individual articles on each slur, and even if you volunteered to watch vigilantly and VfD each one as it was created, it wouldn't be a stable situation -- so that's reason to Keep even
991:. I agree it's a sad page but closing our eyes to reality is the real unencyclopedic approach. Anyway, the huge variety of this article shows that derogatory terms against "the other one" go in all possible directions in
881:
writing (or rewriting) articles from the ground up, which leads me to take a strong position on unwarranted deletions, and sometimes on users who appoint themselves as deletors or censors. I'm modifying my vote to
800:"Keep". Informative, as these terms have been prevalent throughout history and continue to be. It is important to know them to understand the cultures that produce these terms, as lamentable as the terms are.
781:
Yes it is ironic. I've noticed going through the history page that some ethnic slurs that were there last year are now missing. Looks like some user/s have been doing their own creative "deletions" :)
230:
How awfully subjective. If I'm bored, and all other articles on my watchlist are inactive, then should I pick up my guitar or audit racial slurs. What's more useful to the
Knowledge (XXG) project?
724:
unlimited, neutral source of information needs to get a grip on reality. Knowledge (XXG) is made by people and it is read by people. Articles like this are just offensive and serve no purpose. --
889:
ethnic slurs, but there's nothing inherently wrong with having such an article here. I think there is something inherently wrong with having such an article bounced into VfD by an activist user.
899:. Encyclopedic, useful and informative. As long as the terms are in use , however regrettable this may be, indexing and documenting them from a NPOV perspective has indisputable value.
138:
Genocides are a part of history, these ethnic slurs are not. What does someone learn by reading this article? That he can call an effeminate black man a "Chimp-Pansie"? --
933:
has stated. Provide sources for the ones where possible, monitor carefully, but it has every reason to be here even though the subject matter is offensive to some. --
340:. If the list is suffering from too many not widely used words, they should be weeded out. It would be a pity to deprive people of such a potentially useful list.
310:
that is entirely about how people insult one another. I don't read it regularly, but they have done some fascinating comparative articles on this sort of thing --
429:. The only problem is that this list is that it's a target for vandalism but so are th births/deaths sections of the year articles. Should we remove them too?
40:
Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was
277:, obviously, but sadly. No censorship here, please. No need for citation for every entry - not a requirement for other articles, and rather unreasonable.
711:, and have done some maintenance, don't be surprised if I come back in a month or two asking for VfD, tired of the constant weeding and reverting. -
774:. Very weak. But let's keep some perspective here: This article was listed for deletion by user 'Jewbacca.' Does nobody else find this ironic?
967:. Encyclopedic, useful and informative. Hiding our eyes from racism and "ethnicism" solves nothing. One must know the enemy to fight it.
299:. I hate the fact that there are ethnic slurs, however this is the only place I can think of that can list them in a neutral fashion. -
915:
and expand by adding references. Ethnic slurs are real and notable: people have gone to jail or worse because of them. Compare with
17:
223:
Very well, though I can think of a million better uses for our editors' efforts than verifying additions to a list of ethnic slurs.
657:
326:. Content is offensive by nature, but that is no reason not to document it. (Groaning while placing this one on my watchlist).
668:
06:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) (clarifying: meaning in its current form. The original 2003 Knowledge (XXG) version looks original.)
598:, useful. Some Wikipedians shouldn't be so thin skinned. Knowledge (XXG) is not about pandering to "political correctness".
476:: Mirv's reasoning is sound. Knowledge (XXG) is to reflect the real world, not the way we wish the real world was. If we
118:
Ethnic slurs, as much as they suck, are part of the world; why should we not document them in a coherent, neutral fashion?
90:
this page be kept? (I know that's not the burden on this page, but I can't think of how it makes
Knowledge (XXG) better)
703:
is willing to spend a little time maintaining the page. As some have pointed out, it is a natural POV magnet. (or maybe
495:: It's ironic that practically the only editor who wants to delete this page chose an ethnic slur for his User name. --
260:
916:
558:. This page would be a magnet for creative bigots to add new ethnic slurs and give them a ready-made "source".
503:
527:
The study of ethnic slurs, or ethnophaulisms, is a valid academic field even if the content offends you. See
192:
Y'know, the problem with lists like these has been clearly demonstrated by the anti-semitic troll sockpuppet
457:
133:
105:
81:
854:
803:
873:
867:
826:
764:
486:
122:
is much more offensive than nasty names, but we have a great deal of information on it, including (yes)
840:
231:
217:
186:
829:, whose two edits are to the article and to this page. The edit was also made at 00:28, 25 Dec 2004,
375:
300:
123:
33:
27:
420:
968:
712:
693:
151:
36:
was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion.
974:
665:
467:
407:
395:
209:
688:
points out, editors must avoid the temptation to make it a rewritten mirror of the www.rsdb.org
532:
704:
633:
535:
496:
453:
331:
193:
547:
345:
315:
268:
251:
197:
944:
890:
814:
794:
775:
519:
433:
385:
371:
1003:
996:
958:
934:
930:
920:
782:
599:
528:
417:
130:
102:
78:
448:
probably doesn't make an encyclopedia article. If wiktionary deals in lists you could
919:, which are not even real, yet we're not voting on whether to delete that article. --
906:
748:
685:
661:
507:
392:
370:: As has been stated before, "I don't like it" is not reason enough for deletion. --
361:
224:
206:
112:
91:
65:
54:
466:, obviously. Clearly encyclopedic, we are not the morality police of the internet.
733:
643:
613:
559:
327:
288:
885:
The article is flawed in that it seems, at least in part, to be a repository for
530:
53:
September and the consenus was to keep, but I request a new vote and discussion.
1002:
It's good for people who use them to see that there are ones about them, too. -
543:
341:
311:
278:
264:
248:
175:
761:, really informative, much of this information is not easy to find elsewhere.
502:
The above user is an admitted sockpuppet. This vote should not be counted per
954:
569:
430:
652:
This really looks like a lightly reworked copyvio. Isn't this basically the
623:
589:
579:
127:
99:
75:
833:
08:03, Dec 22, 2004 (simultaneous with the creation of the VfD) as claimed.
745:
725:
675:
139:
119:
609:
957:
them, or pretend they don't exist. That will just make it worse. -
485:
the fact that yes, it is a fact of life, albeit an unpretty one. --
216:
watchlist, and whenever there's an addition, check it's acceptable.
146:
term like "Chimp-Pansie". Fraudulent entries aside, naming a term a
126:. This page is far from perfect, but that's no reason to delete it.
608:
offensive, yes. But I don't think that is a reason for removal. -
98:
70k) may have told you, people like to write about these things.
360:. Obviously. Inherently encyclopedic, useful and informative.--
806:, six of whose seven edits are to the article or to this vote.
995:. It shows a lot about what we are as a global community. -
905:. Odious, but legit. Needs diligent monitoring not deletion
568:. Un-sourced, un-encyclopedic, and a magnet for bigots.
506:
despite the dubious guarantee of "Voting one time only"
653:
306:
Actually, there is a wonderful academic journal called
823:
this page supports racism. 08:03, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
263:we should require citation for every reference. --
674:much as I disapprove of its regrettable contents.
865:derogatory, and it should be kept that way.: -->
499:17:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Voting one time only)
876:has four edits, two of which are to this VfD.
8:
354:otherwise the practise is clear censorship.
973:Note: this vote was actually made by
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
391:Who has made such an allegation? --
699:I do hope that everyone who votes
24:
261:Republican/Democrat In Name Only
1:
917:list of fictional curse words
588:, useful and encyclopedic. --
1015:Please do not edit this page
38:This page is no longer live.
504:Knowledge (XXG):Sockpuppets
1031:
971:13:56, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
767:only has ten edits so far.
470:\ 17:07, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
243:Thoroughly contemptible.
227:10:02, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
220:09:59, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
115:08:30, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
94:08:20, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
57:08:03, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
1006:14:26, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
999:12:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
961:02:16, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
870:19:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
825:-- This unsigned edit by
817:18:22, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)
797:16:28, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)
778:02:05, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
728:10:52, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
696:08:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
522:19:10, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
510:03:56, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
410:14:36, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
388:11:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
318:06:30, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
303:09:48, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
281:09:22, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
271:09:04, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
234:12:08, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
212:08:34, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
189:08:29, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
150:exposes it to sunlight. -
142:10:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
135:08:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
107:08:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
83:08:17, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
68:08:03, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
947:20:58, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
937:16:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
923:06:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
909:00:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
893:05:17, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
785:03:48, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
755:14:30, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
736:06:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
715:08:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
678:06:14, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
646:05:58, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
636:04:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
626:03:51, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
616:00:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
602:23:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
592:04:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
582:21:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
572:21:37, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
562:21:35, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
550:20:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
538:20:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
489:17:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
460:16:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
438:16:35, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)
423:16:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
398:17:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
378:11:29, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
364:11:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
348:10:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
334:10:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
293:09:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
253:08:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
198:WP:VIP#User:Wiesenthaler
178:08:20, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
154:02:25, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
48:Archive of previous VFD
690:Racial Slur Database
654:Racial Slur Database
578:, useful to dweebs.
34:List of ethnic slurs
28:List of ethnic slurs
444:. A list of words
929:, for the reasons
853:-- Note: This is
839:-- Note: This is
753:
707:) Though I voted
705:sacrificial anode
436:
196:. Take a look at
1022:
802:-- this edit by
752:
749:
487:Antaeus Feldspar
434:
291:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1021:
1020:
1019:
750:
452:, I suppose. --
301:Ta bu shi da yu
289:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1028:
1026:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
986:
979:
962:
948:
938:
924:
910:
900:
894:
878:
859:
855:216.175.85.162
845:
835:
818:
808:
804:209.179.222.31
798:
788:
787:
786:
769:
756:
739:
738:
737:
718:
717:
716:
679:
669:
647:
637:
627:
617:
603:
593:
583:
573:
563:
552:
551:
539:
524:
523:
513:
512:
511:
490:
471:
461:
439:
424:
421:(pigs can fly)
411:
401:
400:
399:
379:
365:
355:
349:
335:
321:
320:
319:
294:
282:
272:
254:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
190:
179:
167:
166:
165:
164:
163:
162:
161:
160:
159:
158:
157:
156:
155:
124:a big-ass list
69:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1027:
1018:
1016:
1005:
1001:
1000:
998:
994:
990:
987:
983:
980:
978:
976:
975:155.84.57.253
970:
966:
963:
960:
956:
952:
949:
946:
942:
939:
936:
932:
928:
925:
922:
918:
914:
911:
908:
904:
901:
898:
895:
892:
888:
884:
879:
877:
875:
874:Jordanperryuk
869:
868:Jordanperryuk
863:
860:
858:
857:'s only edit.
856:
849:
846:
844:
843:'s only edit.
842:
836:
834:
832:
828:
827:84.112.11.114
822:
819:
816:
812:
809:
807:
805:
799:
796:
792:
789:
784:
780:
779:
777:
773:
770:
768:
766:
765:24.137.84.198
760:
757:
754:
747:
743:
740:
735:
730:
729:
727:
722:
719:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
697:
695:
691:
687:
683:
680:
677:
673:
670:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
648:
645:
641:
638:
635:
631:
628:
625:
621:
618:
615:
611:
607:
604:
601:
597:
594:
591:
587:
584:
581:
577:
574:
571:
567:
564:
561:
557:
554:
553:
549:
545:
540:
537:
533:
531:
529:
526:
525:
521:
517:
514:
509:
505:
501:
500:
498:
494:
491:
488:
484:
479:
475:
472:
469:
465:
462:
459:
455:
451:
447:
443:
440:
437:
432:
428:
425:
422:
419:
415:
412:
409:
408:DCEdwards1966
405:
402:
397:
394:
390:
389:
387:
383:
380:
377:
373:
369:
366:
363:
359:
356:
353:
350:
347:
343:
339:
336:
333:
329:
325:
322:
317:
313:
309:
305:
304:
302:
298:
295:
292:
286:
283:
280:
276:
273:
270:
266:
262:
258:
255:
252:
250:
246:
242:
233:
229:
228:
226:
222:
221:
219:
214:
213:
211:
208:
204:
199:
195:
191:
188:
183:
180:
177:
173:
168:
153:
149:
144:
143:
141:
137:
136:
134:
132:
129:
125:
121:
117:
116:
114:
109:
108:
106:
104:
101:
96:
95:
93:
89:
85:
84:
82:
80:
77:
73:
70:
67:
63:
60:
59:
58:
56:
50:
49:
45:
43:
39:
35:
29:
26:
19:
1014:
1011:
993:Homo sapiens
992:
988:
981:
972:
964:
950:
940:
926:
912:
902:
896:
886:
883:Strong Keep.
882:
871:
861:
852:
847:
841:82.32.26.215
838:
830:
824:
820:
810:
801:
790:
771:
762:
758:
741:
720:
708:
700:
689:
681:
671:
649:
639:
634:Mindspillage
629:
619:
605:
595:
585:
575:
565:
555:
536:Wiesenthaler
515:
497:Wiesenthaler
492:
482:
477:
473:
463:
454:Tony Sidaway
449:
445:
441:
426:
413:
403:
381:
367:
357:
351:
337:
323:
307:
296:
284:
274:
259:, but as at
256:
244:
232:Brother Dysk
218:Brother Dysk
202:
194:Wiesenthaler
187:Brother Dysk
181:
171:
147:
87:
71:
61:
51:
46:
41:
37:
32:
951:Strong Keep
64:per above.
955:Bowdlerize
945:Scott Gall
891:Auto movil
872:-- Note:
815:Neutrality
795:saturnight
776:Auto movil
763:-- Note:
386:Necrothesp
247:anyway. --
170:for once?
1004:Omegatron
997:Piolinfax
959:Omegatron
935:asciident
931:MarkSweep
921:MarkSweep
783:Megan1967
772:Weak Keep
606:Weak keep
600:Megan1967
450:transwiki
418:Susvolans
372:Graham ☺
308:Maledicta
907:Icundell
887:invented
686:iMeowbot
662:iMeowbot
650:Comment:
508:Jewbacca
393:jpgordon
362:Centauri
225:Jewbacca
207:jpgordon
185:people.
128:—Charles
120:Genocide
113:Jewbacca
100:—Charles
92:Jewbacca
76:—Charles
66:Jewbacca
55:Jewbacca
969:MasterJ
734:Szyslak
721:Delete.
713:Willmcw
694:Willmcw
684:But as
644:Szyslak
560:A2Kafir
483:besides
328:SWAdair
290:Xezbeth
152:Willmcw
821:Delete
566:Delete
556:DELETE
516:Delete
478:didn't
468:GRider
446:per se
442:Delete
312:Jmabel
279:Dan100
265:Jmabel
249:Korath
203:delete
176:Dr Zen
88:should
62:Delete
985:(UTC)
682:Keep.
658:cache
570:Jayjg
544:Ливай
431:Jeltz
342:Ливай
332:Talk
174:this.
16:<
989:Keep
982:Keep
965:Keep
941:Keep
927:Keep
913:Keep
903:Keep
897:Keep
862:Keep
848:Keep
811:Keep
791:Keep
759:Keep
742:Keep
709:keep
701:keep
672:Keep
660:) ?
640:Keep
630:Keep
624:ping
620:Keep
614:talk
596:Keep
590:SPUI
586:Keep
580:Wyss
576:Keep
520:Slim
493:Keep
474:Keep
464:Keep
458:Talk
435:talk
427:Keep
414:Keep
404:Keep
396:∇∆∇∆
382:Keep
376:Talk
368:Keep
358:Keep
352:Keep
338:Keep
324:Keep
316:Talk
297:Keep
285:Keep
275:Keep
269:Talk
257:Keep
245:Keep
210:∇∆∇∆
205:. --
182:Keep
172:Keep
148:slur
86:Why
72:Keep
42:keep
831:not
746:fvw
726:CPS
676:Sjc
287:..
140:CPS
1017:.
866:--
813:.
744:--
732:--
666:Mw
612:|
610:Ld
546:|
416:.
406::
374:|
344:|
330:|
314:|
267:|
131:P.
103:P.
79:P.
44:.
977:.
751:*
664:~
656:(
548:☺
456:|
346:☺
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.