526:. A reliable source would be an in-depth article from a source that Knowledge (XXG) considers to be trustworthy and reliable. An example of this would be an article in a large news site such as CNN or a newspaper that even though it serves a smaller community, has been established as a reliable source. Now I'm not saying that the article has to have CNN articles about it- far from it. You just have to show that the sources you are using are from established places, which is one of the concerns that the nominator had over CMS Wire. It may be considered a reliable source, but it might not be. The thing is, you need to ensure that it is rather than saying that such and such an amount of article use it. I'll run it by the RS noticeboard for you and let the people there weigh in on it. Now I also want to elaborate on the worries about what is considered an expert or not. There are many sites out there that will allow any user that's signed up to create an article. This is what I meant by "staff reviews". For example, if CMS Wire is considered to be a reliable source then you'd have to ensure that every article used is by a staff member. No matter how intelligent a non-staff writer might seem, unless you have a way of guaranteeing the credentials and identity of the person, you cannot use that article as a reliable source. This is part of the reasons that blogs are so notoriously hard to use as reliable sources: anyone can write them and it's very hard to verify a WordPress or Blogger account holder is who they claim to be. (I know that CMS Wire is not a blog, but it's sort of the same premise when you have non-staff members writing articles.) Now as far as why people are pointing out the press releases, that's because press releases are issued by the company itself. Anything that is released by anyone involved with the company, whether it's the company president, a staff member, their publicity company, or anyone that is involved with the company or its software is considered to be a primary source per
628:
far as the whole "reliable sources" and "is this award notable or not" stuff goes, that's going to be the same regardless of whether it's an AfD about a person, company, or computer software. There's very little difference in the rules, which is why it's so hard for smaller niche programs and awards to show notability, which is also why they frequently get tagged for deletion. So please, before you start biting the hand that's helping you, please try to look into what I'm trying to do to help you. Just because I'm not a top programmer doesn't mean that I'm completely ignorant of what I'm talking about and that I'm not trying to help you out. In any case, I'm done trying to help you. I've tried and as there are plenty of other article to try to rescue, I'm going to focus my energy on them instead. I've told you what you need to do to work on the article. You can either choose to use that information and work towards making your article notable beyond a reasonable doubt or you could ignore it and hope that the meager sources you have right now will keep it. As someone who has been around the AfD block for a few years now, I can tell you that it's better to keep adding reliable sources and polishing up the article than to say "it's great as it is now, I'm not changing anything". That's the type of outlook that makes it more likely that an article will be deleted. If you are finding sources and someone is deleting them, try asking on the reliable sources board to see if they're usable as sources and if they are and someone keeps removing them, go up another step and report the reversions to the admins. I'm out. Good luck with your article.
530:. These sources can never show notability regardless of who issues them, although they can be used to accent an article. The only thing about using primary sources is that they are really only supposed to be used when you have multiple independent and reliable sources to back up the claims in the article, meaning that you should have so many other sources that using anything released by the company should be unnecessary. As far as who is or isn't considered to be an expert, an expert is someone that is considered to be an absolute authority on the subject. This means that they're considered to be so knowledgeable about the subject that they are quoted in books, articles, and/or other forms of media. You have to prove that they are considered experts per Knowledge (XXG) standards. I'm not trying to be mean or even trying to delete the article. I simply saw that there was a very new set of editors coming to Knowledge (XXG) to defend an article and I wanted to explain where the nominator was coming from. Maybe CMS Wire is a reliable source, maybe it isn't, but you should probably try to find more sources than just the CMS Wire articles because this is where it gets tricky. Some can argue that there hasn't been a wide enough span of coverage for the company or its software and that only one site has covered it. You've got to be able to show that other people than CMS Wire has talked about it. I'll run the page past the RS noticeboard, but again, I highly encourage you to seek assistance from the computer wikiproject members, especially if any of you are related to the company in any format. (See
365:
then it's considered to be a primary source and those can never show notability. If it's an article by someone who is just a random member of the site (and not an official staff member), then it cannot show notability regardless of how respected the person is within that community. You also have to realize that if the article is just a "how to" about the service, then that doesn't really entirely show how the service is notable either. I will say offhand that things such as business listings or listing that it's a "Microsoft Gold
Certified Partner" isn't always something that will show absolute notability. It's not something to scoff at, but neither is it something that will show that this program is notable beyond a reasonable doubt. What is really needed are things like news coverage by uninvolved third parties and reviews by notable persons. In any case, here's my rundown of the articles:
502:
company isn't a complete nobody, SharePoint
Village seems like it's still a little young to be an absolutely notable company giving out an absolutely notable award. I do acknowledge that being a site devoted to a very specific product makes it difficult to gain notability, but it doesn't mean that you are exempt from the rules of notability. I know it's strict and that it might seem unfair that an award you see as notable might not necessarily be considered to show notability for a product/company you support, but most awards simply aren't considered to be notable per Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. Believe me, I feel your frustration. Rather than arguing that the sources and awards on the article are notable and reliable, I really recommend that you try to find other sources and articles to help bolster your claims as well as looking for help from the WikiProject community for computers.
721:. ProQuest, a considerable and reliable news database that includes computer and Microsoft-related publications, returned one hit from M2 PressWire, which gave this disclaimer: "M2 Communications disclaims all liability for information provided within M2 PressWIRE. Data supplied by named party/parties." Hardly a reliable source., so zero at ProQuest. LexisNexis returned nothing on the company. And while I think a list of awards would be fine if it were used to reference a company's receiving that award, SharePoint Village citations are not being used for that purpose. I've also looked at CMS Wire, and their reviews have conflict of interest issues. They publish reviews on products from the same companies that buy advertising at CMS Wire, and these reviews are not comprehensive, critical reviews. See my notes at the
614:
explain the arguments brought up in this AfD, but I've also gone out of my way to find people in the computer WikiProject to come over to help save the article as well as gone over to the reliable sources board to try to verify that you can use CMS Wire. This might not seem like much until you realize that about a hundred people might've looked at this AfD and your confusion and done nothing. I'm not the enemy here, despite you trying to depict me as such and despite you getting nasty with me. (sighs) You can argue the award and the current sources until you're blue in the face, but it's those same sources that made the nominator nominate the article for deletion. What I'm trying to say is that you need to start looking for sources other than the press releases and an award that is of questionable notability
592:
reliable 3rd party source and not the background agreement of powerful production companies...which is) so each niche has it's own awards. Probably you have never heard of 'Premio Strega' but your ignorance about a particular award, does not mean is not NOTABLE ENOUGH because you don't know it. One of the CORE idea of
Knowledge (XXG) was share knowledge I believe, or Not? The Other guy before you has suggested that because an award is achieved thanks to a vote is not reliable...now here is my question, NAME TO ME ONE AWARDS THAT IS NOT ACHIEVED VIA VOTE. Just one is enough.
407:, as they can tell you if it's reliable or not. Be aware that just because something is used on other pages does not automatically mean that it's actually a reliable source. Generally yes, it can mean that it's an acceptable source but not always. There's a lot of people who go on adding sources without really checking to see if they're considered reliable. See
669:
foudn that is realible and proves the existence of the subject in a third party then i see no reason why it oculd survive with help from experainced editors to guide the process of getting the article to minimum C standard and above. Sorry i can not give anything better or hope for the article--11:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)--
437:
SharePointBoost". :Also, please do not remove the AfD rationale by
Scopecreep. You might've done this by accident, but please be more careful in the future, as this can be seen as vandalism by some. Removing the AfD rationale does not stop the AfD. (Not saying you did it on purpose, just stating this outright.)
497:
It doesn't really matter how many awards are given out in a field, you just have to show notability. One of the things that the nominator voiced as a concern was that the award is voted upon by the general public. The thing about the SharePoint
Village award is that it doesn't seem to actually be run
668:
I have now review this, unfortnally i can not find one source that be deemed realible that would mkae this subject notable, i am not denying the existence of it as i have used it myself but wikipedia is based on
Notabilty and Realible soufrces, unfortnally this does fail both, now if a source can be
591:
both are from the same niche market and both have never won any awards. Then, SHAREPOINTVILLAGE has a PR 4, has been online for over 4 years (and not 2 like you said) and is a reliable , n3rd party source. SharePoint developers software company CAN NOT win Oscars (If you assume that an Oscare is a
417:
The issue with this article is that it's simply too short to be really considered a reliable source and seems like it was predominantly written from a press release. Even if the site is considered to be reliable, even if it's a staff member... if a source is too short and is written almost entirely
278:
The Andy Dale awards is a well established and respected award by the
Sharepoint community, the fact that is awarded by voting as no assertion of notability is a complete nonsense; is like saying that the democratic process as no assertion of notability because people elect their candidates through
627:
and expect that to win your case. You must try to argue the point with reliable sources and if someone is saying that the sources on the article aren't enough, you have to go out and find more. Seriously, I'm trying to help you out here because it looked like nobody else was bothering to do so. As
436:
The only other thing I see is that the article feels like it's written to be a little promotional, so that will need to be worked on. It's not terrible, but there's phrasing that feels a little advertise-y, such as "More than 3,000 companies from over 50 countries worldwide have adopted integrated
501:
The
Microsoft award would indeed have value but just because there's only 2-3 awards for a specific thing does not automatically mean that it is notable. Like I said, Knowledge (XXG) is incredibly strict about what it considers to be a notable award. I've been looking at the company and while the
477:
About this link. Maybe you are not familiar with SharePoint, but there are not many awards you can get in this field. You can make a research. One either can be awarded by
Microsoft (and Microsoft Award has value!) as partner or be awarded by SharePoint Community, which is Handy Dale's award. You
428:
This is definitely a reliable source, but the issue here is that it doesn't mention
Sharepointboost at all, so it can't show that the product is notable at all. You might be able to use it to back up other information, but it will never show notability for the product. It just backs up a fact and
364:
It depends, to be honest. I will admit that I'm not an entire whiz at computers, but I do a lot of editing and can give some feedback on the sources in this article. Offhand, it could be due to the people publishing the articles. If an article has been released by someone working for the company,
613:
Um, Laura? I'm trying to help you here and being rude is not exactly endearing me to try to continue helping to explain how Knowledge (XXG) works and to continue to try to bring other people to your article to try to help rescue it. Let me repeat that: I've not only gone out of my way to try to
599:
Colligo is in the same niche market, its reference include, sharepointvilalge, cmswire, blogs. Reference 3 and 4 are ^ Dale, Andy (8 April 2010). "SharePoint Awards 2010 Winners". Andy Dale SharePoint Blog. andydalesharepoint.blogspot.com. Retrieved 2 August 2010. ^ Dale, Andy (21 April 2011).
313:
Honestly, I don't understand why these references are seen as not reliable. CMS WIRE is an important source of news for the SharePoint Community, and I am quite sure that does not publish payed reviews. Anyway, this is not really the point, if so many other wikipedia pages can use CMS WIRE as
565:
First of, CSMWIRE is a reliable source because is an indipendent, 3rd party and reliable source (as stated on the wikipedia rules). If someone hadn't wiped out my answer you could have checked the links I have provided of other articles NOT MARKED FOR DELETION that uses the same sources.
618:. Note that I said "per Knowledge (XXG)'s standards", because Knowledge (XXG) is very strict about what it considers to be notable. This is not my own personal idea of what is notable, but what Knowledge (XXG) considers notable as far as awards go. And as far as other articles go, you
642:
Just coming back on to say that the RS Noticeboard members have looked at the CMS Wire links and so far do not feel that they would be reliable sources per Knowledge (XXG)'s standards. If you have any comments, complaints, or feelings about this, please comment on the
374:
The issue with this one is that you have to show how the award is notable per Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. I'll be completely honest and say that out of all of the awards out there that are awarded for anything (books, movies, etc), 99.999% of them are not
603:
Just a precisation, all the examples I have provided are legit wikipedia article that no one has flagged for deletion, so my question is, why? Is that enough Or I should produce more examples...giving for granted that no one delete them?
263:
The Company is one of the major SharePoint Gold Partner and the source I have included are reliable, 3rd party and have been already used as reference for thousands of articles on wikipedia(I am referring to cmswire, sharepointreviews and
411:
for more on this. Whether other articles use it isn't really relevant as much as just trying to prove that it's reliable. It could just be that there's a lot of articles using a non-reliable source. (It's happened before, believe it or
380:
This is pretty much a press release and does the same thing that the first link does, which makes it pretty unnecessary. Since it is a press release that has been published by SharePointBoost, it's considered to be a primary source per
622:
hold them up and say "but this article hasn't been deleted" because there might be other things that gives that article notability or it might just be an article that hasn't been noticed yet. Again, you cannot hold up the argument of
560:
Hello, I am the contributor who started this article. I have carefully read this discussion and I would really appreciate if someone who has at the least some notion of what he/she is talking about can say anything sensible.
426:
167:
767:
Ok, so now can one tell me what is a reliable source for SharePoint related stuff? Cause I am really curios. And do not say BBC, cause BBC will never say anything about SharePoint's web part providers!!!
454:"If it's an article by someone who is just a random member of the site (and not an official staff member), then it cannot show notability regardless of how respected the person is within that community".
269:
I would appreciate if my answers are not deleted, like someone just did. I have spent almost to 2 hours to give a thorough answer, with references and example, just to see it wiped out again.
852:
unless new sources can be found that raise the bar. I'm a little concerned that there are no local (=Chinese) sources for this company, which is what I would expect if it was truly notable.
206:; all of the references are self-published (press releases etc.). The "Andy Dale Award" was an online poll with no assertion of notability. Proposed deletion contested by page's creator.
395:
The problem with this one is that it's not really an article as much as it's just a product page. It is not what Knowledge (XXG) would consider to be an article about the product.
772:
And also, no one has answered to the main question: why Avepoint and Colligo can use these references as notable references? What refences do they have that are notable??
243:
223:
161:
122:
415:
401:
578:
16 references sorted like this: 4 CMSWIRE 3 from the company website (a real 3rd party reliable source) a bunch of blogs...expressly banned by wikipedia rules
403:, These seem to be done by staff members, which is good, but you have to show that it's a reliable site. A good place to start asking questions would be with
829:
I also see that AvePoint was listed in Deloitte and Inc. magazine's lists of fastest-growing companies: any similar listings or recognition for this company?
457:
What's this??? So all the online magazines and newspapers are all not reliable because you don't know if the person writing is an expert??? This is insane!
378:
390:
This is another link for the awards in the first link. Again, the biggie here is showing that this award is notable outside of the SharePoint community.
127:
815:. If you can find references like those for the company, verifying that either it or the product is notable, then the article would probably be kept.
722:
644:
404:
284:
I will be more than happy to provide AGAIN reference and example for each one of my points, resting assured that you won't delete my answer again.
398:
869:
522:
In any case, since we have so many new users here for this article, I'm going to elaborate on what is considered to be a reliable source per
682:
95:
90:
353:
99:
275:
Press Releases have also been included as references by other articles. in 11 references I have included, only one is a press release
17:
349:
330:
82:
182:
149:
624:
408:
203:
922:
40:
143:
676:
903:
886:
861:
838:
824:
783:
757:
734:
707:
703:
688:
656:
637:
557:
543:
511:
487:
446:
334:
298:
255:
235:
215:
139:
64:
870:
http://www.informationweek.com/thebrainyard/news/galleries/file_sharing/231500073?queryText=sharepointboost
791:
has similar problems to this article, and may also get deleted if more reliable references can't be found.
318:
899:
857:
730:
553:
460:
CMS WIRE is a source with authority, just look at all the links you can find about it in Knowledge (XXG):
294:
86:
918:
894:
Niether of those counts as indepth coverage and the first one doesn't even seem to mention the product.
882:
779:
652:
633:
539:
507:
483:
442:
345:
326:
272:
Please check if cmswire is or is not already a reliable reference for Knowledge (XXG) just by searching.
36:
549:
290:
189:
878:
775:
479:
341:
322:
834:
820:
753:
251:
231:
211:
78:
70:
812:
796:
600:"SharePoint Awards 2011 Winners". SharePoint Village. sharepointvillage.com. Retrieved 6 June 2011.
527:
382:
199:
792:
670:
175:
699:
499:
498:
by Microsoft itself, but by Action SharePoint Limited, a company that just started back in 2010.
423:
These are press releases and they are never ever seen as a reliable source that shows notability.
895:
853:
808:
745:
726:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
917:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
155:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
648:
629:
535:
503:
438:
607:
So, please, before you juggle with assumptions, next time check your fact straight before.
531:
830:
816:
749:
247:
227:
207:
718:
523:
55:
800:
647:
and debate it there, as this will hopefully be my last attempt to help with this AfD.
116:
478:
can't expect a SharePoint web parts developer to get a Nobel Prize or an Oscar!!
475:
388:
372:
872:
418:
from a press release then it can only be seen as a trivial source at best.
788:
568:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?search=cmswire&title=Special%3ASearch
462:
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?search=cmswire&title=Special%3ASearch
596:
573:
393:
421:
595:
Just to put a period to this point here is my WIKIPEDIA REFERENCE:
804:
314:
reference, why can't this page do the same? What's the problem?
911:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
582:
567:
461:
112:
108:
104:
174:
588:
1 from cmswire and 2 press releases...my compliment!
429:
backing up a fact is not notability in this instance.
188:
877:Information week is absolutely a reliable source!
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
925:). No further edits should be made to this page.
698:fails PP:CORP, bluntly the sources are junk. --
244:list of Software-related deletion discussions
224:list of Business-related deletion discussions
8:
645:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources/Noticeboard
405:Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources/Noticeboard
242:Note: This debate has been included in the
222:Note: This debate has been included in the
597:http://en.wikipedia.org/Colligo_Contributor
574:http://en.wikipedia.org/Metalogix_Software
241:
221:
873:http://www.thesharepointdude.com/?p=1189
868:OK, have a look at these two new refs:
202:; no significant coverage online from
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
811:, all supporting notability per
583:http://en.wikipedia.org/Avepoint
616:per Knowledge (XXG)'s standards
198:No assertion of notability per
385:and can never show notability.
1:
723:reliable sources noticeboard
572:Here is an iconic example:
942:
914:Please do not modify it.
904:03:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
887:03:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
862:08:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
839:06:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
825:06:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
784:05:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
758:10:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
735:16:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
708:15:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
689:18:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
657:18:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
638:03:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
558:02:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
544:12:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
512:09:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
488:08:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
447:06:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
335:05:58, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
299:06:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
65:06:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
256:08:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
236:08:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
216:08:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
585:3 references in total
354:few or no other edits
795:has references from
748:'s reasoning above.
725:for further details.
356:outside this topic.
793:Colligo Contributor
625:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
409:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
204:WP:Reliable sources
48:The result was
809:Profit (magazine)
685:
679:
357:
338:
321:comment added by
258:
238:
63:
933:
916:
683:
677:
673:
339:
337:
315:
193:
192:
178:
130:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
941:
940:
936:
935:
934:
932:
931:
930:
929:
923:deletion review
912:
671:
316:
135:
126:
93:
79:Sharepointboost
77:
74:
71:Sharepointboost
56:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
939:
937:
928:
927:
908:
907:
906:
867:
865:
864:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
797:Windows IT Pro
773:
769:
768:
763:
761:
760:
738:
737:
711:
710:
692:
691:
672:Andrewcrawford
664:
662:
661:
660:
659:
640:
547:
546:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
492:
491:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
458:
455:
452:
431:
430:
424:
419:
413:
396:
391:
386:
376:
369:
368:
367:
366:
359:
358:
310:
309:
304:
302:
301:
286:
285:
281:
280:
276:
273:
270:
266:
265:
260:
259:
239:
196:
195:
132:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
938:
926:
924:
920:
915:
909:
905:
901:
897:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
884:
880:
875:
874:
871:
863:
859:
855:
851:
848:
847:
840:
836:
832:
828:
827:
826:
822:
818:
814:
810:
806:
802:
801:Network World
798:
794:
790:
787:
786:
785:
781:
777:
774:
771:
770:
766:
765:
764:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
740:
739:
736:
732:
728:
724:
720:
716:
713:
712:
709:
705:
701:
700:Cameron Scott
697:
694:
693:
690:
686:
680:
674:
667:
666:
665:
658:
654:
650:
646:
641:
639:
635:
631:
626:
621:
617:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
605:
601:
598:
593:
589:
586:
584:
581:2nd example:
579:
576:
575:
570:
569:
562:
559:
555:
551:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
520:
513:
509:
505:
500:
496:
495:
494:
493:
489:
485:
481:
476:
474:
473:
472:
471:
463:
459:
456:
453:
450:
449:
448:
444:
440:
435:
434:
433:
432:
427:
425:
422:
420:
416:
414:
410:
406:
402:
399:
397:
394:
392:
389:
387:
384:
379:
377:
373:
371:
370:
363:
362:
361:
360:
355:
351:
347:
343:
336:
332:
328:
324:
320:
312:
311:
307:
306:
305:
300:
296:
292:
288:
287:
283:
282:
277:
274:
271:
268:
267:
262:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
240:
237:
233:
229:
225:
220:
219:
218:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
191:
187:
184:
181:
177:
173:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:Find sources:
133:
129:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
913:
910:
896:Stuartyeates
876:
866:
854:Stuartyeates
849:
762:
746:Encycloshave
741:
727:Encycloshave
714:
695:
663:
619:
615:
606:
602:
594:
590:
587:
580:
577:
571:
563:
550:Laurahappy85
548:
451:Come on now!
317:— Preceding
303:
291:Laurahappy85
197:
185:
179:
171:
164:
158:
152:
146:
136:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
879:Sterminator
776:Sterminator
649:Tokyogirl79
630:Tokyogirl79
536:Tokyogirl79
504:Tokyogirl79
490:Sterminator
480:Sterminator
439:Tokyogirl79
352:) has made
342:Sterminator
323:Sterminator
162:free images
831:Scopecreep
817:Scopecreep
813:WP:COMPANY
750:Dialectric
528:WP:PRIMARY
383:WP:PRIMARY
264:microsoft)
248:Scopecreep
228:Scopecreep
208:Scopecreep
200:WP:COMPANY
58:Sandstein
919:talk page
37:talk page
921:or in a
789:AvePoint
375:notable.
350:contribs
331:contribs
319:unsigned
289:Regards
123:View log
39:or in a
684:contrib
168:WP refs
156:scholar
96:protect
91:history
850:Delete
742:Delete
717:Fails
715:Delete
696:Delete
620:cannot
532:WP:COI
140:Google
100:delete
50:delete
805:eWeek
719:WP:RS
564:: -->
524:WP:RS
412:not.)
279:vote.
183:JSTOR
144:books
128:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
900:talk
883:talk
858:talk
835:talk
821:talk
807:and
780:talk
754:talk
744:per
731:talk
704:talk
678:talk
653:talk
634:talk
554:talk
540:talk
508:talk
484:talk
443:talk
346:talk
327:talk
295:talk
252:talk
232:talk
212:talk
176:FENS
150:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
308:Hi,
190:TWL
125:•
121:– (
902:)
885:)
860:)
837:)
823:)
803:,
799:,
782:)
756:)
733:)
706:)
687:)
681:-
655:)
636:)
556:)
542:)
510:)
486:)
445:)
400:,
348:•
340:—
333:)
329:•
297:)
254:)
246:.
234:)
226:.
214:)
170:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
52:.
898:(
881:(
856:(
833:(
819:(
778:(
752:(
729:(
702:(
675:(
651:(
632:(
552:(
538:(
534:)
506:(
482:(
464:.
441:(
344:(
325:(
293:(
250:(
230:(
210:(
194:)
186:·
180:·
172:·
165:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
142:(
134:(
131:)
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.