31:
933:
I think the page move is a good idea as it would alter the focus of the article; many hairs are used as approximate measurements worldwide and this one is no more notable than the others. However page moves are not an Afd issue, they are normal editing practice. This Afd should now be closed, and the
616:
This article is ridiculous and has no place in an encyclopedia. The idea that a "red cunt hair" is a unit of measurement is just wrong. Just because we like the joke doesn't mean we should play along by describing this as "a notional unit of infinitesimal measure" when we know it's not. It is nothing
1066:
The reason for deleting it has nothing to do with obscenity, but I think, a case could be made, that much of the motivation to create this page, is because of it. This is clearly a trivia article, the so called concept,is just the usage of a a slang phrase. It has value in a dictionary, but not
619:
So, we have a bunch of claims that there is more than a dictionary definition and well-referenced, both of which are very misguided. As this is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary, finding someone using the word in a sentence in a completely unrelated self-published memoir or book about friendship
1448:
That page is a red herring (and a bit odd to call someone's policy and raise them a guideline). That's not even a inclusion policy, it's about style, as the tag says at the top. Of course we define unfamiliar phrases when we use them in articles, and might even be forced to use a neologism as the
373:
the sort of thing that
Knowledge can cater to well; it;s used within niche circles of society (engineers etc), and 'outsiders' will turn to Knowledge to see what it's all about. It is encyclopaedic; the scope could be broadened, althought his make take time; it is challenging to find good RS for
774:
to!). I don't see much prospect of an article on this specific expression beyond typical dictionary material, such as 1) that it's slang for a very small amount, 2) the etymology of the expression, 3) some example sources of usage. This is exactly what we have, in terser style,
1433:
guideline which is perhaps more on point. I think we define phrases in certain circumstances. If this is one of those that meet our standards should be the debate IMO, not "we don't do this kind of thing" because we clearly do and have guidelines that support doing so.
770:,despite thoroughly endorsing articles on matters other sources may omit. Hair generally (as a unit of measurement or in colloquial speech) may have a prospect for an encyclopedic article, but despite the previous AFD, this one is basically just a DICK DEF (sorry, I just
620:
is not a proper reference. I can find all of the words in this sentence used in in books and quote them, but that doesn't make an encyclopedia article. Nor does a term's listing in dictionaries of slang establish a word's encyclopedic notability;
1400:
Being well referenced, by itself, does not make something encyclopedic. "Red cunt hair'" is still just an idiom, I could just as easily write a well referenced article for "In a pigs eye","Clusterfuck", or "Piss in the wind". Bottom line:
843:
and see if there is anything of significance able to be said about the topic beyond what's likely to be salient in a dictionary. But merely being "a known and citable expression" does not (and never has) by itself qualify a phrase as an
838:
Many DICDEFS can be referenced, impressively or otherwise. A word or expression being widely used just doesn't speak to whether the article can sustain more than definition, etymology and source usages/cites. Take a look at the
749:
We aren't
Wiktionary, or, more importantly, Urban Dictionary, and there's never been any basis to keep this that meets our criteria. How can anyone take Knowledge seriously when nonsense like this isn't deleted immediately?
409:
as I suggested in the previous AFD. In fact the move and expansion of the article to include all uses of "hair" as a unit of measurement is on my todo list, and I just haven't gotten around to it yet.
104:
782:
If an editor can improve this article to say more on the term than a dictionary entry might, then keep, but at present and despite last AFD, the article doesn't seem to have good prospects of that.
1453:. But as Knowledge is not a dictionary, we don't have articles that simply define and discuss a term itself (rather than any encyclopedic concept they name), whether they are neologisms or not.
799:. For an alleged "dictionary definition", this is impressively referenced: indeed, the predominance of reference over text suggests that the existence of the article has been excessively
655:
basically per Chzz. While the phrase "cunt hair" is more popular in my part of the world, This type of terminology is a common meme, and the article is much more than a "definition". —
1100:
as it carries no weight, can you suggest a reason why it's more than a dictionary definition? (Simply being well sourced means nothing - dictionary entries are impeccably sourced too.)
248:, if the issues addressed in the delete votes were addressed, then the nom is considered withdrawn, and then an admin can close it. So to be fixed mainly is the expansion beyond a
1175:- for all the referencing that is in there, it still is a dictionary definition and references are dictionary entries or uses of the phrase and not sources about the sucbject. --
617:
more than a figure of speech that doesn't measure anything, but describes things that are very small; the same goes for whatever the "hair" unit of measurement is supposed to be.
680:
this is supposed to be "more than a definition"? Because it's a common turn of phrase that can be quoted in random sources? I assure you, there are a thousands more common.
1303:
Many people here think that the article is a dictionary definition on a slang term, but what I need to why you thinks this and what can be done to improve this article. --
914:. Notable concept among technicians and engineers for decades, that something needs only the smallest possible tweak to be correctly adjusted. A "Move" equals a "Keep."
164:
1192:
minor neologism or urban slang at best. No widespread notability established - and even if such was, it would still be for a slang dictionary, not for an encyclopedia.
1279:
Perhaps you could try responding to an argument that anyone has actually made against the article, instead strawmen that no one has suggested? The level of real
1116:
a well written and well sourced article which meets all inclusion criteria. Easliy as worth keeping as articles on consumer food products or pokemon characters.
796:
220:
Can only be closed if the nominator withdraws AND nobody else votes delete. This has delete votes (and clearly SHOULD be deleted) so it cannot be closed early.
99:
986:
This is unfortunately, incorrect and poor reasoning. because that definition covers non-notable history, dictionary definitions, and other content that
817:
There is nothing impressive about the references. The term exists in dictionaries and can be found used in literature. The same is true for all words.
1486:"Articles on neologisms: Some of the reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate are: Knowledge is not a dictionary"
514:
If you wish to move a page, this is not the place to do it, I suggest withdrawing the nomination and generating consensus on the articles talk page.
40:
369:
Far more than a dictionary definition; in previous AFD we established notability with literary references that have been added. This expression is
1318:
1271:
601:
506:
445:
354:
267:
190:
628:? Well, nothing, because we aren't actually talking about red cunt hairs here, or units of measurement, we are talking about an English-language
1326:
Maybe actually read the arguments put forward by others and respond to them, instead of asking what our arguments are after we've made them?
1283:
here (i.e., people actually addressing concerns raised about the article and interacting, listing unexplained opinions) is kind of pathetic.
624:
slang words can be expected to be found there. What do we have when we take away the etymology, definition, and quotations—all of which
1543:
131:
126:
1047:
article is well sourced and very informative. I think the naysayers don't like it just because its (in their minds) "too obscene".
135:
1510:
1492:
1461:
1443:
1424:
1390:
1371:
1357:
1334:
1321:
1291:
1274:
1244:
1223:
1201:
1184:
1163:
1144:
1130:
1104:
1087:
1056:
1037:
994:
977:
950:
923:
901:
875:
852:
825:
812:
786:
759:
741:
720:
688:
671:
644:
604:
574:
556:
528:
509:
491:, then would a redirect be sufficient to replace this article? (After moving the content of this article to the said article) --
475:
448:
420:
391:
357:
327:
302:
270:
229:
211:
83:
1506:
NOT a dictionary. It does not matter if the phrase is notable, we don't do dicdefs. This is ILIKEIT idiocy taken to extremes.--
17:
966:"Knowledge Articles are about: a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote.
118:
1313:
1266:
596:
501:
440:
349:
262:
185:
990:
equally. In other words, its not a helpful distinction. Some things of that kind are encyclopecic and some are not.
1252:
on many users here: Like TomCat4680 mentioned many users here think this encyclopedia should be "censored," however
911:
488:
406:
1525:
1507:
1125:
897:
570:
416:
65:
46:
1524:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
64:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
887:" is not a very good reason to recommend deletion. Do you have any additional rationale? In other words, say
1240:
1197:
1140:
1306:
1259:
589:
494:
433:
342:
255:
178:
1253:
884:
323:
288:
122:
1210:
While one can argue notability (and I think it is clearly notable), "slang" terms like this fall under
1159:? And "has excellent sorucing of the term's usage and meaning" isn't really an answer for that point.
1118:
1052:
945:
893:
664:
566:
412:
297:
206:
564:- This AfD can be closed since the nom essentially withdrew the nomination by recommending a move. —
1214:. So if it were notable and met those requirements (which I think it does), it does belong here.
871:
737:
716:
550:
522:
1408:
1193:
1071:
1021:
755:
225:
1348:
and clearly meets WP:N. Also I dislike seeing an AfD come back so quickly after the last one.
1458:
1331:
1288:
973:
822:
685:
641:
58:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1402:
1093:
961:
935:
919:
808:
800:
729:
402:
374:
vulgarisms due to the restraints of traditional sources; Knowledge can do better than that.
319:
249:
173:
1439:
1367:
1353:
1219:
1092:
Comment - incorrect. It would be an automatic endorse if I could see a reason it wasn't a
1048:
940:
659:
633:
292:
201:
1386:
1180:
867:
733:
712:
544:
516:
468:
384:
1362:
No objection to move per
LinguistAtLarge. In fact, that's probably a darn fine idea.
840:
776:
625:
1537:
1477:
1430:
1345:
1211:
1156:
1097:
1011:
987:
803:, when all of that energy could have been spent in actually expanding the article. -
751:
245:
221:
114:
89:
702:
1454:
1327:
1284:
1007:
969:
818:
681:
637:
78:
152:
1236:
1136:
915:
804:
1435:
1363:
1349:
1215:
318:
for same reasons as in Afd #1 , article is well sourced, definitely notable.
1382:
1176:
1135:
You will note that most Pokémon characters do not have individual articles.
461:
377:
934:
editors have at it on the talk page. Completely agree with
Mandsford about
1489:
1160:
1101:
1015:
991:
849:
783:
586:
per
LinguistAtLarge. Yeah, I guess that was essentially a withdraw. --
405:, and has the potential to be expanded more, especially if moved to
968:" 'Red cunt hair' is a concept, not an actual unit of measurement.
1518:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
430:
per
LinguistAtLarge. Actually,I think that would be best now. --
339:
However, I believe it would be best to keep it on
Wiktionary. --
25:
458:
Please see the article talk page for more consensus opinions
1096:. Instead of wondering what others motives are, which is an
636:
is a "notional" unit of currency now, worth of an article?.
795:. This is a repetitious re-nomination; the prior AfD was
1449:
title of an article where the neologism is the best name
632:
itself, as if it were an encyclopedic subject. I suppose
287:
No - DreamGuy is right - relevant policy is tucked away
1429:
I'll call your WP:NOTDIC policy and raise you with the
159:
148:
144:
140:
1155:
Same question as above, what exactly makes this meet
866:
Nonsense like this should be deleted immediately! --
728:
I'll have to admit, the reason for nomination, "Per
105:
Articles for deletion/Red cunt hair (2nd nomination)
68:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1528:). No further edits should be made to this page.
711:, as I now see that it already exists there. --
8:
732:", was hilarious without intending to be.
768:Delete (as already exists on Wiktionary)
1235:, Knowledge is not a slang dictionary.
97:
45:For an explanation of the process, see
701:. This is what Wiktionary is for: see
199:- nominator has withdrawn (see below)
7:
1381:per above, well referenced article.
1344:appears to meet the requirements of
100:Articles for deletion/Red cunt hair
96:
24:
487:If this page were to be moved to
29:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
401:- This is already more than a
1:
676:Will no one actually explain
41:deletion review on 2009 May 2
1484:the same as the nomination:
1098:argument to generally avoid
193:02:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
1560:
1511:22:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
1493:22:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
1462:22:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
1444:12:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
1425:09:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
1391:19:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
1372:19:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
1358:17:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
1335:05:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
1322:00:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
1292:00:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
1275:23:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
1245:17:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
1224:12:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
1202:16:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
1185:12:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
1164:22:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
1145:17:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
1131:03:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
1105:22:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
1088:21:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
1057:17:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
1038:12:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
995:22:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
978:21:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
951:19:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
924:18:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
912:Hair (unit of measurement)
902:19:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
876:18:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
853:17:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
826:17:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
813:16:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
787:14:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
760:14:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
742:12:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
721:12:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
689:13:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
672:06:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
645:04:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
605:22:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
575:03:51, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
557:03:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
529:03:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
510:03:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
489:Hair (unit of measurement)
476:03:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
449:03:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
421:03:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
407:Hair (unit of measurement)
392:03:14, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
358:03:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
328:03:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
303:09:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
271:23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
230:23:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
212:22:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
84:05:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
1451:for an encyclopedic topic
47:Knowledge:Deletion review
1544:Pages at deletion review
1521:Please do not modify it.
61:Please do not modify it.
95:AfDs for this article:
797:just over a month ago
1476:(More to the point,
1067:an encyclopedia.
841:Wiktionary article
699:Move to Wiktionary
73:The result was
891:it is nonsense. —
703:wikt:hairsbreadth
670:
626:a dictionary does
474:
390:
82:
53:
52:
39:was subject to a
1551:
1523:
1422:
1415:
1407:
1316:
1309:
1269:
1262:
1254:Knowledge is not
1121:
1085:
1078:
1070:
1035:
1028:
1020:
988:Knowledge is not
943:
669:
667:
656:
599:
592:
555:
553:
547:
527:
525:
519:
504:
497:
473:
471:
465:
459:
443:
436:
389:
387:
381:
375:
352:
345:
295:
265:
258:
204:
188:
181:
162:
156:
138:
81:
63:
33:
32:
26:
1559:
1558:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1550:
1549:
1548:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1526:deletion review
1519:
1508:Scott Mac (Doc)
1416:
1409:
1405:
1314:
1307:
1267:
1260:
1119:
1079:
1072:
1068:
1029:
1022:
1018:
949:
939:
894:LinguistAtLarge
885:I don't like it
805:Smerdis of Tlön
665:
657:
634:nickel and dime
597:
590:
567:LinguistAtLarge
551:
545:
543:
523:
517:
515:
502:
495:
469:
463:
460:
441:
434:
413:LinguistAtLarge
385:
379:
376:
350:
343:
301:
291:
263:
256:
210:
200:
186:
179:
158:
129:
113:
110:
93:
66:deletion review
59:
37:This discussion
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1557:
1555:
1547:
1546:
1536:
1535:
1531:
1530:
1514:
1513:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1394:
1393:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1297:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1247:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1205:
1204:
1187:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1060:
1059:
1041:
1040:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
981:
980:
954:
953:
944:
927:
926:
906:
905:
904:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
831:
830:
829:
828:
801:lawyered about
790:
763:
762:
744:
723:
694:
693:
692:
691:
649:
648:
610:
609:
608:
607:
578:
577:
559:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
479:
478:
452:
451:
424:
423:
395:
394:
363:
362:
361:
360:
331:
330:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
296:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
235:
234:
233:
232:
205:
171:
169:
168:
109:
108:
107:
102:
94:
92:
87:
71:
70:
54:
51:
50:
44:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1556:
1545:
1542:
1541:
1539:
1529:
1527:
1522:
1516:
1515:
1512:
1509:
1505:
1502:
1501:
1494:
1491:
1487:
1483:
1479:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1463:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1432:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1423:
1421:
1420:
1414:
1413:
1404:
1399:
1396:
1395:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1340:
1336:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1320:
1317:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1302:
1299:
1298:
1293:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1273:
1270:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1255:
1251:
1248:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1231:
1230:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1194:Bali ultimate
1191:
1188:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1171:
1170:
1165:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1151:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1123:
1122:
1115:
1112:
1111:
1106:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1086:
1084:
1083:
1077:
1076:
1065:
1062:
1061:
1058:
1054:
1050:
1046:
1043:
1042:
1039:
1036:
1034:
1033:
1027:
1026:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1002:
1001:
996:
993:
989:
985:
984:
983:
982:
979:
975:
971:
967:
963:
959:
956:
955:
952:
947:
942:
937:
932:
929:
928:
925:
921:
917:
913:
910:
907:
903:
900:
899:
895:
890:
886:
882:
879:
878:
877:
873:
869:
865:
862:
861:
854:
851:
847:
842:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
827:
824:
820:
816:
815:
814:
810:
806:
802:
798:
794:
791:
789:
788:
785:
780:
778:
777:in Wiktionary
773:
769:
765:
764:
761:
757:
753:
748:
745:
743:
739:
735:
731:
727:
724:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
704:
700:
696:
695:
690:
687:
683:
679:
675:
674:
673:
668:
662:
661:
654:
651:
650:
647:
646:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
615:
612:
611:
606:
603:
600:
595:
594:
593:
585:
582:
581:
580:
579:
576:
573:
572:
568:
563:
560:
558:
554:
548:
541:
538:
537:
530:
526:
520:
513:
512:
511:
508:
505:
500:
499:
498:
490:
486:
483:
482:
481:
480:
477:
472:
467:
466:
457:
454:
453:
450:
447:
444:
439:
438:
437:
429:
426:
425:
422:
419:
418:
414:
408:
404:
400:
397:
396:
393:
388:
383:
382:
372:
368:
365:
364:
359:
356:
353:
348:
347:
346:
338:
335:
334:
333:
332:
329:
325:
321:
317:
314:
313:
304:
299:
294:
290:
286:
285:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
272:
269:
266:
261:
260:
259:
251:
247:
244:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
231:
227:
223:
219:
218:
217:
216:
215:
214:
213:
208:
203:
198:
197:Note to admin
192:
189:
184:
183:
182:
175:
166:
161:
154:
150:
146:
142:
137:
133:
128:
124:
120:
116:
115:Red cunt hair
112:
111:
106:
103:
101:
98:
91:
90:Red cunt hair
88:
86:
85:
80:
76:
69:
67:
62:
56:
55:
48:
42:
38:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1520:
1517:
1503:
1485:
1481:
1450:
1418:
1417:
1411:
1410:
1397:
1378:
1341:
1305:
1304:
1300:
1280:
1258:
1257:
1249:
1232:
1189:
1172:
1126:
1124:
1117:
1113:
1081:
1080:
1074:
1073:
1063:
1044:
1031:
1030:
1024:
1023:
1003:
965:
957:
930:
908:
892:
888:
880:
863:
846:encyclopedia
845:
792:
781:
771:
767:
766:
746:
725:
708:
698:
697:
677:
658:
652:
629:
621:
618:
613:
588:
587:
583:
565:
561:
539:
493:
492:
484:
462:
455:
432:
431:
427:
411:
398:
378:
370:
366:
341:
340:
336:
315:
254:
253:
242:
196:
194:
177:
176:
170:
74:
72:
60:
57:
36:
1379:Strong keep
1045:Strong keep
707:Changed to
320:Jezhotwells
1480:also says
1281:discussion
1049:TomCat4680
1403:WP:NOTDIC
1315:Mikemoral
1268:Mikemoral
1094:WP:DICDEF
962:WP:NOTDIC
868:DThomsen8
734:Mandsford
713:The Anome
598:Mikemoral
546:Jenuk1985
542:per Chzz
518:Jenuk1985
503:Mikemoral
442:Mikemoral
403:WP:DICDEF
351:Mikemoral
264:Mikemoral
250:WP:NOTDIC
187:Mikemoral
1538:Category
1120:Schmidt,
1012:DreamGuy
752:DreamGuy
584:Withdraw
246:Per this
222:DreamGuy
165:View log
1482:exactly
1455:Dominic
1419:Willows
1398:Comment
1328:Dominic
1308:The New
1301:Comment
1285:Dominic
1261:The New
1250:Comment
1082:Willows
1064:comment
1032:Willows
1008:Dominic
970:Dlabtot
931:Comment
909:Move to
881:Comment
848:entry.
819:Dominic
726:Comment
682:Dominic
638:Dominic
591:The New
562:Comment
496:The New
485:Comment
456:Comment
435:The New
371:exactly
344:The New
337:Comment
257:The New
243:Comment
180:The New
132:protect
127:history
1504:Delete
1478:WP:NNN
1431:WP:NNN
1346:WP:NNN
1237:Stifle
1233:Delete
1212:WP:NNN
1190:Delete
1173:Delete
1157:WP:NOT
1137:Stifle
1014:&
1004:Delete
936:NOTDIC
916:Edison
864:Delete
747:Delete
730:NOTDIC
709:Delete
630:phrase
614:Delete
174:NOTDIC
160:delete
136:delete
75:delete
1436:Hobit
1412:Misty
1364:Hobit
1350:Hobit
1216:Hobit
1075:Misty
1025:Misty
946:hablo
941:pablo
464:Chzz
380:Chzz
298:hablo
293:pablo
207:hablo
202:pablo
163:) – (
153:views
145:watch
141:links
16:<
1440:talk
1387:talk
1383:Ikip
1368:talk
1354:talk
1342:Keep
1256:. --
1241:talk
1220:talk
1198:talk
1181:talk
1177:Whpq
1141:talk
1114:Keep
1053:talk
1006:Per
974:talk
960:per
958:Keep
920:talk
898:Talk
872:talk
809:talk
793:Keep
756:talk
738:talk
717:talk
660:Ched
653:Keep
571:Talk
552:Talk
540:Keep
524:Talk
428:Move
417:Talk
399:Keep
367:Keep
324:talk
316:Keep
289:here
252:. --
226:talk
172:Per
149:logs
123:talk
119:edit
1490:FT2
1488:.)
1406:...
1161:FT2
1102:FT2
1069:...
1019:...
1016:FT2
992:FT2
889:why
883:- "
850:FT2
784:FT2
772:had
678:how
622:all
1540::
1442:)
1389:)
1370:)
1356:)
1319:♪♫
1272:♪♫
1243:)
1222:)
1200:)
1183:)
1143:)
1055:)
1010:,
976:)
964::
938:.
922:)
896:•
874:)
811:)
779:.
758:)
740:)
719:)
666:?
663::
602:♪♫
569:•
549:|
521:|
507:♪♫
470:►
446:♪♫
415:•
386:►
355:♪♫
326:)
268:♪♫
228:)
195:::
191:♪♫
151:|
147:|
143:|
139:|
134:|
130:|
125:|
121:|
79:BJ
77:.
43:.
1459:t
1457:·
1438:(
1385:(
1366:(
1352:(
1332:t
1330:·
1289:t
1287:·
1239:(
1218:(
1196:(
1179:(
1139:(
1051:(
972:(
948:.
918:(
870:(
823:t
821:·
807:(
754:(
736:(
715:(
705:.
686:t
684:·
642:t
640:·
410:—
322:(
300:.
224:(
209:.
167:)
157:(
155:)
117:(
49:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.