759:. The number and content of Ghits indicate enough serious independent interest to justify encyclopedic coverage of the neologism "relationship anarchy". That was also the finding of the previous AfD. But it sure doesn't deserve a stand-alone article. There's a good deal of chaff in the sources provided, and with anarchists you're never going to get to an authoritative source anyway, are you? The Midnattssol paper is the most promising as actual social science but it's in Swedish. The Strandell paper is an unholy wreck. (He cites 5 movies, 1 t.v. show and a Pitbull song.) None of the cited sources show any awareness of Fourier or Armand or Emma Goldman. Yes the phrase appears to be notable and verifiable but this idea is 100 years old and already in the encyclopedia. --
1173:. The concept is well-established and notable by a wide margin, it's a fairly common relationship-philosophy and has been for many years. Many of the merge-proposals are nonsensical and demonstrate that the people proposing it do not even understand what the concept is about. The article is fairly poor though, so it should probably be tagged with one of the "needs improvement" templates. For example merging with Sexual Identity is absurd since RA is orthogonal to sex, you can organise your life according to RA principles regardless of what your sexual preferences and identity are.
52:. I believe that the Keep voters have convincingly demonstrated that the concept is covered in reliable sources and deserves to be covered somewhere on Knowledge. However, there isn't full agreement on exactly where this concept should be covered. Many different merge/redirect targets were proposed, and others argued that it should remain in its own standalone article. In the end, no clear consensus emerged on where this content should reside, therefore it defaults to staying where it is for the moment. It should be noted that the content at
94:
799:
individualistic, and coercive attributes of the dominant culture in terms of relationships. The form expressions like non-mono or poly take and their reference to numbers (both make plurality explicit) is important, since it definitely conditions persons interested in new relationship formats, pointing them in a specific direction: to change how many people they interact with, not how they relate.
572:. I didn't look very hard to find this stuff and I'm sure that quite a bit more exists. Given that so much of the coverage comes from Sweden, I'd bet that somebody who speaks Swedish could turn up even more still. I'm not pretending that this is a major topic with mountains of scholarly coverage but there is clearly enough material to justify and support a short article. --
1014:
consensus can be formed, if possible, rather than a "two against one" situation where one of the two for redirection discounts the opinion of the one for merging. I don't view that scenario as an actual consensus. Furthermore, three users have opined with keep !votes as well, although the first one is a bit on the weaker side in terms of evidence.
1039:
Knowledge. You refer to the other potential outcomes as "a stretch", but this is a bit ambiguous. Ultimately, it is much more important for discussions to be closed accurately based upon a close inspection of the evidences presented, relative to various guidelines and policies, and based upon an accurate determination of
624:. Per your Google Book links, it would suffice to cover relationship anarchy as those sources did, as a proportional subtopic within consensual non-monogamy or polyamory. Your Scholar links are undergrad student papers—we do not permit those on Knowledge, nevertheless as establishing independent notability. Every
547:
My main objection to the specific redirect that is that this is clearly not really a sexual identity at all. It is a type or structure of relationship that people of any sexual identity might, or might not, choose to adopt. This makes it qualitatively different from all the other identities listed in
1252:
Um what? I'm accused of being a "single purpose account" on the basis that I've been an infrequent contributor in recent years? That's not what the term means at all and I strongly resent that accusation. This seems like a deliberate attempt to discount my voice not for any valid reason, but instead
1013:
In the discussion, you have cited that link, another user has stated to redirect to the Non-monogamy article, and one other user has opined with a merge !vote. While you may feel that there is nothing to merge, another user feels differently, and I feel that more discussion is warranted so an actual
1308:
I also see that Reddit thread as fairly benign by Reddit standards. The OP is clearly assuming bad faith in an unhelpful way but the people underneath (of which there are only a handful) don't seem to be buying that line. It has been up for 10 days now and it hasn't lead to an influx of angry SPAs.
1287:
Not on the basis of being an infrequent contributor, on the basis the account has been used for a single purpose since
January. I do not think you vote should be discounted and I have said as much in my original reply. I do think it is important context, especially given the canvasing that has gone
1038:
Well, that's fine, and I don't find it particularly complicated either. No offense intended, but you seem to be applying all of the weight of the discussion toward redirection, while downplaying or ignoring other commentary, in favor of your own point of view. This is not how consensus is formed on
62:
of the content of this article, so something should be done about that soon. I'd encourage further discussion on the article's talk page about the best place to host the content of this article instead of starting more AfDs, because it seems clear that there is consensus for this content to appear
822:- limited discussion with "relationship anarchy" directly in the title of articles. Citation databases Scopus (1), Google Scholar allintitle: (4). Future work growing this section within Non-monogamy could help flesh it out and then, if it becomes too big, then future options could be considered.
1326:
If the accounts were simply 'infrequent' accounts I would not have said anything - it's the fact that the only mainspace articles either account has edited since
January (at time of original comment) have been this page. That's the 'important context' I referred to. Especially given the proof of
1304:
I would not describe either of those users as being SPAs. Neither account was recently created for the purpose of promoting a POV. They are both infrequent contributors who, while they may be less familiar with our specific policies than some, are clearly participating in the AfD process in good
1350:
abundant coverage in reliable sources, it's clear to me that it meets notability guidelines. Proposed merge targets are not satisfactory as RA is not limited to romantic or sexual relationships but is a method of envisioning/managing all personal relationships, even platonic ones, and does not
1235:
the very first line says "On
Knowledge, SPA may refer to a single-purpose account." which is what i was referring to. A single purpose account is not the same as a sockpuppet. It is merely an account which seems to be focused almost exclusively on one article or area. It doesn't discount their
776:
I see the idea of anarchy different from anarchism. I believe there are some relationally anarchal statists just as are anarchists that are strictly monogamous. But I see your point, free love, free relations and relationship anarchy are almost the same thing, with one being more theorized and
798:
Relationship anarchy is not an approach that fits into the category of non-monogamies, nor can it be included under the umbrella term of polyamory since it doesn't focus on refuting affective sexual exclusivity. Instead, it centers on challenging the whole set of authoritarian, normative,
1305:
faith. I see no reason to discount their !votes. We let anybody !vote on AfDs, even IPs, excluding only those who are being intentionally disruptive. This is as it should be. Infrequent editors have a right to give an opinion on the odd occasion that they feel moved to give one.
1482:
is basically the same thing, but since there's a main article, it needs to be the target. Merge is needed as the article is short and unlikely to be expanded. Oppose redirect as there is content not found elsewhere worth preserving. Other proposed targets are bad.
1398:. Editors here may want to review some recent changes I made to improve the article. I have done some cleanup of the article, removing bachelor and masters thesis as primary sources such these are generally not considered RS per
917:
There appears to be a consensus not to keep this article and to either merge or redirect, but there's no consensus on the target. Editors suggesting mergers or redirects should discuss the potential target more so as to obtain
557:
555:
As for the references, not all of them are great but ref 2 is a whole published paper about this very subject and some of the others are OK too. There are other sources that could be used. In books, I quickly turned up
346:
214:
561:
1212:
I'm guessing by SPA you mean a sock puppet account, but I am amused to see that is none of the expansions listed at the linked page. If you did not mean that, then which of those expansions was intended?
422:
1323:
As i said above: 'It doesn't discount their opinion but is useful context'. I am not doubting the editors are voting in good faith neither have I argued that their votes should be discounted.
1156:
miss the point. I'd strongly prefer for this article to be improved to make that much clear, but if it is merged with something else it should probably be one of the anarchism pages.
978:
Hopefully more input can occur whereby a merge or redirect target can be more clearly discerned, and so a hopeful consensus can be achieved about whether to merge or redirect.
209:
101:
1436:
due to the several academic & reliable sources. Merging to another article would lead to this information being eroded/confused, this seems like its own distinct concept.
340:
586:
I'll also note that
Swedish Knowledge has had an article on this topic since 2009 and there are articles in several other languages too, some more extensive than this one. --
307:
400:
1402:. I have also removed duplicates in the 'further reading' section as this is discouraged except for articles with reference sections containing 'very many entries'
1475:
1106:
1089:
971:
877:
53:
601:
254:
239:
663:. It is in its third edition in Spain (which implies a lot of attention and interest from the public and the media), has been published also in Mexico (
280:
275:
284:
1190:
Note that the two users above have not edited anything except the article in question (and their own user pages) since
January 2021, they may be
671:), and has been recently translated into English but not yet published, but preliminary information and its contents in English are available
267:
1270:
1518:
1492:
1466:
1445:
1428:
1411:
1388:
1367:
1336:
1318:
1297:
1280:
1262:
1245:
1222:
1203:
1182:
1165:
1132:
1049:
1033:
1020:
1001:
984:
930:
897:
866:
831:
790:
768:
745:
715:
643:
595:
581:
534:
511:
494:
471:
436:
414:
392:
77:
884:. Going by the sources, this is functionally another term for polyamory that happens to be used by a specific anarchist subculture. –
1120:
940:– Consensus is indeed for the article to not be retained, but presently no consensus exists about whether to merge or redirect, and
110:
361:
328:
140:
893:
234:
227:
17:
1080:
given the lack of RS on the concept. The concept doesn't seem notable enough to warrant inclusion in the main
Anarchism page (
659:. There is a 400 page book in Spanish discussing Relationship Anarchy, with thorough research work and hundreds of references
688:
625:
489:
1309:
If it was an attempt to get a brigade going it seems that the RA people are level headed enough not to go along with it. --
1043:, rather than siding with one "camp" or another and then performing an executive decision based upon personal preference.
600:
I wouldn't consider any of those sources suitable for use in an encyclopedia. The
Swedish article is sourced primarily to
552:(even "sapiosexuality", which is utter nonsense but does at at least try to frame itself as if it were a sexual identity).
1377:
1356:
993:
as satisfactory. And the term's already covered there so no need for merger. The other options are more of a stretch.
322:
248:
244:
126:
906:
840:
808:
724:
694:
99:
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
1537:
569:
318:
271:
40:
522:, what sources cover the topic in depth, beyond what could be satisfactorily covered in the existing section of
1441:
1088:
which seem to be more about giving an overview of some of the most notable developments. It is appropriate for
616:, which does not give us more information that could be neatly summarized within another article, whether it's
502:
Hits in Google
Scholar and Google Books suggest that this is a minor but sufficiently notable phenomenon. --
368:
57:
172:
1533:
1514:
1488:
1399:
1314:
1271:
https://www.reddit.com/r/relationshipanarchy/comments/qlkwmy/wikipedia_has_flagged_ra_page_for_deletion/
1152:
are acceptable places to redirect/merge shows how much this article needs lacking, because all of those
1115:
1045:
1016:
980:
711:
591:
577:
507:
36:
1092:- although only a short summary of the term is warranted based on the lack of RS and not a full merge.
1076:
because, as already noted it is not a sexual identity. I believe it is already sufficiently covered in
926:
263:
156:
130:
83:
68:
605:
1462:
1437:
1407:
1372:
I added a further reading section with additional sources showing the notability of this concept. (
1332:
1293:
1241:
1199:
1128:
1097:
1040:
889:
354:
115:
69:
1157:
565:
334:
1424:
804:
684:
676:
668:
485:
162:
93:
1161:
1123:) is a sensible enough compromise, given the improvements to the article since my first vote.
764:
223:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1532:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1510:
1484:
1373:
1352:
1310:
1258:
1218:
1178:
827:
707:
632:
609:
587:
573:
518:
503:
460:
631:
that I could access similarly did not provide any substantial analysis with which we could
1073:
951:
922:
617:
608:
that cites the author's own bachelor's thesis (both unusable). The only source we have is
549:
523:
448:
378:
1506:
1458:
1403:
1328:
1289:
1274:
1237:
1195:
1124:
1093:
1027:
995:
885:
857:
736:
637:
528:
465:
1420:
1228:
800:
785:
680:
481:
433:
411:
389:
1077:
1069:
990:
956:
881:
819:
760:
621:
456:
452:
190:
178:
146:
301:
125:
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
1382:
1361:
1254:
1214:
1174:
823:
1351:
necessarily involve non-monogamy. Nor is it necessarily related to anarchism. (
1453:, somewhere. Content forking by slightly different perspectives. Probably
1327:
canvasing we've seen from someone who is obviously aware of this discussion.
613:
1479:
1454:
1085:
1081:
1008:
966:
961:
756:
703:
660:
381:
however no discussion has brought so here it is. Does this deserves moving?
778:
426:
404:
382:
1253:
simply because I voted in a way that the user happens to disagree with.
664:
672:
1419:. Two academic references to International Conferences also added.
1111:
564:(not as extensive but still something). In Scholar I quickly found
54:
Anarchism and issues related to love and sex#Relationship anarchy
667:), has been translated into Catalan and published in Barcelona (
1528:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1232:
1191:
88:
909:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
843:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
727:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
455:) where it is already covered adequately. There isn't enough
706:- it's not intellectually original, just novel phraseology.
119:(agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments,
215:
Articles for deletion/Relationship anarchy (2nd nomination)
677:
Possible conflict of interest: I'm the author of the book.
1501:
See de facto merger for an illustration of the argument:
423:
list of
Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions
1227:
I didn't mean sock puppet account. I should have linked
1502:
297:
293:
289:
353:
944:
potential merge/redirect targets have been suggested:
921:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
854:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
733:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
604:, a blog. The other links are dead. Then there's
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1540:). No further edits should be made to this page.
421:Note: This discussion has been included in the
399:Note: This discussion has been included in the
1025:I don't think this is nearly that complicated.
401:list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions
1140:. The mere fact that people think that any of
479:. The references seem to indicate notability.
377:Multiple times this article is redirected at
367:
139:Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
109:among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has
8:
1476:Anarchism and issues related to love and sex
1107:Anarchism and issues related to love and sex
1090:Anarchism and issues related to love and sex
972:Anarchism and issues related to love and sex
878:Anarchism and issues related to love and sex
255:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
1480:Anarchism#Gender, sexuality, and free love
1455:Anarchism#Gender, sexuality, and free love
1082:Anarchism#Gender, sexuality, and free love
962:Anarchism#Gender, sexuality, and free love
704:Anarchism#Gender, sexuality, and free love
420:
398:
210:Articles for deletion/Relationship anarchy
113:regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
133:on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
207:
7:
777:precisely defined than the other. —
560:(fairly substantial coverage) and
24:
1509:who was unsure about the target.
240:Introduction to deletion process
92:
1288:on in regards to this article.
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1236:opinion but is useful context
1100:) 20:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
1:
1519:11:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
1493:10:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
1467:11:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
1446:00:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
1429:13:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
1412:21:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
1389:20:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
1368:20:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
1337:23:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
1319:14:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
1298:23:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
1281:05:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
1263:00:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
1246:22:37, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
1223:22:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
1204:19:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
1183:16:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
1166:23:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
1133:13:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
1072:. For me, it shouldn't go in
129:on the part of others and to
78:23:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
1050:16:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
1034:14:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
1021:07:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
1002:04:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
985:04:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
931:03:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
898:00:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
867:11:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
832:14:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
791:15:59, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
769:01:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
746:15:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
716:16:21, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
644:00:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
633:justify a standalone article
596:18:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
582:17:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
535:15:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
512:12:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
495:23:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
472:20:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
457:reliable, secondary sourcing
437:20:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
415:20:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
393:20:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
230:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1557:
1074:Sexual identity#Identities
952:Sexual identity#Identities
550:Sexual identity#Identities
524:Sexual identity#Identities
451:(edit: or, alternatively,
449:Sexual identity#Identities
1530:Please do not modify it.
1078:Non-monogamy#Terminology
1070:Non-monogamy#Terminology
991:Non-monogamy#Terminology
957:Non-monogamy#Terminology
820:Non-monogamy#Terminology
807:) 19:18, 1 October 2024
622:Non-monogamy#Terminology
614:10.1177/1360780418811965
453:Non-monogamy#Terminology
32:Please do not modify it.
626:Google Scholar hit for
206:AfDs for this article:
171:; accounts blocked for
141:single-purpose accounts
111:policies and guidelines
693:19:18, 1 October 2024
228:Articles for deletion
1231:. When you click on
989:Three editors named
264:Relationship anarchy
84:Relationship anarchy
851:If merge, where to?
620:or, alternatively,
123:by counting votes.
102:not a majority vote
1457:per Iskandar323 --
1451:Merge and redirect
1188:Comment for closer
915:Relisting comment:
849:Relisting comment:
461:standalone article
1142:Sexual Identities
933:
869:
865:
748:
744:
439:
417:
245:Guide to deletion
235:How to contribute
204:
203:
200:
127:assume good faith
1548:
1385:
1364:
1279:
1277:
1118:
1086:Free love#Recent
1048:
1032:
1030:
1019:
1012:
1000:
998:
983:
967:Free love#Recent
920:
912:
910:
864:
862:
855:
853:
846:
844:
788:
782:
757:Free_love#Recent
743:
741:
734:
732:
730:
728:
692:
642:
640:
533:
531:
521:
493:
470:
468:
430:
408:
386:
372:
371:
357:
305:
287:
225:
198:
186:
170:
154:
135:
105:, but instead a
96:
89:
75:
73:
56:is currently an
34:
1556:
1555:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1547:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1538:deletion review
1383:
1362:
1275:
1273:
1255:Eivind Kjørstad
1175:Eivind Kjørstad
1110:
1044:
1028:
1026:
1015:
1006:
996:
994:
979:
905:
903:
858:
856:
839:
837:
786:
780:
749:
737:
735:
723:
721:
679:
638:
636:
628:relationsanarki
618:sexual identity
529:
527:
516:
480:
466:
464:
428:
406:
384:
379:sexual identity
314:
278:
262:
259:
222:
219:
188:
176:
160:
144:
131:sign your posts
87:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1554:
1552:
1543:
1542:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1496:
1495:
1478:. No brainer.
1469:
1448:
1438:Caleb Stanford
1431:
1414:
1400:WP:SCHOLARSHIP
1393:
1392:
1391:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1324:
1306:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1207:
1206:
1185:
1168:
1135:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
976:
975:
974:
969:
964:
959:
954:
946:
945:
919:
913:
901:
900:
852:
847:
835:
834:
813:
812:
811:
793:
731:
720:
719:
718:
697:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
606:the term paper
584:
553:
540:
539:
538:
537:
497:
474:
441:
440:
418:
375:
374:
311:
258:
257:
252:
242:
237:
220:
218:
217:
212:
205:
202:
201:
97:
86:
81:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1553:
1541:
1539:
1535:
1531:
1526:
1525:
1520:
1516:
1512:
1511:— Alalch Emis
1508:
1504:
1500:
1499:
1498:
1497:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1485:— Alalch Emis
1481:
1477:
1473:
1470:
1468:
1464:
1460:
1456:
1452:
1449:
1447:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1432:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1415:
1413:
1409:
1405:
1401:
1397:
1394:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1366:
1365:
1358:
1354:
1349:
1346:
1345:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1325:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1316:
1312:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1272:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1225:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1186:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1169:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1136:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1117:
1113:
1108:
1104:
1101:
1099:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1062:
1051:
1047:
1046:North America
1042:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1031:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1018:
1017:North America
1010:
1005:
1004:
1003:
999:
992:
988:
987:
986:
982:
981:North America
977:
973:
970:
968:
965:
963:
960:
958:
955:
953:
950:
949:
948:
947:
943:
939:
936:
935:
934:
932:
928:
924:
916:
911:
908:
899:
895:
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
872:
871:
870:
868:
863:
861:
850:
845:
842:
833:
829:
825:
821:
817:
814:
810:
806:
802:
797:
794:
792:
789:
784:
783:
775:
772:
771:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
751:
750:
747:
742:
740:
729:
726:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
698:
696:
690:
686:
682:
681:User:jcperezz
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
655:
654:
645:
641:
634:
630:
629:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
598:
597:
593:
589:
585:
583:
579:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
554:
551:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
536:
532:
525:
520:
515:
514:
513:
509:
505:
501:
498:
496:
491:
487:
483:
478:
475:
473:
469:
462:
459:to warrant a
458:
454:
450:
446:
443:
442:
438:
435:
432:
431:
424:
419:
416:
413:
410:
409:
402:
397:
396:
395:
394:
391:
388:
387:
380:
370:
366:
363:
360:
356:
352:
348:
345:
342:
339:
336:
333:
330:
327:
324:
320:
317:
316:Find sources:
312:
309:
303:
299:
295:
291:
286:
282:
277:
273:
269:
265:
261:
260:
256:
253:
250:
246:
243:
241:
238:
236:
233:
232:
231:
229:
224:
216:
213:
211:
208:
196:
192:
184:
180:
174:
168:
164:
158:
152:
148:
142:
138:
134:
132:
128:
122:
118:
117:
112:
108:
104:
103:
98:
95:
91:
90:
85:
82:
80:
79:
76:
66:
61:
60:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1529:
1527:
1471:
1450:
1433:
1416:
1395:
1381:
1360:
1347:
1187:
1170:
1153:
1149:
1146:Non monogamy
1145:
1141:
1137:
1102:
1065:
1064:
1041:WP:CONSENSUS
941:
937:
914:
904:
902:
882:Non-monogamy
873:
859:
848:
838:
836:
815:
795:
779:
773:
752:
738:
722:
699:
656:
627:
499:
476:
444:
427:
405:
383:
376:
364:
358:
350:
343:
337:
331:
325:
315:
221:
194:
182:
173:sockpuppetry
166:
155:; suspected
150:
136:
124:
120:
114:
106:
100:
64:
58:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
1311:DanielRigal
1112:Alalch Emis
1109:as done by
708:Iskandar323
588:DanielRigal
574:DanielRigal
519:DanielRigal
504:DanielRigal
341:free images
1505:. Pinging
1154:completely
923:Mikehawk10
918:consensus.
876:to either
860:Sandstein
739:Sandstein
107:discussion
59:exact copy
1534:talk page
1507:SmokeyJoe
1459:SmokeyJoe
1404:Vanteloop
1329:Vanteloop
1290:Vanteloop
1238:Vanteloop
1196:Vanteloop
1150:Free Love
1125:Vanteloop
1094:Vanteloop
886:Roscelese
163:canvassed
157:canvassed
116:consensus
65:somewhere
37:talk page
1536:or in a
1421:Jcperezz
1121:contribs
1084:) or in
1066:Redirect
907:Relisted
894:contribs
874:Redirect
841:Relisted
801:jcperezz
725:Relisted
689:contribs
602:Dr Andie
490:contribs
482:Eastmain
445:Redirect
308:View log
249:glossary
195:username
189:{{subst:
183:username
177:{{subst:
167:username
161:{{subst:
151:username
145:{{subst:
70:—Scotty
39:or in a
1417:Comment
1396:Comment
1158:LeonT85
938:Comment
796:Comment
774:Comment
761:Lockley
347:WP refs
335:scholar
281:protect
276:history
226:New to
159:users:
67:on WP.
1384:buidhe
1363:buidhe
1229:WP:SPA
1215:Vttale
824:Jamzze
319:Google
285:delete
1474:with
1472:Merge
1269:Also
1103:Merge
816:Merge
753:Merge
702:into
700:Merge
362:JSTOR
323:books
302:views
294:watch
290:links
137:Note:
16:<
1515:talk
1503:diff
1489:talk
1463:talk
1442:talk
1434:Keep
1425:talk
1408:talk
1348:Keep
1333:talk
1315:talk
1294:talk
1276:czar
1259:talk
1242:talk
1219:talk
1200:talk
1179:talk
1171:Keep
1162:talk
1138:Keep
1129:talk
1116:talk
1098:talk
1029:czar
1009:Czar
997:czar
942:five
927:talk
890:talk
828:talk
805:talk
765:talk
712:talk
685:talk
673:here
669:here
665:here
661:here
657:Keep
639:czar
592:talk
578:talk
570:this
568:and
566:this
562:this
558:this
530:czar
508:talk
500:Keep
486:talk
477:Keep
467:czar
355:FENS
329:news
298:logs
272:talk
268:edit
72:Wong
1233:SPA
1194:.
1192:SPA
1148:or
1105:to
1068:to
880:or
818:to
809:UTC
781:YT0
755:to
695:UTC
610:doi
447:to
429:YT0
407:YT0
385:YT0
369:TWL
306:– (
191:csp
187:or
179:csm
147:spa
121:not
74:—
1517:)
1491:)
1465:)
1444:)
1427:)
1410:)
1380:)
1376:·
1359:)
1355:·
1335:)
1317:)
1296:)
1261:)
1244:)
1221:)
1202:)
1181:)
1164:)
1144:,
1131:)
1119:·
929:)
896:)
892:⋅
830:)
767:)
714:)
687:•
675:.
635:.
594:)
580:)
526:?
510:)
488:•
463:.
425:.
403:.
349:)
300:|
296:|
292:|
288:|
283:|
279:|
274:|
270:|
197:}}
185:}}
175::
169:}}
153:}}
143::
1513:(
1487:(
1461:(
1440:(
1423:(
1406:(
1378:c
1374:t
1357:c
1353:t
1331:(
1313:(
1292:(
1257:(
1240:(
1217:(
1198:(
1177:(
1160:(
1127:(
1114:(
1096:(
1011::
1007:@
925:(
888:(
826:(
803:(
787:☎
763:(
710:(
691:)
683:(
612::
590:(
576:(
517:@
506:(
492:)
484:(
434:☎
412:☎
390:☎
373:)
365:·
359:·
351:·
344:·
338:·
332:·
326:·
321:(
313:(
310:)
304:)
266:(
251:)
247:(
199:.
193:|
181:|
165:|
149:|
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
