477:
channel is definitely notable. Over 50 million daily viewership, 170k+ subscribers on youtube etc. The sources and information I have added to the article have talked about and expanded on the notability. For example, the mayor of mississauga visiting the TAG TV staff, non related sources mentioning and discussing
1086:
station that had a license but then failed for whatever reason to ever actually get onto the air at all before that license expired, such as the Old CKOO example you alluded to, does not get to keep an article in defiance of the "established broadcast history" and "original programming" criteria just because it
1326:
Well, I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that this is actually a "cable television station" at all — I can't actually find any verifiable evidence that even one cable company in all of Canada actually carries it at all. That's claimed in the article but not adequately referenced as being true,
603:
No, not exactly 0 are about that. Stop cherrypicking linkedin and the primary sources, look at the ones made by non affiliated sources. Linkedin sources have a specific purpose, a very narrow one. 50 million plus daily viewership is very notable i mentioned subscribers as it's a very easy way to gage
1085:
possible source for some of the information that a broadcast station's article needs to contain (e.g. the ERP and HAAT statistics of the transmitter). They don't permanently clinch the station's notability all by themselves if other sources turn out to be well and truly non-existent — for example, a
1013:
despite having been issued a license? To your latter point, you did say, "Keep It is not online only, it is on Cable and IP Boxes. The channel is in association with channels such as BBC, CNN, Fox News, Al
Jazeera etc. It also uses non original research sources such as ANI News etc. Over 50 million
1366:
But also, now that we're deep into the digital cable era, the CRTC did reorganize its licensing criteria a few years ago, and did indeed reclassify cable services as exempt from licensing if they (a) have fewer than 200,000 subscribers nationwide, and/or (b) broadcast 90 per cent or more of their
476:
Someone said above that TAG TV didn't use original sources. I told him they do. The channel is affiliated with companies such as BBC, CNN, Fox News, Al
Jazeera. Listed on multiple IP boxes/IPTV. I've updated the Knowledge (XXG) page with multiple sources and information, hope you take a look. The
371:
It is not online only, it is on Cable and IP Boxes. The channel is in association with channels such as BBC, CNN, Fox News, Al
Jazeera etc. It also uses non original research sources such as ANI News etc. Over 50 million daily viewership on all platforms, would definitely consider it
884:
whether CRTC licensees need multiple, reliable independent sources. This article is in need of some substantial cleanup, expansion, and bare URL reference improvement, but we have a lot of radio and TV stations with little to no sourcing, so I wonder if this is an exception to our
953:, No no I got that, that they need a CRTC license - I don't dispute that as you told me that when an unlicensed CKOO-FM had slipped through the cracks, but do they also need to have multiple reliable, independent sources which cover the station in a significant way?
268:
coverage in unaffiliated media outlets. As always, the bar for getting into
Knowledge (XXG) is not simply the fact that its own self-created web presence metaverifies its existence -- the notability test is the ability to show that it has been the
52:. The primary argument to keep simply does not appear to be based in Knowledge (XXG) policies regarding sourcing and notability. Consensus otherwise seems to support the nominator's suggestion that this fails the relevant notability guidelines. ~
547:, notability is not established by the number of subscribers it has on YouTube, notability is not established by getting an office visit from the mayor of the city — and the list of things you can use as "notability-supporting" sources does
979:
They do, but the CRTC license itself counts as valid notability-supporting sourcing — which means that there's never any such thing as a CRTC-licensed station that's unsourceable. But again, the core point is that I argued
422:. And I cannot find any evidence that they are distributed by any cable company in Canada, or indeed even that they have a license from the CRTC to operate in that manner in the first place — so you can't just
229:
775:
If you're exempt, you don't NEED a license. You still broadcast and it has no bearing on notability. Did you even read the link i sent or are you only trying to win an argument. No need to be patronising.
1233:
operation. There aren't any CRTC licensing documents being shown here at all, because there aren't any to show — the only CRTC "source" that's been brought to bear is its presence in the CRTC's list of
1374:
BuyNow TV may also be problematic, but I'll have to look into it a bit more before I can make a judgement either way — and, of course, it can also be listed for deletion if it actually fails the test.
1347:, and/or overinflated the notability of streaming services by inaccurately claiming that they were real television or radio broadcasters — so the notability test isn't the fact that the article
551:
include
Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Roku, the channel's own self-published website about itself, anything that's a press release from any company's internal PR department, WordPress blogs,
182:
302:
1001:, Okay, I wouldn't have thought CRTC decisions would be independent sources as typically government listings (i.e., Elections Canada) count as primary sources, right? But we
1127:
To summarize, CRTC-licensed radio and television stations are presumed notable until shown otherwise, so the burden of proof is on the "show that other sources absolutely
722:
322:
223:
114:
1296:. The rest of the Google web search results are all directory listings, passing mentions, and copies of the Knowledge (XXG) page. Seems like a pretty clear
129:
1094:
accomplish is shifting the burden of proof: if you can prove that the station has a CRTC license, then you need to prove that the station really, truly
1047:
is the "keep" !vote? Geez, I hate it when extendedconfirmed users forget to sign their comments/posts, which is why I opted in to SineBot.
381:
I've provided a second link below which has their daily news bulletins. Clearly shows they use multiple unaffiliated and reliable sources.
1415:, can you please add your signature to your "keep" !vote above? It's confusing me, and potentially, others as well, as I thought that was
189:
723:
https://applications.crtc.gc.ca/radio-tv-cable/eng/broadcasting-services-List?_ga=2.63587436.2121226200.1578272422-895540273.1578272422
642:
to have 50 million viewers — so the number of viewers that the company claims in its own self-published marketing materials counts for
109:
102:
17:
1147:" side. This one is in the unlicensed/exempt class, however, and the sources that have been shown are not notability-securing ones.
1077:
the CRTC docments alone, but the license documents themselves do count as notability-assisting sources — in part because they're
446:. Again, the notability test is not "it has its own self-published website to verify that it exists" — the notability test is "
1229:
a licensed station. Even
Hindian1947, in his keep arguments, plainly admitted and demonstrated that it's listed as a license-
123:
119:
1081:
to properly verifying that the station even meets the licensing condition in the first place, but also because they're the
1272:...a former, CRTC-licensed station but one which generated no press coverage whatsoever and nothing which would meet our
848:
1476:
1435:
1316:
1215:
1063:
1030:
1009:, reliable sources, so are you saying that, potentially, there's some valid CRTC licensees (radio and/or TV) which fail
969:
906:
630:, being done by a media outlet, with the topic in question as its subject — a company's own self-published claims about
1498:
40:
244:
1164:, Thanks for that very helpful summary on our notability tests for licensed/unlicensed stations, but in this case,
1014:
daily viewership on all platforms, would definitely consider it notable" no? That's why I said "keep per
Bearcat."
211:
155:
150:
753:— "license-exempt" services are not "inherently" notable at all. You just cut off your own legs. Congratulations.
159:
555:
content on Medium.com, the Yellow Pages, or sources which briefly mention TAG TV's existence in the process of
277:, in unaffiliated media outlets, at a volume and depth and geographic range that are sufficient to get it over
928:
have CRTC licenses to be handed a presumption of notability; unlicensed stations are allowed to have articles
142:
1453:
1297:
1277:
1192:
1181:
1121:
933:
350:
282:
1494:
1139:
notable until shown otherwise, and the burden of proof is on the "show that notability-securing sources
1105:
a CRTC license to assist in sourcing the article over the notability hump, the people who want it to be
780:
729:
613:
486:
426:
they're a cable channel and drop the mic, you have to show reliable source coverage, with TAG TV as the
391:
205:
36:
511:
misunderstanding what it's about and what we're looking for. The notability test for a media outlet is
666:
about things like the number of viewers they have, so translating viewership into notability requires
808:
that helps to support the notability of a real licensed radio or TV station. Whether it's allowed to
721:
On the CRTC, it is likely it they are exempt, so that it could potentially be an unfair allegation.
261:
1368:
237:
201:
1273:
519:
with — the notability test for a media outlet is not the extent to which the company has been the
146:
1481:
1440:
1383:
1367:
content in a foreign language (i.e. not
English, French or an indigenous language.) You can see
1321:
1259:, Oh, I wasn't aware that we could have Canadian-based specialty cable television stations that
1251:
1220:
1156:
1068:
1035:
1006:
993:
974:
945:
911:
869:
833:
784:
762:
733:
699:
617:
576:
552:
490:
463:
395:
361:
334:
314:
294:
84:
1293:
1285:
1269:
1379:
1247:
1152:
989:
941:
829:
758:
695:
572:
459:
357:
330:
310:
290:
251:
98:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1493:
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
1468:
1427:
1412:
1308:
1207:
1191:
be met here, by virtue of the CRTC licensing documents and/or one or more sources; however,
1165:
1055:
1022:
961:
898:
776:
725:
609:
482:
387:
138:
90:
1457:
1185:
1177:
1117:
1010:
886:
346:
278:
1110:
265:
1101:
But for unlicensed operations like this one, it's the opposite: precisely because there
654:
of the company's own self-published marketing materials. The notability test, again, is
860:
1343:
created hoax articles about radio or television stations that didn't actually exist
820:
without a broadcasting license, because having a broadcasting license is one of our
217:
1449:
1416:
1375:
1256:
1243:
1161:
1148:
1040:
998:
985:
950:
937:
881:
825:
754:
691:
568:
455:
353:
326:
306:
286:
1172:
station. So, if I've "heard" you correctly, as the nominator, it's incumbent upon
800:
to have articles on here in the absence of really solid media coverage, precisely
176:
563:
TAG TV. What you have to show to establish notability is sources which represent
376:
1461:
1420:
1301:
1200:
1048:
1015:
954:
891:
260:
Article about an online-only "television" channel, referenced only to its own
69:
53:
622:
Yes, exactly zero are that kind. LinkedIn pages may verify facts, but are
384:
824:
criteria for broadcast media being notable enough for inclusion here.
1135:" side of the equation — but unlicensed/exempt stations are presumed
1090:
had a license it never actually used. But what the license documents
1073:
CRTC-licensed stations should ideally have additional sources beyond
410:
reliable sources in their work, it is whether they are or aren't the
1109:
Knowledge (XXG) have the burden of showing that the correct kind of
1336:
686:
reverifying that the things it claims about itself are actually
1489:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1339:
app directory. One of our problems has always been that people
1043:, I see you were the nominator. Geez, how did I miss that? But
604:
notability. Also i have given sources in the articles that are
606:
other media outlets doing journalism about TAG TV as a subject
565:
other media outlets doing journalism about TAG TV as a subject
851:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
920:
You might want to reread my comments if you think "keep per
507:
You're not getting it: the comment above is not incorrect,
1184:. Correct? Based on my preliminary review of the sources,
1351:
the topic has cable distribution, but the quality of the
804:
the lack of a CRTC license means they also lack the CRTC
745:
criteria for the notability of a broadcast media outlet
984:, so there's no such thing as "keep per Bearcat" here.
936:, and there can be no special exceptions to that rule.
172:
168:
164:
567:, and exactly zero of your new sources are that kind.
236:
1098:
have any other sources before you can get it deleted.
527:, it is the extent to which the company has been the
792:
notability standards for broadcast media operations
406:
The notability test is not whether they do or don't
857:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
626:. To support notability, a source has to represent
250:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1501:). No further edits should be made to this page.
321:Note: This discussion has been included in the
301:Note: This discussion has been included in the
932:if they can be referenced well enough to clear
303:list of Television-related deletion discussions
377:http://www.tagtv.info/tv-guide-audience-reach/
8:
924:" is a thing. Television and radio stations
130:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
543:established by what a company claims about
323:list of Canada-related deletion discussions
320:
300:
796:require a license. "Exempt" services are
1371:if you need more information about this.
1335:about its distribution is an entry in a
1280:guidelines. There is one book, which is
1176:to show us that this station fails both
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
1263:require a CRTC license. Interesting.
450:media outlets have produced content
385:http://www.tagtv.info/category/news/
264:website rather than any evidence of
1452:above. CRTC-licensed station fails
812:without a broadcasting license is
24:
608:why are you not mentioning them.
880:for now, until I hear back from
115:Introduction to deletion process
1199:be. Is that a fair assessment?
1005:need at least two, and ideally
515:what other media outlets it is
68:15:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC) ~
1116:exist to get the station over
818:have a Knowledge (XXG) article
741:Oh, so guess what? One of our
658:what the company claims about
650:verified by a reliable source
1:
646:toward notability until it's
1482:16:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1441:03:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
1384:16:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1322:16:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1284:a company which invested in
1252:16:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1221:16:16, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1157:16:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
1143:exist before you can get it
1131:exist before you can get it
1069:03:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
1036:03:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
994:03:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
975:03:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
946:03:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
912:02:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
870:06:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
531:of reliable source coverage
491:06:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
414:of reliable source coverage
396:06:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
85:15:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
1327:and the only source that's
1268:Still, I'm wondering about
834:07:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
785:07:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
763:06:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
734:01:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
700:07:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
618:07:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
577:06:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
464:18:23, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
362:19:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
335:18:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
315:18:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
295:18:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
105:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1518:
1242:need licenses to operate.
636:not evidence of notability
624:not evidence of notability
1491:Please do not modify it.
523:of coverage about other
32:Please do not modify it.
662:— companies can and do
816:— it isn't allowed to
1355:that can be shown to
1331:been shown to verify
103:Articles for deletion
1448:per discussion with
1369:Category B services
537:other media outlets
420:other media outlets
345:not notable, fails
1359:that the claim is
1238:broadcasters that
442:that the claim is
1111:reliable sourcing
872:
868:
751:broadcast license
749:the holding of a
533:about the company
337:
317:
120:Guide to deletion
110:How to contribute
1509:
1479:
1471:
1438:
1430:
1319:
1311:
1218:
1210:
1066:
1058:
1033:
1025:
972:
964:
909:
901:
867:
865:
858:
856:
854:
852:
539:. Notability is
255:
254:
240:
192:
180:
162:
100:
82:
66:
34:
1517:
1516:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1508:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1499:deletion review
1475:
1467:
1434:
1426:
1315:
1307:
1214:
1206:
1062:
1054:
1029:
1021:
968:
960:
905:
897:
873:
861:
859:
847:
845:
674:the company in
266:reliable source
197:
188:
153:
137:
134:
97:
94:
70:
54:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1515:
1513:
1504:
1503:
1485:
1484:
1443:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1372:
1364:
1266:
1264:
1125:
1099:
1038:
915:
914:
855:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
768:
767:
766:
765:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
705:
704:
703:
702:
678:media outlets
638:. Anybody can
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
553:user-generated
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
469:
468:
467:
466:
400:
374:
373:
365:
364:
339:
338:
318:
262:self-published
258:
257:
194:
133:
132:
127:
117:
112:
95:
93:
88:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1514:
1502:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1487:
1486:
1483:
1480:
1478:
1472:
1470:
1465:
1464:
1459:
1455:
1451:
1447:
1444:
1442:
1439:
1437:
1431:
1429:
1424:
1423:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1407:
1406:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1370:
1365:
1362:
1358:
1354:
1350:
1346:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1330:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1320:
1318:
1312:
1310:
1305:
1304:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1288:but which is
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1265:
1262:
1258:
1255:
1254:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1241:
1237:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1219:
1217:
1211:
1209:
1204:
1203:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1175:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1146:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1123:
1119:
1115:
1112:
1108:
1104:
1100:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1067:
1065:
1059:
1057:
1052:
1051:
1046:
1042:
1039:
1037:
1034:
1032:
1026:
1024:
1019:
1018:
1012:
1008:
1004:
1000:
997:
996:
995:
991:
987:
983:
978:
977:
976:
973:
971:
965:
963:
958:
957:
952:
949:
948:
947:
943:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
918:
917:
916:
913:
910:
908:
902:
900:
895:
894:
890:
888:
883:
879:
875:
874:
871:
866:
864:
853:
850:
835:
831:
827:
823:
819:
815:
814:not the point
811:
807:
803:
799:
795:
791:
788:
787:
786:
782:
778:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
764:
760:
756:
752:
748:
744:
740:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
731:
727:
724:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
684:independently
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
661:
657:
653:
649:
648:independently
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
621:
620:
619:
615:
611:
607:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
492:
488:
484:
480:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
465:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
409:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
398:
397:
393:
389:
386:
382:
379:
378:
370:
367:
366:
363:
359:
355:
352:
348:
344:
341:
340:
336:
332:
328:
324:
319:
316:
312:
308:
304:
299:
298:
297:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
272:
267:
263:
253:
249:
246:
243:
239:
235:
231:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
207:
203:
200:
199:Find sources:
195:
191:
187:
184:
178:
174:
170:
166:
161:
157:
152:
148:
144:
140:
136:
135:
131:
128:
125:
121:
118:
116:
113:
111:
108:
107:
106:
104:
99:
92:
89:
87:
86:
83:
81:
77:
73:
67:
65:
61:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1490:
1488:
1474:
1466:
1462:
1454:WP:CORPDEPTH
1445:
1433:
1425:
1421:
1408:
1360:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1340:
1332:
1328:
1314:
1306:
1302:
1298:WP:CORPDEPTH
1289:
1281:
1278:WP:CORPDEPTH
1260:
1239:
1235:
1230:
1226:
1213:
1205:
1201:
1196:
1193:WP:CORPDEPTH
1188:
1182:WP:CORPDEPTH
1173:
1169:
1144:
1140:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1122:WP:CORPDEPTH
1113:
1106:
1102:
1095:
1091:
1087:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1061:
1053:
1049:
1044:
1028:
1020:
1016:
1002:
981:
967:
959:
955:
934:WP:CORPDEPTH
929:
925:
921:
904:
896:
892:
877:
876:
862:
846:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
801:
798:not entitled
797:
793:
789:
750:
746:
742:
720:
687:
683:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
659:
655:
651:
647:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
605:
564:
560:
556:
548:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
478:
451:
447:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
399:
383:
380:
375:
368:
351:WP:PROMOTION
342:
283:WP:CORPDEPTH
274:
270:
259:
247:
241:
233:
226:
220:
214:
208:
198:
185:
96:
79:
75:
71:
63:
59:
55:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1456:and likely
1413:Hindian1947
1088:technically
777:Hindian1947
726:Hindian1947
670:to be done
652:independent
610:Hindian1947
483:Hindian1947
388:Hindian1947
224:free images
1463:Doug Mehus
1422:Doug Mehus
1419:'s !vote.
1303:Doug Mehus
1300:fail, eh?
1202:Doug Mehus
1050:Doug Mehus
1017:Doug Mehus
956:Doug Mehus
893:Doug Mehus
889:, perhaps?
863:Sandstein
668:journalism
628:journalism
517:affiliated
416:about them
275:journalism
273:of actual
1495:talk page
1460:as well.
1294:BuyNOW TV
1286:BuyNOW TV
1274:WP:SIGCOV
1270:BuyNOW TV
1195:may well
1079:essential
37:talk page
1497:or in a
1333:anything
1329:actually
1170:licensed
849:Relisted
806:sourcing
682:itself,
440:verifies
438:, which
372:notable.
183:View log
124:glossary
39:or in a
1450:Bearcat
1417:Bearcat
1409:Comment
1376:Bearcat
1353:sources
1257:Bearcat
1244:Bearcat
1225:No, it
1162:Bearcat
1149:Bearcat
1145:created
1133:deleted
1096:doesn't
1041:Bearcat
999:Bearcat
986:Bearcat
951:Bearcat
938:Bearcat
926:have to
882:Bearcat
826:Bearcat
810:operate
802:because
755:Bearcat
692:Bearcat
680:besides
644:nothing
569:Bearcat
529:subject
521:creator
456:Bearcat
436:creator
428:subject
412:subject
354:Wm335td
327:Bearcat
307:Bearcat
287:Bearcat
271:subject
230:WP refs
218:scholar
156:protect
151:history
101:New to
1458:WP:GNG
1446:Delete
1357:verify
1345:at all
1292:about
1261:didn't
1236:exempt
1231:exempt
1186:WP:GNG
1178:WP:GNG
1166:Tag TV
1118:WP:GNG
1011:WP:GNG
982:delete
887:WP:GNG
660:itself
632:itself
559:being
545:itself
525:things
509:you're
479:TAG TV
347:WP:GNG
343:Delete
279:WP:GNG
202:Google
160:delete
139:TAG TV
91:TAG TV
50:delete
1282:about
1240:don't
1227:isn't
1168:is a
1129:don't
1103:isn't
1007:three
676:other
672:about
640:claim
561:about
454:it".
452:about
448:other
245:JSTOR
206:books
190:Stats
177:views
169:watch
165:links
16:<
1380:talk
1361:true
1349:says
1341:have
1337:Roku
1276:and
1248:talk
1180:and
1153:talk
1120:and
1114:does
1083:only
1075:just
990:talk
942:talk
930:only
878:Keep
830:talk
822:core
781:talk
759:talk
743:core
730:talk
696:talk
688:true
634:are
614:talk
573:talk
487:talk
460:talk
444:true
434:the
430:and
392:talk
369:Keep
358:talk
331:talk
311:talk
291:talk
281:and
238:FENS
212:news
173:logs
147:talk
143:edit
1411:to
1290:not
1197:not
1189:may
1174:you
1137:not
1045:who
790:Our
664:lie
656:not
557:not
549:not
541:not
535:in
513:not
432:not
424:say
418:in
408:use
252:TWL
181:– (
1382:)
1250:)
1155:)
1141:do
1107:in
1092:do
1003:do
992:)
944:)
922:me
832:)
794:do
783:)
761:)
747:is
732:)
698:)
690:.
616:)
575:)
489:)
481:.
462:)
394:)
360:)
349:.
333:)
325:.
313:)
305:.
293:)
285:.
232:)
175:|
171:|
167:|
163:|
158:|
154:|
149:|
145:|
1477:C
1473:·
1469:T
1436:C
1432:·
1428:T
1378:(
1363:.
1317:C
1313:·
1309:T
1246:(
1216:C
1212:·
1208:T
1151:(
1124:.
1064:C
1060:·
1056:T
1031:C
1027:·
1023:T
988:(
970:C
966:·
962:T
940:(
907:C
903:·
899:T
828:(
779:(
757:(
728:(
694:(
612:(
571:(
485:(
458:(
390:(
356:(
329:(
309:(
289:(
256:)
248:·
242:·
234:·
227:·
221:·
215:·
209:·
204:(
196:(
193:)
186:·
179:)
141:(
126:)
122:(
80:a
78:c
76:z
74:a
72:m
64:a
62:c
60:z
58:a
56:m
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.