775:, but edit the article to place it better in context. This is an article which, in one form or another, has been around for quite some time, and it's well worth having an article on the subject. Even as is, it contains enough info and is notable enough to justify its own article - this is probably Dawkins' favourite argument, in TGD and elsewhere, and also something that has been responded to by a number of other people.
198:. Well, no - the AfD discussion is not finished. Please do not make all our minds up for us! The original proposer may have changed her mind, and the article has changed substantially during the course of the debate, but there is still a discussion taking place, and we need to agree whether to (a) leave it where it is; or (b) delete it; or (c) turn it back into a redirect to
752:. Although 3 of the commentators criticise the argument and only one defends it, this is an accurate reflection of the critical debate and the article itself takes no POV on which commentators are right. If course the article can be improved but it is way above the notability threshold IMHO. And there is too much material to incorporate into
542:"XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or Neutral Point of View (NPOV) debate is generally an abuse of process, and the article will usually be
837:- I like the "improbability of God" suggestion, it would enable one to look at the argument itself - which is significant - in its broader historical context, would be a good way of arranging material, and would be very helpful. Am trying to work out how to strikethrough my previous vote. Thanks, Merzul.
934:
as this sets a new standard for other articles for the improbability-of-ultimate-being (of which this allusion is just one of that class). Previously it was hard to have such recently invented neologisms get traction in
Knowledge (XXG) even when other "notable" people had referenced the neologism. So
649:
Hi Sophia. Well final comment: I certainly intend that this article should "represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each" and I believe that it does so. But if you can find verifiable sources that I have
183:
I agree that the name chosen by
Dawkins is slightly unfortunate, but no other reasonable name used by notable commentators has been suggested. I've started a section on the talk page about it and if we can find a name that is used by at least 4 notable commentators and has at least 300 ghits then we
974:
Yes, in essence what the
Stenger link has in it is almost a full list of articles for this set of improbability hypothesis examples. We do not really have each of these very well documented as nicely as the current '747 article in Knowledge (XXG) (POV aside). That the '747 article today appeals to
620:
a POV fork. The balance of the article fairly reflects published sources: if you can find futher notable published sources that support the argument please add them (disputes about 63:27 balance seem to be disputes about content to me). But I don't think further responses from me here are helpful.
723:
The article is a substantial reworking of the original article providing thoroughly reliable and verifiable sources addressing the
Ultimate Boeing 747 argument as an integral argument separate and apart from the book. The result of the previous AfD is irrelevant and the vote here is meaningless
532:
Well in word count it's 37:63 but NPOV does not mean exactly the same number of words for and against: it means reporting fairly and NPOV what notable commentators have said. Other editors can judge for themselves whether "stinks" and "dishonest" are good arguments for deletion or
184:
can rename the article later - I would not oppose a consensus to rename if it emerges from the talk pages after this AfD (though I would contribute to the debate). But let's close this AfD, with thanks to all contriubtors, and get on with improving the article and others.
975:
some people need not mean that tomorrow the article will have the same appeal. So it may end up more ironic than sarcastic if you consider what could be planned for the future using '747 as the catalyst for change ends up not being congruent to the essence of my reply.
436:
Because the article can't be written without undue weight problems. This analogy used by
Dawkins is reported in a couple of sentences and the the rest of the article (several paragraphs and the real point of the article) is used to criticize it. A classic POV fork.
789:, and some title along such lines would be more appropriate if we want an article on the underlying argument. The only advantage of this current title is that we have a nice image of an aeroplane with a caption highly suitable for an uncyclopedia. --
1212:- The article has a good collection of citations discussing this argument in the book. It is too long to merge into the article about the book, which is already pretty long. WP is not paper, so we certainly have room for this level of detail. --
498:'s new book on. As for the deletion policy - your link does not address POV forks. What it does do is highlight my concerns - is this article capable of an NPOV stance with good authorship and I still say no. It has become a vehicle to reduce
284:. It is rubbish. It is untrue. Discussion on the content of the article is taking place on the talk page, and I have justified everything I have done - which is designed to improve the article, not to make it more likely to be deleted.
695:
is now editing the article to take out refs to make it appear more one-sided. I don't think it is proper for people who are trying to get an article deleted to edit it to make it worse in the hope that this will boster their case.
809:
that already contains the relevant criticism by
Plantinga and Orr, or what I would now prefer rename this so we can give a proper treatment of the "improbability of God" or "scientific arguments against the existence of God", see
518:. Well said, Sophia. This whole article stinks. It's a million miles from an honest attempt at an NPOV encyclopedia article. The whole enterprise is built on spotting an opportunity to indulge in some dishonest Dawkins-bashing.
822:
without some serious original research, and I don't think it is NPOV to use an outline proposed by a critic. In any case, given the current sources, the only article we can write here is "Criticism of the
Ultimate 747 Gambit".
400:
is adding material about a slightly different but related argument made by
Dawkins in the same chapter, but I can see no strong reason for not including it as well although technically it's not the "747 Gambit".
602:
that this should be treated in the main article. Claiming that Sophia is abusing the AfD process is therefore an unfounded personal attack. Please recall that when you, NBeale, were concerned with neutrality
607:, we didn't accuse you of trying to suppress information, so let's continue this debate assuming good faith... on both sides of course. After all, many philosophers argue that God is watching this... --
125:
846:
Thanks for considering it, now another thing that requires consideration would be the actual title. "Improbability of God" is maybe slightly POV. That's certainly the title of
Dawkins' essay and
318:
This is an unfounded personal attack and I invite anyone interested to review the points we have raised on the talk page and judge for themselves whether they are valid or not.
117:
1002:
in the end and that this one aspect of the book needs to stay in the book article until more people create stand-alone books or articles e.g. "The '747 Delusion" or similar.
486:
Nice misrepresentation of the article. One section (tiny) is the lead, the second section (tiny) is the background, the third section is an OR synopsis of
Dawkins argument
571:
attacking the theory than explaining it). Wikilawyer your way out of that one NBeale. This is NOT a content dispute and I resent your attempts to slur honest editors.
1031:
756:
article which is already a bit long. FWIW I am the original author of the article, but the need for it was identifed by another Editor who put in a WikiLink from
90:
85:
502:
to criticism of one particular phrase via an eclectic mix of OR and apologetics and I see no hope that focusing on this one phrase will produce anything else.
94:
724:
without referencing the article as it exists. This is an unfortunate but ancient tactic of voting to get rid of an article while simultaneously butchering it.
427:
a valid reason for deletion. Please explain if/why I am mistaken, if not you might want to consider changing your vote (PS I am the author as noted below)
77:
919:
This is a rather specific argument used in the book and addressed in reliable and verifiable sources. The argument exists separately from the book.
786:
878:
157:
Needs to reflect the broader remit that is now being discussed. This article should redirect to the new one that has been so well worked by
1014:
we need some Dawkins-cruft to one day outnumber the pokemon articles. I is ironic that an anti-God book should be treated in this way.
908:
818:
on its own, neither is Dawkins a philosopher, so we can't expect to extract a logical outline of the argument from a popular text like
300:. It is not worthy of you to impugn the motives of fellow-editors in this way. Again, I invite you to retract your comment completely.
17:
594:. We might not be right in these concerns, but since this argument has not been mentioned anywhere other than in book reviews of
392:& another Editor who wants to delete have have been editing down the article to remove more than half this sourced material.
1181:
811:
81:
1244:
1216:
1204:
1192:
1172:
1160:
1148:
1101:
1085:
1069:
1057:
1045:
1018:
1006:
979:
960:
939:
923:
911:
893:
862:
841:
827:
793:
780:
764:
728:
714:
700:
682:
644:
625:
611:
579:
551:
522:
510:
478:
445:
431:
405:
326:
304:
288:
273:
229:
206:
188:
169:
147:
58:
1081:, and the fact that various commentators use it as a means of attacking Dawkins's ideas does not mean it merits an article.
1132:
1259:
538:
471:
463:
420:
416:
36:
73:
64:
1224:- Too long for merge, is notable and referenced, so cannot delete. Some NPOV arguments above have tended to argue
1168:, seems good as a separate article; considerable length. Notable and referenced. If there's a POV issue, fix it.
855:
633:
560:
1258:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
202:; or (d) make it a redirect to somewhere else; or (e) keep it but rename it. I think those are the choices.
956:? This question is itself not intended to be sarcastic or clever in any way, I'm actually confused here. --
161:
et al. as this will allow for true balance and an exploration of the sources for this convincing argument.
785:
True, but the current title is very restrictive and TGD specific. Dawkins has an essay from 1998 entitled
616:
Thanks for pointing out the POV fork policy. Seems perfectly clear from reading this that this article is
604:
365:
1053:
I learned something useful from this article and that's my guideline for the usefulness of an article.
1027:
1118:
1065:
per nom. The work itself, God Delusion, is WP:N, I don't know that one aspect of the book is. --
885:
so I think there is some sorting out to do before we create yet another article on the same theme.
139:. POV fork deleted and redirected 4 months ago. One tenacious editor determined to challenge this.
949:
1241:
377:
999:
494:
is the criticism section. Hardly 50:50. The article as it now stands is just a tag line to hang
1237:
838:
777:
373:
56:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
953:
591:
586:
Indeed, this is not a protest strategy in a content debate, the problem is that this article
1185:
1126:
1114:
1110:
1094:
1078:
1066:
1039:
1015:
995:
882:
851:
819:
806:
757:
753:
745:
595:
499:
381:
219:
199:
136:
534:
495:
369:
353:
349:
345:
1201:
1189:
1169:
1098:
850:'s book, but perhaps we can think of a more neutral title... And Sophia, note that the
847:
711:
692:
679:
519:
389:
361:
301:
285:
203:
450:
Well the article has 4 sections, 3 expound the argument and the 4th has 3 critics and
344:
that he is trying to make, which is discussed by at least 8 notable commentators: (1)
1145:
1054:
948:
Do you really think we would benefit from having articles on each argument mentioned
920:
725:
748:. However since then we have seen four notable commentators address this argument.
1082:
1003:
976:
936:
357:
49:
111:
854:
and most arguments we cover with individual articles aren't quite like this. The
1233:
1157:
1122:
1035:
957:
886:
859:
858:
is highly related, but seems more of an "impossibility of God" type argument. --
824:
790:
761:
697:
637:
622:
608:
572:
548:
503:
475:
438:
428:
402:
397:
393:
385:
319:
270:
266:
262:
222:
185:
162:
158:
140:
1121:. I am also a bit disturbed by the accusations and talk page messages made by
998:
as per nom - after a nights sleep I feel my previous keep really would be for
1213:
636:
questions would be most helpful to others trying to follow this discussion.
1180:- I do not want clog up this AfD debate with further cruft, but please see
750:
This new article is carefully refed and quite different from the old one
419:. The only reference in this policy that I can find that is relevant is
254:. Please bear this in mind, and check that you are looking at a version
1232:
of the arguments seems to be speaking for itself! Perhaps a rename, as
296:- even with your changes to the text of your comment, it is still an
632:
As you are the major proponent for this article your answers to the
454:
2 supporters, so it's pretty much 50:50; and Dawkins thinks it's an
1184:
for a summary of why I think this article should be a redirect to
1093:
A useful summary that is handy to have as a separate article from
1252:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
563:. That is the issue here and your figures confirm the problem -
415:
I cannot see that "POV fork" is a valid reason for deletion in
1228:
to suggest anti-Dawkins bias. Here, if allowed to remain, the
1142:
1140:
1138:
1136:
249:
to make it worse to support their deletion arguments(!)
107:
103:
99:
1026:— It's a curious argument that reminds me a little of
460:"POV Fork" seems not to be a valid reason for deletion
740:. The orginal article was arguably premature in that
907:. This is a standalone argument based on the book.--
744:the only notable reference to this argument was in
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1262:). No further edits should be made to this page.
567:according to the numbers you have given (ie 26%
1032:Category:Arguments against the existence of God
590:be presented neutrally. The relevant policy is
650:missed, please add to them to the article and
678:per nom - and as per decision last November.
559:One important point you neatly gloss over is
8:
259:with the 8 notable commentators (see below)
565:63% of the article is devoted to criticism
1200:- This article stands on its own merits.
396:23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC). Now instead
265:22:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (amended by
760:13 days before I created the article.
269:23:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)and then by
879:Argument against the existence of God
621:Let's allow other Editors to decide.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
336:The article is not about Dawkins's
218:There is already an article on the
1077:per nom. It is just one aspect of
24:
488:taken from a critic of the theory
252:to remove half the refed material
181:the AfD nomination is withdrawn?
256:from a proponent of the article
909:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
708:Please retract that accusation
658:it. 09:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
282:please retract that accusation
1:
654:it. This is not a reason for
935:I'm happy that this sticks.
1279:
1245:14:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
1217:10:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
1205:19:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
1193:08:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
1173:07:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
1161:19:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
1149:09:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
1102:08:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
1086:07:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
1070:23:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
1058:14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
1046:21:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
1019:13:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
1007:02:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
980:14:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
961:00:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
940:10:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
924:03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
912:01:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
894:19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
863:00:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
842:00:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
828:23:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
794:23:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
787:"The Improbability of God"
781:22:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
765:22:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
729:14:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
715:23:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
701:14:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
683:22:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
645:06:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
626:06:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
612:23:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
580:22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
552:22:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
523:22:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
511:19:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
479:07:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
446:22:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
432:22:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
423:which suggests that it is
406:16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
327:23:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
305:16:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
289:23:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
274:16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
230:00:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
207:20:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
189:18:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
170:17:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
148:22:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
74:Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit
65:Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit
59:23:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
856:argument from poor design
298:unfounded personal attack
1255:Please do not modify it.
1030:. Probably should be in
179:I think this means that
32:Please do not modify it.
881:currently redirects to
814:. Dawkins' argument is
490:. The biggest section
342:philosophical argument
334:8 Notable Commentators
835:Change vote to Rename
458:not an analogy. But
366:William F. Vallicella
240:Sophia and Snalwimba
1117:. This article is a
1028:Bayesian probability
247:editing the article
952:, or are you being
805:Either redirect to
261:, before you vote.
1135:). (Some examples:
816:not notable enough
464:WP:Deletion policy
417:WP:Deletion policy
378:Lawrence M. Krauss
592:WP:NPOV#POV forks
1270:
1257:
1186:The God Delusion
1115:Existence of God
1111:The God Delusion
1095:The God Delusion
1079:The God Delusion
996:The God Delusion
891:
883:Existence of God
852:existence of God
820:The God Delusion
807:The God Delusion
758:The God Delusion
754:The God Delusion
746:The God Delusion
642:
596:The God Delusion
577:
535:personal attacks
508:
500:The God Delusion
472:specifically not
443:
324:
227:
220:Existence of God
200:The God Delusion
167:
145:
137:The God Delusion
126:first nomination
115:
97:
67:(2nd Nomination)
54:
34:
1278:
1277:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1260:deletion review
1253:
887:
803:Redirect/Rename
638:
634:WP:Undue weight
600:genuine concern
573:
561:WP:Undue weight
537:. According to
504:
496:Alister McGrath
470:that it may be
439:
370:Michael Shermer
354:Alvin Plantinga
350:Alister McGrath
346:Richard Dawkins
320:
223:
163:
155:Keep but Rename
141:
88:
72:
69:
50:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1276:
1274:
1265:
1264:
1248:
1247:
1219:
1207:
1195:
1175:
1163:
1151:
1104:
1088:
1072:
1060:
1048:
1021:
1009:
988:
987:
986:
985:
984:
983:
966:
965:
964:
963:
927:
926:
914:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
868:
867:
866:
865:
848:Michael Martin
831:
830:
799:
798:
797:
796:
768:
767:
734:
733:
732:
731:
718:
717:
704:
703:
686:
685:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
647:
584:
583:
582:
527:
526:
525:
410:
409:
408:
362:Daniel Dennett
340:but about the
331:
330:
329:
308:
307:
291:
235:
234:
233:
232:
210:
209:
192:
191:
173:
172:
122:
121:
68:
62:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1275:
1263:
1261:
1256:
1250:
1249:
1246:
1243:
1242:Old Moonraker
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1220:
1218:
1215:
1211:
1208:
1206:
1203:
1199:
1196:
1194:
1191:
1187:
1183:
1179:
1176:
1174:
1171:
1167:
1164:
1162:
1159:
1155:
1152:
1150:
1147:
1143:
1141:
1139:
1137:
1134:
1131:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1105:
1103:
1100:
1096:
1092:
1089:
1087:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1073:
1071:
1068:
1064:
1061:
1059:
1056:
1052:
1049:
1047:
1043:
1042:
1037:
1033:
1029:
1025:
1022:
1020:
1017:
1013:
1010:
1008:
1005:
1001:
997:
993:
990:
989:
982:
981:
978:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
962:
959:
955:
951:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
941:
938:
933:
925:
922:
918:
915:
913:
910:
906:
903:
902:
895:
892:
890:
884:
880:
877:
874:
873:
872:
871:
870:
869:
864:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
844:
843:
840:
836:
833:
832:
829:
826:
821:
817:
813:
812:the talk page
808:
804:
801:
800:
795:
792:
788:
784:
783:
782:
779:
776:
774:
770:
769:
766:
763:
759:
755:
751:
747:
743:
739:
736:
735:
730:
727:
722:
721:
720:
719:
716:
713:
709:
706:
705:
702:
699:
694:
691:
688:
687:
684:
681:
677:
674:
673:
657:
653:
648:
646:
643:
641:
635:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
624:
619:
615:
614:
613:
610:
606:
601:
597:
593:
589:
585:
581:
578:
576:
570:
566:
562:
558:
555:
554:
553:
550:
547:
545:
540:
536:
531:
528:
524:
521:
517:
514:
513:
512:
509:
507:
501:
497:
493:
489:
485:
482:
481:
480:
477:
473:
469:
465:
462:according to
461:
457:
453:
449:
448:
447:
444:
442:
435:
434:
433:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
411:
407:
404:
399:
395:
391:
387:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
363:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
339:
335:
332:
328:
325:
323:
317:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
306:
303:
299:
295:
292:
290:
287:
283:
279:
278:
277:
275:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:
253:
250:
246:
243:
239:
231:
228:
226:
221:
217:
214:
213:
212:
211:
208:
205:
201:
197:
194:
193:
190:
187:
182:
178:
175:
174:
171:
168:
166:
160:
156:
153:
152:
151:
150:
149:
146:
144:
138:
134:
129:
127:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
55:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1254:
1251:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1209:
1197:
1177:
1165:
1153:
1129:
1106:
1090:
1074:
1062:
1050:
1040:
1023:
1011:
991:
973:
931:
929:
928:
916:
904:
888:
875:
834:
815:
802:
772:
771:
749:
741:
737:
710:. See talk.
707:
689:
675:
655:
651:
639:
617:
599:
587:
574:
568:
564:
556:
543:
541:
529:
515:
505:
491:
487:
483:
467:
466:, indeed it
459:
455:
451:
440:
424:
412:
358:H. Allen Orr
341:
337:
333:
321:
315:
297:
293:
281:
258:
255:
251:
248:
244:
241:
237:
236:
224:
215:
195:
180:
176:
164:
154:
142:
132:
131:
130:
123:
51:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1156:per nom. --
1067:Pastordavid
1016:David Spart
742:at the time
544:speedy kept
452:1 supporter
598:, it is a
474:a reason.
1202:YankeeGal
1190:Snalwibma
1170:Everyking
1099:Gillyweed
954:sarcastic
712:Snalwibma
693:Snalwibma
680:Snalwibma
520:Snalwibma
302:Snalwibma
286:Snalwibma
280:NBeale -
204:Snalwibma
1226:quantity
1154:Redirect
1146:Vassyana
1133:contribs
1119:POV fork
1075:Redirect
1063:Redirect
1055:Nardman1
1000:WP:POINT
992:Redirect
921:Alansohn
726:Alansohn
676:Redirect
656:deleting
456:argument
133:Redirect
118:View log
1230:quality
1178:Comment
1083:Gnusmas
1024:Comment
1004:Ttiotsw
977:Ttiotsw
937:Ttiotsw
876:Comment
690:Comment
652:improve
557:Comment
530:Comment
516:Comment
484:Comment
413:Comment
374:Science
316:Comment
242:are now
238:Comment
216:Comment
196:Comment
177:Comment
91:protect
86:history
52:Prodego
1234:Merzul
1158:teb728
1123:NBeale
958:Merzul
889:Sophia
860:Merzul
825:Merzul
791:Merzul
762:NBeale
698:NBeale
640:Sophia
623:NBeale
609:Merzul
575:Sophia
549:NBeale
539:policy
506:Sophia
492:by far
476:NBeale
441:Sophia
429:NBeale
403:NBeale
398:Merzul
394:NBeale
388:&
382:Nature
376:, (8)
364:, (6)
338:phrase
322:Sophia
294:NBeale
271:NBeale
267:NBeale
263:NBeale
225:Sophia
186:NBeale
165:Sophia
159:Merzul
143:Sophia
95:delete
1107:Merge
588:can't
468:seems
348:; (2)
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
1240:. --
1236:and
1222:Keep
1214:Itub
1210:Keep
1198:Keep
1182:here
1166:Keep
1127:talk
1091:Keep
1051:Keep
1041:talk
1034:. —
1012:Keep
950:here
932:Keep
917:Keep
905:Keep
773:Keep
738:Keep
605:here
569:more
421:here
368:(7)
360:(5)
245:were
124:See
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
46:keep
1144:.)
1113:or
1109:to
1036:RJH
994:to
618:not
425:not
380:in
372:in
356:(4)
352:(3)
135:to
116:– (
1238:TJ
1188:.
1044:)
839:TJ
823:--
778:TJ
546:."
384:.
276:)
128:.
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
48:.
1130:·
1125:(
1097:.
1038:(
930:*
390:S
386:S
120:)
114:)
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.