372:
decent argument to keep that is based on policy. An art contest on a minor amateur website can hardly be considered an 'award'. It should at least be given by a reconised body to be considered an award however minor. It is true that there are problems with searches due to a number of people with the same name but this simply further hightlights the lack of notability here. All search hits of this person seem to be largely from his personal website, there is no evidence that he appears in journals, art magazines or news articles. I must point out that this is all irrelevant as the burden of proof is on the article to assert the notability of the subject not the opposite. I feel the decision was made because of a failure to disprove notability during the afd rather than contributors proving notability. --
235:
argument was that sources showing notability had not yet been added; another editor gave a reason of "per nom" (and also per someone who had argued to keep). This left neon white's argument of "Doesn't appear to have the reliable second party coverage required."... "There are literally thousands of illustrators in the world who work on magazines etc. everyday. None of them are notable." This was the best of the delete arguments (well, the first part was; the second part can quickly be proven false by finding a single notable illustrator, such as
273:
person to be found in reliable sources, this was made by several people and no reliable sources were found to refute that. Web searches were performed and only find his personal website, no news articles or books appear to mention him. I am astounded that this wasn't an obvious delete. The fact that the article has had no improvements made since the last afd which also in my opinion was a clear delete, shows this article is going nowhere and connot be sourced. --
1370:
better. In particular sources 1 and 3 in the references section appear to provide significant coverage of him and neither appear to have been in the deleted version. So I think there is enough to establish notability here and thus should be restored. (I do however feel that once it is back in mainspace it could do with a bit of trimming in the
Business Career section which seems to have too many sections and a bit too much information.)
1248:, let me first appologize for restarting a deletion review on this when you had pending comments on for cleanup. As I am new to Knowledge, I did not receive any new messages (I assumed you would leave your comments on my talk page) after 4-5 days from when I requested assistance. I assumed you were not interested in helping- I was obviously wrong as I have not seen the cleanup comments until
244:
No where did I see an argument saying someone had looked for notability and didn't find it; the arguments centered on notability not being shown in the article as it currently is. While the burden of showing notablity certainly is on the article's creator, in an AfD it's also important to make a good
326:
Since you initially expressed your concerns here, I have reread the discussion several times, and still feel that, based on the information I had at the time, I would have closed it the same way again. If you had made the argument about having done a thorough gsearch, it is certainly possible that I
487:
with a no-consensus closure here as there was certainly no consensus. Sure, it could have been relisted but it had been once and still failed to attract much attention in the way of discussion - sometimes that just happens. Re-listing ad nauseum is not any better than just closing as no-consensus
395:
or relist. Sources apparently weren't found... sufficient sources certainly aren't in the article now. The burden is on people wanting to keep content to find sources... someone who doesn't think the sources exist can't truly prove they don't exist, you can't actually prove something like that any
272:
The article makes no mention of any notable awards won only that he won an art contest on a minor website that itself struggles for notability and a small art grant. Neither of these are criteria for notability. The only valid points made in the afd was that there is absolutely no coverage of this
1123:
This article has over 40 referenced articles, of which there are around 17 different sources. All but about 10 of the referenced articles discuss the subject directly in detail (as the name of the article include the subject's name or referr to him by his title within the company). All of these
417:
than anything else. I'm of the opinion that short "no consensus" XfDs should nearly always be relisted in an attempt to see if consensus can be gathered one way or the other with a longer discussion period. Besides, this seems like the least contentious way to go. If the nom is correct that it
371:
I disagree, if two afds have failed to provide any sources then that should be taken into account. The arguments for keep at both afds make claims (by the creator of the article i should add) that are not verified in the article and all attempts to verify them have failed. I still cannot see any
1369:
As requested by LakeBoater I've had a look at the userspace version of this article and think it is ok for it to be put into the mainspace. I compared this version of the article with the one that was deleted at AFD and find the coverage of
Gabriel Murphy in reliable sources to be significantly
234:
As the closing admin, I'd like to explain how I came up with a close of no consensus. While the arguments for keeping the article were weak (no real references provided; the best argument was that the subject has won several awards), the arguments for deletion were equally weak. The nominator's
1107:"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Knowledge is not.
445:
the no-consensus close, and renominate in 1 or 2 months in the hope of consensus then--I really dont see the point of overturning a non-consensus close when it can just be nominated again after a while, but if people want to relist now, maybe it will get enough further attention.
1113:"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
862:
What about urban dictionary? There are just so many sources if you just google 'youtube poop' that I wouldn't know where to begin. Never mind that there's youtubepoop.com, and that if you look for youtube poop on youtube, there are countless examples of the style of animation.
550:. It should not be relisted, that is trying to take a second bite at the apple right after the first. This was closed properly. No consensus at closure means keep. I propose we give it more time, you can then bring it back if significant improvements have not been made. --
1124:
sources are reliable as they are from reputable business publications, undersities, the
Chamber of Commerce, etc. None of the sources are affilated with the subject other than the APlus.Net Management Team reference, which could be construed as self-published material.
898:(multiple times). No version of the article contained any sources demonstrating that this topic had even the slightest potential to meet Knowledge's inclusion criteria, nor have any sources been provided here. (Urbandictionary does not meet Knowledge's standards as a
1116:"Sources," defined on Knowledge as secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.
312:
be shown (emphasis mine). It would have helped immensely if you had mentioned in the AfD that you had done a thorough web search -- the way both you and the nom phrased your argument for lack of notability, it appeared you were going strictly off the article as it
1097:
This article has been deleted in the past and merged into the aplus.net article. However, the article has now been entirely re-written to include over 40 sources and I believe this article is clearly notable per the notable standards. Per
Wikipeidia:
465:
the no consensus close, there is no need to rush to deletion in this case. The article can be relisted at any time, though I'd suggest leaving it for a month or two as DGG said. Chances are that the next AfD will see a consensus emerge.
1119:"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
183:
250:
With weak arguments on both sides, I couldn't justify closing as delete, nor could I justify closing as keep. My choices came down to no consensus or relist; as the debate had already been relisted once, no consensus seemed
1127:
I think this article meets the notability threashold and should be included on
Knowledge. Previous versions of the article did not have many references and supporting content so it was merged with the aplus.net article.
1110:"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.
1254:
posted the link to the discussion page for the article. Let's pasue this discussion and let me address those comments. I will post something back here once I have cleaned-up the article per the comments. THanks
1458:
Not enough national, non-trivial news coverage. Most of the non-trivial sources are a local (KC) business paper. ] simply reprints press releases, which are not good sources for establishing notability.
295:
You might note that I said above the awards argument for keep was weak. Minor awards can bolster other evidence of notability, but aren't enough on their own. It sounds like we are in agreement on this.
396:
more than I could "prove" no polka-dotted aliens exist, but you can say no one has found any evidence yet, that's why the burden is on those who want to make claims to find sufficient evidence. --
192:
I don't believe there were any valid reasons given to keep this article only valid reason for deletion. One look at the article shows a non-notable person with no coverage in reliable sources.
916:
Why do you suppose it keeps coming up? I was going to do the research to create the article but discovered that I couldn't (or shouldn't?).... but clearly, there is some interest in it.
177:
327:
might have closed it differently. However, just now I have done my own gsearch, and I do come up with several mentions of Matt Smith, but it is difficult to tell him apart from
813:
forced meme does not equate to notability. To Abeg92, a "Youtube Poop" is an intentionally badly made video made from looping together unrelated videos, most often using the
533:, the closing admin, for fully explaining the reasons for the close. We only overturn closures at DRV when the close was clearly wrong and that is plainly not the case here.
1418:
Personally I would prefer to leave this the normal five days to see if others will comment and let an uninvolved admin close this discussion and implement the consensus.
1088:
1171:. As I said there, the sourcing is excessive, and there are some other issues that I'd like to see fix't before it's moved back into mainspace. Cheers. --
134:
129:
138:
1163:
Try working on it some more, and get some more non-trivial mentions in as references. You haven't worked on it since soliciting suggestions from me and
814:
308:
The fact that the article has had no improvements since the last AfD is an editing issue, not a deletion issue, and does nothing to show that notability
51:
37:
724:? I haven't heard of it, so I'd like to find out about it. It doesn't seem like it would be appropriate for an article, but if it meets the standard of
508:
that is true, so i think a relist may been appropriated but you have to consider that half of all afds end with no consensus due to poor arguements. --
331:. It's a murky issue, and if the article comes up again for deletion, I hope there will be more research and discussion than happened at the last AfD.
163:
121:
46:
852:
1282:, I have made the edits to the article per the cleanup comments on the discussion page. Please review and let me know your thoughts.
1045:
1040:
1049:
42:
1102:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.
696:
653:
648:
1074:
1032:
931:
657:
1318:
1223:
1183:
783:
430:
222:
682:
640:
125:
21:
1168:
741:
1506:
1011:
966:
899:
619:
570:
100:
17:
245:
faith effort to find evidence of notability, and none of the delete arguments mentioned having made that effort.
117:
76:
1211:
Yes, but that's not the reason I oppose putting it back into mainspace. Mostly it's issues C.Fred raised. --
991:– Move to mainspace. Concerns remain over the local nature of sources. No prejudice against listing at AfD. –
1302:
Hmmm. That looks much better. I'd like to get some more eyes on it, but I'm good now. Official switch to
951:
538:
344:
If any neutral party here at DRV has some constructive comments on the close, I'd certainly welcome them.--
1467:
996:
839:
801:
604:
85:
488:
and letting the issue rest for a while before renominating in hopes of more participation down the line.
351:
258:
1479:
Hello All- can an uninvolved administrator please close this discussion and implement the consensus to
644:
1496:
1470:
1450:
1427:
1413:
1379:
1357:
1323:
1297:
1264:
1228:
1206:
1188:
1150:
1000:
955:
935:
911:
886:
875:
857:
830:
805:
788:
745:
714:
608:
559:
542:
517:
499:
475:
457:
435:
413:
didn't make a bad call here. However, given the relatively low participation, I'd be happier with an
405:
381:
356:
282:
263:
227:
201:
89:
1492:
1409:
1353:
1293:
1260:
1146:
919:
513:
418:
should be deleted, the consensus should swing that way after it's reopened and relisted. Cheers. --
377:
278:
197:
923:
867:
706:
1446:
1036:
927:
871:
710:
705:
Unknown youtube poop is a definite internet phenomenon. Why has the entry been repeatedly deleted?
555:
328:
1423:
1375:
1314:
1219:
1197:
There's an objection because there's too much sourcing? Am I a not understanding something here?
1179:
779:
534:
426:
401:
218:
1404:
and close this discussion? If so, can one of you please do so when you have a chance? Thanks
797:
1461:
1202:
992:
907:
864:
844:
600:
494:
81:
1131:
I believe this article should be included in
Knowledge and the decision to delete should be
826:
737:
530:
410:
345:
252:
1488:
1405:
1349:
1289:
1256:
1142:
471:
236:
1081:
689:
170:
1442:
1028:
987:
881:
732:
551:
1484:
1139:
767:. Looking at some of the deleted content in the logs, this is pretty much a textbook
1483:(by a vote of three in favor, none against) the userfied article "Gabriel Murphy" at
1419:
1397:
1391:
1371:
1340:
1307:
1283:
1277:
1249:
1243:
1212:
1172:
772:
768:
453:
419:
397:
211:
1441:. Appears to readily meet the criteria of having independent secondary sources. --
1198:
903:
756:
721:
636:
591:
489:
1066:
674:
155:
1273:
1239:
1164:
947:
822:
818:
764:
760:
729:
725:
467:
1487:? It has now been six days since this discussion was opened. Thank you!
210:
Fix't nom. Should link to page, not AfD. Also added AfD2 link above. --
448:
1288:, I have addressed both of your issues. Thanks much for the feedback.
946:, this could never be encyclopedic even by the widest of definitions.
529:
with no prejudice to a relist. I should specifically like to thank
1345:- hopefully we can get others to review the article and vote to
865:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=YouTube+Poop
1062:
1058:
1054:
670:
666:
662:
151:
147:
143:
1485:
http://en.wikipedia.org/User:LakeBoater/Gabriel_Murphy
1140:
http://en.wikipedia.org/User:LakeBoater/Gabriel_Murphy
1105:
8:
1167:, even though we left comments for cleanup
1010:The following is an archived debate of the
618:The following is an archived debate of the
99:The following is an archived debate of the
980:
815:CD-i games from The Legend of Zelda series
584:
69:
41:
50:
33:
7:
1509:of the page listed in the heading.
969:of the page listed in the heading.
796:, for the same reason as Lifebaka.
573:of the page listed in the heading.
80:– No consensus closure endorsed. –
28:
728:, then give us some links here.
1505:The above is an archive of the
965:The above is an archive of the
755:. I'm sorry, but unknown = no
569:The above is an archive of the
1400:, are we good to go ahead and
1:
1138:The article can be found at:
483:, there is certainly nothing
30:
1532:
1265:12:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
1229:20:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
1207:19:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
1189:19:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
1151:04:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
858:23:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
831:02:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
806:00:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
789:19:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
746:18:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
715:14:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
518:22:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
500:16:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
476:00:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
458:15:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
436:12:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
406:03:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
382:23:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
357:01:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
283:00:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
264:21:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
228:20:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
202:20:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
18:Knowledge:Deletion review
1512:Please do not modify it.
1497:16:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
1471:17:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
1451:11:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
1428:18:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
1414:21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
1380:17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
1358:03:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
1324:01:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
1298:00:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
1017:Please do not modify it.
1001:18:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
972:Please do not modify it.
956:09:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
936:03:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
912:23:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
887:04:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
876:03:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
625:Please do not modify it.
609:23:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
576:Please do not modify it.
560:19:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
543:01:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
118:Matt Smith (illustrator)
106:Please do not modify it.
90:23:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
77:Matt Smith (illustrator)
43:Deletion review archives
1439:Allow move to mainspace
896:Endorse speedy-deletion
1121:
1014:of the article above.
622:of the article above.
103:of the article above.
599:Deletion endorsed. –
1402:move into mainspace
1347:move into mainspace
1304:move into mainspace
415:overturn and relist
393:Overturn and delete
329:Matt Smith (comics)
1519:
1518:
1481:move to mainspace
1367:Move to mainspace
1322:
1227:
1187:
979:
978:
938:
922:comment added by
910:
885:
880:That won't work.
787:
763:information = no
744:
583:
582:
516:
434:
380:
281:
226:
200:
60:
59:
1523:
1514:
1465:
1456:Endorse deletion
1312:
1217:
1177:
1084:
1070:
1052:
1019:
981:
974:
944:Endorse deletion
917:
906:
884:
855:
850:
847:
842:
836:Endorse deletion
811:Endorse deletion
794:Endorse Deletion
777:
757:reliable sources
740:
735:
722:reliable sources
692:
678:
660:
627:
585:
578:
512:
511:
424:
376:
375:
354:
348:
277:
276:
261:
255:
216:
196:
195:
173:
159:
141:
108:
70:
56:
36:
31:
1531:
1530:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1510:
1507:deletion review
1463:
1157:I'm sorry, but
1093:
1087:
1080:
1079:
1073:
1043:
1027:
1015:
1012:deletion review
970:
967:deletion review
900:reliable source
853:
848:
845:
840:
733:
701:
695:
688:
687:
681:
651:
635:
623:
620:deletion review
574:
571:deletion review
509:
373:
352:
346:
274:
259:
253:
237:Norman Rockwell
193:
188:
182:
176:
169:
168:
162:
132:
116:
104:
101:deletion review
68:
61:
54:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1529:
1527:
1517:
1516:
1501:
1500:
1474:
1473:
1453:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1383:
1382:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1306:. Cheers. --
1267:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1192:
1191:
1095:
1094:
1091:
1085:
1077:
1071:
1029:Gabriel_Murphy
1022:
1021:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
988:Gabriel_Murphy
977:
976:
961:
960:
959:
958:
941:
940:
939:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
882:User:Zscout370
833:
808:
791:
771:. Cheers. --
749:
748:
703:
702:
699:
693:
685:
679:
630:
629:
614:
613:
612:
611:
581:
580:
565:
564:
563:
562:
545:
523:
522:
521:
520:
503:
502:
478:
460:
439:
438:
408:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
359:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
288:
287:
286:
285:
267:
266:
251:appropriate.--
247:
246:
241:
240:
231:
230:
190:
189:
186:
180:
174:
166:
160:
111:
110:
95:
94:
93:
92:
67:
62:
58:
57:
49:
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1528:
1515:
1513:
1508:
1503:
1502:
1499:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1472:
1469:
1468:
1466:
1457:
1454:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1440:
1437:
1436:
1429:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1403:
1399:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1368:
1365:
1364:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1348:
1344:
1343:
1338:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1325:
1320:
1316:
1311:
1310:
1305:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1286:
1281:
1280:
1275:
1271:
1268:
1266:
1262:
1258:
1253:
1252:
1247:
1246:
1241:
1237:
1234:
1230:
1225:
1221:
1216:
1215:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1190:
1185:
1181:
1176:
1175:
1170:
1166:
1162:
1160:
1159:not right now
1155:
1154:
1153:
1152:
1148:
1144:
1141:
1136:
1134:
1129:
1125:
1120:
1117:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1104:
1103:
1099:
1090:
1083:
1076:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1051:
1047:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1020:
1018:
1013:
1008:
1007:
1002:
998:
994:
990:
989:
985:
984:
983:
982:
975:
973:
968:
963:
962:
957:
953:
949:
945:
942:
937:
933:
929:
925:
921:
915:
914:
913:
909:
905:
901:
897:
894:
888:
883:
879:
878:
877:
873:
869:
866:
861:
860:
859:
856:
851:
843:
837:
834:
832:
828:
824:
820:
816:
812:
809:
807:
803:
799:
795:
792:
790:
785:
781:
776:
775:
770:
766:
762:
758:
754:
751:
750:
747:
743:
739:
736:
731:
727:
726:verifiability
723:
719:
718:
717:
716:
712:
708:
698:
691:
684:
676:
672:
668:
664:
659:
655:
650:
646:
642:
638:
634:
633:
632:
631:
628:
626:
621:
616:
615:
610:
606:
602:
598:
594:
593:
589:
588:
587:
586:
579:
577:
572:
567:
566:
561:
557:
553:
549:
546:
544:
540:
536:
535:Smile a While
532:
528:
527:Endorse close
525:
524:
519:
515:
507:
506:
505:
504:
501:
498:
497:
493:
492:
486:
482:
479:
477:
473:
469:
464:
461:
459:
455:
451:
450:
444:
441:
440:
437:
432:
428:
423:
422:
416:
412:
409:
407:
403:
399:
394:
391:
390:
383:
379:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
358:
355:
349:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
330:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
311:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
284:
280:
271:
270:
269:
268:
265:
262:
256:
249:
248:
243:
242:
238:
233:
232:
229:
224:
220:
215:
214:
209:
206:
205:
204:
203:
199:
185:
179:
172:
165:
157:
153:
149:
145:
140:
136:
131:
127:
123:
119:
115:
114:
113:
112:
109:
107:
102:
97:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
74:
73:
72:
71:
66:
63:
53:
48:
44:
39:
32:
23:
19:
1511:
1504:
1480:
1476:
1475:
1460:
1455:
1438:
1401:
1392:
1388:
1366:
1346:
1341:
1339:Thanks much
1336:
1308:
1303:
1284:
1278:
1269:
1250:
1244:
1235:
1213:
1173:
1158:
1156:
1137:
1132:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1115:
1112:
1109:
1106:
1101:
1100:
1096:
1016:
1009:
993:IronGargoyle
986:
971:
964:
943:
895:
835:
810:
793:
773:
752:
704:
637:Youtube poop
624:
617:
601:IronGargoyle
596:
592:youtube poop
590:
575:
568:
547:
526:
495:
490:
484:
480:
462:
447:
442:
420:
414:
392:
309:
212:
207:
191:
105:
98:
82:IronGargoyle
75:
65:28 June 2008
64:
918:—Preceding
819:Hotel Mario
798:BecauseWhy?
531:Fabrictramp
411:Fabrictramp
347:Fabrictramp
254:Fabrictramp
1489:LakeBoater
1406:LakeBoater
1350:LakeBoater
1290:LakeBoater
1257:LakeBoater
1143:LakeBoater
1133:Overturned
838:per above
765:notability
510:neon white
374:neon white
353:talk to me
275:neon white
260:talk to me
194:neon white
1443:SmokeyJoe
924:Luminifer
868:Luminifer
854:REVIEW ME
707:Luminifer
552:Dragon695
47:2008 June
1464:itsJamie
1420:Davewild
1398:Davewild
1393:lifebaka
1372:Davewild
1342:lifebaka
1319:Contribs
1309:lifebaka
1285:lifebaka
1279:lifebaka
1251:lifebaka
1245:lifebaka
1224:Contribs
1214:lifebaka
1184:Contribs
1174:lifebaka
932:contribs
920:unsigned
784:Contribs
774:lifebaka
742:contribs
597:Flushing
431:Contribs
421:lifebaka
398:Rividian
223:Contribs
213:lifebaka
20: |
1477:Comment
1389:Comment
1337:Comment
1270:Comment
1236:Comment
1199:JoshuaZ
1075:restore
1046:protect
1041:history
904:Rossami
753:Endorse
683:restore
654:protect
649:history
548:Endorse
481:Endorse
463:Endorse
443:Sustain
313:stands.
164:restore
135:protect
130:history
52:June 29
38:June 27
1274:C.Fred
1272:Hello
1240:C.Fred
1238:Hello
1165:C.Fred
1050:delete
948:Stifle
908:(talk)
823:JuJube
761:verify
658:delete
310:cannot
139:delete
1082:cache
1067:views
1059:watch
1055:links
849:EATER
690:cache
675:views
667:watch
663:links
485:wrong
468:RMHED
208:Note:
171:cache
156:views
148:watch
144:links
55:: -->
16:<
1493:talk
1462:OhNo
1447:talk
1424:talk
1410:talk
1376:talk
1354:talk
1315:Talk
1294:talk
1276:and
1261:talk
1242:and
1220:Talk
1203:talk
1180:Talk
1169:here
1147:talk
1063:logs
1037:talk
1033:edit
997:talk
952:talk
928:talk
902:.)
872:talk
827:talk
817:and
802:talk
780:Talk
720:Any
711:talk
671:logs
645:talk
641:edit
605:talk
556:talk
539:talk
514:talk
491:Sher
472:talk
454:talk
427:Talk
402:talk
378:talk
279:talk
219:Talk
198:talk
184:AfD2
152:logs
126:talk
122:edit
86:talk
35:<
1396:or
1089:AfD
846:PIE
759:to
738:g92
697:AfD
496:eth
449:DGG
178:AfD
22:Log
1495:)
1449:)
1426:)
1412:)
1378:)
1356:)
1317:-
1296:)
1263:)
1222:-
1205:)
1182:-
1149:)
1135:.
1065:|
1061:|
1057:|
1053:|
1048:|
1044:|
1039:|
1035:|
999:)
954:)
934:)
930:•
874:)
841:DA
829:)
821:.
804:)
782:-
769:A7
730:Ab
713:)
673:|
669:|
665:|
661:|
656:|
652:|
647:|
643:|
607:)
595:–
558:)
541:)
474:)
456:)
429:-
404:)
350:|
257:|
239:.)
221:-
154:|
150:|
146:|
142:|
137:|
133:|
128:|
124:|
88:)
45::
1491:(
1445:(
1422:(
1408:(
1374:(
1352:(
1321:)
1313:(
1292:(
1259:(
1226:)
1218:(
1201:(
1186:)
1178:(
1161:.
1145:(
1092:)
1086:|
1078:|
1072:(
1069:)
1031:(
995:(
950:(
926:(
870:(
825:(
800:(
786:)
778:(
734:e
709:(
700:)
694:|
686:|
680:(
677:)
639:(
603:(
554:(
537:(
470:(
452:(
433:)
425:(
400:(
225:)
217:(
187:)
181:|
175:|
167:|
161:(
158:)
120:(
84:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.