1266:...I'm fine with that...but blaming the bot? Really, now. You should have your images on your watchlist, and you have at least 7 days to fix it. Looks like you had far more. Plus, no matter how good a fair use is, it's no good if the image is not in use. It's not fair to expect an admin to hunt down where the image is, or was, if it's not obvious. And finally, you know full well you can have the deletion speedily overturned with a word, but you're instead "listing it here to bring up some valid points"? You can bring those valid points (which don't seem to be valid in the first place) up someplace else. Why disrupt DRV? --
993:
area and hence to the majority is an unknown entity. However in my view, simply because it is a specialist area does not justify why it should be deleted from
Knowledge (XXG), indeed I was of the opinion that the opportunity to provide information on all topics was one of the principles of Knowledge (XXG). I readily accept that they are trying to remove subjective opinion but again feel that sufficient independent sources have been cited to justify its reinsertion.
282:
policy at
Knowledge (XXG). As subsequent comments showed, the search returned false positives. That said, I do not believe that these problems are sufficient to overturn the closure. I recommend that you reiterate your concerns clearly on the article's Talk page and give the editors involved a chance to correct the problems. If the article remains unimproved after a reasonable period of time (several months at least), you can always renominate it.
953:
participants in the debate. Moreover, despite the fact that the original Genbox article was authored by the programmer, not one shred of evidence has been submitted showing that what was written was slanted. The entire 3-sentence article was, in fact, a remarkably neutral description of the software. If this review process is any indication of what
Knowledge (XXG) has become, then I'll have to reconsider making contributions to such a sham.
188:. However, I feel that any evidence supporting the keep recommendations in the debate had already been addressed and disproved, since almost all the cited Google hits turned out to be false positives, and no other evidence of notability had been put forward during the discussion. Ultimately, I don't believe notability was demonstrated by the debate, and even though there were three keep recommendations, none of them were justified.
1220:. This problem could be fixed by a bot revising image pages linked from redirects once an article page is moved, FairuseBot reviewing the page history for redirects, and FairuseBot rechecking its work seven or more days after tagging to see if the redirect switchout problem has occured. Hahnchen, you were notified of the problem on 20 September 2008 and
971:
well-known. A closing admin is supposed to weigh the quality of argument, not simply remove the opinions of all seemingly new users and decide on weight of numbers of what's left. The arguments for deletion were simply not overwhelming by any means; in fact, quite the opposite. Stub + possible conflict of interest does NOT equal deletion in my book.
787:
5 of the 28 hits on your search that are relevant to this genealogical program. None of the 5 appear to provide significant new evidence - two are like directory listings and the other three are product reviews. I do not believe that these print sources would have resulted in a different conclusion.
1152:
Image uploaders may no longer edit
Knowledge (XXG), if they upload an image with a valid fair use rationale, they should not be expected to check if someone else has moved the target article page. Administrators should examine the bot placed deletion tag, assess the rationale, and fix it if needed.
952:
to this debate, which the administrators refuse to acknowledge or dismiss as irrelevant because they can't find them online. Instead they have relied on one spam review of the software (Top Ten
Reviews is a commercial site that does not meet WP standards for citeable sources.) and innuendo about the
897:
Sorry, but again: I disagree. No matter how the contributions got there, they were constructive and in the spirit of
Knowledge (XXG). I would like you to point out how exactly the contributions were diminishing the likelihood of the article meeting requirements: they provided sources and they did so
786:
Thank you for providing that link. I note, however, that most of the hits in that search are false positives. See, for example, the second hit on the list which refers to an internal name for a "parallelpiped with corners" which can be created by a particular image rendering program. I find only
847:
For the reasons given by
Mvuijlst. This is a bit of kit that it will be more difficult to find sources for due to its very nature, but it is a well known, widely used and longlived geneology software product, exactly the kind of semi-obscure entry Knowledge (XXG) is good at providing info about, if
605:
Subsequently links to online versions of the articles in question were supplied, such as could be found (Genbox has been around since DOS times, and genealogy magazines do not necessarily put all their archives online), and the only reason I didn't enhance the article is because, well, I have a day
1224:
between 20 September 2008 and 15 October 2008 (the date the image was deleted). Is there any reason that you did not take action based on the 20 September 2008 notice that you received? For example, on
September 21 or 23rd, you could have ensured that the image had an explanation linking to Malice
992:
I also concur with the comments made by the other keep voters. I am not a newbie to
Knowledge (XXG); I have had an account for a number of years and have made various contributions to other articles. What the Administrators seem to be overlooking is that Genealogical software is a very specialised
688:
When someone who actually uses genealogy software pointed out that some features make Genbox stand out among the competition (which is objectively true, as you can tell from comparative reviews), the nominator replied "Sorry, I don't use genealogy software. I have no idea whether the reporting and
281:
criteria. Second, at least some of the discussion participants appear to have misunderstood the core issues raised in the nomination. The assertion, for example, that search hits for "for bangkok and monorail" justify keeping the article was not in accordance with generally accepted precedent or
600:
This software has been reviewed by all the major genealogical publications-- Family Tree
Magazine, Genealogical Computing, Family Chronicle, Eastman's Genealogy Newsletter, Association of Professional Genealogists Quarterly, and more. Just because you can't find these reviews in a 5-second Google
1144:
Incorrectly deleted image with a valid fair use rationale. The image was tagged by a bot because the article had moved, and the bot ignored the redirect. This is an issue that has popped up before with BetacommandBot, and was remedied. Why are our bots getting worse? See related discussion -
584:
The AfD was closed with just two non-motivated Delete !votes: "Non-notable piece of software" and "I can't find any reliable sources for this one". Okay, the article was created by the author a couple of years ago, and okay it has remained a stub. But in the AfD a number of reliable sources were
592:
to me: "As is customary, the recommendations of very new and unregistered users have been given less weight". A reliable source is a reliable source is a reliable source. It doesn't matter how new or unregistered the users are, if they're giving valid reasons for not deleting an article, their
947:
Well, I'm one of those anonymous submitters to the original AfD debate. I'm neither new to Knowledge (XXG) (I've been editing anonymously for several years.) nor was I canvassed by anyone. And there is no evidence that the other two anonymous participants were either new or were recruited to
970:
The arguments made by the keep-voters were valid and were not refuted by the delete-voters. This is clearly a piece of software that's been around a long time and has a fair number of print sources available. In its field it appears, given the arguments shown in the deletion debate, to be
801:
Indeed, many of the sources are false positives. I am positive there remain enough sources in the combination of Google book search, Groups Search and regular search, combined with manuals and such to create a good article. There is also data locked away on Usenet (e.g.
237:
specifically states that "hit count numbers alone can only rarely 'prove' anything about notability"? Even if the results of the search are examined and it is determined that none of the hits relate to the subject? This doesn't seem to agree well with the statement on
771:
comment in the discussion using the bolded, bulleted format. It gives the appearance that you are trying to have your opinion double-counted and creates significant potential for confusion by the admin who must eventually close this discussion. Thanks.
692:
That is not refuting, sorry. That's a non-expert telling an expert "I don't understand what you're saying, but the fact that the article was created, years ago, by the auther of the software is enough to have it deleted now no matter what". --
1243:
Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't check the redirect until it had already been switched back. I assumed it was the same issue as cropped up in the linked discussion above (another one of my images) and wanted it flagged up somewhere. -
1175:. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)?
84:
to keep the edit history. If the article is expanded back we can still discuss its potential. This doesn't exclude another redirect if there is a proper name for this monorail, or disambiguate if there are others to consider. –
874:
seems the best way to go. Once the draft is complete with sources, post a request at DRV asking to move the user space draft to article space. For the cites, please use the news book web journal citation templates. See, e.g.,
601:
search doesn't mean that the software isn't notable. Despite the fact that the article was written by the programmer, it is neutral. It is a stub at this point, and could be expanded upon, but there is no reason to delete it.
869:
of inexperienced editors to participate in a deletion discussion significantly diminished the likelihood that the article would meet Knowledge (XXG) requirements. The closer made a difficult decision, but made it correctly.
554:
374:
should not be deleted if you used it in the article (GFDL attribution requirements). In fact, just redirecting it at this point may be the simplest solution, avoiding the need for any more AFD process.
898:
in a non-confronting, non-emotional manner. Everyone was an inexperienced editor once: are you now saying you need a cetain amount of edits under your belt before you can even participate in an AfD?
714:(keep deleted). No evidence was provided in the discussion that this topic met Knowledge (XXG)'s generally accepted inclusion standards. (For software, there are reasonable questions about whether
722:
is the better fit but the relevant clauses are similar enough that the distinction is minor.) The reviews demonstrate that the product exists. They were not sufficient to demonstrate notability.
767:
Your opinion that the decision should be overturned is clear from your nomination. Please continue to participate in the discussion, answering questions and providing new evidence but please do
314:
This topic is not about the monorail serving the city of Bangkok. This is about an amusement park monorail in a Bangkok shopping mall called Fashion Island that runs 1.6 km and has 4 stations.
653:
customary for recommendations of new and unregistered users to be given less weight, and with due respect I don't find that bitey. The nominator also successfully refuted the points raised.
724:
Print resources can be relevant to the discussion but they must actually be provided. It is not sufficient for an editor to simply state that "I know they exist" in this kind of debate.
948:
participate. As Mvuijlst said, all submissions to the review were contributions of important information, not votes. Solid references about the notability of Genbox have been submitted
511:
356:
area. Not sure whether the project will be taking off but this system or other similarly proposed ones (there are several) should be referred to as Bangkok Monorail instead. --
548:
1146:
726:
The decision to discount the opinions of suspiciously new or inexperienced editors was entirely in keeping with established precedent and practice at Knowledge (XXG). (See
174:
296:
In fairness to the closing admin, The discussion wasn't closed early; it just didn't receive attention after the first day, and stood for five days before being closed. --
912:(That said, I'll beaver away some more at the article in my user space and try to get it through DRV before any screenshots are deleted for being orphaned images. :)
51:
37:
1120:
46:
689:
charting features make it good or not. My only concern here is that developers use Knowledge (XXG) as a billboard for their software, as Bill has done here.".
319:
There is no evidence that it in fact is called Bangkok Monorail and it seems unlikely since that is not a Thai name and it only serves Fashion Island. --
475:
470:
479:
503:
462:
233:, and a couple of editors argue to the contrary citing a very briefly executed Google test, their opinions are taken as valid, even though
138:
133:
352:
article should be deleted. There is a planned project for actual monorail public transport system proposed by the Bangkok Governor around
42:
1132:
871:
807:
142:
1200:
between 21:29, 18 September 2008 and 07:18, 24 September 2008, breaking the link between the "Malice Manual Cover.jpg" image page and
954:
1096:
569:
166:
125:
536:
80:– While issues with the AfD closure have been raised, the question is how to best moved forward where I follow the suggestion to
1153:
This deletion was made in error, and should be speedily overturned, I'm listing it here anyway to bring up some valid points. -
21:
750:
234:
824:
If you want, I can userfy the article as it was deleted, then when you've improved it you can move it back to the mainspace.
229:
Please help me understand the AfD process better by clarifying: So, hypothetically, if it is suggested that an article fails
1009:
1087:
1047:
980:
1286:
1071:
1026:
530:
442:
397:
105:
17:
466:
1104:
526:
340:- Monorail circling a shopping mall should not be considered the same as public transport. I have add the article
1197:
341:
277:
The discussion appears to have several process problems. First, it was closed early without clearly meeting the
1173:
where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question
803:
278:
576:
1201:
1180:
1136:
958:
931:
829:
658:
629:
220:
207:
997:
866:
727:
1275:
1256:
1238:
1184:
1165:
1060:
1013:
984:
962:
935:
921:
907:
892:
857:
853:
833:
819:
796:
781:
762:
739:
702:
662:
641:
615:
431:
384:
365:
332:
300:
291:
272:
246:
224:
192:
94:
215:, missed the fact that it was an early closure, therefore the deletion process wasn't properly followed.
458:
418:
129:
258:
Evidence was shown that over 200 English-language news articles existed, which refutes the claim that
427:
371:
270:
242:
that "justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself." --
1271:
562:
542:
379:
1001:
1213:
1209:
917:
903:
815:
758:
698:
637:
611:
361:
90:
1005:
849:
792:
777:
735:
287:
715:
589:
1229:
976:
883:
876:
349:
345:
323:
121:
76:
719:
239:
1248:
1205:
1157:
423:
422:– Delete close overturned and article restored. Relisting at AfD at editor discretion. –
265:
185:
1124:
507:
170:
1267:
376:
315:
1221:
259:
230:
1253:
1245:
1162:
1154:
913:
899:
811:
754:
694:
675:
been around since DOS). The nominator did not "refute" anything: he pointed out that
633:
607:
357:
353:
297:
243:
189:
86:
1171:
On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used
730:
and it's related pages for some of the history behind the need for that standard.)
810:
pending the (well, I hope :) inevitable overturning of the deletion. Ok by you? --
788:
773:
731:
283:
1225:(video game mod) as suggested in the 20 September 2008 notice from FairuseBot. --
496:
159:
1226:
1176:
1052:
972:
927:
880:
825:
654:
625:
320:
216:
203:
317:
1192:- Perhaps the FairuseBot bot did not ignore the redirect. It looks like the
624:-- as for policy; I would've tried to work this out with the closing admin,
81:
256:. Three keep votes. No deletes other than nom. Pretty straightforward.
926:
We can always restore the images if necessary should they be deleted.
1147:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive113#A_bot_problem
671:
reviews were given. More exist in print form only (remember Genbox
1051:– Deletion overturned. Seemed to have been a bot error. –
184:
The AfD for this article was recently closed as keep by
1217:
1193:
1112:
1108:
1100:
1092:
492:
488:
484:
155:
151:
147:
561:
575:
202:, no other possible closure could have happened.
848:the deletion police isn't too triggerhappy. --
667:I respect your point of view, but really, no.
593:reasons should be taken under consideration.
8:
1070:The following is an archived debate of the
441:The following is an archived debate of the
104:The following is an archived debate of the
1040:
411:
69:
41:
632:wizard kindly waived that requirement.
50:
753:sources not even mentioned in AfD. --
33:
7:
1289:of the page listed in the heading.
1029:of the page listed in the heading.
400:of the page listed in the heading.
235:Knowledge (XXG):Search engine test
28:
806:in 1993). I have started a draft
1196:created redirect was removed by
1285:The above is an archive of the
1025:The above is an archive of the
396:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
210:) 19:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
1:
1216:. The image then was deleted
1048:Image:Malice Manual Cover.jpg
596:This sums the discussion up:
30:
1276:15:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
1257:20:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
1239:08:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
1185:08:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
1166:00:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
1088:File:Malice Manual Cover.jpg
1061:21:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
1014:09:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
985:05:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
963:15:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
936:19:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
922:11:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
908:11:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
893:05:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
858:22:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
834:08:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
820:23:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
797:21:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
782:21:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
763:21:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
740:21:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
703:19:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
663:19:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
642:17:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
616:17:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
588:The close felt particularly
432:22:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
385:11:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
366:06:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
333:05:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
301:07:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
292:21:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
273:19:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
247:19:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
225:21:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
193:18:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
95:10:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
872:Genbox Family History draft
1312:
728:Knowledge (XXG):sockpuppet
344:and merge the content of
342:Fashion Island (Thailand)
1292:Please do not modify it.
1214:01:00, 20 September 2008
1077:Please do not modify it.
1032:Please do not modify it.
867:inappropriate canvassing
448:Please do not modify it.
403:Please do not modify it.
370:The revision history of
111:Please do not modify it.
43:Deletion review archives
1202:Malice (video game mod)
677:one review was negative
1218:23:20, 15 October 2008
1074:of the article above.
973:Matthew Brown (Morven)
445:of the article above.
310:since out of process.
108:of the article above.
459:Genbox Family History
419:Genbox Family History
1194:12:23, 28 April 2008
647:Endorse own deletion
338:Overturn and relist
308:Overturn and relist
213:Overturn and relist
1299:
1298:
1039:
1038:
1017:
1000:comment added by
795:
780:
738:
410:
409:
382:
290:
60:
59:
1303:
1294:
1251:
1234:
1212:of a problem at
1160:
1128:
1117:
1116:
1079:
1057:
1041:
1034:
1016:
994:
888:
877:User:Suntag/Cite
808:in my user space
791:
776:
734:
580:
579:
565:
515:
500:
482:
450:
412:
405:
380:
350:Bangkok Monorail
346:Bangkok Monorail
328:
286:
178:
163:
145:
122:Bangkok Monorail
113:
77:Bangkok Monorail
70:
56:
36:
31:
1311:
1310:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1290:
1287:deletion review
1249:
1235:
1232:
1206:User:FairuseBot
1198:192.101.108.250
1158:
1118:
1090:
1086:
1075:
1072:deletion review
1053:
1030:
1027:deletion review
995:
889:
886:
712:Endorse closure
522:
501:
473:
457:
446:
443:deletion review
401:
398:deletion review
372:Bankok monorail
329:
326:
186:User:Firefoxman
164:
136:
120:
109:
106:deletion review
68:
65:17 October 2008
61:
54:
34:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1309:
1307:
1297:
1296:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1231:
1187:
1141:
1131:
1082:
1081:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1037:
1036:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
987:
965:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
910:
885:
860:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
784:
742:
725:
723:
708:
707:
706:
705:
690:
683:
682:
681:
680:
644:
603:
602:
582:
581:
518:
453:
452:
437:
436:
435:
434:
408:
407:
392:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
335:
325:
305:
304:
303:
275:
251:
250:
249:
181:
116:
115:
100:
99:
98:
97:
67:
62:
58:
57:
49:
40:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1308:
1295:
1293:
1288:
1283:
1282:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1262:
1258:
1255:
1252:
1247:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1237:
1236:
1228:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1188:
1186:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1169:
1168:
1167:
1164:
1161:
1156:
1150:
1148:
1142:
1139:
1138:
1134:
1129:
1126:
1122:
1114:
1110:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1094:
1089:
1084:
1083:
1080:
1078:
1073:
1068:
1067:
1062:
1058:
1056:
1050:
1049:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1035:
1033:
1028:
1023:
1022:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
999:
991:
988:
986:
982:
978:
974:
969:
966:
964:
960:
956:
951:
946:
943:
937:
933:
929:
925:
924:
923:
919:
915:
911:
909:
905:
901:
896:
895:
894:
891:
890:
882:
878:
873:
868:
864:
861:
859:
855:
851:
846:
843:
835:
831:
827:
823:
822:
821:
817:
813:
809:
805:
800:
799:
798:
794:
790:
785:
783:
779:
775:
770:
766:
765:
764:
760:
756:
752:
749:, obviously.
748:
747:
743:
741:
737:
733:
729:
721:
717:
713:
710:
709:
704:
700:
696:
691:
687:
686:
685:
684:
678:
674:
670:
666:
665:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
645:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
620:
619:
618:
617:
613:
609:
599:
598:
597:
594:
591:
586:
585:brought up.
578:
574:
571:
568:
564:
560:
556:
553:
550:
547:
544:
541:
538:
535:
532:
528:
525:
524:Find sources:
521:
520:
519:
516:
513:
509:
505:
498:
494:
490:
486:
481:
477:
472:
468:
464:
460:
455:
454:
451:
449:
444:
439:
438:
433:
429:
425:
421:
420:
416:
415:
414:
413:
406:
404:
399:
394:
393:
386:
383:
378:
373:
369:
368:
367:
363:
359:
355:
354:Ratchaprasong
351:
347:
343:
339:
336:
334:
331:
330:
322:
318:
316:
313:
309:
306:
302:
299:
295:
294:
293:
289:
285:
280:
276:
274:
271:
269:
268:
263:
261:
255:
252:
248:
245:
241:
236:
232:
228:
227:
226:
222:
218:
214:
211:
209:
205:
201:
197:
196:
195:
194:
191:
187:
182:
179:
176:
172:
168:
161:
157:
153:
149:
144:
140:
135:
131:
127:
123:
118:
117:
114:
112:
107:
102:
101:
96:
92:
88:
83:
79:
78:
74:
73:
72:
71:
66:
63:
53:
48:
44:
39:
32:
23:
19:
1291:
1284:
1263:
1230:
1189:
1172:
1151:
1143:
1085:
1076:
1069:
1054:
1046:
1031:
1024:
989:
967:
955:12.76.129.65
949:
944:
884:
862:
850:Martin Wisse
844:
804:this mention
768:
745:
744:
711:
676:
672:
668:
650:
646:
621:
604:
595:
587:
583:
572:
566:
558:
551:
545:
539:
533:
523:
456:
447:
440:
417:
402:
395:
337:
324:
311:
307:
266:
262:was not met.
257:
253:
212:
199:
198:
183:
119:
110:
103:
75:
64:
47:2008 October
996:—Preceding
626:User:Stifle
549:free images
348:to it. The
279:Speedy keep
950:ad nauseum
628:, but his
424:Eluchil404
267:Smashville
52:October 18
38:October 16
1268:UsaSatsui
1208:notified
377:Sjakkalle
1264:Overturn
1210:Hahnchen
1010:contribs
998:unsigned
990:Overturn
968:Overturn
945:Overturn
914:Mvuijlst
900:Mvuijlst
845:Overturn
812:Mvuijlst
755:Mvuijlst
746:Overturn
695:Mvuijlst
634:Mvuijlst
608:Mvuijlst
590:WP:BITEy
381:(Check!)
358:Lerdsuwa
298:Paul_012
244:Paul_012
190:Paul_012
87:Tikiwont
82:redirect
20: |
1190:Comment
1137:article
1121:restore
1101:history
1002:Allengn
863:Endorse
789:Rossami
774:Rossami
751:Printed
732:Rossami
716:WP:CORP
622:Comment
555:WP refs
543:scholar
504:restore
476:protect
471:history
312:Comment
284:Rossami
254:Endorse
200:Endorse
167:restore
139:protect
134:history
1246:hahnch
1227:Suntag
1222:edited
1177:Stifle
1155:hahnch
1055:Garden
928:Stifle
881:Suntag
865:- The
826:Stifle
793:(talk)
778:(talk)
736:(talk)
720:WP:WEB
655:Stifle
527:Google
480:delete
321:Suntag
288:(talk)
240:WP:AFD
217:Stifle
204:Stifle
143:delete
1125:cache
1109:watch
1105:links
879:. --
669:Seven
649:. It
606:job.
570:JSTOR
531:books
508:cache
497:views
489:watch
485:links
171:cache
160:views
152:watch
148:links
55:: -->
16:<
1272:talk
1181:talk
1113:logs
1097:talk
1093:edit
1006:talk
959:talk
932:talk
918:talk
904:talk
854:talk
830:talk
816:talk
759:talk
699:talk
659:talk
638:talk
630:talk
612:talk
563:FENS
537:news
493:logs
467:talk
463:edit
428:talk
362:talk
260:WP:N
231:WP:N
221:talk
208:talk
156:logs
130:talk
126:edit
91:talk
35:<
1135:) (
1133:IfD
769:not
718:or
673:has
577:TWL
512:AfD
175:AfD
22:Log
1274:)
1204:.
1183:)
1149:.
1123:|
1111:|
1107:|
1103:|
1099:|
1095:|
1059:.
1012:)
1008:•
983:)
961:)
934:)
920:)
906:)
856:)
832:)
818:)
761:)
701:)
661:)
651:is
640:)
614:)
557:)
510:|
506:|
495:|
491:|
487:|
483:|
478:|
474:|
469:|
465:|
430:)
364:)
264:--
223:)
173:|
169:|
158:|
154:|
150:|
146:|
141:|
137:|
132:|
128:|
93:)
45::
1270:(
1254:n
1250:e
1233:☼
1179:(
1163:n
1159:e
1140:)
1130:|
1127:)
1119:(
1115:)
1091:(
1004:(
981:C
979::
977:T
975:(
957:(
930:(
916:(
902:(
887:☼
852:(
828:(
814:(
757:(
697:(
679:.
657:(
636:(
610:(
573:·
567:·
559:·
552:·
546:·
540:·
534:·
529:(
517:)
514:)
502:(
499:)
461:(
426:(
360:(
327:☼
219:(
206:(
180:)
177:)
165:(
162:)
124:(
89:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.