396:(involved as I supported Merge at the AfD). By the numbers this is "No Consensus". I count 4 Delete, 2 Merge, and 5 Keeps. However, two of the Keeps do not cite sources and just gush about how great and notable their mods are. These comments should be given less weight because nobility is not inherited; makers of notable things are not automatically notable. Two of the Keeps list sources but don't explain why they meet WP:NCORP; they are good comments but not great. All four Delete comments contain at least some source analysis explaining that most of the sources in the article or linked in the AfD as really about Enderal (or occasionally another mod) and provide only passing coverage of the studio. Thus strength of argument seemingly favors Delete. But given that two comments argued for a Merge and that Delete is not a slam dunk (there are easily enough sources to meet WP:V and enough to meet WP:NCORP can be subjective) a merge is an excellent option as an ATD. It isn't an obvious consensus since it was only a minority "vote", but it is a compromise that addresses both sides primary concerns. I.e. The sources are not really sufficient for the current reading of NCORP, but this is an important in it's niche company that shouldn't be a red-link. In particular I believe that AfD's with this configuration of arguments (i.e. Delete stronger than Keep but not a clear consensus with a clear suggestion of a Merge target with no articulated objection) should be closed as Merge even if I myself happened to favor keeping or deleting the article for whatever reason.
1379:
to do something, and relisting isn't for that. A new AfD is possible if there is an article and someone nominates it for deletion. So 1/2/3 years in the future (or sooner) someone could create an article about this topic again and it could be nominated for deletion. That's something that can simply happen all on its own, and
Deletion review doesn't have a say in it. Recreation is possible, as nothing prevents it. When you think that it's a good time to write about this because there are sufficient sources for an encyclopedia article, you can just write the article, and maybe no one will even nominate it for deletion. â
1300:(keep deleted). There is a noticeable absence of evidence that there is something to write about. I don't think that the page should be undeleted. The content was stated to be non-compliant with policy. When there is something to write about as may be evidenced in the sources, please write something that is policy compliant (which will have became doable by then). The close of the AfD has not been challenged and it speaks for itself so it doesn't seem like endorsing it has real meaning.â
1028:), but the author appears to be a subject-matter expert and is discussing a topic within his expertise. Still, there is no editorial oversight. This is at the very bottom of what we could treat as a reliable secondary source. Multiple reliable sources would be needed, and maybe in a group of such sources could this Medium post contribute to a determination that the list topic is notable. â
587:
any demonstrated notability. It was also said to be original research. While various references were provided and those facts are present in other
Knowledge (XXG) articles too. It was said that lower communities is ambiguous but It includes last two (Vaishyas and shudras.) It seems to be deleted without any substantial reason.
997:. The strong reason to delete was editors agreeing that the page did not meet stand-alone list eligibility criteria, including the concern that the list was assembled through the forbidden combining of material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.â
586:
This article was deleted without any strong reason. The article was well written and well sourced with no inaccuracies reported yet. The reason was said to be unnotability but it's clear that Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of
318:
To be clear, "no consensus" was my second (and only other) choice. However, I felt the "merge" comments, particularly the closing one from HighKing, were strong and persuasive. The nominator, IgelRM, also suggested a merge. I'd also add that a NC close implies no prejudice against renomination (which
1205:
The AfD was closed as "delete" because the article read like a dictionary entry. Musk becoming a trillionaire would not change that. But all are free to recreate the article once the concept of "trillionaire" is covered by reliable sources in sufficient depth for us to write an article about it that
295:
Yes, it was indeed chosen as a middle-ground. But it was specifically chosen as a favoured idea to satisfy the most participants, which is not what the WP:SPV essay is talking about. If AfD used some kind of runoff voting system, Merge would be the outcome here, supported by more participants than a
135:
In a close that I cannot fathom, Ritchie333 closed this as "merge". Half (6) argued for a keep, 2 argued for a merge, a minority (4) argued for deletion. Ritchie says that the deletion refuted the keeps, therefore merge has consensus, but I fail to see refutations. People disagreed, some considering
1378:
By waiting a year or two (or three) on the relist, do you mean having a new
Articles for Deletion discussion in 1/2/3 years? If you would like more discussing to happen in AfD, that can't happen in the discussion that this deletion review links to, because that discussion concluded with a consensus
773:
Yes, thank you, I do understand the distinction between a person's class and their worth. Here in
Britain, some hereditary aristocrats are ghastly human beings and some third-generation council house tenants are lovely; and I'm sure that's the same everywhere else in the world too. I don't think
362:
The keeps specifically addressed NCORP. So did the deletes. None came to agreement with regards to whether or not sourcing met NCORP, with many feeling it did not apply because the point of NCORP was to prevent spammy ad-like creations, which this specifically was not. There is no consensus for a
639:
The sources cited are reliable. They contain easily accessable links to printed books by reputed authors and publishers. If any particular entry is disputed It can be challenged in talk page by citing other sources but deleting a list which have reliable citations shouldn't be the way to go.
680:
The proposed list of
Sanskrit authors from lower communities is significant as it challenges the notion that only high-caste individuals contributed to Sanskrit literature. By highlighting these authors, the list reveals the rich diversity within the tradition and underscores the meaningful
247:
I can see your point about a forced compromise, but see no evidence of a supervote. Everything suggests that
Ritchie was genuinely trying to find a way to close the AfD in the least contentious manner, without injecting his own views on the article or its sourcing. A forced compromise isn't
451:
I have again fixed your formatting to comply with DRV conventions. Secondly, can you please elaborate on this â which part of "per above" are you endorsing based on? DRV, more than anywhere else, needs nuanced commentary rather than "per X" voting, which adds very little to the discussion.
1363:
Maybe wait a year or two on the relist; but my rationale is the fact that sources are apparently saying that Elon Musk could become a trillionaire by 2027; which my my calculations is only about three years from now. As for the indent, it was just a mistake and it has been fixed now.
703:, I respect your attempt to dispel the misconception about the paucity of lower caste Sanskrit authors, but Knowledge (XXG) isn't the place to do this. For a list to meet our inclusion standards, it's not enough that individual items in it are covered by reliable sources. The
746:
Please don't confuse lower social hierarchy with individual inferiority. It's like hierarchy in a company where a CEO could be a horrible person even when high in hierarchy and a sweeper could be a brilliant person even when lower in hierarchy. It's clearly listed in
223:. I see an even split between keep and delete/ATD votes, both in number and strength. The keep side provided several sources of content which I do not believe were fully disputed by the delete/ATD side. The closing statement reads to me as a forced-compromise
681:
contributions of marginalized voices. Their works reflect unique perspectives on social justice and identity, enriching our understanding of
Sanskrit heritage and promoting a more equitable narrative that honors the contributions of all communities.
337:
Merge was not only an acceptable option, it was specifically discussed as being okay in the discussion itself. No consensus is not a catch all for when there are issues with sourcing that haven't been rebutted, especially when NCORP is involved.
569:
954:
This is more of a western perspective on the phenomenon . In our words, propoganda. The tribal and regional cultures have all sprouted from the same hinduism. Distorting, reaffirming shastric traditions or discarding it are all possibilities.
725:
I think the basic problem is "lower communities" in the title. What we actually need is to review any scholarly papers about this topic and see what the academics say about the relationship between written
Sanskrit, caste, and socioeconomic
1260:. If Mr. Musk (or another person) eventually becomes widely known as becoming the first trillionaire, then we can have a discussion to add a link to his page into the DAB at that time. There is certainly nothing to do now.
557:
1242:
The appellant doesn't need our permission to submit a new draft to AfC, but someone possibly becoming a trillionaire in three years is hardly a reason to create an encyclopedic entry. The original close was fine.
272:
A discussion has drawn to a close, with or without a clear outcome. It is supervoting to close in favor of an undiscussed or unfavored compromise idea, which may satisfy no one. If a discussion did not come to a
1347:, do you think there was much doubt in the participants' arguments that would warrant a relist years later? The outcome looks pretty clear to me. Plus, why are you adding additional indents to your comment?
578:
1162:
179:. Sometimes it's better to pick the outcome that the fewest would find objectionable than to just throw your hands in the air and do nothing with a "No consensus" close. I'm glad we have admins like
175:. The Delete and the Merge !votes there carry far more P&G weight than the various flavours of Keep. There was no specific consensus to Merge, but I agree with how the closer phrased it:
1183:
could become the first trillionaire by 2027, I think that we should allow for the "Trillionaire" article (the deleted one, not the current disambiguation page) to be restored as a draft at
319:
may end up as "delete" - at least one editor observed the criteria for WP:CORP had been tightened up), whereas a merge can be expanded out at a later date if more sources are written.
980:
No, the consensus of the AFD was the reason. The appellant is disagreeing with the reasoning of the the AFD nominator and the AFD participants, but that is not what DRV is for.
183:
who have the resourcefulness and BOLDness to put aside the nose-counting, and find a solution that best reflects the preferences of participants, as supported by P&G.
48:
34:
43:
413:. I agree with the reading of the discussion as âmergeâ. If the merge doesnât happen, it falls back to âno consensusâ leaning âredirectâ, not leaning âkeepâ. â
806:
That's modern artificial categorisation for vote bank politics. I am talking about traditional classification of jÄti and it's not exactly same as caste.
118:
136:
the existing sources sufficient, others not. Even if you don't 'count' votes, I can't see how this is anything but a standard no consensus close.
783:
527:
39:
352:
275:. Obviously merge was not "undiscussed," but in my opinion there was no consensus and a merge close was chosen as the âmiddle-groundâ
1150:
1206:
goes beyond a dictionary definition. It is not apparent from this review request, which cites no sources, that this is now the case.
523:
483:
470:
844:
not very well written but good for basic idea. It should have more mentions from first hand
Sanskrit sources, that is our shastras
914:
877:
835:
797:
737:
327:
211:
21:
1021:
373:
146:
1171:
696:
177:
the "merge" option suggested by some seemed to be the option that I felt most people who expressed a view could live with
886:
JÄti is a subcategory of Varna resulting from cross-breeding between varnas. Occupation is designated according to JÄti.
782:, with 39 subcategories. Please could you say which of these you meant by "lower communities"? You don't seem to mean
106:
1406:
1100:
1047:
507:
17:
619:
Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources.
756:
752:
1288:
985:
227:. A second relist would be an okay option as well, but I do not see consensus forming with further discussion.
1228:. There is nothing to suggest that there is anything to write at this title which will be more than a dicdef.
1383:
1373:
1358:
1339:
1323:
1304:
1292:
1275:
1252:
1237:
1218:
1196:
1089:
1032:
1015:
1011:
1001:
989:
964:
960:
949:
918:
898:
894:
881:
853:
849:
839:
815:
811:
801:
768:
764:
741:
716:
690:
686:
672:
649:
645:
634:
596:
592:
496:
461:
439:
422:
405:
386:
357:
344:
329:
305:
290:
257:
242:
215:
192:
165:
127:
613:
at the AfD. The appellant has not demonstrated why this seemingly arbitrary list selection criterion meets
161:
1268:
779:
283:
235:
224:
1184:
1007:
956:
890:
845:
807:
760:
700:
682:
641:
588:
614:
1365:
1344:
1315:
1284:
981:
910:
873:
831:
793:
733:
668:
446:
431:
401:
325:
207:
1380:
1301:
1029:
998:
946:
622:
418:
1025:
381:
154:
1006:
Individual items needn't be found together in a single source. However, It's discussed together
369:
339:
142:
1263:
1120:
278:
230:
858:
So this list was taking the
Shudras as a jÄti rather than as a varna. You meant people like
377:
150:
1335:
1233:
1192:
1085:
748:
492:
457:
1247:
942:
904:
867:
859:
825:
787:
727:
711:
664:
629:
610:
397:
320:
300:
252:
201:
187:
180:
660:
1209:
414:
863:
365:
138:
1116:
1076:
1063:
659:: the original closing decision. The list of authors are not discussed together in
1331:
1229:
1188:
1081:
488:
453:
76:
248:
necessarily a bad thing; we often use those when resolving editorial disputes.
1244:
903:
Okay... in that case I can't see what's wrong with the close we're reviewing.â
708:
626:
297:
249:
184:
1180:
606:
1349:
821:
707:
of those items into a distinct list must be supported by the sources.
939:
relationship between written Sanskrit, caste, and socioeconomic class
72:
65:
1312:â I think maybe on this one we should go back through AfD on this.
605:. The list was deleted for very valid reasons, well expressed by
820:
Aha! Thanks, that's helpful. Is our Knowledge (XXG) article on
1157:
1143:
1135:
1127:
564:
550:
542:
534:
270:
Forced compromise is listed as a a type of supervote.
113:
99:
91:
83:
945:(but it isn't about the creation of new literature). â
621:. I would have been just as happy with a Redirect to
778:
confusing is that Knowledge (XXG)'s category system
978:
This article was deleted without any strong reason.
1020:Medium is near-forbidden on Knowledge (XXG), as a
976:- DRV is not AFD round 2. The appellant says:
524:List of Sanskrit authors from lower communities
484:List of Sanskrit authors from lower communities
471:List of Sanskrit authors from lower communities
8:
1099:The following is an archived debate of the
506:The following is an archived debate of the
1069:
476:
159:
889:Shudra is a varna with many JÄtis in it.
751:hierarchy. It's discussed at many places
625:, but the consensus to delete was clear.
1283:or do nothing, as per above comments.
977:
938:
618:
271:
176:
784:Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
7:
663:and DRV is not an extension of AfD.
1409:of the page listed in the heading.
1050:of the page listed in the heading.
774:there's any confusion there. What
28:
1187:as it would now look promising.
1405:The above is an archive of the
1046:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1384:17:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1374:16:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1359:05:55, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
1340:08:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1324:03:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1305:20:30, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
1293:16:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1276:14:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
1253:13:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
1238:08:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
1219:06:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
1197:02:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
1090:23:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
1033:11:25, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1016:09:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
1002:20:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
990:16:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
965:12:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
950:11:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
919:11:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
899:09:31, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
882:18:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
854:12:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
840:11:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
816:09:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
802:13:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
769:12:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
742:11:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
717:09:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
691:08:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
673:06:55, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
650:08:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
635:13:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
597:11:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
497:23:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
462:21:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
440:03:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
423:22:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
406:21:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
387:22:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
358:20:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
330:16:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
306:22:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
291:21:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
258:17:37, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
243:14:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
216:11:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
193:23:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
166:22:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
1:
1179:Given the recent news that
780:thinks there are 411 castes
695:This sounds like a case of
1432:
200:, since there wasn't one.â
1412:Please do not modify it.
1106:Please do not modify it.
1053:Please do not modify it.
513:Please do not modify it.
221:Overturn to no consensus
198:Overturn to no consensus
40:Deletion review archives
759:paper and many others.
755:It's discussed in this
676:(Involved in the AfD)
1080:â Deletion endorsed.
487:â Deletion endorsed.
1103:of the page above.
697:WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS
623:Sanskrit literature
510:of the page above.
1203:Closer's comment:
1185:Draft:Trillionaire
1419:
1418:
1217:
1060:
1059:
1022:deprecated source
937:Technically, the
917:
880:
838:
800:
740:
214:
168:
59:10 September 2024
49:2024 September 11
1423:
1414:
1371:
1357:
1321:
1274:
1271:
1266:
1216:
1214:
1207:
1174:
1169:
1160:
1146:
1138:
1130:
1108:
1070:
1055:
941:is discussed in
909:
872:
830:
792:
732:
661:reliable sources
617:, which states,
581:
576:
567:
553:
545:
537:
515:
477:
450:
437:
385:
355:
347:
289:
286:
281:
241:
238:
233:
206:
158:
130:
125:
116:
102:
94:
86:
53:
35:2024 September 9
33:
1431:
1430:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1410:
1407:deletion review
1368:Hurricane Clyde
1366:
1348:
1345:Hurricane Clyde
1318:Hurricane Clyde
1316:
1285:Robert McClenon
1269:
1264:
1261:
1250:
1210:
1208:
1170:
1168:
1165:
1156:
1155:
1149:
1142:
1141:
1134:
1133:
1126:
1125:
1104:
1101:deletion review
1068:
1051:
1048:deletion review
982:Robert McClenon
943:Sanskritisation
860:Matsyendranatha
714:
677:
632:
577:
575:
572:
563:
562:
556:
549:
548:
541:
540:
533:
532:
511:
508:deletion review
475:
447:Hurricane Clyde
444:
434:Hurricane Clyde
432:
364:
351:
343:
303:
284:
279:
276:
255:
236:
231:
228:
190:
137:
126:
124:
121:
112:
111:
105:
98:
97:
90:
89:
82:
81:
69:
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1429:
1427:
1417:
1416:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1307:
1295:
1278:
1255:
1248:
1240:
1222:
1221:
1177:
1176:
1166:
1153:
1147:
1139:
1131:
1123:
1111:
1110:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1067:
1061:
1058:
1057:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
992:
971:
970:
969:
968:
967:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
887:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
712:
675:
654:
653:
652:
630:
584:
583:
573:
560:
554:
546:
538:
530:
518:
517:
502:
501:
500:
499:
474:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
425:
408:
391:
390:
389:
332:
315:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
309:
308:
301:
296:No consensus.
263:
262:
261:
260:
253:
218:
195:
188:
164:comment added
133:
132:
122:
109:
103:
95:
87:
79:
68:
63:
61:
56:
47:
44:2024 September
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1428:
1415:
1413:
1408:
1403:
1402:
1385:
1382:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1372:
1369:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1356:
1354:
1353:
1346:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1322:
1319:
1314:
1313:
1311:
1308:
1306:
1303:
1299:
1296:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1279:
1277:
1273:
1272:
1267:
1259:
1256:
1254:
1251:
1246:
1241:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1224:
1223:
1220:
1215:
1213:
1204:
1201:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1194:
1190:
1186:
1182:
1173:
1164:
1159:
1152:
1145:
1137:
1129:
1122:
1118:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1109:
1107:
1102:
1097:
1096:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1078:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1065:
1062:
1056:
1054:
1049:
1044:
1043:
1034:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1013:
1009:
1008:Mohit Dokania
1005:
1004:
1003:
1000:
996:
993:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
972:
966:
962:
958:
957:Mohit Dokania
953:
952:
951:
948:
944:
940:
936:
920:
916:
912:
908:
907:
902:
901:
900:
896:
892:
891:Mohit Dokania
888:
885:
884:
883:
879:
875:
871:
870:
865:
864:Narayana Guru
861:
857:
856:
855:
851:
847:
846:Mohit Dokania
843:
842:
841:
837:
833:
829:
828:
823:
819:
818:
817:
813:
809:
808:Mohit Dokania
805:
804:
803:
799:
795:
791:
790:
785:
781:
777:
772:
771:
770:
766:
762:
761:Mohit Dokania
758:
754:
750:
745:
744:
743:
739:
735:
731:
730:
724:
718:
715:
710:
706:
702:
701:Mohit Dokania
698:
694:
693:
692:
688:
684:
683:Mohit Dokania
679:
678:
674:
670:
666:
662:
658:
655:
651:
647:
643:
642:Mohit Dokania
638:
637:
636:
633:
628:
624:
620:
616:
612:
608:
604:
601:
600:
599:
598:
594:
590:
589:Mohit Dokania
580:
571:
566:
559:
552:
544:
536:
529:
525:
522:
521:
520:
519:
516:
514:
509:
504:
503:
498:
494:
490:
486:
485:
481:
480:
479:
478:
472:
469:
463:
459:
455:
448:
443:
442:
441:
438:
435:
429:
426:
424:
420:
416:
412:
409:
407:
403:
399:
395:
392:
388:
383:
379:
375:
371:
367:
361:
360:
359:
356:
354:
348:
346:
341:
340:SportingFlyer
336:
333:
331:
328:
326:
324:
323:
317:
316:
307:
304:
299:
294:
293:
292:
288:
287:
282:
274:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
259:
256:
251:
246:
245:
244:
240:
239:
234:
226:
222:
219:
217:
213:
209:
205:
204:
199:
196:
194:
191:
186:
182:
178:
174:
171:
170:
169:
167:
163:
156:
152:
148:
144:
140:
129:
120:
115:
108:
101:
93:
85:
78:
74:
71:
70:
67:
64:
60:
57:
50:
45:
41:
36:
23:
19:
1411:
1404:
1367:
1351:
1350:
1317:
1309:
1297:
1280:
1262:
1257:
1226:Keep deleted
1225:
1211:
1202:
1178:
1117:Trillionaire
1105:
1098:
1077:Trillionaire
1075:
1064:Trillionaire
1052:
1045:
994:
973:
905:
868:
826:
788:
775:
728:
704:
665:Jeraxmoirađ
656:
602:
585:
512:
505:
482:
433:
427:
410:
393:
350:
342:
334:
321:
277:
229:
225:WP:SUPERVOTE
220:
202:
197:
172:
160:â Preceding
134:
58:
615:WP:LISTCRIT
430:per above.
1212:Sandstein
906:SÂ Marshall
869:SÂ Marshall
827:SÂ Marshall
824:accurate?â
789:SÂ Marshall
729:SÂ Marshall
611:Jeraxmoira
398:Eluchil404
322:Ritchie333
203:SÂ Marshall
181:Ritchie333
1381:Alalch E.
1302:Alalch E.
1298:No action
1258:No action
1181:Elon Musk
1030:Alalch E.
1026:WP:MEDIUM
999:Alalch E.
947:Alalch E.
415:SmokeyJoe
273:consensus
1066:(closed)
757:research
705:grouping
473:(closed)
366:Headbomb
363:merge.
139:Headbomb
20: |
1281:Endorse
1172:restore
1136:history
995:Endorse
974:Endorse
726:class.â
657:Endorse
603:Endorse
579:restore
543:history
428:Endorse
411:Endorse
394:Endorse
335:Endorse
173:Endorse
162:undated
128:restore
92:history
1332:Stifle
1310:Relist
1270:Anchor
1230:Stifle
1189:GTrang
1082:Daniel
489:Daniel
454:Daniel
285:Anchor
237:Anchor
73:SureAI
66:SureAI
1330:Why?
1265:Frank
1245:OwenĂ
1158:watch
1151:links
1024:(see
749:varna
709:OwenĂ
627:OwenĂ
565:watch
558:links
298:OwenĂ
280:Frank
250:OwenĂ
232:Frank
185:OwenĂ
114:watch
107:links
52:: -->
16:<
1336:talk
1289:talk
1234:talk
1193:talk
1144:logs
1128:edit
1121:talk
1086:talk
1012:talk
986:talk
961:talk
895:talk
862:and
850:talk
822:jÄti
812:talk
765:talk
687:talk
669:talk
646:talk
609:and
607:Fram
593:talk
551:logs
535:edit
528:talk
493:talk
458:talk
419:talk
402:talk
100:logs
84:edit
77:talk
32:<
1163:XfD
1161:) (
753:see
570:XfD
568:) (
119:XfD
117:) (
22:Log
1370:đ
1355:iz
1338:)
1320:đ
1291:)
1236:)
1195:)
1088:)
1014:)
988:)
963:)
897:)
866:?â
852:)
814:)
786:.â
776:is
767:)
699:.
689:)
671:)
648:)
595:)
495:)
460:)
436:đ
421:)
404:)
380:¡
376:¡
372:¡
153:¡
149:¡
145:¡
42::
1352:L
1334:(
1287:(
1249:â
1232:(
1191:(
1175:)
1167:|
1154:|
1148:|
1140:|
1132:|
1124:|
1119:(
1084:(
1010:(
984:(
959:(
915:C
913:/
911:T
893:(
878:C
876:/
874:T
848:(
836:C
834:/
832:T
810:(
798:C
796:/
794:T
763:(
738:C
736:/
734:T
713:â
685:(
667:(
644:(
631:â
591:(
582:)
574:|
561:|
555:|
547:|
539:|
531:|
526:(
491:(
456:(
449::
445:@
417:(
400:(
384:}
382:b
378:p
374:c
370:t
368:{
353:C
349:¡
345:T
302:â
254:â
212:C
210:/
208:T
189:â
157:}
155:b
151:p
147:c
143:t
141:{
131:)
123:|
110:|
104:|
96:|
88:|
80:|
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.