797:
could find to spam the link. I am forced to wonder if others of the same mind such as
Swisscelt, have been asked to help in the deletion of this valid article, for the sole purpose of causing drama where it is not appropriate. Mr. Artisson is a very well respected Pagan author in my community, and several neopagan bookstores are currently carrying "The Witching Way Of The Hollow Hill" , which has been heralded as one of the most profoundly meaningful works, rivaling that of the Masters. I do hope the Wiki Staff recognizes the extreme conflict of interest in regards to these "pro-deletion" comments, and takes swift action to prevent further vandalism to this wonderful article. I fail to see how and "Pro-Artisson" camments can be catagorized as personal attacks, when the sole purpose here of all of the people that want this article deleted is a misguided personal vandetta/attack. If you don't appreciate Mr. Artisson's ground-breaking work, then you are free not to view this article,and voice your opinions about him in your own blog, or whatever it is you have. I attend many Pagan gatherings and nearly every person I meet for the first time is aquainted with and acknowledges the importance of Robin's work, and he is quite notable, I assure you. I do hope the Wiki staff sees these personal attacks for what they are. This man has sold a great deal of books, and has been authoring many on line articles for years. To even consider he is not "notable" is laughable, and an obvious attempt at censorship. AGAIN:DO NOT DELETE... --
1135:). Now I've always felt that magic and witchcraft are essentially esoteric activities not suited for the mainstream anyway (learning about magic can only be done by learning to dig deeper than the surface, searching for more than what's presented up front). I know well the fringe community of magical New Zealand, and some of the communities of parts of England and Australia. The most proficient occultists (and those who have been most influential in the magical and pagan scenes) tend not to enter the spotlight. How many pages will you find doing a web search for Michael Freedman? How many for Paula Jacobs-Wedo? How many for Jack Taylor? Very few, although their influence in New Zealand, through their orders, schools and students has had a huge effect in shaping NZ's occult community. (They do however appear in a few reputable books on the subject.) So don't worry too much if there's currently not enough documentation on Artisson to support an article. It should be forthcoming fairly quickly if he has such a strong following. In the meantime, unless you're hoping to convert a whole load of people, I wouldn't worry too much.
597:- as he has in his own Son of Art group "secret supporters," in various groups to keep an eye on anyone speaking against him. He has a severe messiah complex, and if you ask for resources, he'll attack you with such immaturity that he isn't taken seriously in the pagan community. Most of the "Do not delete" are his sock puppets, or secret supporters. He bases his work on Nigel Jackson, whom his history is as mis-guided as Margaret Murray's, and the "mystically inclined" is as much nonsense as his "recovery" of ancient lore. In otherwords, he's making stuff up. I've seen him troll, and his Michael Quirke that's "a traditional pagan" is in fact, a christian, who tells the old stories. So, added on, is liar. He is self-publicized, meaning no publisher would take him seriously more than likely. Also, he bases his work on R.J. Stewart, whom is a very new-age author. His online group is only an ego boosting, and his "wealth" of knowledge is shotty, poorly researched, or just plain off. DELETE him, and let him get a dose of reality.
965:: ANYONE that could possibly want Robin off the list couldn't have possibly read one of the Newest True Masterpieces of Traditonal Craft "The Witching Way of Hollow Hill"! I've been reading and practicing our Austrian Family brand of Traditional ways for year and have read not only most of the mainstream fluff but those that most would believe are factually researched and historically correct! Many who have read his book, as new as it is, are already calling this their Pagan brand of Bible(for lack of a better word)! I AGREE! Robin is one of the Best writers on Spiritual Mysteries in our Modern era attested by his Fast growing fan base! Even if it is taken off, Robin will be a continue to be a Major Player and Occult Author long after his removal! He's a true survivor and one that many are green with envy over! To Remove Robin would be giving in to the mainstream popular new age authors! UNFAIR Indeed! I VOTE KEEP THIS ARTICLE on WIKIPEDIA! Crowshifter / John K January 17, 2006
415:
a well-known personality in the neopagan world. Despite the clear attacks of the people who don't want to see him here for their own personal reasons and vendettas, his name and writings are well known in neopagan circles, and I thought he deserved an article. The user who called for this deletion is "Ashley Y", a person who also uses the
Knowledge rip-off and trash site "Encyclopedia Dramatica", where she has made countless libelous statements against Robin Artisson. You can see them here in the history page of the article made against him there: The user "Swisscelt" has also tried to smear him at that site, and you can look at that history page and see his name, as well. Both of these users have personal grudges against Robin. They are not objective. Many authors and artists choose to self-publish for reasons of creative control. Being self-published is still published. People voting against this article- like
1116:. You've heard of him now. And that, I think, is the point. For someone who is called "not notable" by the "delete" crowd, he seems to have the power to cause quite a ruckuss, and invoke quite a lot of emotion out of quite a lot of people. And for someone who isn't known or notable, a lot of people here seem to know him- and even know enough about him to tell us all what multiple crimes he's alleged to have committed, etc. Yeah... he's well known for being "not notable"- notable, after all, is a rather neutral term, to "be of note" doesn't imply anything automatically positive or negative, nor is there some objective standard for who is "notable" when it comes to fringe communities and alternative communities like the heterogeneous neopagan world.
359:: You've heard of him now. And that, I think, is the point. For someone who is called "not notable" by the "delete" crowd, he seems to have the power to cause quite a ruckuss, and invoke quite a lot of emotion out of quite a lot of people. And for someone who isn't known or notable, a lot of people here seem to know him- and even know enough about him to tell us all what multiple crimes he's alleged to have committed, etc. Yeah... he's well known for being "not notable"- notable, after all, is a rather neutral term, to "be of note" doesn't imply anything automatically positive or negative, nor is there some objective standard for who is "notable" when it comes to fringe communities and alternative communities like the heterogeneous neopagan world.
1018:
more so than 99% of the pagan authors out there. I find it sad that a few naysayers who do not like him because he dares to disagree with them are allowed to harass and slander him wherever he goes. It irks such people to no end to see the truth about Robin and be brought face to face with their lies. Talk about a detachment from reality! Leave him alone and go find someone else to bully. Robin's work, writings and websites can and do stand on their own. If you don't like it, don't read it! But please do not try to censor him and spread lies. It will only come back to bite you in the backside. Also, Knowledge can validate my IP if they wish and see that I am a real person, not a puppet, thankyou very much. Marilyn
745:. Robins works have been enjoyed by many these past few years and he certainly IS a notable character in the pagan community, whether one agrees with his discussion style, or ritual methods and history or not. Both his internet writings/poetry, and now his hard copy full length book have proved to be workable or at least inspiring to many. Ashley_y has stated in her own entry that she is nothing more than a "fiddler" and corrector, and not noted for originality. Swisscelt has been whining in blogs now for ages about Robin,and now has come here for another unprovoked attack. These negative votes seem to violate all the criteria set by Wiki for manners on deletion. :unrulywitch
301:
that really grabs my interest, like his mention of "Dame Hyldor" as a name for the
Goddess in (Northern England? I forget... he mentions it somewhere on his Meadows of Elfhame site). I would like to know whether these are his own inventions/intuitions or whether they pre-exist him. Given his claims of not believing in oaths of secrecy, we should be able to come up with a bit more concrete information to tie him down. Also, I note that many of the posts in the anti-deletion camp have remarkably similar wording and language patterns. I think I might pop over to one of Artisson's sites and compare with some of his writing there! (This is partly copied from my post to
1127:, for an explanation of why we cannot yet conclude Robin Artisson to be a notable figure. We need mention of him from a reputable published source (and not, of course, just from his own books). If he is well known to a large online community of witches then there's a good chance that at some stage soon he will appear in someone's book or article on the subject, however we have to wait for that
665:
verified. Take your mudslinging elsewhere.If you do not know where Hyldor comes from nor what it means, you really show your lack of knowledge regarding the subject of witchery. Go back to school or do a Google search.Personally, I have noticed many of the posts for the pro-deletion camp are remerkably similar. Hmm. One might wonder why! Marilyn,
863:
article not be deleted? I thought this was a discussion on that very topic, and did not realize that one had to be a ling time member such as swisscelt to vote. That seems to be a wee bit prejududical to me. I read the article, I joined to vote, end of story. Please pedal your conspiracy theories elsewhere.
796:
I have seen this "Ashley Y" attack Mr. Artisson relentlessly in several other on line communities, as well as the rest of the "deleters" This harassment includes libelous and false information to this
Encyclopedia Dramatica entry, to spread vicious lies about him across the internet, to anywhere they
677:
Nobody is saying that you aren't real. We're only saying that you are not an established
Knowledge user, and therefore your vote does not count as much as those from people who've been here for a while and contributed to the project. I regret that you find this insulting, but these are the principles
295:
until such time as there is sufficient mention of the man from respectable (and identifiable) sources in the literature. Currently he only has faceless internet entities vouching for him. If however this article is kept, it will need a lot of editing. The whole thing reads as if it has been posted by
862:
Please stop the perosnal attacks. I saw the announcement in Mr. Artisson's Son Of Art Yahoo 500 memeber discussion community yesterday, and saw the deletion notice today and was shocked. Yes I joined today, so what? Is it so unreasonable that a reader of Mr. Artisson's would come in here and ask the
851:
00:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC) You mention that
Artisson's book "has been heralded as one of the most profoundly meaningful works, rivaling that of the Masters". I suggest you give us a reference for this, if it is from a source that is at all reputable, because that's exactly the kind of fact that if
664:
And currently, he has only faceless internet entities trying to get him banned! How dare you insult those of us who actually are quite intelligent by the way, with the same old rhetoric and lies about not being real people? Everyone who has posted here for Robin is indeed genuine and our IP's can be
414:
This man has a large online presence, and thousands of people have purchased his book. He has contributed to articles upcoming in "The
Cauldron", one of Britain's most read occult magazines, as well as "Pentacle" in the UK. He is published in the "Pagan Awareness Network" journal in Australia. He is
300:
like to find out more about Robin
Artisson, to find out whether his information has any good sources or whether it is invented. I remember emailing him a couple of years ago trying to find his source (and a tune) for a song (Dick Darvall's song), but receiving no reply. There's plenty of other stuff
137:
Robin
Artisson is a well-known troll and troublemaker who has spammed, mailbombed, and harassed dozens (if not hundreds) of pagan-oriented mailing lists, usergroups, Livejournal communities, causing many of them to shut down. But being a first-class asshole is not notable enough to warrant an entry
653:
If you feel that way, just don't read his work. It's not meant for the spiritually desolate agnostic anyway. It must be horrible to not believe anything unless it's been on
National Geographic thirty plus times. I also don't think being an armchair anthropologist such as RA dissenters are qualifies
1017:
Robin is a very wonderful and talented man with a vast wealth of knowledge regarding European paganism as well as history. I have been on this heathen path for over thirty of my forty years and have learned quite a bit myself. I can say with all honesty that Robin knows his subject extremely well,
904:
I was using the edit feature for a templete. I don't even know who ravenwhatever is! Here i wont put anything but text...Do that help you any? I thought this place banned by IP anyway? Why is my account still here? Is that how youplan to carry out your censorship, by pointing fingers at people and
478:
The only thing Robin Artisson is well-known for is trolling pagan communities, harrassing journalists in their own journals, and the ever infamous photoshopped picture of Christopher Trottier to include a Nazi symbol. The only thing Robin Artisson has ever been noted for is his detatchment from
512:
If the bar is set so low as to allow self-published authors to use Knowledge as another one of many channels of self-aggrandizement and bully-pulpit we've served no public good. At very least, it should be deemed unacceptable for the subject to be author and editor of what amounts to his own
419:
have already made personal attacks against Robin, calling him a "troll" and an "asshole". This is a violation of Wiki's rules, and troll-like behavior, evidence of the true motivations of people trying to remove this article. There is not a shred of verifiable evidence that Robin has spammed
1148:
deletion votes. By Knowledge standards, this is a tiny, tiny little dust-up. How many votes are on this page, anyway -- fewer than fifty altogether? I wouldn't call that "quite a lot of people." Hell, everyone keeps mentioning that 500-member Yahoo group, and I wouldn't call
638:
If the closing admin does the right thing, it is not a pure vote at all, and a well-reasoned argument by a first-time user is more important than an unexplained vote by someone with five thousand edits. That aside, there is no hard-and-fast rule about "AfD suffrage".
711:
Robin is a gentleman and very well known to every neo-pagan that I personally know. His self-published book has sold tons of copies and I believe that he is more than notable enough to merit a Knowledge article. He is already weighing offers from several mainstream
1168:
I'm not saying that he won't be notable, someday in the future. However, right now he's really only "well-known" to the people who've encountered him personally. The fact that those people have strong opinions about him isn't really news.
81:
I've just recived an email on the helpdesk from someone claiming to be the subject of the article. They said that they wanted the article deleted. They also stated that the photos are copyvios. Something we will need to sort
296:
Robin himself or else a very uncritical fan of his. Too much waxing lyrical; too many relatively unimportant details that serve only to bolster his image; not enough hard facts. It all smacks of POV. Personally, I
1164:
well-known, to where they're mentioned by multiple large media outlets (print or online). Artisson fails the Google test, since most of the hits you get on his name are from his own sites or those of his friends.
687:
I was simply responding and referring to various comments made by someone here, not to Knowledge policy. So, let the article on Robin be edited and "polished up" if you wish, but please do not delete it. Thanks.
433:
You can plainly see I've not voted on this motion, nor will I (it appears my vote will be unnecessary anyway). I'd appreciate it if you not attempt to turn this into a smear campaign against me. Thank you. --
334:. No proof of any real notability. LiveJournal fame is not sufficient. Despite claims of widespread fame/notoriety in the neopagan world, neither myself nor my neopagan friends have heard of him. —
654:
one to say what is true and what isn't just because they haven't had the blessing of learning outside of their Google searches and Ronald Hutton books (who actually likes Robin's work! !gasp!).
894:
We are "prejudiced," if you must call it that, in favor of those who have made significant contributions to the Knowledge project. Those who have not will not be taken seriously.
925:
913:, I enjoy reading the articles that Robin Artisson writes and was very pleased to see a short bio of him here on Knowledge. Please don't delete this..Tezcatlipocasgirl
1103:
1003:
557:
1173:
1052:
947:
692:
682:
284:
643:
1078:
921:
870:
609:
886:
1201:
757:
672:
1223:
960:
834:
553:
302:
830:
A well-reasoned argument that the article meets our inclusion guidelines would, in my book, get someone somewhere. This is supposed to be a discussion...
322:
1074:
864:
798:
605:
101:
Relatively insignificant internet persona with a diminutive and derivative literary contribution to the genre, but obviously a legend in his own mind. -
1197:
973:
879:
753:
713:
547:
421:
898:
655:
455:
62:
1117:
1026:
852:
established could help to save the article. Remember that Knowledge doesn't operate based on a show of hands, but based on documentary evidence.
689:
669:
514:
360:
150:
856:
820:
782:
731:
631:
480:
1139:
458:
438:
287:
219:
129:
72:
583:
231:
86:
658:
532:
498:
399:
247:
387:
183:
309:
117:
153:
142:
929:
347:
259:
203:
105:
56:
666:
168:
125:
The book is self-published, the articles are "upcoming" (i.e., I can't find them anywhere) and he's well-known on LiveJournal.
563:
464:
1066:: he does some wonderful stuff, well researched. I enjoyed his book and want to see him write more. thepixeltypo (Morgy)*
1189:
He puts out some wonderful stuff. More researched than most of the 'wiccan' authors. Keep the entry like it is. ¥ Bird*
1082:
613:
702:
1205:
981:
761:
513:
mini-biography, and Artisson seems unlikely to allow others to pass judgement or comment negatively upon himself. —
875:
382:
17:
1241:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1132:
1034:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
678:
upon which we operate; I humbly suggest that you find another encyclopedia if this one is not to your taste.
405:
343:
469:
1242:
36:
1124:
867:
61:
92:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1170:
977:
895:
679:
628:
272:
216:
196:
126:
49:
1193:
1070:
1022:
969:
917:
749:
601:
8:
1100:
1000:
848:
817:
779:
728:
580:
529:
495:
378:
180:
1030:
53:
844:
Yeah, but it's a sockpuppet of the article creator, and it doesn't provide any proof.
228:
905:
calling them 3 grade names? This is a valid article, get over it. User=Lupinespirit
396:
339:
1157:
810:
244:
165:
1156:
Internet phenomena and personalities show up on Knowledge, of course -- look at
1097:
997:
845:
814:
776:
725:
577:
526:
492:
435:
373:
177:
1220:
1136:
1049:
944:
883:
853:
306:
268:
240:
212:
192:
114:
69:
450:
Robin Artisson deserves to be represented here as well as any other author
416:
276:
139:
1144:
I don't know that this is "quite a ruckus" -- you didn't see the multiple
831:
640:
335:
280:
256:
200:
102:
162:
319:
83:
627:
User's seventh edit. What's our threshold for new user votes, ten?
1235:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1145:
318:
going by the emails I'm getting it isn't Robin Artisson.
255:. Vanity Page, or close enough as makes no difference.
305:, but I've changed my conclusion a bit since then.)
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
420:"hundreds" or even "dozens" of groups, anywhere. —
176:per Madame Sosostris. Notability not established.
1245:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1160:, for instance -- but generally they have to be
878:shows that you are a sockpuppet of banned user
546:This is written solely to bolster RA's ego. —
14:
550:16:28, 17 January 2006 (EST, Canada)
23:
24:
1257:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1133:Knowledge:No original research
68:Non-notable, possible vanity —
13:
1:
811:Verbiage will get you nowhere
809:(sighs). User's second edit.
44:The result of the debate was
1224:06:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
1174:15:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
1140:12:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
1104:14:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1053:06:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
1004:01:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
948:00:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
899:01:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
887:00:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
871:00:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
857:12:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
835:00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
821:00:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
783:00:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
732:22:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
693:02:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
683:15:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
673:13:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
659:07:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
644:17:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
632:17:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
584:22:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
533:22:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
499:22:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
459:20:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
439:05:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
400:00:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
388:00:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
348:15:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
323:13:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
310:12:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
288:04:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
260:02:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
248:02:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
232:01:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
220:00:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
204:00:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
184:22:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
169:22:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
154:21:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
143:20:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
130:20:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
118:19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
106:02:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
87:02:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
73:19:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
57:01:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
7:
10:
1262:
1153:"quite a lot of people."
1238:Please do not modify it.
357:Comment to Matthew Brown
32:Please do not modify it.
1125:Knowledge:Verifiability
215:and not encyclopedic. —
397:King of All the Franks
395:per everybody else. --
1131:to appear first (see
1015:Please do NOT delete!
50:Resistance is futile!
1219:User's first edit. —
1048:User's first edit. —
996:User's second edit.
943:User's first edit. —
911:PLEASE DO NOT DELETE
775:User's second edit.
743:Please do not delete
709:Please DO NOT Delete
465:Votes from new users
448:Please Do Not Delete
211:. Per above, fails
1096:User's first edit.
961:Talk:Robin Artisson
724:User's first edit.
576:User's first edit.
525:User's third edit.
491:User's first edit.
303:Talk:Robin Artisson
227:; Non-notable bio.
1210:
1196:comment added by
1087:
1073:comment added by
1039:
1025:comment added by
986:
972:comment added by
934:
922:Tezcatlipocasgirl
920:comment added by
766:
752:comment added by
618:
604:comment added by
386:
217:Cleared as filed.
1253:
1240:
1209:
1190:
1171:Madame Sosostris
1129:primary research
1086:
1067:
1038:
1019:
985:
966:
933:
914:
896:Madame Sosostris
880:User:Ravenflight
765:
746:
680:Madame Sosostris
629:Madame Sosostris
617:
598:
454:being attacked.
376:
285:Kathryn NicDhàna
273:Madame Sosostris
197:Madame Sosostris
138:in Knowledge. --
127:Madame Sosostris
34:
1261:
1260:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1243:deletion review
1236:
1191:
1158:Something Awful
1068:
1020:
967:
915:
747:
705:
599:
472:
467:
408:
161:per Wingedelf.
113:as per HroptR —
95:
66:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1259:
1248:
1247:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1226:
1212:
1211:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1089:
1088:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1041:
1040:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
989:
988:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
936:
935:
907:
906:
892:
891:
890:
889:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
824:
823:
802:
801:
794:DO NOT DELETE!
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
768:
767:
739:
738:
737:
736:
735:
734:
717:
716:
704:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
635:
634:
620:
619:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
569:
568:
554:69.196.234.252
552:Above vote by
540:
539:
538:
537:
536:
535:
518:
517:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
484:
483:
471:
468:
466:
463:
462:
461:
444:
443:
442:
441:
425:
424:
407:
404:
403:
402:
390:
372:per Jkelly --
366:
365:
364:
363:
351:
350:
328:
327:
326:
325:
313:
312:
290:
262:
250:
234:
222:
206:
186:
171:
156:
145:
132:
120:
108:
94:
91:
90:
76:
65:
63:Robin Artisson
60:
42:
41:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1258:
1246:
1244:
1239:
1233:
1232:
1225:
1222:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1188:
1187:DO NOT DELETE
1185:
1184:
1175:
1172:
1167:
1166:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1154:
1152:
1147:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1126:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1119:
1115:
1105:
1102:
1099:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1065:
1064:Do not delete
1062:
1061:
1054:
1051:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1024:
1016:
1013:
1012:
1005:
1002:
999:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
983:
979:
975:
971:
964:
962:
957:
956:
949:
946:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
931:
927:
923:
919:
912:
909:
908:
903:
902:
901:
900:
897:
888:
885:
881:
877:
874:
873:
872:
869:
866:
861:
860:
859:
858:
855:
850:
847:
836:
833:
829:
826:
825:
822:
819:
816:
812:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
800:
795:
792:
791:
784:
781:
778:
774:
773:
772:
771:
770:
769:
763:
759:
755:
751:
744:
741:
740:
733:
730:
727:
723:
722:
721:
720:
719:
718:
715:
710:
707:
706:
703:Do not delete
694:
691:
686:
685:
684:
681:
676:
675:
674:
671:
667:
663:
662:
661:
660:
657:
645:
642:
637:
636:
633:
630:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
615:
611:
607:
603:
596:
593:
592:
585:
582:
579:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
567:
565:
562:
559:
555:
549:
545:
544:Delete PLEASE
542:
541:
534:
531:
528:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
516:
511:
508:
507:
500:
497:
494:
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
482:
477:
474:
473:
460:
457:
453:
449:
446:
445:
440:
437:
432:
429:
428:
427:
426:
423:
418:
413:
412:Do not Delete
410:
409:
406:Do not delete
401:
398:
394:
391:
389:
384:
380:
375:
371:
368:
367:
362:
358:
355:
354:
353:
352:
349:
345:
341:
337:
336:Matthew Brown
333:
330:
329:
324:
321:
317:
316:
315:
314:
311:
308:
304:
299:
294:
291:
289:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
263:
261:
258:
254:
251:
249:
246:
242:
238:
235:
233:
230:
226:
223:
221:
218:
214:
210:
207:
205:
202:
198:
194:
190:
187:
185:
182:
179:
175:
172:
170:
167:
164:
160:
157:
155:
152:
149:
146:
144:
141:
136:
133:
131:
128:
124:
121:
119:
116:
112:
109:
107:
104:
100:
99:Strong Delete
97:
96:
89:
88:
85:
80:
75:
74:
71:
64:
59:
58:
55:
54:Mailer Diablo
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1237:
1234:
1192:— Preceding
1186:
1161:
1150:
1128:
1123:Please read
1113:
1112:
1075:Thepixeltypo
1069:— Preceding
1063:
1021:— Preceding
1014:
968:— Preceding
958:
916:— Preceding
910:
893:
865:Lupinespirit
843:
827:
799:Lupinespirit
793:
748:— Preceding
742:
712:publishers.—
708:
652:
606:70.95.96.243
600:— Preceding
594:
560:
551:
543:
509:
475:
451:
447:
430:
411:
392:
369:
356:
331:
297:
292:
264:
252:
236:
229:Tom Harrison
224:
208:
188:
173:
158:
147:
134:
122:
110:
98:
78:
77:
67:
45:
43:
31:
28:
1198:Cuckoo bird
974:Crowshifter
754:Unrulywitch
714:Rivethead28
548:mysticalyon
422:Ravenflight
479:reality.
245:Whateley23
1098:Mackensen
998:Mackensen
876:This edit
846:Mackensen
815:Mackensen
777:Mackensen
726:Mackensen
656:Toadsboon
578:Mackensen
527:Mackensen
515:Wingedelf
493:Mackensen
456:Toadsboon
436:SwissCelt
374:Thesquire
267:. Fails
191:. Fails
178:Mackensen
1221:Ashley Y
1206:contribs
1194:unsigned
1137:Fuzzypeg
1118:jontelpo
1083:contribs
1071:unsigned
1050:Ashley Y
1035:contribs
1027:Moonflwr
1023:unsigned
982:contribs
970:unsigned
945:Ashley Y
930:contribs
918:unsigned
884:Ashley Y
854:Fuzzypeg
828:Comment:
762:contribs
750:unsigned
690:Moonflwr
670:Moonflwr
614:contribs
602:unsigned
564:contribs
431:Comment:
383:contribs
361:jontelpo
307:Fuzzypeg
271:and per
239:. Fails
195:and per
115:Ashley Y
70:Ashley Y
1114:Comment
452:without
417:Modemac
277:Modemac
151:Vertigo
148:Delete.
140:Modemac
135:Delete.
123:Delete.
79:Comment
1101:(talk)
1001:(talk)
959:(from
868:(talk)
849:(talk)
832:Jkelly
818:(talk)
780:(talk)
729:(talk)
641:Jkelly
595:Delete
581:(talk)
530:(talk)
510:Delete
496:(talk)
481:Savara
476:Delete
470:Delete
393:Delete
370:Delete
332:Delete
293:Delete
281:Kd5mdk
269:WP:BIO
265:Delete
257:Kd5mdk
253:Delete
241:WP:BIO
237:Delete
225:Delete
213:WP:BIO
209:Delete
201:Jkelly
193:WP:BIO
189:Delete
181:(talk)
174:Delete
159:Delete
111:Delete
103:HroptR
93:Delete
46:delete
298:would
163:Kusma
16:<
1202:talk
1162:very
1151:that
1146:GNAA
1079:talk
1031:talk
978:talk
926:talk
758:talk
610:talk
558:talk
379:talk
320:Geni
279:and
166:(討論)
84:Geni
82:out.
882:. —
199:.
1208:)
1204:•
1085:)
1081:•
1037:)
1033:•
984:)
980:•
932:)
928:•
813:.
764:)
760:•
688:--
668:--
616:)
612:•
566:).
381:-
346:)
283:.
275:,
243:.
52:-
48:.
1200:(
1077:(
1029:(
987:.
976:(
963:)
924:(
756:(
608:(
561:·
556:(
385:)
377:(
344:C
342::
340:T
338:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.