1181:
large scale, which is the definition of globalization. The reason why there are so few sources which in this context directly add that this is called globalization is probably because this aspect is so easily derivable by definition and therefore so trivial that almost no one who thinks logically would even remotely deny it or care about a "proof" for something that's already clear by definition. For a similar reason, there are hardly any articles in the popular media about the fact that the U.S. dollar is the official currency of the USA.
995:
topic of pure logic and definition. Simply saying that you disagree without explaining why is neither a valid argument nor helpful. Furthermore, your linked guideline doesn't state that a link should be completely avoided simply because it isn't absolutely clear; it merely states that the link should be as transparent as possible (just like I already wrote), which is always relative: When a link can't be 100% clear by exactly matching link target and link label, it's sufficient to be as clear and intuitive as possible in a given context.
280:
1150:
Like I said, I think that the link is quite clear in this context. I acknowledge that the link may not be entirely clear to all users, as, like you explained, there is indeed room for interpretation, but like I wrote, a link doesn't have to be 100% clear, which also simply isn't always possible. Thus, it's okay if the link appears to not be entirely intuitive to all users, as long as the link adds value (because it's a crucial development of the 2000s
Internet) and as long as it's not entirely cryptic to all readers.
1240:. Knowledge cannot be used as a source for itself. You also cannot combine sources to construct an argument not made in any individual source. That is, you cannot take your interpretation of what globalisation is, add it to the cited fact that the use of the internet expanded in the 2000s, add that to citded increased Globalization during the same period, and lastly add the introduction of Web 2.0 at the same time, to suggest that web 2.0 was behind it all (in an easter egg link)
604:
1101:
definition. You dispute my approach, which I would be fine with if you'd give a reason or argument; but instead of doing that, you simply repeat your claim that it just isn't obvious. Also, there are many articles which state that Web 2.0 is a crucial development of the 2000s and that it contributed to and/or enabled exchange and interaction among users and companies on a large scale (which, again, is pretty much the definition of globalization):
528:
507:
764:
271:
240:
423:
402:
657:
334:
313:
433:
846:: "The link target and the link label do not have to match exactly, but the link must be as intuitive as possible (see § Intuitiveness)." The link is clear and intuitive, especially since Web 2.0 is defined as a generation of websites that emphasize user-generated content and participation among and exchange between users. " sources about globalization do not mention web 2.0" is simply a
850:. I wrote that trivial and/or obvious statements don't require references, and this is such a case. Numerous examples are given for Web 2.0 websites in the following sentences, and the impact of such websites on society is also explained. My added content is therefore correct simply from logic and doesn't require a source in a similar manner like "1+1=2" doesn't.
1087:, according to which it "is the process of interaction and integration among people, companies, and governments worldwide". Thus, the definition of contributing to globalization cannot be meet by pre-Web 2.0 websites by their nature, because those websites by definition weren't designed to enable the interaction with and exchange of user-generated content.
1169:. I cannot prove a negative, only you can prove that it is obvious. If it was obvious then you would be no trouble finding sources that say it. Instead you've got sources about web 2.0 that (by means of your jump in logic that only you think is obvious and do not appear in the sources) contributed to globalisation. That's nowhere good enough.--
1097:"It is not obvious "pure logic" because you are making a double jump from "internet growth in the 2000s facilitated globalisation" to "interaction between users" to "Web 2.0". But what evidence is there that there is any connection? Where are the sources that say this? This is all, at best, original synthesis."
1149:
No, I simply said that this is an option if you have absolutely no clue where a link will lead you to. I'm neither saying that this would be appropriate if it'd be necessary for all users to get a clue of where the link will lead to nor that this would actually be required for all users in this case:
994:
This is not my definition of globalization, but the general definition of it. See the
Knowledge article about it. Also, arguing that this would require sources remains a straw man, at least as long as you don't give any proper arguments or at least an explanation as to why you think that this isn't a
891:
The sources simply refer to the globalization aspect caused by the
Internet; they don't explicitly relate to the growing Internet use as such as a requirement (I mean, it is indeed a requirement and quite trivial, but that's not what the sources cover). And since the ability of users to interact with
1247:
However, can I suggest a solution? Simply do not combine these facts. You have sources that credit web 2.0 for the expansion of the internet. The article already has sources regarding the internet and globalisation. Add the former, but do not attempt to combine it with the latter. And link Web
1180:
Again: This is not my definition; this is literally the general definition of globalization, which also stands in its
Knowledge article. Like I showed, there are tons of articles that explicitly state that Web 2.0 contributed to and/or enabled exchange and interaction among users and companies on a
1093:
I explicitly wrote that it's only a straw man argument as long as you don't give any concrete reason or argument as to why you think it's not obvious, which you didn't, because only then you would adress my argument. Like I already wrote: Simply arguing that it's not obvious without explaining why
884:
Like I said, I think that the link is relatively clear in this context, especially considering that users can simply move their mouse over it when on PC or hold the link for a few seconds when on mobile to see where it leads to. Also, like I already quoted from MOS:LINKCLARITY, the link target and
911:
Web 2.0. Maybe the growth and globalization was overwhelmingly within the realm of Web 1.0. Or maybe Web 2.0's involvement has simply gone unnoticed by the sources. But it's not for you to decide it played a significant part. I'm not adverse to Web 2.0 being mentioned, but levering it into the
865:
That's all very well, but the reader has no idea where the link is taking them, and the relevance only becomes apparent once they arrive there. The statement has also been added before a sentence that says "This contributed to globalization during the decade", which refers to the growth of the
1100:
You're going in circles: I already said that there's no need for a reference for logical and/or obvious statements, and I already explained and gave reasons for why I think this is a logical and obvious statement, namely that Web 2.0 is a requirement for the possibility of globalization by its
957:
Like I already explained, I don't see the linking as such as a major problem, especially not since you do have a preview of where it leads to (moving mouse over it or holding the link). Having a not entirely clear link that is potentially relevant and interesting for readers, as it describes a
1039:
It is not obvious "pure logic" because you are making a double jump from "internet growth in the 2000s facilitated globalisation" to "interaction between users" to "Web 2.0". But what evidence is there that there is any connection? Where are the sources that say this? This is all, at best,
776:
953:
This is, again, an argument from pure logic. Globalization throughout the
Internet is impossible with Web 1.0, as the term Web 2.0 by its nature describes websites that enable user communication and interaction with each other, which is pretty much the definition of
885:
link label don't have to match exactly; the link just has be as intuitive as possible. Anyway, I'd definitely argue that the link has value to readers, as the emergence and rise of the Web 2.0 is a crucial aspect of the development of the
Internet of the 2000s.
939:. Now tell me where that link goes simply by reading it. Cos it conforms to the same standard as your link. It's on topic, it expands on what I think you need to know, but it could be dozens of different things. Did you guess correctly? --
1164:
We are indeed going in circles because you keep saying "it's obvious because it follows a definition that I've made up that allows me to join the dots between one and the other". I don't know what more you expect me to say, other than
757:
1094:
isn't a valid counter argument, and as long as you don't substantiate your view, I will stick to my opinion that there is no need for a reference because it's true by definition and therefore an obvious statement.
672:
The issue within this article is that it speaks of the 2000s within a the United States perspective, if that is the case then should the article be renamed to "2000s in the United States" or something similar.
688:
I don't think this is a good way to go. The article may have a US perspective, but it has a huge amount of non-US information, in the
Politics and wars, Disasters, Economics, Religion, and other sections.
166:
976:
I do not recognise your definition of globalization. And your opinion of what web 2.0 made possible, that web 1.0 couldn't, remains unsupported by the sources on this article. It is not "pure logic".
892:
each other as well as the growing
Internet access and resulting use is essential for online communication, all of these developments are interlinked and mutually dependent on each other anyway.
1119:
231:
1069:. If you have a source that states what you think is "pure logic", then we have a solution. If you don't, then it can not be in the article. Simple as that. --
808:
708:
160:
1331:
1311:
1104:
284:
870:"emphasis on user interaction". So the meaning of this sentence has been changed in a way that it no longer reflects what the following sources say. --
1109:
489:
1366:
740:
582:
384:
1244:. You don't have that, you only have sources that combine internet use with globalization. You cannot add original synthesis to the article.
1316:
1301:
907:
that is linking them, not the sources. The globalization caused by the internet may have nothing to do with Web 2.0, it may have happened
1306:
1120:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-06-16/demystifying-web-2-dot-0businessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice
92:
1296:
1341:
1146:"And yet that is exactly what you are suggesting the reader should do to appreciate your conclusion of where the connections lead."
479:
979:
You also are making assumptions about how the reader is reading the article (mobile devices do not have mice to hover). And no,
1326:
374:
1356:
1346:
1032:
obvious. If you want to link Web 2.0 in this statement , then produce sources that mention it in this context and actually
572:
98:
1336:
239:
1361:
814:
1321:
1291:
1105:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/05/10/bridging-web-20-to-web3-means-taking-the-best-of-both-worlds/
828:
455:
43:
888:"So the meaning of this sentence has been changed in a way that it no longer reflects what the following sources say."
743:
on
Wikiproject years will be interpreted to also ban collages in decade articles. Users here may wish to participate.
1351:
1036:
you are talking about "Web 2.0". Don't hide the connection behind a link, thinking this negates the need to cite it.
181:
548:
350:
1110:
https://medium.com/@yaserarabth/web-1-0-web-2-0-and-the-emergence-of-web-3-0-a-comprehensive-overview-1d8de74e77d2
1090:"I don't think you understand the meaning of a straw man argument either. I am not misrepresenting your argument "
148:
649:
112:
117:
33:
945:
446:
407:
87:
57:
1254:
1219:
1205:
1190:
1175:
1159:
1075:
1004:
989:
967:
876:
1065:
I always find in disputes like this that reference back to core policy is the solution, and that policy is
958:
crucial element of the
Internet's development of the 2000s, is still better than not having a link at all.
293:
784:
1062:
what you are suggesting the reader should do to appreciate your conclusion of where the connections lead.
726:
712:
544:
540:
535:
512:
341:
318:
78:
1052:
Do not use piped links to create "Easter egg" links that require the reader to open them (or, at least,
824:
198:
142:
698:
612:
203:
682:
454:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
349:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
138:
1054:
to hover their mouse pointer on those links to get page previews in the form of navigation popups
915:
As for your Easter Egg link; This link could lead the reader to a great number of places. Is it
767:
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between
122:
1080:"Where does globalisation say it is about "user communication and interaction with each other"?"
622:
667:
912:
middle of things here, propping up both growth and globalization, is not supported by sources.
1020:
argument either. I am not misrepresenting your argument, I am saying it is not in line with
820:
299:
188:
1215:
1186:
1155:
1000:
963:
897:
855:
804:
748:
626:
227:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
8:
1047:
980:
68:
859:
752:
780:
722:
694:
678:
83:
1134:
1249:
1200:
1170:
1070:
1025:
984:
940:
871:
839:
788:
703:
Seems like the article is more skewed to a British perspective than a US perspective
64:
704:
154:
935:? How is the reader to know, unless they follow the link to unlock the prize? I
174:
1237:
1225:
1211:
1196:
1182:
1151:
1041:
996:
973:
959:
924:
920:
893:
851:
843:
800:
792:
744:
1199:
I'll ask you again to indicate precisely where you are getting this definition.
1124:
758:
Wiki Education assignment: Equitable Futures - Internet Cultures and Open Access
1129:
983:. Particularly when the relevance of the link is not supported by any sources.
981:
a link that leads the reader into the unknown is not better than no link at all
438:
250:
1285:
1229:
1228:
You've stated a "general definition" that is your interpretation of what the
1084:
1010:
718:
690:
674:
1233:
1021:
928:
916:
1114:
950:"But the problem is that it is you that is linking them, not the sources."
1139:
1066:
1242:
unless you have a reliable source that already combined all these things
255:
1248:
2.0 in plain sight, so that is clear to the reader what is being said.
833:
734:
1232:
article says. In which case I'll ask you to read Knowledge policy on
1017:
1013:
say it is about "user communication and interaction with each other"?
847:
763:
450:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
252:
656:
603:
936:
527:
506:
451:
254:
422:
401:
256:
819:
2000s in officialy retro and i beleive it could be restored.
346:
37:
333:
312:
932:
547:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
881:" the reader has no idea where the link is taking them"
173:
652:. Click the image to the right for full size version.
428:
345:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
28:
1135:
https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-web-2-0-p2-3486624
1283:
46:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1024:. Your position is that this is optional when
1016:I don't think you understand the meaning of a
1125:https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/wbna13154533
187:
1130:https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-is-web-20/
1332:List-Class Years articles of Mid-importance
1312:Knowledge level-5 vital articles in History
539:, an attempt to structure and organize all
270:
268:
543:. If you wish to help, please visit the
1367:Knowledge pages referenced by the press
1115:https://www.britannica.com/topic/Web-20
1056:) before understanding where they lead.
1284:
1140:https://www.znetlive.com/blog/web-2-0/
1028:. I'm saying that your addition is is
1022:Knowledge policy of requiring sources
1317:List-Class vital articles in History
639:
598:
533:This article is within the scope of
444:This article is within the scope of
339:This article is within the scope of
264:
15:
1302:Knowledge vital articles in History
621:Paul Grondahl (December 27, 2009).
298:It is of interest to the following
36:for discussing improvements to the
13:
1058:" (Emphasis mine) And yet that is
772:
768:
14:
1378:
1307:List-Class level-5 vital articles
613:mentioned by a media organization
1297:Knowledge level-5 vital articles
815:Should I restore People section?
775:. Further details are available
762:
655:
602:
526:
505:
431:
421:
400:
332:
311:
278:
269:
238:
58:Click here to start a new topic.
1342:Low-importance history articles
577:This article has been rated as
484:This article has been rated as
379:This article has been rated as
903:But the problem is that it is
1:
1327:Mid-importance Years articles
799:— Assignment last updated by
753:07:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
464:Knowledge:WikiProject History
458:and see a list of open tasks.
353:and see a list of open tasks.
55:Put new text under old text.
1357:Low-importance List articles
1347:WikiProject History articles
467:Template:WikiProject History
7:
1337:List-Class history articles
900:) 10:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC
557:Knowledge:WikiProject Lists
359:Knowledge:WikiProject Years
63:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
10:
1383:
1362:WikiProject Lists articles
809:04:52, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
727:14:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
713:20:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
583:project's importance scale
560:Template:WikiProject Lists
490:project's importance scale
385:project's importance scale
362:Template:WikiProject Years
1322:List-Class Years articles
1292:List-Class vital articles
1255:05:21, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
1220:15:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
1206:03:46, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
1191:18:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
1176:16:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
1160:15:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
1076:11:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
1005:23:18, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
990:23:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
968:19:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
946:16:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
919:(my first guess)? Is it
877:08:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
860:06:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
576:
521:
483:
416:
378:
327:
306:
93:Be welcoming to newcomers
22:Skip to table of contents
1352:List-Class List articles
829:20:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
699:18:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
683:16:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
21:
1210:I already stated that.
1026:you reckon it's obvious
937:went to the shops today
541:list pages on Knowledge
611:This article has been
88:avoid personal attacks
1085:its Knowledge article
779:. Student editor(s):
285:level-5 vital article
232:Auto-archiving period
113:Neutral point of view
118:No original research
787:). Peer reviewers:
668:Renaming of Article
447:WikiProject History
1238:original synthesis
1050:specifically say "
1042:original synthesis
777:on the course page
648:was featured in a
294:content assessment
99:dispute resolution
60:
663:
662:
650:WikiWorld cartoon
638:
637:
597:
596:
593:
592:
589:
588:
536:WikiProject Lists
500:
499:
496:
495:
395:
394:
391:
390:
342:WikiProject Years
263:
262:
79:Assume good faith
56:
27:
26:
1374:
1252:
1234:reliable sources
1203:
1173:
1167:it's not obvious
1073:
987:
943:
874:
821:EditingIsMyHobby
811:
785:article contribs
774:
770:
766:
659:
640:
630:
606:
599:
565:
564:
561:
558:
555:
530:
523:
522:
517:
509:
502:
501:
472:
471:
470:history articles
468:
465:
462:
441:
436:
435:
434:
425:
418:
417:
412:
404:
397:
396:
367:
366:
363:
360:
357:
336:
329:
328:
323:
315:
308:
307:
291:
282:
281:
274:
273:
272:
265:
257:
243:
242:
233:
192:
191:
177:
108:Article policies
29:
16:
1382:
1381:
1377:
1376:
1375:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1282:
1281:
1250:
1201:
1171:
1071:
985:
941:
925:web application
921:online shopping
872:
844:MOS:LINKCLARITY
842:: I quote from
836:
817:
798:
769:22 January 2024
760:
741:RFC on collages
737:
670:
634:
633:
620:
616:
562:
559:
556:
553:
552:
515:
469:
466:
463:
460:
459:
437:
432:
430:
410:
364:
361:
358:
355:
354:
321:
292:on Knowledge's
289:
279:
259:
258:
253:
230:
134:
129:
128:
127:
104:
74:
12:
11:
5:
1380:
1370:
1369:
1364:
1359:
1354:
1349:
1344:
1339:
1334:
1329:
1324:
1319:
1314:
1309:
1304:
1299:
1294:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1245:
1147:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1137:
1132:
1127:
1122:
1117:
1112:
1107:
1098:
1095:
1091:
1088:
1081:
1063:
1045:
1037:
1014:
977:
955:
954:globalization.
951:
948:
913:
889:
886:
882:
835:
832:
816:
813:
759:
756:
739:It appears an
736:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
701:
669:
666:
661:
660:
653:
643:
636:
635:
632:
631:
617:
610:
609:
607:
595:
594:
591:
590:
587:
586:
579:Low-importance
575:
569:
568:
566:
531:
519:
518:
516:Low‑importance
510:
498:
497:
494:
493:
486:Low-importance
482:
476:
475:
473:
456:the discussion
443:
442:
439:History portal
426:
414:
413:
411:Low‑importance
405:
393:
392:
389:
388:
381:Mid-importance
377:
371:
370:
368:
365:Years articles
351:the discussion
337:
325:
324:
322:Mid‑importance
316:
304:
303:
297:
275:
261:
260:
251:
249:
248:
245:
244:
194:
193:
131:
130:
126:
125:
120:
115:
106:
105:
103:
102:
95:
90:
81:
75:
73:
72:
61:
52:
51:
48:
47:
41:
25:
24:
19:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1379:
1368:
1365:
1363:
1360:
1358:
1355:
1353:
1350:
1348:
1345:
1343:
1340:
1338:
1335:
1333:
1330:
1328:
1325:
1323:
1320:
1318:
1315:
1313:
1310:
1308:
1305:
1303:
1300:
1298:
1295:
1293:
1290:
1289:
1287:
1256:
1253:
1246:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1230:Globalization
1227:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1209:
1208:
1207:
1204:
1198:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1188:
1184:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1174:
1168:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1148:
1145:
1141:
1138:
1136:
1133:
1131:
1128:
1126:
1123:
1121:
1118:
1116:
1113:
1111:
1108:
1106:
1103:
1102:
1099:
1096:
1092:
1089:
1086:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1077:
1074:
1068:
1067:Verifiability
1064:
1061:
1057:
1055:
1049:
1046:
1043:
1038:
1035:
1031:
1027:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1012:
1011:globalisation
1008:
1007:
1006:
1002:
998:
993:
992:
991:
988:
982:
978:
975:
971:
970:
969:
965:
961:
956:
952:
949:
947:
944:
938:
934:
930:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
902:
901:
899:
895:
890:
887:
883:
880:
879:
878:
875:
869:
864:
863:
862:
861:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
831:
830:
826:
822:
812:
810:
806:
802:
796:
794:
790:
786:
782:
781:JadaClark2002
778:
765:
755:
754:
750:
746:
742:
728:
724:
720:
716:
715:
714:
710:
706:
702:
700:
696:
692:
687:
686:
685:
684:
680:
676:
665:
658:
654:
651:
647:
644:
642:
641:
628:
624:
619:
618:
614:
608:
605:
601:
600:
584:
580:
574:
571:
570:
567:
563:List articles
550:
546:
542:
538:
537:
532:
529:
525:
524:
520:
514:
511:
508:
504:
503:
491:
487:
481:
478:
477:
474:
457:
453:
449:
448:
440:
429:
427:
424:
420:
419:
415:
409:
406:
403:
399:
398:
386:
382:
376:
373:
372:
369:
352:
348:
344:
343:
338:
335:
331:
330:
326:
320:
317:
314:
310:
309:
305:
301:
295:
287:
286:
276:
267:
266:
247:
246:
241:
237:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
200:
196:
195:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
133:
132:
124:
123:Verifiability
121:
119:
116:
114:
111:
110:
109:
100:
96:
94:
91:
89:
85:
82:
80:
77:
76:
70:
66:
65:Learn to edit
62:
59:
54:
53:
50:
49:
45:
39:
35:
31:
30:
23:
20:
18:
17:
1251:Escape Orbit
1241:
1202:Escape Orbit
1172:Escape Orbit
1166:
1072:Escape Orbit
1059:
1053:
1051:
1033:
1029:
986:Escape Orbit
942:Escape Orbit
929:peer-to-peer
917:social media
908:
904:
873:Escape Orbit
867:
840:Escape Orbit
837:
818:
797:
789:Jhernandez07
761:
738:
671:
664:
645:
578:
545:project page
534:
485:
445:
380:
340:
300:WikiProjects
283:
235:
197:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
107:
32:This is the
1009:Where does
773:10 May 2024
705:Oli Wheeler
627:Times Union
623:"2000-2009"
161:free images
44:not a forum
1286:Categories
1226:Maxeto0910
1212:Maxeto0910
1197:Maxeto0910
1183:Maxeto0910
1152:Maxeto0910
1048:Guidelines
997:Maxeto0910
974:Maxeto0910
960:Maxeto0910
894:Maxeto0910
866:internet,
852:Maxeto0910
801:Asrogers23
793:Asrogers23
745:Koopinator
549:discussion
290:List-class
1018:straw man
848:straw man
691:Dan Bloch
288:is rated
101:if needed
84:Be polite
34:talk page
923:? Is it
719:Connor W
675:Connor W
199:Archives
69:get help
42:This is
40:article.
1060:exactly
909:despite
834:Web 2.0
735:Collage
581:on the
488:on the
461:History
452:History
408:History
383:on the
236:90Â days
167:WPÂ refs
155:scholar
296:scale.
139:Google
717:How?
646:2000s
554:Lists
513:Lists
356:Years
347:Years
319:Years
277:This
204:Index
182:JSTOR
143:books
97:Seek
38:2000s
1236:and
1216:talk
1187:talk
1156:talk
1001:talk
964:talk
933:MMOG
898:talk
856:talk
825:talk
805:talk
771:and
749:talk
723:talk
709:talk
695:talk
679:talk
175:FENS
149:news
86:and
1083:In
1034:say
1030:not
905:you
868:not
573:Low
480:Low
375:Mid
189:TWL
1288::
1218:)
1189:)
1158:)
1003:)
966:)
931:?
927:?
858:)
827:)
807:)
795:.
791:,
751:)
725:)
711:)
697:)
681:)
625:.
234::
226:,
222:,
218:,
214:,
210:,
206:,
169:)
67:;
1224:@
1214:(
1195:@
1185:(
1154:(
1044:.
999:(
972:@
962:(
896:(
854:(
838:@
823:(
803:(
783:(
747:(
721:(
707:(
693:(
677:(
629:.
615::
585:.
551:.
492:.
387:.
302::
228:6
224:5
220:4
216:3
212:2
208:1
201::
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
71:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.