User talk:Deryck Chan/Admin coaching

366:

days after your comments. He sees five people plus the nominator who feel it should be deleted, and only two who feel it shouldn't. Obviously yours was the most informed and detailed of the comments, but when that many people advise to delete and the nominator can produce a low Google count, it's a relatively clear-cut delete. So, while I understand your emotions about wanting the page to be kept, and this could certainly be case of the systematic bias of en-Knowledge (XXG), I urge you to

1800:), along with many other editors, we found the need to split and reorganize various related articles, and link them up through {{main}} templates. After the collboration week, all the articles were properly linked to each other and organized into levels, from a main article to tens of child articles. I was especially pleased to see the articles about reproduction such organized, since without reproduction can no men be survived; without reproduction can no knowledge be passed. 1422:, who recommended me to split the reference / footnote into two sections: for generic references concerning concrete, factual information I've moved them to a separate "Reference" section; for disputable and probably POV-ed statements the footnotes were retained. About the nomination, it's my pleasure to receive it if you can help. How's your life recently? It looks like about a month had passed before you last replied me. -- 1539:? And, to what degree, does Knowledge (XXG) allow interpretation of historical documents? If I integrate ideas from different external sources into one big idea and write it down here, does that constitute "original research"? And, once again, to what extent do we allow people doing so? It seems weird if plagiarism is strictly forbidden along with original ideas. So there must be a grey-zone for people to use. 1613:

sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say." Citing your sources also, in some ways, prevents plagiarism because you're citing the person who originally made the statement. If there's some specific passage in the article that worries you, I'll gladly take a look, though I cannot promise my opinion would be a consensus view.

1515:. If the WP:Dinosaur team members weren't watching these articles carefully, they would quickly devolve into total junk. As we're up to 9 Featured and 4 Good Articles now, that's something I would hate to see happen. Knowledge (XXG) should be a place for people to come for encyclopedic information, hence the watchlists. Although people are monitoring Recent Changes, they don't catch all of it. 1503:

remove thousands of pages from my list (I could click "remove" on an article, and it would say "removed successfully", but it would still be there on my watchlist). I finally made the reluctant decision to click "remove all items" and start fresh. I don't pretend to believe anyone can do a good job reverting vandalism with over 10k pages on his or her watchlist. 2-3k is workable for me.

1637:, and adhere to it, I don't really see the problem. You made a mistake four months ago, but you're not the same editor you were four months ago. We are all growing and learning as editors, every one of us. The language opposition might be discounted, because it's clear from your reply on the RFA page (and your comments on the RFA) that your English is fine. 919:

and when I asked for semi-protection and attention from WP:AN, the admins said the article was "vandalized less than once every 12 hours" and refused to protect the article. If I encounter similar cases after I become an admin, shall I stick to the policy and turn down the request, or excercise my discretion and act with faith, against the rules? --

1160:

of interest, and have edited my own college's article. A quick scan of the article indicates there is some non-notable stuff in there, but nothing I'd consider as blatant self-promotion (but you might want to explain what an "old boy" is; I have no idea what that is). Of course, it is still possible that this might be brought up at an RFA.

1007:"please check to see whether sb hacked into your computer to install a zombie" but never thought of the actual situation of rotation. Is anybody out there fixing this stuff? P.S. this is the fastest reply I've ever got from you ^^. I put my last reply up during lunchtime today and right after-school I receive this. -- 1820:, rewrite the idea and make another edit proposing the rewritten version. Then I leave a message on the talk page and the other editor's talk page in attempt of a personalized dispute resolution. However, if the other editor is anonymous, it is most likely that I bring up the issue to other editors or even 849:

one great way to illustrate that idea. One other thing that should definitely be mentioned, in my opinion, is your sysop status on the Cantonese wikipedia. Although there are some differences in the policies, if you've already been a successful admin elsewhere, that should definitely be taken into account.

1743:

which damaged most connections between Hong Kong and America, I cannot respond to vandalism activities quickly, therefore RC patrol is hardly my way. However, being a scientific person, I am able to handle logical arguments, which is what deletion and protection requests require - strong and unbiased

1695:

Ah, understood. Good luck with your practice tests; I hope when it comes time for the real version, that you do well. On another note: so far, your RFA seems to be going well, and there have only been a few opposes (one now switched to neutral). If you become an admin (and it seems this is a distinct

1506:

I don't use my watchlist to see who reverted me; I just use it to prevent pure vandalism and POV edits. For example, I have (or had) all of Knowledge (XXG)'s dinosaur articles on my watchlist. These articles receive a lot of schoolkid vandalism from students who are looking up information for reports

1489:

Let's get back to topic. You said you had more than ten thousand articles on your watchlist. Do you use the "auto-watch every edited page" function? And would you regard having so many things on your watchlist as a feasible way to work? Because recently I've come up with some philosophic thought that

1159:

That's a good question, but I don't think it's a conflict of interest here. La Salle College isn't a product you're selling, or an organization you're recruiting for. You've made no additions like "La Salle is the best university in China!" I seriously don't see why anyone would think it's a conflict

315:

Moreover, some people would like to take an advantage of the jet-lag to put up some last-minute arguments. From that deletion I've given above, you can see that my comment wasn't replied in two days, but suddenly two rebuttos appeared right the moment before the closing of the debate. That gave me no

269:

Don't worry that your best article was defeatured; just because it was defeatured doesn't mean it's a bad page. None of my pages have gotten even close to being featured, and the fact that you were able to write an article that got featured in the first place and have been through the FA process is a

1604:

And, to what degree, does Knowledge (XXG) allow interpretation of historical documents? If I integrate ideas from different external sources into one big idea and write it down here, does that constitute "original research"? And, once again, to what extent do we allow people doing so? It seems weird

1518:

As far as using watchlists to see who reverted me... as new scientific papers come out, entire articles are having to be rewritten from scratch. Scientific understanding of dinosaurs is always changing, so you just have to have a thick skin when it comes to people modifying the articles. Even though

1268:

Seems that I fail two requirements if my full history was viewed: civility, I was rejected on my first run because of my incivility around July 2005 (does 1.5y means everything is wiped? don't think so), half a year before it; and blocks, I was frequently autoblocked due to rotating IP and therefore

1141:

suggests, one should not participate in writing about his own organization (I think it's school-inclusive), so will I be bombarded because of suspectedly breaching this guideline? Or, claiming this conflict of interest, can I demonstrate my knowledge about the policies and related solutions instead?

971:

As a Hongkonger, the case I encounter usually involve Hong Kong-based IPs and Hong Kong articles. The vandalists, like myself, have rotating IPs (and therefore I'm frequently blocked because all IPs in Hong Kong are practically rotated, except when you're using a proxy). In most cases the vandalist

918:

Thank you for the comment. When I'm figuring out how to answer the third question, I remembered an occasion which an article faced frequent vandalism, and I wasn't responding fast enough to revert it. As a result, the article stays in the vandalized state for more time than that of the "good" state,

795:

The current-day CSD is quite elementary in fact, because the deletion process for new articles has been categorized into three classes: speedy, deletion proposal and deletion debate (AfD). The "speedy" guidelines are clear and easy-to-implement in a sense that anything worth disputing about would be

725:

So, we seem to have hit a bit of a lull here. Do either of you have any ideas what you'd like to do next? I'm willing to answer any questions Deryck may have about any of the written (or unwritten) rules that apply to administrators. Also, as I suggested above, I could create any number of scenarios

687:

is always a good place to start. I'm not suggesting that you should read the entire thing now (though it's a good idea in the long run), but perhaps skim it and see if there are any policies you need some clarification on, or would like some practical experience in. For example, I could put together

645:

As strange as it may seem at first, most people prefer this, yes. You should consider it for three reasons: 1) Low edit summary percentages will hurt your chances of an RfA, 2) It helps RC patrollers sort through your legitimate edits quicker, and 3) believe it or not, it does come in handy- you may

467:

Oppose vote 7 cited "I don't oppose campaigning, but I don't like these complicated signatures." - This has become a hot issue again recently; an editor was even blocked for having an overly long signature. While what exactly constitutes "overly long" is highly subjective, you'd benefit your chances

463:

Oppose vote 5 cited "still WAAAAAY too green in the political/user interaction aspect of the job of administrator." - if you tackle the wikification and cleanup backlogs, there will be articles to nominate for deletion, or to report as copyvios. Doing either of these will increase your visibility to

245:

It's understood that not everyone can RC Patrol, and obviously a slow connection is a perfectly valid excuse for not doing so. If you were to become an admin, the rollback button would certainly help, but given that you don't have the capacity to do it when you're not an admin, it probably shouldn't

182:

For the sysop chores, most people ask for the answer "RC patrol"; however I'm simply unable to do that because I've slow connection that whenever, in the past, I tried to diff a page to see if it's vandalism, and finds it is, and then clicks edit and revert - the history page, afterwards, never show

1502:

Yes, in my preferences, I have "add pages I edit to my watchlist" selected. I did have well over 10,000 articles on my watchlist, but this was accidental. I usually try to keep 2,000 to 3,000 articles on the list, no more than that. However, something in the Wiki software broke, and I was unable to

616:

Which history is that, may I ask? I don't see anything in the block log, and certainly a single failed RfA changes your chances very little, especially since it was almost a year ago now. Kimchi.sg beat me on the comment about edit summaries, which I was going to bring up. Using another tool, I see

361:

I understand the frustration having an article deleted that you felt should be kept, or vice versa; every Wikipedian who has been around an extended period of time knows that feeling. Is the system perfect? No. But the best way to fix it is to abide by policy and do the best personally that you can

848:

Woops, sorry. I didn't notice this on my watchlist yesterday. My bad. The fact that you've uploaded many great images is something that probably should be brought up in your RFA (as long as all the images are all tagged properly). People like to see you're dedicated to Knowledge (XXG), and this is

826:

In the past (I'm not sure whether they still do it today) coaches do mock RfA questions together with coachees (such as that above). Perhaps we can go to that part now, after leaving it blank and deserted for nearly a year? Or do you have anything strange (insider) to tell me that helps with admin

711:

I'm a little surprized by the contents of the ARL - many of them are manual-maintained logs, or discussion pages, instead of guidelines. It doesn't really look like a "reading" list, but an "event" list. Anyway, I'm gonna skim through those guideline pages in the near future, but not now. I've two

365:

As far as the AfD discussion that you linked above, I feel I should point out the timestamps. The nominator's response to you came 2 days after your post. About 2 more days after that, another person votes to delete. Then, Essjay's closure came 22 hours after that final comment, a total of about 5

287:

I hope my long answer wasn't too overwelming for you- we can take as long as you want to get all this stuff accomplished, and it can be done in many steps. If you feel like responding to some of the bullet points individually, feel free to do so directly under them so that the flow of conversation

249:

Speaking of the other tasks, the other major admin task you haven't mentioned is deletion. There are almost always deletion backlogs, so if you were comfortable doing those tasks, you could be a very productive administrator with that alone. Are you comfortable with the idea of deleting pages, and

1612:

states "Material counts as original research if it introduces a theory, method of solution, or any other original idea." As long as the ideas have been published elsewhere, it's probably not Original Research. "The only way to demonstrate that material is not original research is to cite reliable

1171:

Your reply seems to tell me that my explanation is really unclear... La Salle is just a secondary school (high school in american context) and not a university. Maybe we need some explanations ^^ Anyway I've thought of another way out to the question - I'll categorize and analyze the conflicts by

646:

find yourself thinking things like, "where was it that I added that userbox to my page?", et al. It doesn't have to be anything long (a simple "reply" or "reply to EWS23" will do fine on talk pages for the most part), and once you get used to it you barely notice it and it takes very little time.

543:

The more I look at it, the more I think the code for your signature needs shortening. At 1280x800 screen resolution with browser window maximised, your signature takes up about 2 whole lines in the editing textbox. It's 222 characters in total, excluding the automated timestamp. The bulk of it is

307:

I've read those deletion pages in the past, but I spot that many administators aren't following the rules when the make a decision. Most frustratingly, administrators would rather like to listen to one another's advice about a proposed guideline, instead of a non-admin's argument showing that the

1324:

If you're ready, Deryck, you can certainly request adminship. If you would like, I will nominate you. Sometimes self-noms are frowned upon, but in your case, I don't think it matters: you're always civil (excluding events back in January of 2005), you do a ton of work on the encyclopedia, you're

889:

Your sample RFA answers seem just fine to me. At least, I would !vote for you on RFA, based on clear, strong answers like that. It seems like you really know what Knowledge (XXG) is about, which is the important thing. I'm not sure what the difference is between "what to remove" and "what not to

1664:

Mock exam? You mean like a school exam? Everyone here understands (or should understand) that real life intrudes and you can't always be on Knowledge (XXG), even during your RFA, because we are all just volunteers. I will of course help out, where I am able. Good luck on your mock exam, Deryck.

1006:

One more thing to voice out (no admins have ever been taking action after listening): since the IPs in Hong Kong are rotated, so many of them are blocked as "proxy/zombie" and therefore it's now hard to find an IP in Hong Kong which is not yet blocked. They just seem to bomb me by the statement

186:

Therefore, last time, I answered page protection and other related stuff. I've noticed that a few articles were locked for no reason and I said I should check out those pages and unprotect them. However, the opposers then argued "does these pages exist?" I pointed to the page which I previously

935:

because it "indicates a lack of trust" on the part of the administration. So, we use page protection (and even semi-protection) as sparingly as possible. An article that is only vandalized infrequently doesn't really need to be protected; instead, the user who is vandalizing needs the standard

763:

OK, Deryck, let's get started! :) Thanks for your patience, BTW. I always like to get to know the people I'm going to be working with, so tell me a little about yourself. From looking at your userpage, I know you live in China, you're religious, you're in high school, and you have two Featured

1753:

Pokes head in.* Just one comment-- you want to avoid words like "elect" or "vote". As is so often said, " is not a vote". RfAs and XfDs often essentially operate like votes, but there is a philosophical and sometimes very real difference between "voting" and "consensus building". Cheers,

1507:

and decide to add their own "facts", like "T-Rex was huge!" or "J.M. loves Melissa", etc. We also get those American fundamentalist people who write things like "Dinosaurs never existed!" or "They are only 6,000 years old!", etc. Finally, we get folks who add old, discredited views (like

1744:

logical judgement. Moreover, being a Hong Kong Chinese and therefore an ethnic and cultural minority on the English Knowledge (XXG), I can take a more neutral stance when judging debates between sides from different backgrounds. In addition, currently being an administrator of the

602:

Although there's one thing I really have to worry: RfA voters view a long long long history. As titoxd pointed out, in the past a candidate got an oppose vote for a 3RR block a year ago. I don't think my previous history will give me a great chance for another success, honestly.

621:. Even if that means simply putting the word "reply" when posting on talk pages or putting the word "typo" when fixing spelling mistakes. RfA voters are really picky about edit summary percentages, and it's something that's relatively easy to fix if you're diligent about it. 418:

I have nothing else to say for now besides what EWS23 has said, except that you should not be discouraged by your previous RfA. Standards have changed much since then, and if you can meet current voters' expectations, your chances of getting the mop will be quite high.

1207:

Just curious. Did the RfA requirements soar a long way for the past few months? I read a few nominations and saw several candidates losing tremendously, but as seen from their nomination, they should've passed with a big margin if they ran for the election a year ago.

1290:

I can only agree with Fang Aili, Deryck. If you were incivil in January 2005, it's safe to say people aren't going to hold those instances against you. That was a long time ago, and we're all very different editors than we were two years ago. As far as the blocks go,

640:

Most of that history was pointed out at my first RfA as a reason for an oppose. May I ask, does that mean I have to put down an edit summary on every single edit I do, anywhere, not just articles, but even talk pages, project pages, my own user page, etc, etc. ???

955:, removing pages which no longer need to be protected. We want to reduce their workload as much as possible, so we only protect when absolutely neccessary. As you say, you should exercise your own discretion, but you should definitely use this function sparingly. 1619:

Talking about my RFA, I expect a number of additional "oppose"s after Mecu's comment, to an extent that those votes will pull me near the margin. For the "language" oppose, what I can hope is that the crats do not take it into account, so do upcoming voters.

1542:

972:

will not use a fixed IP nor a username, so blocking IPs does not work. And if other users aren't aware, the article will keep being in its vandalized state - that's why I thought semi-protection is really necessary. Once I asked an admin to protect

665:

Okay, I'm getting used to this habit now. Today I was interwiki-ing a number of articles between here and the Cantonese Knowledge (XXG), and I used an auto-complete edit summary "+interwiki zh-yue" on them :P. So, after edit summaries, what's next?

577:

For the signature stuff, I believe the esperanza green e contributed to the most of the code on my signature, which demanded me to alter colours and links nearly every character. I've changed to this new shorter signature, see if it looks better.

190:

For the second question, my "best" article have been defeatured already, sort of giving me no way to succeed. And about the third question... see my past RfA. I answered a previous conflict, and the voters gave me an oppose vote because of that.

1589:

I don't see any problem with writing articles by yourself. I tend to write a lot of short articles that are later improved and added to by other editors. And a single editor can easily write (or rewrite) a well-sourced article which meets the

1019:

I know most admins are aware that blocking IPs isn't a perfect fix because IPs change from time to time, or, in the case of some places, change very often. The Foundation is certainly aware of rotating IPs and the problems they cause, and the

779:

Thanks for your devotion in being my coach. Well, the best thing I've done in English Knowledge (XXG), and most likely I'm going to put onto my RfA if I'll have another, is the "Reproduction article series". It kicked off being a SCOTW (now

237:

Thank you for your candid answer. I certainly wasn't implying that an RfA would occur tomorrow, just simply trying to get an idea of where you're coming from, what you want to do, etc., and I think this helps us quite a bit. Here are a few

1137:, my alma mater, which editions is a complex blend of (normal) contributions, anon/user vandalism, anon/user edit conflict and many others, if I am writing about the third question I'd most probably get the idea out there. However, as 1678:

A "mock exam" refers to a series of exam, a rehearsal for an open examination. It is given by the school, usually as the graduation exam for public exam candidates-to-be. In Hong Kong, every Form 5 (=grade 11) student has to take the

325:

About the logs stuff, now I'm very familiar with the logs - as an admin on the other Knowledge (XXG) myself. Deletion logs, protect logs, block logs and others. I know how to read them and what to write on the edit summaries of them.

1386:

Think ahead. Try to imagine whether or not people might doubt what you wrote, or need more information about it. Supporting what is written in Knowledge (XXG) by referring to a clear and reliable source will add stability to your

867:

Of course you shouldn't give coaching on what I should say - it is my RfA, not yours. However, if you can, please give some comments on what I've already written, and what shall be removed (there's some difference between what to

265:

Are you now comfortable viewing logs, including protection logs, deletion logs, block logs, etc.? We could certainly take some time to go over that until you're comfortable with it, as it's fairly important for administrators to

852:

As for coaching in the sense of "mock RFA questions", if you want to practice what you'd say during your real RFA, that's fine; at the same time, I can't give "coaching" on what I think you should say or not say. Make sense? :)

489:

I've been doing a lot of cleanups. Perhaps doing more towards that direction would give me a better future. Er - for the personalized signature, maybe I should really shorten it a bit - but do you mean the code or the outlook?

119:(Note: Don't worry too much about these, you can always change or tweak the answers for the real RfA; just answer them honestly. Also, all three of us should feel free to add more questions here if we feel it will be helpful.) 1089:

Oh, so we're 16 hours away from each other. It is my pleasure to see you replying so quickly even if it's not daytime at your place. On the other hand, do you travel very frequently such that you often hop between timezones?

309: 1220:

Things are always changing at RFA, as those who !vote come and go. Some users have stricter standards than others. I think the general trend has been more restrictive, but, as always, the main requirements seem to be:

90:

will have some good ideas, but how about we start off with the standard RfA questions? It should serve as a good introduction to yourself, for example why you want to be an admin, what you do here on en-wiki, etc.

1395:, the reviewers are very strict, and require footnotes every few sentences or so. Personally, I think having hundreds of footnotes looks ugly and makes the text harder to read, but that is not the consensus at 516:

Moreover the main reason that people voted my delete were due to influence by other initiall oppose-voters who changed to neutral. You should check out those comments and see what can I do better. --

270:

major plus in my book. Basically what I'm trying to say is that your answer to question #2 can actually be much better than what mine was on my RfA, so there's no need to worry too much about that.

415:

will list newest uploaded images, which you can examine for copyright violations. Our deletion backlogs for images easily surpass that of articles on any day, we could always do with extra help.

1348:

Something to ask. When and where do we need citations? Should they appear every paragraph as supporting evidence? Or are they necessary only when controversial / POV statements appear?

1810:

Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

277:. You didn't do that bad, and I think you're much better prepared now than you were back in October. Also, hopefully you'll be much better prepared by the end of this program. :o) 168:

Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

452:

Oppose vote 3 cited "I don't see much RC patrol/vandal fighting...I guess I'd like to see a broader particapation." - there are many backlogs even non-admins can tackle, such as

1256:

When you feel confident you meet these requirements (and can demonstrate it to the folks at RFA), and when you feel you're ready to become an admin, you should submit your RFA.

1024:

are constantly working on fixes and upgrades to the software. There may come a time when this is less of a problem. Perhaps this will eventually change with the introduction of

1490:

the best way to avoid blowing my top on Knowledge (XXG) is to avoid using the watchlist, which in turn prevents you from knowing who allegedly or accidentally irritated you. --

377:, which has a thought-out and applicable policy to all my deletions. Given your desire to abide by policy, I'm sure you would do the same should you become an administrator. 1828:

behaviour, I make an apology on talk pages and user talk pages. I confronted all these situations before and I am confident that I will do better and better in the future.

449:, except if they have said beforehand that they would like to know when you're on RfA. Just go about editing as if the RfA isn't on. It was my rule of thumb in my own RfA. 183:

my name but the name of some user else saying "rv/v" or "Reverted edits by ... to last version by ...". Obviously, somebody overtook me and I couldn't revert it myself.

1435: 799:

If there should be a last remark, then I'd end by saying I hope to run another RfA in the near future, and some level of coaching on it should help a lot. Thank you! --

322:

I think I can help with dealing deletion by giving guideline-abiding arguments and judgements - but only provided that nobody else would twist the rules when I work.

1312:

So shall I try it out? I've got really nothing to lose. What missing is just a nomination. Thank you for your great ideas about the problems I've mentioned above. --

1295:

don't count against you; I've been autoblocked myself. The only blocks for which people might have reservations against supporting your candidacy would be blocks on

549:

A issue the neutral votes commented on was edit summaries. Please turn on the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" option (last one in the Editing tab) in

876:). Thank you for your remarks that being a photographer and sysop on another Knowledge (XXG) is something I should mention. I'm going to write my answers below. -- 788:), but soon we found out that we ought to split the article into a series of articles. We also merged and grouped the contents with various other articles such as 319:

I sort of disagree against the current deleting procedure as the last person to talk always seemed to win. And this "last person" is chosen by time, not by event.

274: 380:

I hope you take all my comments as efforts to help you become a better Wikipedian and potential admin. Let me know if you have any further questions or comments.

201:, not become an admin, for the time being, as I'm already elected admin on another Wiki. At this stage I believe another RfA here is quite out of the question. -- 564:

Lastly, the expectations of RfA voters change with time. You should start participating in RfAs and related discussion, to gauge the demands of the community.

554: 42:

Ready whenever you are. :o) UTC+8, hmm? I'm UTC-7, so it's basically as far away as you can get, but that's not a problem. Any ideas on how you want to start?

1651:

Plus, that my mock exam resumes tomorrow should make my RFA extra tough. I hope you can continue helping me posting replies to explain my stance to others. --

1555:

Plus, that my mock exam resumes tomorrow should make my RFA extra tough. I hope you can continue helping me posting replies to explain my stance to others. --

561:

will tell you your edit summary usage in article space; currently yours stands at "38% for major edits and 74% for minor edits" which is not at all desirable.

1730: 135: 373:

As far as your desire to do deletions via strict guidelines, that is entirely up to you, and how diligent you are personally. For example, you can see

1581:

So is it a good idea to attempt writing long, compact and comprehensive articles by myself, without any "long-term" help, such as what I'm doing for

1535:

So is it a good idea to attempt writing long, compact and comprehensive articles by myself, without any "long-term" help, such as what I'm doing for

1281:

1.5 years ago is quite long enough, Deryck. I wouldn't worry about it. And people can hardly blame you for being autoblocked due to a rotating IP. --

767:

Would you like to go over some CSD practices, or is that too elementary for you? Just trying to gauge where you're at here... Reply at your leisure.

792:, et cetera. Although we didn't put a template onto the articles, the "reproduction article series" family are linked together by "main" templates. 952: 1739:

I will help assessing deletion and protection requests if I become sysop. Having unstable and slow internet access, especially after the

745:

Yes, I'm quite afraid of those unwritten but widely applied rules. You can ask me about some of them and see whether I'm used to them. --

692:, and you could make the decision whether to keep or delete them based on policy. Just one idea, perhaps Kimchi.sg will have others. :o) 179:

These are the major cause of my failure in my past RfA: I don't know how to answer them well provided that I don't have good facilities.

617:

that your article-space edit summary percentage is actually quite good, but I think you should really strive for 100% edit summaries on

1748:, I am familiar with these sysop-specific operations. Therefore, deletion and protection are the chores I will join if I become sysop. 796:

put into the other two categories. In the past I had a long debate about a speedy deletion, but I think nowadays it won't happen again.

187:

founded protected, but it was unprotected already. Not being an admin at that time, I didn't know there is a way to view protect logs.

356:

Ah, I think I'd force myself to translate the admin's reading list into Cantonese to make myself read it. --03:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

374: 246:

be one of your "what I want to do" statements. Besides, we need more admins who focus less on vandalism and more on the other tasks.

1138: 1105:

No, I don't travel so frequently that I hop between time zones. :) The state I live in, unlike the other states, does not observe

1434:

I'm sorry about that, Deryck. My watchlist had over 10,000 articles on it, and I simply missed your comment. The nomination is

1817: 945: 476:

for the effect). Experiment a little and I think you can come up with something that is not too long, yet is easily visible.

280:

Finally, don't worry about having to answer the RfA questions. We will both help you make your answers the best they can be.

1594:

criteria. In my opinion, it is impossible, or nearly impossible, for a single editor to write an article which will pass a

197:

Moreover, I hope we put the RfA thing to the last step of this coaching, because I more desperately need a talk on how to

1722: 127: 472:

simply bolds his name in the signature. This keeps his name highly visible while not making the signature too long (see

1786:

Of your articles or contributions to Knowledge (XXG), are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

194:

The compound result is: I didn't get elected. Perhaps you coaches come because you're to guide me through the answers?

153:

Of your articles or contributions to Knowledge (XXG), are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?

1522:

On another topic, it looks like your RFA is progressing very well: no opposing comments yet, which is a good sign. :)

726:

for you to answer how you'd handle if you'd like to test your policy knowledge/execution. Let me know what you think.

1726: 1575:

That's quite a lot of questions, Deryck. I'll attempt to answer them; I hope I've properly understood your questions.

131: 1519:

it's a small WikiProject, nearly the entire team is very good about handling this in a mature and easygoing manner.

1325:

obviously dedicated, and you want to use the tools for deletion and protecting pages. There's really no reason you

522: 496: 335: 217: 66: 545:

tags that can be removed; just settle on one colour and it should be much shorter. Removing all the <font: -->

460:. Edit articles to eliminate them from the backlogs, and your involvement in article space will greatly increase. 453: 232:. This is the proxy server I use to bypass the always-enforced IP-block imposed on the shared IP range of my ISP. 1740: 468:

of becoming administrator if you change your signature to something more plain. For example, another new admin

1696:

possibility) you should definitely go over the Fair Use policy again, just to make sure you've understood it.

1605:

if plagiarism is strictly forbidden along with original ideas. So there must be a grey-zone for people to use.

464:

the rest of the community, and they will know how well-versed you are in policy before you even mention "RfA".

1797: 785: 1792:

The "reproduction article series" pleased me most. Starting from a Science Collaboration of the Week (now

1110: 1063: 890:

include", and feel uncomfortable giving advice on how to respond to RFA questions. I'd prefer to stick to

1109:, so when everyone else is changing their clocks by one hour, we don't do that. While I am officially in 931:

That's a great question. Protection really should be used as a last resort, because some people consider

1767: 1687: 1655: 1624: 1559: 1547: 1494: 1468: 1426: 1363: 1316: 1273: 1212: 1188: 1176: 1150: 1114: 1106: 1094: 1071: 1067: 1053: 1011: 980: 923: 880: 840: 803: 749: 716: 670: 607: 594: 582: 532: 506: 473: 345: 227: 76: 17: 202: 1419: 1816:

Conflicts come in certain different forms. When another user reverts my edit with an explanation, I

833: 789: 550: 469: 423:

also failed his 1st RfA and recently passed his second. Therefore the 1st RfA can be no hindrance.

288:

can be more clear. Thanks for taking the time to read all this, and I look forward to helping you!

457: 1793: 1439: 1021: 948:), there's no reason to protect the article, as the situation can be handled in a different way. 937: 781: 437:

I just had a quick review of your first RfA and notice that all the issues can be easily fixed:

764:

Articles to your name. What's been your biggest achievement on Knowledge (XXG), do you think?

1770: 1758: 1702: 1690: 1671: 1658: 1643: 1627: 1562: 1550: 1528: 1497: 1482: 1471: 1456: 1429: 1405: 1366: 1335: 1319: 1305: 1285: 1276: 1262: 1215: 1202: 1191: 1179: 1166: 1153: 1123: 1097: 1080: 1056: 1037: 1014: 995: 983: 961: 926: 904: 883: 859: 843: 817: 806: 773: 752: 739: 719: 705: 673: 659: 634: 610: 597: 585: 568: 537: 511: 484: 427: 393: 350: 301: 205: 104: 81: 55: 1373: 441:

Oppose votes 2 - 4, 6, 8 - 10 cited "Campaigning in signature" - just don't mention your RfA

255: 1764: 1684: 1652: 1621: 1556: 1544: 1491: 1465: 1423: 1360: 1313: 1270: 1209: 1185: 1173: 1147: 1134: 1091: 1050: 1008: 977: 973: 920: 877: 837: 800: 746: 713: 667: 604: 591: 579: 527: 517: 501: 491: 412: 340: 330: 222: 212: 71: 61: 1634: 1595: 1447: 1443: 1396: 684: 408: 367: 259: 251: 735: 701: 655: 630: 558: 546:

tags will halve the length of your signature code to a much more palatable 111 characters.

389: 297: 100: 51: 1821: 1609: 1591: 1392: 989:

Yes, there appear to be a lot of edits from Hong Kong IPs: 222.166.160.186 and the like.

1755: 1282: 565: 481: 424: 420: 407:, among other places. :o) Another helpful place you can help in is tagging images - as 87: 35: 1824:, because anonymous users are hardly traceable. In case another editor is against my 1697: 1666: 1638: 1523: 1477: 1451: 1400: 1330: 1300: 1257: 1197: 1161: 1118: 1075: 1032: 990: 956: 899: 854: 832:

One more thing to tell: I take a lot of photos for Knowledge (XXG) (you can refer to

812: 768: 27: 1598:, because of the often hostile environment at FAC, and I no longer attempt to do so. 1511:

living in lakes) or POV edits about which dinosaur "should have won" the battle in

944:

or IPs vandalizing the article very often, (or one of the other reasons listed at

932: 1236:

Good answers to RFA questions/Demonstrates knowledge of Knowledge (XXG) policies

1721:

What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out

126:

What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out

727: 693: 647: 622: 399:

Sorry I came late into here, I've been deleting stuff in categories of images

381: 289: 92: 43: 31: 1133:

Another question comes to mind. As I have great participation in the article

1356: 1378:

All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source.

310:

Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ultimate Logging System Professional

26:

The place for Deryck to do his talks and tutorials with his kind coaches,

1269:

would easily be associated with vandals... looks like it's a no-show. --

1582: 1536: 1415: 1352: 689: 404: 1146:

RfA; it is related to wikiquette and inter-editor relationship too. --

1070:), depending on the time of year. The area I live in does not observe 976:, but was soon unprotected because of the common "<12h" reason. -- 400: 308:

existing guidelines doesn't demand the deletion of the article. (see

811:

OK, great. So, do you have any questions or comments at this point?

1680: 1745: 1142:

I know it's not good to ask anything about RfA, but this is not

1025: 1196:

Hmmm... Here, colleges are roughly equivilent to universities.

1233:"Enough" edits in article space, WP space, and talk page space 712:

articles for the school magazine to complete by 4 Jul HKT. --

1476:

No problem, Deryck. I've got my fingers crossed for you. :)

1372:

Lam Tin as it appears now does not have too many footnotes.

951:

Also, consider this: several admins spend a lot of time at

574:

I can't use mathbot's tool =.= the fetching socket failed.

316:

time to respond and - of course - the article got deleted.

1450:. I will support, as soon as I see it's up. Good luck. :) 1031:

I try to reply to your messages as soon as I see them. :)

1633:

As far as MECU's comments go, as long as you're aware of

1446:

page before it will show up, following the directions on

60:

Am I supposed to have any idea? I don't think so ^^ --

1683:, and this mock exam is a rehearsal version of it. -- 1384:

be challenged can be tough. The advice they give is:

940:

for the appropriate length of time. Unless there are

936:

warnings. If s/he is still doing it, the user can be

836:). Would that give me an advantage, by any means? -- 898:coaching, as RFA responses shouldn't be "coached". 1418:is already cleaned up after some discussions with 1224:Active vandal-fighter (or work in another area) 433:The oppose issues of RfA 1 - all easily fixable 1049:Which time zone are you from, in any case? -- 8: 1763:Oh thanks very much Aili. I'll edit soon. -- 1113:, for half of the year, my time is set at 250:how familiar are you with the policies at 1359:. Would the former be over-footnoted? -- 688:a collection of pages you might find at 953:Knowledge (XXG):List of protected pages 557:showed, edit summaries still matter. 7: 1139:Knowledge (XXG):Conflict of Interest 590:It looks not bad - 2/3 of a line. -- 1438:. Of course, you have to properly 24: 1635:Knowledge (XXG)'s Fair Use policy 1351:Consider the following examples. 946:Knowledge (XXG):Protection policy 1723:Category:Knowledge (XXG) backlog 1463:Done. Thank you very much! : --> 128:Category:Knowledge (XXG) backlog 1741:December 2006 Taiwan Earthquake 1184:The third question is done. -- 329:Really hope for your reply. -- 1: 1703:16:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1691:08:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC) 1672:17:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1659:12:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1644:17:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1628:12:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1563:12:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1551:12:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC) 1529:17:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 1498:15:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 1483:07:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 1472:06:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 1457:00:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC) 1430:11:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC) 1406:19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1367:12:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC) 1336:17:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC) 1771:16:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC) 1759:15:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC) 1731:administrators' reading list 1374:WP:CITE#When_to_cite_sources 1320:10:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC) 1306:16:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 1286:15:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 1277:12:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC) 1263:16:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC) 1216:12:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC) 1203:14:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC) 1192:11:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC) 1180:11:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC) 1167:17:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC) 1154:07:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC) 1124:17:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC) 1098:07:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC) 1081:16:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 1057:09:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 1038:08:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 1015:08:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 996:08:01, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 984:04:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC) 962:15:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 927:14:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 905:14:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 884:07:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC) 860:16:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC) 844:13:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC) 818:17:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 807:08:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC) 774:16:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC) 685:Administrator's Reading List 370:of all individuals involved. 136:administrators' reading list 1172:type instead of by case. -- 273:Don't worry too much about 1845: 1725:, and read the page about 1610:WP:OR#No_original_research 1596:Featured Article Candidacy 1227:Civility in all situations 130:, and read the page about 86:lol, No problem. I'm sure 1746:Cantonese Knowledge (XXG) 1399:. Does any of this help? 784:) on "reproduction" (now 753:08:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC) 740:01:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC) 635:19:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 611:15:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 598:15:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 586:15:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 569:11:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 538:10:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 512:10:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 485:09:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 428:08:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 394:04:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 351:03:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC) 302:19:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 206:10:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 105:08:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 82:08:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 56:07:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC) 834:commons:User:Deryck Chan 720:17:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC) 706:18:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC) 674:15:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC) 660:18:44, 1 July 2006 (UTC) 553:, as Winhunter's recent 1798:Biological reproduction 1796:) on Reproduction (now 1028:, though I do not know. 933:protected pages harmful 786:biological reproduction 1699:Firsfron of Ronchester 1668:Firsfron of Ronchester 1640:Firsfron of Ronchester 1525:Firsfron of Ronchester 1479:Firsfron of Ronchester 1453:Firsfron of Ronchester 1448:Requests for Adminship 1444:Requests for Adminship 1402:Firsfron of Ronchester 1332:Firsfron of Ronchester 1302:Firsfron of Ronchester 1259:Firsfron of Ronchester 1199:Firsfron of Ronchester 1163:Firsfron of Ronchester 1120:Firsfron of Ronchester 1111:Mountain Standard Time 1077:Firsfron of Ronchester 1064:Mountain Standard Time 1034:Firsfron of Ronchester 992:Firsfron of Ronchester 958:Firsfron of Ronchester 901:Firsfron of Ronchester 856:Firsfron of Ronchester 814:Firsfron of Ronchester 770:Firsfron of Ronchester 458:articles for wikifying 1242:Won't abuse the tools 1230:Participation in XFDs 1115:Pacific Standard Time 1107:Daylight Savings Time 1072:Daylight Savings Time 1068:Pacific Standard Time 894:coaching rather than 211:210.0.198.76 was me, 18:User talk:Deryck Chan 454:articles for cleanup 405:on Wikimedia Commons 1713:RfA Questions again 790:sexual reproduction 736:Leave me a message! 702:Leave me a message! 656:Leave me a message! 631:Leave me a message! 551:Special:Preferences 401:without source info 390:Leave me a message! 298:Leave me a message! 101:Leave me a message! 52:Leave me a message! 1239:No previous blocks 911:Protection problem 1818:assume good faith 1393:Featured Articles 1380:Determining what 1344:Reference problem 942:multiple accounts 619:every single edit 413:Special:Newimages 368:assume good faith 275:your previous RfA 1836: 1700: 1669: 1641: 1526: 1480: 1454: 1403: 1333: 1329:have the tools. 1303: 1260: 1200: 1164: 1135:La Salle College 1121: 1078: 1035: 993: 974:La Salle College 959: 902: 857: 815: 771: 732: 698: 683:Let's see...the 652: 627: 535: 530: 525: 520: 509: 504: 499: 494: 386: 348: 343: 338: 333: 294: 230: 225: 220: 215: 97: 79: 74: 69: 64: 48: 1844: 1843: 1839: 1838: 1837: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1715: 1698: 1667: 1639: 1524: 1513:Jurassic Park 3 1478: 1452: 1420:Graeme Bartlett 1401: 1346: 1331: 1301: 1258: 1198: 1162: 1119: 1076: 1033: 991: 957: 913: 900: 855: 813: 769: 761: 728: 694: 681: 648: 623: 533: 528: 523: 518: 507: 502: 497: 492: 435: 382: 375:my deletion log 346: 341: 336: 331: 290: 228: 223: 218: 213: 117: 93: 77: 72: 67: 62: 44: 30:and previously 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1842: 1840: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1801: 1781: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1774: 1773: 1727:administrators 1714: 1711: 1710: 1709: 1708: 1707: 1706: 1705: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1553: 1540: 1533: 1532: 1531: 1520: 1516: 1504: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1389: 1345: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1322: 1310: 1309: 1308: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1240: 1237: 1234: 1231: 1228: 1225: 1182: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1103: 1084: 1083: 1062:I'm in UTC-7 ( 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1029: 999: 998: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 949: 912: 909: 908: 907: 874:not to include 865: 864: 863: 862: 850: 829: 828: 823: 822: 821: 820: 797: 793: 760: 759:Admin coaching 757: 756: 755: 723: 722: 680: 677: 663: 662: 638: 637: 572: 571: 562: 559:Mathbot's tool 547: 478: 477: 465: 461: 450: 434: 431: 397: 396: 378: 371: 363: 358: 357: 305: 304: 284: 283: 282: 281: 278: 271: 267: 263: 247: 240: 239: 234: 233: 177: 176: 175: 174: 162: 161: 160: 159: 147: 146: 145: 144: 132:administrators 116: 113: 112: 111: 110: 109: 108: 107: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1841: 1827: 1823: 1819: 1815: 1812: 1811: 1809: 1806: 1805: 1799: 1795: 1791: 1788: 1787: 1785: 1782: 1772: 1769: 1766: 1762: 1761: 1760: 1757: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1747: 1742: 1738: 1735: 1734: 1732: 1728: 1724: 1720: 1717: 1716: 1712: 1704: 1701: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1689: 1686: 1682: 1677: 1673: 1670: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1657: 1654: 1649: 1645: 1642: 1636: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1626: 1623: 1617: 1611: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1602: 1597: 1593: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1584: 1579: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1571: 1570: 1569: 1564: 1561: 1558: 1554: 1552: 1549: 1546: 1541: 1538: 1534: 1530: 1527: 1521: 1517: 1514: 1510: 1505: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1496: 1493: 1488: 1484: 1481: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1470: 1467: 1462: 1458: 1455: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1437: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1428: 1425: 1421: 1417: 1413: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1404: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1388: 1387:contribution. 1383: 1379: 1375: 1371: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1365: 1362: 1358: 1354: 1349: 1343: 1337: 1334: 1328: 1323: 1321: 1318: 1315: 1311: 1307: 1304: 1298: 1294: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1284: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1275: 1272: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1261: 1241: 1238: 1235: 1232: 1229: 1226: 1223: 1222: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1214: 1211: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1201: 1195: 1194: 1193: 1190: 1187: 1183: 1181: 1178: 1175: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1165: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1152: 1149: 1145: 1140: 1136: 1125: 1122: 1116: 1112: 1108: 1104: 1101: 1100: 1099: 1096: 1093: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1082: 1079: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1061: 1060: 1059: 1058: 1055: 1052: 1039: 1036: 1030: 1027: 1023: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1013: 1010: 1005: 1004: 1003: 1002: 1001: 1000: 997: 994: 988: 987: 986: 985: 982: 979: 975: 963: 960: 954: 950: 947: 943: 939: 934: 930: 929: 928: 925: 922: 917: 916: 915: 914: 910: 906: 903: 897: 893: 888: 887: 886: 885: 882: 879: 875: 871: 861: 858: 851: 847: 846: 845: 842: 839: 835: 831: 830: 825: 824: 819: 816: 810: 809: 808: 805: 802: 798: 794: 791: 787: 783: 778: 777: 776: 775: 772: 765: 758: 754: 751: 748: 744: 743: 742: 741: 737: 733: 731: 721: 718: 715: 710: 709: 708: 707: 703: 699: 697: 691: 686: 678: 676: 675: 672: 669: 661: 657: 653: 651: 644: 643: 642: 636: 632: 628: 626: 620: 615: 614: 613: 612: 609: 606: 600: 599: 596: 593: 588: 587: 584: 581: 575: 570: 567: 563: 560: 556: 552: 548: 544:<font: --> 542: 541: 540: 539: 536: 531: 526: 521: 514: 513: 510: 505: 500: 495: 487: 486: 483: 475: 474:his talk page 471: 466: 462: 459: 455: 451: 448: 444: 440: 439: 438: 432: 430: 429: 426: 422: 416: 414: 410: 406: 402: 395: 391: 387: 385: 379: 376: 372: 369: 364: 360: 359: 355: 354: 353: 352: 349: 344: 339: 334: 327: 323: 320: 317: 313: 311: 303: 299: 295: 293: 286: 285: 279: 276: 272: 268: 264: 261: 257: 253: 248: 244: 243: 242: 241: 236: 235: 231: 226: 221: 216: 210: 209: 208: 207: 204: 200: 195: 192: 188: 184: 180: 173: 170: 169: 167: 164: 163: 158: 155: 154: 152: 149: 148: 143: 140: 139: 137: 133: 129: 125: 122: 121: 120: 115:RfA questions 114: 106: 102: 98: 96: 89: 85: 84: 83: 80: 75: 70: 65: 59: 58: 57: 53: 49: 47: 41: 40: 39: 37: 33: 29: 19: 1825: 1813: 1807: 1789: 1783: 1736: 1718: 1650: 1618: 1603: 1592:Good Article 1580: 1512: 1508: 1411: 1385: 1381: 1377: 1350: 1347: 1326: 1297:your account 1296: 1292: 1255: 1143: 1132: 1066:) or UTC-8 ( 1048: 970: 941: 895: 891: 873: 869: 866: 827:work or RfA? 766: 762: 729: 724: 695: 682: 664: 649: 639: 624: 618: 601: 589: 576: 573: 515: 488: 479: 446: 442: 436: 417: 398: 383: 328: 324: 321: 318: 314: 306: 291: 203:210.0.198.76 198: 196: 193: 189: 185: 181: 178: 171: 165: 156: 150: 141: 123: 118: 94: 45: 25: 266:understand. 1509:Diplodocus 1442:it to the 1440:transclude 1293:autoblocks 1102:Hi Deryck, 1022:developers 679:Next steps 411:mentions, 1756:Fang Aili 1357:Hong Kong 1327:shouldn't 1283:Fang Aili 872:and what 566:Kimchi.sg 482:Kimchi.sg 480:Regards, 425:Kimchi.sg 421:Sam Vimes 238:comments: 88:Kimchi.sg 36:Kimchi.sg 1826:personal 1794:WP:SCOTM 1729:and the 1464:v< -- 1414:look of 1376:states: 782:WP:SCOTM 470:Blnguyen 134:and the 28:Firsfron 1583:Lam Tin 1537:Lam Tin 1416:Lam Tin 1412:current 1353:Lam Tin 938:blocked 690:CAT:CSD 256:WP:PROD 1768:yck C. 1688:yck C. 1656:yck C. 1625:yck C. 1560:yck C. 1548:yck C. 1495:yck C. 1469:yck C. 1427:yck C. 1397:WP:FAC 1364:yck C. 1317:yck C. 1274:yck C. 1213:yck C. 1189:yck C. 1177:yck C. 1151:yck C. 1095:yck C. 1054:yck C. 1012:yck C. 981:yck C. 924:yck C. 881:yck C. 870:remove 841:yck C. 804:yck C. 750:yck C. 717:yck C. 671:yck C. 608:yck C. 595:yck C. 583:yck C. 447:anyone 443:at all 409:WP:RCP 260:WP:AFD 258:, and 252:WP:CSD 1822:WP:AN 1681:HKCEE 1382:might 892:admin 730:EWS23 696:EWS23 650:EWS23 625:EWS23 445:, to 384:EWS23 292:EWS23 95:EWS23 46:EWS23 32:EWS23 16:< 1436:here 1410:The 1355:and 1144:just 1026:IPV6 534:k C. 508:k C. 456:and 403:and 347:k C. 229:k C. 78:k C. 34:and 1765:Der 1685:Der 1653:Der 1622:Der 1557:Der 1545:Der 1492:Der 1466:Der 1424:Der 1391:On 1361:Der 1314:Der 1271:Der 1210:Der 1186:Der 1174:Der 1148:Der 1092:Der 1051:Der 1009:Der 978:Der 921:Der 896:RFA 878:Der 838:Der 801:Der 747:Der 714:Der 668:Der 605:Der 592:Der 580:Der 555:RfA 529:ryc 503:ryc 362:do. 342:ryc 224:ryc 73:ryc 1814:A: 1808:3. 1790:A: 1784:2. 1737:A: 1733:. 1719:1. 1620:-- 1543:-- 1299:. 1208:-- 1117:. 1090:-- 1074:. 738:) 704:) 666:-- 658:) 633:) 603:-- 578:-- 490:-- 392:) 312:) 300:) 254:, 199:be 172:A: 166:3. 157:A: 151:2. 142:A: 138:. 124:1. 103:) 54:) 38:. 1585:? 734:( 700:( 654:( 629:( 524:e 519:D 498:e 493:D 388:( 337:e 332:D 296:( 262:? 219:e 214:D 99:( 68:e 63:D 50:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index