Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Magog the Ogre 2

2609:, were in poor format, but nonetheless, were the basis for legal upload. He declined to read the legal material and asked for a link to it instead (curious, because he still would have had to read it). I found that he had no knowledge of the valid legal basis I had for the uploads and unfortunately, relied upon a simplistic prevailing philosophy here that aided his prompt rejection of my premise. Other editors read the same materials I presented and came to the conclusion that I was correct, yet he persisted without seeming to read the opinions presented. One editor even provided the supporting advice of the attorney overseeing the information I uploaded. This was not addressed by Magog while he kept returning to a statement from a short article about one irrelevant peripheral subject in the laws. When for the second time I directed him to the existing template that should properly have been attached to the uploads, I discovered that he had changed the template so that it asserted his misinterpretation of the laws. The result was a template that now would be most misleading (and support his argument in the unresolved debate). That is a serious concern. I believe that he now realizes that he should not have done that, but remember that it was discovered only because I looked at it again. The debate remains in progress (endlessly) although I asked several times for it to be advanced to a higher level if he remained confused. Several times I have been left for days without responses to my replies. I do not want anyone to presume that I am making this objection because of Magog’s challenge of my uploads. That is unresolved, but I believe that the correct decision will be made—however—please consider my insight about his needing to continue to develop his skills in this area where he frequently works and my concern that in all areas he read the materials presented in arguments in order to make the correct decisions which will shorten the process and make it just, and most importantly, to seek advice if necessary. Developing these skills is essential for an administrator and will prevent valid responders from abandoning their objectives in simple frustration when they fail to persist as I have—the encyclopedia will benefit greatly. Eventually, Magog will deserve the status he is seeking. ---- 1424:. Fully qualified candidate. I have considered the opposer's rationale but I do not believe weighs heavily against the candidate that he was conservative on the issue of a logo's being copyrightable. I am not an intellectual property lawyer but I suspect it would come as a surprise to in-house counsel at the company using that logo that Knowledge has declared it to be non-copyrightable subject-matter (do we know if the logo was registered at the copyright office? we do know from the file that it has been trademarked). Taken literally, that means not only that we can use it in articles without a fair-use rationale, but theoretically we could plaster it anywhere in the world we please (although I anticipate the response that perhaps ruling it isn't copyrightable doesn't mean it's not trademarkable). In any event, I don't see this as a basis for opposing the candidate, although I do appreciate having learned a new fact about Knowledge today; I've been here four years but I don't do much image work and I'd never even heard of 2603:

been reviewed when uploaded) that he also challenged. I believe this was imprudent because of the overwhelming sense of an assault that could not be addressed adequately in the allotted two weeks for a response before the images were deleted (while one image could have served until the general issue was resolved for the twelve and then extrapolated). I also found it very difficult to understand his challenge of the first image. When that finally had been clarified and the validity of the upload was apparent, he directed me to others to seek a solution (all over again) that he identified as a policy to "ease" the process. It certainly did not ease the process for me, adding an additional burden. Regarding the twelve files, none are illegal. As I attempted to address the fundamental issue of his concern, I found repeatedly that he did not read what I presented. I provided the lengthy text of the relevant law (for his convenience) and other support materials that,

2433:, where he states: "I see no reason to believe this is PD." Again, not copyrightable. Secondly, I see very little evidence of the candidate interacting with the community. Aside from his own and Fastily's talk page, the most edited user talk pages consist mostly of notices. Most edited article talk page... 16 edits. I simply do not see sufficient amount of activity where Magog the Ogre jumps in and interacts with the community; it seems a need for the community to reach out to him. Reviewing Magog the Ogre's first RFA (which will reach it's one year anniversary later this month), I noticed that there was concern with creations of unsourced biographies and 98:) – My fellow Wikipedians, I present to you, Magog the Ogre, for the role of sysop. As a user with over 8,700 edits beginning in August 2008, a clean block log, plenty of cluefulness, and a long history of experience, civility, and dedication, Magog the Ogre has been a valuable asset to the project these past two years. Although not amongst the ranks of some of our most prolific article creators, Magog has his own way of contributing to the project as a whole: cartography. A programmer by profession, Magog has authored a series of cleverly written scripts to generate a whole slew of freely licensed, professional quality maps for Knowledge to use. 2830:

before RfA 2. Don't get me wrong, 100 edits a month is fine. I just question whether your understanding of the way things work is through experience you have built up over time, or predominantly through the last 30 days. While I'm satisfied that you are a good thing for the project and as far as I can tell have sufficient common sense, I question whether your understanding of the consensus view will be the same in 12 or 18 months' time, given that policies, guidelines and general views have a tendency of evolving. --

1368:—my recent interactions with Magog have all been overwhelmingly positive. He has shown a vast amount of knowledge in the file area and has helped a new user in a place where I didn't know nearly as much (the file namespace). We need more admins working with files. I did oppose his last RfA, but I no longer think experience is an issue, per the nomination and my own experiences with the user. Best of luck, Magog! 113:. This was no easy syllabus he completed. Although challenged at beginning, through a a day-to-day commitment over the past five months, I have seen him make great leaps and bounds in his understanding of policy and in his growth as a Knowledge editor. In the end, I can truthfully say that Magog has outperformed my expectations as an admin coach, and has been a student any coach would be lucky to have. 243:. I picked this one among many, because it illustrates the work I've done. Creating this image to have county subdivisions across multiple states was easily the hardest part of the process (even harder than creating code to go from an address to a point on the screen). But seriously how informative is this image? I think it's quite informative. First off, almost anyone will immediately get a 323:

giving me much more free time. And for the third question: my criteria would require an editor have sufficient experience and intelligence to understand WP's most important policies and procedures well, and a clear history of abiding by those standards. Is that specific enough? If not, I'll clarify further for you.

601:-weight POV-pushing. This regular editor, who is well-established and respected with thousands of productive edits, made the semi-protection request to stop the disruption. The anon hasn't explained anything on the talk page, has clearly explained his edits with edit summaries. What do you do, and why? 2602:

of images that he issued against me on one day last month. Seemingly triggered by one image uploaded at that time, however, he then opened my gallery of uploaded images and selected twelve unrelated images, essentially for a single concern, that had been uploaded over several years (and obviously had

380:

First off, I'd honestly be a bit shocked; I don't think my actions, now matter how noble, have ever led someone to spontaneously decide to give away money to charity (even when solicited!). I would immediately of course mention the Wikimedia Foundation, given the nature of why the person is grateful.

307:

You have had close to 2000 edits in the past 30 plus days or so. The previous 2000 edits took you 15 months or so; my calculations are approximate. The question is, should 'regularity of editing' matter as a factor when a prospective request for adminship is being assessed by editors and was that the

2010:

Good answers, good contributions, particularly recently. A note about edit count regularity: My work life plays havoc on the regularity of my own contributions, as long as someone is relatively consistent, and/or knows that after a long break that they might be out of date and might need to exercise

420:

As you are now in line for the mop and bucket it is a fair question to ask: If you were the closing admin on a lengthy discussion would you take the time to read all opinions, links and other information presented (Be they in summary form or not) or would you quickly glance it over looking for only

2829:

Please note that this is a neutral, which to all intents and purposes is the same as commenting but not voting. I'm slightly concerned that you were reasonably inactive for four months, and then a mini spike before RfA 1, then relatively low activity for a year followed by a huge surge of interest

2784:

At this time I am Neutral on the issue because, while I don't for a minute doubt what Magog does is helpful, I have some concerns. The question I asked above arose because of a deletion discussion that is not uncommon, but the reply seemed to "neat" of an answer, almost as if that is the "correct"

2468:

additions, all of which I just naively translated from the French Knowledge (not knowing any better). And despite doing some searches, I just haven't been able to come up with any outright reliable sources. So you're right about that, I haven't been able to improve them. I haven't done any work on

1428:

before. As for the BLPs, while consensus now agrees that these require sourcing, I find the candidate's response to this concern satisfactory, and it remains a category mistake to consider a simply unreferenced but non-controversial BLP as being in the same vein as a defamatory or privacy-invading

1117:

about blocking in his admin coaching until I got to the last sentence of his answer; that sentence allowing me to breathe a sigh of relief. Solid contributor, especially in the realm of images. Somewhat taciturn, like myself, but quite cordial. Clean block log. From my examination of his Knowledge

2255:

Not being familiar with the candidate or his/her nominated areas of activity, and having reviewed Explicit's early oppose, I've been waiting to see if the opposes materialised into anything more extensive in terms of evidence of lack of experience or competence in the nominated areas of activity.

2808:

Fair enough. I do want to qualify my answer, if I could. What I mean is I think in a long discussion like this (it has to be around 15 pages+ now), if it's obvious that there is consensus, and the administrator understands the important part of the discussion (i.e., in your case, the nature that

596:

has a backlog, and you see that someone has requested semi-protection for article XYZ. In looking at XYZ, you see among the handful of edits per day, a slow edit war going on. Not all the edits are warring, and although there have been more than three reverts by both sides over the past week, it

2846:

Mainly per WFCforLife. The burst of activity makes me think this might be an attempt to grab all the brass rings. I do not think an admin has to be dragged to the mop kicking and screaming, but I've always been a little concerned about bursts like that just before a RfA. That being said, the

322:

long time between edits (e.g., 600 edits per year), so policy and procedure changes passed the person up. Otherwise, IMHO, 80 hours editing over 8 weeks is comparable to 80 hours editing over 8 days. As for the second question: no, my employment status changed (due to no fault of my own!), thus

267:

I have been in conflicts, but I normally deescalate before it even reaches that stage. What I've done before, and what I'll do again, is to just not revert war, but hash it out on the talk page. Refreshingly, most often people are willing to discuss reasonable solutions there. For those who are

2437:. Reviewing those articles, I see that there's been little to no improvement to these articles—most of which were completely unreferenced to begin with, and still are to this day. All these concerns add up and it worries me to see a potential admin with this type of history under his belt. — 2416:

for deletion on the grounds that "I disagree that the arrangement of colors, the arrangement of changing font of the letters (larger font for the C and the K), and the line do not have enough creativity to exist for copyright." The logo is simply not copyrightable, and his assertion that the

431:

was because 83d40m dropped 9 pages of mostly a text dump, where as it would have been considerably easier to read if he had simply linked to the page; for organizational purposes, it was hard to make heads from tails so I was asking for a better summary. Second, to answer your question, it's

2861:

Well if it comes down to a close !vote, I will certainly point you to my answer to #4 above (just in case you missed it, though you quite likely may not have!). I'm really not exaggerating when I say the entirety of my increase is due to unemployment (plus an odd sleep schedule for long and

106:, he has an outstandingly sharp eye for detecting and correcting errors with media file description pages as well as making textbook-perfect file CSD taggings and deletion nominations. On top of everything, Magog also finds the time to revert vandalism, and is a dedicated RC patroller. 479:

The two are written for entirely different purposes, and have different guidelines. BLP1E is written to avoid compromising the privacy of an individual who doesn't want it, and should be used with such a goal in mind. BIO1E is written to avoid writing articles about non-notable

101:

When not hard at work creating maps for Knowledge, Magog spends his time working in the administrative aspects of the project, an area where he is well versed and experienced, particularly so in the area of media file policy. As can be seen from even a brief glance at Magog's

597:

doesn't really qualify for 3RR. In the edit history you don't see much actual vandalism, maybe once every three days or so. The most frequent anonymous edits, however, involve an anon editor attempting to add well-sourced material that a regular editor has been reverting as

550:

A user leaves an angry message on your talk page about an article you have recently deleted. Checking your contributions, you realise you deleted the article by mistake. The user is very unreasonable and is now threatening to sue both you and the Foundation. What do you do?

2730:

Given that the source for the image fails to address a single one of these issues (it doesn't even explain where it got the image from, let alone certify an alternate publication date), and sans any evidence to the contrary, I think it's safe to call this image

116:

I think Magog the Orge has proven himself as an editor worthy of a few extra buttons. The addition of this editor to the sysop corps would clearly be beneficial to the project. I hope you will agree with me that he would do well with the tools. Sincerely,

2639:

if he had a source for the publication date, and he said no. It seems he just added that tag randomly. I asked him to revert himself, and he declined; said I could do it myself. He did this while the RfA was ongoing, which doesn't bode well.

310:

Pl don't mind the question; I sail in the same boat as you, and I am interested in the answer as I do see you a positive contributor irrespective of my question; and irrespective of the 2000 edits, you have 6000 plus edits any which way;

2256:

They haven't, so in light of the solid experience, testaments from those who are experienced in the nominated areas of activity, the way the candidate has responded to the oppose, and the good answers to questions, I'm glad to support.--

502:

BIO1E but not BLP1E applies for a person whose only major contribution to notability was to run a publicity stunt (i.e., wanted the attention) that made several local newspapers. Is this a clear response or do I need to elaborate more?

2417:

differing font size, color arrangement and a simple line beneath the company's name is creative enough to merit copyright leads me to believe that Magog the Ogre will mishandle these types of files that simply can't being anything

2598:– I believe that Magog needs more time to ripen as an editor before being granted an administrator position. I do not question his value in general, I merely believe that he needs more experience. I only have encountered Magog in 713:

An bot or semi-automatic bot/script could certainly help. Actually, seeing as I am good with this kind of thing, it might be something I'd consider doing if I had enough time on my hands, and there was enough demand for it...

686:

Duplicates cause confusion. A person looking at the same image on es.wiki as on en.wiki will wonder why it might have a different source, history, etc. Or if someone were to overwrite one of the images, confusion will now be

2793:

and that concerns me as well. So it is not that I doubt that Magog's "heart" is in the right place and their work ethic is a good one, my concern right now is they would overwhelmed with information and the added "duties".

646:. Regarding your answer to question 1, why do you think most administrators prefer not to touch these? Why do you feel it is important to reduce these backlogs? Do you have suggestions to make the process more efficient? 2634:

that was tagged PD-old-50 (meaning the author had died over 50 years ago), and tagged it PD-US-abroad-1923, which requires that it was published before 1923. We don't know when this image was first published. I asked

2074:. Understands the policies, seems levelheaded and bright, and there just aren't any good reasons to oppose that haven't been addressed by the candidate's actions; even the reasons to oppose were tenuous at best. — 230:. A picture speaks a thousand words, and not a lot of other people have the programming wherewithal to create images like that. Even when images like that do exist, they are about never free enough for Knowledge. 639: 202: 643: 1518:

There are pretty much always file-related backlogs here (and worse ones on Commons!) so someone with clue in that department is always a useful addition to the team. I've no qualms about this candidate.

658:

Administrators are not wholly familiar with policy. In fact, there are probably only a handful of copyright expert administrators across Wikimedia in general. Who wants to have to deal with such gems as

2469:

that within the past month or so on those articles, since which time Google has improved its news archive search. But if you wanted to place a prod notice on the pages, I'd be completely OK with that.

201:

in the past, and will occasionally work on it again when there's a backlog. Most often, backlogs are areas that administrators prefer not to touch because it's tedious: that's what I'd go for (e.g.,

208:

I will protect pages on sight that need it. Pages with less than a few pieces of vandalism per day generally don't need it. BLPs are the exception, most especially if they're not heavily watched.

765:

is, or isn't, for images too, and that the documentation is currently internally inconsistent? If so, what specifically, if anything, should change to make the pages consistent, and why?--

2459:(thankfully I was able to find that page as I had no benchmark to use previously). The PD-text angle hadn't occurred to me for the Ethanol images (they were uploaded under other licenses). 2011:

extra care (which to me seems a basic issue of the sort of judgment I want to see in an admin anyway), edit count irregularity doesn't concern me, and that appears to be the case here. --

2060:. An exceptionally good editor nominated by someone who has a pretty good head for picking admin candidates. I don't see anything to make me think this editor isn't right for the job. 2910: 1340:

Longterm user with a cleanblock log and judging from their talkpage an Ogre by name but not by nature. As for the referencing of articles, I'm happy to judge the candidate by their

1221:- Also confidence in the nom. A serious coaching programme that has answered most of the things I look for. A serious editing history that supports the candidate's RfA. -- 1746:

Good work with files will always score highly with me. Candidate also comes highly recommended, and a review of his contribs shows nothing to conern me. Support as net positive.

989: 2501:

I don't think articles made before this year qualify for BLP prod. Seems awfully silly to me, but I wouldn't bother declining a regular prod with "unsourced BLP" as the reason.

984: 2763:. Effort (and an extensive one at that!) to remove content for which PD-FLGov clearly applied (and which is, in turn, well-documented) indicates poor judgement, IMO. -- 797: 1344:. The point I take from their earliest articles is that they weren't ready to be an admin when they wrote them. I'm supporting now because I think they are ready now. 261:

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

2197:- Plenty of experience all over the encyclopedia, informed answers to questions in this RfA, no concerns. Magog has come a long way since the last RfA a year ago. -- 674:

Because administrators know that any time they play with images, they just might suffer abuse. I haven't heard this complaint in a while, but I certainly have before.

2744:, which is not an applicable license in the UK or the US, and such should only have been tagged on the image as a side-explanation to a correct tag (if even then). 2653:

In my own defense on my talk page, I partially explained (not nearly as thoroughly as I should have), that a very unlikely sequence of events would have to happen:

792: 381:

If not satisfied with that answer, I would have to probe a bit further to discover why the person is grateful and what sort of charity s/he wants to give money to.

761:

that were uncontroversially deleted via proposed deletion and under certain speedy deletion criteria. Is it for images or just pages. Would you agree that either

2599: 2422: 2410: 838: 409: 247:

idea of where the store does business, a very important part of understanding the store to begin with. Second off, people familiar with the area will get a

825: 655:

Undoubtedly, a major factor is that it's tedious. Who wants to spend hours on end doing text replacements? How much more interesting is it to argue on ANI?

432:

important to read all or near all of the text in order to give a proper closing of the debate, especially if the opposing sides haven't come to agreement.

607:

I would decline this request, and place a note on talk pages warning the parties to discuss. In a content dispute, semi-protection is only appropriate if

2928: 227: 1993:

doesn't meet my levels of expected content contribution, but seems to have a good head on his shoulders and gave clueful answers to policy questions.

979: 159:

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Knowledge as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1616:

well-rounded, fully-qualified. The candidate is someone who has taken all the right steps in preparing for the role of sysop since his first RfA--

2160:. The extra year of editing and preparation makes this one easy; adminship for this candidate will certainly be a net positive for the project. 832: 1838: 927: 894: 818: 103: 95: 1118:

namespace contribs, appears to have good grasp of policy. Knows where to go to get answers to his questions. It's a green light from me.

2372: 2178:. Candidate has given the answers I look for in the questions that have been asked. Seems knowledgable and trustworthy with the tools. ~ 1323:

at this point I have a good feeling about MtO's nominations. However I would not like the admin work to detract from the good map work.

868: 862: 2166: 1005: 110: 1015: 523:

Just to clarify, I'm not being smarmy in any way, I'm just not always sure how much I'm on the same wavelength with everyone else ;)

2031:

Good answers and good contributions; images needs good administrators. Just try not to leave for too long without reading up again!

557:

First, I undelete the article. A mistake is a mistake. Second, if the user isn't placated and still is making threats, I take it to

2837: 2510: 2426: 2084: 1690: 1311: 877: 412:

has now turned into a very lengthy one. Even before the discussion became as long as it is now you asked the uploader to provide

175:

I've done a huge amount of work in images. I plan to assist in image work of all sorts, notably deletion (speedy, pseudo-speedy,

33: 17: 2847:

candidate certainly seems qualified, so I may look back at this later and change my !vote, especially if it begins to matter.--

2631: 953: 1644: 374:

Grateful for your assistance, a Knowledge user offers to donate $ 1000 to a charity of your choice. How do you handle this?

308:

reason you increased your edit count in the last month? What would be your criteria for assessing prospective administrators?

240: 974: 2048: 1790: 611:

included parties are not autoconfirmed. Standard caveats for unusual BLP scenarios apply (I'm not addressing those here).

193:

I hate seeing backlogs. If there's a backlog somewhere, I'll want to work on it. For example, I've occasionally worked on

969: 2125: 1549: 1290: 757:

undeletions. But, that (latter) page says "Requests for undeletion is a process intended to assist users in restoring

638:(Optional question; you don't have to answer if this RfA's clock runs out first) The largest backlogs on Knowledge are 1866: 1351: 1307: 2809:

Florida government images are PD), that it's OK to skim (not skip) parts of the rest of the text. That's why I said

1407:. File space work is great, article creation acceptable, policy knowledge seemingly fine. No reason not to support. 337:

I think your answer is very satisfactory (and well put, if I may add). Thanks Magog; best wishes for your adminship.

2683: 2456: 1962: 1444: 1191: 1074:

Per my confidence in the nominator and the need for more admins who know what they're doing in the file namespace.

948: 2705:

If the item was published between 1923-77, the author has to have died after 1925, 35 years after its creation. (

1328: 920: 2891: 2871: 2867: 2856: 2841: 2822: 2818: 2803: 2772: 2753: 2749: 2648: 2618: 2588: 2584: 2568: 2540: 2536: 2522: 2496: 2478: 2474: 2447: 2406: 2386: 2378: 2353: 2333: 2316: 2299: 2282: 2265: 2250: 2246: 2233: 2216: 2189: 2170: 2152: 2135: 2111: 2090: 2066: 2052: 2044: 2035: 2023: 2002: 1985: 1968: 1940: 1919: 1906: 1889: 1872: 1845: 1817: 1794: 1786: 1777: 1760: 1738: 1718: 1702: 1676: 1659: 1648: 1625: 1608: 1584: 1567: 1530: 1510: 1496: 1479: 1460: 1456: 1438: 1416: 1399: 1379: 1360: 1332: 1315: 1298: 1294: 1269: 1247: 1230: 1213: 1165: 1142: 1127: 1105: 1088: 1069: 1041: 812: 774: 723: 719: 694:

process only to find the image on commons and have to start again. Or to have to nominate it at both locations.

620: 616: 574: 570: 532: 528: 512: 508: 455: 451: 441: 437: 390: 386: 352: 332: 328: 269: 190:

has a backlog, I'll work there. And, to answer your likely question preemptively: blocks are never punitive. :)

148: 144: 130: 89: 74: 172:

I've worked on multiple administrative issues since I came on, and that's what I plan to continue working on:

2413: 318:

To answer the first question: no, I don't believe regularity should be an issue. Perhaps if someone spent a

2799: 2692:

If the item was published after 1977, the author has to have died after 1939, 50 years after its creation. (

2679:

The item had to be published for the first time after 1922, more than 30 years after it was first created. (

2367: 1902: 1525: 2789:

of the text..." (Bold added for emphasis) worries me. A question posed by another editor stated that Magog

1802:

Positive contributor; well validated background; promise and potential for the future as an administrator.

1633:

I haven't encountered the user before but looks like he'll be a net positive on the balance of evidence :)

2452:

I'd like a chance to respond to the first issue of PD-text... you're right, something which I've realized

2099: 2043:. Experienced and smart editor, wants to work in areas that need it and clearly understands them well. -- 1714: 1395: 1346: 1243: 1150:

Familiar with Magog's work, and remember the last RfA. File admins are needed, and he's a good candidate!

2738: 2312: 2295: 2261: 1538:

because if Fastily supports with anything other than "Why not?" then the candidate must be qualified :)

1434: 1374: 1083: 446:

Addendum: see my response to Soundvisions1 in his neutral !vote below for an explanation on "near all".

2909:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either

2430: 2834: 2515: 2492: 2348: 2020: 1710: 1695: 1412: 1324: 913: 565:, then the community should put out the block, not I, as I was involved with this user in a dispute. 364: 2863: 2814: 2745: 2719: 2670: 2580: 2576: 2532: 2470: 2242: 1981: 1916: 1672: 1475: 1452: 1197: 1158: 808: 715: 612: 566: 524: 504: 447: 433: 382: 324: 140: 85: 2225: 1010: 690:

2795: 2696: 2445: 2362: 2329: 2278: 2184: 2148: 1998: 1898: 1638: 1520: 1492: 1306:

As per Fastily and the candidate has worked and overcome the concerns raised in the previous RFA.

890: 710:

they are, given that AWB doesn't preview the appearance of an image - although I could be wrong).

400: 1833: 1263: 2884: 2852: 2229: 2161: 2107: 1885: 1810: 1656: 1621: 1388: 1239: 1226: 1138: 1123: 1101: 345: 295: 1257: 408:

You recently presented for deletion discussion several images you felt were possibly unfree.

2614: 2308: 2291: 2257: 2130: 1773: 1755: 1603: 1559: 1430: 1369: 1286: 1075: 2676:... current copyright laws in the UK regarding anonymous works have been around since 1956) 2341:- Have seen work at various image-related discussions & think would make a good sysop. 2831: 2768: 2641: 2505: 2488: 2383: 2342: 2211: 2075: 2013: 1685: 1408: 770: 750: 668: 598: 562: 2862:

complicated reasons... what else to do when you must stay quiet in the house at 5am?) ;)

1443:

Thank you, Newyorkbrad :), that's quite thoughtful of you. And, actually, if you'll read

1113:. Let me just say that my heart dropped when I started reading his answer to question 3 671:? All of this and more must be accounted for when deleting an image as commons-replaced. 2709: 2660: 2549: 2061: 1977: 1955: 1911: 1668: 1580: 1471: 1185: 1152: 1133:

It was actually quite refreshing to review a candidate, I hadn't done that in awhile.

593: 490: 2307:

Excellent history, clear and good answers to the questions, should make a fine admin.

2922: 2438: 2434: 2402: 2326: 2274: 2179: 2144: 1994: 1938: 1634: 1505: 1488: 1425: 703: 691: 630: 584: 558: 465: 277: 198: 187: 180: 176: 2734:

And an additional note: the license under which SlimVirgin uploaded the content was

1451:

tried to mark their logos as copyrightable and failed. I was kind of surprised too.

2877: 2848: 2557: 2103: 1881: 1803: 1653: 1617: 1222: 1134: 1119: 1097: 1058: 1030: 338: 288: 273: 194: 119: 62: 664: 2610: 2120: 1769: 1747: 1593: 1554: 1278: 746: 679:

Why it's important to reduce backlogs... to summarize, the best word for it is

660: 2764: 2199: 2032: 1857: 1724: 766: 738: 542: 186:

I've worked vandalism patrol in the past, so I will block blatant vandals. If

2903:

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.

1950: 1576: 1177: 68: 2785:

answer but, more important, the comment that "it's important to read all

1928: 1828: 1976:, but take into consideration the concern listed in the oppose section. 2579:- I didn't ever use you before!). All but one have at least 2 sources. 56: 473:

What are the differences between BIO1E and BLP1E? Why do they matter?

2913:

or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

561:

for a second opinion. If the community decides the user is violating

893:. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review 640:

Category:Knowledge files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons

203:

Category:Knowledge files with a different name on Wikimedia Commons

905: 644:

Category:Knowledge files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons

909: 2224:

This user looks well qualified and would make a great admin.

137:

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

2575:

No need anymore, I've sourced all the BLPs finally (thanks

2405:

and I'm concern of his employment (or lack thereof) of the

109:

I am also proud to announce that Magog is a graduate of my

2102:: in particular - reviewer, rollbacker, long-time editor. 2531:

Yeah, it wouldn't qualify, just put a regular one on it.

2429:

as well. A more recent example is with the nomination of

751:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion

706:, if the existing capabilities are insufficient (which I 29:

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a

1277:

A dedicated editor with the good of the project in mind.

489:

For example, BLP1E but not BIO1E applies in the case of

427:

First off to clarify, the reason I said I didn't have a

220:

What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?

166:

What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

2636: 2627: 2453: 1387:, no concerns, have seen this editor doing good work. 1341: 1203: 1114: 856: 850: 844: 702:

Add some capability specifically for this procedure to

652:

Administrators probably don't do it for a few reasons:

2791:

had close to 2000 edits in the past 30 plus days or so

1825:- More file backlog clearing admins would be useful. ~ 1540:...and per we need file-related backlog admins, but 1447:

which I linked below, you'll see the some companies

1948:He fixed the BLPs mentioned in the Oppose section. 998: 962: 941: 875:Edit summary usage for Magog the Ogre can be found 1681:I have seen only good things from this candidate. 747:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Deletion_review 493:. His event was too notable to qualify for BIO1E. 1264: 2632:image of Ludwig Wittgenstein's family from 1890 1096:Looks like a solid addition to the admin team. 1470:- Looks like a great candidate for adminship. 2421:the under public domain. There was a similar 921: 8: 2464:As for the issue of the BLP's, they were my 1748: 1667:I think this candidate will do a good job... 2656:The author of this work had to be known. ( 928: 914: 906: 699:Suggestions for making it more efficient: 1258: 418:have much desire to read the whole thing. 889:Please keep discussion constructive and 53:Final (65/4/3); Closed as successful by 798:Requests for adminship/Magog the Ogre 2 790: 139:I accept, gratefully, thanks Fastily. 2401:. I've seen Magog the Ogre plenty at 793:Requests for adminship/Magog the Ogre 7: 2702:applies in the US in this situation) 2545:IMHO, you might consider just using 789: 2143:I believe the time has arrived! - 737:Additional optional question from 629:Additional optional question from 583:Additional optional question from 541:Additional optional question from 464:Additional optional question from 287:Additional optional question from 24: 2929:Successful requests for adminship 280:is a better venue than reverting. 2457:commons:threshold of originality 2427:File:Rachel zoe project logo.jpg 1880:appears to be a fine candidate. 1723:Looks like a good candidate. ~~ 1445:commons:threshold of originality 251:idea, right down to a few miles. 18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship 2241:- Don't see any problems here. 2012: 1604: 1600: 1594: 2773:21:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC) 2754:11:07, 10 September 2010 (UTC) 2649:09:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC) 2387:23:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC) 2379:13:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC) 2354:04:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC) 1956: 775:21:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC) 429:desire to read the whole thing 241:File:WeisMarkets footprint.png 75:02:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC) 1: 2892:02:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 2872:14:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 2857:14:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 2842:19:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 2823:03:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 2804:02:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 2619:19:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 2589:04:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC) 2569:22:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 2541:21:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 2523:18:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 2497:07:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 2479:12:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 2448:08:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 2334:23:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 2317:22:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 2300:12:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 2283:11:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 2273:no problems, pile on support 2266:10:28, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 2251:06:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 2234:02:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC) 2217:17:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 2190:15:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 2171:14:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 2153:10:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 2136:06:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 2112:20:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 2091:19:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 2085: 2067:18:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 2053:16:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 2036:15:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 2024:14:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 2003:04:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 1986:22:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC) 1969:20:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC) 1963: 1951: 1941:10:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC) 1920:05:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC) 1907:01:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC) 1890:22:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 1873:16:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 1846:13:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 1829: 1818:08:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 1795:02:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 1778:02:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 1761:02:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 1739:00:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 1719:00:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 1703:22:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1677:22:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1660:22:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1649:21:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1626:21:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1609:20:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1585:19:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1568:18:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1531:18:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1511:17:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1497:15:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1480:14:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1461:14:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1439:13:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1417:13:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1400:12:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1380:10:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1361:08:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1333:07:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1316:05:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1299:05:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1270:11:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 1248:04:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1231:04:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1214:02:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1166:02:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1143:02:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1128:02:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1106:02:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1089:01:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 1070:18:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 1042:18:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 724:21:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 621:07:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC) 575:02:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 533:14:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 513:02:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 456:14:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 442:01:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 414:a link or just summarize this 391:21:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 353:08:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC) 333:06:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 149:01:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC) 131:05:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC) 1839: 1834: 1028:Edit stats posted on talk. - 667:, and copyright rules like 268:unwilling (e.g., a case of 155:Questions for the candidate 2945: 2483:Would you mind if I put a 806:Links for Magog the Ogre: 2409:concept. For example, he 1085:Penny for your thoughts? 399:Additional question from 363:Additional question from 111:my Admin coaching program 2906:Please do not modify it. 2407:threshold of originality 592:Suppose you notice that 276:or (if trollish enough) 226:I'm really proud of the 2600:thirteen puf challenges 2414:File:CamelBak Logo.jpeg 763:Requests for undeletion 38:Please do not modify it 2324:per all of the above. 1927:. Good contributions. 1308:Pharaoh of the Wizards 34:request for adminship 1853:Nothing wrong here. 1342:more recent articles 1173:– Looks good to me. 1011:Global contributions 421:"Keep" or "Delete"? 416:because you did not 2577:Google News Archive 2045:Boing! said Zebedee 1487:Will do just fine. 1238:Good answer on #3. 975:Non-automated edits 788:RfAs for this user: 665:freedom of panorama 2880:♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ 1806:♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ 954:Edit summary usage 897:before commenting. 341:♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ 291:♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ 39: 2684:PD-US-1923-abroad 2647: 2628:arrived on Sept 7 2564: 2290:per Newyorkbrad. 2188: 2169: 2017: 1607: 1545: 1210: 1145: 1065: 1037: 1024: 1023: 895:his contributions 312: 270:WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT 228:maps I've created 126: 72: 37: 2936: 2908: 2881: 2876:Grand Theft? :-) 2743: 2737: 2724: 2718: 2714: 2708: 2701: 2695: 2688: 2682: 2675: 2669: 2665: 2659: 2646: 2644: 2637:on his talk page 2565: 2562: 2554: 2548: 2520: 2518: 2513: 2508: 2443: 2431:File:Ethanol.gif 2375: 2370: 2365: 2351: 2345: 2332: 2214: 2208: 2205: 2202: 2182: 2165: 2133: 2128: 2123: 2087: 2080: 2064: 2022: 2015: 1965: 1960: 1953: 1937: 1933: 1914: 1869: 1860: 1844: 1841: 1836: 1831: 1807: 1770:Kevin Rutherford 1758: 1752: 1736: 1733: 1730: 1727: 1700: 1698: 1693: 1688: 1605: 1602: 1601: 1598: 1592:Excellent user. 1564: 1562: 1557: 1552: 1539: 1528: 1523: 1508: 1392: 1377: 1372: 1358: 1354: 1349: 1283: 1266: 1260: 1212: 1209: 1206: 1200: 1194: 1188: 1182: 1180: 1163: 1155: 1132: 1086: 1080: 1066: 1063: 1038: 1035: 970:Articles created 930: 923: 916: 907: 880: 872: 831: 784:General comments 342: 309: 292: 127: 124: 65: 59: 54: 2944: 2943: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2911:this nomination 2904: 2888: 2879: 2781: 2741: 2735: 2722: 2716: 2712: 2706: 2699: 2693: 2686: 2680: 2673: 2667: 2663: 2657: 2642: 2561: 2558: 2552: 2546: 2516: 2511: 2506: 2503: 2439: 2395: 2373: 2368: 2363: 2349: 2343: 2325: 2212: 2206: 2203: 2200: 2131: 2126: 2121: 2089: 2076: 2062: 1935: 1929: 1912: 1871: 1867: 1858: 1826: 1814: 1805: 1756: 1734: 1731: 1728: 1725: 1696: 1691: 1686: 1683: 1575:Looks great. -- 1560: 1555: 1550: 1548: 1526: 1521: 1506: 1390: 1375: 1370: 1356: 1352: 1347: 1325:Graeme Bartlett 1279: 1204: 1198: 1192: 1186: 1183: 1178: 1174: 1159: 1153: 1084: 1076: 1062: 1059: 1050: 1034: 1031: 1025: 1020: 994: 958: 937: 936:RfA/RfB toolbox 934: 904: 876: 824: 807: 803: 786: 410:This discussion 349: 340: 299: 290: 157: 123: 120: 83: 63: 57: 50: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2942: 2940: 2932: 2931: 2921: 2920: 2916: 2915: 2899: 2898: 2897: 2896: 2895: 2894: 2886: 2864:Magog the Ogre 2844: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2815:Magog the Ogre 2780: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2758: 2757: 2756: 2746:Magog the Ogre 2732: 2728: 2727: 2726: 2703: 2690: 2677: 2621: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2581:Magog the Ogre 2573: 2572: 2571: 2559: 2533:Magog the Ogre 2529: 2528: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2487:prod on them? 2471:Magog the Ogre 2462: 2460: 2394: 2391: 2390: 2389: 2381: 2356: 2336: 2319: 2302: 2285: 2268: 2253: 2243:MarmadukePercy 2236: 2219: 2192: 2173: 2155: 2138: 2119:Darn tootin'! 2114: 2098:- fully meets 2093: 2083: 2072:Strong support 2069: 2055: 2038: 2026: 2005: 1988: 1971: 1943: 1922: 1909: 1899:Richard Cavell 1892: 1875: 1865: 1848: 1820: 1812: 1797: 1780: 1763: 1741: 1721: 1705: 1679: 1662: 1651: 1628: 1614:Strong support 1611: 1587: 1570: 1533: 1513: 1504:No problems -- 1499: 1482: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1453:Magog the Ogre 1419: 1402: 1382: 1366:Strong support 1363: 1335: 1318: 1301: 1272: 1255:- Per Kudpung 1250: 1233: 1216: 1168: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1108: 1091: 1072: 1060: 1049: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1032: 1022: 1021: 1019: 1018: 1013: 1008: 1002: 1000: 996: 995: 993: 992: 987: 982: 977: 972: 966: 964: 960: 959: 957: 956: 951: 945: 943: 939: 938: 935: 933: 932: 925: 918: 910: 903: 900: 886: 885: 884: 882: 873: 809:Magog the Ogre 802: 801: 800: 795: 787: 785: 782: 780: 778: 777: 753:is for simple 741: 733: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 716:Magog the Ogre 711: 697: 696: 695: 688: 677: 676: 675: 672: 656: 633: 626: 625: 624: 623: 613:Magog the Ogre 587: 580: 579: 578: 577: 567:Magog the Ogre 545: 538: 537: 536: 535: 525:Magog the Ogre 518: 517: 516: 515: 505:Magog the Ogre 497: 496: 495: 494: 491:Shawn Hornbeck 484: 483: 482: 481: 468: 461: 460: 459: 458: 448:Magog the Ogre 444: 434:Magog the Ogre 403: 396: 395: 394: 393: 383:Magog the Ogre 368: 367: 360: 359: 358: 357: 356: 355: 347: 325:Magog the Ogre 302: 297: 284: 283: 282: 281: 255: 254: 253: 252: 234: 233: 232: 231: 214: 213: 212: 211: 210: 209: 206: 191: 184: 156: 153: 152: 151: 141:Magog the Ogre 121: 86:Magog the Ogre 82: 79: 49: 47:Magog the Ogre 44: 43: 42: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2941: 2930: 2927: 2926: 2924: 2914: 2912: 2907: 2901: 2900: 2893: 2890: 2889: 2883: 2882: 2875: 2874: 2873: 2869: 2865: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2854: 2850: 2845: 2843: 2839: 2836: 2833: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2807: 2806: 2805: 2801: 2797: 2796:Soundvisions1 2792: 2788: 2783: 2782: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2759: 2755: 2751: 2747: 2740: 2733: 2729: 2721: 2711: 2704: 2698: 2691: 2685: 2678: 2672: 2662: 2655: 2654: 2652: 2651: 2650: 2645: 2638: 2633: 2629: 2625: 2622: 2620: 2616: 2612: 2608: 2607: 2601: 2597: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2582: 2578: 2574: 2570: 2567: 2566: 2551: 2544: 2543: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2524: 2521: 2519: 2514: 2509: 2500: 2499: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2467: 2463: 2461: 2458: 2455:upon reading 2454: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2446: 2444: 2442: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2420: 2415: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2400: 2397: 2396: 2392: 2388: 2385: 2382: 2380: 2377: 2376: 2371: 2366: 2360: 2357: 2355: 2352: 2346: 2340: 2337: 2335: 2331: 2328: 2323: 2320: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2303: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2289: 2286: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2269: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2254: 2252: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2237: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2220: 2218: 2215: 2210: 2209: 2196: 2193: 2191: 2186: 2181: 2177: 2174: 2172: 2168: 2163: 2159: 2156: 2154: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2139: 2137: 2134: 2129: 2124: 2118: 2115: 2113: 2109: 2105: 2101: 2097: 2094: 2092: 2088: 2081: 2079: 2073: 2070: 2068: 2065: 2059: 2056: 2054: 2050: 2046: 2042: 2039: 2037: 2034: 2030: 2027: 2025: 2021: 2019: 2009: 2006: 2004: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1989: 1987: 1983: 1979: 1975: 1972: 1970: 1967: 1966: 1961: 1959: 1954: 1947: 1944: 1942: 1939: 1934: 1932: 1926: 1923: 1921: 1918: 1915: 1910: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1893: 1891: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1876: 1874: 1870: 1868:Contributions 1863: 1862: 1861: 1852: 1849: 1847: 1843: 1842: 1837: 1832: 1824: 1821: 1819: 1816: 1815: 1809: 1808: 1801: 1798: 1796: 1792: 1788: 1784: 1781: 1779: 1775: 1771: 1767: 1764: 1762: 1759: 1753: 1751: 1745: 1742: 1740: 1737: 1722: 1720: 1716: 1712: 1709: 1706: 1704: 1701: 1699: 1694: 1689: 1680: 1678: 1674: 1670: 1666: 1663: 1661: 1658: 1655: 1652: 1650: 1646: 1643: 1640: 1636: 1632: 1629: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1612: 1610: 1606: 1599: 1597: 1591: 1588: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1571: 1569: 1566: 1565: 1563: 1558: 1553: 1544:all the same! 1543: 1537: 1534: 1532: 1529: 1524: 1517: 1514: 1512: 1509: 1503: 1500: 1498: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1483: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1436: 1432: 1427: 1423: 1420: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1406: 1403: 1401: 1397: 1393: 1386: 1383: 1381: 1378: 1373: 1367: 1364: 1362: 1359: 1355: 1350: 1343: 1339: 1336: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1322: 1319: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1305: 1302: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1284: 1282: 1276: 1273: 1271: 1268: 1267: 1261: 1254: 1251: 1249: 1245: 1241: 1237: 1234: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1220: 1217: 1215: 1211: 1207: 1201: 1195: 1189: 1181: 1172: 1169: 1167: 1164: 1162: 1157: 1156: 1149: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1116: 1112: 1109: 1107: 1103: 1099: 1095: 1092: 1090: 1087: 1081: 1079: 1073: 1071: 1068: 1067: 1055: 1052: 1051: 1047: 1043: 1040: 1039: 1027: 1026: 1017: 1014: 1012: 1009: 1007: 1004: 1003: 1001: 997: 991: 988: 986: 983: 981: 978: 976: 973: 971: 968: 967: 965: 961: 955: 952: 950: 947: 946: 944: 940: 931: 926: 924: 919: 917: 912: 911: 908: 901: 899: 898: 896: 892: 883: 879: 874: 870: 867: 864: 861: 858: 855: 852: 849: 846: 843: 840: 837: 834: 830: 827: 823: 820: 817: 814: 810: 805: 804: 799: 796: 794: 791: 783: 781: 776: 772: 768: 764: 760: 756: 752: 748: 745: 742: 740: 736: 735: 734: 725: 721: 717: 712: 709: 705: 701: 700: 698: 693: 689: 685: 684: 683:; to expand: 682: 678: 673: 670: 666: 662: 657: 654: 653: 651: 648: 647: 645: 641: 637: 634: 632: 628: 627: 622: 618: 614: 610: 606: 603: 602: 600: 595: 591: 588: 586: 582: 581: 576: 572: 568: 564: 560: 556: 553: 552: 549: 546: 544: 540: 539: 534: 530: 526: 522: 521: 520: 519: 514: 510: 506: 501: 500: 499: 498: 492: 488: 487: 486: 485: 478: 475: 474: 472: 469: 467: 463: 462: 457: 453: 449: 445: 443: 439: 435: 430: 426: 423: 422: 419: 415: 411: 407: 404: 402: 401:Soundvisions1 398: 397: 392: 388: 384: 379: 376: 375: 373: 370: 369: 366: 362: 361: 354: 351: 350: 344: 343: 336: 335: 334: 330: 326: 321: 317: 314: 313: 306: 303: 301: 300: 294: 293: 286: 285: 279: 275: 271: 266: 263: 262: 260: 257: 256: 250: 246: 242: 239:For example: 238: 237: 236: 235: 229: 225: 222: 221: 219: 216: 215: 207: 204: 200: 196: 192: 189: 185: 182: 178: 174: 173: 171: 168: 167: 165: 162: 161: 160: 154: 150: 146: 142: 138: 135: 134: 133: 132: 129: 128: 114: 112: 107: 105: 104:contributions 99: 97: 94: 91: 87: 80: 78: 77: 76: 70: 66: 60: 48: 45: 41: 35: 32: 27: 26: 19: 2905: 2902: 2885: 2878: 2810: 2790: 2786: 2760: 2623: 2605: 2604: 2595: 2556: 2502: 2484: 2465: 2440: 2418: 2398: 2361: 2358: 2338: 2321: 2304: 2287: 2270: 2238: 2221: 2198: 2194: 2175: 2162:UltraExactZZ 2157: 2140: 2116: 2100:my standards 2095: 2077: 2071: 2057: 2040: 2028: 2007: 1991:Weak support 1990: 1973: 1957: 1949: 1945: 1930: 1924: 1894: 1877: 1855: 1854: 1850: 1827: 1822: 1811: 1804: 1799: 1782: 1765: 1749: 1743: 1707: 1682: 1664: 1641: 1630: 1613: 1595: 1589: 1572: 1547: 1546: 1541: 1535: 1515: 1501: 1484: 1467: 1448: 1421: 1404: 1384: 1365: 1345: 1337: 1320: 1303: 1280: 1274: 1259:Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм 1256: 1252: 1240:Doc Quintana 1235: 1218: 1176: 1170: 1160: 1151: 1110: 1093: 1077: 1057: 1053: 1029: 888: 887: 865: 859: 853: 847: 841: 835: 828: 821: 815: 779: 762: 758: 754: 743: 732: 707: 681:streamlining 680: 649: 635: 608: 604: 589: 554: 547: 476: 470: 428: 424: 417: 413: 405: 377: 371: 346: 339: 319: 315: 304: 296: 289: 264: 258: 248: 244: 223: 217: 169: 163: 158: 136: 118: 115: 108: 100: 92: 84: 52: 51: 46: 30: 28: 2787:or near all 2309:First Light 2292:Jonathunder 2258:Mkativerata 1431:Newyorkbrad 1371:Airplaneman 1078:HJ Mitchell 1016:User rights 1006:CentralAuth 2720:PD-US-1996 2671:PD-US-1996 2643:SlimVirgin 2489:ErikHaugen 2466:very first 2423:nomination 2384:Courcelles 2344:Skier Dude 2078:Chromancer 1783:Yeah, okay 1754: 1711:Keepscases 1409:Alzarian16 1265:Champagne? 999:Cross-wiki 990:AfD closes 902:Discussion 661:de minimis 365:Keepscases 311:regards... 81:Nomination 31:successful 2739:PD-old-50 2697:PD-old-70 2411:nominated 2063:Trusilver 1978:Connormah 1669:Modernist 1472:Ajraddatz 1281:Doc James 1056:As nom. - 985:AfD votes 980:BLP edits 851:block log 687:complete. 2923:Category 2811:near all 2275:Polargeo 2180:Amatulić 2145:Ret.Prof 2141:Support: 2018:e decker 1995:Jclemens 1645:contribs 1635:Casliber 1489:Pichpich 1357:Chequers 1291:contribs 963:Analysis 942:Counters 819:contribs 631:Amatulic 599:WP:UNDUE 585:Amatulic 563:WP:LEGAL 480:figures. 466:Jclemens 249:specific 96:contribs 2849:Wehwalt 2779:Neutral 2606:granted 2359:Support 2339:Support 2322:Support 2305:Support 2288:Support 2271:Support 2239:Support 2222:Support 2195:Support 2176:Support 2158:Support 2117:Support 2104:Bearian 2096:Support 2058:Support 2041:Support 2029:Support 2008:Support 1974:Support 1946:Support 1925:Support 1895:Support 1882:Nergaal 1878:Support 1851:Support 1835:Science 1823:Support 1800:Support 1766:Support 1744:Support 1708:Support 1665:Support 1631:Support 1618:Hokeman 1590:Support 1573:Support 1542:Support 1536:Support 1522:Rodhull 1516:Support 1502:Support 1485:Support 1468:Support 1422:Support 1405:Support 1391:Georgia 1385:Support 1338:Support 1321:Support 1304:Support 1275:Support 1253:Support 1236:Support 1223:Kudpung 1219:Support 1171:Support 1135:Useight 1120:Useight 1111:Support 1098:Jarkeld 1094:Support 1054:Support 1048:Support 826:deleted 594:WP:RFPP 245:general 2761:Oppose 2630:at an 2624:Oppose 2611:83d40m 2596:Oppose 2563:ASTILY 2435:WP:BLP 2403:WP:PUF 2399:Oppose 2393:Oppose 1750:Begoon 1596:Tyrol5 1527:andemu 1426:WP:PUF 1064:ASTILY 1036:ASTILY 949:XTools 704:WP:AWB 559:WP:ANI 320:really 278:WP:ANI 199:WP:SCV 188:WP:AIV 181:WP:FFD 179:, and 177:WP:PUF 125:ASTILY 2765:Elvey 2710:PD-UK 2661:PD-UK 2626:. He 2555:... - 2550:db-g7 2517:comms 2507:fetch 2425:with 2374:Space 2033:Panyd 1859:RP459 1830:Nerdy 1768:Yes! 1697:comms 1687:fetch 1429:one. 1389:Sandy 1353:Spiel 1295:email 1154:ceran 891:civil 833:count 767:Elvey 759:pages 755:image 749:says 739:Elvey 708:think 543:Panyd 274:WP:DR 195:WP:RM 67:) · 16:< 2868:talk 2853:talk 2819:talk 2800:talk 2769:talk 2750:talk 2615:talk 2585:talk 2537:talk 2493:talk 2475:talk 2369:From 2364:Them 2350:talk 2330:khoi 2327:Khoi 2313:talk 2296:talk 2279:talk 2262:talk 2247:talk 2230:talk 2185:talk 2149:talk 2122:Jmlk 2108:talk 2086:cont 2049:talk 1999:talk 1982:talk 1958:Soap 1903:talk 1886:talk 1840:Dude 1791:talk 1774:talk 1757:talk 1715:talk 1673:talk 1654:Step 1639:talk 1622:talk 1581:talk 1577:John 1507:Inka 1493:talk 1476:Talk 1457:talk 1449:have 1435:talk 1413:talk 1396:Talk 1348:Ϣere 1329:talk 1312:talk 1287:talk 1244:talk 1227:talk 1179:MC10 1161:thor 1139:talk 1124:talk 1115:here 1102:talk 878:here 863:rfar 845:logs 813:talk 771:talk 720:talk 669:this 642:and 617:talk 571:talk 529:talk 509:talk 452:talk 438:talk 387:talk 329:talk 145:talk 90:talk 69:@127 64:talk 2840:-- 2731:PD. 2485:blp 2419:but 2167:Did 1931:Axl 1917:my! 1913:Tom 1856:-- 1657:hen 1561:per 1556:Pep 869:spi 839:AfD 744:11. 692:PUF 636:10. 609:all 272:), 197:or 73:at 2925:: 2887:―Œ 2870:) 2855:) 2821:) 2813:. 2802:) 2771:) 2752:) 2742:}} 2736:{{ 2723:}} 2717:{{ 2715:+ 2713:}} 2707:{{ 2700:}} 2694:{{ 2687:}} 2681:{{ 2674:}} 2668:{{ 2666:+ 2664:}} 2658:{{ 2617:) 2587:) 2553:}} 2547:{{ 2539:) 2495:) 2477:) 2315:) 2298:) 2281:) 2264:) 2249:) 2232:) 2226:E♴ 2204:am 2201:At 2151:) 2110:) 2051:) 2001:) 1984:) 1905:) 1897:- 1888:) 1813:―Œ 1793:) 1787:DS 1785:. 1776:) 1726:Hi 1717:) 1675:) 1647:) 1624:) 1583:) 1495:) 1478:) 1459:) 1437:) 1415:) 1398:) 1331:) 1314:) 1297:) 1293:· 1289:· 1262:| 1246:) 1229:) 1199:GB 1141:) 1126:) 1104:) 1082:| 857:lu 773:) 722:) 663:, 650:A: 619:) 605:A: 590:9. 573:) 555:A: 548:8. 531:) 511:) 477:A: 471:7. 454:) 440:) 425:A: 406:6. 389:) 378:A: 372:5. 348:―Œ 331:) 316:A: 305:4. 298:―Œ 265:A: 259:3. 224:A: 218:2. 205:). 183:). 170:A: 164:1. 147:) 71:· 61:· 58:X! 36:. 2866:( 2851:( 2838:C 2835:F 2832:W 2817:( 2798:( 2767:( 2748:( 2725:) 2689:) 2613:( 2583:( 2560:F 2535:( 2512:· 2504:— 2491:( 2473:( 2441:ξ 2347:( 2311:( 2294:( 2277:( 2260:( 2245:( 2228:( 2213:頭 2207:a 2187:) 2183:( 2164:~ 2147:( 2132:7 2127:1 2106:( 2082:/ 2047:( 2016:⚛ 2014:j 1997:( 1980:( 1964:— 1952:— 1936:¤ 1901:( 1884:( 1864:/ 1789:( 1772:( 1735:8 1732:7 1729:8 1713:( 1692:· 1684:— 1671:( 1642:· 1637:( 1620:( 1579:( 1551:~ 1491:( 1474:( 1455:( 1433:( 1411:( 1394:( 1376:✈ 1327:( 1310:( 1285:( 1242:( 1225:( 1208:) 1205:L 1202:• 1196:• 1193:C 1190:• 1187:T 1184:( 1175:— 1137:( 1122:( 1100:( 1061:F 1033:F 929:e 922:t 915:v 881:. 871:) 866:· 860:· 854:· 848:· 842:· 836:· 829:· 822:· 816:· 811:( 769:( 718:( 615:( 569:( 527:( 507:( 450:( 436:( 385:( 327:( 143:( 122:F 93:· 88:( 55:( 40:.

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

Knowledge

:Requests for adminship/Magog the Ogre 2 - Knowledge

Index