414:(one big long question about categories of admins and your thoughts about them) Are you aware of the notion of adminstrators saying they're willing to be voluntarily recalled or reviewed, by a less onerous process than a new RfA (or worse) arbComm action? What do you think of the idea? Would you consider placing yourself (placement should only be done by oneself) in such a category if you were made an admin? Why or why not? Are you aware of the notion of Rouge admins? What do you think of the notion? Do you see it as purely humorous or do you see what it's driving at? Would you consider allowing yourself to by placed in this category (placement is traditionally done by someone else) if you were made an admin? Why or why not? (note: both these categories have some controversy attached to them, for different reasons, and note also, although I am a policy and process
165:. Articles needing context might be another area I'll work on. Not having referred many matters such as blocking/suspension requests or vandalism notices to admins myself, I'm not sure how adept I'd be at handling things in those areas; my experience is a bit limited. I'll probably also try to work on fixing vandalism and watching new pages for deletion, both of which I've worked on intermittently in the past. I've done a lot more work on copyediting and writing articles than on the administrative side, which is the main reason I've been somewhat reluctant when asked about adminship in the past.
1517:" made me almost fall on the floor. No, becoming an admin does not obligate you to drop your normal tasks to do the never ending backlog you mention. Indeed, I don't really want admins who do not appreciate that admin tasks should not become your total focus once you become an admin. I want admins who can routinely step back and let other admins do the admin work for a while, and never lose touch with normal editing tasks. Adminship is not an all or nothing thing, don't give up being a user to become a full time admin.
968:, you don't stick around for two productive years without knowledge of how things work. In particular I'm voting here because of the reasons given to oppose. Since some tools just make it easier to edit, experienced editors should have access to those tools. If people want admins to be "policemen" then they should form a new level of admin defined to do that. That isn't what admins are for
1591:). I do also echo Yanksox's sentiments about that statement in the nomination. Nevertheless, I'm more than willing to change my mind (at least to neutral) if some of the support voters can provide me with evidence that these issues are atypical, but so far I see mostly comments on the immense number of edits. One can be a wonderful, dedicated editor, but not be ready for adminship.
1441:
status (and you are interested in doing the chores required), you can't assist on the level of articles, you need to focus on the whole scope. The answer to question one shows a lack of knowledge of what being an admin entitles, I also really don't like reading, "I've done a lot more work on copyediting and writing articles than on the administrative side, which is the main reason
283:
which tend not to prompt much discussion, and a lot more have been toward improving links to more appropriate articles. I'll also note here that some voters have expressed concern that much of my work has focused on baseball articles, and they would hope that admins would be knowledgeable in more than one area. To that I would note that I've been one of the
1036:
Rmrfstar's acting irresponsibly, and he surely appreciates how properly an admin ought to conduct himself, both inter-personally and vis-à-vis consensus (recognizing, notably, that an admin acts only to interpret the views of the community and to implement whatever action it is behind which a consensus lies).
806:
They tell me you're a terrific editor. Please stay an editor. I pledge to fulfill all your admin requests ASAP. I am supporting you because I am sure you will not abuse the tools, though I don't think you'll help us too much with backlogs either, and besides, we have plenty of non-creative drones who
282:
I suppose I've done more work editing short articles into longer ones than I have on helping turn already sizable articles into truly great ones, so a lot of what I've worked on have not had existing talk pages or ongoing debates. Also, a lot of my edits have been of a copyediting/maintenance nature,
1535:
perfer an admin to be. I don't mind or care if an admin edits articles and contributes. What I meant to say is that I care if a substancial part of what they do isn't helping in admin tasks since other users can't assist there. This is just based upon a few days of me being one of the newest SysOps,
438:
I suppose I would consider placing myself in the first category if other users found my conduct as an admin objectionable, though I don't believe I'd do it right away if I'm confirmed. From my own answers and the concerns posted below, however, it seems everyone believes there's a greater likelihood
1864:
Seems like an excellent editor, but unfortunately answers do not seem to require admin tools. If you were to complete some active RCP and some other participation on WP: then I will be happy to support if you run for admin again. And of course admins can still participate in article contributions,
1035:
inasmuch as it really matters not that a candidate will use the tools infrequently where one can be certain the candidate would not abuse the tools or, in ignorance of policy or in view of an indecorous or unilateral streak, misuse–even avolitionally–the tools. One need not to worry, I think, about
1744:
for two reasons - I'm not convinced he needs the tools, and his edit summary usage is poor. He is a very active editor, and that is great; but I don't think we need any more marginally active admins. This oppose vote is not meant to impugn the editor at all; I hope he keeps up all the great work
257:
article. I've tried to double-check
Knowledge policies and be sure of my facts when I've gotten into these disputes, though I concede I've become a bit overheated a couple of times. But in general, I think I've tried to present my arguments as completely as possible, and I've invited comment from
1440:
This user is a fantastic editor and has made invaluable edits to this project. However, the administrative aspect is a completely different side of
Knowledge and not a "promotion," or an "upgrade" from being a "common user." I don't believe there is a need for the tools, since once you get admin
1677:
Not to speak for
Jaranda, but - because they're more familiar with the community of editors that focus on a particular family of articles, and because they're more able to distinguish a real correction from a well-intentioned but erroneous edit from subtle vandalism in their area of expertise.
1497:
Wouldn't we be better off with more admins who clearly aren't going to abuse the tools? If we only promote people who are going to make 5,000 deletions a month or whatever... that just seems really short-sighted. Knowledge is about a lot of people doing a bit, rather than a few people making
495:
Username MisfitToys Total edits 22069 Distinct pages edited 10884 Average edits/page 2.028 First edit 16:48, March 25, 2004 (main) 19931 Talk 311 User 365 User talk 207 Image 8 Template 128 Template talk 12 Category 527 Category talk 7 Knowledge 564 Knowledge talk 7 Portal 2
653:
Long time editor, tons and tons of work, seems good. User admits, and from question 1 I'd agree that he doesn't have much need for the tools for what he does, but surely someone who's done this much won't abuse them, and any admin work they do is better than none.
225:. I've tried to add a lot of material that puts data from primary sources into context, which I think is a primary strength of the articles. I know some of the articles (particularly older ones) need better citing of sources; I've been working on that lately.
362:
You mention in your answer to question one that you have been involved in fighting vandals in the past. However, I couldn't find any warning templates added to user talk pages. Can you point me to some evidence of that vandal-fighting? Thanks in advance. --
1783:. Sorry, MisfitToys, but there just isn't a good enough balance of edits: 207 user talk and 311 article talk in well over two years shows almost no community interaction; and seven edits to project talk shows no discussion about policies or guidelines.
443:, rather than using them too much or indiscriminately. As to the second category, I primarily see it as humor but also recognize the point being made. I suppose if someone wanted to put me in there, I'd be surprised - but probably wouldn't object.
1721:
Per Jo above. His percentage of
Knowledge project space edits, at just over 2.5% is a bit too low for my liking I must admit. I would very happily support in the future when the user imporves his amount of Knowledge project space activity.
76:) – MisfitToys has been a valued contributor here since March 2004 and has more than 15,000 edits. Even though his wikipedia and user talk space edits are a bit low, he is a dedicated editor who copyedits or expands tons of articles
156:
There are some areas such as articles needing categories and very large categories which I'd probably sort through; I've done a lot of past work in organizing categories - for instance, I created about half the subcats under
299:, to which I've also contributed. (Those who are determined to do so may no doubt figure out my name by cross-checking the pages.) Yes, there are other areas to which I'd like to contribute, but there's only so much time.
1530:
I went on a bit of an off topic tangent, I guess what I really am trying to get to is the fact that the candidate is an excellent editor and a great asess to the project. However, I don't think he fits the role of what
1481:, once an admin, if you want to be a productive admin, you can't keep editing articles. You need to act like a policeman-type. The nominee hasn't given me any reason to support this request for the additional tools.
1476:
I did alot of Copy editing before I was an admin, but I am slowly realizing that you can't spend your time doing that when you have alot of other admin tasks that need ot be done. There is a never ending backlog at
1220:, from his contributions and his answers, I don't see a reason to believe he'd abuse or misuse the tools. Clearly stating what he would or wouldn't be confident doing shows maturity and trustworthiness to me. -
1919:
I find it really doubtfull that you will missuse the tools, but I also doubt that you especially need them. YOu seem to be a fantastic editor and we can never have too many of them. Keep up the good work.
1266:. Mildly surprised he's not an admin already. I don't see how low edit counts in other namespaces should be counted as a negative, unless there were some other indications that there might be a problem.
1581:). Perhaps more importantly, there are few talk and user talk edits, which may demonstrate lack of communication skills. In a sample of the few talk edits available, I did see a bit of impatience (
1030:
1654:
Why do you think that? I don't see how being knowledgeable in one subject would make someone a better admin. I'm, of course, not opposing on those grounds, but I'm curious; that just seems like a
1233:. When it is clear that we do have an intelligent editor with good judgment and experience, and much good work in the encyclopedia (where it should be), then to oppose based on numbers is absurd.
190:
874:, won't abuse the tools, but I'm unsure of the need for the tools. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you'll find a task to do, given your astounding record in the mainspace.
745:
pages, in my book he doesn't need significant
Project space edits for me to be sure he'll be a good admin. If he was going to be a problem admin, it would have been apparent long ago. --
1286:
met and no significant rationale to oppose (incivility, vandalism, etc.). I'm a little puzzled by the allegations the user spends too much time editing articles, that's why we're here.
242:
520:. He's honest and obviously a dedicated, thoughtful contributor. He's been here since 2004, will likely be here for quite some time longer. I'd be pleased to see him as an admin.
235:
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?
1098:- in my view, it should never be forgotten that we are writing an encyclopedia, and all the rest is only subsidiary. I simply don't see any reasons for not making him an admin.--
1461:
Why do you say you can't "assist on the level of articles" once an admin? I think I'm probably just interpreting that differently than you mean, but it seems like... why not? -
679:
258:
admins when I thought the debate was getting a bit entrenched (and I've usually just asked the admins to look at the discussion, without making my arguments directly).
186:
131:
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve
Knowledge in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
1574:
162:
1561:
22,000 edits is astounding, but the WP: edit count is too low. And it's not just the number that I don't like, it's more so the distribution. Most are towards
1110:: The edits and longevity are astounding, but... what makes me worried are the low use of summaries, (user) talk participation and Knowledge activity. --Slgr
1164:. If any of his numbers seem low, that is only in respect to his massive contributions to the mainspace, which should not be held against him. He satisfies
1961:
1283:
541:. Though I agree with the low edit counts in the two noted namespaces, this user seems to be a great candidate, with over 10,000 distinct pages edited.
147:
246:
198:
1885:
1566:
1445:" Sorry, I don't want to seem like I am bashing this user, but this request isn't needed since there really isn't a request for the tools.
1498:
herculean efforts (that just leads to burnout anyway). Even if he just makes 20 admin actions a month, that's better than him making 0. --
245:. More recently, I've gotten into a dispute with another contributor over the length of the 2005 in baseball article; that discussion is
1562:
882:
1943:
1613:
I don't see how wikipedia edits would affect a canitdate, he clearly won't abuse the tools though and we need more specialist admins.
1570:
1536:
but I believe a need for the tools and confidence in the user's ability to be a solid admin is there. I'd rather not support for now.
775:
770:
1587:) as well as biting a newcomer by repeatedly telling someone to sign his/her posts without actually explaining how to do it (see
1127:
276:
Your mainspace edit count is quite high. How do you account for the relatively low amount of concurrent talk and usertalk edits?
73:
33:
17:
1865:
as the idea is that they are still normal users, but they also have the duty to participate in the wider scale of
Knowledge.
386:
972:. Those opposition votes seem directly counter to the idea that admins don't have special authority compared to non-admins.
1394:
780:
250:
1518:
1468:
1053:
826:
661:
1726:
1351:
1111:
986:
765:
466:
241:
In
January I got into a long battle with an anon contributor over the USC Trojans football article; the arguments are
389:
of commendations from last year; the first was for a series of Willie on Wheels page moves that I reverted quickly.
508:
I would, of course, like to see quite a few more edits on a variety of pages (talk and
Knowledge, as noted above).
139:
1588:
427:
194:
175:
Of your articles or contributions to
Knowledge, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
1881:
817:
760:
254:
143:
855:
1515:
if you want to be a productive admin, you can't keep editing articles. You need to act like a policeman-type.
1381:
Candidate will find out about how being an admin is different in his/her own time. It's an interesting ride.
385:
Well, it's mostly been catching things as they come up rather than devoting blocks of time to vandalism, but
1193:
1050:
1004:
296:
288:
185:
notes a lot of the articles I've worked on, with the ones to which I've made sizable contributions bolded.
1753:
1360:
1303:
715:
253:. I also got into a minor disagreement regarding the original research policy's intent/application at the
864:
838:
mind-boggling number of edits. Content specialists are a good idea and just because there's no immediate
1679:
1327:
1210:
1141:
843:
727:
1942:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
1928:
1911:
1889:
1869:
1854:
1843:
1825:
1813:
1801:
1789:
1773:
1760:
1736:
1701:
1682:
1672:
1649:
1638:
1619:
1607:
1547:
1502:
1492:
1471:
1456:
1425:
1413:
1398:
1376:
1363:
1342:
1330:
1318:
1306:
1290:
1274:
1258:
1241:
1224:
1212:
1196:
1184:
1172:
1156:
1144:
1132:
1102:
1090:
1068:
1056:
1041:
1021:
1007:
995:
976:
960:
948:
937:
920:
890:
866:
846:
830:
801:
749:
730:
718:
706:
664:
645:
611:
602:
584:
572:
563:
549:
533:
512:
489:
447:
430:
393:
377:
334:
303:
120:
104:
1821:
A great editor, but not enough evidence of the need for admin tools or experience in those areas. --
1787:
1766:
1747:
1655:
1643:
MisfitToys is one of our top baseball editors, and we need more admins that knows about one subject.
1373:
1123:
822:
631:
67:
1229:
Non-main namespace edits are a useful indicator of experience and familiarity with common practice,
415:
1878:
1165:
1086:
973:
1644:
1614:
1499:
569:
558:
99:
1822:
1733:
1254:
1238:
1181:
957:
812:
700:
672:
624:
56:
1924:
1850:
1839:
1647:
1617:
1542:
1487:
1451:
1390:
1356:
1348:
1299:
1271:
1081:
1029:
per Schmucky and inasmuch as, quoting myself (a neutral and reliable source, to be sure) from
561:
158:
102:
1877:
WP space edits are a bit on the low side and it seems like he wouldn't use admin tools much.
1899:
1810:
1689:
1660:
1626:
1595:
1465:
1339:
1205:
918:
797:
723:
658:
365:
344:
1784:
1770:
1369:
1169:
1119:
945:
929:
638:
590:
543:
521:
477:
462:
444:
390:
331:
315:
300:
266:
182:
117:
63:
1687:
I have a week to think about it, and the answer to my question above would help too. --
1798:
1410:
1078:
875:
807:
can't write to save their lives (read, me) whose job it should be clear the backlog in
210:
1955:
1897:
per my comments in the oppose section, but the user doesn't appear untrustworthy. --
1723:
1250:
1234:
1038:
1017:
991:
695:
608:
581:
423:
418:
I am in both categories, and finally, note that there is no wrong answer here...) ++
1921:
1537:
1482:
1446:
1422:
1386:
1315:
1267:
1065:
899:
473:
206:
1866:
1462:
1287:
1153:
915:
793:
655:
509:
292:
138:
What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with? Please check out
1936:
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion.
1221:
1099:
218:
202:
1407:
1192:
per Joe. Would have like to see more AfD and RCPatrol. COntributions offset.
222:
214:
746:
689:
419:
403:
1511:
once you get admin status..., you can't assist on the level of articles
1478:
1168:
and his answer to my question (#4) satisfies me completely. Good luck.
808:
1140:
Low use of summaries doesn't bother me when held against other deeds.
217:). Some of my more recent contributions have been to articles such as
1946:
or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
1443:
I've been somewhat reluctant when asked about adminship in the past.
914:. Great editor. No reason to think he will misuse the tools. --
284:
111:
Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:
1049:, demonstrates understanding of policy through application.
191:
List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame (chronological)
854:
no big deal and I can't see him misusing the extra buttons
193:
is now a featured list; I started most of the articles for
1848:
Sticking after reading answers and reasons under Oppose.--
1624:
In what are you suggesting MisfitToys is specialized? --
29:
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a
842:
for the tools doesn't mean they won't be useful to him.
815:. So I respectfully support - and suggest withdrawal. -
1585:
1582:
1578:
1152:- strong editor, great history of adding to wikipedia.
96:
93:
91:
88:
86:
84:
82:
79:
77:
291:
for each of the last four years, and I'm also on the
1765:Yes, I've been working on that (particularly since
1406:- 20,000 edits should exceed anyone's standards. --
1064:-- strong editor, will make an excellent admin. --
1003:, a slam dunk, err, home run, eh... nevermind. --
201:is pretty good, as are some of the bios I wrote (
98:. I think MisfitToys would be an excellent admin
187:List of lifetime MLB hit leaders through history
161:, and recently set up most of the subcats under
1575:Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Matt Hollowell
1347:I see no possibility of abusing AdminPowers™
163:Category:State elections in the United States
8:
249:, though I now see that the other user has
1797:More non-article space activity, please.
1180:- hard working editors make good admins.
1231:when there is evidence to the contrary
741:- after 22000 edits on 10000 distinct
1745:(and starts using edit summaries). --
199:Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 1946
7:
1589:Talk:USC Trojans football#Titles won
1567:Knowledge:Find-A-Grave famous people
1563:Knowledge:Requested articles/sports
1368:Good user who deserves the tools.
1571:Knowledge:Non-unique personal name
984:It is time to give him the mop. --
439:that I'll not use the admin tools
24:
1962:Successful requests for adminship
589:Could you clarify your comment?
18:Knowledge:Requests for adminship
1837:Until questions are answered.--
856:
757:20000+edits... wow. Total yes.
696:
544:
766:
673:
1:
1727:
1538:
1519:
1483:
1447:
987:
781:
776:
761:
701:
568:Clearly won't abuse tools. --
324:Can you please enable email?
189:was a difficult project, and
1421:looks like a good candidate
771:
690:
148:administrators' reading list
55:Final (54/7/5) ended 22:44,
1543:
1488:
1452:
465:'s edit summary usage with
127:Questions for the candidate
95:, and helps new users out,
1978:
1929:07:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
1912:17:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
1890:21:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1870:11:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1855:08:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1844:06:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1826:17:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1814:07:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
1802:15:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1790:01:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1774:18:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1761:15:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1737:14:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1702:04:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1683:04:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1673:02:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1650:02:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1639:02:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1620:02:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1608:02:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1548:21:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1525:12:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1503:03:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1493:03:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1472:03:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1457:02:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1426:18:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1414:17:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1399:13:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
1377:23:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
1364:22:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
1343:18:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
1331:16:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
1319:11:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
1307:09:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
1291:23:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1275:19:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1259:17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1242:20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
1225:17:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
1213:15:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
1197:00:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
1185:23:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1173:21:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1157:16:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1145:16:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1133:13:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1103:11:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1091:06:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1069:03:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1057:03:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1042:01:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
1022:23:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
1008:22:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
996:20:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
977:19:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
961:18:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
949:17:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
938:15:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
921:14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
891:08:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
867:08:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
847:04:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
831:03:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
802:02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
750:02:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
731:01:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
719:00:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
448:01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
431:21:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
394:21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
378:03:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
335:01:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
304:21:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
251:been suspended a few times
142:, and read the page about
140:Category:Knowledge backlog
707:23:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
680:23:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
665:23:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
646:23:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
612:23:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
603:23:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
585:23:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
573:23:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
564:23:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
550:23:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
534:23:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
513:22:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
490:22:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
472:Edit count (wow) care of
121:22:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
105:01:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
1939:Please do not modify it.
1031:the current Rmrfstar RfA
402:Optional question from
297:The Political Graveyard
289:Internet Movie Database
265:Optional question from
39:Please do not modify it
34:request for adminship
906:12:28, 01 August '06
285:top 100 contributors
928:looks good to me.--
255:78th Academy Awards
90:, fights vandalism
1338:per all of above.
1051:Christopher Parham
813:Special:Shortpages
705:
293:advisory committee
1926:
1910:
1700:
1671:
1637:
1606:
1579:WP: contributions
1131:
1108:Very Weak Support
829:
688:
580:per nominator. --
474:Interiot's Tool 2
387:here are a couple
376:
354:
213:, and especially
195:Years in baseball
159:Category:Baseball
1969:
1941:
1925:
1908:
1905:
1902:
1853:
1842:
1759:
1756:
1750:
1731:
1698:
1695:
1692:
1680:Opabinia regalis
1669:
1666:
1663:
1635:
1632:
1629:
1604:
1601:
1598:
1545:
1540:
1523:
1490:
1485:
1454:
1449:
1354:
1328:SynergeticMaggot
1208:
1204:per the rest. --
1117:
1114:
1084:
1020:
994:
989:
935:
932:
907:
902:
888:
862:
861:
844:Opabinia regalis
821:
783:
778:
773:
768:
763:
703:
698:
692:
677:
643:
636:
629:
600:
595:
546:
531:
526:
487:
482:
374:
371:
368:
352:
350:
347:
41:
1977:
1976:
1972:
1971:
1970:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1944:this nomination
1937:
1903:
1900:
1849:
1838:
1754:
1748:
1746:
1693:
1690:
1664:
1661:
1630:
1627:
1599:
1596:
1352:
1206:
1194::) Dlohcierekim
1112:
1082:
1016:
985:
933:
930:
908:
905:
900:
887:
879:
857:
639:
632:
625:
596:
591:
527:
522:
497:
483:
478:
369:
366:
348:
345:
267:User:Themindset
52:
37:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1975:
1973:
1965:
1964:
1954:
1953:
1949:
1948:
1932:
1931:
1914:
1892:
1872:
1859:
1858:
1857:
1834:
1833:
1829:
1828:
1816:
1804:
1792:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1739:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1611:
1554:
1553:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1527:
1526:
1506:
1505:
1434:
1433:
1429:
1428:
1416:
1401:
1379:
1366:
1345:
1333:
1321:
1309:
1293:
1277:
1261:
1244:
1227:
1215:
1199:
1187:
1175:
1159:
1147:
1135:
1105:
1096:Strong Support
1093:
1071:
1059:
1044:
1027:Strong support
1024:
1010:
998:
979:
974:SchmuckyTheCat
963:
951:
940:
923:
909:
904:
893:
881:
869:
849:
833:
804:
787:
752:
733:
721:
709:
682:
667:
648:
618:
617:
616:
615:
614:
575:
566:
552:
536:
515:
502:
501:
494:
493:
492:
470:
467:mathbot's tool
458:
457:
453:
452:
451:
450:
399:
398:
397:
396:
343:Question from
340:
339:
338:
337:
314:question from
309:
308:
307:
306:
262:
261:
260:
259:
229:
228:
227:
226:
211:Andy the Clown
169:
168:
167:
166:
144:administrators
129:
128:
124:
123:
51:
46:
45:
44:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1974:
1963:
1960:
1959:
1957:
1947:
1945:
1940:
1934:
1933:
1930:
1927:
1923:
1918:
1915:
1913:
1907:
1906:
1896:
1893:
1891:
1887:
1883:
1880:
1876:
1873:
1871:
1868:
1863:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1841:
1836:
1835:
1831:
1830:
1827:
1824:
1823:Mike Christie
1820:
1817:
1815:
1812:
1808:
1805:
1803:
1800:
1796:
1793:
1791:
1788:
1786:
1782:
1779:
1775:
1772:
1768:
1764:
1763:
1762:
1757:
1751:
1743:
1740:
1738:
1735:
1732:
1730:
1725:
1720:
1717:
1703:
1697:
1696:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1681:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1668:
1667:
1657:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1648:
1646:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1634:
1633:
1623:
1622:
1621:
1618:
1616:
1612:
1610:
1609:
1603:
1602:
1590:
1586:
1583:
1580:
1576:
1572:
1568:
1564:
1560:
1559:
1555:
1549:
1546:
1541:
1534:
1529:
1528:
1524:
1522:
1516:
1512:
1508:
1507:
1504:
1501:
1496:
1495:
1494:
1491:
1486:
1480:
1475:
1474:
1473:
1470:
1467:
1464:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1455:
1450:
1444:
1439:
1436:
1435:
1431:
1430:
1427:
1424:
1420:
1417:
1415:
1412:
1409:
1405:
1402:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1388:
1384:
1380:
1378:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1365:
1362:
1361:
1358:
1355:
1350:
1346:
1344:
1341:
1337:
1334:
1332:
1329:
1325:
1322:
1320:
1317:
1313:
1310:
1308:
1305:
1301:
1297:
1294:
1292:
1289:
1285:
1281:
1278:
1276:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1262:
1260:
1256:
1252:
1248:
1245:
1243:
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1226:
1223:
1219:
1216:
1214:
1211:
1209:
1203:
1200:
1198:
1195:
1191:
1188:
1186:
1183:
1179:
1176:
1174:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1160:
1158:
1155:
1151:
1148:
1146:
1143:
1142:TruthCrusader
1139:
1136:
1134:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1116:
1109:
1106:
1104:
1101:
1097:
1094:
1092:
1089:
1088:
1085:
1080:
1076:of course. —
1075:
1072:
1070:
1067:
1063:
1060:
1058:
1055:
1052:
1048:
1045:
1043:
1040:
1037:
1032:
1028:
1025:
1023:
1019:
1014:
1011:
1009:
1006:
1005:CharlotteWebb
1002:
999:
997:
993:
990:
983:
980:
978:
975:
971:
967:
964:
962:
959:
958:Mailer Diablo
955:
952:
950:
947:
944:
941:
939:
936:
927:
924:
922:
919:
917:
913:
910:
903:
897:
894:
892:
886:
885:
877:
873:
870:
868:
865:
863:
860:
853:
850:
848:
845:
841:
837:
834:
832:
828:
824:
820:
819:
814:
810:
805:
803:
799:
795:
791:
788:
786:
785:
784:
779:
774:
769:
764:
756:
753:
751:
748:
744:
740:
738:
737:Edit Conflict
734:
732:
729:
725:
722:
720:
717:
713:
710:
708:
704:
699:
693:
686:
683:
681:
678:
676:
671:
668:
666:
663:
660:
657:
652:
649:
647:
644:
642:
637:
635:
630:
628:
622:
619:
613:
610:
606:
605:
604:
601:
599:
594:
588:
587:
586:
583:
579:
576:
574:
571:
567:
565:
562:
560:
556:
553:
551:
548:
547:
540:
537:
535:
532:
530:
525:
519:
516:
514:
511:
507:
504:
503:
499:
498:
491:
488:
486:
481:
475:
471:
468:
464:
460:
459:
455:
454:
449:
446:
442:
437:
434:
433:
432:
429:
425:
421:
417:
413:
410:
409:
408:
407:
405:
395:
392:
388:
384:
381:
380:
379:
373:
372:
361:
358:
357:
356:
355:
351:
336:
333:
329:
326:
325:
323:
320:
319:
318:
317:
313:
305:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
281:
278:
277:
275:
272:
271:
270:
269:
268:
256:
252:
248:
244:
240:
237:
236:
234:
231:
230:
224:
220:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
196:
192:
188:
184:
180:
177:
176:
174:
171:
170:
164:
160:
155:
152:
151:
149:
145:
141:
137:
134:
133:
132:
126:
125:
122:
119:
115:
112:
109:
108:
107:
106:
103:
101:
97:
94:
92:
89:
87:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
72:
69:
65:
61:
60:
58:
50:
47:
43:
40:
35:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1938:
1935:
1916:
1898:
1894:
1874:
1861:
1818:
1809:per above --
1806:
1794:
1780:
1741:
1728:
1718:
1688:
1659:
1656:non sequitur
1625:
1594:
1592:
1557:
1556:
1532:
1520:
1514:
1510:
1442:
1437:
1418:
1411:(talk to me)
1403:
1382:
1359:
1335:
1323:
1311:
1300:WAvegetarian
1295:
1284:my standards
1279:
1263:
1246:
1230:
1217:
1201:
1189:
1177:
1161:
1149:
1137:
1107:
1095:
1077:
1073:
1061:
1046:
1034:
1026:
1015:per above. —
1012:
1000:
981:
969:
965:
953:
942:
925:
911:
895:
883:
872:Weak support
871:
858:
851:
839:
835:
818:CrazyRussian
816:
789:
759:
758:
754:
742:
736:
735:
711:
684:
675:Rama's arrow
674:
669:
650:
640:
633:
626:
620:
597:
592:
577:
554:
542:
538:
528:
523:
517:
506:Weak Support
505:
484:
479:
440:
435:
411:
401:
400:
382:
364:
359:
342:
341:
327:
321:
311:
310:
279:
273:
264:
263:
238:
232:
178:
172:
153:
135:
130:
113:
110:
70:
62:
54:
53:
48:
38:
30:
28:
1811:Masssiveego
1521:NoSeptember
1340:Newyorkbrad
1166:my criteria
792:, why not?
724:Merovingian
623:per nom. --
607:Done. :) --
1909:(joturner)
1785:SlimVirgin
1771:MisfitToys
1769:in March.
1767:this nudge
1749:Aguerriero
1699:(joturner)
1670:(joturner)
1636:(joturner)
1605:(joturner)
1370:JYolkowski
1170:Themindset
946:Stubbleboy
884:review me!
463:MisfitToys
445:MisfitToys
391:MisfitToys
375:(joturner)
353:(joturner)
332:MisfitToys
316:Alphachimp
301:MisfitToys
219:Gil Hodges
207:Hank O'Day
203:Biz Mackey
197:. I think
118:MisfitToys
64:MisfitToys
57:2006-08-07
49:MisfitToys
31:successful
1799:Attic Owl
1509:Reading "
1182:abakharev
876:RandyWang
859:hoopydink
223:Joe Judge
215:Sam Barry
183:user page
1956:Category
1395:contribs
1383:Support.
1298:per Joe—
1255:Edgar181
1235:Dmcdevit
1128:contribs
1124:messages
1018:Khoikhoi
743:articles
687:per nom.
456:Comments
312:Optional
146:and the
74:contribs
1922:Viridae
1917:Neutral
1895:Neutral
1875:Neutral
1862:Neutral
1832:Neutral
1645:Jaranda
1615:Jaranda
1513:" and "
1500:W.marsh
1479:CAT:CSD
1423:Semperf
1419:Support
1404:Support
1387:Samsara
1336:Support
1324:Support
1316:Bhadani
1312:Support
1296:Support
1280:Support
1264:Support
1247:Support
1218:Support
1202:Support
1190:Support
1178:Support
1162:Support
1150:Support
1138:Support
1079:Deckill
1074:Support
1066:No Guru
1062:Support
1047:Support
1013:Support
1001:Support
992:iva1979
982:Support
966:Support
954:Support
943:Support
926:Support
912:Support
901:FireFox
896:Support
852:Support
836:Support
809:CAT:CSD
790:Support
762:Viva La
755:Support
739:Support
712:Support
685:Support
670:Support
651:Support
621:Support
578:Support
570:W.marsh
559:Jaranda
557:as nom
555:Support
539:Support
518:Support
510:Michael
500:Support
287:to the
100:Jaranda
1904:abjotu
1867:Seivad
1819:Oppose
1807:Oppose
1795:Oppose
1781:Oppose
1742:Oppose
1719:Oppose
1694:abjotu
1665:abjotu
1631:abjotu
1600:abjotu
1573:, and
1558:Oppose
1463:Goldom
1438:Oppose
1432:Oppose
1304:(talk)
1288:Ifnord
1207:Ghirla
1154:Kukini
1054:(talk)
931:Kungfu
916:DS1953
794:Stifle
782:Boheme
656:Goldom
545:Kalani
441:enough
370:abjotu
349:abjotu
330:Done.
114:ACCEPT
1901:tariq
1851:Andeh
1840:Andeh
1691:tariq
1662:tariq
1658:. --
1628:tariq
1597:tariq
1577:(see
1272:wiser
1268:older
1222:Bobet
1115:ndson
1100:Aldux
827:email
609:Shane
598:Chimp
593:alpha
582:Shane
529:Chimp
524:alpha
485:Chimp
480:alpha
367:tariq
346:tariq
59:(UTC)
16:<
1755:talk
1724:Wisd
1539:Yank
1484:Yank
1448:Yank
1408:CFIF
1391:talk
1374:talk
1357:hway
1326:: --
1314:: --
1120:page
956:. -
934:Adam
840:need
823:talk
798:talk
728:Talk
461:See
416:wonk
295:for
247:here
243:here
221:and
68:talk
1879:Roy
1734:n17
1593:--
1544:sox
1489:sox
1466:‽‽‽
1453:sox
1372://
1282:as
1039:Joe
970:now
811:or
747:I@n
659:‽‽‽
420:Lar
404:Lar
181:My
1958::
1888:.
1722:--
1584:,
1569:,
1565:,
1397:)
1393:•
1385:-
1353:ig
1270:≠
1257:)
1251:Ed
1249:--
1126:-
1122:-
1033:,
898:—
889:)
800:)
726:-
716:BT
714:-
641:pm
627:Tu
476:.
436:A:
422::
412:7.
383:A:
360:6.
328:A:
322:5.
280:A:
274:4.
239:A:
233:3.
209:,
205:,
179:A:
173:2.
154:A:
150:.
136:1.
116:.
81:,
36:.
1886:A
1884:.
1882:A
1758:)
1752:(
1729:e
1533:I
1469:⁂
1389:(
1349:H
1302:•
1253:(
1239:t
1237:·
1130:)
1118:(
1113:@
1087:r
1083:e
988:S
880:/
878:(
825:/
796:(
777:e
772:i
767:V
702:e
697:H
694:.
691:G
662:⁂
654:-
634:s
469:.
428:c
426:/
424:t
406::
71:·
66:(
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.